User talk:GreenMeansGo/Archive 2

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

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message

Best wishes,

GAB^Hello! 05:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I removed the {{POV}} template that you added to Gender roles in childhood per "When to Remove, rule 2," because without a Talk page section or any stated reason in the edit summary, it's difficult to know what issues to address, or what you see as problematic or lacking. I don't find the article POV (although it's partly OR, and also needs additional references) but if you still think it is, please readd the template, along with a link to a Talk page section where you discuss your reasons, and perhaps a helpful edit summary as well. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

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 Domestic violence page, your edit caused a broken reference name (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) 00:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see you around again. GABHello! 20:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks fam. Trying to get back in the swing of things. Found out we're pregnant though, so no promises. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, congrats! Wishing you the best. GAB^Hello! 23:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Domestic violence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Normalization. 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) 11:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the closing of the debate on Operation:Impact. I'm sorry for my behaviour. Llammakey (talk)

Llammakey, no worries.

Sorry about my initial long winded essay Drmies and you rightly pulled me up on. It was 7 o'clock in the morning here in Aus and decided to write an essay for some reason first thing. I've edited it to be much more concise and straight forward. Also reticent to condemn Karst, as someone who had an initial battleground-ish thing with and others, especially without very clear proof of him being at fault. Nuro msg me 03:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Tell you what, it's past 10 PM here and my old brain is a bit tired, possibly impacting my reading skills. Next time, we'll synchronize our watches and we'll get along much better, no doubt. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

HA...fair enough mate Nuro msg me 04:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Check https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Social_work&diff=714938398&oldid=714938213, my other posts too are deleted from them is this normal or ...117.241.21.168 (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

117.241.21.168, editing others comments is generally not permitted. Please see WP:TPO. This can be considered a form of vandalism, especially when done repeatedly, and may lead to your IP address being blocked from editing.

If you would like to contribute to the discussion, leave a comment as you did here, and sign using four tildes (~~~~). TimothyJosephWood 19:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, i thought it was normal to edit since more than one editor has edited on it. I only changed the title, I reverting it back to the old title. But removing other comments made by me seems a bit ridiculous.117.241.21.168 (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Timothyjosephwood. Just a quick hello and note of appreciation for your diplomacy and peacemaking attempts I've noticed on different articles. The project needs more editors like you.Charlotte135 (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey thanks. As always, if you need anything ask away. TimothyJosephWood 13:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Hope you also settled on a name for your new baby. Rosalind is another option. Spanish in origin, I think.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Charlotte135 Should find out in a couple of weeks if it's a boy or a girl. In the meantime, good to see you've been up to some productive editing. TimothyJosephWood 00:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Exciting time. Especially if it's your first.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the German and Polish equivalent pages there is enough material for an English WP page - the Icelandic WP has an entry.

Or should there be a table of 'libraries in Poland' (see [1]) with brief details? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Noted. Retracted. TimothyJosephWood 18:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Timothy, greetings. I saw your recommendation for a speedy deletion of an article I just started. Yes, you are correct, I did essentially copy and paste. However, I will re-write it when I have a chance. Or perhaps another Wikipedian will come along and help us. Best Regards, Nate — Preceding unsigned comment added by RNLockwood (talk • contribs) 02:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

RNLockwood, Any way I can help lemme know. TimothyJosephWood 02:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Please contact editors first, before you tag their work with "speedy deletion." It was a work in progress, and now I have to start from square one. No thanks to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RNLockwood (talk • contribs) 02:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

RNLockwood, I've tagged a few articles for speedy deletion, so I'm not entirely sure which one you're referring to, but if you "essentially copy and paste" then it was likely a copyright violation and should be deleted immediately. TimothyJosephWood 03:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I've declined your speedy as the article is not written in a promotional manner, and the book is by two notable authors. An article about a not yet released book by a non-notable author could be taken to be promo despite the style, but this one as part of a series, and with its authorship, is bound to attract advance notice. The referencing could be better, but that's not a speedy matter. Peridon (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I strongly object to your "speedy deletion" tag for the page enra. I took great care in working on this page to make the information factual. I recognize that some of it could be improved to better meet style and formatting guidelines, but it hardly seems reasonable to suggest that the entire page should be removed for a group that has such a notable history and recognized in international media. Rather than suggesting the page be removed, it would be far more helpful if you offered constructive criticism, added notes, or implemented stylistic changes that you feel are necessary. Kerfuffle8 (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Retracted. Cleanup tags added. Addressed on the talk. TimothyJosephWood 16:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support on ANI. I don't know whether an admin is allowed to tell me "Do not recreate the article until it cites at least two independent reliable sources" in regard of a deleted article. But there's no need for an article to meet WP:GNG from the outset if it has potential to do so in the future. And failure to meet WP:GNG is definitely not grounds for a speedy del if the article makes a WP:CCS. So the original deletion was against policy. I'd have hoped that admins would follow the rules properly. There are probably thousands of articles that don't meet WP:GNG yet. I don't know why Douglas Self got picked on and deleted in less than an hour. It's never happened to me before and wasn't a pleasant experience. I appreciate your help. SmilingFace (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

SmilingFace Everybody messes up. You can see here where people have disagreed with my speedy nominations. I usually 100% retract as long as the argument isn't patently silly (No, sorry, there is not a dire public information need to have an article on your ultimate frisbee team.) TimothyJosephWood 17:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

regarding Marketplace Radio Program

Hi there - really appreciate your response on the talk page for Marketplace (Radio Program) as we have struggled to accurately update information about our broadcast programs. I apologize in advance for this battery of questions, but I am new to this process. I think a bunch of the outdated content was recently deleted on our page (rather than the edits I suggested being made). However, the brief content that remains is still not very accurate or comprehensive. I completely understand the need to offer unbiased sources (and not merely our own website) as much as possible. That said, the information that I really care about correcting and adding is pretty bland and factual in nature. For example, Marketplace is a suite of business news programs, which includes four different broadcast shows (which are clearly defined on our website along with current host names). And each show is available as a podcast. This doesn't seem to be adequately represented at present, and I am not sure what other source I could cite other than our own website, to accurately provide this correct information. This seems like straightforward information (the name of a show and its host; or when and how our content is aired) and not particularly subjective. Isn't it best provided by our own website, as we know what our shows are and our hosts? I am more than happy to hear suggestions of other ways we might provide a reference to this information, but our website or the website of our parent org (American Public Media) have the most current and accurate information by far. The staff listing on the right sidebar is also outdated, but other than pointing to our own Cast & Crew page on our site, who else could I reference for that correct info? Our website has the only Marketplace staff listing that I am aware of. On a related note, there is a Wikipedia page for the host of our evening program: Kai Ryssdal. We would like to have his photo changed to his current headshot (which is on our website and the website of our parent org) but don't see a way to change an image. Any advice you could give on having a photo updated would be much appreciated as well. Again, sorry to bombard you. But it has been difficult to navigate these intricacies. And I am very happy to work one-on-one with any Wikipedia contributor to provide accurate information for our pages. Jmhatfield (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Jmhatfield, you should be starting this discussion on the Marketplace talk page, rather than a user talk page. That way, people who are interested in the subject will see it and be able to comment and give thoughts/advice. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@ Primefac, no worries. I've got it.

@ Jmhatfield, I'm going to try to look into this more this evening. You are correct in that primary sources are acceptable, particularly in cases where the content is uncontroversial, and particularly in cases where there are no secondary sources available. If you want to look in the interim, I would suggest looking for information online about them individually, and following that route back to Marketplace. Seems to be the route followed to locate the Mediabistro source on Kai Ryssdal. But if that's a no go then the primary source is all we're left with.

Listing the individual shows in principal seems relevant. I tend toward stopping short of listing things like air times. That's getting into WP:Promotional territory a little bit.

The picture thing can be a little tricky. Pictures on articles need to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. To do this, if you are the owner of the image, you generally have to license it for free public use, meaning that you lose ownership of it. That's an issue for you and your leadership to decide. There are certain exceptions, such as the use of the Marketplace Logo (which incidentally, is subject of a related discussion you may want to comment on). If you want to use the image under a non-public license, may be best to contact someone over at wikimedia commons. I'm hardly a copyright expert. At the end of the day, the easiest thing is for the owner of the image to release it under a free public license. See below.

Again, I'm going to look into this more later today, so we'll see where it goes. As always feel free to ask away for any questions you may have. TimothyJosephWood 19:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jmhatfield or Jeni, who I assume this is. I began looking into sources and made a small article on Lizzie O'Leary, as she was the first host without an article. There are a few things you can do to help with this, mostly because I don't know enough about what I'm looking for to find it:

• Place of birth
• Date of birth
• Full birth name
• Date of graduation from Williams College
• Also please confirm that she is American

When you sort out whether you can license the headshots of your hosts for free public use, a head shot of O'Leary is also needed, and you may as well address the same issues and information for Ben Johnson, Millie Jefferson, and Deborah Clark.

Also, it would be helpful to have general information on the history of the program. Where was it first created, what were the major studio moves, dates of major partnerships and changes, etc. At least per this article there was a major shake up at some point. Again, I'm not going to use you as a source, but without knowing what I'm looking for it's doubtful I'll be able to easily find sources. TimothyJosephWood 23:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm an administrator on both Commons and Wikipedia, so I may be able to help here on the photo issue. There's a somewhat incorrect statement above, although the gist of it is correct: "Pictures on articles need to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. To do this, if you are the owner of the image, you generally have to license it for free public use, meaning that you lose ownership of it."

1. You don't "lose ownership" of a picture when you grant a free license, although you do give up some control of where and how it is used. Commons does not ask anyone to sign over their copyrights. The copyright holder retains the copyright.
2. Under U.S. law, the copyright holder for a photo is the photographer unless rights have been explicitly signed over. In the case of Marketplace, I have no idea whether the photographer retains copyright or has signed it over. If the copyright holder is the same person as the uploader, things are simpler, because they can grant a free license as part of the uploading process. If not, see commons:COM:OTRS which explains how the copyright holder can send an email granting a license on one or more photos, which someone else may then upload.
3. At Commons, the most restrictive license we accept is what is known as Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike ("CC-BY-SA" for short). There are several variants on it, but the later versions have merely been clarifications of the earlier ones; see Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License for quite a good rundown. Although this allows anyone to reuse the picture with attribution, their is no waiver of moral rights, personality rights, etc. In my view, CC-BY-SA doesn't really offer anything of value unless you have the sort of picture someone might pay to use. Normally, that isn't an issue for a headshot in any context that wouldn't also require some sort of waiver of personality rights (e.g. use in an ad).
4. Within certain limits, certain photos can be uploaded directly to Wikipedia on a strictly fair use / non-free use basis. See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. However, that is not relevant here. To quote that page, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Since it would be possible to take a different photo of any living person, headshots of living people never qualify as non-free content on Wikipedia.

I hope that helps. Feel free to leave me a message on Commons if you have further questions. - Jmabel | Talk 03:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I've recently created an article (Sanitek Armenia) that you marked for deletion, it was my first try to creat a Wiki article, and after you marked it, I've tottaly edit the article and make it more like Wiki style. Please, if it possible can you review it once more, and maybe remove the deletion mark? Thanks in advance :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloggator (talk • contribs) 07:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Please be sure to thoroughly familiarise yourself with both WP:NPP and WP:DELETION. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Seems we've only had one interaction in at least the last 30 days, and it was your deleting a page I nom'd for speedy.TimothyJosephWood 22:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:A7 applies only to articles about a real person, individual animal, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organized event. It does not apply to articles about articles about other topics such as films. Please do not apply A7 to articles about other topics. —teb728 t c 22:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

teb728, As I indicated on the talk page, the article appears to be about a youtube video, with the only source being a youtube video. I seem to have missed the announcement where youtube started being film and stopped being web content. I went again, just to make sure, through the first five pages of google results for the author and name, and came up with nothing that didn't reference youtube. If you have found a source where this has seen daylight outside of youtube, then I am happy to oblige. Otherwise I suppose we'll go to AfD. TimothyJosephWood 23:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I restored the speedy with a more specific {{db-web}} rather than the generic {{db-a7}} and with an edit summary mentioning youtube. —teb728 t c 23:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Timothyjosephwood. Thank you for your review of the Jozef De Vroey article. And if you'd be so kind, could you please point me towards any Flemish language editors you know about to help me with some translations for this article? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I would probably start over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Belgium. TimothyJosephWood 17:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank for this direction Timothyjosephwood, it is most appreciated. Picomtn (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Big thanks Tata Teja 19:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatateja (talk • contribs)

Hi. Per your comment on my talk page, I can see no record of your ever having nominated the original article Safdar Butt for deletion, and you are still welcome to do so. This is a mere duplicate, and could have been redirected by you -- or speedily nominated for deletion, per WP:A10. One doesn't need an Afd to discuss eliminating a recently created duplicate page. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Shawn in Montreal, I originally simply added the page to the existing AfD, as it seemed to be all the original issues I was nominating the duplicate for anyway. Honestly, when I first did web searches I did not realize at the time that the original I was seeing in search was not the article I was looking at in the other tab, but a copy of it (or visa versa). However, I do now see the the cleanup tag from 2010 seems to have been added to the original piecemeal, and was not also in place from article creation, as it was on the duplicate.

Redirect and fix the original is the correct course of action. TimothyJosephWood 18:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

openQA was written by me in my own words. I'm not sure why this is being deleted. The first draft, May 2, was written together with a group of people from our project. The second post, May 3, was written in my own words. Please undelete. Dema9049 (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Dema9049 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dema9049 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The article in question was nominated for speedy deletion due to verbatim text found elsewhere on the internet. Please see WP:COPYVIO. TimothyJosephWood 12:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Further reply on my talk. BethNaught (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

hello this is hayleybox00. why do you keep tagging my pages for deletion? i write about famous people and about things they did. i know my first examples were not very good but later i wrote pages with Alot of information and references. so please stop deleting my pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayleybox00 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Picnic (2004 film) has been nominated, and was previously deleted as the article appears to be about a youtube video with no coverage in secondary sources, and no claim of significance. For guidance on article notability standards, please see WP:NOTE. For guidance on the speedy deletion criteria for the current nomination and previous deletion, see WP:A7. TimothyJosephWood 12:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

You may wish to take part in the deletion review of the article. → AA ^(talk) — 17:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm around. TimothyJosephWood 17:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The article I posted can be deleted. I had the article ready to post as soon as the album was officially announced but someone else clearly beat me so it appears we both posted the article at the same time. Jason1978 (talk) 11:25, 05, May 2016 (UTC)

It modified Drmies comment. He was called out as the author by Only in death but it was your edit that changed it. You should probably fix it and OiD can strike his comment. --DHeyward (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hah. Oh wow. Good catch DHeyward. TimothyJosephWood 14:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• DHeyward, I'm really beginning to feel the love here. Thanks. Timothyjosephwood, wut? Are you just trying to get me in trouble? :) Drmies (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I just like to keep ANI interesting is all. TimothyJosephWood 16:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your notes at LGBT congress people talk. You said you removed "cn". I can see this in the history but what does "cn" do or signify? I am a new editor and I'm trying to learn. Also, I share your concerns about the edits by TrumpEN and the IP. Neither of them leave edit summaries, which makes things even more suspicious. If no one steps in at AN/I, I suggest you ping Drmies to the page. Also, he is the editor who blocked Hugh456. Best, Tribe of Tiger (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tribe of Tiger: CN is short for "citation needed", or more specifically, for the template {{cn}}, which looks like this.^{[citation needed]} It's mostly useful for times when you can't find a source right away, but the claim is generally uncontroversial, and you intend to come back later and add a source for it. It's also useful for things that explicitly need a source. For example, quotes and statistics must always be sourced, and this can be a reminder to whomever added them, that they forgot to include their reference.

