This is an archive of past discussions with User:LovelyGirl7. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Welcome to Wikipedia, LovelyGirl7! Thank you for your contributions. I am Beeblebrox and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Hi. As explained here, because of the colour scheme used, some users might find your current signature difficult to be read. I suggest you to update the colour scheme, or use a different (dark) background for the signature. Regards, —usernamekiran(talk)00:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi LovelyGirl7; regarding your recent edits; you speculatively added a name sourced from an unreliable source to an article talk page, which I've removed. Here on Wikipedia, we can't add speculation about things we think we know without using reliable sources, which include things like academic papers, books and other media from trusted publishers, trusted news sources, etc—even on talk pages, which are just as visible as articles. I realise you're a new editor; please take some time to read our Biography of living persons policy, and peruse the links in the 'welcome' message above. We have to be very careful about this sort of thing, and editors falling foul of these policies are often blocked if they continue to add unsourced and inadequately sourced text, or contravene BLP policy (even on talk pages). Take your time to get to know the website and enjoy your editing, but please be careful what you add in your edits. Cheers, Baffle gab1978(talk)04:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
David Meade (conspiracy theorist)
Hello:
The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article David Meade (conspiracy theorist) has been completed.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
You do not need a space before a citation, since our citation format here on Wikipedia is footnotes. The citation should come right after the period or comma.
Try not to use bare URLs in references because these make the site more susceptible to link rot, since bare URLs are harder for the bots to find archived versions when the website that is being cited ultimately goes defunct. Also, it is best to provide as much information in the citation as possible. I strongly recommend using the citation template, which should appear in the upper left hand corner of your edit screen.
Be wary of internet sources, especially ones using URLs that end in .com or .org, because anyone can register a domain under these endings. There are good web sources out there with domains with these endings (e.g. www.washingtonpost.com, www.nytimes.com, etc.), so this is not a hard-and-fast rule, but I still recommend caution. The best sources are usually academic ones, such as a peer-reviewed academic journal or a book published by an academic publisher (e.g. any university press, Routledge, Wiley-Blackwell, Springer, Walter de Gruyter, Springer, Macmillan, etc.). Look for sources written by reputable scholars. In this case, there may be some sources written by scholars who are known for debunking pseudoscience. (On the other hand, there may not be any, since David Meade has only really been famous for a few months and is mostly obscure.) --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
@Katolophyromai: thank you so much. I feel your a mentor to me, which I love.
As for your advice, I actually do use the citation format that has the “citeweb”. The news sources I like to use for David Meade are good sources. I avoid using web blogs (Wikipedia doesn’t allow web blogs) and UK tabloids like Daily Express and Daily Mail (unreliable). I do sometimes use washingtonpost or newyorktimes. The citation template is a good idea but I also like using “citeweb” too. They’re both good ideas either ways.
As for the article, I did talk about what David Meade was then just a conspiracy theorist. He even said he was a forensic investigator, writer, and researcher. He also did appear on TV radios. I both added it in the article.
Now that the article is B-Class and now my David Meade article is closer to being a GA article, what things can I add or change to nominate it for GA?
I’m requesting copy editing on the second paragraph for the lead section since I think it needs to be better than that, but anything else I can add to do so. I’ve read the GA criteria and it doesn’t meet it just yet. Just a couple things I have to work on before I nominate it for my first ever GA. LovelyGirl7talk15:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Whenever I nominate David Meade for Good Article status (that's when I think it's ready; so far it's not yet), which topic under the Good article topics do you think David Meade would best fit under? "Philosophy and religion" or "Social sciences and society"? --LovelyGirl7talk20:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, LovelyGirl7! This kind of question would be best asked over at the Teahouse, but this particular article would probably come under "Philosophy and Religion". -- Cheers, Alfie. (Say Hi!) 20:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I’m now getting to the point where I’m nominating my David Meade article. Questions:
1. Do you think it’s okay to nominate it while there’s a peer review on it as well?
2. Also, to nominate it, is there a talk page to do so? How do I submit the nominee for GA?
@Vermont: it kinda sucks I may have to wait after my peer review to nominate it for GA. I’m hoping the review is due a little sooner (like by February 20). While I wait though, I could shift do more improvements to my article, and/or improve another skepticism, Christianity, or astronomy article. Either way I will still work on my David Meade article. I’m likely going to improve my article and also maybe do improvements to other related articles to skepticism and maybe Christianity and astronomy. —LovelyGirl7talk12:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Since the reviewers are volunteers too, we cannot predict when one will take a look at your GA nomination. Please be patient. Huon (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I say, wait for a few days. Meanwhile you can familiarise with the process of GA review itself either by just observing it, or by participating in it. I suggest to start by observing first. If not that, you can contribute in any other area that you'd like. I find this to be a good method to take my mind off something when I am waiting. —usernamekiran(talk)01:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Peer reviews can be closed manually when the editor requesting the peer review thinks there has been enough feedback, or they're closed automatically by a bot when there haven't been any new replies for two months. Huon (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Usernamekiran: I'm familiar with GA reviews. I'm supposed to get comments on the GA review when it gets created about if the article meets the criteria for GA class (I'm familiar with it) and even other suggestions on for final improvements. This discussion is a example. --LovelyGirl7talk03:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
While I wait on the David Meade article to be reviewed since it's currently a GA nominee, I'm willing to do expansion and improvements on Jim Bakker, another Christian evangelist and preacher. I did added some sources (and made changes to them). Anything I can do to continue expanding and improving the article? --LovelyGirl7talk20:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
At a glance more, and better, sources are still desperately needed. An entire paragraph in a section entitled "crimes" without any sources? No, thanks. Court documents? No, thanks. An entire paragraph, with lengthy quote, solely sourced to himself? No, thanks. Then there's this gem: Falwell called Bakker a liar, an embezzler, a sexual deviant, and "the greatest scab and cancer on the face of Christianity in 2,000 years of church history." [...] Jim Bakker has also been the subject of criticism. Really? I wouldn't have thought someone ever criticized the "greatest scab and cancer on the face of Christianity in 2,000 years of church history" if I hadn't been told... Huon (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Sure. But would you agree that "Jim Bakker has also been the subject of criticism" doesn't provide any meaningful new information when it follows a section including the Fallon comments? It might be best to remove the "Criticism" section altogether and to instead cover those instances of criticism where we also cover the conduct that got criticized. Huon (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Now that the citation tag has been removed and more citations have been added, what do you think about Jim Bakker? How would you rate it (just curious)? Is there any parts of the article (lead, any sections) that needs improvements? --LovelyGirl7talk00:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd rate it "BLP violation in dire need of copyediting". I have no idea where parts of the content come from, but it's not from the cited sources. The problems with the sources I mentioned last time - inappropriate primary sources in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY - have not been addressed. The "philosophy" section is an incoherent mess, and no content actually describing Bakker's philosophy is based on independent sources. The only source for Bakker's books seem to be those very books, which I'd take as an indication that the books are not a significant part of Bakker's career and should not be mentioned. Huon (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
So you don't expect too much from a "copyedit", I'm not interested enough in the article's subject to go hunting for sources and unsourced, contentious content will not be kept in a BLP; however, I'll do my best with the prose and whatever other issues I can fix. All the best, Miniapolis00:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@Miniapolis: I expect a better improved article from copyediting, I (and Huon) even said that its "BLP violation in dire need of copyediting". Your doing a fine job, keep it up. As for the Philosophy section, you can leave that out and do the rest of the article since it's in dire need of it. --LovelyGirl7talk02:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't mind doing the whole article, since I've begun already and it's short. I'll move whatever appropriate content about Bakker's second wife is in the philosophy section to a more-appropriate part of the article. Since some editors think of the GOCE as Acme Cleanup, I just wanted to clarify what I'd be doing (and not doing :-)). All the best, Miniapolis14:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@Miniapolis: Go for it. I’m ready for a improved version of it. I moved the second wife sentence to “Early Life” but if you want to move it, go for it. I’m ready to see a much improved and better looking version of the article. —LovelyGirl7talk16:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello! I was cleaning up some of the new material you added to the article Jim Bakker and I saw that you cited a website called The Business Standard News, which is a parody site, not a real news site. Please be more careful in the future about making sure to only cite legitimate news sources, especially in BPLs, where it is absolutely essential that all our information must be completely accurate. I strongly recommend doing background research on all the websites you obtain information from before you cite them, especially when their logo is literally the letters "BS" written in fancy cursive. The "About" page to the website flat-out says that they write parody and Snopes.com has whole archive of posts debunking articles they have written. Do not feel too bad, though; they even fooled me for a few minutes before I finally caught on. Just try to be more careful in the future. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
@Katolophyromai: I didn’t know it was a parody source until you told me. Thank you. I’m great at using reliable sources. I will always be careful when it comes to using sources. I don’t feel bad. I’m just doing what I can to find more information about stuff Bakker said. I do hope it becomes a GA article soon though. —LovelyGirl7talk23:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
DYK for David Meade (author)
On 9 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article David Meade (author), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that David Meade's prediction of a hidden planet named Nibiru hitting Earth on September 23, 2017, was based on what he says are coded messages hidden in the Giza Pyramids in Egypt? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/David Meade (author). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, David Meade (author)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article David Meade (author) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, I try to be friendly; some editors do not see it that way. There have been several who have taken my corrections as insults. It probably does not help that my words can occasionally come across harsher than I mean them to. Oh well... I think most people around here appreciate the work I do and understand that I always have good intentions. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
You’ve always been friendly, especially to me. I always love when you help me out with articles like Meade and Bakker. Some may think otherwise, but I don’t since you’ve always been friendly, especially to me. I just have the feeling your my friend here. —LovelyGirl7talk04:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Just popping in to offer a quick congratulations on the GA. It shows a lot of dedication to see that through! – Reidgreg (talk) 08:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jim Bakker you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Also, I'd suggest that you re-phrase this sentence: It is one of 15 exoplanets discovered on March 12, 2018 by Japanese astronomer Teruyuki Hirano on NASA's Kepler telescope at the Tokyo Institute of Technology. It wasn't discovered on March 12th, that was the date it was announced. I suspect there will be no specific date of discovery provided, with K2, it's an extended process. Also, Hirano is at Tokyo IT (not going to abbreviate that), not the Kepler Telescope. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 16:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
@Tarl N.: I did saw the AFD page and hopefully I don't meet the same fate. As for the sentence, how do you think it looks? I did try to fix the sentence. Feel free to make changes to it. —LovelyGirl7talk17:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I have been enjoying this article. There's one problem. You are typing it's when you should use its. "It's" is the contraction for it is. Its is the possessive form. (It's a common error)(It is a common error) So I suggest you go through the article and read "it is" wherever you see "it's" and change as needed! Hope this helps. Thanks for contributing such interesting science articles! Regards, Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!16:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
@Tribe of Tiger: I did made some changes to the it’s/its/it is parts. What do you think? Btw, I loved what you said regarding me contribute to science articles, it makes me happy . —LovelyGirl7talk17:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
The current events troll, who has been accusing you of socking and bias-pushing quite unfairly, has now been rangeblocked for three months. Figured you'd want to know. -- BobTheIP editing as 2.28.13.202 (talk) 01:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi LovelyGirl7; I noticed several tracts of text in the Legacy section of the article aren't properly sourced; the sources don't support the claims in the article's text. These are now denoted with {{not in source}} templates. Some claims are unsourced; these are denoted with {{citation needed}} templates. You'll need to address these problems before nominating the article for GAN review; I didn't carry out a full review of sources. Please also see the article's talk page for irrelevant text I removed; struck text is returned to the article. Cheers, Baffle gab1978(talk)07:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed on your userpage you wrote that you were considering nominating God's Not Dead (film) for GA. I'm planning to do so in the near future; would you have any improvement ideas? Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, L293D (☎ • ✎)02:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
@L293D: I did say it as a maybe in parentheses. I’m not sure if I will actually. I’d love to work on it if I can, but I’ve been also busy working on K2-155d, David Meade (author), and Jim Bakker. I can help on the article. Anything I can do to help (if so, feel free to tell me suggestions below)? —LovelyGirl7talk06:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Ed Krassenstein's Notability
A PROD tag has been placed on Ed Krassenstein, citing "No deep coverage from reliable sources, per WP:BIO." If you wish to counter this (and so to keep the article) then you have ONE WEEK to show that there is enough detailed coverage about Krassenstein in reliable, independent sources. I took a look in Google News, and mostly I just found coverage of the asset seizures from him and his brother (like what you already have as refs). The other coverage was mostly either written by Krassenstein himself, or was in non-reliable self-published sources, or were just passing mentions. That's something, but probably not enough to meet the criteria yet. I suggest finding THE BEST FOUR sources you can. Sources that talk about him in depth (a couple of long paragraphs at least), in national newspapers or other high-quality sources. Then on the article's Talk page, start a new section called something like "Notability" and list those sources to show why he is notable (in Wikipedia's special meaning of that term - see here). Then we can remove that PROD tag.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
@Gronk Oz: I heard the PROD tag was removed, but I will try my best to show that it's notable as a Wikipedia. I will edit the article as if it were to be deleted in 7 days. If you would like to do good changes in the article, feel free to do so. I will try the best I can to make Ed Krassenstein a notable article, even without the PROD tag. I did mentioned he was involved in a Ponzi scheme (since he and his brother was), but are you sure Behind MLM is unreliable as a source? If it is, I can remove it and change it with a better source. The last sentence in the Reactions section has Twitchy. Feel free to help out as well. --LovelyGirl7talk03:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
@LovelyGirl7: Proceed basically the same way. It is important to remember that Notability is not about how well the article is written, so don't spend too much time on that at this stage. Notability is about the references that show this person has been widely and deeply covered. Again, look for the very best sources you can find and list them at the AfD discussion. (There is a good article summarizing what makes "good sources" at WP:42.) Don't go overboard with a lot of sources - it is better to have a few really good ones rather than a lot of poor ones. Apart from that, it would help to clean up the lead so it clearly states what is most notable about this person (according to those sources).
I don't know which way this discussion will go. If it does get deleted, then that is a real milestone in your Wikipedia career. Every experienced editor has had articles deleted, and it is always distressing, but it is part of the road we all walk. Or if it can be saved by improving the references, so much the better.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I should mention that I am about to head into the remote country (out of communication) for most of this week, so I'm afraid I won't be able to assist. Good luck.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
If David Meade doesn't pass as a FA nomination, I will still work on it, and try again. Once I solve the issues if/when it fails, I will nominate it again. Thanks! --LovelyGirl7talk03:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
That's not only completely inappropriate language to place in Wikipedia's voice, it's also copied word-for-word from the source, which is plagiarism. (See Wikipedia:Plagiarism.) Please don't do anything like that again. You must summarize the sources in your own words, or quote them as appropriate, with in-text attribution (e.g. Susan Smith wrote that, followed by the quote). SarahSV(talk)22:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Re: your question on my talk ("What do you think about the edits I've done to David Meade so far? It's still FA nominee but just wondering"), it's no longer a nominee. As I said at the FAC, it would need a lot of work, and I'm not sure it's possible because of the notability concerns and the lack of biographical information. SarahSV(talk)01:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Your addition to ASASSN-18fv has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 11:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
