User talk:GreenMeansGo/Archive 3

ḩḩḩḩ

This is an archive of past discussions with User:GreenMeansGo. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

→

Please comment on Talk:List of American police officers killed in the line of duty

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of American police officers killed in the line of duty. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

clueless

..as usual. Does this happen very often? No more talk pages for me. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

and this kind of back alley behavior earned this user a six month block. see here. I could have brought the comment at the talk page to ANI and cited that, but removing/hatting seemed more simple. Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Bizarre

this is bizarre. The TPG are clear that talk pages are for discussing content, not for sniping. You seem intent on defending these unconstructive comments that are not directed to improving the article, so I will let it be. So it goes. and see above. Jytdog (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

reference was bad Even if the user is mistaken, and the reference is reliable, this is not an illegitimate question to ask. You know well yourself, and in fact, would normally be the first person I would expect to be pointing out something like...both of the references used are primary and one is thirteen years old.

Yes, most of the regulars know Flyer and know they don't need a link to WP:BOLD, but there's nothing inherently disruptive in encouraging others to actively edit, even if it is done mistakenly and unnecessarily.

Finally, as a regular, you probably don't need a link to WP:TPO to start your day off, but maybe an occasional reminder is helpful, that Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. TimothyJosephWood 13:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the context. Again, see the section above. This user was blocked for six months (later reduced but under a strict probation) for doing this kind of crap. Jytdog (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

User was blocked for all of a month a year and half ago. That's unfortunate for all involved, but there is no "comment probation" where TPO doesn't apply, and others get free reign to edit otherwise mildly/modestly snarky comments based on personal history. If they're being disruptive then seek a block, but past blocks don't give leave to remove comments ostensibly and at-face-value, about article content. TimothyJosephWood 20:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Having said all that, User:Barbara (WVS), while there is no formal prohibition against snarky comments, you would be well advised to avoid them, especially against users with whom you have a history, and who are quite qualified to put together a noticeboard report, since every one you make is fodder for that report, and not the most effective way of communicating in general. If you disregard that advice, and that report comes about, you will likely find me in the support column. TimothyJosephWood 00:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Raymond Chan Chi-chuen

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Raymond Chan Chi-chuen. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thinking of Retiring

@Timothyjosephwood: Hi! I am thinking of retiring from editing on wikipedia because it seems to me that I am not welcome on this site. Not 100% confirmed yet. But it is likely I will quit doing articles on wikipedia. I do want to continue on wikipedia, but some of the stuff that happens, annoys me. The450 (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey The450. I'm sorry to hear that, and I hope I haven't personally contributed to that feeling. If I have, or if there's anything I can do to help, feel free to let me know.

Wikipedia can be a complicated and frustrating place sometimes, especially for new folks, and we're not always the best a being welcoming to everyone. If you do decide to retire, the encyclopedia will always be around, and you're always welcome to revisit it when you have time, or get to feeling better about it.

There's usually a place that ends up being a good fit for everyone who wants to contribute. Sometimes it just take a while to find that sweet spot and get comfortable. TimothyJosephWood 20:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: It is nothing that you have done to make me feel like this. Am I able to change my username? The450 (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The450: Yes, you may make a request at Wikipedia:Changing username. TimothyJosephWood 21:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: OK! Done that.. The450 (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

not you...

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo, yeah. I'll comment, but I'm going to need to put together some coffee and diffs. TimothyJosephWood 10:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I borrowed your diffs to show the problem is longer than I thought it was.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Help please

Hi, You have been a part of my journey trying to create a page which has been very difficult. You kindly advised on the help desk. Yesterday afternoon I finally managed to create the page but then faced further difficulty. I had the external link problem...again. So I thought I would load what I could for now and add the rest of the content on another day when I knew how to actually upload the material successfully and overcome the link issues. I now find that the article has been reported for deletion which I am disappointed with. This has been a very frustrating process especially because I still have not finally been able to upload the completed article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sw2016 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Sw2016. I'm not seeing anything in your history where you created an article. Maybe that means it's already been deleted and so it's hidden from me (as a non-administrator). Will it let you post the test on a talk page, like here? Then maybe we can take a closer look at what might be the issue. TimothyJosephWood 13:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I am so confused, it just let me create the article and had no issues with my links. Here is the link to the page and is now working: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Harrison_(inventor_and_property_developer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sw2016 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Sw2016, I would definitely recommend that you review Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, and work to try to find additional sources to demonstrate that in the article, or it may likely be deleted again. Normally, articles on Wikipedia demonstrate notability by showing that the subject received sustained non-trivial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

As it stands, many of the sources in your article only mention Harrison in passing, which doesn't count toward notability, and at least one doesn't appear to mention him at all. TimothyJosephWood 13:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Jiggs Whigham edit

Timothy,

You replied to my Teahouse request and explained the problem of red print due to incorrect code.

I can only correct this by rote or you could put in the correct code elements. Either way I need to know the exact format on the edit at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiggs_Whigham

in the discography section which is in red. Plus any other code errors. I own one of the cds and the other is a public library item so I can add whatever is needed-- if I can read the tiny type etc.

Lon Ponschock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loninappleton (talk • contribs) 20:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm back in here because I thought my tildes would kill the message.2602:301:77E9:1600:3DB0:D128:C8D1:9D98 (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Loninappleton. I think maybe we didn't explain this very well. So for example, the reason that Allen Farnham is red on your article is because no one has written an article for him.

So for example, John Smith (Manitoba politician) and John Smith (Welsh politician) are blue because those people have articles, but John Smith (Brazilian politican) is red, not because I messed up, but because no one has ever written an article about a notable person named John Smith who was a politician from Brazil.

If, for example, you wrote the article on Allen Farnham, the link would stop being red and start being blue, because now there would be an article for him. Does that make sense? TimothyJosephWood 21:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Request on 00:11:19, 7 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by UND08844

UND08844 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Granger Cobb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Requesting guidance on Granger Cobb entry, specifically on the 'advertisement' comment. Are there specific words or phrases that are inappropriate? The entry was modeled on other CEO entries, most notably Steve Jobs as Granger Cobb was sometimes called the Steve Jobs of the industry due to his pioneer status.

range of independent, reliable, published sources: such as New York Times, Bloomberg, PBS Frontline (video and transcript), The Nashville Tennessean, Senior Housing News, etc.

Thank you for your help, it is improving the entry with each pass. Much appreciated.

UND08844 (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey UND08844.

living pioneer - Just silly in its sensationalism.
From a core base of communities - This doesn't mean anything.
a number of mergers - How many?
over 500 How many? 501? 599? Do we know? Presumably we do, since we know it's more than 500.

And this is just in the lead. In many ways, writing in an encyclopedic tone, means writing in the most boring matter-of-fact way possible. There's a lot of colorful language that many people use in industry or popular publications, and its used because it sounds pretty, but it doesn't actually mean anything or convey any information.

As another example, Cobb served as a mentor and role model to many aspiring leaders in his personal and professional life. is a complete opinion, and would probably be mostly meaningless even if it were true. It is about as useful to an encyclopedia as saying Cobb kept his office quite tidy and often provided pastries for his coworkers.

As a rule of thumb, just the facts.

It may be helpful to review Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial for more comprehensive explanation an general examples. TimothyJosephWood 00:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Scranton general strike

The article Scranton general strike you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Scranton general strike 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 Chris troutman -- Chris troutman (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Eurodac

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eurodac. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

20:01:01, 10 January 2017 review of submission by Bthomson100

Bthomson100 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Franklyn Harvey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Where can I find information to correct what you say are multiple formatting problems? The online editor in the Sandbox area isn't exactly user friendly for people making new submissions. My first attempt at this was rejected some time ago and at that time I was sent a specific Wikipedia page link with information on creating a biographical page. I can't find that now and only have page "Editing Wikipedia articles", which isn't anywhere near as specific as what I got last year and says nothing about formatting.

bthomson100

Hey Bthomson100. See Wikipedia:Tutorial/Formatting. Further guidance at Wikipedia:Your first article is more general in nature, but would probably also be helpful. TimothyJosephWood 20:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Ecuadorian Translators and Interpreters Association

Please let me know why this page was deleted. I believe that it does not violate any copyright laws. Thanks Patriciafierroc (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Patricia Fierro

Hey Patriciafierroc. Looks like it was deleted by User:RHaworth under criteria WP:G11 of Wikipedia's speedy deletion policy, which allows deletion of material that is unambiguously for the purpose of advertising or promotion, and would need to be nearly completely rewritten in order to comply with Wikipedia policy.

Articles on Wikipedia need not only be original wording so as to avoid violations of copyright laws, but also need to describe their subject in a neutral and encyclopedic manner. I can no longer see what the text of your draft was, as I am not an administrator, but as a matter of policy, deletion in this way is normally reserved for the most blatant of promotional material. It doesn't mean there can never be an article on the topic, it just means that if there is such an article, it needs to be written in a way that complies with the purpose of Wikipedia, which is fundamentally not to advertise or promote any organization or company. TimothyJosephWood 14:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Plastics Hall of Fame

Hi Timothyjosephwood, thanks for the quick notice. In my opinion, it does not make sense to review the OLD draft of the file and not to consider the NEW one which I amended and updated and sent in for review anew. However, there is a story behind my Re-Submit of the 'Plastics Hall of Fame' page file.

Originally, I submitted it in 2012 which - after several alterations and addenda - was nevertheless declined, as you may see from the correspondence talk. At that time I took the decisison of the reviewers for final and consequently did not work on the file any more.

To my surprise end of last year (December 16) , I received a note to the effect that my file 'Draft:Plastics Hall of Fame' had been deleted (due to its long abandonment) but could be restored if I was going to work on the article again. As I had considered the refusal and deletion decision unwarrented in the past, I asked the 'Draft:Plastics Hall of Fame' file to be restored which infact was done and I was informed ccordingly. So, I updated the article with 3 more references to externalliterature together with several textual addenda and corrections of WPlinks (using my 'sandbox') and - following the instructions - saved it for review as a newly written article 'Plastics Hall of Fame' instead of incorporating the amendments into the old file 'Draft:Plastics Hall of Fame'. This is the reason why I would like to ask the OLDer file 'Draft:Plastics Hall of Fame' to be neglected by the reviewers, and only the NEW file 'Plastics Hall of Fame' be considered for the reviewing process and acceptance. (As an alternative, I can try to replace the OLD file 'Draft:PHofF with the NEW text version, in case reviewers are bound - for whatever reasons - to the file 'Draft:Plastics Hall of Fame'.) Anyway, I would appreciate the new and NOT the old version of my filed article be rewiewed - which, I think, is more than reasonable. Thanks in advance for your activity on my article's behalf, best wishes --Castelargus (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I just saw that the (old?) version of the article was declined again on grounds of being a mere duplicate of the 2012 file. If, however, the new(?) version was refused on the same grounds as before, than I would like to ask how many 'reliable sources' are needed for inclusion into WP for an article on an institution like Plastics Hall of Fame of international reputation in the world of plastics and chemical research and manufacturing. --Castelargus (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Castelargus: Your original draft has been restored at Draft:Plastics Hall of Fame. If you intend to improve it, please do so there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett. It's a bit of two conflicting notions here. The user could "improve" the draft by mass updating it to the already improved version on their sandbox. But this would be essentially a copy/paste and would lose page history. Then again, it looks like there's going to be a loss of history either way. The main difference is, contributors to the current draft have done so with the implicit consent that their edits may be deleted if the draft is abandoned. TimothyJosephWood 16:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Castelargus. There is no specific number or hard-fast rule regarding how many sources is enough to establish that a subject meets Wikipedia policy on notability. Overall, it's more of a value judgement made based on extended experience with what types of articles wind up getting deleted, and what types don't. Generally, older topics tend to need less sources, although those sources are often much higher quality, like full published books or material preserved in historical collections. Newer topics generally require more, but, with advent of online publishing, those sources are almost always much easier to find.

I would take a look maybe at Canadian Science and Engineering Hall of Fame and National Inventors Hall of Fame. They each take a bit of a different approach to the structure of an article, but both also fairly well meet the requirement of demonstrating that there has been significant coverage of the organization.

As to the issue of having two drafts, I'm going to go ahead and ping User:Vanjagenije as the administrator who restored the draft. It's possible to just move the sandbox as a different draft, and let the current one expire after six months, but if you're requesting deletion, I don't see an obvious reason why we can't apply a bit of WP:IAR to qualifying the article for deletion under WP:G13, since the draft is explicitly abandoned, even if it hasn't yet been left idle for the six months required. TimothyJosephWood 16:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

What is the exact issue here? If I understand, Castelargus requested Draft:Plastics Hall of Fame to be undeleted, but now wants it to be deleted again, so that he can work on User:Castelargus/sandbox? Am I right? Vanjagenije (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Vanjagenije Umm...yeah...pretty much. Seems like the user got their content back, and went to improving it on their sandbox instead of in draft space. It's understandable really. A lot of experienced editors likely also don't understand the importance of preserving the continuity of successive versions of an article. TimothyJosephWood 17:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I wp:history merged the draft into the sandbox to preserve the edit history. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey, HISMERGE. There we go. One of the many things I probably forget exists because I don't have access to it. Admin to the rescue. Thanks. TimothyJosephWood 17:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Resubmission

Hi Timothyjosephwood,

acoording to the note you left in my sandbox, I get the impression that you declined my new submission of Plastics-HofF, taking it by mistake for a mere duplicate of my old one. Although I had tried before to explain, why I put in a NEW submission (instead of the amended Draft-version, which I was unable to save at that time) you declined that version obviously without having had a look at it (or comparison with the older version). I cannot find it reasonable at all to decline an article on the false presumption that it is a duplicate of an older one (which it is NOT!)

I will put in a second revision of the article now, hoping for a better outcome, anyway.

Best, --Castelargus (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

More UT tower shooting help

Hi!

Happy New Year! I started merging the Charles Whitman and UT Tower shooting article, and I am not sure how to proceed. I ended up printing out both articles and making notes and edits by hand because that made it easier to do a side by side comparison. So now I have a bunch of handwritten notes and changes but I am not sure how to implement them. I noticed there has been a lot of disagreement (edit wars?) and since I am not an experienced editor I am concerned about stepping on people’s toes. Should I just make the edits directly on the articles? Would it be better to put my revised versions in the sand box and let other editors comment on them first? I’d really appreciate your thoughts.Longhornfan2018 (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Longhornfan2018. I'm...not seeing any recent edit warring on either article. And anyway, there's nothing wrong with being reverted. If someone does, then the next step is to discuss the issue on the relevant article talk. If there is a serious issue then you can post a merger discussion at WP:MERGEPROP, but per guidance at that same page, editors are encouraged to be bold and complete the merger in cases where the need seems obvious.

At the very least, everything on Whitman up to "the murders" is not anything you should need to worry about, as it's all more about him then about the shooting, and the same goes for the funeral, autopsy, etc. Besides that, the casualties and memorial should be pretty straight forward.

It may actually make things easier to attempt to first write what will replace this content on the Whitman article itself. In situations like this, usually there is a section on the related article that summarizes the content of the main, and those who are interested can click through to read the entire thing if they want. So it may help your mindset to sit down and try to summarize the article in five or six good paragraphs for the Whitman article, and then sort through what information that used to be in the article could be a good addition to the main. TimothyJosephWood 19:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I am working on the article today.Longhornfan2018 (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Yelp

Wondering if you had a quick minute to take a look at a suggested change from a COI editor (me) here regarding consolidating two sections on the same subject. CorporateM (Talk) 21:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Done TimothyJosephWood 23:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

CorporateM, for the record, I don't consider that a merger. I consider that a copy/paste, check a box, reduce the quality of the article and move on. TimothyJosephWood 23:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

CorporateM make sure you comply with WP:Copying within Wikipedia Attribution is required. Edit summary and I usually put it on both talk pages. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen, if I'm not mistaken, I don't believe CM was the one who made the merger, rather the request was to clean up a sloppy merger that...probably should have been a deletion or redirection instead, since it didn't really include much of anything in the way of non-duplicate content. TimothyJosephWood 14:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Google

Hi,

Please can you advise me on how I get the article I have created to come up on google? Thanks Sw2016 (talk) 09:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Sw2016. New pages on Wikipedia aren't indexed by search engines until they are reviewed by a volunteer from Wikipedia:New pages patrol. TimothyJosephWood 13:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:Timothyjosephwood|Timothyjosephwood]] Thanks for getting back to me, will there be any notification of this or will I just need to keep checking Google? Sw2016 (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Sw2016: Unless something has changed, you should get a notification just like you do when I ping you by including your name in this reply.

Kay Uwe Böhm

I believe you and @Andy Dingley: know about the user I referenced above but wanted to let you know he has reappeared in the last month (specifically today) and I've been working on getting some stuff together to take to ANI. I'm still pulling recent IP edits from December - now, but figured I'd give you a heads up since you've been active in dealing with this character too. Here's my draft so far. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Chrissymad...I'm...afraid I'm not precisely following, even after looking at your draft. TimothyJosephWood 19:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Timothyjosephwood/Archive_2#Reversions_on_Control_rod Sorry if I was mistaken! Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah. Gotcha. I think that was just luck-of-the-draw recent changes patrolling. But if this is their MO, then an edit filter may be something to consider. TimothyJosephWood 19:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Shark attack prevention

Hi Timothy, can you please re-review the Draft:Shark attack prevention article. I believe the problem has now been fixed. Please let me know if their are any more issues, thanks Ilenart626 (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Done TimothyJosephWood 13:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 15 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Wikipedia:Teahouse page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Betsy DeVos

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Betsy DeVos. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Betsy DeVos

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Betsy DeVos. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey

as for breaking one ref: oops.

As for what I was doing in general: please read. DS (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

DS, I tend to agree with the others there that such edits are a waste of time, and in this case, were a waste of quite a bit of my time as well, since I picked up the page from WP:BACKLOG and managed to click through twenty or thirty diffs looking for the original ref before I bothered to check if the ref was broken in the very last edit.

Overall, beware of solutions looking for problems. I wouldn't bother changing ref names unless there actually are conflict with multiple ref lists etc in the article already. If you want to mass change ref names anyway, it's probably a good idea to check afterwards and make sure they all work, because there are bound to be typos or other oversights, as there were in this case. TimothyJosephWood 21:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I usually do; not sure how that one got by me. DS (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Thomas Mair (murderer)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Thomas Mair (murderer). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sarah Jane Brown

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sarah Jane Brown. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

14:02:25, 22 January 2017 review of submission by KevinJardine

KevinJardine (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Adam Cooley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Timothy, Thank you for reviewing my submission. I was glad to become more familiar with the high standards of regulation that Wikipedia is founded on. I must apologize for the mistakes I made in my previous attempt to publish the article. I am sure that my subject has sufficient notability and I hope that this re-edited version in which I have provided verifiable and precise citations will satisfy Wikipedia’s submission guidelines. With regards to the images I assure that none of them were uploaded in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, again in my haste I made mistakes which led to this misunderstanding. In my first attempt to upload the images I contacted the Artist who is the subject of my submission and asked if I could upload them myself. He agreed but as there seemed to be problems in getting the images up I asked the Artist himself to do it. Again he agreed and uploaded his own images some of them the same that I had already uploaded. This led to the confusion of having some of the same images uploaded under slightly different names. Would you please review my newest submission and inform me how the artist may properly upload his image data. Sincerely, Kevin KevinJardine (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Kevin. The placement of inline citations has definitely improved, but there is still the issue of demonstrating that the subject meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. This usually means demonstrating that the subject has received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Currently the draft includes only three unique sources. One of those is written by the subject himself, and since that means it's not independent, doesn't count toward notability.

So what needs to be demonstrated now, is that more than one or two people thought the individual was important enough to write about. This would include, for example, reviews of exhibitions and the like, as well as bios and in-depth interviews. Hopefully this helps. If you have any additional questions feel free to ask. TimothyJosephWood 13:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Gauri pathare

Hi I have added references at the bottom of the page I have created Gauri pathare. Is that not sufficient? Please advise what else needs to be added although I have read the referencing section. Many thanks Bromy1Bromy1 (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Bromy1, yes, that is sufficient to remove the PROD tag, although it may not be sufficient to demonstrate that the subject meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, and ensure that the article will not be the subject of a separate deletion discussion. TimothyJosephWood 17:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thousand-yard stare

I only noticed your edit after I finished mine. If you want to put the files above the "about" go for it. I've always understood the (hat is called?) goes on top. Slight Smile 22:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Slightsmile, I don't know of any "standard" for it, and my understanding is that it doesn't make much difference on mobile, but on PC it just looks wonky and wastes space. TimothyJosephWood 00:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I was able to find the page refering to hat notes and it confirms that they do belong at the very top. I use a 23 inch flat screen and it looks fine. No wonkiness or white space, not from that anyways. I wouldn't hesitate to challenge the rules (much) if I saw something like that. Slight Smile 01:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I alternate between about four different machines. On a widescreen it makes no discernible difference, but on a narrow one it does. I don't know if text only browsers or screen readers are still a thing (at least the former I'm pretty sure isn't), but if so, feel free to adjust. TimothyJosephWood 01:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

01:15:11, 25 January 2017 review of submission by UND08844

UND08844 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Granger Cobb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would ask for reconsideration. When I read the notability guidelines, I think this passes the test. While I agree that someone outside the industry may not know Granger Cobb, everyone in it does as well as people with an aging parents. I believe the purpose of the encyclopedia is to look up things you hear about but do not know about, is it not? For example, I heard about Olivier de Weck through an MIT grad. I don't think you or I know about him, nor do many outside his industry. Yet he is listed in Wikipedia, I looked him up, and now I know something about him. I would have been annoyed if Wikipedia did not have the article on Dr. de Weck. The examples of this are many. So I am asking that the same consideration be given for this article submission. Thank you. 01:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Accepted TimothyJosephWood 14:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

05:02:52, 25 January 2017 review of submission by EMAgain

EMAgain (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Skip Burkle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, Timothy -- can you please show what specific sections of Frederick Burkle's draft are still unsourced? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Skip_Burkle Thanks.

Hey EMAgain, almost the entire personal life section is unreferenced, the Academic Career sections is completely unreferenced, and several of the awards listed are not accompanied by a source.

