User talk:Timtempleton/Archive 6

linking to commercial photography site

Thanks for your comment about linking to the photography site. What you said makes sense. It is a commercial site, so probably best to not do. Fothergilla (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Dawn Ostroff photo

Hi Tim - a few months ago at the help desk you offered to help us upload a new photo for our client, Dawn Ostroff. We finally got permission from the photographer. Can you still help us? BuffaloWingzzz (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@BuffaloWingzzz: Sure - I'd be happy to help. You can email me by clicking on the left where it says "email this user", and I'll reply so you can email me the photo to upload. The photographer or other copyright holder will then need to send a permission email to Wikipedia. The permission text is here Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries, but I'll fill it out and send it to you so you can have the copyright owner send it in from an email address associated with the photographer, Ostroff or Spotify. Don't let the legalese intimidate you - this is standard text to protect Wikipedia from accusations of copyright violations. Just make sure the photo you want to use is one that the copyright owner will release reproduction permission for. If no permission is received, the photo will eventually be deleted from the server. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit War

Hi Timtempleton,

I hope that you do not mind that I wrote you here for now. I just did not want to get lost in the shuffle. I don't knolw if you had noticed that Kleo-Sine had deleted your message soon after you wrote it without responding to you. Then I just saw that he kept on going through my edit history, editing more pages that I like to edit, that he hadn't gone through. One thing was that the majoprity were first time edits. Although, he did revert another edit on the Graham Norton page about filming that series during the pandemic. I fear if I do make another edit to another page, he'll be right behind me. It does seem a bit stalkerish, even from a brand new editor. And he doesn't add edit descriptions or respond to messages. I decided to stay away from the original page he waas editing and let him have his way, but look how he responded. I am getting very aggravated. I am not even sure if his "space after * editsare the norm, even for each page I edit. It reminds me of a couple of years ago, where there was a more experienced user (Aldezd), who reverted an edit I had made that unknowingly had a spelling mistake. He then responded by telling me I could be barred for vandalism. I chose to stay away from that particular page, but the next day where I made a couple of small valid updates. I got that same warning from the editor.It looks like he watching all my edits. I tried messaging him to plead my case and all he did was erase my message on his talk page. Then he marked one of the pages I had just edited on for deletion, (which was denied). Sorry for bothering you with all this, but what's the deal on these types of editors, new and old? It's getting pretty annoying as I am really only a grammarian and I am not trying to vandalise. I can't deal with these people like Kleo-Sine, who like to beat to their own drum. I don't have time to engage in allthee long battles, even if I have edited here for a long time. I can't keep up with everybody. Sorry to bother you. Just needed to vent135.0.252.54 (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you, Tim. I appreciate the advice regarding Draft:Barry_N_Haack. Best, Thomas D. Wilson Twilson088 (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Dune (2021 film) on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Note

Thank you. But i think she is notable. She odd a pro Basketball player. Another one of her colleagues i noticed is also on here. They played together and are not both playing pro ball. How do you add a picture I’d greatly appreciate the help Thanks Goalmaker70 (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Goalmaker70: Does she meet Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Basketball? If so, then I can give you advice - otherwise, you'd be wasting your time uploading an image. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes Basketball. There’s alot of Basket ball players on here that have just as much time as her playing and they are searchable Goalmaker70 (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Goalmaker70: Be careful to not make the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Those articles may be deleted too once someone sees them. The strict notability guidelines for new articles were not always in place. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom notice

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

You have shown interest in discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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

109.249.185.69 (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Revised draft Joseph Conforte

Dear Tim, you suggested I ping you when revision made: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Joseph_Conforte&oldid=1005507852

I look forward to your feedback. Best regards, OscarOwilli2019 (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Owilli2019: let's discuss on the article's talk page. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

IMDB as a reference

Hey there, I saw this comment at the Teahouse and originally replied to it there, but decided to take it to a less public venue. Since you're offering advice to newbs, you should be aware that IMDb is called "unacceptable" at WP:RS in the section that covers the unsuitability of user-generated content, WP:UGC. As it is manipulated by regular people, it is entirely unreliable, just like most blogs, fandom.com pages, unverified Twitter accounts, and even Wikipedia itself. So for the reasons you think that it's "usually a reliable source" is the exact reason why it is not considered reliable by the community. IMDb is also thumbed-down at WikiProject Film/Resources and at the WikiProject Television/FAQ and is red-flagged at WP:RSP, a supplement to WP:RS that comes from the numerous discussions that have taken place at the reliable sources noticeboard.

