User talk:Trillfendi/Archive 2/Archives/ 4

Draft:He Cong concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:He Cong, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

WiR stub contest

Thanks very much, Trillfendi, for creating Giselle Norman for the stub contest. Unfortunately, it still has only 110 words of running text. It should have at least 160 words. I hope you will be able to expand it a bit. If not, you can always list it under "Newly-created stubs which do not meet contest rules: November". Happy edting!--Ipigott (talk) 11:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Jasmine Shimoda

Either cite reliable sources or cease adding unsourced claims about a living person to the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: And since the fuck when did you even start caring about this article I created several months ago. Pray tell. Because you haven’t contributed anything to it for me to even care about your edicts. Trillfendi (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you not understand WP:RS and WP:BLP? Because if not, you shouldn't be creating biographies at all. If you do understand them, then you're willfully violating them. Feel free to curse at me all you like, but the fact remains that you're inserting entirely-unsourced claims about someone being a former pornographic actress into the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: And yet... it’s not unsourced. It’s just a source you don’t like. On all other articles of people who have been involved in pornography the IAFD is the standard. They show the picture of this woman so you can’t say it’s “not her”. It’s exactly her. If you want to go to Pornhub and search her name, no one is stopping you. I’m not gonna go to her Instagram account and pull a photo from 1999 she posted from those days because that’s nonsensical, nor will I go external linking anal videos for your entertainment. Trillfendi (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Please consider this your final warning: Making any edits such as this, without sources of the highest reliability, will lead to an immediate block from editing. Please carefully review the biographies of living persons policy prior to making any further edits in regards to living individuals. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: I don't know what possesses you people to watch my talk page but as you can tell I left the matter alone hours ago and went on with my day. So go threaten someone who cares. Trillfendi (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Woodroar (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

For clarity, "Stop adding the BLP violation" did not mean "Go put a BLP violation on the talk page instead." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Trillfendi/Archive 2/Archives (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Not that I particularly care about this version of events but I didn't "put a BLP violation on the talk page." All I did was respond to the ping message about the source I used for the original inclusion of the statement, IAFD, andsaying why it would be difficult for one find the information the editor was looking for (I said no interview has brought it up) rather than the forums they spoke of. I ended it with "Ah well whatever." clearly indicating that I was going leave the matter alone once in for all. And hence, I have not returned to the page for further content disputes or editing in general after that. At no point did I include any reference to pornography so honestly, I do not see what the problem is. I gave a source when I made that edit in March. To say it was sourceless this whole time is a lie. Trillfendi (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This does not accurately reflect what you did. "At no point did I include any reference to pornography"; this is untrue. You clearly referenced pornography and made an unsourced claim that the person in the porn movies was the person under discussion. Yamla (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Yamla: IAFD is not a reference to pornography. It is a database, not a pornographic website like Pornhub, Xvideos, etc whatever is out there. A cursory search shows that IAFD appears as a reference on at least about 1000 pages on Wikipedia. The fact is that sentence was not unsourced. The paragraph about her on Nacho Vidal’s page was unsourced, if anything the ire should be directed over there. But as I said, after that I left the whole situation alone and haven't returned to it (for all I care the whole page could get deleted), so it is what it is. It’s not my agenda to "convince" people that Clark Kent is Superman, Miley Stewart is Hannah Montana, or Dick Whitman is Don Draper. I agree to disagree on this and once again, this isn’t worth spending Thanksgiving weekends on; with that, happy holidays and the 72 hour block will handle itself. Trillfendi (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