If sources need to be repeated, this can easily be done by using ref names. So instead of typing:

<ref>Wood, T (2017) How to use ref names. Retrieved 25 January 2017</ref>

You would give the reference a name by typing:

<ref name="wood">Wood, T (2017) How to use ref names. Retrieved 25 January 2017</ref>

So that next time you need to use the reference, you simply include:

<ref name="wood"/>

and that's it. It will duplicate the reference without needing to type the whole thing over again, and link all inline citations to the same reference at the bottom of the page. Just make sure you include the "/" in the repeated references, (<ref name="wood"/>), or you will get an error. TimothyJosephWood 15:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, if you type this:

This is the first sentence.<ref>Wood, T (2017) How to use ref names. Retrieved 25 January 2017</ref>. This is the second sentence.<ref name="wood"/> Finally, this is the third sentence citing the same source.<ref name="wood"/>

What you will get is this:

This is the first sentence.^[1] This is the second sentence.^[1] Finally, this is the third sentence citing the same source.^[1]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c Wood, T (2017) How to use ref names. Retrieved 25 January 2017

Hope this helps. TimothyJosephWood 15:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Josh Zepnick page

The IP editor removed a reference which I see was kept in place by admin, thank you. I'm on chat with Wikipedia for help relating an eyewitness account, but got an update from NeilM, thank you, I understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joplinplayer (talk • contribs) 16:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful info and nonjudgemental tone. Trying to wade through all of these technical things as appropriate.Joplinplayer (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Joplinplayer, no worries. Most editors are willing to help in any way the can. You may want to check out The Teahouse, where lots of experienced editors are around to answer any questions you may have. TimothyJosephWood 17:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

15:02:02, 26 January 2017 review of submission by Rajesh9009

Rajesh9009 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Chakri Chigurupati (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey Rajesh9009 - Did you have a specific question? TimothyJosephWood 15:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Murraymundi deletion

Hello there Tim, I'm confused as to why you would delete a genuine proposed addition of information... namely the use of the nick name MUrraymundi to the local species of Carp?

Nothing proposed is untrue or deceiving... it's an honest account of the use of the nick name.

Why are you deleting? I don't understand the process, reason or lack of discussion about it.

I am very new to Wikipedia and thought it would be a good way to get active.

Cheers Jamie JamieBishop (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey JamieBishop. The first thing a subject needs to have in order to qualify under Wikipedia's standards for notability is sustained coverage in sources that themselves meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability. Second, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and in most cases, if the subject is itself a word or phrase, with little background other than its common usage, it may be better suited to Wiktionary than to Wikipedia.

Overall, writing a new article is one of the harder things to do on Wikipedia, so don't let it discourage you. Usually it's helpful to hang around for a while and edit on existing articles to get an idea of how Wikipedia's policies and guidelines work, and then try making your first article after you have a good feel for it. It can also be helpful to submit your first article through Articles for Creation, where a volunteer can review your draft prior to publishing, and hopefully offer helpful advice. TimothyJosephWood 13:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Melania Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Melania Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Your comment at AN/I

I noticed this. I tend to avoid AN/I discussions as far as possible because of its nature as a timesink and dramafest. Snarky comments like the one diffed above contribute to this. User:Bozzio has made a number of factual errors in his report against me. Under our current norms removing BLP violations is not considered as edit-warring. If you wish to challenge this, the talk page of the edit-warring policy would be the place. If you wish to contend that this was not a BLP violation, the article talk page would be an excellent venue for this. If you wish to do the grunt work of finding better citations to improve the article, I am sure everybody involved would be delighted. If you find that you lack the appetite for this, I request that you refrain from commenting in a non-germane manner. I have not edit-warred (by our current standards) and nor have I threatened admin action against Bozzio. By my lights I have therefore done nothing I would not do again. Removing weakly-sourced material from a BLP, trying to find better ones, discussing in talk; this is what I do here, and I intend to continue doing it. Thanks for your consideration. --John (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I have therefore done nothing I would not do again Yes, I realize this. I believe I still have diffs on my sandbox from the last time. I've been openly critical of your behavior before, and I make no secrets about that. From what I can tell, you fairly regularly skirt the boundaries of edit warring in a variety of ways, which is probably why you turn up at ANI or ANEW every few months. I think you set a bad example overall in disputes with others, and I see no indication that you take that seriously in the least bit, or have any inclination toward addressing that. But again, I pretty sure none of that is a secret. TimothyJosephWood 14:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Whoosh. Oh well, it's on record here that I made a good-faith and respectful attempt to communicate with you here, and that your response is that you are carrying out a vendetta against me. Fair enough. See you around. --John (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not a vendetta to point out that this is a pattern of behavior for you crossing topic areas and editors, and to observe the full protections that often follow in your wake. I don't have a problem with you; I have a problem with your behavior. That you seem to understand that only in terms of a vendetta is probably a large part of the problem. TimothyJosephWood 14:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Swami Nithyananda

In light of recent revelations of self-promoting from one side and obvious false allegations from the other (see my recent comment in Swami Nithyananda talk page. I don't think this article should even be on Wikipedia. It's a mess up of both sides, one grabbing tabloid articles and biased news reports of allegation which have all be proven false in US courts... the other side grabbing links from their own pages and self-promoting. There's no neutral content here. What a mess it is. I might be wrong. I am thinking some people from admin board must look into this. What do you think? Insight2010 (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Insight2010, unfortunately "the article is a mess" is not a valid argument for deletion. The subject of the article does indeed appear to well meet standard for notability, so the only way forward is probably to improve the article, and potentially protect it if there is long term POV pushing. TimothyJosephWood 21:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your insight!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insight2010 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:James O'Keefe

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James O'Keefe. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Fred Korematsu during interview with 60 Minutes.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Fred Korematsu during interview with 60 Minutes.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Done TimothyJosephWood 15:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Fred Korematsu 2010.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Fred Korematsu 2010.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Done TimothyJosephWood 15:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Fred Korematsu 2010.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Fred Korematsu 2010.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [1], and it was either uploaded on or after 19 May 2005, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
add the relevant copyright tag.

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 removed 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. Majora (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a note on this in addition to the auto-notice. The licensing tag on Flickr is CC BY-NC 2.0 not CC BY 2.0. The extra NC is a non-commercial use only restriction which, unfortunately, makes the image unacceptable for upload. Sorry about that. --Majora (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Majora, didn't realize non-com was a deal breaker. On that grounds, there's is another image on the article of the 60 minutes interview that should also be deleted. No need to notify. Do you think that there is a fair use rationale available since the only alternative image for the infobox is an exceedingly low quality scan of a paper clipping? TimothyJosephWood 00:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem. A lot of people don't realize that restriction. Are you talking about File:Fred Korematsu during interview with 60 Minutes.jpg? That one is fine. It is CC BY 2.0. As for fair use, since we have an image of the person, regardless of quality, any fair use photo would fail WP:NFCCP #1. Fair use is a last resort kind of thing and since the other image of the interview seems to be fine there is nothing we can do I'm afraid. --Majora (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Majora: Just making sure before I make a mess again, but CC 2.0 Attribute is fine? Is that just for WP or is it a go for Commons too? (I swear this is my weakest area as an editor.) TimothyJosephWood 14:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep. CC 2.0 Attribute is fine for both here and Commons. If you think the image might be useful on other projects please upload those to Commons. What you don't want is anything that says NC (non-commercial) or ND (non-derivative). Those wouldn't be free enough. There is a nice chart over at Commons that shows you which Flickr images are good for upload and which aren't. --Majora (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Breitbart News

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Breitbart News. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Movement of my Sandbox to Draft:Hybrid Club

I noticed you moved my Sandbox content to Draft:Hybrid. Why was this done? I no longer seem to be able to resubmit changes. Your rationale for rejecting my article didn't make sense. How is my submission any different than for the following similarly written Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2/1_game_forcing?Papatoad (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Papatoad. Draft "space" is generally the correct place for AfC submissions. This is a technical detail and you should be able to edit normally, although you need to edit it in the "place" it's been moved to. The problem with the article you are basing you draft off of, is that it likely fails the criteria that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Accordingly, I have nominated that article for deletion. There are many many niche sites that explain card games, video games, all kinds of games in intricate detail. But Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a how to guide. Compare the article for Poker, which examines the game as an encyclopedia should, without going into intricate detail in the sense that a poker guide book would. TimothyJosephWood 22:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Your conclusion that my submission is a "How to Guide" about how to play a game is incorrect. It is about one of many bidding system systems used in the game of bridge. This is clarified in the opening sentence. As such, the article defines key elements of the Hybrid Club bidding system to set them apart from elements of other bidding systems. I am a bridge teacher and this article in no way teaches someone how to play the game of bridge. If you could tell me how my article differs from the Wiki page I referred to (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2/1_game_forcing), it might help me to know what corrective steps I need to take.Papatoad (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

If you disagree with my opinion, you may resubmit your draft, and it may be reviewed by another volunteer. TimothyJosephWood 00:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I have to go to my sandbox to find a link to my draft article. Shouldn't I be able to get my draft in a more direct manner. My sandbox has the following statement: "19:04, 31 January 2017 Timothyjosephwood (talk | contribs) moved page User:Papatoad/sandbox to Draft:Hybrid Club without leaving a redirect (Move AfC submission to draft space without leaving XNR) (revert)". What does it mean to move a page without leaving a redirect? Did you omit to do something?Papatoad (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Baltimore railroad strike of 1877

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Baltimore railroad strike of 1877 has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the good work! I only made one minor change, putting the digression into estimates of the strength of the 5th back into a footnote, since it jumps around chronologically and discusses estimates taking place at several different points in the story. TimothyJosephWood 14:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome - happy to help. Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:James O'Keefe

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James O'Keefe. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Euphoria

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Euphoria. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Murder of Seth Rich

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Murder of Seth Rich. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for suggestions and please give me your opinion, I will appreciate a lot

Dear Timothyjosephwood, I seriously appreciated your comments and suggestions on the discussion that regards my case - I found this statement "Subject-matter experts are well-equipped to help articles achieve a truly neutral point of view by identifying gaps in articles where important ideas are not discussed" here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Expert_editors - and I think it really applies to a big gap in the "Empathy" voice, specifically the "intercultural empathy" approach that was lacking completelty, and on which I am studying since 1988. I wrote several books about that, and I thought it would be good to make a contribution, in a fair and balanced way. In this contribution I brought 4 references on the topics, one refers to a model that has been published in a book in 2004 - and this concept is cited in several books and articles. I had it deleted as you can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Empathy&diff=762231586&oldid=761391400 - so that now Wikipedia users and readers will not have any clue about what "intercultural empathy" is, and will not even know that it exists. I found with Google Scholar that this approach has already been subject of interest in about 60 books and papers all over the world, verifiable here https://scholar.google.it/scholar?oi=bibs&hl=it&cites=17930119968961948430,14178877031202502370&as_sdt=5 What is your sincere opinion about this delete, what is it morally good to to in this specific case, what would wikipedia founders do if they were aware of this case?--Culturalresearch (talk) 12:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Just in case you actually come back and see this, as I said at the Teahouse, if you want to contribute at some point in the future in your subject area, you should take great care to avoid the appearance that you are using Wikipedia as a means of promotion. Abusing multiple accounts to spam references to your own work is basically the precise opposite of that.

It may have occurred to you that you are the first person in the English speaking world to have the idea of spamming your own work on Wikipedia in the hope that someone, at some point, will check out the references, and pick up a copy of your book. Rest assured, you are not. In fact, it's such a common thing that we have whole groups of websites universally blacklisted from the entire encyclopedia for exactly that reason.

If at some point you decide to come back, and do so for the actual purpose of improving the project, I'm sure you can ask for the Wikipedia:Standard offer, in six months. TimothyJosephWood 13:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello GreenMeansGo,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 803 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Far-left politics in the United Kingdom

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Far-left politics in the United Kingdom. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2000

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2000. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You're a qualified social worker - can your skills help the Futurist situation?

How does one solve issues like Futurist110 has? If you read my initial post on the RD talk page, the guy has a dread of the remotest possibility (and I do mean the remotest possibility) of fathering a child he needs to support. And he himself admits as much. You're a qualified social worker - can you put your skills to use in dissuading him from expecting that we wikipedians can do the slightest thing about this major issue of his (answering his questions will not help the underlying issue here, we're not dealing with a rational individual) - and somehow convince him to do what at least one editor does pretty much every time he asks such a question - as in, get professional help? Does your social work training aid in such situations? I just want this problem solved.

Note that he has a long history of "fatherhood fears" questions, most of which are completely non-trollish, yet pointless for us to answer, even if, factually, we can. E.g. his question on "sterilization failure insurance" or some form of pre-sex "child-support waiver agreement" with the woman he wants to have sex with, was by no means trolling (the former could be pointlessly answered without giving legal or medical advice, though the latter, all we could say was "see a lawyer"), but again, reflects his deep-seated issues, which we cannot solve, even if we answer hundreds of such questions of his. Lately, he has started to go off the deep end, as you yourself saw. Which is what prompted me to raise the issue on the RD talk page. See also his question on self-harming in front of his child. Again, what did they teach you in your social work studies, and can it help in any way here? Eliyohub (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

In the case that the user does in fact have a serious mental health issue, and in fact isn't a clever but exceptionally bored troll, probably the best thing that Wikipedia can do for him is to decidedly not act like a surrogate and poor substitute for the actual medical/psychological/legal help that the person would need, and need in the real world. To that end, probably the best thing someone like you or I could do is to collapse such discussions, and insist that the user comply with our terms of use, in seeking professional help from professionals, and not Wikipedia editors. Since the community seems insistent on doing nothing else, that's probably the extent of what can be done. TimothyJosephWood 14:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I concur. I think policy needs to include the mentally ill asking these sorts of questions, which we cannot solve, as prohibited along the same reasoning as the "no medical advice" rules. I have said again and again that we cannot help him, he needs to go elsewhere and see a professional. Just curious, what makes you think he's a troll, as opposed to a user with some sort of pathological fixation of a mental health type issue? As I noted, the rest of his work on Wikipedia seems mostly productive, he does a lot of the sourcing for the main page DYK section, so I'm cautious about calling "troll" here, particularly as his past questions on this topic have not been openly trollish, (though still pathologically obsessive about this fear of his, and equally pointless to answer). So what makes you tilt towards "troll" as opposed to "mentally unwell"? Just curious, I know it's of no practical relevance. (And I fully agree that we should NOT try to be any sort of substitute for a proper, real life, mental health professional, and should hat any such questions. The most I was hoping from you, and probably not possible, was to drive some insight into the guy to acknowledge his issues, and GET proper help). Eliyohub (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

He may not be a troll. He may be both a troll and mentally ill. There may be no way to tell definitively. TimothyJosephWood 16:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Fringe

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:British Empire

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:British Empire. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

SHOWstudio

Hi, I'm not trying to advertise the SHOWstudio shop, I'm trying to show the multifaceted history that has contributed to its current content, which includes MACHINE-A, but without detracting from the original project that launched the shop as well as the fashion illustrations they continue to promote. I'll cut down on the wording if you think it sounds like advertising, and I'm sorry you feel that way. Mustardcreams (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Mustardcreams, first, you are fairly obviously someone who is either in the employ of the company, or is otherwise closely related to it. Likewise, your intentions are fairly obviously to promote the company and it's founder. You are strongly encouraged to review our policy on conflicts of interest, disclose any close ties you have to the subjects, and stop editing all together on topic with which you have a COI. Failure to follow this policy may result in loss of editing privileges. Further promotional material added to Wikipedia will be removed. TimothyJosephWood 14:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm just trying to get the facts on Wikipedia because before the page was a complete mess. Is there anything about the wording you find particularly promotional or is it the overall tone of the post in general? Mustardcreams (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm interested in SHOWstudio and it's something that I've done research on and these are all incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustardcreams (talk • contribs) 14:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The entire tone of your edits is promotional. Additionally, I've been around here for almost ten years, and you are not the first person to get on Wikipedia and try to promote their company, claiming they're "just trying to set the record straight" by heaping unrepentant praise on a subject they just happen to have an interest in. TimothyJosephWood 14:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, super. I'll change the whole tone of every single edit. Thanks for the pro tip!! :) :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustardcreams (talk • contribs) 14:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

amenments which I believe you made to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helensburgh

Hello Timothyjosephwood

I am very much on a steep learning curve as far as Wikipedia is concerned, so please forgive me if I make mistakes in what follows.

Earlier today I posted a request for help on the Wikipedia help page regarding a modification which I had made unsuccessfully to the template on the page on Helensburgh (my home town for nearly 60 years) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helensburgh. If I understand the system correctly, you are the person who made the last amendment, although Lotje may also have been involved (and I am uncertain as to whether I should be copying this to her).

I had spent a considerable portion of this afternoon inserting photographs into the article and, although I previewed them as I went along, I failed to save them after each preview. I am therefore suspicious that the amendment which you made in answer to my request to the helpdesk resulted in the deletion of all the photographs which I had tried inserting – am I correct?

If I am correct, it would appear to me that I should have been saving all the changes that I made during the afternoon much more frequently than I actually did. If I am not correct, I should be grateful if you could tell me if I have breached some part of Wikipedia etiquette, perhaps by trying to insert too many photographs into an article. I don't want to try putting the photos back in again only to find that they might be deleted again by someone else. I had not appreciated that more than one person can edit the same page at the same time.

I see that you have made some comments regarding my changes. I removed the original static image and replaced it with a new one because the original one was out of date – this was the result of considerable changes which have been made to the town centre in the last couple of years.

Towards the end of the article there is a section entitled "Other Prominent Residents". I was not responsible for drawing up this list and, to be frank, it includes many people of whom I have never heard – and I should say that I am a former chairman of Helensburgh Community Council and a former chairman of Helensburgh Heritage Trust, and currently still treasurer of both. My preference would be to prune this list considerably, but I do not wish to offend whoever drew up this list in the first place.

Any help that you can give me on all these matters will be very much appreciated. Thank you!Stewartnbl (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Stewartnbl. You're right that Wikipedia is an exceedingly steep learning curve sometimes, and after a long time editing, I still run into this when I find an unfamiliar problem.

If I understand you correctly, it seems like what happened is that you made a lot of edits without saving, and since I made another edit before you saved, you basically lost your work. Unfortunately, this is more of a software problem than an etiquette one. It's called an edit conflict, and there are two main ways I would recommend to avoid it:

Edit individual sections instead of whole articles. Two users can edit different sections of the same article at the same time without conflicting, but if you are editing the whole article, if any user edits any section during that time, you won't be able to save.
Minimize the time between clicking "edit" and clicking "save". Sometimes this can be done best by making small incremental edits, instead of large sweeping ones. If you do need to make a large edit, like inserting a complicated table, or something else that might require a bit of trial and error, it may be best to start it in your sandbox (click that red link to start your sandbox page), and then copy it into the article when you are done.

Sorry if I caused a mix up. If there's any way I can be of help feel free to let me know. TimothyJosephWood 20:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Armenia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Armenia. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Give me reason

I just asked you to provide valid reason for proposing my article to get deleted. But you are threatening me. This is not the right way . If you want to threaten me saying that i have included comments against you, you may move forward . Before that tell me the reason for proposing my article to get deleted. I have given many references. Don't speak as you think. Not all my articles were referred for deletion. So mind your words . Without having proper reason you may ask to delete my article. If I ask against that you are threatening me saying that i may attain harassment. Edson Frainlar (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not threatening you; I am warning you. And if you look at your talk page, the notices provided to you for each article nominated for deletion, all include links to the relevant policies under which they are being proposed. TimothyJosephWood 13:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Article "Abdoulahi measure"

An article was published on the subject in TELKOMNIKA Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering Vol. 12, No. 8, August 2014, pp. 6361 ~ 6368 , so we have sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitsidibe (talk • contribs) 04:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Bitsidibe. In order for a subject to qualify under Wikipedia's standards for notability it need to have received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Publications by the originators of a thing don't count as independent for the purposes of Wikipedia, and so don't count toward notability. If others have not yet also published about it, then it may be too soon fo its own article. TimothyJosephWood 12:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Please delete my page

Thanks for your input. Please delete my submission when / if you are able. Msmullen (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Msmullen. Unlike a lot of drafts at Articles for Creation, this one is almost certainly worthy of an article. The real problem is that it relies too much on primary sources, like the original legislation, and not enough on secondary sources that interpret the meaning and impact of the law. If you decide to change your mind and work on it some more, I and other editors are always happy to help. If you do not, normally the draft will be deleted after six months as abandoned. TimothyJosephWood 19:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Article "Abdoulahi measure" IMPROVED

I hope you are happy with the article "Abdoulahi measure" now. There is a big improvement there. Have a look my friend and tell us what you think now. If you are still not satisfied let us improve it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.32.120.152 (talk) 06:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and comments my friend. We are working to make the article better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitsidibe (talk • contribs) 06:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Here are two publications from Google sponsored authors using the Abdoulahi measure. You can check it here: https://www.google.com/patents/US9424299 https://www.google.com/patents/US9424298 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitsidibe (talk • contribs) 07:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Bitsidibe. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you don't need to convince me, you should be posting at the deletion discussion. I only nominated it for deletion, but it is the community that decides whether it should be deleted or not. TimothyJosephWood 12:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Lancelot Cooper Draft

Hi Thanks for your reply to my query on the Tea House page. I will look at my article again given your comments and revise were necessary Alantaylor17 (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Alantaylor17. No problem at all. The other main thing I can see that you might get dinged on is over reliance on primary sources, and this may be why you are having a rough time keeping "your voice" as a writer out of the equation. It's probably a good idea to dig deep and see if you can find more secondary sources. Wikipedia is not really supposed to be people writing about things, but rather "people writing about people writing about things" as it were. This helps to keep the project neutral, and to demonstrate that a topic is important out in the world, and not just important to an editor on Wikipedia. TimothyJosephWood 15:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I take your point about use of secondary sources but in this case there are none as far as I can discover - this I believe is the first article ever about this forger Alantaylor17 (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm...if there really is no coverage in secondary sources at all, then it may in fact not be suitable for Wikipedia, but rather, suitable for an original publication on the subject. Per guidance at WP:PRIMARY, articles should not be based entirely on primary sources, but require at least some secondary coverage to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. TimothyJosephWood 17:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

"I vandalize even even my own talk page"

Hi Timothyjosephwood, I would just like to point out (not harshly by any means) that there is a typo in your section "All the reasons why I am terrible". On the second to last bullet, the word even is duplicated twice. Whether you choose to change the text or not is up to you, I just thought I would point it out to you. Have a nice day.

Checks Facts _{will happily talk} 17:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hah. Good catch. TimothyJosephWood 18:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Lancelot Cooper Draft

So if I am interpreting your comments about Wikipedia's guidelines correctly my draft should not be an article because it lacks 'notablility'. If this term refers to 'being worthy of being known' then I think the article is worthy of being known. Here we have a noted English conman/forger who not only duped many people into handing over money and also daughters ( there is evidence of more than one) but also managed for a considerable time to pass himself off as his Britannic Majesty's Consul in Venice and even exerted some kind of influence in the Court of George III in getting a letter written for him by Queen Caroline. Also there is much that could be still explored in his extraordinary detailed account of who he met, corresponded with etc when at Venice ( although I have discounted this in the article) I only got interested when I acquired a letter from John Powell in London chasing Cooper (or Cole) recounting this lack of success which led him putting the notice in the Times. What followed was six months of research using copies of many pages in the National Archives plus the other online resources. It has surprised me that nobody else had previously done this. In the Times article of 1827 he is even compared to Henry Fauntleroy, a forger (see Wikipedia). In terms of getting this published elsewhere I am not a historian - in fact I have no qualifications in history at all - just a good academic education. Consequently I would find it difficult to get this published elsewhere so I thought Wikipedia would be a good start! Do forgive me for rambling on ( getting old!!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alantaylor17 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Well Alantaylor17, we may be talking across purposes a bit. For Wikipedia, and specifically for history articles (things like medicine topics are bit different), coverage in a periodical like The Times would count as a secondary source. This is, for example, as opposed to things like death or birth records which would definitely be primary. TimothyJosephWood 15:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Collective punishment

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Collective punishment. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Chih Ping Wang

Hello, Timothyjosephwood. This is the first time I post an article on Wikipedia and I have very limited experience on it. I wonder if you can help me to edit the page in the proper way. I personally believe Mr. Chih Ping Wang is a very important person in region history in China. He is the first Chinese bishop in China Of The Methodist Episcopal Church. Very much appreciate your help in advance. YueerYLM — Preceding unsigned comment added by YueerYLM (talk • contribs) 15:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey YueerYLM. In order to demonstrate that the subject meets Wikipedia's standards for notability, article should include coverage of the subject in reliable sources. These don't necessarily have to be in English, but if there are no sources available which document the person and their accomplishments, they they are probably not appropriate for their own article.

For further information on referencing for Wikipedia, you may want to check out the tutorial at Help:Referencing for beginners. TimothyJosephWood 15:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Lancelot Cooper Draft

Concerning Times articles being classed as a secondary source does this mean Timothyjosephwood that my article is now more likely to be accepted? Alantaylor17 (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, it means that it is not categorically disqualified, which it would be if there were literally zero secondary coverage available. TimothyJosephWood 16:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NOTGALLERY

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You entirely mistaken if you think that this policy supports your drive-by zapping of image galleries in articles. It isn't even about them. The relevant policy is WP:IG, which I suggest you read, rather more carefully than seems to be your normal habit. You will find that gives little support for your type of edits either. That there is a commons category on the same subject (as should normally be the case) is in NO WAY an excuse for just zapping a gallery. Some galleries are too large and/or indiscriminate, but wholesale removal is rarely justified - it wasn't in any of the examples you edited that I've seen. One I trimmed, & many images could do with better captions. Many years ago some editors took your view of galleries, but opinion has very clearly moved the other way, and I don't think it is a live controversy now. Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The gallery on Giovanni Bellini:

if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images.

✗ Fail The article itself already contains 15 images, and no message is conveyed in this gallery other than "we couldn't fit these into the article anywhere else."

The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject.

✗ Fail The images provided add nothing to the encyclopedic understanding of the reader other than simply adding more images, of similar subject matter and style of which there is already provided ample representations as well as detailed explanation.

Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery

✗ Fail No indication of what these images are, why they are of any particular importance, or why they were selected other than apparent WP:OR and personal taste.

Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made.

✗ Fail, ✗ Fail, ✗ Fail

Should I keep going or is this the point where it has become apparent enough that I am implying you should read a policy before accusing someone else of not reading it?

One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons.

TimothyJosephWood 18:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear, oh dear! Really?? Almost every statement about the use of images here is either nonsense or highly questionable. Art clearly isn't your subject at all. Perhaps you should look at some art FAs & see if they meet your idiosyncratic interpretation of policy? You might also ask yourself whether the best way of reacting to a part of an article that seems (in your opinion) to fall short of perfectly meeting guidelines is just to cut it out. Meanwhile you should expect any similar edits to be reverted by me or other editors, if anyone catches you at it. These edits do not improve Wikipedia. By the way, you apparently didn't notice that the captions at Bellini use the (stupid imo) hover-over style. Johnbod (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I will continue to make such edits, but will rest assured that there are heroes like yourself out there willing to search though the history of nefarious actors and mass revert to ensure that Wikipedia will not be deprived of several pictures of houseboats.

You are however, more than welcome to come back if at any point you actually have a policy based argument to be made. TimothyJosephWood 18:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I've given you the policy, but you don't want to hear it! Your interpretation of admittedly somewhat subjective concepts such as (from above) "encyclopedic understanding of the reader", "similar subject matter and style", "ample representations", "detailed explanation" (in the article), etc, seems so unusual that it would obviously take a long time to explain the argument, and you don't seem in a listening mood anyway. I hope you'll excuse me if I use rollback in such reversions in future (I don't use AWB). Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you have given me the policy. But have you read it? Here, let me help. I'll make it bigger so it will be easier to see.

One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons.

TimothyJosephWood 18:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear! This is talking about "articles" that are only galleries, which indeed used to be a problem back in the day; now that species is extinct. Perhaps it should be clearer, but the wording cannot be twisted to refer to gallery sections in respectable articles. If it could, it would obviously contradict most of the rest of the section. Johnbod (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

No...its not...thus the "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]". If you're not going to take the time to read part of a policy you condescendingly link someone else to, even when it is quoted to you twice, then there may be some deeper competency problems going on here. TimothyJosephWood 20:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

There certainly are! Though the policy wording seems muddled, it cannot support your edits. Even if your interpretaition were correct "the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons." You have done neither. There is a gallery clean-up template. I suggest you use that instead. Johnbod (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The policy is clear enough; it just doesn't say what you wish it to say, or would like to berate others for not misinterpreting along with you.

If the gallery does not meet these standards I will remove it. Before I do so, I will generally check that the images are already added to the commons category, if they are not, I will generally add them. That's what "moving to commons" means.

So unless you have something other than WP:IDHT to add to the conversation, I believe we are done here, that is, unless you have long term plans for following and reverting my edits, in which case I will link you do WP:WIKIHOUNDING, and encourage you to read it carefully, because it will undoubtedly come up, if and when it become necessary to seek sanctions.

If you have a problem with the policy, I'm sure someone at the relevant talk page will be happy to clarify or discuss amending it so that it may say what you would like it to say. TimothyJosephWood 20:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

What, this bit? "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam." Johnbod (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

You have had the policy explained to you. If you do not understand it, or cannot read for yourself, that is not my problem. I'm sure you can ask at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy and someone will explain it to you.

This conversation is over. Go find someone else to bother. Stalking will be reported to the appropriate noticeboards. You may consider this a warning. TimothyJosephWood 20:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hey!

Knock it off at ANI! Stop being so annoyingly reasonable. I want ten pages of debate.

Sorry, I've had a slow day at work. Just kidding. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I swear, we really need to incorporate "go to the gym and run a few miles" into our dispute resolution process. It really helps. TimothyJosephWood 00:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I think a random pie to the face would be just as helpful. Like a word counter that picks a random number between 500 and 5000, then ticks one off for each word every editor posts in any edit containing a signature. Then when it hits zero: Splat! straight out of the monitor comes a nice, gooey cream pie. Just to remind us all of the inherent dignity level of arguing on the internet. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Chih Ping Wang

Hey, Timothyjosephwood. Thank you for your information! I have already re-edited the article. I hope it is acceptable now. YueerYLM — Preceding unsigned comment added by YueerYLM (talk • contribs) 09:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey YueerYLM. It's definitely an improvement, but I would still caution you that articles which rely on a single or very few sources are still liable to be nominated for deletion, since Wikipedia standards for notability require that individuals have received coverage in multiple reliable sources. Since, you are familiar with the subject, and from the looks if things, likely speak the language, it would be a good idea to find additional sources and include them in the article. TimothyJosephWood 16:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template:Did you know nominations/Executive Order 13767

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template:Did you know nominations/Executive Order 13767. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

After today...

I think I'm going to nominate you as my official spokesman. You've managed to say exactly what I would have said if I got there first twice (I seem to remember it being three times, but I can only see twice). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks...but I...think I started losing faith in conversation a while ago. It's easy enough when you are unfamiliar to imagine obvious improvements to policy that aren't improvements at all. But, to spend half the day arguing with an administrator and trying to explain why we cannot create a special class of "unreliable sources we should none-the-less rely on" ... is ... bad for morale probably. TimothyJosephWood 20:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

User:MjolnirPants ...honestly. There is no objective definition of fake news. I want so badly to drop the stick. I really do. TimothyJosephWood 21:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Fear not, my friend, and do as I do. Just follow these easy steps:

Admit to yourself that you enjoy arguing.
Admit to yourself that this argument is not going to go anywhere.
Accept that the other side isn't going to allow this argument to be closed.
Accept that at some point, the tempers of those who believe they are doing something very important with this discussion will get frayed.
Resist the urge to respond to the ensuing personal attacks in kind.
Be prepared to provide diffs of said personal attacks at ANI.
Try to avoid gravedancing when the blocks are handed out.
Find another argument to amuse you.

At some point, you may want to make a few useful edits to the encyclopedia. Just to remember why you're here, instead of in the YouTube comments section. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't really enjoy arguing that much. I enjoy mediating, and start to lose joy fairly rapidly as I become a belligerent. TimothyJosephWood 23:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Well then, here:

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. has given you a Cheeseburger! Cheeseburgers promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Cheeseburger, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!

Spread the goodness of Cheeseburgers by adding {{subst:Cheeseburger}} to their talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cheeseburger on the giver's talk page with {{subst:burger-munch}}!

Chih Ping Wang

Hey Timothyjosephwood. Thank you for your reminder. I post this article on behalf of Mr. Wang Zheng Hua who is the oldest grandson of Mr. Chih Ping Wang. He is also the author of this article. I believe this is definitely reliable. So please keep this article. Appreciate your assistance on this matter. YueerYLM — Preceding unsigned comment added by YueerYLM (talk • contribs) 03:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Utah Lake entry removed.

Thanks for sending me that info on Wikipedia rules. I am in no way trying to innapropriately advertise another website. The content I input is meant to better inform the public about Utah Lake, and who is responsible for managing the lake. I have created this new account, under my name "Sam Braegger" to comply with the stuff you sent me. I do not see how the content itself violates any spam or advertising issues. Can you help me understand that or tell me how I need to adjust my content so that it still accomplishes my purpose listed above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Braegger (talk • contribs) 21:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Sam Braegger. Since you have a conflict of interest regarding this content, rather than perform the edit yourself, you should post a comment on the article's talk page indicating what you would like changed, and including sources for the changes. Your request may be answered by a volunteer who follows the article, or you can paste {{requested edit}} along with your comment and it will be added to the list of pending requested edits and a volunteer will be along to address it. TimothyJosephWood 21:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for suggesting further protection on pages that you noticed are vandalized often. Jacklbell (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey thanks. Looks like you've pretty active in the area as well. Keep up the good work! TimothyJosephWood 17:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hsiung Feng III

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hsiung Feng III. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories

This is a notice that a discussion you participated in, either at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 8 has resulted in a Request for comment at Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Willie and Joe

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Willie and Joe. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Article Abdoulahi Boubacar" speedy delete it. Thank you

Thank you for the message Article Abdoulahi Boubacar" speedy delete it. I am not working on it now. Maybe later. Remove it right now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrahimbouzou (talk • contribs) 14:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Ibrahimbouzou, since you and/or your close associates have already been blocked for abusing multiple accounts related to this individual and his work, you should be aware that repeated recreation of deleted articles will likely result in them being "create protected" so that no one may recreate them unless an administrator unlocks it. If the person and their work does not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability, and at this point they pretty clearly do not, then the best advice to them is to continue on their work so that they one day will. If this becomes the case then a Wikipedia article will eventually follow, but trying to game the system in order to use Wikipedia to promote someone is not the way to do this, and will likely result in the opposite effect: ensuring that an article will be more difficult to create in the future. TimothyJosephWood 15:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

You better delete the article speedy

You better delete the article speedy my friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrahimbouzou (talk • contribs) 15:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Ibrahimbouzou. As I am not an administrator, I cannot delete the article myself, but only mark it for deletion for an administrator to take care of, which will undoubtedly be done in short order. TimothyJosephWood 15:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ben Swann

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ben Swann. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello GreenMeansGo,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 803 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Branson Missouri page

I noticed that the page for Branson Missouri listed Harrison Illinois as the site for the 2012 tornado not Harrison Arkansas. That did not seem right. I don't know how to have someone correct or fact check that. Thanks Kimberly2017 (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Kimberly2017. Harrisburg, IL does appear to have been involved in the situation (see 2012 Leap Day tornado outbreak, also the NOAA source which was provided). However, since it's not entirely clear why either town should be singled out for mention on an article about an otherwise unrelated city, I have removed the mention entirely, and I suppose that should probably settle the issue pretty well. TimothyJosephWood 15:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Poll

The article Alliance doesn't contain the necessary space to take the table. --Nonemansland (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Nonemansland, I was just posting about this on your talk, but since you're here, good a place as any I guess.

The extensive table while it's good information, is really on the topic of Alliance which is related to War, but is only related, and not the same. If you want to include it there you can probably put it in its own section with a brief paragraph explaining the poll and its findings. However, although the Bloomberg article is certainly interesting, you should probably link to wherever the actual data is, rather than a news story about the data, and instead of wikilinking to Gallup, which is a disambiguation page, you should instead link to Gallup International Association, since there is apparently two Gallup polling organizations, and per the Bloomberg article, the Swiss one is the one that did this particular poll. TimothyJosephWood 18:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to create a new section. Thank you for reminding me! Could you make some space between the section and the references there? --Nonemansland (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Nonemansland. I fixed the formatting issue and added a bit of explanatory text to incorporate the table into the article, but overall I think it's a much better fit there, and good job on the really complicated table. TimothyJosephWood 20:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Aslan - Advisory Board of NIAC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Based on NIAC's website, Reza Aslan is on their advisory board:

https://www.niacouncil.org/about-niac/staff-board/

https://www.niacouncil.org/message-reza-aslan/

Please explain why you reverted that fact on Reza Aslan's page - cheers Azarbarzin (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Azarbarzin. I'm glad you asked. I'm oversimplifying a bit, but in general, in order for content to be included in Wikipedia articles, it needs to first of course be true, or at least true as far as we can tell, but it also needs to be importantly true, and since we can't decide importance based on the opinions of Wikipedia editors (since that would be original research, which isn't allowed) we judge whether a fact is important based on whether reliable secondary sources choose to write about it. On Wikipedia, this is known as providing WP:DUEWEIGHT. So I don't at all question whether the information is true, since it seems to be, but I question whether it is importantly true, and the way that you overcome that is to show other people writing about him being a member of this board in reliable sources.

If they do, then we should probably include it. If they don't, then it may likely be the case that the importance of the information is based one of our our personal opinions, which doesn't mean much, since for all you know, I could be a government agent, this guy's pissed off ex-girlfriend, or his uncle who's mad because they owe him fifty bucks. It may sound silly, but with five million articles, you would be surprised how often someone's ex-spouse or former employee shows up to try to put all the nasty things they can in someone's Wikipedia article, and that's the kind of thing these rules are intended to protect against.

Hopefully this helps clarify thing. If you have any further questions, I'd be happy to help. Ask away. TimothyJosephWood 23:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm grateful for your response. Insofar as secondary sources, would this qualify:

https://hudson.org/research/11641-meet-the-iran-lobby

or does it fall in the pissed off ex-boyfriend/girlfriend category? cheers Azarbarzin (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Good question Azarbarzin. The Hudson Institute is what's known as a think tank, which means that regardless of whether they are liberal, conservative, communist or libertarian, they are founded in order to advance an agenda that they think is important. In the same way that we shouldn't cite things from the Chinese government to talk about how great communism is, or cite a press release by Ford to talk about how great their trucks are, we should avoid citing information to groups that we know already have an agenda for putting out that information.

I would note though that this generally doesn't extend to citing news sources that lean right or left, as long as they have an established reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight. The difference is that news outlets write for a living, while think tanks push a political agenda for a living, and they write as a means to accomplish that. TimothyJosephWood 00:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you again -- does this publication qualify as a reliable secondary source? or do you argue that the membership of an Iranian born author in NIAC is unimportant?

https://www.algemeiner.com/2015/09/02/middle-east-studies-professors-shill-for-iran-on-nuclear-deal-morally-equate-us-and-islamic-republic/

Cheers Azarbarzin (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

There we go Azarbarzin. That's definitely moving in the right direction. But we should still have some caution citing pro-Jewish outlets with regard to Iranian issues, in exactly the same way we should use caution citing pro-Iranian outlets regarding Jewish issues. But I'll put this to you as a challenge, if you can find another source of equal or better quality, I'll add the content myself. TimothyJosephWood 00:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, I resent the stereotype of Iranians being anti-jewish or Jews being anti-Iranian. Dr. Rafizadeh is an an Iranian-American political scientist, author, business advisor, public speaker and president of the International American Council - at your earliest convenience read the following:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/199374/lies-and-misrepresentations-reza-aslan-dr-majid-rafizadeh

What, if any, is Dr. Rafizadeh's agenda?Azarbarzin (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Your resentment is duly noted, but international relations between Israel and Iran haven't exactly been superb in the last little while, and it's not exactly a partisan observation to point that out. We probably should also carefully consider using pro-Indian sources on Pakistani issues, pro-Taiwan sources on Chinese issues, and pro-Egyptian sources on Sudan issues.

The problem with this source, is that while it does in fact talk about the subject of the article quite a bit, it doesn't seem to actually mention his membership in this group, which is the information that we're trying to justify. TimothyJosephWood 01:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Citing FrontPage is not going to help here. IIRC, Algemeiner is not a reliable source - not because it's a "Jewish source", but rather because it doesn't fact-check; it seems like it's basically an opinion outlet. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, but it does establish that people are noticing the fact that he is the member of this body, and since we, as far as I can tell, already accept that he is in fact a member, then it still helps to establish that this fact may be of some encyclopedic importance. TimothyJosephWood

It's important for sources with some heft to "notice" something. I, and all my other friends who have personal blogs, could post about it too, but that doesn't mean anything because we're not reliable sources either. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I would like to think that I would be the first person to argue that blogs aren't sources that should even be considered. But we're not talking about a blog; we're talking about what appears to be a mid-level generally pro-Israel media outlet. That's not to say that it justifies saying anything about the subject's membership being a bad thing, but it likely helps to bolster the position that mentioning his membership may be worthy of note, since apparently independent source thinks it's worth writing about. TimothyJosephWood 01:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It appears that every secondary source pertaining Reza Aslan has an agenda. Including this one:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omid-memarian/reading-ahmadinejad-via-w_b_815917.html

cheers Azarbarzin (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, the problem is that this source does not appear to actually mention his membership in the organization in question, and so is not really relevant to the issue of whether to include that in the article. TimothyJosephWood

Just putting this here for all involved or watching, but I actually need to feed my daughter put her to bed, and do the same for myself. So feel free to continue to comment, but I will probably not be adding to the conversation until tomorrow morning. TimothyJosephWood 01:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Doing the same here... Just putting this here for all involved or watching - take your time plz:

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2009/02/25/rise-of-the-iran-lobby/13/

Azarbarzin (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Membership in this one is important (is exempt from secondary sourcing) -it's listed on Aslan's wiki page:

https://yalehumanists.com/about/advisory-board/

however, being on the advisory board of NIAC is deemed un-important !

https://www.niacouncil.org/about-niac/staff-board/

Azarbarzin (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Azarbarzin, Roscelese: Since this has pretty quickly gone from a discussion about editing in general, to a very specific discussion about article content, I'm going to go ahead and close this and move things to the article talk. TimothyJosephWood 13:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re: ANI

"its usually more useful in situations where new editors respond to literally every single warning you give them with a question" - I've already walked Azarbarzin through the primary-source issue. That's why I think this is WP:IDHT rather than a good-faith effort to improve, especially given the fact that the account is an SPA adding more BLP vios than just this one. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not exaggerating when I say that I looked through literally all of the user's mainspace edits, and the only things I'm seeing that could be controversial outside of the Aslan article are this edit, which taken together with their use of twitter as a source on the Aslan article, probably amounts to a well deserved conversation on primary sources, and this edit, which is not totally off topic given that they are an Iranian diplomat, although it could probably use a better source.

If you took the time to walk the person through the use of primary sources, then I'm not seeing it, since the two of you have only ever interacted on four talk pages including this one, and this is barely a discussion at all, while this goes from zero to WP:ABF in two comments.

Given that Azar seems to be a fairly popular Persian/Arabic name, it's not really odd at all that they have an interest in Iranian topics, so I'm not sure the accusation of being an SPA really holds any water either. I think we're getting pretty close to a good time to WP:DROPTHESTICK, unless you've found something in particular I haven't. TimothyJosephWood 15:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm kind of confused at this response - "A single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles," and this user has made only a few edits, and even fewer substantive edits, that are not to Aslan's biography. His nationality or ethnicity is immaterial. If I spent all my time on WP editing the BLP of a Jewish person with the aim of making them look bad, you'd be entirely justified in shutting me down regardless of my background. I still disagree that the Algemeiner source is sufficient to justify the inclusion of this factoid, but since the thing that got my hackles up was the BLP-violating synthesis, I'm hoping that this will be the end of it. I'd be surprised if it were, though. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

They have made relatively few edits, and the difference between an SPA, and a new user who edits in a particular topic area can be a matter of opinion. Most, but not all of their edits have been to biographies, but not all of them have been living people, in fact some have been long dead. Most, but not all have been Iran related, and quite a few, even on the Aslan article, have been pretty unambiguous attempts and genuine improvement. Overall, more than enough to warrant assuming good faith. TimothyJosephWood 18:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I am grateful for your notes Timothyjosephwood. In conclusion, I wanna cordially remind Roscelese that Aslan is on the advisory board of NIAC. If that makes him look bad (I personally don't see why), perhaps the gentleman could ponder resigning from that council. cheers Azarbarzin (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, the thing that made your original edit inappropriate, was the additional content that you were trying to include along with the bare membership. So for example, on "Sam's" Wikipedia article, it's fine to say Sam is from Germany but not ok to say Sam is from Germany which is also the country Hitler is from. Since Sam's article already links to Germany, he's already literally two clicks away from Hitler. In fact, interested readers are only a few clicks away from about 100,000 articles related to Germany. So there's no need to try to cram content about other subjects into the article on Sam, when those subject likely already have their own article, with probably already has the same content in it. TimothyJosephWood 19:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I see your point. Albeit I now believe that even a simple reference to Aslan's membership in NIAC would be marked as a vile attempt to make him look bad. I was not routing for a straw man argument when I added the wiki note on NAIC. Once again thank you for all your insightful input. I learned a lot & hope that our colleague Roscelese does not see me or my edits as an attempt to make Aslan look bad. Perhaps, in the near future he/she could add that info without another editor going through uncalled for accusations WP:SPA -- In my opinion, those who care about looking good would refrain from resorting to ad hominem in their tweeter and/or when they confront opposing views[2]. Cheers Azarbarzin (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

As we've fairly well covered, your opinion doesn't mean much unless you have a source that agrees, and Twitter doesn't count. I'm sorry if you happen to be Aslan's pissed off ex-girlfriend, but if you would like to tell the world how you feel about it, the appropriate place is probably a blog and definitely not Wikipedia. TimothyJosephWood 01:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Timothy, again your insight is noted. The fact that you decipher the editors' sexuality does NOT count either. That's a matter also suitable for a blog unless you have insight into other folks genitalia from your 'puter. cheers Azarbarzin (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Not entirely clear what that's supposed to mean, but thanks anyway. TimothyJosephWood 06:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind explaining - I quote you -- "I'm sorry if you happen to be Aslan's pissed off ex-girlfriend" -- It was a compliment for your digital talent. You determine the sexuality and gender of other editors. Quite unique. BTW, Aslan is married. His previous girlfriends and/or boyfriends, are immaterial and your opinion doesn't mean much here unless you have a source that agrees. - cheers Azarbarzin (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to assume you realize that was a reference to the above conversation we had, but at least you seem to be getting the hang of the core principle, and you've also gotten the hang of indenting your comments, so I'll call it a win overall. TimothyJosephWood 10:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of indenting. Nonetheless, it's a win-win situation. I learned to indent and hopefully you learned a more important lesson, namely not to attribute editing to straw man analogies of pissed off ex-girlfriend and/or boyfriend. It's a frivolous argument. You do realize your opinion or your previous references or your current accusations don't mean much unless you get the hang of providing a source for 'em. The core principal here is to refrain from accusations. You may of course disagree. I won't resort to same. cheers Azarbarzin (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't making an accusation; I was, as you rightly point out, making an analogy, and emphasizing, as I said before, that since this is one of the most visited websites in the world, it can and does happen that people show up to articles they have a personal connection with, and it's really impossible to tell when that's the case. For all I know (and I'm probably belaboring the point here) you may have a strong opinion about this guy's tweets because he personally mentioned you, which is not as colorful as being an ex-girlfriend, but is the same core principle of being personally involved...at least as far as I can verify on the anonymous internet.

For what it's worth, indenting, while conventional, is less useful in a two-way conversation, but essential in conversations involving many people, to indicate who is replying to whom. TimothyJosephWood 15:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

At the risk of oversimplyfing, here it goes: It's one thing to give an example i.e. a drug dealer's view on the DEA or an ex-boyfriend view pertaining an estranged relationship. It's another, to accuse someone ...I could utter an example that an addict could not be very fond of X... but to accuse you of being that addict is obviously a different matter. I don't wish to school you on such petty issues, I suspect you are capable of grasping the difference.

This coin view about editors (pissed off vs. not pissed off) does little to drive your point.

Insofar as tweets, I am of the opinion that the era of group think is over. The statement that twitter does not count (albeit a policy of wiki), is peculiar. We live in an era wherein the US President, along with nearly every other notable person are using it, and it does count in nearly every reliable media. I am certain that you are are familiar with wikiquote. Take a look at the number of references to tweets by Hillary Clinton. ^[1]

All in all, I don't assume for a moment that Aslan has showed any affection/attraction/ad hominem toward you in his tweets. It's irrelevant. In the like manner that you resorting to gender identification or an assumption that you (or I) may have been mentioned, is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not the most appropriate medium for assumptions. I'd gladly simplify this further if you still have not grasped it. Cheers Azarbarzin (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Group think or not, a tweet is a WP:PRIMARY source, and by that policy Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To claim that a persons's tweets are ad homenim or confrontational (or for that matter, eloquent, inspiring, or anything else) is 100% an interpretation, and thus requires a reliable secondary source. TimothyJosephWood 16:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Bravo... the term/phrase pissed off is also an interpretation. Along with this interpretation I'm sorry if you happen to be Aslan's pissed off ex-girlfriend Cheers Azarbarzin (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

If you say so. TimothyJosephWood 17:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

And would you say the following sources:

^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]

are

reliable secondary sources
Interpretations

or

pissed off commentaries by ex-girlfriends.

Cheers Azarbarzin (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

References

^ here
^ http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/06/bonfire_of_the_vulgarians_middle_east_studies_in_decline.html
^ http://www.mediaite.com/online/muslim-author-reza-aslan-turns-out-to-be-quite-combative-on-twitter/
^ https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/author-attacked-by-fox-news-is-actually-kind-of-a-jerk-on-tw
^ http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/01/st-for-brains-muslim-zealot-author-reza-aslan-has-a-history-of-nasty-profanity-laced-online-behavior-and-theres-a-glenn-beck-twist/
^ http://www.weeklystandard.com/reza-aslan-media-martyr-and-bully/article/742315?page=2

Then argue for their inclusion on the article talk page. TimothyJosephWood 17:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to cordially seek your take before doing so since you were kind enough to mention secondary sources. CheersAzarbarzin (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The author for the American Thinker article appears, per the bottom of the article, to actually be writing for Campus Watch, which is a think tank, so it probably fails on neutrality

I suspect you agree that there are two sides to most arguments. Stillwell (the author of the American Thinker article), has appeared on over 25 talk radio shows, including National Public Radio. She was also a columnist for SFGate.com, the online arm of the San Francisco Chronicle, from 2004 to 2008 - the paper has received the Pulitzer Prize on a number of occasions. How does she fail on neutrality? Azarbarzin (talk) 03:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It's peculiar that on the Professional membership section of Aslan's page, our colleagues have referenced the Algemeiner article which quotes the Campus watch. This section is picked:

In 2015 as a member of the group, he joined with 73 other "prominent International Relations and Middle East scholars" in signing a statement of support for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, an international agreement regarding the Iranian nuclear program.

but the following paragraph was deemed unimportant:

The fact that NIAC is an Iran lobby group whose advisory board includes both Aslan and Cole demonstrates the willingness of these academics to further state-sponsored propaganda. It’s also proof of the Iranian regime’s ability to infiltrate American university life. NIAC received funds from the Alavi Foundation (which funneled $345,000 to Harvard’s Center for Middle East Studies) until Alavi was closed for being a front-group for Tehran’s mullahs.

I suppose it's a neutral way of avoiding the pissed off girlfriend phenomenon Azarbarzin (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. TimothyJosephWood 15:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The entire Mediaite article appears to be based on Buzzfeed, and you can see the many prior discussions regarding the unreliability of Buzzfeed as a source
The Buzzfeed source is...well...Buzzfeed and the article which is the source for the Mediaite and the Blaze article
The The Blaze article appears to also be based on the Buzzfeed source per their own link, and it looks like they're been two discussions about the reliability of the Blaze itself and a general feeling that it's less-than-stellar. Neither are a particularly strong consensus, but it doesn't really matter since it's based in large part on Buzzfeed.
Per this discussion, the Weekly Standard is probably the only source here with any kind of existing consensus that can be relied upon. It does mention Buzzfeed, but does so in a direct attributed quote and does not appear to rely on Buzzfeed as a major source for their article. TimothyJosephWood 18:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I've been loosely following this for a few days now, and I have a question. How encyclopedic is it, exactly, to characterize a BLP's attitude on twitter? I'm curious because, in reading Donald Trump, who is well known for being combative and dishonest on twitter (if anyone actually asks for sources on this, I swear to god I will fill a page with every single RS I can find to support that, even if it makes it impossible to load the page), yet there's no mention of it in his article. Even Milo Yiannopoulos, who has been banned from twitter due to his non-stop engendering of controversies on the service doesn't have a single word devoted to characterizing his attitude. So once again, I ask. How encyclopedic is this proposal? Seriously, if anyone can make a good case for it, I'm all ears. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 22:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Umm...I guess the answer I would give is that it is exactly as encyclopedic as the proposer and their sources can gain consensus about it being. What is and is not WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC is ultimately determined by consensus, and local consensus on one article, even one as prominent as the current POTUS, rarely if ever determines what consensus should be on another in a way that would or should stifle debate on the particulars. TimothyJosephWood 22:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Is there a consensus to include this? Because it looks like it's the result of POV pushing. If there's a clear consensus between fans and critics of Aslan, then obviously I'm wrong. But it really looks like POV pushing to me.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

22:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe. You know I almost got blocked once for not understanding ~~WP:SYNTH~~ a lot of things, and being entirely too enthusiastic about it. But it was a definite learning experience after a long time IP gnoming, and the content was eventually incorporated into the article, once I realized what doing that correctly meant. TimothyJosephWood 23:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me or not with that. Let me explain: My comments about what seems to be POV stem from this edit, which introduced a section called "Reaction toward some detractors". My point above was that this sort of edit doesn't look at all encyclopedic to me, and there doesn't seem to be any precedent here on WP for making such claims. If there is a strong local consensus to include this information from both Aslan's detractors and supporters, then I suppose we must include it. But if there is no such consensus (and the BLP issues alone suggest to me that there wouldn't be, and the article talk page and history suggest to me that there isn't), then it should be excluded. I wasn't critiquing anything you've said thus far, Tim, but critiquing some of the arguments and edits made by Azarbarzin.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

15:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the segment wherein Aslan refers to Richard Dawkins as a buffoon was NOT excluded. Do you believe it should have been excluded? Azarbarzin (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I mean I agree that probably doesn't belong, and so do the others involved as far as I can tell, save for the editor to originally added it (WP:PRIMARY, WP:OR, and probably WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS). TimothyJosephWood 15:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Charles Murray (political scientist)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Charles Murray (political scientist). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Norwalk talk page

Well, you are correct about me being involved in them, and I shouldn't really close it, but I do think they are pretty much closed/inactive. Any thoughts? —JJ Be rs 00:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

User:JJBers: I'm pretty much involved at this point too. Probably just let it go, at least for the time being. The user that was one side of the argument just got off a block, so you can't really say that discussion died down naturally. And they probably deserve a chance to see if they want to revisit the discussion in a civil manner. Maybe could add an archive bot if the page gets too long, but it doesn't seem necessary at the moment. TimothyJosephWood 01:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion: Edit conflict

I request that you please not edit the Norwalk, Connecticut article while an in use template is displayed. Thank you and have a nice day!––→StephenTS42 (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

StephenTS42: I'm mostly editing heavily in single sections at a time, for fairly extended periods. You, for some reason, have put an in use template on the page while you've made two edits in the last three hours. If you are having edit conflicts, then you need to stop editing from the top of the article, and edit individual sections. TimothyJosephWood 15:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your noble advice. I was unaware that there were time limits between edits. Many sections in an article are interrelated. In order to reference them I prefer to edit the entire article. Sometimes I need to look up MOS information. While that is going on I believe that is the reason for the inuse template. Nevertheless, I thought it best to wait until you had finished your editing. So I apologize for causing any inconvenience. Have you finished editing? May I have your permission to continue? Thank you again and have a great day!––→StephenTS42 (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Neither of your two edits changed anything over than information in a single section. If you want to edit, edit by section, rather than editing from the top of the page. If you edit from the top of the page, you will get edit conflicts. You don't need my permission to do anything, you just need to follow the advice at Help:Edit conflict. Template:In use is not designed to lock up an entire article while one editor makes comparatively minor edits once every couple of hours. I've been editing the article most of the day, and I haven't gotten a single edit conflict, because I've been following my own advice. TimothyJosephWood 16:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course, what was I thinking? Once again, I apologize for the inconvenience. May I ask if you have finished editing the article?––→StephenTS42 (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Sebestyén Gorka

Dear Sir! In the past You helped us ending an edit war over several articles (Ferenc Szaniszló and others). My problem is that, there is an editor who refuses the cooperation concerning the Sebestyén Gorka article (please see the Edit history, and the Talk page of the article). I don't want to be accused of canvassing or of any other malicious behaviour, so may I ask Your opinion how to deal with the editor, or may I ask Your "Third oppinion" on this issue? Thank You! --Ltbuni (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Sir, I have problem with the "Nazi claims" section - please see the Talk Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sebastian_Gorka#Dispute_resolution --Ltbuni (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Another source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardminiter/2017/02/28/journalists-beware-your-jihad-on-sebastian-gorka-is-only-hurting-you/#55abb2523241 --Ltbuni (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Claim

Hi

You Have a claim that I have issue with multiple users

what is the problem with this edition

Modern Sciences (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Ask the person who made it the revision, or probably read the link they provided in their edit summary. TimothyJosephWood 21:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You claimed and mentioned that I have a problem with multiple users and leave message in the Admins talk pageModern Sciences (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I did, and you have. TimothyJosephWood 21:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

When an IP intentionally reverse a correct edition and you support him or her and then leave the message on a talk page of an Admin. Modern Sciences (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Bring some questions about Wikipedia:Harassment Modern Sciences (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You are the one repeatedly leaving messages on people's talk pages shopping for someone to fight your battle for you. If you don't speak the language well enough to discuss edits with someone who reverts you then you need to do what I do on wikis where I don't speak the language, I make edits I think are uncontroversial, and if I'm reverted I let it go. TimothyJosephWood 01:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

[3]

Aww, man... what do you think this was for?! I was hoping no one would expose my true motives... GAB^gab 22:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

HAS SCIENCE GONE TOO FAR? ADMINS KNOW THIS ONE WEIRD SECRET FOR PENIS ENLARGEMENT AND IT REALLY WORKS. all we need is a credit card number TimothyJosephWood 00:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

It's actually an article! GAB^gab 01:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Yup. I'm saving that one for later. TimothyJosephWood 12:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Maryam Rajavi

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Maryam Rajavi. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

08:50:29, 26 February 2017 review of submission by Forsonkwesi

Forsonkwesi (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Louis Casely-Hayford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please this needs to go online soon and I need help with setting it up. Am pending review.

Hey Forsonkwesi. The draft has exactly the same problems it had when I declined it in October. Huge portions of the text are completely unreferenced, with no indication where the information came from. For guidance on referencing for Wikipedia see Help:Referencing for beginners. Otherwise, in six months you've made basically no attempt to address the concerns of those who have already reviewed it, and unless that is done, the article will almost certainly not be accepted. TimothyJosephWood 15:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Emmett Till

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Emmett Till. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

talk

Bro, that page عمرئ is informative and it doesn't really need to be deleted ...thanks

Nabeel Gm 12:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)^∞😃 Nabeelgm 😃^∞(Talk)

Nabeelgm (talk • contribs)

I want to delete an article that I wrote but I don't know how. Can someone help me?

Somahony45 (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Jorge Segovia

Hey, I would like to make that wikipedia available. Just that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSegoviaPianist (talk • contribs) 16:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey JSegoviaPianist. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for you or anyone else to try to advertise themselves, their work, or to try to provide links to buy products, including albums. In order to qualify for an article on Wikipedia, a subject has to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability, which requires that the subject have received sustained coverage in reliable secondary sources. If a person cannot meet this standard, then they do not yet qualify for a Wikipedia article. TimothyJosephWood 16:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I answer here... please just listen to the music and let it go. 20.000 persons every month can't be wrong listening to my music on Spotify https://open.spotify.com/artist/6DIidRzTS95J6etMpSyeg1

Ok, I will quit the link to the album

"Letting it go" isn't really one of the options. If you are so very popular, then a Wikipedia article will surely be written about you at some point, once you have received substantial coverage in reliable sources. If you would like to advertise your music, you will have much better luck on social media, than on Wikipedia. TimothyJosephWood 16:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Mhmm.. I appear in 5 articles, as far as I can remember... some of them are in spanish. Is this ok? Can you write please that I exist and just that? I am not making commercial music so I won't be popular never. But in the other hand, please look, http://independentclauses.com/tag/jorge-segovia/ http://www.portaljovenclm.com/premiados.php?idc=70 http://es.paperblog.com/jorge-segovia-nos-deja-nuevas-referencias-3764381/ http://amsonata.org/artistas-sonata.html http://j-musind.blogspot.com.es/2016/04/jorge-segovia-un-piano-de-otro-planeta.html

Can you please write something like hey, this musician exists and is alright..? :D 20.000 persons are listening to his music on Spotify every month. Maybe I am not Justin Bieber, but this is just contemporary piano. thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSegoviaPianist (talk • contribs) 17:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Blogs are not considered reliable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia, and sources like amsonata.org appear to be blatantly promotional.

Wikipedia does not include articles to say that people exist, and existing does not qualify a subject for a Wikipedia article. If your music is so popular, than you will eventually get noticed by the kinds of media that write about your field, and will in turn better qualify for your own article. But until that happens, Wikipedia is not a means for you to promote yourself or your music. TimothyJosephWood 17:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

that is an important space where we can promote and make known our work and effort. They don't choose just somebody... https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=es&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Famsonata.org%2Fartistas-sonata.html anyway, I will release my 30th album soon and I will promote it using the traditional magazines so I will be able to be in wikipedia. Didn't know this, sorry. On the other hand, 20.000 listeners on Spotify is great... but not enough... ok...

Dear TJW

Hey man,

how are you? hope u fine.

I uploaded this other one too , but it's just the translated version..

If you please could explain me how to insert a translation and PLEASE remove the speedy deletion note, I can add it instead of "copying" it from an article I wrote myself.

It's true, I am a noob at this, but help me then instead of mark it as a speedy deletion please.

Kind regards Skavlan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skavlan69 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Skavlan69. Both the article in Dutch as well as the article in English contain no sources, and appear to be original research. If this myth has been widely covered by reliable sources, then it may be suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, and those sources should be included in the article to demonstrate that. However, if this is based on your personal research it is not appropriate because Wikipedia is a not a publisher or original thought. TimothyJosephWood 16:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Help desk

Hello Timothy. Could you please check my question on help desk? thank you

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Please_help_me_to_submit_move_request

202.155.216.28 (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Done TimothyJosephWood 20:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you please reply again? 202.155.216.28 (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I will reply shortly. Right now I have to attend to some offline things. TimothyJosephWood 20:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment

Third party opinion request

This is a courtesy notification. I have placed a Wikipedia:Third opinion request regarding your recent edit of History of Norwalk, Connecticut. Have a nice day!——→StephenTS42 (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Or you could probably try to fix the things you think are unclear in a way that isn't written like a low-budget basic-cable documentary. had not been spared the roaming's of nomadic hunters ... the vast North American continent ... no doubt piqued the hunt-and-gather instincts of archaeologists None of this is encyclopedic language. TimothyJosephWood 16:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Reza Aslan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Reza Aslan. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Matt McAllister (The Chalkman)

This page is a work in progress. Please do not delete. Most information for this page will be coming from www.mattmcallisterart.com (which is a site owned by Matt McAllister) himself, his personal and professional Facebook pages, as well as my personal experiences I've had with him over the last 17 years of friendship. I'm new to Wikipedia and not sure the proper processes or How To's. Please bare with me as I continue to create and edit the page. I apologize if I do anything wrong or against proper procedure. Thank you Erik.Blackburn2 (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Erik.Blackburn2. While a subject's official website can be used for some information on a Wikipedia article, in order to establish that a subject meets our notability guidelines an article needs to include references to reliable secondary sources. If these types of sources don't yet exists, then it may be too soon for the individual to have their own article. TimothyJosephWood 17:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you There are newspaper articles and Radio appearances as well I can cite. Thank you for your help. Erik.Blackburn2 (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Santa Fe Group Logo 2017.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Santa Fe Group Logo 2017.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Fixed TimothyJosephWood 21:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Hey! Thanks for your input. I am using Wikipedia for the first time and have a difficult time with how it works. How can I cite sources? I have tried so many things and cannot get that part going. — Preceding unsigned comment added by House for sale (talk • contribs) 21:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey House for sale. You may want to check our our tutorial on referencing at Help:Referencing for beginners or take our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. TimothyJosephWood 21:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Really?

I've been around Wikipedia for a while. If you want help in how to do things right, then I'm more than willing. If you don't then I'm not your fucking sergeant and I can't make you. If you happen to want to learn how things work around here and unfuck yourself then drop me a line.

You think that was a little on uneeded side? —JJ Be rs 02:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes I do. TimothyJosephWood 11:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. —JJ Be rs 14:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

ANI

I'll be the first person to admit that I probably hang out at ANI more than I should, and there are definitely threads there that can benefit from the input of non-admin but experienced editors. But it's not necessary for any one person to comment on nearly every thread there, and none of us, not even admins, should reach the point where drama boards constitute the majority of our time editing. You seem to be quickly approaching that point, and some of your contributions seem a bit more geared toward arguing with others for its own sake, rather than making a contribution that actively moves the thread toward some kind of resolution. So, just a heads up that this trend is becoming...noticeable to others.

