User talk:PaleheadedBrushfinch

Welcome![edit]

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

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

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Libertybison (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Material on Dance of the bee[edit]

Hello PaleheadedBrushfinch, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Sarah Jeong[edit]

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 recently 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 any 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.

If you violate WP:BLP or the editing restriction at the article again, you will be blocked and/or topic banned. Abecedare (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

k PaleheadedBrushfinch (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding of Tricia Rose[edit]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Tricia Rose, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

I can't tell yet whether this is a disruption-only account that needs to be blocked indefinitely, or whether you're being bold but wrong-headed, so I've blocked initially for 24 hours to stop you from tagging women's articles as self-promotion. Those tags need to be reverted, preferably by you. Can you explain what you were trying to do? SarahSV ^(talk) 14:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin there are many articles by academics where the only references are their primary source work. Most are very obviously self promoting articles. Some of them included “accomplishments” sections like you would see on a resume, and some even link to a CV! I was not trying to target a particular group, just going through academic disciplines where I’ve seen the most salient abusers of self-promotion. PaleheadedBrushfinch (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the people you tagged are well-known with their field, and others are public figures. We have a policy for prodding BLPs, WP:BLPPROD: "To be eligible for a BLPPROD tag, the entry must be a biography of a living person and contain no sources in any form". You're welcome to propose articles for WP:AfD, but you would first have to check for sources, and you would also have to adjust your expectations. As I said, you were tagging clearly notable people.

Using a cv as a source is quite standard, by the way. Articles should not rely on such sources, but so long as there are secondary sources too, a cv is very useful. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin Who are these “some people”? A faculty page or a resume is not a secondary source, regardless of how notable you perceive a person to be. An academic is not automatically notable simply for writing an essay or article. I already looked through the references and only proposed deletions for articles that relied on dubious sources to justify a page’s existence. I went through them meticulously, if a bit more speedily than what you’re used to. I am a fast reader.

I’m going to need a second administrator’s opinion on this as well. Preferably someone who isn’t on a task force with conflicts of interest here. Or blocks people for “wrongheadedness”. Whatever that means. PaleheadedBrushfinch (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see you were warned above about BLP discretionary sanctions and violating the WP:BLP policy. Another issue with your prodding is that by adding "self-promotion", you're implying that the subjects have been writing their own bios. I'd like to unblock you, but you seem to be standing by what you did.

I'll leave a block template below so that you can request an unblock from another admin. Any admin is likely to check, though, that you understand why you were blocked and will avoid anything similar in future. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you plan on PRODing 100s of academic articles then I will revert them (done) and your next step is to start an WP:AFD as SlimVirgin already said. I look forwarding to working with you in AfD. And if your AfD noms are of clearly notability individuals, well, you better do your research first and read AFD requirements carefully before making mass AFD. No one likes being disrupted with lots of frivolous AfDs. -- GreenC 15:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GreenC They aren’t frivolous. I already read what you asked me to read before all of this. I was just doing my job to clean up Wikipedia. Please see the page Donald E. Ingber for a previous article that I successfully proposed for deletion. This isn’t a spur of the moment task. I wanted to help Wikipedia by clearing up some articles that aren’t notable. Now that I’m blocked, I can’t create articles I want to do for the task force I’m a part of on my user page. I seriously think you’re targeting the wrong type of person here. I’m trying my hardest to make Wikipedia better. PaleheadedBrushfinch (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion of Donald E. Ingber looks debatable given the number of sources, awards and assertions of notability. I will challenge this at AfD. Any others you want to discuss at AfD? -- GreenC 16:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donald E. Ingber is the Judah Folkman Professor of Vascular Biology at Harvard Medical School (meets WP:PROF), and there are secondary sources, including interviews, e.g. [1] SarahSV ^(talk) 16:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SarahSV - could you restore it? Can always be taken to AfD if someone objects. -- GreenC 16:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GreenC, it would be better to go to the deleting admin's talk page (Jimfbleak) and ask if he'll restore. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}.