For fun, here's an example of a totally fake "movie" that exists at IMDb. This kid tried repeatedly to write articles about his phony films, and tried to claim legitimacy because his phony film is listed at IMDB. So, TL;DR: we should absolutely not be using IMDb, and I hope that you'll consider deleting your post so the other editor(s) don't get the wrong info. (Assuming nobody's responded to your comment already.) Thanks and regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Thanks for posting here, but I'd be fine discussing on the talk page as well. However, I suspect it would lead to a new discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. This isn't enough of a deal to me to get into a big public discussion, since there are several archived discussions about this exact issue that never seem to be completely resolved. Let's just say that we both agree that IMDB can be unreliable because it's almost completely user generated. Where we disagree is whether it has any value or not as a source. My take is that it can still be used, and does have some value. Otherwise, Wikipedia would automatically block references with IMDB.com URLs from being added. It's not cut and dry. Digging deeper, for every hoax film that exists, there are thousands of mostly accurate films entries. Either a film is real or not, and if it's real, the data can be checked. Just like off-line sources. I tried to draw a comparison with plot summaries. If someone posts a fake film with plot summary on Wikipedia, it's usually removed as not being notable enough. IMDB is never enough by itself for an article. If they add an unsourced fake detail to an existing plot summary for an obscure film, it's harder to catch, but we wouldn't ban plot summaries (although some want to). Where the IMDB information is wrong or unreliable, it's usually easy to identify and/or fix. The example you showed is a good one to prove this point. It's an obvious fake, and the user has been blocked from Wikipedia. There is a self-corrective aspect to this - if the movie is obscure enough that nobody has seen it in order to catch errors, it's unlikely to have a Wikipedia article. Just for my edification, I posted a comment on that "film's" IMDB page that it was an obviously fake film, and that I was testing their editorial oversight process. I'll let you know if they reply. If you'd like, I can add another comment to clarify my point on the Teahouse that if it was unreliable it would be automatically banned from being used as a source, but I don't want to strike my comment. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. We definitely disagree about whether it has value as a source, but I do admit that I often look at IMDb to see if something passes the sniff test when I see dubious content added, and then based on that, I would look for a quality reference or delete the content entirely. But that's not the same as using it as a reference. As for some other aspects of your thoughts above, the community still seems to think that IMDB may have value as an external link, so that would preclude us from blacklisting the site entirely. But as to whether or not the site should be used by editors as a reference, consensus seems well-established that it should not be used, and I don't think editors should be instructed otherwise, since they would be editing contrary to community consensus. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Sally Conforte draft, needs your touch

Dear Tim, check it out. It needs your touch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sally_Conforte I have public records to upload to Commons to prove marriage to Joseph Conforte and boxing manager contracts. Heavily sourced, some free-online. I chose a personal take on the matriarch. I have been denied because of it. Help, please.Owilli2019 (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Owilli2019: Looks like the article has been moved to mainspace already. Sally Conforte I de-orphaned it. It's a bit long but others can take a look. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mediahub corporate logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mediahub corporate logo.png. 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) 03:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cheribundi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shelby, Michigan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Garden State Plaza

Hi. Another editor has removed valid citations from the Garden State Plaza article, and replaced it with non-valid citations that do not support the material, and has de-templated other citations (taking them out of citations), claiming that since he edited the article in the past, that non-template citations are the "established style" of the article. I have tried reverting these edits, but he continues to revert them back. Since you have edited or discussed that article the past, could you help resolve this by participating in the discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Katherine Power, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SPAC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Zadara Storage for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zadara Storage, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zadara Storage (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal on Jefferson Starship article