"doesn't mean it's a BLP violation to say that someone once worked in pornography. Which she did." That's what you said. You can't now claim you weren't referencing pornography. --Yamla (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Yamla: (Eh, I didn't think about it like that, to be honest. To me referencing pornography is literally referencing pornography. The act of using the ref button and putting a pornographic link in there.) Since everyone watching this talk page is so focused on the reported "outing" of identities... of vegan restaurant owners, why is it that on Nacho Vidal's article his ex-wife Franceska Jaimes's real name (whom a red link revisionist wants people to believe is just a "model" while calling Jasmine Shimoda the "adult film actress") is right there in broad daylight? What's that about, hmm? As an administrator you can see the deleted page's content. Now if someone will sit here and say Franceska Jaimes doesn't exist I’m just gonna chuck my phone out the window because then it’s getting into "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is." territory. Trillfendi (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

That was also a BLP violation, and has been properly removed as such. We cannot "source" such assertions to YouTube and Twitter. Unless a reliable source has actually stated "X is the same individual as Y", we cannot put such an assertion into an article. Not even if you're certain it's accurate; not even if it really is accurate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't quite know all the details here, especially since I don't know the content of the deleted edits. But we have a persistent problem of editors trying to add 'real names' of those involved in pornography, in violation of our WP:BLPNAMES, WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPPRIMARY standards. This often involves people using primary sources (like trademark filings or court cases, or sometimes birth certificates or other such stuff), or non reliable sources (like forum threads, Youtube or other video comments, Facebook or Twitter or other social media posts, blogs, news sources which don't meet our requirements) or even just no sources. Such content is often suppressed whenever it is found and reported to the oversight team.

The case which resulted in your block seemed a little different, since there you had people speculating without sufficient reliable secondary sources that someone apparently notable for something else was once involved in pornography; but it's no more acceptable.

Note that the Internet Adult Film Database, is almost definitely not a reliable source consider their editorial process involves accepting user submissions, not that different from the way IMDb is not an RS. This seems to be acknowledged at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography. According to our article the IAFD has a policy of removing real names when they know about it if they can, with the exception of cases where they can't like if it's on a box cover. So I'm not even sure why it came up as a source. But whatever the reason it's not an RS and so should rarely come up in discussions. (It may sometimes be acceptable as an external link in articles on something clearly connected to pornography.) But it should not be used in an article with no clear connection to pornography. And especially not if it's being used to speculate about someone's real name or that someone known for something else was involved in pornography when this isn't supported by any reliable secondary sources.

Also, if you see a BLP violation, you should remove it, not use it as justification to keep other BLP violations. If someone removes something as a BLP violation, and your not sure if it and you are aware of something that seems similar, then the better choice would generally be to ask about the other content and whether it should be removed rather than reintroducing the earlier removed BLP violation in some form.

Remember also that BLP applies everyone including talk pages. Speculation on someone's involvement in pornography is no more welcome on an article talk page, or a user talk page for that matter. While of course since talk pages are used for discussing how to improve an article, it's sometimes necessary to discuss stuff like whether it should be covered based on the sources you can find, care should always be taken and if it's clear that the answer is no, there should be no further discussion unless more sources are found. And it may even be better to just remove the existing discussion on something sensitive like this even if it makes it more difficult for future editors.

Remember that for many people, involvement in pornography is sensitive and they can face problems when others in their lives comes to know of it. And whatever we may personally think of this, we need accept the reality of how the world works and respect how living subjects feel about this. So we need to take particular care in this area. Which is not to say it's acceptable to speculate about the identity of people in other areas.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: 🏳️ I left it alone. I won’t get on my soapbox about why we shouldn’t be treating people differently around here just because of stigma (obviously that industry doesn’t care to provide reliable sources anyway and we have to scrape the barrel to even get the barest biographical facts. It’s quite sad really. Unless it’s someone who has achieved mainstream recognition. But in the guise of trying to protect subjects people will resort to outright revisionist lies such as “Asa Akira isn’t remarried and doesn’t have a kid”.), because why else would we have neutrality? Anyways, this woman has been interviewed by the New York Times so it’s clear she’s done just fine these days professionally. When I created the article I was more focused on her restaurateur-ism than the tidbit of her blip in the adult world which was already publicized on here with no apparent qualms. As far as I was aware this wasn’t some clandestine thing—the Internet is forever. On that note I’m going to get lunch. Trillfendi (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