Fair enough. I know what you are trying to say. I probably should have stayed out that US politics one - but it seemed so circular, I thought perhaps I could drill down further to what was driving it. I haven't even been over there yet today to see where it went - I'm almost afraid to look. Okay, here we go. There are currently 34 discussions over there. Many of my actual edits are in the JohnPackardLambert thread - where I am WP:Involved - which is what brought me back to WP:ANI in the first place. I tend to edit in the Football area - and when the Rugby thread opened up, I figured I should jump in there too (though, given that I chased the one editor away, maybe wasn't such a great thing) ... where a lot of my other edits are. So, I'm in 13 of the threads. Most of which I have nothing left to contribute. I feared it would be higher than 13! And I didn't seem to blow up the Snooganssnoogans discussion - hmm, I think I understand better where they are coming from too - I think is he working in good faith, but there's really a lot to look at.

I've been here before (well, other than being WP:Involved. I tend to participate in other discussions when involved, and then ignore it when not involved. Though it's been a few years. Though, if I can be genuinely helpful, maybe I'll stick around. I've tried to make a couple of light-hearted jokes, but they've gone over like lead balloons - it's no fun when you have to explain every part of it in glorious detail.

Thanks for the comment. The truth is that my real life will intrude soon, and I'll vanish for about a month or so - so you won't have to put up with me much more for a while! Nfitz (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Read your post again. "Nearly every thread there"? 13 out of 34? I don't object to your overall comment, but I don't know why you'd say that. Nfitz (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Close enough. Ctrl-f sees you having 74 comments/mentions on ANI currently, while I myself have 20, including one thread I'm actually involved in off-ANI, and another I started myself. If you are particularly active user in certain areas, then it is likely you will wind up involved in an an ANI thread quite often, but if your primary purpose on WP is to contribute to threads you are uninvolved in on ANI, and do so in a way that does not move the particular thread toward any sort of conclusion, then those contributions are not helpful or welcome. TimothyJosephWood 22:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Close enough - it's less than 40%, it's an exaggeration. If I went to the 2016 US Election page and said "nearly everyone voted for Trump", I'd probably get an instantaneous block. Etiquette say Do not intentionally make misrepresentations. Apologise if you inadvertently do so. I'm struggling to see why didn't apologize? Not trying to be argumentative here. Nfitz (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, if you continue on this unconstructive path, I will likely soon seek a topic ban from ANI threads you are not involved in off-ANI. TimothyJosephWood 22:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Help me here. In all good faith. Other than the diversion I shouldn't have gotten into on the Vandal redirects to Donald Trump thread, and the joke I made about not letting Americans edit articles about American politics (which appears to have bombed) what have I not said there in an uninvolved thread in a way that was not moving the thread along to a conclusion? I'm looking for guidance here. I won't contribute to any new threads for now. Also, where is the guidance on who should contribute to ANI and style-guide on how responses should work - I've looked for that a couple of times, and failed. I have no desire other than being constructive, helpful, and useful. Nfitz (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Take my advice when I say you are not being constructive, helpful, and useful. Go to WP:BACKLOG which is what I do when I need something to do, pick a category and try to chip away at it. TimothyJosephWood 23:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I would really like some help me to understand why? What for example was wrong with this or this (which I think is the ultimate answer, as that's a big range block). Or in particular this which I think needed to be said. Thanks for pointing me to WP:BACKLOG, I haven't been there in years. Looks like someone has made it a lot more usable! Nfitz (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

If you would like help in contributing to the project, then I am more than willing. If you would like help in better contributing to ANI, then I am not, because ANI is not the project; the project is the encyclopedia. TimothyJosephWood 01:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I've been contributing to ANI and AN on and off for a decade. If there's an issue with the contributions I made like this, this, or this then I need to know about it, because it seems unlikely that in the next decade or two that I won't wander back in here, and see something that concerns me. If you've got an issue with my contributions, but can't explain what the issue is, then we have a problem. I think it's a personally reasonable question. Otherwise, I start wondering if you've all really got a secret list somewhere, and I've broken the union rules by not being an admin, being too nice and helpful to people, not willing to violate WP:5P4 and WP:5P5 on a regular basis! Obviously that's not really the case, but I think I have a right to know what the issue is. Nfitz (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

If you would like help in contributing to the project, then I am more than willing. If you would like help in better contributing to ANI, then I am not, because ANI is not the project; the project is the encyclopedia.TimothyJosephWood 02:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I feel I'm in some bizarre comedy or something. You've taken an action here by warning me on my talk page, and I think you need to justify it. I've asked you to justify it, and you have not done so. If you were an admin, then this would be a violation of WP:ADMINACCT. Ironically, as you are not an admin, it is not a violation - though it does strike me as very odd indeed, and perhaps even uncivil. On the other hand, I appreciate the warning - there's 2 or 3 comments I should have made. However, I question the wisdom of the approach, particularly of a relatively new editor like yourself. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here. As a metaphor, I feel I'm standing outside a doors that says "whites only" on it. Nfitz (talk) 03:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I've been around here since 2008, and I assure you that I have come to recognize the difference between those who are here to argue and those who are here to build an encyclopedia. I strongly suspect that you are wrong and you need to fix yourself. TimothyJosephWood 03:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

~~I must have misread your edit history. Did you used to edit with a different account?~~ I'm wrong about what? Fix what? Here to argue? I haven't been arguing (well, outside of the two threads there were I'm involved). I'm not arguing with you - I'm just asking for some explanation, which you flat out refuse to do (perhaps I'm arguing that you need to explain yourself more ... but it's not the argument I want). BTW just popped over to ANI. ~~How come you criticize me, but no one seems to criticize contributions like [4] from others like User:EEng? How is that moving the thread along to a conclusion? I'm even more confused now ...~~ Nfitz (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

If you would like help in contributing to the project, then I am more than willing. If you would like help in better contributing to ANI, then I am not, because ANI is not the project; the project is the encyclopedia. TimothyJosephWood 04:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

(looks at watch ... Saturday night). You've been drinking, haven't you? I'll come back later ... Nfitz (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

PS. I just struck out some of my earlier text, as I was pointed to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive277#Review_of_EEng.27s_indefinite_block which counters my point quite effectively, and makes it clear that irreverent humour is not an issue - and also explains why no one dare criticize EEng - I wish I had the wit and sharp tongue of that editor! Also, despite my promise above not to contribute to new threads, I was over at ANI a few minutes ago looking at the new comments on the JPL case in which I'm involved - and did add a brief comment[5] so as not to waste anyone elses time to check what I checked, to find the whole thing already resolved - hopefully I don't got a lifetime block for this unconstructive, unhelpful, and useless edit ☺. Hmm ... I got the verb tense all wrong - implies I did the edit - sigh, I'll change that. Nfitz (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

See, the thing you seem to be missing is that if you would like help in contributing to the project, then I am more than willing. If you would like help in better contributing to ANI, then I am not, because ANI is not the project; the project is the encyclopedia. TimothyJosephWood 13:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Listen, the fact that you are so willing to continue this thread and continue to argue with someone who clearly isn't arguing back is basically the problem, and is exactly the same problem that happened in the thread on the IPs talk page that needed to be closed three times before you would drop the stick. Sometimes arguing is necessary to do what we do, but what we do is build an encyclopedia and the arguing is incidental to that process.

The fact that you want to cite ADMINACCT, which is not only irrelevant, but would be irrelevant even if I actually were an admin, shows that you need to either further familiarize yourself with policy, or refamiliarize yourself with it.

Finally, if any user (new, old, admin, crat, Jimbo himself, doesn't matter) finds themselves in a position where they are contributing to drama boards more than they are contributing to articles, then they are wrong and they need to fix themselves. That's the point here, and you can take it or leave it, but I will not continue to argue about it because I'm here to build an encyclopedia, and not to argue. TimothyJosephWood 14:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The only reason I was still arguing about it, is that you were criticizing all my contributions, leaving me confused about what the issue was. I just wanted you to drill down the criticism more to be more specific, because I didn't know what the issue was with my comments. And as I genuinely want to improve, I was frustrated as I felt you were holding back on telling me something you knew.

I felt I was involved in that IP thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive947#IP user blanking talk page, given my previous comments on that users' page. Perhaps that clouded my judgement. Both times I "reopened" it were edit conflicts as I was commenting as it was closed. Which I suppose is ironic, given I was asking it to be closed. I didn't pretend that my actions in the threads that I were involved in were entirely appropriate. It was the uninvolved ones I was looking on guidance for. I erred on how I tackled that issue. (and I still think that it's a big over-reaction for making a relatively tame joke about pudding on one's own talk page - and I think the 3-month block for repeating the tame joke is excessive). I still see value in what that IP was doing before they ran into trouble - and we can't build an encylopedia if we chase everyone away - and that's an issue I'm becoming increasingly concerned about. But I'm being defensive.

I don't feel my article work has diminished - it's only ever been a trickle. In fact, I think I'd been more productive in the period before the ANI appearance. I've been around for years, I've never spent much time in the process side of things - well other than AFD, where my motive is generally to rescue material that I think should be here. If someone would close the JPL case that brought me to ANI in the first place, I'd likely disappear. I'm a big believer in "see something do something" (gosh, do we actually not have an essay on that?) so if I see something, I do something. (which is big incentive never to look at ANI at all if I don't feel I need to! :) ) It doesn't feel right seeing something where I can help (or at least think I can help) and not doing something.

I do appreciate your comment. I'm always open to criticism - even blunt criticism if it is not uncivil. I know that without it, one can never hope to do better. Thanks. Nfitz (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

it's only ever been a trickle And that's probably the real problem. We have no shortage of people willing to comment on drama boards. But what we lack is people willing to take the article on their home town, their favorite team, or their personal hobby, and turn that into a featured article, people who are willing to ravage a library and fix an article until its done. I'm a pretty regular contributor at the Teahouse and the Help Desk, and I'm being serious when I say that I'm willing to help you unfuck an article until there are no fucks left to be undone. That's what we're here for. TimothyJosephWood 01:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I do that from time to time - I've been trying to rescue Betty Thompson from AFD; I might do better if I had access to the Kitchener Record from before 1990. The article has some structural issues still though. Nfitz (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

After reviewing my talk page to confirm that, in fact, it was not all just a dream, I'm moved to ask on what planet "no one dare criticize EEng", since if it really exists I'll fund a crash program for NASA to build a vehicle that will take me there. E Eng 19:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I think you're looking for SpaceX. TimothyJosephWood 23:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Mass creation thread

Sorry to butt in but on the topic of ANI, was my latest message there "not allowed"? DrStrauss talk 13:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Meh. No rush. In case someone does actually take issue with mass deletion, there's no problem in giving time for them to weigh in. I've definitely seen things that seemed more like common sense to me, end up inspiring spirited opposition from the community. This will probably need a mass AfD to fully resolve anyway, but I will definitely be keeping an eye on their account over the next few days. TimothyJosephWood 13:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Immigration and crime

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Immigration and crime. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

TeRra, Magazine

Thank you for your comment of my article. I think the magazine is being important role of the Asian contents, and the author is truly public figure. The magazine is now seeming on the beginning step, I don't want to agree with deletion, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11423vvvat (talk • contribs) 17:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey 11423vvvat. Unfortunately it does not appear that the website has received any substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources, which is what is required to demonstrate that a subject meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. Since it only began creating content in the last few weeks, this is not terribly surprising, and it may just be too soon for its own Wikipedia article. TimothyJosephWood 19:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Timothy, yes, we will see the page and the magazine a little more what is going on. That is what you are saying, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11423vvvat (talk • contribs) 07:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Slow down

You do not need to be nominating pages for A3 speedy deletion less than 60 seconds after they were created (especially for articles that are obviously valid, as could have been determined via a quick google search... or turning on your TV). That's extremely bitey behavior, and isn't helpful at all to what we're trying to accomplish here. Don't do it again. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Easy there. I was watching the page and removed the template as soon as content was added. I didn't tag and forget, and got a thanks from the author for my trouble. As to the validity of the page, that's slightly more complicated than it might seem at face value. The number is, at this point, original research and/or speculation, since it hasn't been assigned an EO number yet, and the issue of the title is complicated, since it apparently has the same long form name as EO 13769, which currently redirects there.

Speaking bitey, we may need a WP:Don't bite the NPP essay one of these days, to remind admins to check to make sure they didn't take care of their own dirty laundry before chastising them for it. TimothyJosephWood 19:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not what A3 is for, or have you not read the policy itself which states: "Don't use this tag in the first few minutes after a new article is created." Or if that wasn't clear enough: "Consensus has developed that in most cases articles should not be tagged for deletion under this criterion moments after creation as the creator may be actively working on the content; though there is no set time requirement, a ten-minute delay before tagging under this criterion is suggested as good practice. Please do not mark the page as patrolled prior to that suitable delay passing, so that the wait does not result in the article escaping review at a later time." Also, "biting" doesn't apply to editors who have been around as long as you have (and I'm pretty sure you know that), hence why such a ridiculous page will never exist. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh Christ. The tag was there for all of seven minutes. This horse was dead and this problem was solved long before you came across it and decided to fix something that wasn't broken. TimothyJosephWood 20:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sidense Corporation Page Deletion

Hi, I wanted to know why the Sidense Corporation page was removed. It follows the guidelines and other company pages have some level of information on the products they manufacture. The products section was removed and resubmitted but it was deleted again. Please provide some guidance as to what is needed for an article to be approved. The page had 17 references so it is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monaco2017 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Monaco2017. I'm only seeing where it was deleted once as being unambiguous advertising or promotion. Unfortunately I can't see the page currently since it was deleted, so I can't give terribly specific advice. But I can say that articles deleted in this way are usually so promotional that they would have to basically be 100% rewritten in order to satisfy Wikipedia policies, like that on neutrality in articles.

If happen to be employed by, or otherwise personally connected to this company, you probably want to review our policies on conflicts of interest carefully, since we have pretty strict rules about that kind of thing.

Definitely one option you might consider is making a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies, including the sources you have gathered, and then a volunteer can look into making the article. You can also try submitting an article through our Articles for Creation process, where they can be reviewed by volunteers who hopefully give more specific advice once they've evaluated the draft. TimothyJosephWood 20:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Question on "indiscriminate listing"

Hello, I've been working on the page for the National Bar Association and I see you've been removing a lot- I'm new at this so I was just hoping I could get a little more insight on why & where I should begin to fix things so I can make it right before it all gets deleted again. Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kw1980 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Kw1980. First off, if you are affiliated with the organization you are editing about, and I strongly suspect that you are, you should carefully review our policy on conflicts of interest. As you can imagine, as one of the most visited websites in the world, just about every club, company and organization has, at some point, given an intern a laptop and told them to make our article "conform to their vision" for it.

On the topic of indiscriminate collections of information, Wikipedia doesn't just record things that are merely true; we record things that are true and important. So while a listing of every past CEO or director of a company or organization may be appropriate for their official website, it's not really something that is appropriate for an encyclopedia, since it's simply more information than the reader would ever want to know. We usually gauge whether something is important by whether it's gotten coverage in reliable secondary sources, so a good rule of thumb is that if the only source you can find for it is the official website, then it probably belongs there, and not here. TimothyJosephWood 22:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Mr the deletionist explain me WHY...

Mr the deletionist, Explain me why article like this is not speedy delete? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boubacar_Coulibaly_(footballer,_born_1985). I'll be very happy to have your opinion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd boubacar (talk • contribs) 14:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

See WP:NFOOTY. TimothyJosephWood 14:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I read it, used Google and others, and there is no secondary sources

Your requirement is clearly not met I am sorry, Mr The deletionist: The criteria for deletion must be objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd boubacar (talk • contribs) 15:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir. I totally agree that a lot of the notability criteria for athletes sets standards that are entirely too low, and we wind up with a lot of stub articles like that one which never ever end up being anything more than a stub. It's been a fairly controversial subject. TimothyJosephWood 15:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Where are the secondary sources? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abdoulahi_measure#Abdoulahi_measure — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd boubacar (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Where are secondary sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boubacar_Coulibaly_(footballer,_born_1985).

Listen, if you think the article should be deleted, then nominate it for deletion, but the existence of bad articles does not justify the existence of more bad articles and beyond that, does not justify you trying to use Wikipedia to promote your personal pet theory. TimothyJosephWood 15:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Mr. You nominated the article for deletion as I was writing it. It was a draft at its beginning. There are many articles poorly written without secondary sources. I can give you hundred examples here. I never promote or demote anyone. I never nominate any article too. It is up to you the Deletionist to nominated but there must be objective criteria. Otherwise it leads to confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd boubacar (talk • contribs) 15:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Please stop making a new header with every new comment.
If you know of hundreds of poorly written articles without secondary sources, then you should probably start nominating articles for deletion. Just because they exist doesn't make them worthy of keeping; it just makes them articles that haven't been deleted yet. Finally, for the second time, bad articles are not a justification for more bad articles.
The objective criteria for your article and your behavior is that you appear to be the only person who has ever written about the subject, and Wikipedia is not a means for you to promote yourself. TimothyJosephWood 15:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you that the title was not very adequate. That is why you could not find secondary sources but I was writing about a similarity measure not about my self. You are just making a belief about pet. If you say that the article which was a draft I just begun writing was too poor I agree with you. It could be better if we finished the draft before we saved it the first time. I completely disagree about the COI your friends mentioned. In all Wikipedia people are writing about the people they know, their cities, their universities, etc... I do not think that is a conflict of interest because to write something you must know something about it. You and your friends are hard line deletionists. You think detecting bad intention where writer really do not have the Wikipedia coding skills because they are new users. If you continue like that many people will leave you the place. You will loose your job. You are promoting yourself in speedy deletion. I think you better give advise to volunteers rather than speedy delete or making false accusations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd boubacar (talk • contribs) 17:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Listen, I'm sorry you're mad that your article was deleted, but haranguing me isn't going to fix it. TimothyJosephWood 18:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Listen, I'm sorry you're mad that... You are insulting now You lost your temper. Someone who cannot keep his temper cannot make obvious judgment. I could insult you too. I prefer not to fall as down as you: that is all. Now I know more about your personality. This personality is the source of your bad behavior.

Oh no. I haven't lost my temper. For example, I haven't said "fuck" a single time. But it's been pretty thoroughly explained to you why your article was deleted. There's nothing wrong with my behavior, you're article should have been deleted, and it was. That's pretty much the end of it. TimothyJosephWood 18:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I was the one who told at the discussion section to delete it speedy because I think the title was not adequate. That is why it has been deleted. You are wrong. But I think you earn better giving advice than nominating for deletion. I wrote another article at fr.wikipedia.com with acronym as title and the editor who could not find more secondary sources with the acronym decided to change the title and then had many secondary sources. It is just a matter of experience. You do not accept to see your weak point. As long as you consider yourself as perfect you will not be able to improve yourself. That is what I wish for you. We wrote a lot of articles at the place of the deleted one. We gain experience. The consequences was very good instead my dear. It was not the end you thought. You lost your temper easily. We are here to criticize you. Either you listen or you continue as you are it is up to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd boubacar (talk • contribs) 18:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I choose to continue to do as I am. I'm good thanks. TimothyJosephWood 18:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry to waste your time then have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd boubacar (talk • contribs) 19:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

For example, I haven't said "fuck" a single time. Hah! But you have now! E Eng 03:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

You know you can talk about fucking all you want, you just can't call it fucking (especially at the ref desk). TimothyJosephWood 11:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Kim Lane Scheppele

Dear Sir! I think, that it is the classical example of soapboxing: Kim Lane Scheppele. May I ask Your opinion about it?--Ltbuni (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about the last paragraph. I mean, I spot checked the sources and they do seem to pretty well back up the claims. Was there a particular one that you had issue with? It's definitely political, but is a professional political critic (a professional soapboxer as it were), then it's probably appropriate to include some of their political opinions in the article, as long as it's cited as their opinions, which is seems to be. TimothyJosephWood 19:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I have many problems with this article.

Firstly: we've been through this whole "Kim Lane calling things names" issue. A user, who is in close connection with her added her criticism into a series of Hungary related articles. He literally flooded everything with this staff.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constitutional_Court_of_Hungary&diff=546673729&oldid=545745216#Controversy_over_New_Constitution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Orb%C3%A1n_Government#International_Criticism_of_Fourth_amendment_of_the_Constitution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Hungary#Domestic_reactions_and_subsequent_developments

Her ideas are still there. Compared to those articles, this one gives nothing new, only libellous remarks on some people.We had a very heated argument in the past:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_68#Constitution_of_Hungary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Constitution_of_Hungary#Professor_Scheppele.27s_analysis_and_the_government.27s_supermajority

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Koertefa#Professor_Scheppele.27s_analysis_and_the_government.27s_supermajority

The user then tried to create a "Canadian-Hungarian Democratic Charter" article in which he repeated everything of the abovewritten, but he was forced to merge and shorten this into his own article, the he tried to expand it with the Kim Lane's stuff, but then he was asked not to do so.

Secondly: If she is allegedly an expert of the WHOLE East-European region, why is the cherrypicking? Why is this article dealing only with Hungary? Now it gives undue weight to the Orbán Constitution and it cites only weak counter-arguments, and not the tough ones, like this,

I can prove that she is working for Hungarian political parties see this. This is still OK, but I question that she gave a professional analysis, when she criticized the Orbán-government. So if we leave this article here, I should say that her remarks should be qualified as "Personal opinions" or "Political stance". Given these previous events, I am afraid, but I am also sure there's going to be an edit warring, because many people see this as another effort of POV pushing... --Ltbuni (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

It's actually a pretty common thing for an editor affiliated with X person or Y organization to go around adding links and references to their particular benefactor. See Wikipedia:Spam. This and this seem a little excessive, and even if she is truly exceptional...as in best in the world territory, it still seems unlikely that any one commentator should be given basically their own section in an otherwise unrelated article.

