User talk:Adakiko

4

WikiDefcon 4: 2.53 RPM according to EnterpriseyBot

Mykie Glam and Gore edits

Hi, I wasn't sure how to add references and sources, but I will when editing again if that's ok, as I was including updated information on early life, personal life and career, of which I have sources for all.

In relation to removing the controversies section, according to Wikipedia policy, “material about living persons should not added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. “ And "Never use self published sources about a living person unless written or published by the subject". Source policy further states, “Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and it's Talk page, especially if potentially libelous"

This is a clear case of what the Wikipedia policy warns against.

The only sources regarding the second paragraph of the controversies section are two tabloid journalism sources, Teen Vogue and Cosmopolitan.

The only sources for the third and fourth paragraph are from self published sources, that are not the living person subject. Additionally, the living person subject has called publicly into question the validity of claims made against them by the self-pushlished source in paragraphs 3 and 4, making these sections particularly at risk for being libellous.Otto Irrving (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@Otto Irrving: I would tend to agree with last two paragraphs which only cite SWOOP YouTube sources which appears to be wp:self-published. I removed those last two paragraphs. Is there any mention of Teen Vogue, The Ringer (website), or Cosmopolitan (magazine) being "tabloid journalism"? Teen Vogue is a sister publication of Vogue (magazine) which has a good rating here: wp:rs/p#vogue. See wp:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. If you think the other content should be removed, please discuss on talk:Mykie and get wp:consensus. If you believe it imperative that they be removed quickly, please open a ticket on wp:BLPNB.

To add sources, please see wp:citing sources.

Do you have any relationship with Mykie? Cheers Adakiko (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Angala Devi and Mayana Kollai

You just deleted my edits claiming that Angala Parameshvari is the name of Angala Devi, she being worshipped as a main goddess in Tamil Nadu only with the main temple to her is in Mel Malayanoor, she rescuing just Shiva alone from chaos, she being just a goddess without any patronage of anything, etc in Angala Devi and that the primordial Parvati and her mortal incarnation as Shailaputri are are same goddess physically, she and the gods and goddesses didn't kill Vallala Kandan and his demons and demonesses on Mayana Kollai, it is not on the first full moon day after Maha Shivaratri, it does not take place in February to March in Mayana Kollai. Her real name is Angala Devi, she being worshipped as a main goddess in both Tamil Nadu and Puducherry with her main temple is in Melmalayanur, she rescuing both Brahma and Shiva from chaos, she being the goddess of villages, etc in Angala Devi and the primordial Parvati and her mortal incarnation as Shailaputri are physically different, she and the gods and goddesses did kill Vallala Kandan and his demons and demonesses, it is on the first full moon day after Maha Shivaratri, it does take place in February to March in Mayana Kollai, so please revert your revert on both these articles. 103.156.209.124 (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

You are blocked as a sock of Vishal Kandassamy and are not welcome to edit Wikipedia. See wp:deny as to why. Please read Vishal Kandassamy page on how to request to be unblocked. Adakiko (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Removing outdated and irrelevant info from article - how to source?

Hi there Adakiko, thanks for the message on my page. I am unsure how to proceed as the edit I made on Noah's Ark Zoo Farm included removing the "owner: Anthony Bush" from the info box. The article itself includes sources for why this is the case (i.e. the zoo is now a charity and therefore not owned). Similarly, I removed information which was irrelevant to the article. How should I go about including a source for information I have removed? Thank you! Emmybris (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Emmybris: is there a wp:secondary source that states they are a charity? What the zoo publishes could be self-serving; especially given the 2009-2010 circumstances. Agree with your assessment of the second paragraph. I removed it. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I will try to find a source for that - if I do, where do I put the reference when removing the ownership section from the infobox? Thanks Emmybris (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Emmybris: I removed Bush as the owner. It would be nice to have an unbiased secondary source. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Cahouët Affair

"Cahouët Affair" is still an event (dumb example: "French Revolution"), rather than a proper name (dumb example: "John Smith"), and an article is therefore required. You might be probably right in disagreeing with the use of the French article; does "The Affaire Cahouët (or Cahouët Affair) was an incident..." version work better for you? 82.63.89.206 (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Please create an article: wp:articles for creation. Or request one: wp:Requested articles. You can also start a discussion on talk:Cahouët Affair about your concern: help:talk pages. Adding that edit summary to Cahouët Affair probably won't get an article written. Thank you for your message. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Was referring to this. 82.63.89.206 (talk) 02:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Were you trying to change the wording to L'affaire Cahouët as in fr:Affaire Cahouët? It would have helped if you said so or asked how to do that. Adakiko (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Yup, I was. It seemed obvious to me; I thought only later that this is the english site.

Well, no big deal; the disagreement got resolved. 82.63.89.206 (talk) 12:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Cheers! Adakiko (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Removed content from Eye Color

Hi, I removed the section about amber eye color being more common in those regions because the source which was after the claim was irrelevant to the claim being made. In other words, the source made no mention of those regions listed having higher percentges of amber eyes. Seemed to me an odd claim to make without a source, so I removed it. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)