User Talk: Adakiko

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{RC patroller topicon}} {{Huggle topicon}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|age =336
|archiveprefix =User talk:Adakiko/Archive
|numberstart =1
|maxarchsize =75000
|header ={{Automatic archive navigator}}
|minkeepthreads =5
|format =%%i
|archivenow=<nowiki>{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}</nowiki>
}}{{Archives|bot=ClueBot III|age=90}}


{{Wdefcon|prefix=User:Timrem/}}

Tammie Brown ↗

Hi, thanks for letting me know about the UGC guidelines for the interview by Bob the Drag Queen. I guess I’m just not sure where the line is between UGC content and secondary source content, because the interview I pulled was conducted by a respected and acclaimed drag queen in the same industry as Tammie Brown ↗ (Bob the Drag Queen ↗), so to me it seems like a reputable source to me. Just because it was an interview posted on YouTube doesn’t make me think it should be automatically invalid.

In WP:BLPSPS ↗, it’s stated that "While secondary sources are preferred, editors may use statements spoken by an article subject (such as in interviews/podcasts) to verify or attribute biographical details about themselves if there is no reasonable doubt to the authenticity of the published material or doubts about the editing of the medium itself.” I don’t see why this can’t be applied here since I was verifying mostly simple biographical details like Tammie Brown's sibling, which language he speaks etc..

I understand that Bob the Drag Queen's production company Purse First Studios is not a journal, newspaper, or journalism site, but I don't understand why that makes it self-published. Purse First Studios may have been founded by Bob and centers Bob as the main creator, but the company employs multiple different content creators and hosts a variety of different podcasts, and is not controlled by or producing content from or by one user. For example, what is the difference from using an interview conducted by a company like Pitchfork vs. this one, even though this one is conducted by a smaller organization. Please let me know what i'm missing.

Burtsbeespeppermint (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Burtsbeespeppermint
:{{yo|Burtsbeespeppermint}} If the content is under editorial review, then it would not be UGC. PurseFirstStudio does have hundreds of videos, so they are not small potatoes. I'm not an expert on this area. You could ask at the wp:help desk ↗ or at the wp:reliable sources noticeboard ↗ (RSN). If you do replace your content, your addition of {{tq|...is known for her blunt and theatrical humor...}} did not cite a source and {{tq|Schubert's father is a marijuana...}} might be considered a wp:Biography of living persons ↗ (BLP) violation and wp:UNDUE ↗ (see wp:BLPCRIME ↗) if there is not an alternate source. Presumably, his father is still living? For the citation, I found your referring to the PurseFirstStudio time stamp a bit confusing. Instead, maybe use the {{tl|Cite AV Media}} template with wp:NAMEDREFS ↗? Use an {{tl|sfn}} template with something like (view in the editor:) {{sfn|PurseFirstStudio|loc= Event time = 3:04}} (some trickery needed to produce sensible text) For a {{tl|cite book}} or {{tl|cite journal}}, a {{tl|rp}} (reference page) can be used, not sure if there is an equivalent for cite AV Media. Help Desk maybe? Complicated? Sorry. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::Okay, I understand why the introduction paragraph and the mention of his father are unwarranted, so I will not add those back. As for the citations, I really don’t know what a good way of doing them is as {{tl|sfn}} seems to need to refer back to "further reading" or "bibliography” sections that don't usually exist on living persons pages, especially not media figures like Tammie Brown. The only reason I would link the citation to a further reading/bibliography section rather than just the first reference is that it would preserve the citation without the timestamp so I wouldn’t be linking a second citation with a new timestamp to one with an old one, if that makes sense. I’ll bring this issue up to the help desk I suppose. Thanks anyway. Burtsbeespeppermint (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

{{talk refs}}

Taxi Maxim ↗

Hello. You reverted my edits. The article had been completely rewritten based on sources. It is currently written terribly. The navigation templates, among other things, reflect this. ~2026-36925-34 ↗ (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
:Replied on ~2026-36925-34's talk page. Adakiko (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Recognition of same-sex unions in Poland

The existing citation should be sufficient. The blanket statement that Poland does not recognize same sex marriage is fundamentally incorrect with the recent court rulings. There is obviously complicated nuance that is involved with national politics over a contentious issue and how the implementation will inevitably be handled at a national level but that's beyond the scope of the opening line. ~2026-38402-95 ↗ (talk) 01:53, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
:{{yo|~2026-38402-95}} wp:Edit summaries ↗ are to clarify that such an edit is sourced. Adakiko (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
::It was the existing citation so I didn't think it needed clarifying. If in doubt check the citation right? The main conventions of the edit summaries are to summarize and explain which I did. I did not add a source, change the source or challenge the source so mentioning the source seems irrelevant.
::Maybe less aggressive reverts. ~2026-38402-95 ↗ (talk) 05:23, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
:::Use an wp:edit summary ↗. That's what it's there for. Would have been much simpler than all this back-and-forth. Adakiko (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
::::I'm not sure what you are saying at this point. I included an edit summary. Can you clarify what the typical guidelines are for when you should revert something? My understanding is that it should be primarily for vandalism anything else should should be much more conservative.
::::In this case you reverted why? Because I didn't include a citation? Except it had a citation. Because I didn't include a summary? It did. Because the summary didn't meet your expectations? That doesn't seem sufficient grounds.
::::Respectfully, I hope you can imagine how this would be annoying. ~2026-38402-95 ↗ (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

List of Nintendo products

I understand why the edits have been reverted, but this is really necessary to make the edit pages. The current page is so big that it lags heavily during editing, making the editing process a lot longer than it needs to be, and also making edits longer to process. I can list the already finished split pages at the top, but I strongly believe the edits are not just unfinished versions, but necessary steps that need to be taken to make the splits. ElevenHour (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Request

:Can you help me
:Make
:It come through my name is Liberty vibes Liberty vibes (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
::Replied on Liberty vibes' talk page. Adakiko (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

User talk:~2026-39166-57

thanks for your alertness but this is a false positive, see Aonishiki Arata#Demotion from Ōzeki ↗, the only gripe with IP's edit is that they didn't follow WP:SUMO ↗ conventions for how "Current rank" is to be denoted, it's fixed now. DK-ZERO (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2026 (UTC)