User talk:Logiotek

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Logiotek, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! ChrisWx (talk - contribs) 20:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Riyoko Takagi (April 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by MurielMary were:  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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Riyoko Takagi and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MurielMary (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. If you have a moment, could you please take a look at my latest version of the draft while I wait for another review? Thank you very much. Logiotek (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Logiotek! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation 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! MurielMary (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@MurielMary Thank you for your feedback. If you have a moment, could you please take a look at my latest version of the draft while I wait for another review? Thank you very much. Logiotek (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Riyoko Takagi has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Riyoko Takagi. Thanks! DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I just made the modifications you've recommended with regard to external links on the article. It's been many months since I wrote the article. Is it possible to push it through? The artist is in talks to perform shows in NYC next year, it would really help if their English Wikipedia is approved. Logiotek (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing I've made the changes you've recommended a while back and even more changes someone else recommended after rejecting my article. My morale working on Wikipedia is really low right now and I'm running only on "sunk cost" falacy. I've invested countless hours into my article via deep research in a language I don't speak and I've been trying my absolute best for half a year already as can be seen from my edits history. Everyone here seems to be quick to strike down but nowhere to be found when called upon to re-review. I've replied to every single person who recommended things to me and eventually heard nothing back. Women in music are a minority by a slanted margin, that's why this exists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Music/Article_alerts in the first place. Furthermore, I noted a nasty trend of random editors roaming around modifying whitespaces to get credits on articles they have contributed absolutely nothing to. It feels superficial like socialism/communism here. I gave @Asilvering (the last person who declined my article) a notice to re-review my resubmitted article and I'm putting everyone else, who made a recommendation to me in the past, on notice, including @MurialMary (who reviewed my article for the very first time), that if I don't hear back in 36 hours with any more tangible recommendations, I'm self-publishing my article. I've had enough of this pain and suffering and I just want to be done with it and reclaim my "sunk cost". Logiotek (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Riyoko Takagi (August 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Asilvering 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Riyoko Takagi and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

asilvering (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Asilvering I'm getting tired of this gate-keeping and a little bit confused (to put it mildly). What facts specifically are there problems with that need secondary reliable sources? The interviews (click to view the article) that you discounted while reviewing include old photos that back up (click for evidence of example of how they corroborate) the facts. I thought pictures speak louder than words, including a picture of artist's performance of original music on TV when she was 12 (hint: you don't just show up on TV, someone has to put you there), among other pictures showing her performing a concert recital as a little 7-year-old girl. And what sales materials do you have a problem with? Isn't having a half a dozen to a dozen of albums spanning a better part of a decade listed on Amazon US (click to view the albums) and Amazon Japan (click to view the albums) with hundreds of combined verified buyer reviews establish notability? How about prestigious live shows such as Billboard Live (click for evidence)? How about TV coverage of press events accompanying a concert featuring the artist on multiple Japanese TV channels (one specifically named at 1:21, two specifically named at 0:48, click for evidence)? Please do let me know how "secondary" "reliable" sources can overturn or make my "primary" evidence I provided inadmissible. Frankly, I'm beginning to understand why there are dozens of Wikipedia clones exist that auto-duplicate Wikipedia articles and where you can also add additional articles without any gate-keeping happening here (Wikipedia articles still overwrite native articles on such cloned sites BUT at least you can expand the knowledge base without waiting many months just to get denied because of one reviewer's opinion). Logiotek (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Logiotek, the issue isn't that the facts of the article don't have references. (But do have a look at WP:PRIMARY for why primary sources are usually avoided.) The issue is that Articles for Creation reviewers are checking