BLP is a big deal so it's important you understand the requirements if you are going to continue to work with BLPs. And per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS or common sense, you should always take great care in assuming just because something in some other article means it's okay. Still, you initially including the info while problematic can perhaps be excused as a good faith mistake. But following that up by continuing to link the person with that work, with non reliable sources that don't even seem to make that link is definitely not on. (While dealing with Wikidata, I checked out IAFD and I didn't see the name mention anywhere, just the stage name.) And I don't see how you can claim you left it alone when you did so. Replying to someone does not require you to violate BLP. While I cannot read your reply, I see zero reason why you would need to link to IAFD to reply.

Anyway, the fact that you are 'scrape the barrel' proves the problem. If there are no reliable sources then we do not cover it. Your personal opinion of the industry, or that we should ignore our normal sourcing policies because you think there should be no stigma, and therefore somehow subjects should be the ones to suffer because there is, is irrelevant. I don't particularly know about the subject which started this discussion, but plenty of people do report losing their jobs (especially ones with a public 'face' like teaching) or getting expelled from university or other such repurcussions [1] [2], families and friends being pestered [3] [4], etc.

Note that although as I said, the effects of inappropriately sourced info, especially real names tends to be greater in the area, and so we are probably far more stringent in keeping it out and in cracking down on those who ignore our policies and guidelines, there is nothing unique about us requiring good reliable secondary sources to cover such info. And nor does removing unsourced info about someone's spouse or children mean we are "revisionist". The lack of info in our articles should never be taken to mean that we are saying there is no info since it doesn't exist. AFAICT, we do not say that Asa Akira is not remarried nor that she doesn't have a child. We very rarely cover say such things for a living person anyway since it can change at any time. Not mentioning such details is not the same thing as claiming that it didn't happen. Our articles are never going to be "complete" for various reasons including our sourcing requirements. So if we don't mention someone's spouse or kid or whatever, it doesn't mean there is none. Especially since, for plenty of people such info is not something they share with people except maybe for close family and friends. And even for tabloid media, they cannot always find out depending on local rules and regulations about records of such things and the willingness of said family and friends to go against the person's possible privacy expectations.

For example, I've twice now remove a new husband from Onision since the only info at the time seemed to be coming from primary sources, except for one loose reference to a wife (as he was presenting at the time) in one source which I'm not even convinced is a RS. I have no doubt he is or was in a new relationship and they were probably married, but it doesn't mean we should cover it when it isn't covered in reliable secondary sources. Hayley Westenra has sort of implied a remarriage on social media although it was very unclear, something the reliable secondary source which covered it noted so yes, it's not covered in our article.

We sometimes get things like Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive290#AL JOYNER (probably) and Special:Contributions/Kimthew and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive281#Jamie Moyer and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive280#Interesting BLP issue at Kirsten Haglund where someone claiming to represent or is the subject says they have gotten divorced or married or whatever. I have no doubt that most of the people are telling the truth but we still don't cover it unless sources are found, and this isn't just because they may be not telling the truth.

Spouse and children and of course one case where we have to take care since while WP:ABOUTSELF may seem to apply, we have to remember unless the other people are dead, it does involve other living people. (Although the Onision case is interesting since it sort of seems both of them are involved.) And covering the info without reliable sources when the person is happy for it to be out there may mean problems when things have changed and they no longer feel the same see e.g. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive282#william wrigley jr ii and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive280#Dominique Lévy.

As the earlier examples showed, our current policy does mean people may not be happy when the only info we have is from earlier reliable sources as there are no ones reporting on the new info, still our best solution is just to stick with our sourcing requirements and hope that most readers don't make the mistake I guess you may have made of assuming that the fact we don't mention a divorce means the person is still married etc.