If you have the diffs where this editor is systematically favoring this person in an inappropriate way, especially if they are edit warring to include the content, it may be something to take to WP:ANI or WP:ANEW, assuming of course, that yourself and others have been appropriately willing to engage in conversation about the problem, and the editor has been unwilling to engage at all, unwilling to engage in good faith, or unwilling to stop edit warring in the mean time.

But having said that, her article in particular is exactly the place to put her views on things, and it's difficult to argue that her own views on her own article are undue. TimothyJosephWood 22:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, Thank You. I keep an eye on it.--Ltbuni (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Four years of this and we'll need to make an entirely separate RfC category for Trump. TimothyJosephWood 11:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Re this [6] You need to be going considerably further back than that. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't have anything against him personally, but I do think that the atmosphere on political articles is absolutely toxic, and I don't appreciate anyone actively contributing to that. Half these articles are probably going to be rewritten in ten years anyway. It's helpful to sometimes check articles like Watergate and remind yourself that it was still being edited last week. TimothyJosephWood 01:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

17:17:12, 9 March 2017 review of submission by Charlie Appleby

Charlie Appleby (talk · contribs)
- User:Charlie Appleby/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for reviewing the article relating to Logiblocs. I am wondering what additional references you require compared to other commercial products like "Snap circuits" or "Knex" which also feature on Wiki? I can certainly tone down any areas that "read like an advert" although, again, these other commercial products could be viewed as adverts too. When a product has survived for 20 years and touched the lives of many, many children, parents and teachers in many countries, it seems a shame if it cannot be represented on Wiki.

Hey Charlie Appleby. First off, I moved the draft to Draft:Logiblocs. It's a technicality, but that's the usual place for AfC submissions to go.

Second, my main issue was not with the sources, but with the promotional language. For example:

Children love a hands-on approach
world's leading membership organization
Modern society is controlled by machines

This kind of language is totally not appropriate for an encyclopedia. For better or worse, an encyclopedia is really supposed to be written in a fairly dry just-the-facts sort of way. It shouldn't try to "sell people" on how "machines control modern society" as if we are at the an expo at the world's fair. So as a general rule, if the language is at all embellished or colorful, it should probably be removed or replaced with something matter-of-fact. TimothyJosephWood 17:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sean Hannity

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sean Hannity. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

If only it was logistically feasible, I would totally support the institution of proportional topic bans, as in From henceforth, editing on contentious political topics may only constitute 20% of your contributions to Wikipedia. The remaining 80% must be productive editing in topics unrelated to political brinkmanship.

Oh boy would it piss some people off, but you wanna see WP:BACKLOG disappear in a few months? Wait till that editor really really needs to comment on how stupid that conservative or liberal is, but they've already used up their 20%. You're gonna see ref errors, orphaned articles and underlinked pages get fixed so quick it would cause server problems. TimothyJosephWood 14:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Michele Carlo

added links pointing to Italian, Iris and Puerto Rican

Lester Atwell

added a link pointing to 87th Infantry Division

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Fixed TimothyJosephWood 13:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Request on 17:03:41, 10 March 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Charlie Appleby

Charlie Appleby (talk · contribs)
- User:Charlie Appleby/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks Tim for your helpful comments. Have resubmitted after encyclopediarizing the article. Hopefully anodyne enough now.

Charlie Appleby (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Charlie Appleby Definitely need to keep going. Looking at the edit's you've done, you did take out the things I mentioned specifically, but I wasn't saying those were the particular passages that needed taken care of, but rather those were the types of passages, and there's still plenty more there. TimothyJosephWood 17:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fidesz

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fidesz. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

14:48:16, 13 March 2017 review of submission by Fortune Tigere

Fortune Tigere (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Rudo Chasi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Vikeke (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC) please update me on my review of the article I amended as you had requested. Vikeke (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Vikeke. The references need to be formatted as inline citations, so it's clear exactly which content is supported by which references. For guidance on this see Help:Referencing for beginners. There also needs to be additional references included to demonstrate that the subject meets our general notability guidelines by receiving sustained in-depth coverage in reliable sources, or meets our more specific notability guidelines for musicians, by having for example, a single or album on a national music chart, or having won or been nominated for a major award. TimothyJosephWood 14:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

'Edit conflict' shortcut

Hi, please see Special:Diff/770276425 – you used WP:EC, which is 'Wikipedia:Edit count'; I have replaced it with H:EC → Help:Edit conflict. --CiaPan (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah good catch. Sometimes WP:WikiSpeak can be its own worse enemy. TimothyJosephWood 13:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

:) CiaPan (talk)

A cup of tea for you!

I just liked your series of edit summaries at the Teahouse...trying to get all the spellings right. Happens to me a lot. Enjoy. Lectonar (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah...all the education in the world can't protect you against typos, especially when you deleted half the comment you original wrote. TimothyJosephWood 19:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

We got a reaction at the Pizzagate talk page...

And apparently, it was a pretty horrible one. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 13:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Ironically, if they kept it up they would probably be doing the project a favor, by getting the talk semi'd, and letting everyone move on to something productive. TimothyJosephWood 13:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I love a good edit summary pun.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

13:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

That image...makes me feel dirty in places that shouldn't be dirty. TimothyJosephWood 15:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Let me guess, you've seen 10 Cloverfield Lane, right? After watching that I will never not get creeped out by Goodman smiling again.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

13:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Sabinoso Wilderness

I today created an article called "Sabinoso Wilderness" in my sandbox. Lo and behold, I find that on this very same day you had also created an article on the same subject.

Given that the Sabinoso Wilderness was created in 2009 and nobody previously had seen fit to create an article it is a rather amazing coincidence that we both had the same idea of creating an article on the very same day.

My draft article is longer and more comprehensive than yours, so I hope you don't mind that I replace your text with mine. The honor of creating the article is still yours. Smallchief (talk 13:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Smallchief. Hah. It's not a coincidence at all. I saw File:Sabinosa wilderness area managmeent plan. pdf.pdf on the latest file feed when you uploaded it to commons. I tried to find an article to put it in and created one when I realized no one had. I agree that your version is currently better, and you can feel free to replace. I will try to incorporate the sources from my version into yours, since that seems easier. Also, since no one else seems to have ever edited your sandbox version, there shouldn't be any issues with a copy/paste move. TimothyJosephWood 13:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. I added a sentence and reference from your text which added to my text. Otherwise we had said about the same thing and used about the same references. Now, I'll put some inks elsewhere so this won't be an orphan article. Smallchief (talk 13:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Smallchief The one thing that pops out is that, as far as I can tell, there still isn't public access, just that in Jan 2016 (per this source), the purchase was made with the intention of getting access, and BLM was doing assessments toward that end, which could take up to a year. I've not found anything that specifically says it has been opened. TimothyJosephWood 14:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I'll make that change. Smallchief (talk 14:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Never mind. I see you've adjusted the text. Thanks. Smallchief (talk 14:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I never said a "thank you"

But yes, thank you for "going in to bat" for me on the refdesk talk page debate. I cringed and retreated before the backlash, I had totally not anticipated it. You held firm, insisting that something needed to be done. I was hoping the problem was over, and it was, (or so I had hoped) until the latest question. The problem user has some notion of getting "paternity insurance", such is his dread, (for stats' sake, actuarial risk is less than 0.3% of ever occurring) but he fears any insurance contract to this effect will be deemed to violate public policy, hence his latest question on the matter. I know, from his past questions. At least the community seems to agree that the "no legal or medical advice rule" will be enforced on this matter, and I flagged the issue, and the question was hatted.

Anyways, don't fuss too much about the latest instalment - I'm really just posting this as a "thank you note". Your military training seems to show here, I suspect. Given the heat the discussion generated, I hope you don't mind me avoiding awarding you a "defender of the wiki" barnstar. I don't want to take any risk of inflaming things. :-) Eliyohub (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Tagging and hatting is probably the only way to go, and well, with the expectation that it would probably need to be abandoned if someone got the notion to edit war over the hat. Sometimes the only thing to do is let people be wrong and move on to something productive.

But no problem at all on the support. Unfortunately, I suspect the ref desk will continue to be the wild west until such a point as Wikimedia actually gets sued over it for some reason or another. But, such seems to be the consensus. TimothyJosephWood 13:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Timeline

Timothy, here it is; just edit to see the code. As I say, it still doesn't look right and needs numbers along the bottom; maybe with a little more tweaking.... DonFB (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

**Hominin species during Pleistocene**

Thanks DonFB. I'll look into it more. I got waste deep in an article and may have lost track of time. TimothyJosephWood 00:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Timothy, I just realized I didn't mention that my effort was on the original chart, from the article, not on your modified version. Presumably, shouldn't make a big difference in terms of the ultimate result, if using the negative sign offers a way to a solution. DonFB (talk) 05:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary subheader

**Hominin species during Pleistocene**

Please comment on Talk:Tourism in Kosovo

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tourism in Kosovo. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Holi is not celebrated in Tamilnadu

Dear TJW,

Unlike other parts of India (Particularly north) Holi is not celebrated anywhere in Tamilnadu and it is not a known festival. I have added disputes to your section of Holi Festival. Kindly revoke the data and update with the right information. immanueldc (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey immanueldc. First off, assuming you mostly just clicked through to the google books links which had no preview, unless you have actually accessed the source, or exhausted all avenues available to do so, it hasn't actually failed verification. In the case of a book which is not available online, if you haven't tried a library, then you probably haven't exhausted all avenues available to find the source.

At any rate, I have simplified the short section and added a source that is available online. TimothyJosephWood 12:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Letting you know

I removed a comment of yours, hope that you agree on reflection that was the right thing to do. [7] --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Meh. I'm indifferent. I do think this is exactly the kind of over-intellectualized incoherence that is pretty indicative of educated people taking amphetamines (social worker here). And I don't think there's anything wrong with friendly banter, but there's nothing wrong with removing it. I've been on both sides. TimothyJosephWood 21:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sabinoso Wilderness, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black bear. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Please leave your comments or suggestions about an article in that article's talk page.

Had you done your homework, instead of jumping to conclusions (as usual) you would have noticed the original word used was "Algonkin" which came from an official State of Connecticut website http://www.sots.ct.gov/sots/cwp/view.asp?a=3188&q=392440. That it was properly cited at the end of the sentence and you ignored it has nothing to do with me! I can't stop thug editors from changing the spelling of words no matter how far back in time it happens. Tell me who do you think you are telling me or anyone else what to do? Instead of complaining so much why don't you pitch in once an awhile and help out. Futhermore please stop adding your comments or suggestions as a trailer to your edits. Read the rules. Have a nice day!——→StephenTS42 (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

comments or suggestions as a trailer to your edits. That's called an WP:EDITSUMMARY.

Both spellings are acceptable, and both lead to Algonquin which is a disambiguation page, when it should lead to Algonquian languages or Algonquian language. I see you appear to have understood that with your latest edit. TimothyJosephWood 19:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Protests against Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Protests against Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Rainbow Kitten Surprise

Hello,

I just wanted to let you know that Rainbow Kitten Surprise would like their page to reflect the edits I made. I cited properly. May I ask why you undid my revision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelrasile (talk • contribs) 19:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Michaelrasile:

Wikipedia isn't much concerned with what the band particularly wants.
The content was blatantly promotional, and Wikipedia is not a means of promotion.
The content is a copyright violation as it is copied and pasted from http://www.rksband.com/the-band. TimothyJosephWood 19:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Czech Republic

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Czech Republic. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Why did you request a Speedy Deletion of my page "Criss Neo"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yianniz (talk • contribs) 12:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Yianniz. The article was deleted because it was about a musician, but did not make any claim for why that musician is significant. In order to qualify for a Wikipedia article, a subject needs to have received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Simply existing is not sufficient to warrant an article, and if the subject has not yet received this type of coverage in reliable sources, then it is probably too soon for it to have its own article. TimothyJosephWood 13:01, 22 March 2017 (U

Kill yourself.

You're adorable. TimothyJosephWood 13:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I would welcome your opinion

Dear TJW, you were very kind to help me once before. I would like to ask you to look at the article I recently created Maxim Voznesenskiy. I accidentally submitted it before it was ready and it was understandably not accepted. It is now completed and I resubmitted it over ten days ago. I am anxious to know if is OK. I also wonder if I have created it in the right space. Many thanks for your time Dywana (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)DywanaDywana (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Dywana. I'll definitely say that having a sentence in the lead like He creates his Art Jewellery like an artist with the very best paints in the world - precious stones, is a pretty big red flag that there's gonna be some promotional language in the draft. Sure enough, there appears to be language throughout that sounds a lot more like someone is trying to flatter the subject rather than write an encyclopedia article.

It may be helpful to check out WP:PEACOCK, as well as more explanatory guidance at Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Avoid peacock and weasel terms. TimothyJosephWood 16:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear TJW thank you very much for your quick reply and your advice. I will look that up and continue working. I do hope my article will eventually be accepted. Have a good day/evening!81.38.145.27 (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Dywana81.38.145.27 (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Dear TJW I have edited the article once again having read the WP:PEACOCK which was very helpful. I have tried to remove anything "puffy". Does the article sound better now? Thank you Dywana (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)DywanaDywana (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Dywana. I have placed a number of cleanup tags on the article to indicate where there is problematic language. Some additional issues:

You should remove the bold (i.e. '''Text''') formatting from the section headers. Headers should simply be enclosed in equal signs (i.e. ==Text==).
Wikipedia articles should not contain external links in the body of the article. Where these links are needed, they should be formatted as references. Where they cannot serve as a reference they should be removed.
Unless the official titles of things are explicitly formatted in all caps, (like, for example initialisms like FBI or OSHA), they should be formatted in sentence case, with only the first word capitalized just as with all proper nouns (see also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters).

I haven't really looked at the sourcing yet, but this should probably do it as far as tone and formatting is concerned. TimothyJosephWood 17:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I will study this and come back again soon. I cannot express in words just how much you are helping me and how much I appreciate it. You are great!!Dywana (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)DywanaDywana (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Good on you for sticking out the learning curve required to really get a handle on writing articles for Wikipedia. It's a lot to learn sometimes. I'm still doing it myself after almost ten years here. TimothyJosephWood 17:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I have gone over the whole article making the corrections you suggested and marked out for me so clearly. I do thank you for the time you invested in that, it was such a help. It is indeed a fascinating world of Wikipedia and learning to edit! I wonder what you think of the sources? Once again many thanks, and if I can ever be of any use to you, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. I have fluent Russian and Spanish. Dywana (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)DywanaDywana (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Dywana: Well if you're ever bored, you can always stop by Category:Articles needing translation from Russian Wikipedia or Category:Articles needing translation from Spanish Wikipedia, where there's never any shortage of articles that need expanded. So if you should ever find the time and motivation to help chip away at those backlogs you can consider it a favor asked and answered. Also, since you are multilingual, you may find a welcome place at Commons, which is a multi-lingual project, and can always use new contributors.

As to the sources, I'm afraid I'm being "dad" at the moment, but I will try to look into it in more depth tomorrow morning. TimothyJosephWood 22:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you TJW that is a fantastic idea. I love translating. I will certainly find time to look into those categories and do some work. I will also look at Commons. You have inspired me! Dywana (talk) 07:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)DywanaDywana (talk) 07:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Good morning Dywana. I've done a bit of cleanup. For future reference, inline citations are normally formatted like this:

Text text text.<ref>Reference 1</ref><ref>Reference 2</ref> Text text text.<ref>Reference 3</ref>

Note that the period at the end of the sentence precedes the reference, and there is no space or punctuation in between references.

There are currently two sections in the article that are entirely unreferenced, and that'll have to be fixed so that it's clear where the information is coming from, and so readers can verify the content. I have tagged both of these for cleanup, and also put a few more inline citation tags where there is either no source for the statement, or it's not immediately clear which source already in the article supports the content.

One other tedious stylistic task that I overlooked earlier: generally unless someone is known by a mononym, like Pocahontas or Madonna, single name references to them in an article should generally use the last name as an identifier and not the first. So mentions like In 1986 Maxim married should be changed to In 1986 Voznesenskiy married, unless as I said, it is a case in his native language that he is commonly referred to mononymously.

But overall, good job so far. Just a bit more to go. TimothyJosephWood 12:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you once again! Re. the first two sections without sources, as they are biographical, would a mention in the biography section of a catalogue suffice as a reference? Will work on the rest. Thank you for your encouragement. I am looking into the section on translating! Dywana (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)DywanaDywana (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC) Re. the gift to the Queen can I use as a reference a letter from the LSO recognising the gift and sponsorship by Voznesesnkiy? As it is a matter of the Queen there are very strict protocols and I do not think there was any written publicity about the gift. Can I use a mention about it that was made in a catalogue (same question as above). Have a lovely day! Dywana (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)DywanaDywana (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Dywana: Per guidance at WP:SELFSOURCE, self published material (even sometimes social media) is usually allowed for comparatively mundane personal details, but the reference should be sufficiently detailed that readers would be able to locate the source, for example, in the case that they requested a copy through an interlibrary loan. TimothyJosephWood 14:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Umm...presenting a specially made gift to Queen Elizabeth is getting a bit beyond "mundane personal details", which is usually things like birthplace, dates, education, etc. So you risk running afoul of the unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim portion of WP:SELFSOURCE. My personal recommendation would be to try to find an independent source for the claim. The added benefit is that independent sources add to the claim of WP:NOTABILITY, while self-published sources do not. TimothyJosephWood 14:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello again TJW. I have worked on the sources for the paragraphs you tagged and the sections requiring citations. I hope it is an improvement and would be happy to have your feedback when you have time of course. You have already worked such a lot with me. Many thanks Dywana (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)DywanaDywana (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Dywana. This may seem increasingly tedious, but kindof as we knock out really big problems we start to drill more down into smaller ones. Also, while I could probably fix all this myself without too terribly much trouble, a big part of RfC is not just getting articles published, but helping to teach editors how to make high quality artilces. So here we are.

So a few things that still need to be fixed: There seems to be quite a bit of "generic homepage" citations, which aren't terribly helpful for readers. For example http://maximv.co.uk/home has not even a dozen words on the entire page. So you really didn't get any information from the homepage itself, and if the information actually comes from http://maximv.co.uk/history rather than http://maximv.co.uk/home, then the citation should point to that page specifically. That way readers wouldn't have to click around for maybe several minutes to find where the information is at.

Second, when a references is repeated you should use a reference name to duplicate it rather duplicating the whole thing. See guidance at WP:REFNAME for the steps involved in doing this.

Finally, although it's not absolutely required, it is highly recommended that citations be formatted with a citation template like Template:Cite web. This can be done manually, but it can also be semi-automated by (when editing on PC) by clicking "Cite" at the top of the edit window and using the drop-down menu to selection your template type. This helps make everything nice and uniform and also includes future options like adding archived versions if the source gets changed over the course of several years. Again, not required, but highly recommended. TimothyJosephWood 18:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there TJW thank you for getting back to me so quickly. I have taken note of the corrections and you are quite right in saying that I should do them myself so that I learn for the future. I get great pleasure in learning how to do something properly, so I am very grateful. I hope to get to make the alterations asap and will get back to you once they are done. Dywana (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)DywanaDywana (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Good morning TJW. Much as I try I have to accept defeat on the improvement of the format for citations. I have had no luck with the drop down template as it comes up that some bits of information are missing. I am really afraid of messing up all my citations which have cost me a lot of work and are in fact the most difficult part of the article. I have tried to repeat a reference but I am getting something wrong. I have read the help pages in great detail but I am stuck. I don't seem to be able to go forward. Perhaps if you would be so kind to just do one for me, so that I can see what it should look like, then I could do all the other ones. In despair! Dywana (talk) 08:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)DywanaDywana (talk) 08:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear TJW I see that you have not been able to answer my latest communication above. I appreciate that you are very busy advising so many contributors and have already given me so much of your time. I am still hoping that you may answer but I will continue to try to sort out the template for a repeat reference and then hope to have my article accepted. I am very grateful and intend to do a translation for Wikipedia. If there is an article either in Spanish or in Russian that you are particularly interested in please let me know. With very best wishes Dywana (talk) 08:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)DywanaDywana (talk) 08:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sebastian Gorka

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sebastian Gorka. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alternative for Germany

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alternative for Germany. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Next Balearic parliamentary election

Hi. I've reverted your page move at Next Balearic parliamentary election, because the reasoning you gave for the move (Move following the naming convention on Balearic parliamentary election, 2015. We do not normally use temporally sensitive qualifier...) is wrong. We actually DO use "Next" to refer to elections of uncertain date; in fact, it's a naming convention by itself (check at WP:NCGAL): For future elections of uncertain date, use a form similar to Next Irish general election. When the year of the election is known, titles like this should redirect to an article title with a year (e.g. Irish general election, 2016), since "next" is a moving target. It's true that it's likely that the election will be held in 2019, but electoral regulation in the Balearic Islands as well as the community's Statute of Autonomy allows for the regional government to call an election at any time, so under WP:CRYSTALBALL we can't take for granted that the election will be held in 2019. This is both convention as well as customary practice in Wikipedia. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Huh. Well, I'll be damned. Thanks for catching my screw up Impru20, and for taking the time to leave a note and explaining everything. TimothyJosephWood 16:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't mind, since it was an obvious good faith mistake which just needed a little explanation (and I understand this may get chaotic for some elections which do indeed have fixed dates (i.e. in the US) or elections with fixed dates that, nonetheless, don't prevent "extra" elections from happening earlier (i.e. Murcia, Asturias, Sweden etc)). Nonetheless, I've requested the speedy deletion of the Balearic parliamentary election, 2019 article under the db-error template, as it could conflict in the future with a potential move of the page to such a link if the election is, eventually, indeed held in 2019. Impru20 (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually Impru20, it could conceivably be a plausible redirect. I see you're not a Wikipedia:Page mover, but if you ever decide to apply for that right, you can use it to override this kind of issue by doing Wikipedia:Page_mover#Round-robin_page_moves, rather than having to CSD them. Might be something to keep in mind. TimothyJosephWood 16:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

RFC's

Hello Timothy Joeseph Wood, I have a quick question for you if you have time. Is it fair to all parties if an editor goes ahead and makes the change that is being discussed at the RFC? Is that generally allowed? I am speaking of an RFC that no one has closed. Antonioatrylia (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Antonioatrylia. I assume you're talking about Bikini Moon, given your recent revert there. With anything having to do with a living person, the safest bet is usually to maintain whatever the more conservative version of the article is, and enact the result of the RfC once there's strong consensus and sources for the content.

As to the change itself, I think you're on the wrong side of this one, and we usually don't employ "award winning" type language since it comes off as pretty promotional in tone and doesn't really add much as far as actual information goes. TimothyJosephWood 17:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Gryphon Investors

Hello Timothy, we put up a page for Gryphon Investors which was immediately tagged for speedy deletion. We immediately made changes to edit out anything that could be construed as an advertisement. Where do we go from here? Arsenl2017 (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Arsenl2017. First off, if you happen to have a close connection with the subject of the article you should carefully review our policy on conflicts of interest, since failing to abide by those rules can definitely attract some unwanted attention.

As to the article itself, it does look like you've done some work in removing some of worst of the promotional language, but one big problem is definitely that it currently only includes a single inline citation. In order to demonstrate that a subject meets our guidelines on notability, articles need to include references to in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

One option that may work out here is that I can move the article to a draft for the time being, where you can continue to work on it without risk of it being deleted. Then you can submit it through our Articles for Creation process, where volunteers can review your submission, offer ongoing guidance on how to improve it, and eventually publish the article back onto the encyclopedia once it's clear that it's been improved enough that it doesn't run a significant risk of being deleted. TimothyJosephWood 17:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, draft status would be just fine. Arsenl2017 (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Arsenl2017. I've moved the article to Draft:Gryphon Investors. When you are ready to submit the draft for review click the blue button toward the top of the page which says "Submit your draft for reivew," and it will be added to the list of pending submissions. However, before you do you should take time to add references to the article that help to establish the company's notability, since it will almost certainly be declined with only two references. For more information you may want to check our our tutorial on writing your first article. TimothyJosephWood 18:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. 8 references now. Arsenl2017 (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Timothy, I see that the Talk page for Gryphon Investors has been moved to DRAFT, but not the regular page. Probably for that reason, I don't see a Submit Draft button. Am I looking in the wrong place. Thank you for your advice. I read the How To article and it was very helpful. Hopefully, I have it squared away now.Arsenl2017 (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, I get what happened. You nicely moved it to Draft. I kept editing the page but not in draft version. The page now has more than 10 references and is much more complete. Is it possible to move that into draft and replace the shorter version that is there? Sorry for the trouble. Arsenl2017 (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Part of this is probably my bad for posting here that I had moved the article to a draft rather than posting at your talk. Personally, I won't move the talk back because the current article is still pretty unambiguously promotional, but if a reviewing admin sees the article you have recreated and disagrees, then I'll certainly move it after a second opinion. TimothyJosephWood 22:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so to continue editing, should I make all my changes on the draft version (wicked pain) or the 'other' version where there are already 10 citations? thanksArsenl2017 (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Arsenl2017 The version with more citations has now been moved to Draft:Gryphon Investors. TimothyJosephWood 01:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. On the revisions. Learning. Arsenl2017 (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Ping Notifications from Talk:Bond-dissociation energy

@Timothyjosephwood: okay! BEBOLD followed. Thanks.
Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Bkpsusmitaa, note the guidance at WP:BEBOLD, to be bold but not reckless. And if you are reverted, follow the steps in the bold, reversion, discussion process and discuss potential changes on the article's talk page, rather than engaging in an edit war. TimothyJosephWood 01:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood Understood the general idea and not resubmitted as an article. Entered the portion in the Talk:Bond-dissociation_energy.Thanks. Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

	Thanks
	Hi Tim, thanks for the help in vetting my article twice. However, could you guide me along the way to making that post be accepted? that will really be of great help. Cryptoedwan (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Cryptoedwan. The draft currently in your sandbox is pretty promotional in tone, it's chock full of jargon, and is pretty evidently trying to "sell" the reader on the concept, rather than provide a neutral encyclopedic overview of it. I wouldn't at all be surprised if large portions are copy/pasted from somewhere, although wherever that would be is probably behind a pay wall, since open web searches don't find anything.

However, having said all that (and as I just found), the draft seems to be a duplication of the existing article on Financial technology, and if there is content on the subject that should be added, it should be done there, and not on a new draft. TimothyJosephWood 17:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2017 Olathe, Kansas shooting

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017 Olathe, Kansas shooting. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Maxim Voznesenskiy

Hey Dywana. Sorry. I just didn't see your reply, since the thread was starting to get a bit buried. So I'll start this new one at the bottom to hopefully prevent that. So you are referencing like this:

Johnny told the devil "you son of a gun, I'm the best there's ever been."<ref>The Devil went down to Georgia. (1979) Charlie Daniels. ''Epic Records''.</ref> They engaged in a fiddle playing contest which Johnny Won.<ref>The Devil went down to Georgia. (1979) Charlie Daniels. ''Epic Records''.</ref> The story was later told in a popular song by Charlie Daniels.<ref>The Devil went down to Georgia. (1979) Charlie Daniels. ''Epic Records''.</ref>

Which gives you this:

Johnny told the devil "you son of a gun, I'm the best there's ever been."^[1] They engaged in a fiddle playing contest which Johnny Won.^[2] The story was later told in a popular song by Charlie Daniels.^[3]

References

^ The Devil went down to Georgia. (1979) Charlie Daniels. Epic Records.

^ The Devil went down to Georgia. (1979) Charlie Daniels. Epic Records.

^ The Devil went down to Georgia. (1979) Charlie Daniels. Epic Records.

But instead of repeating the reference, you name it like this, and just repeat the name with a "/":

Johnny told the devil "you son of a gun, I'm the best there's ever been."<ref name="Daniels">The Devil went down to Georgia. (1979) Charlie Daniels. ''Epic Records''.</ref> They engaged in a fiddle playing contest which Johnny Won.<ref name="Daniels"/> The story was later told in a popular song by Charlie Daniels.<ref name="Daniels"/>

Which gives you this:

Johnny told the devil "you son of a gun, I'm the best there's ever been."^[1] They engaged in a fiddle playing contest which Johnny Won.^[1] The story was later told in a popular song by Charlie Daniels.^[1]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c The Devil went down to Georgia. (1979) Charlie Daniels. Epic Records.

So that it duplicates the same reference instead of repeating the whole thing. Hopefully this helps clear it up a bit and sorry again for not seeing your earlier reply. TimothyJosephWood 13:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear TJW thank you so much, that is a really clear explanation! I am travelling at the moment so will repair my references tomorrow. Have a wonderful day Dywana (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)DywanaDywana (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Excellent TJW thanks to you I have been able to remove all the repeated references in my article. I am now very happy. How very neat it looks! I wonder if my article may now be published? Should I contact the editor who rejected it to ask for a review? What do you think?Dywana (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)DywanaDywana (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Dywana. I'll look over it in the next couple of days. I already added one tag where the source didn't actually mention the subject of the article, and so doesn't support the content. I'll try to evaluate individual sources now that we have gotten some of the bigger stuff out of the way. TimothyJosephWood 22:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello TJW thank you for the feedback. I await your evaluation of the individual sources and keep my fingers crossed. Of course, I am willing to correct anything where necessary. Once again thank you for your time, I can see that you are very busy. May all good things come your way! Dywana (talk) 11:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)DywanaDywana (talk) 11:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Peer review/Nuclear weapon/archive1

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Peer review/Nuclear weapon/archive1. Cheers, FriyMan ^talk 18:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

strange social and cultural human atropologiche coincidences involving Western culture

As it happens, the economic crisis in Greece in 2011 the Union European guilt and then five years after in 2016 the output of Britain in the European union with Brexit then no coincidence Random Terrorism ISIS attack a dove reigns Paris pacifism and attack in London also where reigns religious anarchy and political symbol of the star Marian crest at 8 bits of masonry that has the current Pope Francis and look a bit in the white House during the vote of the Immigration President of the Donald Trump of America were united above it was the symbol of Sol Invictus that symbolizes Christmas there is some conspiracy futuristic what few crazy Want World Domination as a conspiracy in the Command humanity in the near future it soon investigate because of everything would keep account over the next few years. -- Mikinuzzu (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Quick! Put this on!. No time to explain! TimothyJosephWood 18:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for your advise Timothyjosephwood!

Piaadibe 18:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:International Justice Mission

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:International Justice Mission. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gaslighting

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gaslighting. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

www.sealfit.com

How can this page www.sealfit.com get approved?

Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiseal123 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikiseal123, since you are fairly blatantly trying to use Wikipedia to advertise for this product/company, the answer is it probably doesn't. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion, and we only keep articles on companies if they meet our notability standards and have been written about in depth by independent reliable sources. TimothyJosephWood 19:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Please go to www.sealfit.com and write a proper page for this training system. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiseal123 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

No. TimothyJosephWood 19:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

BLPN

I didn't edit "promote" 4 times, did I? SPECIFICO talk 19:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit summary: This was extensively discussed at BLPN. And your edit is against advice there. Do not reinsert. If you wish to push this, go back to BLPN with it.

Actual statement on BLPN: If it's important to add that she simply believes it, then add that, but I can't see any reason to remove it entirely.

Yes. Rock solid consenus. And with a user who is so exceptionally meh about the whole thing they begin that exact same comment with It's a distinction without a difference. An on your own talk:

Comment: Please undo your last edit. Thanks.

Response: BLP violations must be removed immediately.

Yes. I'm actually surprised you haven't already been given a barn star for standing up for the flagrant BLP violation that is whether to say "putting forth" rather than "promoting", and whether to say "she said" or "she said she believes". Bravo. TimothyJosephWood 19:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Many thanks for all your help! Dywana (talk) 11:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Dywana. I've left a number of notes in the draft in [Bolded text] specifying where there are specific problems with specific sources. TimothyJosephWood 12:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello TJW, here I am again. I have reviewed the references to the sources that were not working properly - my apologies for that. This is a big learning curve! I think they are fine now. I have removed the Sarianidi text for the time being, although it is interesting. I will try and get in touch with the museum to get more exact information, although there have been so many changes in that country. I may also try the university, but that will all take time, so I am keeping that text to add at a later date when I can source it properly. Thank you for creating the inlaid quote from the NYT, that looks very nice! I have also uploaded a photo on Wikicommons. So I now await your verdict. Many, many thanks!Dywana (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)DywanaDywana (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Dywana, I tagged one last source in the article, since it appears to be related to the show, but doesn't mention anything about the subject being a part of it. I'm not...entirely sure how you got a picture of the subject that is an original work, but I'll admit it doesn't seem to exists anywhere else on the internet but here. So here it stays. I also did some general fixed. But overall we're pretty close.

Thank you TJW for your attention to detail. The source 21 you tagged refers to the donations to the Kremlin Museums by Alrosa of items that were in the "Diamonds of Russia – the XXth century" show curated by Maxim Voznesenskiy in 2001, see ref 20. In the source article 21 it is mentioned that the donations came via Alrosa from Jewellery Theatre which was run by Irina Dorofeyevna and Maxim Voznesenskiy. I have edited the text a little in the hope of making it clearer. Can I remove your tag? Thank youDywana (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)DywanaDywana (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Dywana. Works for me. I've accepted and published the draft. One small problem remains. The article is currently an orphan and there are no wikilinks to it on other articles. That means that it's very unlikely to be found by interested readers. I looked to add some, but apparently the only place on the entire encyclopedia that Voznesenskiy is mentioned is on the main article. So you need to try to find related articles that probably should mention him, but don't, and add wikilinks to his main article. TimothyJosephWood 12:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello TJW, thanks for the good news and the extra pice of advice. I will bear it in mind, it is a very interesting observation. My warmest wishes Dywana (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)DywanaDywana (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sr. Aklesia Memorial Hospital is not Correct

Hi Timothyjosephwood,

Did you read the content of the wiki i created. It is the history of the Sister Aklesia and Sister Aklesia Memorial Hospital. Which doesn't do any advertisement.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miki maine (talk • contribs) 16:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Miki maine. Please note that Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. The article you have created is, intentionally or otherwise, overtly and unambiguously promotional throughout, besides being almost entirely a copyright violation, for being copied and pasted from the main website. Neither are allowed by Wikipedia. TimothyJosephWood 16:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Sabinoso Wilderness

On 5 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sabinoso Wilderness, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 16,030 acres (6,490 ha) of Federal land in New Mexico's Sabinoso Wilderness are inaccessible without trespassing, because they are entirely enclosed in privately-owned property? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sabinoso Wilderness. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sabinoso Wilderness), 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.

Mifter (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lithuania

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lithuania. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2020

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2020. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

List of Legends of Tomorrow episodes

Hello, i recently created an article called List of Legends of Tomorrow episodes i was wondering if i cold add it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidan0007 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Aidan0007. From the looks of it, the real issue is whether the section in the exisiting article is too long, and should be split off, and it looks like there is already a discussion about that happening at Talk:Legends of Tomorrow. So you should join in there, and try to reach a consensus with the other editors. TimothyJosephWood 14:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Creating a fan page

Hi, me again, i was wondering if i could create an article for my fan page for the BlockManFilms YouTube channel (not created yet) my show is still in development and its a minecraft animated series. But i want to request for others who wanna make pages for there fan shows or whatever should have a wikipedia with sources that lead to twitter news or something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidan0007 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Aidan0007. Wikipedia only covers topic if they meet our notability guidelines, which means that they need to have been written about in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic. Since I strongly suspect that your fanpage has not had any such coverage, it is probably not appropriate for its own article at this time. TimothyJosephWood 19:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Request on 19:19:21, 6 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Josephgalasso

Josephgalasso (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Andrew Radford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

thanks...i'll try to send 2n sources, reviews etc. j — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephgalasso (talk • contribs) 19:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

hello timothyjosephwood, how do i go about w. next step re. references: references do not adequately show the subject's notability?

wiki page application for andrew radford (bristish linguist). thanks, joseph galasso

Josephgalasso (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Josephgalasso. In order for your draft to be accepted, it needs to show that the subject meets our notability guidelines, which means that they need to have been written about in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The only sources you currently have appear to be official bios, which are often very useful for raw information, but they don't count toward notability because they're not considered independent. What you need to find are instances where others have decided the subject is important enough that they took the time to write about him. Every professor at every institution ever has their own bio page, so that doesn't really say anything about whether the subject is more than a run-of-the-mill professor. TimothyJosephWood 19:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

19:27:16, 6 April 2017 review of submission by Imogen at Leeds Uni Library

Imogen at Leeds Uni Library (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Leeds University Library's Cookery Collection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Timothyjosephwood, thanks for the feedback on my 'Draft:Leeds University Library's Cookery Collection'.

I think it is necessary to discuss individual items in a rare book or archival collection. Doing so illustrates the range and uses of the collection.

I also don't think it is fair to say that the discussion of things in the collection is 'most' of the article. I only discuss things in the 'Collections and Highlights' section. The Lead section, Designation section and Research Outreach section all show how the collection itself is an independent noteworthy thing. (The History section also talks about the overall collection.)

Yes, I use sources about individuals to inform the discussion of individual items in the collection. However, there are plenty of sources about the collection itself throughout - see references 2, 6, 7, 10, 13, 16, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57.

Hey Imogen at Leeds Uni Library. This was a hard one, so I'll try to explain with an example. Something like this, may be perfectly appropriate:

Special Collections holds in the Cookery Collection four copies of Hannah Woolley’s The Queen-Like Closet. The earliest edition is from 1672.

However, something this really isn't:

Woolley was one of the first women in England to have earnt a living from writing and selling books.

The former is about the collection but the latter is about something related to the collection. Especially when that other thing has it's own article, content about that other thing should go there, and not on an article about a distinct, but related subject.

Similarly, something like:

The study of food history can shed light on social and economic characteristics of past societies. Cookery books can act as sources for attitudes, practices, trade and linguistics from a range of historical periods.

..is completely off topic and not about the subject of the article at all.

So I'm not necessary saying you need to mass delete whole sections of the article, but I am saying that many sections can probably been combined and condensed, and that there is a lot of fat (food pun intended) that needs trimming. You could say you have a well marbled article, and you need to work to make it quite a bit more lean. TimothyJosephWood 19:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Request on 19:30:37, 6 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Josephgalasso

Josephgalasso (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Andrew Radford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Andrew Radford: WP:NACADEMIC

Andrew Radford satisfies 5, by being appointed emeritus (distinguished) professor of Linguistics at Essex in January 2014, rated the 4th best uni for linguistics in the UK, also satisfies 6, having served as the Dean of the School of Humanities and Comparative Studies at Essex from 1997-1999, and one could add by being Head of Department at Bangor from 1980-89, and at Essex from 1990-3, 1996-7 and 2007-10. satisfies 3 by virtue of having twice been appointed as a member of the Linguistics Panel for the Higher Education Funding Council for England (in 1996 and 2000), in its 4/5-yearly review of research quality and output in all UK universities, where a panel of half a dozen or so leading experts in each field rates the research output of every academic in the relevant field in the UK (so, being on such a panel twice is a recognition of status)

please direct on next steps (e.g. any required verification on this, etc). thanks, j — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephgalasso (talk • contribs) 20:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

ok. i'll send in several of his book reviews. would this do? he was also a cambridge university (trinity college) fellow. joseph — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephgalasso (talk • contribs) 20:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

would his cambridge university press page fulfill this requirement?

http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/authors/204122

thanks, j — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephgalasso (talk • contribs) 19:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

to timothyjosephwood:

Re. wiki page proposal fro Andrew Radford (British Linguist): for sources published, see link to Cambridge University Press (below):

http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/authors/204122

what more should i provide re. reliable sources? please direct. thanks, joseph galasso

Josephgalasso (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Josephgalasso. Actually, I pointed you to the wrong policy, what you need to read instead is WP:NACADEMIC. So what you need to show is that they meet one, or preferably many, of those criteria. I'm afraid the Cambridge link shows that he is a prolific writer, but it doesn't necessarily demonstrate that his writings have had a significant impact. TimothyJosephWood 19:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I've commented on thisbelow The head of a dept a a major UK university and author of a standard text is sufficient to meet WP:PROf. You might want to look at some relevant AFDs to see how the rule is applied. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Request on 20:19:45, 6 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Josephgalasso

Josephgalasso (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Andrew Radford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i am currently gathering book reviews for andrew radford--his several book-reviews for cambridge university press. do i then send them to you? joseph

Josephgalasso (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Josephgalasso. When you find more sources, you should try to incorporate them into the draft. If this is the first article you have written for Wikipedia, you may want to take the time to read over our tutorial on writing your first article, or consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. TimothyJosephWood 20:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Request on 20:29:00, 6 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Josephgalasso

Josephgalasso (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Andrew Radford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

ok. working on gathering his several book reviews. as you say, i'll then incorporate them in the draft. any specifics on how i should do this? thanks for your help. j — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephgalasso (talk • contribs) 20:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

andrew radford:

also see Chomsky quote re. his work (below). he is a pioneer of the 'structure building' model of child language acquisition...

his research on language acquisition in the 1990s--was a pioneer of the structure-building model of acquisition in which children are seen as gradually building up more and more complex structures, with lexical categories (like noun and verb) being acquired before functional categories (like determiners and complementisers): this research resulted in the publication of an influential monograph on Syntactic Theory and the Acquisition of English Syntax in 1990 (Blackwell, Oxford), and numerous articles on the acquisition of syntax by monolingual, bilingual and language-disordered children. He also produced a number of authoritative books on Chomsky’s work on Minimalist syntax, and was commended for this by Chomsky himself in a letter to him on 26 March 1998, in which Chomsky said about his book Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English (CUP, 1997) that ‘It’s really a superb piece of work. I wouldn’t have thought it possible at this point, frankly. For me personally, stimulating me to rethink, page after page, and also new things I hadn’t really thought about or known.’ For the past decade, he has been researching the syntax of colloquial English, using data recorded from unscripted radio and TV broadcasts; he has produced a number of articles on this, and is preparing a research monograph on Colloquial English.

thanks, joseph galasso

Josephgalasso (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Josephgalasso. The problem is that the Chomsky commentary, as far as I can tell, is from a personal letter, and wasn't published anywhere in any secondary sources. TimothyJosephWood 20:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Corey Stewart (politician)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Corey Stewart (politician). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Teo Mora CV

Don't worry for that aspect. I do not touchnothing unless the uestion is solved.

If the page survives than I will remove most of these data and point to the few true contribution I gave.

You will have a minimalistic text-only page.Teo Mora (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Teo Mora. I'm afraid this requires more time than I can commit at the moment. I will try to look more into it in the coming days. TimothyJosephWood 00:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Fine thanksTeo Mora (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

MfD opinion on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Rishi Aurobindo Mission School

Hi there Timothyjosephwood, could I please get your thoughts on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Rishi Aurobindo Mission School? Thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey TheSandDoctor. In this case, my thought is that you should withdraw your nomination and instead nominate for WP:G11. My other recommendation is strongly that you should stop spamming user talks with every nomination you make, as this can be seen as a form of WP:CANVASSING. TimothyJosephWood 00:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Noted --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

MfD was withdrawn --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

MfD opinion on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Syntactic noise

Hi again! I was just wondering if I could get your opinion on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Syntactic noise. Thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion closed. TheSandDoctor, you should take TJW's advice - notifying five editors of an MFD is borderline canvassing, and should be avoided. You're welcome to ask other editors for advice, of course, but not just blindly pick a half-dozen people to !vote on a deletion discussion. Primefac (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: I have taken their advise and will no longer do that. To clarify, it is okay to ask one or two if a nomination would be appropriate or? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor, it's one thing to ask a couple folks for advice (e.g. "should I nominate for deletion"?), but I would localize it to one particular location (maybe the page's talk page) and ping - that way the intended recipient(s) know who has been invited to discuss the page. Primefac (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: Okay - thank you for the heads up and information --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Question about user contributions

Hey man.If i go under tools and click on user contributions. It says some numbers that look like this (+1000). It says that next to my contributions. I created a page and it said a lot more than the others. What do these numbers mean. Onealjack123 (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Onealjack123. I believe what you are referring to is the number of bytes (the digital amount of information) that is added or subtracted with each edit. One byte is kindof equal to one character, so that "zzzz" equals +4 and "zzzzzzzzzz" equals +10, while if you removed "zzz" it would equal -3. Hope this helps. TimothyJosephWood 00:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Erik Prince

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Erik Prince. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Legal Executive edits

Hello Timothy, I noticed you edited the legal executive (Hong Kong) section. I am currently teaching students in two legal executive programs at the University of Hong Kong- the reason for my edits The current information is incomplete and not uptodate The Chinese University of Hong Kong is no longer running the program. The Law society ran the exercise quite a few years back etc I am happy to provide the validation and chat regarding your concerns. Thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.136.6.238 (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey anon. There is nothing wrong with updating information that is fairly objectively outdated, but the bit about detailing the courses is entirely too much like an advertisement to include in a Wikipedia article. Additional, we normally do not include external links in the body of articles. TimothyJosephWood 13:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Monica Youn photo

Hi Timothy,

I noticed you uploaded another photo to my Wikipedia page? Could you substitute this one instead; I own the copyright and I authorize its use so there should be no problem -- I uploaded it to the Commons under a CC license.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SS032616MY_092L.jpg

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentine (talk • contribs) 18:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Vincentine. I see as I commented on your own talk you have been busy in the mean time. The only problem with your license is that you are the subject of the image, and so, unless you have a particularly large selfie stick, it is probably not "your work", meaning that you were not the person who pushed the button on the camera, and therefore the default copyright holder.