SarahSV ^(talk) 15:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

PaleheadedBrushfinch (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Can I have intervention from another administrator? “I'd like to unblock you, but you seem to be standing by what you did.” - SlimVirgin. Do you want me to say I’m sorry? PaleheadedBrushfinch (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I just looked at your most recent twelve PROD nominations. All twelve are inappropriate nominations, and in spite of your claim I see no evidence that any of them are self-promotion, which would necessarily define as autobiography. I do not care whether you say "sorry" or not, but I do care that you understand your repeated error with these nominations, agree on this page that you have done so and commit to making no further erroneous nominations of this type.----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

As a non-admin I would encourage some sort of sanction to stop mass PRODing of 100s of articles. The editor claims to be a "fast reader" but that isn't how PRODing is supposed to work, you not only read but research to make sure there are no more sources that can be added. PRODing is a last-resort after all other options are exhausted. Almost all these articles are by people who write books and most books have book reviews, for example. -- GreenC 15:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Many of those “book reviews” are marketing pieces put out by academic publishing houses. I’m trying to clean up Wikipedia from adverts. You don’t have to accept every proposal either. That’s why they’re proposals. PaleheadedBrushfinch (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might help to read Wikipedia:Notability (academics). SarahSV ^(talk) 16:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin I already read that before I made the proposals for deletion. That’s the funny thing about this entire kerfuffle. Thank you for the suggestion, however. PaleheadedBrushfinch (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you already read it and are still making these nominations there is a competency issue. Since your account is only five days old and you've never edited Wikipedia before this, it might be good idea to gain more experience as you clearly are not well versed in how Wikipedia operates in this area. -- GreenC 16:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

kPaleheadedBrushfinch (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I won't argue for or against unblocking, as I mostly wanted to drop in and give a bit of an explanation of book reviews. Also, some of the articles were edited by students that I oversaw via my job, so there's a bit of a conflict of interest. While yes, some book reviews and similar are promotional attempts by the publisher to publicize their books, not all of them are. Here are some of the different types of reviews and outlets out there:

Book blurbs are short promotional statements that the publishers solicit from specific people for the book. These are typically 1-3 sentences long and are always glowing. These are found on the book jacket and on the publisher's website only, although some sales websites (ie, Amazon) may have them posted. The reason for this is that the "about" and review sections are written and supplied by the publisher.
Trade and industry reviews are ones put out by places like Publisher's Weekly or the Library Journal. Sometimes these are seen as usable, sometimes not - it often depends on the trade itself and their reputation. For example, a review by the Horn Book Guide is typically seen as reliable because it's pretty well respected, whereas a modern review by Kirkus Reviews isn't because their reputation isn't really that great. (Long story short they're often seen as a "scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" type of deal.) In general, trade reviews from reputable outlets are usually seen as weak sourcing, so this isn't something that I'd really rely on heavily for an article, although I would use one as a source in the article. Something to remember with these is that while some outlets may allow people to pay for a review, those are seen as a completely separate thing from their actual reviews, which do not allow people to pay.
Reviews from media outlets like newspapers and select Internet sites (for example, when the AV Club reviews books) are typically seen as usable. Publishers may send out their books to newspaper articles, but they don't always. Also, an outlet may receive a review book but not ever review the book - the outlet is the one who controls what they review. The key thing is that the publishers do not pay for these reviews and the outlets do not guarantee a positive review. Some outlets are more prestigious than others - a review from the New York Times is seen as more prestigious than say, a smaller local paper, however in general a review from these outlets is seen as a reliable source. The only time this wouldn't be would be in the cases where the reviewer discloses a conflict of interest that would pose an issue, such as them being a friend, co-worker, or family member. Reviews get edited before publication.
Reviews in academic and scholarly journals, especially peer reviewed ones, are often seen as the most reliable types of sourcing you can get for books. Like the prior one, they may receive review copies, but they do not guarantee any publisher a review. Sometimes you may get someone who has a conflict of interest, but it's relatively rare. Publishers are unable to purchase reviews from these outlets - at least not any reputable ones that would be used on Wikipedia. Reviews undergo a fairly rigorous editorial process before publication, especially with peer review journals.