Likewise the fact that we may be unclear when someone got divorced, but know they did e.g. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive278#Divorce date, doesn't mean we should allow court records and other such primary sources to cite such details. Ultimately if no other source thought it particularly matters, then it's quite reasonable for us to feel the same. Again, we have to hope most readers are able to understand such things.

Note that even when details are covered in reliable sources, we don't always include such info. A common issue that crops up are the names or dates of birth of someone's non notable children. While we sometimes include such info e.g. Talk:Brian Austin Green#RfC: Names and DOB's of children in a BLP, we do not always do so per WP:BLPNAME e.g. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive285#Alex Molden Bio. While there are those who feel we should very often do so, many of us feel we do need to carefully consider whether the info is widely published enough that it should be added see e.g. these discussions Talk:Carlos PenaVega#Child's name / Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 46#Names and birth dates of non-notable children (again).

The inclusion of such info can mean issues crop up e.g. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive279#vandal claiming astronaut's daughter is really a transgender boy / Talk:Scott Kelly (astronaut)#Gender of children.

Note that we do have to be careful about what people tell us anyway. I came across this case again when looking into the history Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive272#John Wetteland / User talk:Joeyb7473. Maybe that person really is telling the truth but frankly they are clearly someone intimately involved in the dispute if they are and we always have to be careful with their perspectives. And assuming they are the subject, with the latest info now covered at John Wetteland, which wasn't at the time I dealt with it, I'm even less inclined to trust them.

Of course people's disputes and their views on them are something that does crop up e.g. [5] and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive281#Jamie Shupe and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive279#Ashley Hicks. (The Kirsten Haglund case seems to be another example of this.) Again we need to be careful to follow our sourcing requirements, and consider carefully whether to include the info per WP:UNDUE etc, especially when they deal with other people.

The internet may be "forever" but it doesn't mean we should be part of the problem by allowing poorly sourced or unsourced info to remain. The fact that it's still going to happen without us, as shown in the examples I highligted at the beginning is unfortunate. But we can only do what we can and that includes following our sourcing requirements and not becoming a source for such info ourselves. And as clear from the many examples I highlighted, this is far from something we only do with those involved in pornography.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I realised I should clarify. I too would much rather live in a world where people aren't harmed just because they once were involved in pornography, whether completely willingly or not. But I'm also a realist who recognises that isn't the world I live in, and I'm not going to make others suffer to try and change that world. If someone wants to try and change the world by publicising their info then all power to them, but I'm not going to try and force others to do so. And I am going to continue to demand our sourcing requirements in all articles, but especially those cases where I expect the harm is likely to be greater. If you wish to risk harm to others by forcing publication of info they would prefer to keep private, out of your desire to change the world, that's up to you I guess. Just keep it out of wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 09:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: In scraping the barrel I’m referring to the frequent use around here of Adult DVD Talk as a “reliable” source. It’s sad that that’s all there is to offer. I left it alone in that I didn’t go back and forth with edit warring. When it comes to actual porn stars (not those who did a stint), it seems to be the order of business on Wikipedia to make it as litigious as possible for these people to even be notable. Now they can’t be notable if they’ve won industry awards. Ultimately, I don’t care about any of these people, period. Whatever they do with their own lives, the good the bad and the ugly, is none of my personal concern and my opinion doesn’t matter. I can’t even imagine the idea of some social justice crusade for the sake of Wikipedia when it’s a source that no one takes seriously. Yet millions of people come here everyday at the drop of a hat expecting us to have some extraterrestrial knowledge about everybody. Dramatic irony. Trillfendi (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Kiki Willems concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Kiki Willems, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Faretta (December 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chris troutman 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:Faretta and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Faretta, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, 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.