Given that, you need to follow instructions here and legally verify with the Wikimedia Foundation that you are the owner and that you release it for public use. Note that this does not only release it for use by Wikipedia, but for use by the public, even and including commercial reuse and modification. TimothyJosephWood 18:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I want to step in to point out that the exif data says this isn't the work of Monica Youn and explicitly says it is only for PR and press use and not a Creative Commons use. So Vincentine please provide proof you own this picture's copyright. (Hope it's not annoying for me to step in here.) Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem Nesnad. The core issue as I understand it is who actually commissioned the photo. If the photo was not commissioned then the default copyright holder is the person who pushed the button. If it was commissioned then the person who did so is free to release it. If this is the case, it's pretty unquestionably better in quality than the current image, and would certainly be an improvement. But I won't personally add it until the details are sorted out, and will nominate for deletion as a copyright violation if they're not sorted out in short order. TimothyJosephWood 19:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I commissioned the photo from the photographer, and paid her quite fairly for the transfer of copyright to me, so I am the sole owner of all rights to the image. I licensed it already under a CC license when I uploaded it to Wikimedia per the site's instructions. Do i need to do more than that? I'm not sure why Nesnad is asking for "proof" above and beyond what Wikimedia asks for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentine (talk • contribs) 20:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Vincentine: As I indicated, you need to follow the instructions here. This satisfies the WMF's "burden of proof", so that if you are in fact not the copyright holder (as far as God is aware), we've still done our due diligence (as far as the law is concerned). TimothyJosephWood 20:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I also don't understand why you removed the references to my third book and the ISBN and publishing info-- all are clearly documented from original sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentine (talk • contribs) 21:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC) I've also followed all the licensing instructions at the link listed above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentine (talk • contribs) 21:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I followed the intrsuctions on your link but never received a response. The photo is here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SS032616MY_092L.jpg. Is it ok to use?--Vincentine (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Vincentine (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cold War II

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War II. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Boca Raton Swat Deletion 04/10/17

HI there, you tagged our page for speedy deletion. We wanted to inform you that this is for a college project and it is of high importance that we complete this page. It will take us some time to complete. As this is a work in progress. LUPIA (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey LUPIA. While we appreciate your contributions, in order to qualify for a Wikipedia article, subjects need to meet our standards for notability, which requires in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Normally I would suggest trying to include your content in the main article for the Boca Raton Police Department, but it doesn't look like the department has its own article yet. Overall it may be a better idea to start working on an article for the police department, and consider splitting off individual sections if they get too long. You may want to consider writing the article as a draft (which can be started by clicking on Draft:Boca Raton Police Department), which will allow you to work on the article without risk of being deleted while it is unfinished. TimothyJosephWood 19:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Response to Semi protected edit request

I saw what you wrote to the anon at Talk:Wikipedia and got a little chuckle out of it. Sakuura Cartelet ^Talk 02:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Sakura Cartelet. Wikipedia is a very serious place and everything we do is of dire importance.

...Also, according to my very sophisticated calculations, as the likelihood increases that a ...less than helpful... editor is not in fact an idiot, but actually a child (we won't get into whether there's actually a difference), sometimes it's just better to have a sense of humor. Who knows, they may come back one day and actually do something productive. TimothyJosephWood 16:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Had it been me who came across that request first, I would have pointed out that I generally edit in nothing but a pair of questionably-stained tighty whities. And now you will never unsee that mental image, muah ha ha!

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

16:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh boy! TimothyJosephWood 16:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

If you think that's bad, go look at the actual name of the alt account I'm using right now.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

16:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱUnderpants? TimothyJosephWood 17:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

No, no no. MPants at work. I have a very forgiving boss.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

16:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

In response

But no one has killed more people in modern times than the so-called "religion of peace". Cyrus the Penner (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

"Modern times" is such a arbitrary limit. And nationalism has killed more people in modern times than anything else no matter how you cut it, although admittedly Genghis Khan would scoff at the few tens of millions of people killed by Hitler, with all the industrial might of modern technology. In comparison, killing several tens of millions of people by hand takes a bit more... planning.

If you can't tell, I prefer to take the long view. It's much more interesting that way. TimothyJosephWood 22:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I just started this book, which so far is just fascinating. TimothyJosephWood 22:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Blue Army (Poland)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blue Army (Poland). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

AfC

Please see my comment at User talk:Josephgalasso. For an academic, notability is established by their publications, and their offical CV and references to the books is sufficient evidence of that. Please check WP:PROF. We have that rule specifically because the GNG is not always applicable here--it's an alternative. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

DGG: Yes, I am familiar with PROF, and recently had quite the run around with it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teo Mora. I just linked to the wrong WP:ALPHABETSOUP. Thanks for providing the editor with the correct link. Still, I do normally personally prefer that there is more than their official bio, and this is backed up by PROF 1. TimothyJosephWood 08:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

of course it is preferred that there be additional references. As a minimum, I usually construct some by making references for any book to its page on World Cat, and to Google Scholar as appropriate. But it is nonetheless not necessary, and it is not correct to decline to accept a draft because it should have further improvement--the standard as we both know is that it is likely to pass AfD if challenged (tho I still insist ofn fixing really gross errors) DGG ( talk ) 09:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

DGG: I certainly may have slightly higher standards than the average reviewer, but that is because (in my unimportant opinion), the purpose of AfC is not just to create articles which will survive AfD, but to train new editors in how to write those articles. So, for example, you certainly would not delete an article at AfD for having gross and pervasive formatting errors, but I personally would decline it at AfC. The companion to that is that I'm personally willing to work with the editor to fix those. See for example Maxim Voznesenskiy (which I'm pretty disappointed to find is still an orphan), and the half dozen or so threads above relating to it. TimothyJosephWood 10:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't tempt me. I'm liable to get wild and write an essay on why NCOs make good editors, that...no one will ever read ever. TimothyJosephWood 10:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

As a former NCO, I endorse this message.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

16:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

MjolnirPants Hah. The real taxonomy of new editors:

PV1 editors - Basically knows nothing, are pretty sure they know pretty little, willing to take advice, occasionally need a reality check
2LT editors - Basically knows nothing, are pretty sure they know way more than you do, doesn't quite understand why you won't just shut up and do what they tell you to, definitely running for ARBCOM soon

TimothyJosephWood 17:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds about right. I had a top once tell me "A soldier's usefulness is inversely proportional to the rank he plans to get out at," and I've yet to see him proven wrong.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

22:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad you have high standards--we need editors and reviewers like that. But it is not advisable to use your own high standard to make decisions about articles when the consensus is otherwise. True, the interpretation of "likely to pass AfD" in this context varies. Originally, some people interpreted it as having anything better than an even chance. There's a rough agreement on somewhere between 2/3 and 3/4, but in practice most of us aim much higher: of the hundreds of drafts I have reviewed, I do not think more than 2 or 3 of them have been subsequently deleted, and very few have even been challenged. But I think there is certainly agreement on not interpreting it by using standards other than those actually used at AfD, whether higher or lower. It is, for example, wrong to accept an article because one thinks it ought to be accepted at AfD, when one knows very well that it is not going to happen. I have in a few respects a somewhat different concept of notability than most, which I sometimes express in discussions. But I absolutely never make a decision on an article, whether closing AfD or deleting at Prod or speedy, or tagging or accepting a draft, on the basis of anything other than what I know or at least believe to be the consensus interpretation. Admins must follow the consensus, and so ought anyone making a judgment.

The question of how good an article must be in other respects is also not exact. For example, people a few years ago would decline articles because they do not have inline references--but except for BLPs or truly disputable statements this is not required for a WP article, and I do not think any current reviewer does that. The way I think of it is that I would not want an accepted draft to go to AfD if the way the article is written would incline those commenting there to delete it--AfD sometimes does delete really incompetent articles if nobody will fix them. And I don't want my name associated with what I think junk, in any case--and for that reason I will often just let someone else review if I know I might be unreliable or erratic or tempted not to follow consensus, just as I would let someone else close an AfD in such cases.

There is a way to handle articles with gross formatting errors that are otherwise acceptable: if I'm going to accept it, I fix them. It is usually much easier for me to fix an article than to explain to a new user just how to fix it, and I'll either fix the draft or accept and then fix the article. It is also the best way to teach the newcomer, teaching by example.

Most people whose drafts or articles are rejected never come back; often that is all to the good, but sometimes it loses us a potentially helpful and active contributor. AfC is as much about the contributors as the articles. We can deal with articles of dubious quality later, but there is no way of getting back someone who has left us. The life of WP depends on continuing to attract contributors. It'sactually them ost important thing we need to do here--everything else needed will follow. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok DGG. I'll try to give a thoughtful response to a thoroughly thoughtful comment. Sorry about the silliness and the fact this this is definitely going to be a wall of text, even before I've written it.

The decline itself was, taken in a vacuum, still appropriate for a few reasons: 1) It did not include the required inline citations for a BLP. 2) It included content which wasn't supported by the citations given, and which would have materially supported the claim to notability if it were properly cited. So simply removing the unsupported bits wouldn't have really done much good. 3) The article itself was (surely unintentionally) going for PROF 1 notability, which requires secondary sources.
Having said that, I did completely whiff my reply above in the 19:30:37, 6 April 2017 thread, and was pretty clearly responding to what I thought they said and not what they were actually saying. What I should have done is adjust fire to PROF 3/5, and requested sources for the positions rather than sources for the impact of the work.
As to formatting, I was imagining gross errors that fundamentally affected the intelligibility of the draft, not just wikilinks and sections. And anyway, it's entirely hypothetical since I don't know of a draft that I've actually declined on these grounds which didn't also have otherwise disqualifying issues, and can't really think of a hypothetical example that we probably wouldn't easily agree on either way.
Although the ultimate standard for AfC is unquestionably AfD, that doesn't necessarily mean that they have precisely the same criteria. AfD deals fundamentally with existential notability (read WP:NEXIST), where AfC deals primarily with demonstrated notability. At AfD the onus is on the nom to demonstrate that the subject isn't notable in the universe at is exists, whereas at AfC the onus is on the author to demonstrate, and the reviewer to evaluate. So for example, I believe I've only ever accepted two outright stubs at AfC on NEXIST grounds (Bhoomi (film) and Partnership on AI), and in both those cases there were literally thousands of sources available without really having to dig the least bit.
As to authors at AfC, I'd say most fall into two broad categories: editors who want to get an article published, and authors who what to get that article published. Most of the latter are probably COI accounts, and a good chunk of them are probably getting paid for it anyway, so I patently don't expect any reviewer to commit an inordinate amount of time cleaning up their ~~commercial~~ draft. I'm certainly willing to offer advice, in the off chance that they decide to come back and contribute as a volunteer having already learned the basics, but I'm not going above and beyond for them by any means.

The (apparent) former (AGF and all) are more of a judgement call as far as how to proceed. So for example with the Maxim V article I linked to above, the editor was pretty clearly exceptionally motivated to improve the draft, and maintained that motivation as my critiques went from broad issues of promotionalism, down to the nitty gritty details of basic formatting. While I did fix exceedingly minor issues myself, and it definitely took longer for me to explain to them how to do the rest than it would have for me to do all of it myself, if they return and make substantial contributions it will have been worth it. Other times it's probably more motivating to simply hack a draft down to a start class and give them the satisfaction of getting it published. Sometimes I may make that call wrongly, but I do make a good faith effort not to. Often times the only test for that is to reject a draft which moderately doesn't qualify, and see how they respond, rather than personally digging up sources, fixing everything possible, and publishing it myself. After all, if they want to see how to write an article correctly, the have the entire rest of the project; if they want to practice how to write an article correctly, they have AfC. TimothyJosephWood 12:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

15:29:46, 12 April 2017 review of submission by Cooper.lord

Cooper.lord (talk · contribs)
- User:Cooper.lord/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have removed the hyperlinks to the Facebook pages, as well as the links to the Wikipedia pages for the different cities. I have also alphabetized the lists. Obviously this is an incomplete list, but before doing too much more work I wanted to know if there was an issue with submitting a list of breweries in Mexico in general. I see that there's one for Canada that doesn't have citations to a wikipedia page for the most part. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_breweries_in_Canada I want to do something similar to this. Would that work? Once there's a list I'm hoping that we'll be able to create pages for the individual breweries (although I suppose it could be done in reverse as well).

Hey Cooper.lord. I think maybe you're misunderstanding the whole link thing. There are two main types of links on Wikipedia: external links (links to websites other than Wikipedia) and internal links (also called wikilinks, which are links from Wikipedia articles to other parts of Wikipedia). External links are pretty highly constricted in their usage, and generally only go into a dedicated external links section, or are included as part of references.

However, wikilinks are much much less restricted, and are generally encouraged as a way to tie the encyclopedia together. Tying the project together is also a lot of what lists do, and whenever there's an article for an item on a list, it should almost always be linked to. So for example, there is an article for Aztec Brewing Company which could be added to your draft so that interested readers can read in greater detail about the individual company.

While List of breweries in Canada is perfectly fine in concept, it's not necessarily the best model to use for the details. Many of the entries have neither a source nor an article, and so much of the list is liable to be removed if a source can't be found.

You may want to take a look at a list I made a while ago at List of incidents of civil unrest in New York City. Ideally, a list entry has 1) a wikilink (or could eventually have one), 2) enough context to identify the entry, and 3) a source for where the information came form.

Sorry for such a long answer. I hope this helps. Feel free to ask any follow up questions if you have them and I'll be happy to help. TimothyJosephWood 15:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Solicitor General

Thanks. I did try to check it but couldn't find any evidence for it, though looking again I am finding some articles that say he's the deputy solicitor general. It wasn't supported by the article on the Solicitor General, which named Noel Francisco - twice - with this guy in between, which is weird. So now I think it's a simple error, rather than a hoax. Deb (talk) 07:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Deb. Umm, I'm not really sure it matters terribly greatly. You could refund it, and I could go through the dance of BLP PRODDING, PRODDING if they add a source, and AfD if they contest. And...well...procedurally that's really what should be done, but if you want to IAR on it then it's your call. You're the one deleting the thing. TimothyJosephWood 13:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Request on 12:04:28, 13 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by TMBaker at AAMDSIF

TMBaker at AAMDSIF (talk · contribs)
- User:TMBaker at AAMDSIF/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have been given the task of creating an entry for the Aplastic Anemia and MDS International Foundation by my supervisor. Was my sandlot submission rejected because I am an employee? Was it rejected because there aren't many articles written about the organization? [I'm a new employee here, just 5 weeks, and I have been amazed at the impact that it has on the lives of patients, but because the focus is on rare diseases, there aren't national articles published. The National Organization for Rare Diseases (NORD) is working to increase the awareness of rare diseases, highlighting that all rare disease patients in the US total more than the number of heart failure and cancer diseases, put together! I can't tell if that word is spreading, though, and even though I work at finding mentions of AAMDSIF, I haven't found many at all. If my language in the post is not appropriate to the venue, please tell me that as well. Thank you for your help! Tricia

TMBaker at AAMDSIF (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey TMBaker at AAMDSIF. First off, you probably want to review our policy on conflicts of interest if you haven't already. Long story short, if you want to publish an article for which you have a COI, then Articles for Creation is the way to go, since it lets the article be evaluated by an independent volunteer.

Second you may also want to review our tutorial on writing your first article, since it's a pretty broad overview, will probably save you some headaches, and answer at least a few questions that you may not otherwise think to ask.

Finally, the standard that you need to achieve to have the article published is covered at our guidance for notability of companies and organizations. In a nutshell, you need to demonstrate that the company has received coverage in independent reliable sources. Doing a quick google news search returns about 60 results, and that's without poking around potential avenues, like scholarly searches and general web searches. So it looks like there is a bit of material to work with, it just needs to be sorted through and added to the article in a way that is neutral in tone and not overly promotional. Hope this helps. TimothyJosephWood 13:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Amin al-Husseini

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Amin al-Husseini. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Sigh

I have been trying to close that ANI thread for two hours. I appreciate you shutting it down. No good will come of it if it is pushed, for anyone. I am so fucked off with this place I am contemplating Wikipedia:Suicide by admin. End my undistinguished tenure with a bit of drahma. Might amuse the mob. Irondome (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Irondome, Yeah. Things have been unusually fucked up lately, and I'm pretty sure more than two of us have had Wiki-existential-crises in the meantime. For my own, see User_talk:Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi#Your_name_mentioned_at_ANI. But I found a good article to work on, and it seems to have made things alright. TimothyJosephWood 02:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that. Ugh. Re content work, Good advice Tjw! See you around Irondome (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Step away from the ledge, people. I saw this recently and it made me take things a little less seriously: [8]. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, Saturn in retrograde. Makes sense. I'll admit, I did feel like I was being pulled slightly more infinitesimally toward the left lately. TimothyJosephWood 11:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

inb4 someone thinks I'm talking about politics. I'm talking about gravity. TimothyJosephWood 11:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Simple Note

Hey, cheers for striking your comments at AN. I've noticed that pretty much everyone has been a bit more heated recently. Don't get down in the dumps over it. We don't need more editors and admins leaving now do we. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Although TJW made a cogent point that no-one was willing to address. The elephant in the room, so to speak. And I don't know what you mean by heated. Mr rnddude, please sign your posts or I WILL TAKE YOU TO ARBCOM. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

No... I didn't make any point at all other than showing how quickly I was willing to rush to judgement. TimothyJosephWood 13:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

... And? who didn't. Coffee rushed to judgement about Ed's motivations. Amortias rushed to act against Cass for calling Coffee out on it. Ivan overran semantics (who is now on life-support) to prop-up Coffee, not to mention threaten you with a bus. Bish, deciding remorse was insufficient, had Coffee for lunch with Geni only managing to pull the torso from her claws. Then lastly, you (obviously unaware of Coffee's block) missed the station and ended up on Platform 9 and 3/4 out the door. If everybody stopped to think for five seconds then almost none of this would have happened. The elephant in the room is; if everybody stopped trying to act faster then they can think then maybe people would think we care more about the project and the community then ourselves and the little in-groups we've formed. That, and a little AGF as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, Amortias hasn't edited for two days either... — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

*sigh* I hope that they're just taking a short break to unwind. They've been adminning for less than two months. To be hit with AN/I that quickly is not going to do much for their self-confidence. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I dunno. I desperately want to be able to fix it...but...I can't. For what it's worth, I checked rollback, it doesn't have an option for "the last two weeks". I put in a trouble ticket though.

At any rate, I'll be traveling for a few weeks starting Wednesday, and no guess as to what kindof connectivity I'll have. It's probably just as good. I'm not angry or indignant; I'm mostly just sad over the whole thing. This would be a good time for a joke, but I'm all out. TimothyJosephWood 18:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For your comment "decorative lipstick on the pig of a fairly run-of-the-mill bronze age myth" I laughed out loud! Theroadislong (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The real irony of the thing is that I wasn't being humorous. TimothyJosephWood 17:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Non-free image in User:Timothyjosephwood/sandbox

Hi Timothyjosephwood. For some reason the non-free File:Efit images of Madeleine McCann suspect.jpg is showing up in User:Timothyjosephwood/sandbox, which is not really allowed per WP:NFCC#9. Perhaps it's just a bug or the image is being transcluded from somewhere else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Good catch Marchjuly. I was working on a proposed addition to an article that was fairly complicated markup wise, at least for my limited expertise, and I forgot to check the usage rights. Now removed. TimothyJosephWood 01:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem. For reference, the file was also being used in one of your posts at Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory/Archives/2017/January which is also not allowed. I tried to be careful in removing it and disturb the other comments, but you may want to check to make sure I didn't accidentally make a mess. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

email

Enable your email and let me know when that's done. I know exactly how you feel in that edit you regretted, and while I got nothing but words for you, it's better than a shrug and a huah. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 16:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. Yeah, sorry about that. Reality comes in waves sometimes. TimothyJosephWood 18:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, GreenMeansGo. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Don't sweat it. You've got my email address now. Feel free to use it.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

19:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Protests against Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Protests against Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

thanks

for the link at the recent ANI about IETH. BTW, I agree with your position there, but I avoid ANI unless someone pings me. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC).

Please comment on Talk:Anti-fascism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anti-fascism. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Brandishing a firearm

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Brandishing a firearm. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Your Teahouse response

I'm pretty sure you meant to say something else. Even though your response is archived, someone could still read it and get the wrong idea. I was having some serious Internet problems a couple of months ago and I'm still way behind on the Teahouse archives. The topic is found here

Hello, GreenMeansGo/Archive 3. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Hey User:Vchimpanzee. I'm not entirely sure what the problem is, and I'm not entirely sure that combing through the archives is really necessary, but if you feel that something is amiss, or that I got something wrong, feel free to leave a follow up comment correcting or clarifying my mistake. This goes for anywhere on the project, and not just The Teahouse. TimothyJosephWood 15:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I corrected what I believed to be the mistake. I hope you don't mind. I like to read the Teahouse archives.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)