User talk:Mabalu/Archives/2014/September

Pageants

Ow, Miss Supranational is back...
A personal project that maybe has your interest: User:The Banner/Workpage33, an investigation into the links between Mrdhimas and beauty pageants and related models. The Banner talk 11:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC) And you are free to add info there.

The Banner - Should Miss World and Miss Universe be on there? They are both indisputably notable and it might have more effect to focus on the trashier/less notable ones trying to legitimise themselves. I really don't have much time for these and have no idea how you even start looking for evidence/links etc. I'm sure the new Miss Supranational won't stay up long as it is a clear speedy delete and the user who launched it has a less than stellar record of copyvio uploads. Mabalu (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

For the purpose of this investigation inclusion is sensible. The purpose of this investigation is to look into the editors behind the pageant and model articles and identify possible unsound relations (sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets). That does not mean that the pageants and/or models itself are automatically non-notable. The Banner talk 12:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Victoria Hicks

Well spotted. This was the latest in a long-running hoax about a non-existent soap opera called "Cape Hill" and all its characters. It has been going on for over two years, though this is the first since May 2013 - I really hoped they had got bored with it. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jackspindee2001. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 11:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

When you commented "Cape Hill hoaxer" I wondered what was going on! That is crazy.... Mabalu (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Irregular Choice

Hello Mabalu Is the correct place to ask you how to help me with my page? I am finding it hard to avoid it being deleted. I am finding it hard to talk about it in an "encyclopaedia" way. Thanks--Amybeckwith (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Amybeckwith! Yes this is the right place - although you should really add new messages to the end of a talk page rather than at the top (and I'll move it down there in a moment.) The simplest way to be "encyclopaedic" is to present the facts without peacock terms which say how wonderful or how incredible the subject is, but show that the company is successful and is discussed in third party sources. Mabalu (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mabalu Is: "In 2012 Irregular choice produced its first signature “character heel” which took the form of an Ice Cream Cone. Due to its popularity, ever since Irregular Choice has created heels that have taken the form of many different things including Rabbits, Unicorns, Cats, Fawns and Gnomes." Too Biased? --Amybeckwith (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi - You need to find a reliable source that says the heels were popular, even selling well, to support a statement like that. I had a quick search but not much luck so far. If you can't support the statement it's better not to say it, but you can describe their trademark style. May I ask where the article is being drafted? Mabalu (talk) 08:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Maureen Baker (fashion designer)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Peter Russell (fashion designer)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Willy warmer

The reason I changed "It is claimed" to "Molloy claims" is to remove weasel words. Molloy is the cited author for the claim, which is why his name is used. This is standard for MLA specifications.

The exception would be if Molloy had cited another specific author. Then the citation would have to mention that author as being quoted in Molloy.

It's completely irrelevant whether Molloy is presenting an original claim or not; he is the cited author, so the claim is attributed to him.

Attys (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Reasoning noted - though I really don't think Molloy IS claiming it, just repeating what he's been told. Mabalu (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Fame Fashion and Creative Excellence

You have recently nominated this page for deletion. Can you please confirm what doesn't meet the Wiki criteria? The article has been recreated with more references and notable links with relevant information. Do you think anything specific which needs improvement? awesomeme111 18:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesomeme111 (talk • contribs)

In my opinion it is not notable. I do not see the significant coverage required to show it is notable. But let us see how the discussion goes. Mabalu (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I have provided my argument on the discussion page for Fame Fashion and Creative Excellence (FFACE) You say there is no significant coverage? I have highlighted and referred to news editorials with huge amount of coverages on FFACE. Am I missing something or do you think the article requires to be better drafted than what it is now? I however agree to your points on the other article of mine Indroneel Mukherjee (Fashion Designer). There isn't much notability and most of it are just passing comments whilst they are in mainline news papers. Cheers awesomeme111 20:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesomeme111 (talk • contribs)

reliable source

Hi,

I have added reliable source in below topic 1. Sample Video Clip 2. Physical Location

Pls. consider and avoid deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadhusivaraman (talk • contribs) 11:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sadhusivaraman. I'm sorry, neither of these is anywhere near being a reliable source. Reliable sources are published in newspapers, books, or reputable websites with editorial control - and they are written by people who are NOT you and who are not associated with you. You need several people to have written about you, in depth, for newspapers, books or news websites, to demonstrate that you are notable. There is already a big problem with the article being autobiographical - you really are not supposed to write about yourself or edit an article about yourself. Mabalu (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Jogil9630

Any particular similarity? Jogil9630 just looks like a well-meaning but careless new editor "helping" Wikipedia by Google-image searching for pictures of people we don't have photos of, and pasting them up, watermarks and all. I can't see that any of the linked socks were doing anything like this. --McGeddon (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Their focus on Miss Supranational is, for me, a big red flag - it's possible there is no connection, but I think it's very fishy that so soon after Miss Supranational gets a lot of bad attention, someone pops up conveniently a few days later focusing on related articles with pretty much the same dodgy editing behaviour. Maybe it's coincidence, but it does seem to fit into the pattern/editing behaviour. Mabalu (talk) 11:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, fair enough, I hadn't realised it was focused on anything, I just had one of the articles on my watchlist for some reason. --McGeddon (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	thanks for editing! Andretorres001 (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)