I'm always happy to help if you have questions. Feel free to ask here or ping me to a specific page by adding {{ping|Timothyjosephwood}} to a talk. TimothyJosephWood 10:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I've put it on the talk page. T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 12:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe actions taken by me following your example will regulate unnecessary and maladaptive practices in its talk page.59.89.239.32 (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

You are currently the only unnecessary and maladaptive practice on the talk page. Stop. TimothyJosephWood 15:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

why do you feel that, dont you think it would solve problems in the article.59.89.239.32 (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

No. TimothyJosephWood 15:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you open for discussion. Also can you add that blinking button used to show you are online, it would help me and others in the future.59.89.239.32 (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

No. TimothyJosephWood 15:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

What should i understand from this or what are you trying to convey.59.89.239.32 (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you active or is it intentional silence. This was an inappropriate move:[2] while we were trying to resolve. Good luck.59.89.239.32 (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	I see you have been busy! Thanks for all of your work here. Cheers -Jim Jim1138 (talk) 08:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello T. this is hilarious. Thanks for getting my weekend started with a big smile. MarnetteD|Talk 21:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waiters and waitresses. TimothyJosephWood 21:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

As a participant of WikiProject LGBT studies, you are invited to participate in the third annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs through the month of June. The purpose of the campaign is to create and improve content related to LGBT culture and history. How can you help?

1. Create or improve LGBT-related Wikipedia pages and showcase the results of your work here
2. Document local LGBT culture and history by taking pictures at pride events and uploading your images to Wikimedia Commons
3. Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Looking for topics? The Tasks page, which you are welcome to update, offers some ideas and wanted articles.

This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. The group's mission is to develop LGBT-related content across all Wikimedia projects, in all languages. Visit the affiliate's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I removed this from Flyers talk page. I don't know where that come from; if citing that very bad source was a joke it was not good taste and if you meant it, it is pretty much harassment. ack. No drama, i hope. Jytdog (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

My finger is quite literally on the block button; I'm only holding off because of your clean block log. Please tell me that this was intended as a joke that came off badly, because if it wasn't, I'm not going to stand for that sort of crap harassment. Would love to hear Flyer22's thoughts. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, Ed, Yes it was just a stupid joke before bed. I've worked with Flyer a bit on a range of gender articles and I often just say stupid things to let people know I'm unfollowing their talk, which I followed at some point for some reason because of a relevant discussion. My recent follow was most likely related to drama between Flyer and Charlotte135 on Domestic violence and a half dozen other articles, that resulted in an IBan/TBan. TimothyJosephWood 10:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Admittedly, I didn't actually read through the source, I just googled for something that looked obviously dumb. At any rate, I have a few thousand miles to fly. Sorry for starting the wikibreak on a sour note. No hard feelings I hope. TimothyJosephWood 10:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

No prob. Please be careful with jokes like that, they can easily be misconstrued. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Really, it seemed like I had annoyed you by responding to the IP the way that I did, but I was simply stating a matter of fact regarding the literature. Either way, I wasn't going to make a big deal out of your comment. I kept on editing after seeing it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, just looked into this - a campaign for ideas on "dealing with harassment" on Wiki projects. One was "Don't feed the trolls" - easier said than done when some of the editors are trying to get work done, and one is disruptive. But thought you might like to look at the project and posted ideas - everyone can contribute other ideas as well as help develop these for action. <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Don't_feed_the_trolls>Parkwells (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

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 Pittsburgh Railway Riots page, your edit caused a broken reference name (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) 00:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Timothyjosephwood. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Widr (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey there - just wanted to say that if you think something ought to be revdelled, please email it to the oversight queue at oversight-en-wpwikimedia.org to help prevent drawing attention to it. Thanks! — foxj 06:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@Foxj:, thanks. I knew there was an address, but I didn't want it to sit there in the interim while I looked, and I hoped that admins would be quick on the trigger on such a high visibility board. I'm glad the address is on my talk now; I'll know exactly where to look for it next time. TimothyJosephWood

Neophysics will have an interesting experience at WP:WikiProject Physics. He wants to rewrite a certain amount of what we have on physics based on original research. They won't welcome him in the usual sense, but they may set him straight. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:, well he won't see any personal growth by hanging out with people like me, who lack the basic physics knowledge to even have a discussion about WP:OR. He seems highly motivated if nothing else, and so hopefully that can be channeled into something productive. TimothyJosephWood 12:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I wish I could be optimistic. In my experience, there is nothing that Wikipedia can do for or about people who have persistent eccentric scientific views except either wait for them to get tired (they sometimes do and sometimes don't) or topic-ban them. They don't learn, because they know beyond knowledge that they are right. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:AGF and stock up on rope. That's about all you can do. TimothyJosephWood 12:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Linguistics is a social science. Only languages are humanities. I want to make the part of outline of academic discipline page more coherent with their own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.231.247.247 (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Just deleted all this verbiage as it no longer serves a purpose. Saw what you proposed at the ex-Barefruit advertisement page, looks great to me. All's well that ends well, thank you :-)

(I still don't think it was vandalism, maybe more like Hunism or Visigothism :-) ) 210.22.142.82 (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tim,

I deleted the data on this page. The wrong information was inadvertently copied and pasted into this page. The page is intended to offer information on the the types of groups that engage in insider threat research, activities, and their various methodologies. Will make necessary changes, forthwith. Thanks.ShawnITMG (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

ShawnITMG, your name strongly suggests that your purpose on Wikipedia is to create an article for the purpose of advertising a company for which you work. I strongly recommend you review WP:COI and WP:PROMO. TimothyJosephWood 19:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Tim,

Intention is not to promote a particular company, product, or service but to provide information on the overall discipline of managing insider threats generally as their is much confusion and misunderstandings regarding such. There will be no specific references to companies or products. The initial post was in error, as stated. Thanks. ShawnITMG (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Tim,

The edit that I have made is one of fact and not of opinion. Specifically, I have stated that the speaker did not use the term "media conspiracy" , which is what Ruth Smeeth alleged - very specifically - in the statement that she put-out on her website and which is quoted in the Wikipedia article on Ruth Smeeth. The evidence that the speaker, Marc Wadsworth, did not use that expression is clear from the vide of the event that is available on the website of The Independent, which is a mainstream newspaper in the UK, In fact, it is one of the "reliable sources" that the user This is Paul, who keeps undoing my edit, suggested that I might use to prove my point. Having been able to cite The Independent as a source for my edit, he continues to remove the key fact that I have included, without challenging or disproving that fact itself. My source is the artcile in The Independent that is exactly the same video and article that some other editor has cited as a source for source 6 in the Ruth Smeeth article. I have also included a second source, which is the Craig Murray article, which simply states the point that I make in my edit on Wikipedia - that Ruth Smeeth's calim that Marc Wadsworth accused her of being engged in a "media conspiracy" is factually inacurate. In my last restoration of my edit, I cited both The Indenpent and Craig Murray. If the issue is the inclusion of Craig Murray as a source, than the correct course of action by an editor or admin would be to remove the Murray citation and you can inform me of this clearly. That does not change the validity of my edit, which relies on The Independent artcile and video which I have cited. I note, that my most recent restoration of my edit to the artcile, with both sources cited, was, once again, immediately taken down , this time for supposedly "not adhering to a neutral point of view". I am not failing to adhere to a neutral point of view when I point-out that Smeeth's statemetn was factually inaccurate as shown very clearly in the video in The Independent article that I have cited. Ruth Smeeth's statement that Marc Wadsworth had accused her of being part of a "media conspiracy" (her use of inverted commas") is factually inaccurate as shown by the video that I have cited as a source. My statement is not biased nor is my source dubious.

I look forward to your comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.139.7.160 (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

175.139.7.160, what is the citation for the Independent article? TimothyJosephWood 01:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Assuming your source is this article, which it seems to be, the source doesn't very strongly support the claim. As to the video, that is a WP:PRIMARY source, and there is no indication about how it is edited. Further, the audio is terrible, and I couldn't tell you what he did or didn't say, even with headphones on. So its quite a poor primary source.

That doesn't mean what you say isn't true, or what you suggest shouldn't be in the article, it just means if it is, and if it should, you have to find a better source. That's how this works. TimothyJosephWood 01:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

On the dispute on editing the Ruth Smeeth page, the facts are as follows. Ruth Smeeth has put out a statement on her website stating that a speaker at an event had accused her of being part of a "media conspiracy" and that this constituted an anti-semitic trope. Smeeth placed those words in inverted commas in her statement and this is widely understood to represent a direct quote. Video footage of the event shows, clearly, that the speaker, Marc Wadsworth, did not utter those words,or even either one of those words. That video footage is available on the website of The Independent newspaper, in an article entitled "Labour activist who berated MP Ruth Smeeth says he did not know she was Jewish and denies Momentum links". This article is included as cited source 6 in the Ruth Smeeth page, which is a point made by an editor other than myself. While the article does not specifically say that Smeeth's statement was factully incorrect, it is clear from watching the video of the event, which is included on the article page, that he said no such thing. That is a perfectly valid source for my edit which says that Ruth Smeeth's statement was factually inaccurate. Subsequent to my editing the article to say that, my edit was almost immediately reverted by the user This is Paul, on the grounds that I had not cited a proper source. I had initially cited an article on the blog of the senior British diplomat and former amabassador, Craig Murray. Murray's article includes a link to the video on The Independent as well as direct quote from Ruth Smeeth's statement and compares the two. He draws the explicit conclusion that Smeeth's statement was factually inaccurate. This is Paul objected that Murray's blog was not a valid source and suggested that I use more "credible" sources such as mainstream media, providing a list of what he considered to be "credible" sources, including The Independent. I subsequently removed the link to Muray's article and linked solely to The Independent article that included the original video footage of the event. That can be viewed here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-activist-who-berated-mp-ruth-smeeth-says-he-did-not-know-she-was-jewish-and-denies-momentum-a7111366.html

I also edited my contribution to read " Video footage of the event, however, shows that Smeeth's statement was factually inaccurate as the speaker, Marc Wadsworth, did not use the term "media conspiracy" or either of those two words individually." This makes explicit that my source is the video footage of the event itself, rather than the opnion of the journalist in the article. My source is entirely within the standards required for a Wikipedia edit and it also clearly supports my contribution that Ruth Smeeth's statement was factually inaccurate. This is Paul has repeatedly reverted my edit, offering a variety of changing reasons why he has done so. Initially, he claimed that my source was not reliable and, ultimately, in our discussion on this article on the Admin noticeboard he states "FWIW I personally don't believe she is directly quoting Wadsworth, but is instead using the quotes to define the term, which is something slightly different." He is now basing his reversions of my edit on his personal belief of what Smeeth meant, rather than the facts that I have cited and backed-up from a higly-creadible source. He is not editing from a Neutral Point of View and my edit should be allowed to stand.

The debated issue in this article involves a politician at the heart of a high-profile controversy and there are clearly people interested in guiding this narrative. The involvement of the user Philip_Cross in making the exact reversions to my edit that This is Paul did withim minutes of my having put the information back into the article also suggest that the removal of my edit is not being done from a neutral editor. Philip_Cross's activiities on Wikipedia were flagged in the March 2016 issue of Wikipedia Signpost; please see the March issue of Signpost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-03-16/In_the_media . He took over the job of reverting my edits after I flagged the matter of This is Paul's constant reversions on the Admins' noticeboard. To reiterate, these reversions are not being done from a Neutral Point of View and my edit should be allowed to stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.139.7.160 (talk) 07:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

"My source is entirely within the standards required for a Wikipedia edit and it also clearly supports my contribution that Ruth Smeeth's statement was factually inaccurate"

No, it doesn't. That's what half a dozen people have been trying to tell you. TimothyJosephWood 13:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your comment, the reason why is that you rewarded Calibrador for failing to discuss until they found a compromise, and thus engendered a feeling that they could revert and edit-war with impunity. This is why I was so very, very pissed with you. You may not like the back and forth that discussion entails, but it is a crucible in which compromise and, consequently, the most stable article changes arise. By foregoing that process (ie. restoring an "antebellum" version, you rewarded one side for refusing to work with the other). This is what I tried to tell you before. This is why I thought you were irresponsible in your actions. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian, This was not an us/them, winner/loser, reward/punishment thing. The fact that you seem to be unable to think about the issue in anything other than competitive terms is probably the reason it descended into an edit war.

This was not even a neutrality issue. I never claimed that I was neutral nor did I claim that the original version was better factually or stylistically.

The issue is entirely article prior to suggested change vs article following suggested change, and that applies regardless of the content of the suggested change. It is good to make WP:BOLD edits, but if someone disagrees, you go to talk and seek consensus. In the meantime the article is retained as it was prior to the suggestion, and per WP:NOCON, if no consensus can be reached the article is retained as it was prior to the bold edit (with few exceptions such as copyright violation and violations of WP:BLP).

You are probably right that at the time I reverted to the status quo, no consensus was possible, and may still yet not be. This is part of what happens when you engage in protracted edit warring and dragging all involved to notice boards: it turns collaborators into competitors. It's also what happens when you consistently tread very closely to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. People don't much like to work collaboratively when you call them names.

So take it as a lesson moving forward, to adjust your tone and behavior so that you can work together with others and find a middle ground. It's not my fault for picking a winner. It's the fault of those involved, including yourself, for setting it up as a winner/loser paradigm to begin with. TimothyJosephWood 11:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

"kayuweboehm" is a long-standing problem. Thanks for catching them. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Andy Dingley No worries. User posted a long rant on another talk also. I don't think (?) there was any obvious reasons to request a revdel, but admittedly I didn't read through the whole thing. TimothyJosephWood 16:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

You've been misusing this term in a couple of discussions. When you say the statement is "NPOV" - that means it's OKAY. It is "neutral." The context of your comments on the Nice terrorist-muslim attack in France means what you meant to say is the statement is POV - it takes a non-neutral Point Of View. You can say "there is an NPOV issue" with such and such, and that makes sense. Just FYI. 15:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.182.246 (talk)

@98.67.182.246:, Nope. I've referenced it thrice in that discussion, and both times I said "non NPOV". TimothyJosephWood 15:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Singapore. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Theresa May. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Elizabeth Dilling. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Accompong. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Iraq War. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that you say the sources is from existing commons images but you have not provided links to the images they cam from. We need this so its copyright status can be verified, and in addition to the original commons image link, it is good practice to also provide a link to the original source which the original upload will have. So now you know how to fix them. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is another one of your uploads c:File:A Husband Beating his Wife with a Stick - Google Art Project.png, claimed to already be on the commons, but you have not provided a link to the original. Please do so, as I have looked around quite a bit and cannot find it. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

ww2censor, I think I've gotten everything fixed. I'm not sure whether I can go ahead and remove the file source templates, but I've added {{extracted from}} to the images in question, including the Husband Beating his Wife with a Stick. I will be sure to include this template on future extracted images. Thanks for looking into it. TimothyJosephWood 14:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so thanks for that. I have refined some of the details, such as, using the same license as the original, providing a source to the original author as the source instead of just the "extracted from" template. It is also better to use jpg for photographic images instead of unnecessarily changing to png and it is also good practice to add a commons {{extracted|file name}} template to the original image so we can see there is a derived image. On the commons you can use the "Crop Tool" to do such extracting work and save as a new file which keeps all the original details - it is a link on the left side of an image page and works really well. Good luck and thanks for dealing with these quickly. ww2censor (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: I don't seem to have crop as an option on commons under my Tools menu when looking at a pic. Currently looking at this image. Am I doing something wrong or maybe is cropping something you need a permission to use? TimothyJosephWood 13:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Disregard. Figured it out. TimothyJosephWood 13:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just looked for the answer fo you and see it is an option in the Gadgets, Preferences, but you found it yourself. It lets you either overwrite an existing file or upload as a new file and keeps all the important info for you. Good luck and enjoy! ww2censor (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Philippines v. China. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Timothyjosephwood. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, post here, or just let me know. Thank you, and happy editing! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I do not work for Libon, I do not even like them. However when I edited the Libon_(service) page to include factual information that demonstrated a change in their business model made by the removal of the Answerphone service on which the entire company was originally based - you removed it.