Chris Troutman (talk) 11:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Trillfendi! Having an article 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! Chris Troutman (talk) 11:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: This is ridiculous. So when it’s Kätlin Aas, Carola Remer, or anyone else with mere fucking sentences written about them it’s “enough” because of appearance, yet when it’s the likes of Birgit Kos, Jing Wen, or Cora Emmanuel one has to explain chapter and verse why reliable sources are reliable just because men don’t understand fashion? Not only American Vogue but British Vogue as well. And W. And Dazed. Hell, even Yahoo! Vogue and New York Times are now “bottom end”? Are you losing it? I’m moving it again, period. Trillfendi (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Not only will that be deleted, I am considering asking to have you blocked for disruptive editing. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: It’s not “disruption” to move an article I created when there is clear as day assertions of notability with independent, verifiable evidence of it. Period! Just because I don’t agree with your comments about The New York (for Christ’s sake) being “bottom tier” doesn’t mean I shouldn’t continue contributing article. You should be glad I even told you ahead of time. Trillfendi (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Faretta

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Faretta requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faretta. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Grammy Award for Best Rap Performance. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Chase (talk | contributions) 16:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Chasewc91: What part of JUST REVERT IT AND GO! don’t you people understand? Everything isn’t worth user talk page discussion. My knowledge was that King’s Dead was the winner. Based on the format it appeared as Bubblin’ was malformed so I moved it (and moved on with my life of 11 days ago). Good faith misconceptions aren’t “vandalism”. Trillfendi (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Primrose Archer

Hello Trillfendi,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Primrose Archer for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

TomCat4680 (talk) 10:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@TomCat4680: And of course that deletion attempt was denied because the sources are obviously too much for A7. This girl has multiple Vogues covering her whilst being on said covers. For anyone else it’s “not everyone gets in Vogue!” yet inexplicably for actual fashion models, somehow it’s “not enough”. You tried though. Trillfendi (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Kail

Hi, I added Angela Christian to Thomas Kail's page, as she wasn't even mentioned on it prior to his new engagement. I listed her as partner since: they are not in the NY marriage index, they don't wear rings in any red carpet photos, and he hadn't called her his wife in any interview I could find. That's it, there was no "trying it". ☎ Chickie 16:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@EntChickie: I was being facetious; sources say up until now he kept his personal life under wraps though I did see a few sources here and there describing her as his wife. Perhaps it was a common-law thing. But, if sources are describing her as his wife, I don’t think it should be on the same calibre and parameter as someone whom he just started a relationship with just months ago, in my opinion. As Michelle Williams is the more famous one, eventually the proper information will come out. Christian’s page hadn’t been edited in 2 years so that part wasn’t surprising. Trillfendi (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hilde Lysiak's date of birth

You flagged the date of birth I gave for Hilde Lysiak, which came from a tweet she herself made on November 2, 2019 replying to a tweet from Brooklynn Prince with birthday wishes on November 2, 2019. You wrote 'better source needed' on the article and 'It still needs a reliable source that gives month, day, and year' in the revision history. The source is the subject of the article!

WP states:'Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it.'

Hilde Lysiak does not object to her birthday being publicly known because she tweeted it. She is not borderline notable; she is famous. She didn't state her year of birth, but her year of birth was already listed as 2006 without a source being given and without you objecting. We know that she was 9 when she made the news in April 2016 and 12 when she made the news again in February 2019. She herself stated she was 12 when she gave the commencement address in May 2019. It was stated that she was 12 when she won the Junior Zenger Award in September 2019. Given a birthday of November 2, the only arithmetically possible year of birth is 2006. Simon d (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Simon d: We are not starting this new decade believing that TWITTER is an acceptable source for important BLP statements when this girl has been covered by the likes of the Washington Post. A source of that level is much more necessary than a passing comment to a friend. In trying to “do the math” on her age, it’s original research. You’ve been here since the beginning, you should know way better. Trillfendi (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, Simon d is right. I've used tweets published by article subjects as sources in plenty of articles. Read WP:BLPSELFPUB, WP:TWITTER. Also, original reasearch, seriously? You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Sro23 (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sro23: I don’t know what alchemy leads people to stalk inconsequential conversations on my talk page (Christ, it’s annoying) but the fact is, a tweet saying Best. Birthday. Wish. Ever! does nothing to demonstrate that she was born November 2, 2006, and doing arithmetic to figure out if she’s 13 based on a tweet is not verifiable. So yes, it’s original research. I could give a damn what color the sky is. A better source is needed. Trillfendi (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Alice Metza concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Alice Metza, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Billie Eilish image