In general reviews are one of the easiest ways to establish notability for a writer and while there are some out there that are pure promotional puffery, most aren't. I'll be honest in that if some of the articles went to AfD, the reviews would allow them to be kept pretty easily as they show notability for the author's work. If the reviews are enough to establish notability for one of the books to have its own independent article, that solidifies the notability further.

As far as cleanup goes, I will say that at least one of the articles definitely needed cleanup because it was promotional. However that said, it's rare for an article to be deleted as WP:TNT if cleanup is possible - TNT is reserved for cases where it would take so much work to cleanup an article that it would take longer to clean it up than it would to write a new article by itself. I definitely recommend performing cleanup on the articles before doing any sort of deletion nomination because it shows good faith on your part to try to improve things. Even if the consensus is to keep the article, the attempt helps make you look better. Nominating articles without doing WP:BEFORE with them can come back to bite you later, as people may not take nominations seriously and could think that you're trying to be disruptive - even if this wasn't your intent.

I hope this helps! ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To further emphasize the academic/scholarly publications, the reason these are seen as so authoritative and good for showing notability is because not only do they typically have a more rigorous editorial process, but they're also insanely selective. A publisher could put out a hundred books in a year and maybe, maybe have one of them reviewed. If the publisher and/or author is big and well known that can sometimes raise the chances of getting reviewed, but it's not always a guarantee because these types of outlets are fairly niche and only review a set number of books or works per issue. So that means that dozens of publishers from around the world could be competing for attention for say, one out of five review slots in that issue. That means that there could be hundreds of books jockeying for that spot, as one of the main differences between journals and mainstream media outlets is that journals may review a book that was published within the last year while a newspaper almost always only reviews books that have released within the last 1-2 months. On top of all of that, these journals have different publishing schedules than newspapers or websites - some only put out four issues a year, making the selection even tighter. The odds are better that they won't be reviewed than they would be, regardless of the publisher or author's power or notability. I suppose that we could equate it to someone trying to get into Harvard or Yale - things are that selective. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Just a datapoint about the care this editor takes: not only did he add a PROD tag] to Ronald Takaki -- which is bad enough -- his rationale was "Self-promotion" -- for a man who's been dead for nine years. --Calton | Talk 23:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Bella's Gentlemen's Club[edit]

Hello PaleheadedBrushfinch,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Bella's Gentlemen's Club for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say 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 please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

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

Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Bella's Gentlemen's Club[edit]

Hello, PaleheadedBrushfinch,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Bella's Gentlemen's Club should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bella's Gentlemen's Club .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please red wp:n.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already have. —PaleheadedBrushfinch (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then you will hve read that coverage must be in depth and about the topic, not one paragraph mentions in overview articles.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already have. That’s not what I have included. Seek administrator intervention if you’re unclear of the rules yourself.—PaleheadedBrushfinch (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Messalina[edit]

I'm removing your reference to Grace Quek (Annabel Chong) on the grounds of innaccuracy.

It appears in a list of actresses who played the role of Messalina, which she never did.
The source you cite does not say she was "inspired" by Messalina's story to take part in a gangbang. Instead she is contextualising the event and shows scepticism about the story.
Nowhere in that interview does she "question the double standard that denies women the ability to exhibit the same sexuality as men". She may well have done in another, but that would require another source to back it up.

That point is valid in itself but needs to be properly tied into the article. I gather from the talk page here that you have not been very good at that in your short editing history. Perhaps you need to get to know the guidelines better first. Sweetpool50 (talk) 09:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada Brothels[edit]

Hi,

Well done for starting the Nevada brothel articles. Whilst I don't want to 'take over' the articles you started, I though Bella's needed some quick improvement to try and save it from deletion.

Give me a shout if you need any help. Cheers --John B123 (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Guild for Erotic Labour moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Canadian Guild for Erotic Labour, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Girl in a Lower Grade listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect A Girl in a Lower Grade. Since you had some involvement with the A Girl in a Lower Grade redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Canadian Guild for Erotic Labour[edit]

Hello, PaleheadedBrushfinch. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Canadian Guild for Erotic Labour".

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 edit the submission 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Dolotta (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]