whether the subject is notable, and notability on Wikipedia isn't typically decided by metrics like "how many people have reviewed the album on amazon" or "how many press events has she done", but by whether or not she has been the subject of significant, sustained coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources (see WP:N for the full guideline). If you want to skip the AfC process and create an article on Riyoko Takagi directly in mainspace, you can do that, and then it won't be a question of any one reviewer's opinion - but I would warn you that you would then run the risk of having someone take the article to Articles for Deletion, at which point you have a seven-day deadline to show that she has significant coverage. It looks reasonably likely to me that she's notable, so don't give up yet! You just need to find those secondary sources. -- asilvering (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, I see you've replied to messages about this earlier and never heard back. Sorry about that. If you use an @ sign and the reviewer's name, like you did earlier to ping me, that will send an alert to the editor you're trying to reach. DoubleGrazing probably never saw your response. If you aren't getting feedback from a single reviewer because they've gone AWOL, you can usually get some help at the Teahouse (WP:TEA). -- asilvering (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Asilvering Sounds to me like "notability guidelines" need to be updated for the current century. "It looks reasonably likely to me that she's notable, so don't give up yet! You just need to find those secondary sources." - You still have not told me what specific points need secondary reliable sources, so I can just yank all of them out of the article and be done. I've already spent hundreds of hours researching Riyoko Takagi for myself in a language that I don't speak, so I don't need any more "secondary sources", that's for sure. I can just enjoy her live shows. I'll be honest, the only reason I haven't given up here is "the sunk cost fallacy". After my experience contributing to Wikipedia for the first time, it's safe to say that it's highly unlikely that I'll ever waste any of my time contributing anything else here again. Logiotek (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

There aren't any specific facts that need secondary sources. You need secondary sources to establish notability. You may be able to interest experienced editors in helping you find sources at WP:TEA or WP:WIRED. Or WP:JAPAN maybe (I'm not part of that project and not sure how active it is). You can also try asking at the AfC help desk (link in the decline message), but I think WP:TEA will be a better experience. -- asilvering (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Here's an article I started yesterday to show you what I mean as starkly as I can: Mikhail Elpidin. I'm working on it more right now, but as you can see, it's completely minimal at the moment. Almost the only thing it has is evidence of notability (an entire academic journal article about him, and a biography in a national biographical dictionary). That's enough to create an article! That's the bar you're trying to clear right now: does significant coverage in secondary sources exist. -- asilvering (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Asilvering I just went to WP:TEA like you advised and looked at References section, where someone was also confused about what counts as notability sources and what not, specifically this Draft. It seems that articles written by the person in question don't qualify but (according to you) the books (especially if they are the only author) would seem qualify when they are published: "@User18762, at a quick glance it looks to me like this person is too early-career for a Wikipedia article - she got her PhD under 5 years ago. I see that she has two books in progress. If these are monographs (ie, if she is the sole author), she will almost certainly have strong notability claims once they are published. -- asilvering (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)" Where is logic in all that? In this day and age, anyone can publish a book - there are no barriers of entry. Just like in music, an artist active for 15 years, with half a dozen albums with stellar reviews (4.5+/5 on hundreds of combined verified reviews), sold out live shows, TV coverage, etc. and you're looking for some secondary singular sources to tell you what exactly? That music is good or bad? It does not make any sense to me and does not compute at all. Sorry. Logiotek (talk) 05:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, anyone can publish a book. But the person that article about is an artist, academic, and curator. Her books will be published through university presses (this is certainly not a thing "anyone" can do), and will almost certainly attract in-depth secondary coverage, in the form of long-form academic reviews. We don't particularly care what the sources say, but we need them to establish whether the subject is notable - that is, whether secondary sources have "taken note". You may want to read WP:NOT. -- asilvering (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Asilvering In addition to what I already stated, I strongly believe I have enough notability references in my article for Riyoko Takagi, for instance: an archive of a 2-day 2021 Japan-Korea Exchange Festival that was nationally televised in respective 2 countries, where Riyoko Takagi represented Japan and performed her own Jazz-arrangements of several K-Pop hits: day1 and day2, where not only they introduced her twice by her full name (once on the start of each day's performance - at the start of each of the 2 links) and there is also an interview right on stage at the end of 2nd day's performance with TV hosts, but if you know how to check YouTube statistics with a slider bar on the videos, you can easily see that her performances are among the most rewatched parts of entire 5-hour festival archive. How's that for notability? It's said that a picture speaks louder than words. You got a motion picture here to boot. I can careless about secondary written articles and I'm not looking for any. This is music/art. You listen and you watch. I know what I heard and saw here and Riyoko's other live performances. Logiotek (talk) 06:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Asilvering And I didn't even bother mentioning in my draft article on Riyoko Takagi, the real and scientific reason of why I researched her in the first place. The article/interview with her childhood photos, explains (and demonstrates in photos) that she also has a sister who's only a year older and both sisters had the same piano lessons with the same teacher, identical exposure to music at home, etc. yet only Riyoko of the two had extremely fast progress in piano and music, which shortly after culminated in discovery that Riyoko is musically gifted (she was able to easily copy and reproduce complex melodies and rhythms by ear since she was 4 years old). She didn't even want to do music anymore when she got to high school and didn't study music in college either but fate had other plans - in the end she realized that she only had piano and music after she graduated college. So, not only her childhood situation as a child prodigy serves as a statistical data point (because of her sister as "control" in the experiment) that you don't develop any special talents just because you're exposed to something at a very young age, much the opposite, you're born with something extra (gift/talent) that draws you to your craft/destiny. In Riyoko's case, it's a perfect-pitch and likely auditory-visual synesthesia that contributed to her love for piano and music and how she perceives music. She uses her extra gift/talent/abilities to this day and performs in live environments such as festivals and her shows, feats that I've only seen done on TV (in controlled environments and with much less restrictions placed on performer). For example, where Riyoko asks audience to restrict her available musical note choices randomly and she would go ahead and dazzle the audience with amazing immediate impromptu improvisations that followed (regardless of restrictions set on her musical vocabulary and even borrowing rhythm from the audience volunteer): live video evidence from a festival and elsewhere she also produces multi-song mash-ups from live audience requests or takes a classical 2-minute prelude and extends it to 6 minutes while improvising over it. I've been personally researching perfect-pitch, synesthesia, etc. and how they relate to musical abilities, and I don't know anyone else who dares to do what she does live today in this day and age. This is the real reason Riyoko is special - it's her improvisation and on-the-spot compositional prowess which she uses with confidence and without fear after more than 2 decades of improvising and composing. I've already seen her do too many feats because I live-stream her shows when possible and record everything but I can't share because of how copyrights work in Japan (owned by venues, even Riyoko can't upload her live shows, I've seen others tried but videos were taken down), so I just have to resort to what's public such as TV, festivals, or what's already posted by others. This is why I can careless about what's written or not and by who. To me only video evidence matters and I got plenty. Fact of the matter is and to be frank, Riyoko is an undiscovered music genius in Japan and she's easily a world-class Jazz pianist but I won't even mention this in my article. Logiotek (talk) 07:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, we don't care about why someone is special, but whether they are covered in depth in reliable secondary sources. The point of a Wikipedia article is not to demonstrate your own primary research, but what other researchers, journalists, etc have said about a topic. Again, you can ask for help at WP:TEA or WP:WIRED, you can publish your article to mainspace yourself, or you can resubmit the draft. -- asilvering (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Asilvering Okay, it took me many many hours but I was able to find more sources for Riyoko Takagi, such as interview with Japan Popular Music Association, show reviews from a couple of venues, and accounts of people and other musicians visiting her shows and blogging about it later. I also dedicated a new YouTube channel to her live performances with over 100 videos as of now of things I personally streamed and seen with my own eyes: https://youtube.com/@Riyo-Live I resubmitted the article for review for the 3rd time. This better be enough. It's ridiculous that an article like this exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junko_Onishi_(musician) with 2 sources YET I can't get my article published for over half a year. By the way Riyoko's bassist played a show with Junko Onish last month, that's why I looked her up and it pissed me off. Logiotek (talk) 04:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Asilvering THANK YOU for accepting my Riyoko Takagi article! After half a year, I finally feel like I'm free! Logiotek (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Logiotek Hi, this is really unfortunate, but I forgot to check for copyright first and almost the entire article is a match for this website: [1]. It can't stay up in this state. You can't copy text from other websites when writing Wikipedia articles. -- asilvering (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Asilvering I wrote everything there is in English about Riyoko Takagi, PERIOD. Including All About Jazz page where I'm admin of her artist page and other Wikipedia clones that auto-clone Wikipedia including the Draft and probably soon final article you approved. Logiotek (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Asilvering Please refresh Riyoko Takagi's All About Jazz page, I left a message for you there: [2]https://www.allaboutjazz.com/musicians/riyoko-takagi Logiotek (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Logiotek I see that, but it doesn't become not a copyright violation just because you previously wrote the copyrighted text. You will need to release the copyright, and I'm not sure you can do that yourself anymore (we might need to hear from All About Jazz itself). See WP:IOWN for guidance. -- asilvering (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Asilvering You know what. Everything BAD that could have happened to me, already happened to me working on Wikipedia. I can have the person that runs All About Jazz website e-mail whoever, I just want to be done with this sh*tshow. Logiotek (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Asilvering Anyway, I know what you did and understand why. I give it 95% you had this all planned. You just shifted me from one bureaucratic sh*thole into another. Great move on your part. But you also lost an honest and hard-working Wikipedia editor in myself FOREVER. I won't ever touch another article on this forsaken website outside of Riyoko Takagi in the future. You sealed this fate. Logiotek (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Look, I have, again, given an explanation and linked you to the appropriate guidance. I really encourage you to take it, since having an article deleted for being a copyright violation of text you yourself wrote is obviously absurd. If it does get deleted, I'm fairly confident you will be able to get it restored. But to do so, you would have to take some responsibility for it, and follow the advice and guidance you're given. Suggesting that someone trying to help is part of some kind of conspiracy to keep you off Wikipedia is not going to get you anywhere. -- asilvering (talk) 00:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Asilvering Well, somehow it worked out in the end. But how come another reviewer didn't need any templated e-mails sent from All About Jazz to Wikipedia? And solved it based on my edit on All About Jazz page explaining what had happened and accepted my contest for deletion explanation but you couldn't? There seems to be zero consistency in any process on this website and everything is open to interpretation. While someone was apparently processing my deletion contest, I sent e-mail to the person who runs All About Jazz with explanation and screenshots of what had happened as well as prepared template of what I wanted him to e-mail to Wikipedia. Then when I sent that e-mail I found out the issue was already resolved. I had to write him back not to waste his time doing any of what I wrote in my last e-mail. There are too many inconsistencies on Wikipedia, ranging from quality of research on published articles to the process itself. And it's not just what happened here, it's everywhere. Out of curiosity, I read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Music/Article_alerts and discussions on articles marked for deletion on that list and I couldn't believe what I was reading... people arguing in thesis-sized argument about why an article for a Canadian female musician topping at #59 on Canada's Top 100 chart should be deleted, and it was. Then it was restored by counter-thesis-sized argument. It went on back and forth spinning wheels arguing about deleting and restoring the article 3 times. I just can't fathom amount of useless wheel-spinning going on on this website, when people can just put their heads down and actually work on improving articles rather than participating in d*ck measuring contests about who knows and can bring up more WP:ABCXYZ clauses something passes or fails and who can override who in arguments. This bureaucratic environment is not for me. Also, apparently now that I "published" an article, I got the ability to create more articles without needing reviews (not thanks) but I was surprised criteria it listed (10+ edits in 4+ days). How about considering the SIZE of the edits and not just the quantity and mandating longer duration? I now understand why there are people roaming around editing whitespaces on articles and not contributing anything of value - it's to bypass the clown show process that goes on for months and to unlock the ability to publish articles themselves. Wikipedia is really sick. It needs a good reform or few. My 2 cents. Logiotek (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Riyoko Takagi has been accepted

Riyoko Takagi, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

asilvering (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)