There should probably be a formal discussion for consensus on the Billie Eilish page about which image to use. I, for one, prefer the previous one. Aitch & Aitch Aitch (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Aitch & Aitch Aitch: Exactly. Otherwise the back and forth of people changing the image every 5 hours will lead to full protection. I don’t have any privy to a particular image myself but from now on there has to be a Talk page discussion before any changes to the lead image. That’s what happened on Scarlett Johansson’s page, for example. Trillfendi (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Kiki Willems

Hello, Trillfendi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Kiki Willems".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia 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}}, {{db-draft}}, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DannyS712 (talk) 08:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Eniola Abioro concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Eniola Abioro, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you. IanDBeacon (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@IanDBeacon: Sight unseen it doesn’t seem like vandalism but she has been warned and blocked multiple times already for making those very edits that disrupt pages (especially Karlie Kloss) by adding poorly sourced content. It’s no amateur slip up, she is willfully abusing BLP. ⌚️ (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Heidi Cruz

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Heidi Cruz 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 David Fuchs -- David Fuchs (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Garrett Popcorn Shops concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Garrett Popcorn Shops, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Mia Kang for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mia Kang 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/Mia Kang until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Rathfelder (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:McKenna Hellam concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:McKenna Hellam, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Sang Woo Kim (model) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Sang Woo Kim (model), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Who are you speaking to here?

Who is this in response to? IF you find creating articles to be such a pain, don't do it? Nobody is forcing you to create articles, and there is no requirement for anything to have an article. Editors are here because they want to be. It should never be a "should" or "have to". Ss112 17:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ss112: for fuck’s sake get a LIFE! Some friends, even. Nobody was fucking talking to you. Stop running to my talk page like a little tattle-tale every time you come across a facetious or sarcastic edit summary—facetious means joke, by the way. You don’t instruct what I do with my free time or how I start an article (whose refs were gonna be filled anyway). If it was a so-called “pain” I wouldn’t have created 140+ already but even then, I don’t owe you, a complete stranger, an explanation. Go bother someone else. ⌚️ (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

"Nobody was fucking talking to you". Then who were you fucking talking to? Complaining for the sake of it? Jesus Christ, all that is rich coming from you. Stop acting like a little entitled brat in your edit summaries—even on BLPs all you do is whine at people and have a permanently bad attitude. You're not funny, quirky or witty—you're a straight-up smart-arse with a bad attitude. You literally thought you were the only one to predict "All I Want for Christmas Is You" was going to go number one. I can't explain how pathetic that is. Funny how you say on your user page editing Wikipedia "is nothing but a hobby" but you complain as if it's your job. Maybe if there were less people like you here, it wouldn't be such a "dreadful website". You know, maybe you should retire. Take your own advice and get an actual life outside of Wikipedia if it's so dreadful. Ss112 18:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

And how the hell am I a "tattle-tale" if I'm coming to the talk page of the editor with the shitty atittude? Make it make sense. "Facetious means joke". Oh she's smart too! Yes, you're the only one who knows what "facetious" means. Holy shit. What a joke you are. Ss112 18:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Now I'm going to be a real tattle-tale and tell an admin to speak to you because I really sincerely doubt you've ever had it done to you given this is how you think it's acceptable to act. My edit summaries might've been incendiary but you've taken it to a whole other level. @Ad Orientem: Can you please tell this editor, first of all to chill the hell out and inform her this isn't the way to carry on? Because I sincerely doubt if an administrator ever has. She complained in an edit summary when creating Life Is Good (song), I told her to "shut up" and stop carrying on and now it's "fuck" this, "fuck" that and random crap like telling me to "get friends". Lmfao. Maybe it's because (she says she's) a teenager, I don't know, but this is absolutely embarrassing conduct. Ss112 18:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ss112: It’s a phrase I’ve said many times before, since you have nothing better to do than to clock my contributions I’m sure you’ll come across various instances. Second of all, I don’t even know why you’re still on something so inane and forgetful from weeks ago, nor did I say I was “the only one” who thought of it. So why the very idea that you claim I said I was the only one (yet it had been common knowledge for years) is pathetic in and of itself. I never said I was “funny”, “witty”, or any of your projections. am I here for your entertainment. At that rate you don’t know what my “attitude” is in real life because, . The website is “dreadful” because people like your miserable ass keep coming to my talk page to bitch and moan about the most innocuous, irrelevant things. I will retire when good and well please, or like I said, when Drake becomes a Good Article. You can’t relate to this but there’s more to life than this hobby. So maybe stop taking everything om here as a personal affront when no one’s thinking about you, k pumpkin? (Oh and if you would like administrator involvement go to the noticeboard). ⌚️ (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I've come to your talk page literally twice, this time being the second time. Imagine thinking editors are "obsessed" with your contributions when they've talked to you twice (or even thinking they needed to look at your contributions at all? All I Want for Christmas Is You was being extensively edited, by editors including myself, because it was Christmastime and achieved several new peaks/feats. The second was because you expanded a redirect I made). The delusion...I can't imagine. And yeah, considering how much you yourself edit Wikipedia, you're in no place to try and tell people there's "more to life than this hobby". And now you wanna be a Psych 101 student claiming I'm "projecting"... K pumpkin. BTW, nobody needs to go to ANI if they want admin involvement. If I know an admin can speak to someone without blowing it up into something bigger than even this, there's no need for ANI. Ss112 19:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ss112: He of 426,000 edits is trying to say I’m the one who‘s here too much. Listen to yourself. ⌚️ (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I never denied I'm "here too much". I know how much I'm here. I'm saying you're in no position to criticise anyone for it because, from looking at your contributions just now, you edit every day yourself. I'm not the one who brought up that there's "more to life" than editing Wikipedia like nobody knows that, or implying the other has no life. I don't care about that, but I will bring anyone up on it if they say how obsessed I am but yet appear to be obsessed with being here themselves. Ss112 19:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ss112: And the same people get on Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube everyday. But coming to my Talk page because you felt slighted by two edits that didn’t concern you whatsoever, is indicative of someone who apparently doesn’t have much going on outside of all of this. No one is forcing you to directly speak with me because I damn sure don’t care what you do. ⌚️ (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

You "damn sure don't care" what I do yet you keep bringing it up...... Yeah. I'm bored of whatever point you're trying to prove. Ss112 19:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ss112: You’re the one who came here to go back and forth when you could’ve left when Ad Orientem gave you a reaction. Oh well. ⌚️ (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x 6 or 7... Everybody Take a deep breath. Please recall we are on the same team here. Please do not routinely use salty language when addressing other editors, especially if they indicate that they don't care for it. Likewise telling people to shut up or making disparaging comments about someone's age is unhelpful (at best). See WP:CIVIL. Civility is not optional on a collaborative project of this magnitude. And remember to assume good faith when interacting with each other. Everything else pretty much flows from there. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Warning Enough. Both of you stop it right now. Go and find an article to improve or something that is otherwise constructive. I do not want to have address this subject again. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Donald Glover

The article Donald Glover you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Donald Glover for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hiya111 -- Hiya111 (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