You removed this twice. The second time you removed it even though there was a note explaining that all information was factual, non-marketing and contain a large number of citations to multiple sources.

The reason given for the removal in both cases was "Marketing Information". This claim was not substantiated in anyway - simply a belief you hold.

Subsequently the change was made by a non-registered member (I registered to attempt the correction after not being registered first time). The content of the page has now been changed to state a date of a service removal without context and the date is many months later than the act itself took place.

So what is your level of requirement to base your repeated changes? If it is lack of multiply sourced citations, facts based and referable to those citations and a wish to to allow inaccurate information to be left on the page - then you nailed it.

So is the way of Wikipedia? Are you deemed a good ambassador? I decided to start contributing and you are my impression so far. I have of course heard the many stories of egotistical editors who decide unilaterally what can and cannot be included. I hoped this has been handled, if my interaction with you is anything to go by - it has not.

So again - what bar do you set for edits? Facts or Fiction, sourced or unsourced, complete or incomplete?

Malcolm Hollingsworth (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Malcolm Hollingsworth, Wikipedia is not a means of promotion for a company or product. The content was removed because it was promotional in tone and sourced only to the official website. Articles should be written in a neutral way, giving only encyclopedic facts about a company, and information should be cited in reliable secondary sources. Primary sources, such as an official company website, should be avoided. If you have general questions about Wikipedia, I can try to answer them here, of you can check out Wikipedia:Teahouse, where multiple people are willing to answer specific questions, especially for new users. TimothyJosephWood 12:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood you again state the same flawed argument - the additions and corrections were NOT promotion in any way, I have no wish to promote a company via Wikipedia, nor do I have any stake in the company nor related in anyway. I added additional information to clarify the point that the article continued to state that the company was primarily a provider of Voicemail services when it had stopped doing so many months before hand. Supporting citations were provided to back up those facts. YOU decided facts meant promotion, when as I mentioned I do not even LIKE the company so if I was going to do anything I would certainly not been likely to have promoted it. So your defence in removing information is that I am adding promotional material to a company I do not like - I am not sure you understand what bias means, you obviously do not understand what factual information is as you removed it. It was then replaced with non-factual information. So you are comfortable in allowing additional information that has no basis in fact with no supporting citations - at the expense of factual information backed up with citations. If you had issues with a citation, note the issues and request a remedy or request further supporting information. To wipe out facts without cause and without merit, not once but twice. The second instance a note had been added that provided additional information as to the factual nature, this is simply ignorant and moronic at best. So I cannot see how this makes you a good Wikipedia member if your views override those of proven and supported factual information. Please feel free to explain what content I added was not factual and what content was biased. Malcolm Hollingsworth (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• The Libon Out calls allow you to call landlines and mobiles in more than 100 destinations.
• Thanks to this technology, Libon is the first messaging app...
• This brand new service works using...
• 'We have big plans for this year and our teams are working hard to give you the best experience on Libon with the features you love the most!
• To give you a lighter and more user-friendly app, Libon Voicemail will stop on 31/03/2016.
• Plus a plug to the new website: http://launch.voxist.com/libon/en
• contains user reviews bestowing the virtues of a product

All of this is promotional language and is inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and all of it was sourced to the official webpage. Exactly zero was from a secondary source. Whether you personally like the company is irrelevant. To add substantial content to this article you need neutral language, and secondary sources. It is not enough to simply cite the company web page in every paragraph. The purpose of a company website is to promote the company, and that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. TimothyJosephWood 15:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, is WP:SOCK can be reported here? Just a note: User:Malcolm Hollingsworth and User:86.17.47.223. NgYShung ^huh? 10:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

NgYShung, using multiple accounts per se is not prohibited, but only using them to circumvent Wikipeida policy and guidelines. Editing under an IP before registering an account is fairly common, and is most likely how the majority of users get started. TimothyJosephWood 12:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I am interested in improving the article, but you've interposed a diversion of some sort. Purely for the sake of improving the article would you kindly answer the question put to you at the subject/headline address? - Exodus2320 (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

If some a tax offender, now on a witch hunt hires some beer drinkers to edit his "page" and claim himself as a hero in Wikipedia, is that spam? He is the next Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.65.24.151 (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

This was the name of a article that you deleted. Now I do have sources relating to this article, but when I went to put these sources on, I discovered that you had in fact deleted this article. Now I would like you know if you be able to revive this article, if not I will recreate and put sources on there. This was a article I believed it would be useful to people, people love to love cats, people love to hate dictators, a blend of both. What more could you ask for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resuenam (talk • contribs) 17:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Resuenam, you need to post your request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. TimothyJosephWood 18:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Those three dots were a wikilink. -- Gestrid (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Gestrid I was being facetious. TimothyJosephWood 23:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I knew you were joking about the marijuana thing, but I wasn't sure if you'd seen the link or not. -- Gestrid (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course, or is this exactly the type of deception I've come to expect from Team Valor. TimothyJosephWood 23:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Frank Gaffney. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Philippines v. China. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, Hey i was the owner of the website and just created the wiki page from the info that was given to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zthomasonline (talk • contribs) 20:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Zthomasonline, content from other websites is almost always covered by copyright, and shouldn't be copied and pasted onto Wikipedia. If you are the owner of the copyrighted material, and are interested in ways to release it legally for use on Wikipedia, see guidance at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. TimothyJosephWood 20:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

BusinessBecause page should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because:

-BusinessBecause is the world biggest MBA network (gathering more than 35,000 people). -BusinessBecause articles are read by thousands of people and are on the top of google news for MBA relating subjects. -BusinessBecause is useful for MBA Applicants who are looking for advice from MBA, School Admission Officers or Admission Experts. -BusinessBecause job board enables MBA to find jobs dedicated to them.

So I don't understand how I can create that page without being deleted for lack of asserted importance. How can I "prove any asserted importance" ?

Thank you for your answer, Antoine 1704 (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

MediaKill13 (talk) 06:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I reverted your speedy deletion request for Agnishwar. Since this is a film, not a person, organization or event, WP:A7 does not apply. If you take another look at the article, you will see that it's a film by a notable author, with several notable actors. I believe it thus meets the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Other evidence of notability, in spite of the apparent lack of significant coverage. Of course, if you disagree, you're welcome to open an AfD, but I feel like I'm on pretty solid ground here. Also, please note that I was not the creator of the article, I just cleaned it up a bit. ubiquity (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

ubiquity Yeah, I know damned well A7 doesn't cover movies. I just didn't think about it. No plans on taking it to AfD though. No harm no foul I suppose. TimothyJosephWood 19:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Stop deleting my edit please. You don't even know what wildwood is. You do not live there. TJ Grubbs is a local celebrity. He has traveled across the country to compete in competitions. He has a factory Honda sponsorship. Please can you just not delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigkidbigmac (talk • contribs) 13:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Bigkidbigmac, as I indicated on your talk, notable people sections are for people who already have a Wikipedia article. If you would like to create an article for this person, you may want to check out Wikipedia:Your first article, for help on creating articles. Alternatively, you can check out Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions, which is a forum for asking questions about Wikipedia. TimothyJosephWood 14:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ajamu Baraka. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Timothyjosephwood,
Per the possible copy-vio situation there, take a look at here, where I located a copyright violation at International Surfing Association using "Earwig's Copyvio Detector". This tool shows the percent likelihood of a copy-vio, in this case 96.3% confidence. You do need to know (or suspect at least) where the text came from though. There may be some 'sooper-dooper' "fancy search thingy" tools, but I find that Googling a chunk of suspect text is a good way of finding where it came from. Sometimes the editors even provide it as a reference. AGF, some dont realise they usually aren't allowed to just copy slabs of text.

Also a good idea to drop a warning template like {{Uw-copyright-new}} on the editors' talk page as I did here, via Twinkle. 220 of ^Borg 04:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

220, I actually just enabled Twinkle yesterday, after a long time of Luddite manual templating. I've still not used it quite enough to feel it out. Also the second plug for Earwig in as many days. I'll have to check that out too. TimothyJosephWood 10:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I used 'Earwig' via the copvio template (via Twinkle etc). It and 'Duplicate Detector' links appear when the template is placed. I too spent a lot of time manually giving welcomes and warnings etc. Mostly when I edited as an IP (static fortunately) for my first 2 years (2009-11) on WP. When I started 'twinkling', I sometimes wished I had registered earlier. :-/ 220 of ^Borg 10:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey , what the fuck you do ?

Hey Twixx. As I indicated on your talk page, in order for a person to qualify for a Wikipedia article, they should have coverage in things like magazines, newspapers, and books. If you are the subject of the article, you can create it instead as a userpage for yourself by clicking on that link. TimothyJosephWood 14:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Timothyjosephwood|TimothyJosephWood]] I am sorry OK.

Twixx, no worries man. If there's any way I can help feel free to ask. TimothyJosephWood 17:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Apologises for not explaining the removal edit. I have done so now. I'm trying to update and improve the article - sadly it is pretty out of date and poorly written. best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.93.50 (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

86.191.93.50, I saw after I reverted that you have a lot of recent edits to the article. Just try to be sure to include an edit summary when you make a big change, otherwise someone like me might see it on the recent changes list and think it's vandalism. TimothyJosephWood 16:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Man , thanks for the help . And yes I need help with the references ; you know I am know on this world. How to create a reference ? Twixx31 (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC) Thanks man Twixx31 —Preceding undated comment added 18:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox organization. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Republic of China general election, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

You chipped in a while back on a Request Edit I made on the Yelp page. I was hoping you could also take a look at this edit really quick. Usually this stuff gets picked up by vandalism watchers, but that's been up for a few days now. CorporateM (Talk) 00:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done TimothyJosephWood 10:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey CorporateM. As a reminder, editors with a conflict of interest are allowed by policy to make uncontroversial edits including repairing obvious vandalism, which this seems to be. TimothyJosephWood 12:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Timothyjosephwood, An editor calling a person a racist is a clear BLP violation and should not be tolerated, even on talk pages. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Malerooster please read WP:BLP. I will address on the article talk. TimothyJosephWood 19:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Read. It applies to talk pages as well. --Malerooster (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey! I just wanted to let you know I removed your CSD for G12 and Mine for G11 so I could bundle them together in one CSD tag. Thanks! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

You reverted my edit. Can you put it back to how it was please. I realise it was just 4 minutes before but you could check. Victuallers (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Victuallers. Most of the content I removed appeared to be unsourced, and seemed to be about related individuals, and the convention, but not about the park directly. This information (if based on reliable sources) should be added to the main articles on the people or event, and not to the article about the park. TimothyJosephWood 14:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

So I think that you should have deleted that, just that ... I guess you mean sorry.Victuallers (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Victuallers. The content you added was a minor change to an essay added by a user with five edits, all of which were readding the same content to this article, all of which was not about the subject of the article. Leaving the four words of content you added while removing the format breaking coatrack would have made no sense, and disputing such a minor detail seems fairly petty for an admin. TimothyJosephWood 23:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

OK - my misunderstanding - thx 4 your patience Victuallers (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Timothy,

Thank you for your attention and review of the Network Device Interface article. Upon further educating myself on how copy-paste copyright concerns are treated in the Wiki community, I have changed the article in an attempt to comply. Thank you again for your keen eye. Willh20 (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Frankfurt School. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lesley Wyborn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Geoscientist. 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) 09:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, i may respecfully ask, if you disagree with me or agree with User:Arnoutf, can you please give the Arguments in the debate in the correspondant Talk page???, the user has rejected to follow the debate considering my arguments to be fallacious, i may be interested and what you have to say in the matter

Jazara90 (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. TimothyJosephWood 19:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Planned presidential transition of Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Philippines v. China. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Slut-shaming. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting on my Talk page today. I've replied to it with a question for you, on User talk:Corbertholt#Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack. Perhaps you'll do me the honour of reading that. --Corbertholt (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I declined your CSD nom (for now) for Frank Castle (sprinter). There are many incoming links to it. See the RM at Talk:Frank Castle, if this was a db-move request for the sprinter specifically. There also appears to be some incongruency at Frank Castle (disambiguation). Unsure what the intent was there — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Andy M. Wang. I just saw on RC feed that the PROD was declined by Calathan who suggested G6. So I went ahead and tagged it for the original PRODer. TimothyJosephWood 20:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jill Stein. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jill Stein. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Han Chinese. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Timothy Joseph, I saw your comment and the clarity tag on the Draft:Maryam Elisha I created. Thank you very much. I have reworked the section in question. Could you please look through and advise whether I can go ahead to resubmit the article? Thank you very much.Zayzeeltd (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Zayzeeltd, the only remaining issue I can see off hand (after a bit of copy editing), is I would recommend reading through the use of Template:Cite web, and repair the bare urls still in the article. But that doesn't have much to do directly with notability, and since another editor has already comment in support, I'll go ahead and accept if you would like to resubmit. TimothyJosephWood 13:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood,thank you for your great help. I returned and repaired the bare urls with the exception of two because there are information about the date of publication of materials. Can I leave it the way it is? Can I go ahead and resubmit?Zayzeeltd (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Zayzeeltd sure. I was advising to resubmit even without the changes, but maybe I wasn't clear. I have some real world things to do tomorrow (incoming baby), but I will try to accommodate as soon as possible. TimothyJosephWood 00:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood thank you. I have just resubmitted it. And congratulations on the baby! Zayzeeltd (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood wow. Thank you for accepting the article! Zayzeeltd (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

You might be interested in reading a discussion from a few weeks ago at Talk:Asperger syndrome#Non-free historic file version of image. I think the conversation got started in the previous section, so maybe scroll up a little to start reading. I'm not sure if you've ever filled out the {{Non-free use rationale}} template before, so just in case you hadn't and were considering doing it for the Baltimore railroad strike of 1877 article, I wanted to point out that thread, because it might be helpful in framing your rationale to understand why that one was rejected. If you're probably not going to do that or if you're familiar with the process, then don't bother reading. The short version is that we basically said all of the wrong things. —PermStrump(talk) 17:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Permstrump I usually try to avoid these kinds of legalistic issues like the plague. If it comes down to it, I'm going to have to admit idiocy and make a broad plea for help. TimothyJosephWood 21:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:SIG MCX. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jill Stein. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

What was that about? Did I miss and RFC somewhere and what was the whole thing with @Drmies: in relation to? Karst (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Karst Probably does need to be more of a discussion on that. I suppose this is as good a place as any. I've actually spent the past 20 minutes or so poking around, trying to sort things out, and an explanation will probably ping everyone involved anyway.

My reverts were based on obvious sock of banned user, given their NPA edit summaries against Sro23. The referenced discussion with Drmies seems to be this one on Sro's talk, and it looks like their reverts too were based on socking of banned user.

Two IPs were blocked by Widr following two reports to AIV by me. I narrowly decided not to go to ANI instead, since it seemed a bit more nuanced than your average AIV post, and now kindof wish I had. I was actually reverted once by Richard3120, who may want to weight in.

Looking at things, it seems like we have three policies on this that are all in a bit of a conflict with one another: MOS:THECAPS, WP:THECAPS, and WP:BANDNAME. So it may be appropriate to consider opening up something at the village pump to try to address that. TimothyJosephWood 15:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Timothyjosephwood, I agree that it would be clearer to try and gather all the MOS information together. But looking at all three policies, they all seem to say to me that when a band name includes "the" (e.g. the Beatles), that "the" should not be capitalised in running prose – I don't see anywhere in any of the three policies that contradicts that statement. Richard3120 (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Karst and Timothyjosephwood. To be clear, the IP's were socks of User:Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD", and many of the edits were not only changing "The" to "the", but also reverting to older versions of the articles that introduced errors (for example, here). Sro23 (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Richard3120:, Yes the broader policies do seem to defer to BANDNAME in the sole instance of bands, but it seems flatly odd that the guidelines should prescribe the article the to be capitalized in literally every usage besides bands, down to and including the fact that The Beatles the album should be caps, while "the Beatles" the band should not be. TimothyJosephWood 15:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I think if you look in most books and text, though, they make the same differentiation between a proper title of an album, book, etc. and an article added to a band name. Let's not start discussing which parts of the band The The should be capitalised or not... ;-) Richard3120 (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh God why! TimothyJosephWood 15:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I guess my question to all involved is: should Sro and I mass self revert? This may need a larger audience than my talk. I'm more than willing to do so, and we can figure out the MOS in the mean time. TimothyJosephWood 17:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why I was pinged here--there's nothing much of substance that I contributed in regard to this sock; the only thing I did was point out that I think it's best to decide if a banned user's edits need to be reverted, not revert them just because they were made by a banned user. I do not know what specifically y'all are talking about--if it's whether the reverts of the edits made by IP socks of Bigshowandkane should be mass reverted, I suppose my answer should be no: mass rollback/revert should be used judiciously. Go through and revert what doesn't improve the encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for the clarification everyone. Drmies I pinged you because the banned sock mentioned you in his edit summeries. Tim's link to Sro23's Talk page clarified that. Karst (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jarabulus offensive (2016). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antisemitism in 21st-century France. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of European countries by average wage. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Timothy. Hope all is well with you. Just a line to say I have practically finished my article in my Sandbox. Are you able to have a look at it for me? I am not quite sure where I should include references/footnotes, which I have seen in some articles. Thank you Dywana (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)DywanaDywana (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Murder of Seth Rich. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Might be nice to add to the hard money article why this policy is called Bentonian and who after? I don't seen that on there. Blythwood (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Blythwood, honestly I'm not much of an expert. I was just trying to find the right wikilink for a civil war era article, with a 1880s era source, and ended up making redirects in the process. I'll put it on my to do list (literally). TimothyJosephWood 16:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Blythwood:,  Done TimothyJosephWood 16:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. SaintAviator lets talk 23:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Please review WP:3RR. TimothyJosephWood 00:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:ISIL territorial claims. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I have some reserve about this and several other newish articles in the Desert War, it seems to me that someone arbitrarily defined this engagement as a battle, despite it being covered in other articles (Compass, Babini Group). Keith-264 (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Keith-264: Well, in the first place, it's acceptable to define an article by a common name of something that is recognizable as an event in its own right, even if sources don't treat it as a Capital Letter Proper Noun. Scranton general strike or the Baltimore railroad strike of 1877 are two recent such articles that come to mind. They're both properly part of the larger (proper) Great Railroad Strike of 1877, but there is enough information available on the events in those particular places to justify a stand alone article.

The overlap between Babini Group and Operation Compass seems more problematic on the face of it than the overlap between either and Battle of Mechili. The five lengthy paragraph section copy/pasted on the two former articles is pretty much long enough to be its own article already, and besides, shouldn't be covered so lengthily twice, when it could be summarized and the content incorporated into the main.

May want to bring this up in the main talk for MilHist, but I would lean toward a beef up of the main and a summary on each broader article. TimothyJosephWood 16:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I did some editing on the newish ones (First Battle of Bir el Gubi, Second Battle of Bir el Gubi), because I could add citations etc, then got in hot water with the author, on the grounds that one person's views about syntax and punctuation are not better than another's (hmmm); I haven't touched them since. As far as I know, no RS writes about a battle at Mechili but treats it as part of the advance to Beda Fomm after Compass began so well. If anyone wants a separate article about Mechili I won't object but I would rather move the article to something like Tank Engagement at Mechili, 24 January 1941, Mechili Tank Engagement, 24 January 1941. Calling something a battle without it being in a RS seems to me to be a bad precedent. Keith-264 (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the Compass article, the Derna, Mechili section could do with a severe pruning, now that the Babini article is a B class. Keith-264 (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Keith-264:Just based on overall length, a separate article seems warranted. I don't have a real opinion the name. Since Mechili is a place, and therefore a capitalized proper noun, and "battle", as the first word of the title would be capitalized also, there isn't a difference in that regard between Battle of Mechili (a la Battle of the Marne) or Battle of Mechili (as in the battle that took place at Mechili).

But like I tried to indicate earlier, the choice of making a new article often has more to do with coherency and volume of available information, than it has to do with distinct objective divisions of subject matter. TimothyJosephWood 17:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Nibeiwa is another one. Thank you, I understood your point and agree but these "battles" seem outside the history of the events depicted. I disagree with a casual use the term battle as a description of something not called a Battle in the RS, it seems to me to be spurious and smacks of OR. Keith-264 (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Denial of the Holodomor. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The reason I put down "terrorist" was because He is working for a terrorists group. You cant be serious to think that he isnt a terrorist. He killed 50 people and that merits that as a terrorist.

zgrillo2004 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zgrillo2004 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Zgrillo2004, this has been discussed previously on the article's [talk page and no consensus was reached for the inclusion of the content. If you have reliable sources for the changes you would like made, you should address the issue there. TimothyJosephWood 18:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't believe you made this edit. Did you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AClinton_Foundation&type=revision&diff=740340392&oldid=740339399

Glennconti (talk) 08:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a misclick/accidental copy/paste while I was scrolling to the bottom of the page. I've also been involved in conversations related to gender/orientation and DV. TimothyJosephWood 10:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Han Chinese. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

jps appears to be removing this category from a number of relevant articles and categories. I've tried to revert his removal only to be reverted. Any advice on how to proceed? None of his reverts have passed 3RR as far as I'm aware and I don't plan on edit-warring to encourage it. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I've given them the standard warning for edit warring, you probably want to review that link also, since you seem to be at least at the three revert rule in a few places. TimothyJosephWood 18:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems if I don't edit-war they can push through whatever changes they want on however many pages they want, without punishment. If I do, in an attempt to enforce policy, I'm just as guilty. Is there a "winning" scenario where policy is actually enforced? I thought you might want to know jps has found a surrogate. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. jps (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh no, I know you know better. But since you are openly edit warring, the template is just for the report should you continue. TimothyJosephWood 22:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

TUL: Templating the regulars is not required to file WP:3RR reports. Anyone with the number of edits and longevity I have is assumed to know the rules. jps (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Apparently you've forgotten. TimothyJosephWood 22:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Nope. jps (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kaine (disambiguation). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey Timothyjosephwood, please don't make comments like this one again... It's a pretty clear-cut personal attack. Saying that some editor has a possible POV because they lean this way or that is one thing, but this is quite another. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

All due respect, but whatever incivility I've shown toward SCJ pales in comparison with their constant and egregious incivility toward all comers on anything related to the election. Discussion doesn't work. Confrontation doesn't work. There's nothing left but to make light of it. TimothyJosephWood 21:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know about respect, but I left them a note as well. If you want a better editing atmosphere, be the change that you want to see: keep it clean and then rat out the others. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Han Chinese. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

hello i'm mohemmad albughdadi i create a wiki page in the last hour but unfortunately it was deleted i'm new here and it's my website i just wrote it i'm sorry for using vpn i was using opera and this is a new feature in it i didn't know it was on — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohemmadalbughdadi (talk • contribs) 18:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Terry McAuliffe. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi TimothyJosephWood! Not sure if you remember me, but you offered to help me out at the Teahouse a couple of weeks ago. You offered to move my draft if I come to a point where I cannot improve it any further. I would like to try this option now. The draft ist this: Thomas Youngblood. I hope you are still interested in helping me out! Xandra73 (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Xandra73, I've looked through the draft and added some notes in [bold]. TimothyJosephWood 12:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you TimothyJosephWood for the input. I changed all the parts you marked with notes. I hope the text is clearer now? Xandra73 (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Using the proper processes described at Wikipedia:Page mover#Round-robin page moves (WP:PM/C#4) would make inappropriate pages like "Please delete page per G6" that require the assistance of an administrator unnecessary. Best Regards,— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

This...seems really obvious now that it's been pointed out. TimothyJosephWood 10:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Murder of Milly Dowler. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Timothy, I would like to get suggestions from you in order to keep the new page on MultitrackStudio that has been marked for deletion. The software tool is a DAW (and a very good one) like all the other mentioned, for instance, at page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_digital_audio_editors So it makes sense, in my opinion, to add a page for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve antony (talk • contribs) 14:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey Steve. Please see WP:NOTE for guidance on notability criteria for Wikipedia articles. In a nutshell, in order for something to qualify for its own article, it should have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. TimothyJosephWood 14:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I have added a couple of references to MusicRadar and Rekkerd.org sites that are considered good sources for musical software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve antony (talk • contribs) 15:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC) Steve antony (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Timothyjosephwood, who did disruptive edits? Pleae check up talk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lee_Man-hee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterfoxes (talk • contribs) 13:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gamergate draft. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2016 India–Pakistan military confrontation. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Breaking the Silence (non-governmental organization). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The balloons are placeholder examples in the form used to request mediation, and the editor didn't have the clue to delete them. It definitely isn't a matter of good faith, which they have. What they need is clue, and I am asking other experienced editors to try to provide that. I already tried. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, yeah, I thought of that about two seconds after I posed my comment and did a test run before I struck the bit about the balloons. Still, as I said, it seems they've been provided with the information necessary to seek assistance, including the teahouse. Knowing that blue text is a link to be clicked on and read is a basic competency requirement, as is the willingness to read. TimothyJosephWood 15:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

They aren't the only clueless editor whom I am requesting be given clue today. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shooting of Keith Lamont Scott. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Wearwell requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. Pyrusca (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Not disagreeing with you here, and I know we're all on the same side, but once you start splitting hairs over terms, virtually any discussion of race as anything other than an artificial social construct starts to look like different degrees of racism. "Racism" at its root really just means "based on race", and if we accept a certain definition (albeit problematic) of race as being a difference in skin pigmentation, hair and eye colour, body shape, etc. determined by one's genes and what part of the world one's ancestors lived in that has no significant impact on intelligence or the like, then while "racism" is bad in theory, not everything that can be called "racist" is inherently something that merits a block on Wikipedia.

I live in Japan and frequently experience "benign racism". People assume, based on nothing other than my white skin, that I don't speak Japanese, and so bend over backwards to accommodate me despite their own lack of proficiency in English. They then compliment me once they realize I've accomplished the incredibly mundane task of being able to speak the language of the country I've lived in for five years. Old men also come up to me on the train and start trying to practice their English with me, and when I lived in a more rural area than I do now children I pass by on the street would always shout "Hello!" at me. This can be slightly annoying at times, and it is undoubtedly "racist" by the definition I gave above, but if someone admitted to engaging in such behaviour on their user page, we wouldn't delete the page and block them.

Indeed, if someone said on their user page that they were American and white (i.e., almost certainly not of recent Japanese descent), it would be "racist" of me to assume based on either that fact or a combination of that with some behaviour they made on an article or talk page that they didn't read Japanese and so couldn't read this or that source.

So, yes, "Caucasian" has a problematic etymology, but I wouldn't start splitting hairs over people using this or that term for a category whose very existence is questionable and, by a certain logic, racist.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with racism. I'm a brown man married to a white woman in Appalachia. I've been spit on. TimothyJosephWood 10:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

And that sucks. But that's not bad solely because it's racist; it's bad because it's racist and dickish. The non-issues I described above are just as much "discrimination or prejudice based on race" as what happened to you. There are even people who try to create a false equivalency between what has happened and still does happen to people of colour in the American south and what happens to white folks in my neck of the woods. These people are just about my least favourite human beings on the planet (mainly because I almost never have to deal with out-and-out fascists in real life). But that's got very little to do with what I wrote above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

From WP:CIVIL: Blocking for incivility is possible when incivility causes serious disruption. However, the civility policy is not intended to be used as a weapon and blocking should not be the first option in most cases.

Policy was not followed in this instance. There was little discussion at ANI regarding anything but the userpage content, and the blocks escalated immediately to indef without the user being given a chance to respond, even after the user page content had been resolved, and now to talk page protection when they did respond. WP doesn't block people for who they are or what they believe; it blocks people for what they do when and only when it is necessary to protect or advance the project.

The hair splitting didn't start with me; it started with trying to divine which one of two correct terms might be the more racist. The conversation started with Godwin's Law in full effect, and anything the user said was assumed to be a lie, and any personal attack against them was assumed to be acceptable because of it.

A topic ban wasn't even considered, nor was a lesser block, because it was assumed that this person automatically could not become a productive editor in any topic area, not because of what they did, but because of who they were. This is easily the worst block I've seen on my eight plus years here, and if anyone wants to construe that as my defending a Nazi, I'm OK with that, as someone who has been spit on, been harassed by police officers, been attacked at social events, I think I've earned the right to defend whomever the hell I please. TimothyJosephWood 12:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

As someone who has been blocked without warning for supposed CIVIL violations, I totally agree with your interpretation of it's wording. But CIVIL was only cited once, briefly, by one of the many users who supported the block (Clpo13, to be specific). The problem was the incredibly offensive user page and the coy dodging of requests to explain it. If Zaostao had not continued behaving like such a WP:DICK on his talk page after he was blocked, an unblock might have been forthcoming -- I for one would have been content to believe that it was meant as a joke in poor taste. I have made such jokes in the past, but owned up to them immediately and admitted that they were meant as silly jokes rather than legit attempts to impersonate another Wikipedian. (And yes -- I was threatened with a block if I didn't provide a good explanation for my behaviour; despite Kingsindian's claim on Zaostao's talk page, it is pretty standard to "require" that editors "admit [their] motivations" for apparently inappropriate behaviour.)

You are wrong to say that "a topic ban wasn't even considered". A whole separate section on Zaostao's talk page was started on possible unblock conditions, and the very first thing that was proposed was a TBAN. Zaostao shot such an idea down by continuing to behave like a WP:DICK. Note that I have been subject to several blocks that have been removed on appeal, so I know what I am talking about: you're supposed to apologize and recognize that your behaviour was inappropriate, not try to justify it or deny it. Even if one were not in the wrong (again, the supposed civility violations), it doesn't make admins want to unblock them seeing them saying, essentially, "I didn't do anything wrong; my user page was just being misinterpreted by stiff-necked and narrow-minded users".

I didn't say any hair-splitting started with you -- I said that if we start talking about etymologies then just about any word with any relation to "race" will come under fire because race is a social construct that doesn't actually exist in any meaningful way. You above referred to yourself as "brown", a word which I'm pretty sure my paper copy of the OED said was outdated and generally considered offensive (it described it the same way as "red" and "yellow"). I yesterday referred to myself jokingly as "gaijin-san" and was criticized by a Japanese colleague who believed that this word was considered discriminatory. It's pretty obvious that neither of us mean to cause deliberate offense by referring to ourselves in these ways, which is my point that hair-splitting over words is not getting us anywhere. (I'm also pretty sure the OED was in error by equating "brown" with indisputably loaded words like "yellow" and "red", but I can't verify it now because if my electronic edition of the same includes the same usage note I can't figure out how to access it. I may just be misremembering something I read more than a decade ago.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way -- "I think I've earned the right to defend whomever the hell I please"? When in any of the above did I imply I was criticizing you for defending anyone? I thought we were talking about whether "Caucasian" is more or less racist than "European American" and whether that matters. And why are you so worked up about that anyway? Or is "the hell" just how you normally communicate on Wikipedia? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I did meander into a general commentary on the situation as a whole. I use "brown" in the most literal sense. I am ethnically but not culturally Cherokee, and "brown" is how other's see me (i.e., nonspecific other).

For better or worse, Caucasian is an anachronism from the time of Mongoloid, while there are properly ethnically Caucasian people, a group the West patently does not refer to when they use the word. In many ways, European American is much more accurate a description than African American. AA is, as the base of it, a euphemism for Black. We manage to forget that North Africa has been dominated by Arabs for a millennia, and no one in the US would describe an Arab from Tripoli as African American. We also manage to forget that not long ago being a Hyphenated American was an epithet used against Europeans as well as others.

Overall, I personally prefer terms like "white" and "black", at least in terms of the US. Because when we say "a black man shot by a white police officer," we don't mean, "a man whose great great great grandfather was Kanuri, was shot by a man whose great great great grandfather was Welsh." What we mean is "a man who was morphologically black, was shot by a man who was morphologically white." TimothyJosephWood 11:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I basically agree with you. There isn't really much more to say on the topic, and I think we may have had a misunderstanding above. I hope it's all cleared up, anyway. Cheers! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

sorry for the jakob parham thing but how do you delete it

20huntk (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

20huntk: It has been tagged for speedy deletion and an administrator will review it shortly. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox located here. TimothyJosephWood 15:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Timothy,

I wrote the article on Kids' City London not to promote this particular charity, but to let people know the history behind the Trojans Scheme. I included other local charities like 4Children and NSPCC to illustrate what it has been done in London to provide children with better education opportunities and safer learning environments. The article was meant to serve as a reference, not as a promotion of the charity. If you consider it otherwise, feel free to make changes to the text.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HectorA (talk • contribs) 17:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm UNSC Luke 1021. Timothyjosephwood, thanks for creating Lists of Incidents of unrest and violence in the United State by city!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This page does require a cleanup, but it doesn't need references because it's a disambiguation. However, it does need to be labelled as so. I'll try to fix it for you, but it needs more than three links. It's a new page but these are the guidelines.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

UNSC Luke 1021:

• It doesn't require cleanup; it requires expansion.
• When you're doing curation, "Just looks sloppy in general; I don't know which category it falls under so I just generally described it." is probably actually less helpful (especially to a new user) than doing nothing, so don't.
• Lists are not stubs (especially lists of lists), they are short lists (or short lists of lists), and there is nothing in policy requiring a minimum set of entries
• Considering you apparently haven't been editing Wikipedia even a month, you may want to get a bit more experience before spending a great deal of time reviewing new articles. TimothyJosephWood 18:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I realize that the article is only like 30 minutes old. I just wanted to give some constructive criticism. I also realize that I haven't really edited WikiPedia for all that long. I still understand how it works. If I don't know how to rate something, I skip it and leave it for someone more experienced. I had a character limit so I couldn't really explain. I'll fill you in now

• By 'cleanup', I mean that it belongs in a category and it needs a table of contents. (I understand that it only has three lines right now, and a ToC would be somewhat inappropriate. I'm thinking in a broader sense, where an expansion would take place and it would be needed.)
• When I said it looked sloppy, I meant that it didn't really have any subsections or any sort of separation. I think it would look better if you added subsections, and separated them by state, because, especially states like New York and California that have three or four large cities each, it would be more appropriate than an ABC-order list.
• When I said it was a stub, I meant that there were only three links, which is unusually few for a list. I wasn't calling it a stub in the usual sense, but in the 'list stub' sense
• I know I've only really been active on WikiPedia for about a month or two, but I still know my way around. I'm not trying to criticize you here, I'm just trying to help.

If you want me to help you with the article, I'll be more than happy to. I don't know if you didn't understand, or if this clarification was helpful or what, but I'm just trying to help here. Good day. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Tables of contents are automatically generated by headers, and this list will likely never have headers because there is likely only going to be a couple dozen lists of this type possible to include, given the extant articles.
• The list contains only three items, because currently that's all that exists.
• See WP:COUNCIL/AFAQ. Lists are not stubs; they are lists. TimothyJosephWood 18:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ruger Mini-14. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for your quick feedback on my first question!

Have a nice weekend! Cheers, WolfgangSchi (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for your quick feedback on my first question!

Have a nice weekend! Cheers, WolfgangSchi (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know how to do air quotes using Wikipedia markup. Please join This discussion. Thanks. Nigel Pap (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Q-1 visa, Timothyjosephwood!

Wikipedia editor DatGuy just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Nice start for the article! Good luck on autopatrolled by the way.

To reply, leave a comment on DatGuy's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

DatGuy, wow. I started the Baltimore article almost two months ago. I didn't think things were that backlogged. TimothyJosephWood 16:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited NATO-1 visa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A-1 visa. 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) 11:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War II. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Timothyjosephwood, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Haiti–United States relations. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dinesh D'Souza. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robert Sarah. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ron McKinnon (politician). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Conservative Party of Canada leadership election, 2017. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dreams from My Real Father. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Clinton Foundation. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War II. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I made some improvements to the article on sexism which you had labelled as "(General note: Removal of content, blanking on Sexism. (TW))"

Could you contact me on the talk page? I have added a new section just for the argument over whether men should be allowed to have a place in the article. I'm sure you'll be reasonable enough to consider the weight of the citations in favor of my edits.2.97.3.209 (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Neoliberalism. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Scranton general strike you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chris troutman -- Chris troutman (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Timothyjosephwood. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as mark pages as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rodrigo Duterte. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Samantha Bee. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Timothy. Thank you for reviewing the page. I have edited the content as per your recommendations and resubmitted it to AfC. Xiaohei2016 (talk) 06:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I take the liberty of disagreeing with your decision of declining the article about Ildar Dadin.

You write that "Being a jailed activist does not in and of itself qualify for a Wikipedia article. Additional sources, and most likely additional time, are likely needed to show that this individual is being widely covered for a considerable period of time, and is not merely a blip on the news cycle radar for 3 November. "

The reality is that this is case that has received lots of international attention in important international media like The Guardian, Spiegel Online, BBC and many more for almost a year now. The international pressure on Russian leaders has made this case be forwarded to Vladimir Putin. There is a significant chance that this case may lead to change in Russian laws. A google search for "Ildar Dadin" (i.e. in latin letters) now yields 85,000 hits. Amnesty International is giving much attention to the case. The Moscow office of Amnesty International has been closed by the Russian authorities; there is reason to suspect that this was caused by the attention that Amnesty International has given to this case.

The Russian version of Wikipedia has an extensive article about Ildar Dadin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbf00 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Vbf00, it's good that you are interested and follow up on the review. I was basing the decision mainly off of what was present in the draft. The most expedient thing to do would be to use this information to demonstrate, for example, that this has been ongoing and widely covered, and then resubmit the draft for review. Feel free to drop me a line when you do so and I'll be happy to take another look at it. TimothyJosephWood 18:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Prior to writing to you here, I indeed included lots of information and sources demonstrating that this has been ongoing for a long time, is widely covered in international media, and is an important question of principle. And I indeed resubmitted the article.

Other Wikipedia editors in the English edition have found out a long time ago that lldar Dadin deserves being mentioned in the Wikipedia article about Freedom of assembly in Russia. The Russian edition of Wikipedia had an article about him already in February 2016, and the case, the importance and the international attention have all grown strongly after that.

Please look at my resubmission. You have the power to stop important information from reaching out to Wikipedia readers. Please do not misuse that power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbf00 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

As was written from the very beginning, the case of Ildar Dadin is important enough that Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov saw it necessary to involve Vladimir Putin. So this case is important enough for Vladimir Putin but not important enough for Wikipedia?

Today the chief of the Europe Council is involving himself through international media and by contacting the Russian Justice Minister Aleksandr Konovalov. http://www.rferl.org/a/council-europe-chief-jagland-concerned-jailed-russian-activist-dadin/28096198.html So this case is imporant enough for the chief of the Europe Council to be strongly concerned, but not important enough for Wikipedia?

Now a google search for "Ildar Dadin" indicated 95,000 hits. So just since yesterday, ten thousand new web pages about this case have appeared. This case is important enough for huge numbers of people all over the world to actively take a stance, including readers of the Russian edition of Wikipedia, but not important enough for the English version of Wikipedia?

Ildar Dadin is not just a "jailed activist" as you claim. He is the first person to be convicted based on a new and highly controversial law, and his case is causing strong international attention among international politicians at the highest level and in international media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbf00 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The European Court of Human Rights is giving priority to this case. But the English edition of Wikipedia doesn't want this case to be mentioned at all. https://www.novayagazeta.ru/news/2016/11/03/126269-moskalkova-predlozhila-perevesti-dadina-v-druguyu-koloniyu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbf00 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Now my article about Ildar Dadin has been published on Wikipedia by the user Ivannah. Ivannah made this comment: "Sorry for uploading a declined draft - this man is tortured and may not have time enough to wait for a perfect article in Wikipedia" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbf00 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Vbf00, nearly everyone on Wikipedia is a volunteer. If someone does not immediately reply to a message, it is likely they are busy, offline, or both. TimothyJosephWood 12:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for not protesting against including this article any more.

Vbf00 (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that he is probably now notable since the last article was deleted, and its not really too soon seeing as its been a month since the debate, and he passes WP:GNG and WP:ONEEVENT with [3] and [4]. There is a lot more stuff if you want me to dig up more links. Thanks, AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

AlessandroTiandelli333, News coverage about a person who is known for one event, does not constitute subsequent events the person is known for. News coverage is not "an event", it is coverage that stems from the event. Someone like his reddit account, would be meaningless were it not for that one event. TimothyJosephWood 19:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I've tried to find some more rs sources that wern't about him at the debate, but pretty much every news source you can think of wrote an article on him, I can't see how you don't think he deserves an article because he is the largest WP:GNG pass I have ever seen. If WP:ONEEVENT is still a concern, i've dug up these [5], [6], [7], [8],[9] (About him going on Jimmy Kimmel Live and him giving him tickets to the final debate), [10],[11], [12] (Bill Maher talking about his discontent with bones political views).[13] (something from SNL). I hope this reduces your concerns about the subject. Thanks, AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

AlessandroTiandelli333: All due respect, but all coverage that stemmed from a 15 second question asked at the debate. At any rate, I am not the arbiter of this. If an admin declines the speedy deletion, we can go again to WP:AFD and that is where you should make your case. TimothyJosephWood 21:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Sbjumper21 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:18Birdies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My article keeps getting declined for not having references in reliable sources. However if you look at the sources listed, they are highly credible sources within the golf industry. For example one of the references, Golf Digest, is considered one of the top golf publications in the industry. The references listed should be considered reliable as they are among the top publications in the golf industry.

Notability on Wikipedia has a requirement for sustained coverage, and the current sources do not demonstrate this. One source, Trend Hunter, is actively dedicated to new and emerging products. DuJure covers only the beta version of the app. Argus Leader relies basically 100% on the developers for its information. The information on the Golf Digestix site is actually provided by the company wholesale, and is thus much more akin to a paid advertisement than any type of normal media coverage.

So overall, the current sources do not demonstrate the type of high quality, independent, sustained coverage needed to demonstrate notability. TimothyJosephWood 19:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Oops. Ping @Sbjumper21:. TimothyJosephWood 19:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi there,

The GolfDigest article is not a paid advertisement and is a highly credible source within the golf industry. DuJour is not covering the beta version of the app as the app has only been released fully and was never in beta. The Argus Leader is part of the USA Today network and the article was based on an interview with an 18Birdies executive.

Within the golf industry, the biggest golf publication (Golf Digest) has under one million unique visitors a month. We've been covered and interviewed by major publications such as The Examiner (2.5 million unique visitors a month), Dujour Magazine (47K+ unique visitors a month), GolfNewsNet (55k+ unique visitors a month), ESPN Radio, CBS Radio, Golf Channel Sirius FM and Golf Channel (video). These are major hits within the golf industry.

Competitor, GolfNow, has been granted a page but its important to note that coverage GolfNow received from major publications (Forbes/GolfWeek - no longer active/Business Insider) was about either their competition with a slight mention to GolfNow or acquisition by Comcast. They have no coverage other than that in major publications. Their Forbes piece was focused on EZLinks and had some mentions of GolfNow being a competitor.

Comcast Buying GolfNow.com: http://www.businessinsider.com/2008/3/comcast-buying-golfnow-com Booking Golf Tee Times Gradually Shifting To Online Marketplace (focused on EZLinks): http://www.forbes.com/sites/darrenheitner/2013/06/15/booking-golf-tee-times-gradually-shifting-to-online-marketplace/#cbbf061646e1 Sbjumper21 (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Sbjumper21: GolfNow is apparently a 15 year old company. The 18 app was launched in February. A news search for GolfNow returns about 20,000 results. A news search for 18Birdies returns exactly 10. TimothyJosephWood 19:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Timothyjoesephwood, thank you for taking time out of your day to view my article. I am a new user on Wikipedia and this is my first article. I would be glad to discuss the issues of my article and how to fix them. I do not know how to state the significance of my topic, but if you could help me, that would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdenurie (talk • contribs) 20:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Bdenurie Unfortunately, publishing stories on Wattpad does not qualify for notability in terms of having one's own Wikipedia article. If this is the most significant achievement of the writer so far, I'm afraid they will most likely have to wait to have their own article. TimothyJosephWood 20:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, you can have it deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdenurie (talk • contribs) 20:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Popular election. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ronald Reagan. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi

I noticed that there was a declined article on "Churchill Retirement Living" by yourself as it was rightly not notable enough due to a lack of references. I have added new content and references to the draft talk page below and would greatly appreciate your feedback before I submit for approval.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Churchill_Retirement_Living

Thanks

Eoinsandford (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• Sbjumper21 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:18Birdies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States involvement in regime change. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, as you did at Jill_Stein, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You are re-inserting unacceptable BLP-violating wording. She didn't invest significant money directly, let alone anything close to $8.5MM in "those" industries. She bought S&P 500 index funds; reliable sources don't claim more than $3,832,050 in investments at all. They certainly don't claim all her investments went into those industries. BLP issues, wording and location need be worked out on the talk page before reinsertion. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jill_Stein#BLP_violation.2C_wording.2C_location for details and to move forward I strongly suggest you revert your BLP violations before someone does so for you. Elvey^(t•c) 19:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Elvey: I appreciate your enthusiasm, but, as I pointed out both in my edit summary and in the thread I started on the article talk, the content was included as the result of an RfC. If you would like to discuss this further, you are more than welcome to. That is, in fact, why I started a thread on talk immediately after restoring the content.

However, your apparent penchant for leaving long winded custom "warning templates" on user pages when it is patently not warranted is noted, and I would caution you to reign in your enthusiasm in that area particularly. Please review guidance at WP:HUSH, and note that excessive and/or improper warnings may be construed as a form of WP:Harassment. You may consider this a warning of your own to that effect. TimothyJosephWood 19:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Moazzam Begg. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

HI Tim,

Firstly - many thanks for your helpful comments and taking time to assist me with my request for on overview. Re the image useage - I had in fact asked Todd to assign copyright to me when I first looked at Wikimedia - Whilst he agreed verbally I have not yet received that assignment in writing so I have removed the image until early next week when the written, notarised assignment will arrive here. Hope all is well with the newborn - I have one as well who currently is JUST starting to stand so a lot of foam taped to sharp coffe table edges. With Kind Regards NeilNeil Kindness (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Neil Kindness:, no problem at all. I'll admit though, that I'm not the expert with the technicalities of attribution. When you get the actual permissions worked out, the best place to go for that is Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. All the best. TimothyJosephWood 07:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Singapore. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

As a beginner on Wikipedia, your guidance helped me find the tools to make Wikipedia a better place. Thanks And best regards from Amsterdam, Amin (Talk) 15:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. If there's anything else I can help clarify feel free to post here. TimothyJosephWood 15:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi GreenMeansGo,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Timothyjosephwood. I've declined your A7 speedy deletion request on Heroine's Quest as, as far as I can tell, it appears to be a software product and not web content, and thus ineligible for A7. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Timothy, thanks for taking time to review my entry about Korhan Erel. As yo may see I am adding references from various credible sources for the living bio. I appreciate your comment and please check the updates.

I appreciate your help, but at this point, I don't see any indication things will be different moving forward. They've been doing this for years, god knows how many times they've done so specifically to bring bodies to edit wars, and they don't recognize the behavior as canvassing. -Darouet (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Darouet, all things considered, the fact that no one, as far as I can tell, has actually engaged in the dispute resolution process, makes me take the entire situation a bit less seriously than you seem to. There is no qualification for WP:RfC other than trying and failing to resolve things amicably on talk, yet no one seems to have gone even that route. I've been around ANI more than I would like, and I don't see anything coming from the thread of any consequence.

Your side of the conflict should take at least one lesson. that flouting an RfC is a fairly flagrant disregard of a semi-formal consensus process, and failing to initiate that, is a bit of lack of due process.

I have no dog in this fight honestly one way or the other, and am happy to try and mediate as best I can, but as far as canvassing goes, the most egregious violations are usually off wiki, and require a significant amount of time validating !voting accounts for legitimacy. So this is overall small fries as far as I can see.

I think it's likely they disregard the warnings as partisan, which is even more reason to AGF from the start, and involve third parties as early as is necessary. If I seem too forgiving, I've been spending quite some time at the Teahouse and AfC, and that tends to do that to a person. TimothyJosephWood 01:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: thanks for your note. We did hold a dispute resolution in 2013 (see my original post), and all of them disengaged the minute I posted RS and quotes under third party supervision, effectively ending the conflict. That was consistent with my experiences on the talk page prior to the DR, and recently: many opinions, but contempt for the sources that are the core of scholarship and wikipedia.

There were and are many problems with Ltbuni's editing, and canvassing is in some ways a minor component. Most importantly, the hostility towards WP:RS is central to a non-neutral WP:POV.

But I disagree critically with your contention about canvassing. I think this whole group's reliance on WP:CANVASSING allows them to approach and resolve conflict through edit WP:WARs instead of more normal processes: discussion focussed on RS, or community input beyond their editing group. The fact that neither you nor admins are even acknowledging that empowers this behavior and guarantees it will continue. It also leaves me or anyone else confronted with this long term disruption with zero avenue for redress, and will drive all but the most committed zealots away from contentious topics. I acknowledge that I haven't always maintained a perfectly cool attitude, but I am human and the re-appearance of this after the initial incident, and Ltbuni's often incomprehensible posts and disregard for core principles, can be maddening.

There is only one situation I know of where editors were caught red-handed in off-wiki canvassing / edit war coordination: the infamous EEML case. I am sure this kind of thing continues, though I have zero idea how it can be uncovered (EEML practically required espionage). Ltbuni and Koertefa's case isn't as bad - Koertefa at least usually didn't take the bait. But it remains nevertheless a textbook case of canvassing, and it's both long-term, and ongoing. It's also not a coincidence that here, and in EEML, the overall topic is the same: eastern european nationalism.

Lastly, I appreciate your note about the Teahouse and AfC, and will look into that after this is over. -Darouet (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget, my recommendation was a clear explanation and a stern warning against even the appearance of warring or canvassing, with the promise of sanctions for violation, and the ANI thread as a record of all the above.

Beyond that, I think its an unrealistic expectation that certain contentious editing areas are ever going to resolve themselves to the point where DRN, RfC, and TO aren't going to be often necessary regardless. For example, during the election, I think we were averaging about an RfC a day on candidate articles, and probably an ArbCom report a week. That's just the way things are in contentious topics. They're like a Wikipedia version of extreme sports at times. TimothyJosephWood 18:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, I do use RfC regularly, and have used DR occasionally, and support both processes (RfC is much easier). Also, I have gone back and realize that you were pretty direct on the canvassing question, though none of the editors involved acknowledge they did this. -Darouet (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that canvassing really requires intent, which seems like it might be the core of the disagreement as to whether it happened. But you also have to keep in mind that sanctions are not punitive, and exist only to protect the project. If someone did something wrong, it is not required that they confess, only that they agree not to do so in the future. TimothyJosephWood 22:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Ha, well If innocence in canvassing "did consist of words, they were as innocent as grace itself." I don't think anyone ever admits even to themselves they've consulted a biased party, though if someone believes international media is biased against the whole nation of Hungary, they are in a poor place to judge there.

I do understand all sanctions are not punitive, but as of now, unless they've drawn conclusions contrary to their declarations, all these guys are about to walk away thinking their behavior was appropriate, and something that's ongoing since 3-4 years will continue. Maybe I should have done more research before my complaint (I didn't even realize the extent of it), and presented the whole thing as a bulleted list of diffs. -Darouet (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Always good to do your homework before going to the most public forum on WP.

Also, for what it's worth, they made the same type of allegations on Petra László incident. They were in fact correct in that the detail was available in (English even) sources from the Hungarian government, and was not covered in Western Media. This may likely have been because it was a comparatively minor detail, but it was technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.

Does that mean that there is a vast anti-Hungarian conspiracy afoot? No. But it does mean that the problem was solved by digging up sources, and basically ignoring the red herring of systemic media bias. TimothyJosephWood 17:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a good solution at the Tripping Incident article, and Ltbuni is also editing with me constructively now, which is nice to see. Again, thanks for your help (at the Szanislo article too). -Darouet (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russian financial crisis (2014–present). Legobot (talk) 04:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Anthony Yank I imagine you as a stupid white yank bully who don't know shit about other cultures so shut the Fuck up you dumb yank white trash and don't bully other users. Patriot Gorkhali (talk) 15:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Sir Problem Fixed Now If You Have Any Other Problem Contact On my Talk Page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CongoEngineer (talk • contribs) 16:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The company was listed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_designated_by_the_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_as_hate_groups and I was just trying to give details about the company. I did put links to authors that were on the a2zpublication website which I can remove or find other mentions of the authors but I was not trying to advertising or promote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian Krieg (talk • contribs) 17:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

If you would like to retrieve the article, you will have to post your request on WP:REFUND. An administrator may also move the article to draft space to allow time for improvements without the risk of deletion. TimothyJosephWood 17:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Timothyjosephwood, I appreciate you messaging me back. I am from Long Island, and been doing research on conglomerates and groups. I know you have flagged my NazPay Inc. article, and I want to make sure I can edit and contribute to Wikipedia following your guidelines. What can I do to make the subject important enough to be included in an encyclopedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThisGuy101 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• ThisGuy101: For Wikipedia notability guidelines for companies, please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). TimothyJosephWood 20:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Ifelsetech (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Dr. E.K.T. Sivakumar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi i have included the references links of a reputed institutions, but still my article was rejected can you please tell me what exactly was missing thanks.

Ifelsetech:

• The content of the draft is not supported by inline citations. See Help:Referencing for beginners for guidance in formatting this correctly.

• The draft should not read like a resume, that is, an indiscriminate list of publications with no indication why these are relevant or important for an encyclopedic understanding of the individual.

• To establish notability, the references should be to reliable third party sources. References like blogs, Amazon.com product pages, and self published CVs do not meet these standards and do not contribute to notability for the purposes of Wikipedia. TimothyJosephWood 13:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Michael Portillo. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for providing invaluable help in getting my first article Matthew Curtis (composer) to acceptable standards and finally published. Full of admiration already, if you are indeed also dealing with a newborn then I am in awe. UserSCL1958 (talk) 11:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

UserSCL1958 contgratulations to you as well on your first article, with hopefully many more to come. If there's any way I can help feel free to drop a line. TimothyJosephWood 14:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't mean to shit in your soup at ANI. But there is a reason that escalating sanctions is a thing, because some substantial portion of those editors actually do reform and learn to contribute productively, for example, Goethean, indefinitely topic banned from articles related to the Tea Party Movement, but currently one of the 2000 most active Wikipedians, and in the top 4000 by pages created. TimothyJosephWood 15:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

No worries. It's why we use the word "indefinite", and not "infinite". And I totally agree with "preventative, not punitive", and with the idea of rehabilitation here. People should have a chance to learn and understand. Wikipedia can be a steep learning curve at times. Here's to hoping that the editor takes the oportunity we're offering them. -jc37 17:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Twistedmouth (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The Glover whisky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Timothy, thanks for the review, though shame you didn't think it was notable. With respect, I have two points I'd like to raise. As a whisky fan, I consider this whisky to be notable precisely because it is a blend of Scotch and Japanese whisky. This isn't something that has been done before, so in that respect I think it's pioneering, or at least notable. The fact it uses a historical character and his story as part of its branding/packaging also distinguishes it. I would expect a global major to do something similar soon, and then take credit for being the first! It's difficult finding additional sources than the ones already used to demonstrate this. The sources I used were national newspapers and leading whisky magazines, among others. Second, I'm not sure the Scottish Parliament, and the MSPs who supported the motion, would see it as a PR stunt. In fact, I think it was a cynical and subjective reading of the event. Given the importance of whisky to Scotland, and the need for innovation and small businesses, I would suggest they were officially showing their support for a pioneering idea in a very important industry. Look forward to hearing your thoughts. Cheers, twistedmouth --Twistedmouth (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey Twistedmouth. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability, meaning that many topics that have recently become notable in the every-day sense, will not yet meet notability in the Wikipedia sense, even though they may likely do so in the future once coverage in reliable sources has a chance to "catch up" so-to-speak.

But perhaps there is an easy compromise here. While topics must demonstrate independent notably to qualify for their own article, this standard is not required for including content in articles on related independently notable subjects. So, for example, until there is more sustained coverage of the whiskey, the content may be perfectly appropriate for inclusion in the main Thomas Blake Glover article. It will probably need some condensing, but some information like pricing is probably not appropriate for an encyclopedia anyway. TimothyJosephWood 15:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense and as you say, a good compromise. Thanks, will do that for starters. Cheers --Twistedmouth (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Goa Opinion Poll. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The improper templating is a nice touch. TimothyJosephWood 14:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not improper templating. My contention is that you had no cause to edit my comment, so the templates are appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah. See. This is your problem. You're working too hard. For example, the reason I didn't template you to let you know that BLP is an exception to 3RR is because I assumed you already knew. TimothyJosephWood 17:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. I do know WP:BLP intimately. I know saying "being a dick" is not a BLPVIO, for example. If I had said "______ is a dick" then it would have been a BLPVIO. Perhaps your command of the subtleties of language doesn't reach that far. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Arguing that the disparity between the present and present participle of the same verb, makes somehow such a monumental difference is...laughable. That you are so adamant about it makes it even more so. (I didn't call him a murderer; I just said that he was murdering people. It's really quite different.) TimothyJosephWood 15:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The difference should be obvious, even to you. "Being a dick" means Bernie was engaging in dickish behavior. Saying he is a dick means he always behaves like that. I made no such claim. Anyway, I'm not going to waste more of my time on this. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, but imagine the possibilities. I dare say, if you made a good faith effort to be civil, you may never have to waste time making such a ridiculous argument ever again. TimothyJosephWood 16:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eckhart Tolle. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold war (general term). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Political positions of Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Steve Bannon. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Traité sur les apparitions des esprits et sur les vampires ou les revenans de Hongrie, de Moravie, &c.. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Berkeley Haas Logo Updated.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

What can I do to make the BRSCC Ford Fiesta Junior Championship a notable article to be on wikipedia? The450 (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The450, sorry for the delay. You caught me while I was out of town. Looks like the draft only includes two references, and neither seems to be independent of the subject. In order to meet WP:GNG notability guidelines for Wikipedia, subjects should have received sustained coverage from reliable sources. If these exist, they should be added to the draft. If they do not, the subject likely does not meet criteria to have it's own article. Hope this helps. TimothyJosephWood 15:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood Ok,, I don't mind the delay,, I was kinda expecting the delay,, So, what type of references does it need? The450 (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The450, see WP:RS for guidance on referencing for Wikipedia. TimothyJosephWood 18:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood So like the calendar for the series from the website and other stuff like that? The450 (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The450, Unfortunately, you're just going to have to take a few minutes to review the policy itself. Not much I can do here beyond simply restating what it says. TimothyJosephWood 18:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood Oh,, OK!

How do I put images into the article? The450 (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Images for guidance on images for Wikipedia. Note that images used here will usually have to be in the public domain or otherwise free for public use to be appropriate. TimothyJosephWood 18:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood OK!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by The450 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood Do you do Motorsport Articles? The450 (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately no. I'm a fairly uninteresting person. TimothyJosephWood 20:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood OK! The450 (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Volunteer (Ireland). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sciences Po. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abortion-rights movements. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, Timothyjosephwood, and also agree with comments by Calton [14] and Neutrality [15], thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:North Korea. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that when you do this it adds the {{db-test}} and also adds the IPs talk page to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. Forgot to add the nowiki the first time. Sorry about that. TimothyJosephWood 16:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Infobox:person. Since you had some involvement with the Infobox:person redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Timothyjosephwood I appreciate your edits, source clean up, and publication of the Hugh Cha Wikipedia profile. I have submitted a permissions email and updated the image files with "OTRS pending". Are there any further steps I should take in order to remove the deletion request on the following files?

• c:File:Hugh_Cha_as_Lun_Tha.jpg
• c:File:Hugh_Cha.jpg
• c:File:The_Destined_King.jpg

On a side note, I enjoy editing digital documents and have thought about becoming a wiki editor given my background in Journalism/Creative Writing. Is there a process for signing up to become a Wiki editor and/or online training? Thank you for your time. -- Alliemcbell (talk • contribs) 00:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Alliemcbell, I'm going to go ahead and ping @Ww2censor: for input. I'm honestly not that copyright savvy. I normally just reverse image search when I see something that looks a bit too professional and report it when I find it on a website that looks like it was there first. Hopefully they can give a bit more advice. TimothyJosephWood 00:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, thank you for the clarification and follow up with ww2censor. I work with a lot of artists, so this experience will be helpful for future Wiki profiles I create as part of my freelance work. Alliemcbell (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Alliemcbell, I would add, while we wait for guidance, that since you have a conflict of interest, you should thoroughly review WP:COI and WP:PAID carefully. TimothyJosephWood 01:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Alliemcbell: Where images such as these are sourced to a webpage that does not clearly show the images are freely licensed, it is necessary for the copyright holder, who is usually the photographer and not the subject of the image, has to verify their permission to the OTRS team. On the commons the procedure is at OTRS or on the enwiki at WP:CONSENT. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page for a better understanding of image copyright issues. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood and Ww2censor I appreciate both of your feedback and assistance. I've updated my user page and the article in question with the COI alert. I was unaware of this so thank you for bringing it to my attention, and I will follow the request edit procedure moving forward. As for the images, I've emailed OTRS with proof of permission considering the photos were commissioned headshots on behalf of the artist. ... IF the images get deleted, would I be able to take photos myself or would that not work given the COI? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alliemcbell (talk • contribs) 16:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Timothyjosephwood (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Home Restaurant and Bar NYC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I am new here and not familiar with all the Wikipedia syntax so any help would be much appreciated. Please I know you are swamped with articles to review but if you can show me exactly the areas in my submission are that need to be addressed , I can begin work on them.

Unqienyc (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Unqienyc. First, the references should be formatted into incline citations, to accompany the content that they support. Please see Help:Footnotes for guidance on how to do this.

Second, some of the sources don't seem to be appropriate. For example, this appears to be a blog, which is not considered a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. This appears to be a random photo gallery and not directly connected to the subject of the draft at all. This appears to be an unremarkable review of the restaurant that doesn't seem to do much other than to establish that it did in fact exists.

In short the draft needs better references that tell us exactly why the restaurant is important beyond Lennon wearing a t-shirt. Lennon likely wore lots of t-shirts and the named individuals likely played at a lot of places, but that doesn't make all those shirts or all those places notable. Hopefully this is helpful and not discouraging. TimothyJosephWood 16:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Timothy, I do not see the point. The editing of the article on Mohammad Hossein Allafi from Wikipedia side took not 2 - 3 weeks (as announced "because of thousands of other articles awaiting..."), but 2 months. And finally nothing changed regarding the justification of the The subject of the rejection of this article on the German-Iranian author, editor and translator Mohammad Hossein Allafi, which definitely is very well referenced. Nobody can put into question that he was lecturer at the Goethe University Frankfurt and he wrote or edited or translated more than 20 books in German language. That is all very good referenced either in print or online (see manifold sources for the article). And that is why it seems arbitrary to harp on so-called reference requirements. In fact I suspect that there might other reasons why the information is not welcome on English Wikipedia - whatever they are. Wiesel01 (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Wiesel01, Looking more closely, the more egregious problem is that thee draft appears to be copied verbatim from http://www.allafi.net/index00-M.H.Allafi.htm. With very few exceptions, Wikipedia cannot host content pasted directly from online sources as this constitutes a copyright violation. You will need to rewrite the article in your own words if you wish for the article to be included in Wikipedia.

As to the backlog, there is currently about a thousand submitted drafts on AfC, and only a handful of volunteers reviewing articles. Unfortunately, very little can be done about that at this time. TimothyJosephWood 16:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fidel Castro. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I am working on a topic - page name is Server Lift. I added an image that i took with my camera and sold to my client who manufactures server lifts under the brand name RackLift. That photo is somewhere on their site and they have the right to use it for their own purposes. I too retained the rights to use all photos I took for them. I need to use that shot for this article. How do I go about convincing Wikipedia that I am the copyright holder? Also I don't want to get banned from contributing more articles. Can you help me?

Best regards,

Mike Manzoni — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeManzoni (talk • contribs) 13:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

MikeManzoni, See guidance at WP:CONSENT for instructions on releasing images under a suitable license for use on Wikipedia. Keep in mind however, that in most circumstances (excluding fair use, which this does not appear to qualify for) you will "lose control" of the image to a large extent, and it will be released for others to also use. In other words, it is not "you using the photo on Wikipedia" but rather "you releasing the photo for public use including Wikipedia". If the company also retains rights to the image, it is likely they will have to release those as well. TimothyJosephWood 13:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into fair use. I have full rights to do anything I please with the image and the company has limited use to apply it to their digital or print marketing.

Thank you for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeManzoni (talk • contribs) 15:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• 69.180.223.58 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Life Care Planning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Well, I'm not actually requeting a re-review just yet. I'm a newbie at this and making rookie mistakes. I nend need help understanding where inline citations are needed. Thoughts? Links to refer me to? Thank you for your patience with me as I work to figure this out! Blessings, Gayla 69.180.223.58 (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to ping @Gaylazoz:, since I'm pretty sure you forgot to log in with this comment.

In order to help make content verifiable, articles should include inline citations, so that it's clear where information came from. For example, quotes are one thing that always must be accompanied by a source. So if you say Johnny told the devil "you son of a gun, I'm the best there's ever been.", but you have 20 citations at the bottom of your article, it's not clear which citation this came from. Instead, the most common way to solve this problem is to use <ref>CITATION HERE</ref>. So when you type 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>

What you actually get is this:

Johnny told the devil "you son of a gun, I'm the best there's ever been."^[1]

References

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

In addition to quotes, statistics and any disputed content, or content likely to be challenged, should be accompanied by inline citation. Hopefully this makes things a little bit more clear. As always if I can help feel free to ask. Good luck on your first article! TimothyJosephWood 13:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Will this do? The template content doesn't exactly fit the nature of my offense, but the template name {{uw-badcat}} was irresistible. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Once when I was a child, I poured my intentions into my left hand, and spit into my right. My right filled up first. Where did that quote come from? Can't find it. It's a great find. Objective3000 (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Objective3000, in the US south, it's more commonly phrased as: Spit in one hand and wish in the other, and see which one fills up first. TimothyJosephWood 02:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Already quoted your version on a non-political forum.:)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Beheading in Islam. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

This isn't German, friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.214.78.91 (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

If you think the following: "Senior U.S. officials and U.S. intelligence agencies stated with high confidence,[10] Russia facilitated WikiLeaks obtaining hacked emails from the DNC and Clinton campaign chair John Podesta to influence the election" is a grammatical sentence in English, then English-language Wikipedia editing isn't for you.70.214.78.91 (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Jedem Narren gefällt seine Kappe. TimothyJosephWood 21:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, German is a very difficult language, and beyond my ken. But I am not editing at German Wikipedia, and YOU are restoring obviously ungrammatical English edits to that article on some kind of crusade, without even first checking if you are restoring malformed prose to the article. Why don't you answer the question and prove you are competent to edit here by identifying the several grammatical howlers in the above sentence you took it upon yourself to add to the article? 70.214.78.91 (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Please make an effort to be civil in expressing your dissatisfaction with other editors. We want to foster a constructive environment and allow for as much collaboration and cooperation between editors as possible. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 21:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gibraltar. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Source please ?

This means involved parties can notify each other even at same time as potentially in conflict and edit warring with each other ? Sagecandor (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: Template:Ds/alert.

And yes, that is what it means, just like two users can post edit warring templates on each other's talks simultaneously, which happens often enough. The only difference is the DS sanctions template is one of the few warnings that must be given in that exact format every time, and one of the few where failure to warn prevents a report. In comparison, failure to give the 3RR template to an experienced editor is not grounds for contesting a block for edit warring, since experienced editors can reasonably be expected to understand this anyway. TimothyJosephWood 17:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Sagecandor (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Template also says: never use them to intimidate, coerce, or shame another editor. Probably best for them to be given out by uninvolved third parties to an ongoing issue. Sagecandor (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Ideal, but not required. If there isn't some sort of dispute happening, the template probably isn't required in the first place. TimothyJosephWood 17:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, alright, in that case I guess I am also free to go place the notice on other users' pages. Sagecandor (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I suppose, but it's probably also arguable that if they placed it on yours, they may be considered notified that DS are in effect. TimothyJosephWood 17:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Timothy,

I am having some issues currently with submitting a Wikipedia page. It has been rejected on the grounds that it is too inflammatory about the company of which is the subject.

However, this is not the purpose. The purpose is only to give some context and background to the company for SEO purposes and to give the company some stance if googled.

A main competitor of Aston Scott, have a live Wikipedia page which in the first instance I used as a reference to write the content piece, and am struggling to decipher the difference between the two and why the content piece I have written is being rejected and why the competitors has been approved.

Ultimately I would like to get the page live and would like to understand how I would go about doing this, in a Wikipedia friendly way.

Any assistance would be much appreciated.

Thank you.

Hey Stephaniegarner2122. Well, the first issue is that the draft doesn't use inline citations. These are usually done using <ref>REFERENCE HERE</ref>, so that when you type 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>

You get this:

Johnny told the devil "you son of a gun, I'm the best there's ever been."^[1]

References

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

This allows readers to verify where specific information in the draft came from, which is difficult to do if there are simply a dozen links posted at the bottom and it's not clear which goes with what.

Second, words like in excess of and over are not really encyclopedic in tone. If the number is 152, the article should say 152, not something like "in excess of 150". The draft is also currently more of a business listing or resume-like, rather than encyclopedic. Wikipedia articles should normally be written in prose rather than simply a bulleted list of assorted information.

Third, some of the references appear to be either links to the official website, or other basically company generated material like press releases or interviews with company officers. These don't contribute to notability for the purposes of Wikipedia. In order to establish notability you need to demonstrate that there has been sustained non-trivial coverage of the company in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Hope this helps.

Also ping last reviewer @Winged Blades of Godric: in case they would like to comment further. TimothyJosephWood 17:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 18:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Stephaniegarner2122:

• First of all, I second all the points mentioned and concerns raised byTimothyjosephwood.

Coming to my individual views----

• The purpose is only to give some context and background to the company for SEO purposes .--A line which clears any doubt over the blatantly promotional/advertorial tone of the article.Wikipedia is not at all the correct place for SEO.

WP:NOTPROMOTION states--Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts......See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.

• and to give the company some stance if googled.-We work just the other way round.We list articles in Wikipedia only if it has enough hits in WP:RS in a google search!We don't accept/create articles here so that it may get crawled by any search engine.Wikipedia articles exist due to notability of the subject.The subjects don't exist notably because of a Wikipedia article.Read a guide to what is notable and what not for inclusion as an article in Wikipedia.
• A main competitor of Aston Scott, have a live Wikipedia page--Wikipedia's article space is not a very good place to bring business battles into.As a side note, can you provide the name of the other article.It is really a matter of concern, if any article of about the standards you mention, has sneaked into the mainspace.
• Please also take a kind look at WP:PAID.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 18:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Sagecandor (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Sagecandor Having said the above, I wouldn't overdo it and post this on the talk of everyone who's ever edited a particular page just for shits and giggles. TimothyJosephWood 17:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Confused, seems like contradictory advice to above ? At link [16]. Sagecandor (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The actual purpose of the template, is to give editors fair warning before taking them to WP:AE, see for example here. TimothyJosephWood 18:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Have you ever been notified before about this particular arbitration case notice ? Sagecandor (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

No, but I am well aware, and was, after all, the one trying to explain the use of the template. In an ideal world however, everyone would be cooperative in their editing, and no one would ever need to get this template to begin with. But as a rule, if there is no current dispute with a chance of escalating to an WP:AE report, using the template is not necessary. TimothyJosephWood 18:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, appears to contradict [17], but okay. Thought I was suggesting towards compromise on the talk page, not sure what I did to deserve the notification either. Your explanation [18] was helpful, and now more confusing. Sagecandor (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, maybe some users are more trigger happy than others. I personally have never given a DS alert to any user ever. TimothyJosephWood 18:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we all can learn something from your character. :) Sagecandor (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Timothy, you were right. Yikes. I then apologized to the user. Hopefully my apology will be accepted. Thanks for your advice. Sagecandor (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I probably should have specified that when I said what the actual purpose is, the converse ostensible purpose is to warn editors so that they adjust their behaviors. Whether people use it for that reason more often then not is...a matter of opinion I guess. TimothyJosephWood 19:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Alright makes sense. Sagecandor (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help but maybe we could all use some fresh air and a drink. Sagecandor (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Although I'm certainly willing to help, the goal of the conversation I assume you are referring to is not to help you in particular, but to point out when someone has made some poor assumptions, the negative effects that may have, and hopefully to reduce the likelihood of that happening in the future. TimothyJosephWood 23:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

No I knew you were doing both. But yeah thanks and good luck. Sagecandor (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Gulp, hope you'll let me know or give me a chance to undo something willfully, those reports are scary. Meanwhile I'm trying to find some compromise and common ground from people on both sides of the aisle and it's actually heartening to see the restrictions seem to have encouraged more healthy talk page discussion in a good way. Sagecandor (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Well that at least seems good. TimothyJosephWood 00:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, you could work a bit on your indentations on long discussions. Just put an extra colon, one more than the comment behind your comment. If things get too far to the left, use {{od}} to reset the conversation while leaving it clear where the thread is. TimothyJosephWood 00:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I was just going back to margin instead of using the outdent thing. Sagecandor (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Elizabeth Clark (author). I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Zackmann08, thanks for the heads up I suppose, but all I did was accept the AfC submission. TimothyJosephWood 16:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

HAHA!!! My bad mate! When new pages show up in Category:Pages using infoboxes with thumbnail images I look at the most recent editor... Once in a blue moon this happens. You're the latest editor, but not the "guilty" party. My apologies! Keep up the good work on AfCs!! --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I'll try to remember to check that next time before accepting. TimothyJosephWood 16:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Fantastic! That is much appreciated. Thanks for WP:AGF. I've had other editors snap at me for making this mistake. Your approach is much preferred. :-) --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

This change should also help. Now drafts will also show up in the tracking category. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Zackmann08: I'm not sure how effective the template will be for users going through AfC though. A lot of these guys are already being flooded with templates. Usually I just do more of the markup heavy things myself, and only really try to explain in detail when they're interested and ask. I suppose there's only one way to find out. TimothyJosephWood 19:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Well the template is optional. For users going through AfC I don't have to leave the template on their talk page. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

On that note Wikipedia:Death by template may be a useful essay for AfC some day if I ever get around to writing it. TimothyJosephWood 19:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The article Lal Sena was graded C-class while approval. Some edits have been made accordingly by me. Request to kindly review once to see if there is any possibility to improve the gradation after the edits made immediately after approval as notified. Thank you.Maaley (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Maaley. Honestly, the difference between a C and B class is pretty arbitrary. But I would encourage you to check out Wikipedia:Good articles, and see what steps you can take toward meeting the criteria there. Then you can nominate your article when you think you are ready, and a volunteer there will work through the review process with you. GA reviews are really in-depth and are the first step in working toward a featured article, the absolute very best articles that Wikipedia has to offer. TimothyJosephWood 19:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi!thanks for this information. I will surely go through the procedure. Thank you.Maaley (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Maaley: May want to check out Hindustani Lal Sena and verify how much overlap there is. Also consider that the article for लाल सेना on the Hindi Wikipedia (see here) seems to correspond in scope to the Red Army article in English, that is, the article about the entire Soviet army. So the Hindustani Lal Sena article may actually be the more accurate title for your article? TimothyJosephWood 20:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I checked it. No they are totally different organisations independent from each other. Check Hindustani Lal Sena it was formed in 1939 when India was a British colony (India got its independence in 1947). But if you check Lal Sena you will see that it was active only since 1974 and that was in independent India, Bihar state and also in allegiance to CPI(ML) Liberation which is its mother organization and have no link with Hindustani Lal Sena. The Lal Sena and Hindustani Lal Sena are totally two different organisations from different timeline in history. Note that India has several separate communist entities with similar kind of nomenclature but they are totally independent of each other with different history from different timeline.Maaley (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Maaley: Could be an opportunity to make List of Indian communist groups or maybe Category:Indian communist groups if there are enough out there. TimothyJosephWood 21:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes its already there : Category:Communist parties in India

Hah! You got caught in the same trap as I just did. You can't wikilink categories or it disappears and adds the talk page to the category. No idea how you get around that. TimothyJosephWood 21:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

ohh! lets see if works now Category:Communist parties in India

Nope. (and this is how I get put on a government watchlist) Also, don't forget to sign your posts with ~~~~. Doesn't mean much here, but pretty much everywhere else it will cause confusion, and will make you look like a noob. TimothyJosephWood 22:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Okk. I will do as you say. :) Maaley (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that since I've become aware of archives (which I still haven't started making), yours is the only edit to my talk page that I've ever deleted: here. Could you explain what you meant by "After all, this is a thousand year project we're embarking on."? At the time this really bothered me because of the Reich associations, but I'm sure I misunderstood your intent in the heat of the moment. (I see you know Wikipedia very well, and I do thank you for those things you've taught me (or reminded me of)). I'd really appreciate your shedding more light on what you meant. And I would appreciate that you explain to me why you feel compelled to comment every time I do at AE. Thanks for your help. --SashiRolls (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

See for example Wikipedia:There is no deadline, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress.

In very^veryvery few circumstances is it actually vitally important that something be right and do it right now. We should be working toward that, and we are, but more than anything we're just moving more or less in that general direction, and we'll get there eventually.

Barring global catastrophe that causes the end of the internet and human society, Wikipedia is probably going to be around far beyond any foreseeable future. On the one hand that probably means that the edits you make today are going to be edited by someone who hasn't yet been born, so little mistakes are going to be ok. On the other, it also means that sometimes it's more beneficial for the project to dedicate yourself to obscure topics of lasting value, rather than the most flashy controversial thing that comes down the pipe. TimothyJosephWood 19:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what to do or add to my user page Wordsighn (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Wordsighn. Generally, you have fairly wide leeway to put whatever you want on your userpage, as long as it's in good taste. (There's a few more rules than that, but that's about what it boils down to.)

Most people use their userpage to tell a little bit about themselves and what kinds of topics they are interested in editing on Wikipedia. On the other hand, there is no requirement to have a user page at all if you don't want to, and many editors who have been around a long time don't. TimothyJosephWood 16:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For helping a newcomer like me every time with such delicacy. Thank You ! Maaley (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey thanks! It's no problem at all. You better prove me right and make lots of really good articles. TimothyJosephWood 22:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

TimothyJosephWood Yeah! Surely I will. Maaley (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bernie or Bust. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on this. I had been working on my iPad and tried that link Special:Categories and got 'Could not load the article'. Now working fine on my laptop. I should have thought of that possibility!Pogga D (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Pogga D: There's been a lot of work put into trying to make Wikipedia more mobile friendly, but it's definitely not 100% there yet, and it seems like the deeper you go under the hood (basically any page besides an article) the less well it tends to work. TimothyJosephWood 16:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm wondering if you'd kindly be interested in assessing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Heap_(company) (since you participated in a Luxe/Verbling deletion discussion). It seems users DGG and SwisterTwister routinely vote for deletion together without offering analysis, so I wanted to get a third-party involved. I'm not fishing for a keep, but I am looking for a legitimate discussion if possible. Thanks for any consideration. GDWin (talk) GDWin —Preceding undated comment added 18 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done TimothyJosephWood 18:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem man, this guy seems to be seeing the forest for the trees. Sagecandor (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. Dennis is a good editor and a good admin. As a rule, you're probably better off preferring his opinion over mine in probably every circumstance. TimothyJosephWood 18:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• Hcametti (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sam S. Jain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I'm hoping you can clarify why you don't think Sam S. Jain is a notable person. Mr. Jain is the founder of Fareportal, a $4.5 billion company which owns and operates consumer facing brands travel CheapOair and OneTravel.

Mr.Jain is a very successful entrepreneur and his accomplishments have been covered by notable publications such as Fortune, Skift, and TravelPulse. These references were recorded in the draft submission for this page.

Additionally, we are seeking to create this page as there is someone that exists by the same name, Sam Jain, currently listed on Wikipedia that is not beneficial for our company. The other Sam Jain is also an internet entrepreneur but is a fugitive with pending arrest warrants. Given the similarities in name and occupation, I'm sure you can understand why we would like to have a page for Sam S. Jain to avoid any confusion.

Please let me know what I can further do to ensure this page is published as quickly as possible.

FareportalH (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)HannahFareportalH (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Hcametti. (As a side note, you probably don't want your signature to render as the company name, since it's against policy to have a username that indicates the account belongs to a company or organization.)

So there's a lot to unpack here. I didn't decline the draft because the person is not notable, per se, but because the draft didn't convincingly demonstrate notability. For the purposes of Wikipedia this is an important distinction. If a subject is inherently not notable (like...your dog), it means that there is nothing anyone can do at this time to make an acceptable article for them. However, if a draft fails to demonstrate notability, it means that the draft needs work. The former is based on an assessment of all the sources available in the world at that given time, while the latter is based on the current state of the draft.

I poked around some for additional sources, and it looks like there are certainly more out there that can be incorporated. This one seems pretty in depth, and this one not so much, but it's Bloomberg so it can't hurt. It seems likely there are more, but you are right that they pretty much all have to be vetted to ensure they're about the right Jain. So I would recommend starting by digging around for an hour or two and see what sources you can come up with, especially concentrating on in depth coverage from big names, and then incorporate that into the draft.

Beyond that, the draft currently fails Wikipedia policy on neutrality, because there's a lot in there that reads like an advertisement, and not at all like something you would read in World Book or another print encyclopedia. Streamline, innovative, next frontier... all of this type of wording is going to have to be replaced with a neutral encyclopedic tone.

Now...on the issue of the two competing articles, Wikipedia is essentially apathetic as to whether or not something like this is beneficial to your company. There's a whole slew of additional policies and guidelines that decides what goes where, but for now I would concentrate on improving the draft and cross that bridge when you come to it.

Feel free to ask any follow up questions you may have, and I'm going to cut myself off there before this becomes a novella. TimothyJosephWood 20:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Narendra Modi. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Good morning! Per your recommendation, I have changed the title, and moved the article to mainspace. Can you please take a look and make sure I did it correctly? And is there anything else you recommend I do? Thank you again for all your help! Longhornfan2018 (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Longhornfan2018. I did a bit of tinkering, but not much. Seems like right now the biggest unresolved issue is the sheer amount of topical overlap between this article and Charles Whitman.

Since there is now an event article, the content in the person article that is more about the event, needs to be merged to the greatest extent possible into the event article. This will help to focus the scope of the person article. Also, since there seems to be quite a bit of this content on the original that isn't in your article currently, this will also hopefully improve your article quite a bit. TimothyJosephWood 16:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I will start working on this as I have the time. Merry Christmas!Longhornfan2018 (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings, GreenMeansGo! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 20:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Radha Madhav Dham. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Unqienyc (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Home Restaurant and Bar NYC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

First I know you guts are busy, so hank you for your time in advance.

I am a novice and frustrated because trying obtaining knowledge here as a Wikipedia author has being very hard to decipher the messages from the reviewers, which are vague and site no specific references to the article I have submitted.

Can you give me an example on how to reference the key claims to notability, maybe the article should be about Richard Ross The owner of Home Resturant? Does solve the notability issues?

Richard Ross owned the Home Restaurant and John Lennon frequented the Restaurant at a time when Nixon wanted to deport Lennon from the USA. Richard Ross and Lennon became close friends from the first meeting at Home Restaurant. Lennon proudly wore the Home T shirt in Concert and in photographs taken at his home at the Dakota in NYC.

May Pang who wrote about her affair with John Lennon which was called the "Lost Weekend" in her book Loving John: The Untold Story https://www.amazon.com/Loving-John-Untold-May-Pang/dp/0446379166

May Pang was a regular at Home Resturant and mentions in her book the many meetings at Home Restaurant and the deep relationship between John Lennon and Richard Ross. May Pang mentions in her book how Richard Ross hid John Lennon and Yoko at the Woodstock home from the FBI and Nixon.

The Newspaper articles I referenced below show that Restaurant did exist and most importantly that John Lennon gave Richard Ross the owner of Home Restaurant, the famous White suit that he (John Lennon) wore on the Abbey Road Album Cover.

See the links below http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Make-Lennon-s-Abbey-Road-white-suit-part-of-917834.php

"According to the historic documentation that accompanies the auction items, Lennon gave his white suit and jacket to close friend Richard Ross, founder and owner of the Home restaurant, a popular rock and roll music club at 91st Street and Second Avenue in New York City. They are among five items that were given to Ross and eventually became the possessions of his second wife Nancy Butler-Ross, after his death. Lennon and Ross spent significant time together at home as well as driving around, going to boat shows and sailing in Martha's Vineyard. (They both loved sailing although they both were novices and on occasion had to be towed back to shore by the Coast Guard.)"

see the link below http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1343287/John-Lennons-white-suit-Abbey-Road-cover-Imagine-jacket-sold-auction.html

Lennon gave the clothes to friend Richard Ross, who owned the Home club in New York.

Please help me to understand why is the link above not a reliable source?

http://www.newyork.com/articles/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/5-bob-gruen-john-lennon-yoko-ono_650.jpg Why does the famous Bob Gruen photo of John Lennon wearing the "Home" restaurant T shirt not a reliable source?

Unqienyc (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Unqienyc. The center of the confusion here seems to be about sources in how they relate to your subject. Compare the article for CBGB. CBGB isn't notable because there is a lot of things written about the famous people who played there. It is notable because there is a lot written specifically about CGBG. This principle comes from the "Significant coverage" aspect of Wikipedia's general notability guidelines.

So for example, the Daily Mail link may be a good source as far as being reliable, but it mentions the restaurant once in passing, which doesn't count as significant coverage. The Stamford Advocate source isn't much better, and only mentions the restaurant twice in passing.

So to demonstrate notability, you need to look for sources about the restaurant specifically, since that's your subject. You need to be able to demonstrate that multiple people in reliable sources thought the restaurant was important enough to say, I'm going to write a story about this restaurant, where the above stories only really demonstrate that lots of people said I'm going to write a story about John Lennon, where if you take Lennon out of the equation, the story would have never been written at all. TimothyJosephWood 18:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Tito Dutta (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	I'm giving you this barnstar because of this. This is a perfect example in which an only warning should be left compared to the normal rabbit hole of warnings. Thank you, and keep up the awesome work. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Obvious vandalism only account is obvious. TimothyJosephWood 15:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		for rescuing Corvo Attano from deletion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

This barnstar may be premature since the discussion is still open, but nice job regardless. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. And thanks for pinging me to the conversation earlier. TimothyJosephWood 18:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on File talk:Conscription map of the world.svg. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Nothing has been put forward to debunk the pizzagate theory except msm outlets that are notorious for being biased and publishing events that never happened or facts distorted beyond recognition. I advice you remove the debunked part from the article as it has not been disproved or proved. The allegations are still very real and should be properly investigated to find out if true or false. You're only assisting in the problem by locking the page and putting in presumptuous information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.158 (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

What we are putting in is what reliable sources say. Unfortunately for you, your personal opinion does not qualify as a source. TimothyJosephWood 19:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Well, you've been booted off their Talk page. Apparently, they're not looking for comments from anyone who disagrees with them. I'm here to continue the procedural issue, which I thought you might still be interested in. I already said it was a non-arbitration block and that it could be appealed "normally". What I meant by that was through unblock requests, potentially WP:UTRS and ArbCom if SashiRolls were met with declines all the way up. There's no basis for appealing the block to AN or AE. The blocking admin could always bring it to AN or ANI if they wanted their block reviewed. That's not going to happen because Dennis is unavailable and unlikely to be available anytime soon. Another administrator could also do it if they chose to. It would be atypical for the blocked user to request such a review and have it be granted, although you can never tell what an administrator or even an editor might do if SR made such a request. At the moment, it seems to be of no interest to them anyway. Hope that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23, I honestly would have been willing to make the appeal on their behalf regardless, even having been an opposing or mediating party in all of their now list of sanctions. That is, if they could have put together a coherent unblock request, which would have involved accepting at least some responsibility for their actions. Otherwise it's just a countdown to an indeff, which it seems to be. A shame really. TimothyJosephWood 01:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

If ever for some reason you change your mind, take it to AN or ANI, not AE (it really doesn't belong there).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23, Oh no. I think all parties agreed to that to begin with. I also personally dislike AE, have never, and hopefully will never file anything there for any reason. TimothyJosephWood 02:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe your comment at his Talk page was a typo then: "it could be appealed at both AN and AE".--Bbb23 (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23, no I was quoting the close: This block may be appealed at WP:AN or WP:AE. It was fairly well decided that it didn't belong at AE to begin with, and was closed more-or-less as behavioral sanctions imposed by uninvolved admins, and not as an enforcement of DS, since there wasn't a need to rehash the matter at ANI simply for procedural reasons of presenting the issue before the right venue. TimothyJosephWood 09:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)re

Because you didn't use quotation marks, that possibility never occurred to me, but at least we've now cleared up what you meant. Thanks for your patience.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of fake news websites. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (I am writing an article based on a new technology company which launched back in 2016. I am researching on mobile communications and this is my first article based on mobile virtual network operator's.) --TelecomSSI (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

TelecomSSI, the current article is overtly promotional in tone, and would require a complete, or nearly complete rewrite to solve this problem. You may want to review Wikipedia's guidance on neutral point of view. Furthermore, is not a promotional vehicle, and does not cover up and coming companies or other subjects, but rather subjects which have received sustained coverage in reliable sources. TimothyJosephWood 21:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (I have checked the guidelines and I can rewrite the content, as this is a official technology launch which is live. I'm not writing for promotion, but about features and benefits. This is what is written in most of technology Wikipedia articles.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TelecomSSI (talk • contribs) 23:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential election in the District of Columbia, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

That's ok. I used the automated method available in page curation, not the manual method. I think the article must have been recreated. scope_creep (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

scope_creep ...hmm... Surely this isn't an unknown bug? Who would design an automated XfD that didn't check for prior nominations? TimothyJosephWood 14:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, Twinkle is probably better in every way compared to curator, with the exception of speedy deletion and cleanup tagging. TimothyJosephWood 14:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Craig for not getting back to you. I think it is probably buggy. A boundary condition has not been checked fully when it was getting debugged. It has happened a few times with me. I think the static nature of the environment could do with a drastic update. It's like working with stacks of papers, from an office from the 70's. The very environement fights you every moment. I would like to create a proper full scale editor that had a large machine learning framework for lexical analysis, to do a lot of the heavy lifting. Or even adding in something similar to intellisense in Visual Studio would be cool. The foundation certainly has the money. There seems to be no drive for aesthetic excellence and ease of use. scope_creep (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	I love the page bro Cattyboi (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Korean ethnic nationalism. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, what is "wag of the fish"? I refused to delete the article as a blatant hoax (for further information see {{db-hoax}}), which it was clearly not. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Vejvančický: Maybe it's a cultural difference, but yes, it is a long standing joke. It is common knowledge that he has only ever won one, and for a long time none, despite being the lead in a great many movies and receiving a great many nominations. The article was made intentionally to emphasize that it was a list of one item. TimothyJosephWood 10:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm also assuming that the barnstar above, from a new user I've never interacted with, is also in reference to the same list. And a wag of the fish was a...reference to both a trout and a recurring skit from the Colbert Report. TimothyJosephWood 10:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh...and it looks like an IP changed the CSD tag from joke to hoax. TimothyJosephWood 10:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I know who is Leo DiCaprio but I rarely follow Internet fun and memes, sorry - I'm a villager and I prefer living in my backyard :) I don't want to look like a boring fellow but "joke" is not among CSD criteria. I watched Revenant with my wife and I was surprised how quickly he recovered from the bear attack ... but it was a good adventure. Thanks for all the fish we love fish! Happy new year. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 19:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe it falls in principle under "juvenile forms of vandalism". TimothyJosephWood 19:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)