Hi Tim,

I thought you might want to know I made a new proposal on the Jefferson Starship article. I would appreciate it if you had a look and let me know if you have any suggestions. Regards, Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 04:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cheryl Fullerton: Can you link to the section? There are several discussions on the talk page and I want to make sure I am responding to one you are alerting me about. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tim,

Thanks for taking an interest in this. I made my proposal on the Jefferson Starship article's talk page. It is the last heading on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jefferson_Starship. I see that there are a couple of suggestions after my proposal to change the "Origins" section to a focus on the formation and early years of the band, one by AbleGus and the other by Ritchie333. I would appreciate your take on the article and any helpful suggestions. Regards, Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello again, Tim I have made a counter proposal on the Jefferson Starship talk page. I'm not sure I'm pinging you correctly. I hope that you can have a look and give your feedback. I would appreciate it immensely. Regards,Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Tim, What I have recently submitted on the Jefferson Starship talk page is actually in 3 distinct parts. First, is an argument against AbelGus’s continued reversion of my edits and what I plan to do if it continues. Second, it is a suggested edit for the current introductory section for the Jefferson Starship article which simplifies and clarifies what is up there now while combining different input that has been received so far. It is accurate and has a NPOV which it does not at present. Third, are my reasons behind the edits, in detail, for anyone who would like to discuss any of them. I would say what bothers me the most would be in the first part, and that is not having been allowed to edit the page, according to Wikipedia rules, for years. I would then say, that a review of my suggested edit would be preferred so that it can replace what is up there now. The third part is simply there for any interested party to understand the edits. These are based on the arguments AbelGus has made after automatically reverting my work. Regards, Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Cheryl Fullerton: I get what you're trying to do, but it's a lot to process for uninvolved editors, thus discouraging their participation. Usually having things in bite-sized pieces makes it easier for newcomers to address and help. We're all volunteers. Unless someone is a big Jefferson Starship fan, it's too much history (band and this dispute) to get caught up on, and it's easier to participate somewhere else. You made a change, Ablegus reverted it, and then discussed it on the talk page, as he's supposed to do. If you are able to clearly show that he was incorrect, and that your changes were correct, you are free to change them back. If he reverts again despite you having proof you are right, it is within your options to open up a report on the administrators noticeboard WP:ANI for disruptive editing. But be careful - unless you have a bulletproof case demonstrating bad behavior and a lack of following policy, you may wind up being the one who is sanctioned and you may even get topic-banned from the article. Since he's shown that he is willing to participate in the discussion (many don't), you should try to narrow down the issues one by one, picking the one that bothers you the most, first, and try to get consensus. I'm starting to glaze over myself, so this will be helpful to me if it's something simple to read and decide. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Tim, Thanks for the advice. It's much appreciated. I understand the "glazing over" for sure. Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello again, I have proposed a new edit on the Jefferson Starship article on the talk page. AbleGus has contested it. I wonder if you could have a look an give me some suggestions. Regards, Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tim, I've escalated this to ANI, not because I want to get Gus or Cheryl in trouble, but because I'm at a complete loss at what else to do, having tried to mediate the dispute in the same manner as yourself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333 I think that’s probably the best option. I don’t really know what I can do either after having spent a lot of time on this as well, and it’s getting distracting. It shouldn’t take longer to read the talk page discussion than it does to listen to all of the band’s albums. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:DraftKings logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:DraftKings logo.png. 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) 17:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Sharper Image logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Sharper Image logo.png. 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) 17:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kite Pharma logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kite Pharma logo.png. 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) 17:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Joby Aviation logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Joby Aviation logo.png. 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) 17:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of John A. Burns School of Medicine

Hello Timtempleton,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged John A. Burns School of Medicine for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

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

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

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

Whiteguru (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of BlueVine for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BlueVine is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BlueVine until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

scope_creep^Talk 23:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Zadara Storage company logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Zadara Storage company logo.png. 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) 17:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Help with an edit

Hi! You revised a draft that I'm currently working on -- John Rainey Adkins. I need a further advice if you are available. You added places that I need to add citations on a few lines. However, many of the citations that I've used in the same section also cite the further down lines that I "need to add citations"... My question is do I cite the same source again, or do I need to move my citation to the end of the paragraph?