February with Women in Red

February 2020, Volume 6, Issue 2, Numbers 150, 151, 152, 154, 155 Happy Valentine's Day from all of us at Women in Red. Online events: New: Explorers / Black Women / Horror / Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports! Editor feedback: Schedule planning at the Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Draft:Oumie Jammeh concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Oumie Jammeh, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

New message from Narutolovehinata5

Hello, Trillfendi. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Life Is Good (song).
Message added 21:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 21:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Eniola Abioro

Hello, Trillfendi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Eniola Abioro".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia 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}}, {{db-draft}}, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Bkissin (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Garrett Popcorn Shops

Hello, Trillfendi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Garrett Popcorn Shops".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia 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}}, {{db-draft}}, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Bkissin (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Dwyane Wade

For your information, all three sources use the word "transgender". In addition, simply reverting without any edit summary just shows that you are prone to edit war and hostile attitude does not help it either. I advise you to settle down. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: I thought it was already common knowledge "on here" that we don't mislabel people who have no labeled themselves. Apparently not. It doesn't matter what CBS says, it matters what Wade, Union, or Zaya themselves have said and that is "LGBTQ+". At. No. Point. have any of them said "transgender". Gender identity is a spectrum, Cara Delevingne is non-binary, does that make her transgender? Ruby Rose is gender fluid does that make her transgender? And this is a child so extra scrutiny is mandatory. This child is no longer "his son", this child is now referred to as "his daughter", and she decided she is now she/her. It's not hard. There's nothing "hostile" about undoing the wrong verbiage, there's nothing "hostile" about a note, maybe you're too sensitive. ⌚️ (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not talking about other people since I do not care about them. Wade's page is on my watchlist and when I see a questionable edit I go by what the source says. In addition, I have no problem with you reverting the edits, but when your attitude is "WRITING THE NOTE IN CAPS AND USING AS MANY !!! AS POSSIBLE" it just shows that your are the one who is sensitive. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: You must not have much going on this week if you're coming here about something the reader can't even possibly see. The page is locked. It doesn't matter if a note is in caps or not. The whole point of it is that editors who will inevitably violate the BLP (even when it isn't about Wade) see it clear as day. Multiple exclamation points "!!!" weren't even used. Go to lunch or something. ⌚️ (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Sang Woo Kim (model)

Hello, Trillfendi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sang Woo Kim".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia 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}}, {{db-draft}}, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Bkissin (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Bambi Northwood-Blyth concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Bambi Northwood-Blyth, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Alexandra Elizabeth Ljadov concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Alexandra Elizabeth Ljadov, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Life Is Good (song)

On 24 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Life Is Good (song), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that rappers Future and Drake worked at McDonald's for a day? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Life Is Good (song). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Life Is Good (song)), 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.

— Wug·a·po·des​ 03:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 00:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Riley Reid

Hello Trillfendi, in reference to your WP:AGF edit here, please note I have reverted it because this matter is in the midst of an active discussion here with the intention to arrive at a consensus. To be clear, while the categories you removed are not themselves being directly discussed there, the right of those Cats to stay on the page will depend entirely on the result of the discussion. BTW, you probably missed it, if so I apologize, but the article's talk page here alerts to the current BLP discussion which affects the Cats you removed. Kindly understand I share your view that the Cats don't belong there, but we must also be fair to the other editor(s) and let the Discussion play out in a fair fashion. Please make your comments, whether in favor or against of keeping that information (and the Cats) in the article, directly at the Discussion Page and, once the matter has been decided upon there, you can feel free to make the corresponding edit. Thank you. Mercy11 (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mercy11: Not understanding why I was thanked for a reverted edit but we'll take it over there I guess. We've all done the original research ethnicity thing at one point or another. ⌚️ (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Trillfendi, many editors don't take reverts of their edits lightly. As I said, I agree with your view but at the same time the opposing editors must be given the opportunity to have their side heard. To avoid any confusion (or perception of unfairness) it's usually best to keep the article as is until the discussion closes. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)