I hope that made sense. Thank you!

HollyBells (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@HollyBells: It was Quisqualis who added the citations needed tags [[1]]. You can reuse already used citations if they support the statements. If a block of text is supported by a single citation, you can put the citation at the end. If you need multiple alternating citations in the same section with duplicates, you can easily reuse the citations. See Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Reaching out about MasterClass article

Hi, I appreciate all of the help that you've offered to me in the past with the MasterClass article. I see that I've made things a bit complicated there now with all of the outstanding requests and I wanted to see if we could make some more progress with the open requests. I've summarized the outstanding requests here to create some order and would be grateful for any further assistance you can offer so we can move forward improving the article. What I'm asking to change in the article at this time is:

1. Adding to Reception section, I know there is more discussion needed about this addition (link)
2. Adding to the Classes section (link)
3. Addition of the new CMO, David Schriber, to the infobox (link)
4. Adding a line about the Series F funding to be placed in the history section (link)
5. Adding a line adding the 2021 Webby Awards (link)

I'd love your further assistance, as you've been so helpful up to this point. Thanks! MC Alyssa (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@MC Alyssa: I added the latest funding news and included the resultant valuation, but don't think it's right to do the other edits. I don't like to include any executives except CEO, Chairman and President, unless they are notable on their own (i.e. have their own article). There's no need to include all the classes - per WP:NOTDIR. People can go to your site. This isn't a brochure. Adding multiple items to the reception and awards sections are the same in my book - they are just advertisements, which we want to avoid. I've done as much as I feel comfortable doing. I hope you'll stay on as an editor for other articles to help build the encyclopedia, since you know sourcing and syntax so well. If you don't have a COI (paid or otherwise) with the subject, I think you'll eventually get a better feel for limiting promotional info as well. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and your explanation about what you revised and what you didn't. I really appreciate that you took the time to look things over. I now see that some of these requests are promotional, but there are some parts of the proposed additions, particularly in the Classes section, that are neutral and have important omissions of facts and history. For instance, in the current Classes section there is outdated material about the class topic choices and how they are presented. The new proposed content includes the composition of classes (10-25 videos, interactive exercises, etc) and that there are more than 100 courses in eleven categories. I understand not listing the specific class choices, but these factual details are important to the historical understanding of MasterClass and its evolution.

Thank you for your consideration and continued feedback. MC Alyssa (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:LoJack product logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:LoJack product logo.png. 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) 18:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Sunshine

		Sunshine!
		Hello Timtempleton! Interstellarity (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Interstellarity (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Happy first day of summer, Timtempleton!! Interstellarity (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

GOCE June 2021 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2021 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, our first newsletter of 2021, which is a brief update of Guild activities since December 2020. To unsubscribe, follow the link at the bottom of this box. Current events Election time: Voting in our mid-year Election of Coordinators opened on 16 June and will conclude at the end of the month. GOCE coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Have your say and show support here. June Blitz: Our June copy-editing blitz is underway and will conclude on 26 June. Drive and blitz reports January Drive: 28 editors completed 324 copy edits totalling 714,902 words. At the end of the drive, the backlog had reached a record low of 52 articles. (full results) February Blitz: 15 editors completed 48 copy edits totalling 142,788 words. (full results) March Drive: 29 editors completed 215 copy edits totalling 407,736 words. (full results) April Blitz: 12 editors completed 23 copy edits totalling 56,574 words. (full results) May Drive: 29 editors completed 356 copy edits totalling 479,013 words. (full results) Other news Progress report: as of 26 June, GOCE participants had completed 343 Requests since 1 January. The backlog has fluctuated but remained in control, with a low of 52 tagged articles at the end of January and a high of 620 articles in mid-June. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Tenryuu and Twofingered Typist, and from member Reidgreg. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 12:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC).