User talk:GreenMeansGo/Archive 5

Holy God

Template:Pornography

I... I don't know if it's beautiful or horrifying. TimothyJosephWood 10:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

It's kind of both, isn't it. Very pleasing colour, decent layout, but then it just keeps going... and going... and going... Primefac (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

another source for national seal of Union des Comores

Comoros embassy in France http://www.ambassade-comores.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.40.137.199 (talk) 10:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey anon. This... actually makes things worse rather than better, since this is yet another version of the seal and still no indication which one of the (I believe) four is supposed to be the "official" one. TimothyJosephWood 13:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox official post

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox official post. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Sweet

Sweet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigs12 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

Please stop making double entendres or other statements which encourage objectively fucking awful jokes as you did with this edit to Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory, or you may be bombarded with jokes more awful than your primitive mind can comprehend. Users cannot be held responsible for the quality of jokes made in response to openings so broad and inviting. If you would like to experiment with double entendres, please use the Sandbox. If you have any questions, you may leave them at my talk page and I will give them due consideration. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Conflicting CSD nomination

Sorry for the conflicting CSD nomination on Mohannad Jamileh! The timing was just too perfect. Is it fine to have two CSD nom's on a single page or should I retract mine? Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 20:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Jiten Dhandha, it's kind of silly to have two sets of speedy tags on the page, so just combine them into one big {{db-multi}}. Primefac (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Thanks for the quick (and helpful!) response and deletion. You learn something new everyday! :) Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 20:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Poof. Gone. Hmm... Jiten Dhandha, I don't think it really matters. If it's different criteria then it's perfectly fine, and conflicts seem to happen fairly often when Twinkle, Page Curator and manual tagging mix. It's true that db-multi makes things look nice and neat, but it's not really necessary, since if we're all doing our jobs right, it shouldn't be around too long anyway, right?

But since you're here, your CSD log looks awfully red, you've got a clean block log, and you seem nice enough, so I suspect you may be, or soon will be a pretty good candidate to join up with WP:NPP. Then you won't just be able to mark bad articles for deletion, but also to mark good ones as reviewed. Just something to keep in mind if you're interested. TimothyJosephWood 20:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll definitely look into it. I've been interested in exploring new projects on Wikipedia since my only major contributions right now are reverting vandal edits. Maybe some more red links to the CSD log and experience handling newly created pages might be required before I get page reviewer rights. Cheers for the suggestion! Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 20:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Jiten Dhandha. Couldn't hurt to pop over to Wikipedia:Requested articles, find a subject you're interested in, and turn out four or five stub or start class articles too. That way you can demonstrate that you know how to make a brand new article complete with all the trappings (e.g., correctly formatted, fairly good sources, appropriate categories, WikiProject banners on the talk page, no copyright violations in text or images). A lot of New Pages Patrol is deleting the bad stuff, but a lot of it is also cleaning up the good stuff from new editors who don't yet know all the ins and outs of article creation, but have a really good topic to write about that we're missing. And I'd keep an eye out for this kindof thing when you're browsing recent changes, since things like categories and WikiProjects are an integral part of how we connect interested editors with interesting articles. :

Of course, if you have any questions at all feel free to pop over here or ping me and I'm happy to help any way I can. But NPP currently has a massive backlog of about 20,000 articles, so we can definitely use all the help we can get. TimothyJosephWood 21:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I have a far bit of knowledge when it comes to formatting of articles and sourcing, but the addition of WikiProjects to the talk page of articles is very new to me. I see the categories every so often when going through talk pages that pop up on recent changes and they are very useful as well, but I have very little knowledge of ongoing WikiProjects and what articles come under which project. Is there a tool that helps to categorize articles? Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 11:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Jiten Dhandha, I don't personally use Huggle or AWB. Maybe a talk page stalker who does can chime in on whether they have a WikiProjects feature, or if something similar does. Usually what I do is do a quick search for a closely related article, and just copy the WikiProjects from there. So for example, if it was say a rock album, I would probably look up something like Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (mostly because it springs to mind, and because it's famous enough that I can almost guarantee it's WP:GA class or better), and pull out the WikiProjects for Albums, and Rock Music. Other than that, {{Bio}} gives you the banner for the Biographies WikiProject (which applies to probably a third of all new articles it seems). Plus it's easy to remember. And it's usually guaranteed that if an article is closely related to a particular country, you can just blindly type {{WikiProjectCOUNTRY}} and it will either be a valid project, or it will redirect to one. TimothyJosephWood 12:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, what I mean is blindly typing something like {{WikiProject Morocco}}, which I just completely picked at random, and it turns out it's a valid WikiProject. TimothyJosephWood 12:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Johann Jakob Rebstein

I find it troubling that the article on Johann Jakob Rebstein begins by asserting only that he was a mathematician, without explaining for what reason he is so notable that there should be a Wikipedia article about him, and then goes on to a section titled Early life rather than something explaining notability. Notability should precede other biographical details. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Michael Hardy, he seems to be notable for being a surveyor, so I've added that to the lead. As a minor note, if you see these sorts of great travesties against humanity you are welcome to fix them yourself. Primefac (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

I can and do fix them in cases where I have sufficient knowledge of the topic of the article. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Michael Hardy: Apparently I need to explain this, but if someone was born 200-300 years ago and we know they existed, chances are that they're notable. People didn't have blogs in 1840, and that's precisely why I prefer the 1800s when making new articles.

If you want the long story, the University of Zurich is dumping a few dozen thousand images on commons and I'm trying to clean up after them. Most of them are understandably Swiss, most of the sources are in the German language, and I've only created articles on people for whom I could actually find sources in English, which is about one out of ten or twenty that don't already have articles (there's a lot of Einstein).

If you want to go to AfD and make the case that being born Swiss 150 years ago, writing in German, covered mostly by German sources, but still having enough written about you in English that an amateur in about half an hour can put together an article... then you're more than welcome to. Alternatively, your're also welcome to pick a spot in the dump and try to whittle it away along with me, which is the best of all available options. TimothyJosephWood 00:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2017 Berkeley protests

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017 Berkeley protests. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Football Federation of Ukraine Logo.jpg

The file File:Football Federation of Ukraine Logo.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Equivalent media under a free license at Wikimedia Commons. Not F8 owing to the different licenses.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Huh. Well I'll be damned. Good catch ShakespeareFan00. I honestly didn't even look at commons because it didn't occur to me that FFU may have been a government controlled organization. But I've done you one better, replaced all the files with the one from commons, and tagged F8. TimothyJosephWood 12:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

15:27:52, 5 June 2017 review of submission by Galamb.borong

• Galamb.borong (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Samling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've tidied up the article, improving the citations, and reducing subjective and un-necessary information. Before I re-submit I would be grateful if you could cast an eye over it and advise on whether the amendments are substantial enough to be accepted.Galamb.borong (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Galamb.borong. It's definitely moving in the right direction, but there's still a lot of information where its not clear what the source is, and at times, entire sections without sources at all.

There's still also still a lot of promotional language that needs be cut out or reworded. Just in the first couple lines of the body there's things like finest emerging classical singers and pianists and internationally recognized artists, which is the kind of language you would expect on a company website or social media profile, but isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedia at all. In comparison, an encyclopedia article is kindof supposed to be written like a "neutral editorial robot", or even at time like someone with a slight distaste for the subject, but not really at all like someone who is trying to share this "cool new thing" they found.

Hope this helps some. Feel free to ask any follow up questions. TimothyJosephWood 18:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Your comments are very helpful indeed, many thanks. I totally understand about the promotional vs encyclopedic content and will edit that. I will have another go and try sourcing things better. Thanks again. Galamb.borong (talk) 08:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Crisis of liberalism

Hello, Timothyjosephwood. You just moved the page to the drafts. Thank you, as I didn't figure out how to make it. Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viazomyk (talk • contribs) 19:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Well Viazomyk, based on the comments at the deletion discussion, the first thing you need to do is establish that the term is not a neologism. To do this you need to demonstrate that there is wide spread shared usage of the term in reliable sources (not just sources using those words in that order, or simply using both words, but referring to a distinct shared concept using a shared term).

Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be collections of loosely related and largely subjective information, but rather about distinct subjects as defined by the sources, and without going beyond the information in the sources themselves, which is called original research. So, looking through your sources, you seem to have a lot on "crises", a lot on "liberalism", a lot on crises as it relates to liberalism, but it's not entirely clear that you have a lot on a distinct "thing" called a "Crisis of Liberalism", in the same way that a things like an Economic crisis is a distinct "thing".

I'm sorry if this doesn't clear it up much. It's kind of a difficult thing to get the hang of on Wikipedia, and one of the big ways writing here is different than writing basically anywhere else. Feel free to ask any follow up questions if you would like and I'll try to explain better if I can. TimothyJosephWood 20:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)One bit of advice I would give is for you to use the {{cite}} template in your citations. It organizes the information neatly and makes the citations a bit easier to read. The hat has some useful advice as well, for example, I would make the following change; "The term itself became prevalent in politics since in the early 2000s..." and other such simple grammatical fixes. I haven't noticed any spelling errors, but be sure to be vigilant about them. Finally, the article reads (to an American) as a series of potentially controversial claims, mostly because there's no context about the difference between American Liberalism and Liberalism in general. I think that linking to the latter article in the first sentence and then providing a bit of context (don't explain how American liberalism is different, just explain what liberalism is in general) early on in the body would do wonders. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The Firm, P.C. page

I don't know why you deleted my music wikipedia page. What was wrong with it? -Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelsandberg (talk • contribs) 03:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

((talk page watcher))@Michaelsandberg: Hello, the thing did not show how the subject was "significant", that is, more than ordinary. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so subjects of articles must meet notability requirements. For bands and musical performers, they must meet WP:GNG and/or WP:Music. In reviewing the deleted article, I see no indication of the subject doing that. Also, has anyone mentioned that you may have a conflict if interest due to you connection with the subject? All articles must have information cited from reliable sources independent of the subject with a reputation for fact checking.Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vladimir Lenin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vladimir Lenin. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Understanding copies from other encyclopedic sources

Hi Timothyjosephwood, I did copy over the bios for Jessen & Jessen from TARO, thinking that they were public archival source descriptions and that this was okay temporarily. I had taken note that the TARO website conspicuously has no copyright notice for the descriptions, but now see that the Wikipedia policy is that there needs to be an explicit CC attribution for anything we copy. I will rewrite the text if the pages aren't deleted first. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiceMapMaker (talk • contribs) 20:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

By the way, TARO's note on the page about respecting copyright is referring to the materials in the archive themselves, which copyright the university may or, in most cases, does not hold. Actually, they don't even include that reminder on the Records & Drawings collection. Copyright on the archive descriptions is not asserted anywhere, that I have noticed. But don't worry, I'm still changing the pages! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiceMapMaker (talk • contribs) 20:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey RiceMapMaker. Large archives usually post this kind of disclaimer, something to the effect of We dunno. It's up to you to figure out the copyright. Don't blame us if you muck it up. Unfortunately, that doesn't really mean that much for Wikipedia.

Like I alluded to on your talk page, some things are categorically in the public domain, like things first published before 1923 or works of the US Government. These can be presumed to be fair game and don't need anything other than whatever it takes to tell that it's in one of these categories. (For example, something written by a person who verifiably died in 1905. Obviously they couldn't have written it after 1923.) But for things that aren't in one of these categories, it's not really enough to passively fail-to-assert copyright. It must actually actively claim a license that is compatible with the CC BY-SA that Wikipedia is published under.

Unfortunately, this can be a fairly complicated subject, since it's largely determined by the applicable laws in the US and elsewhere, but it's also one of the things where we don't really have any wiggle room, since it's one of the few things that can actually get Wikipedia sued. TimothyJosephWood 20:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Well crud. So... there are certain instances where my "person who died in 1905" example wouldn't work, but I'm not sure it's really necessary to get too far into the details on that one. TimothyJosephWood 21:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

This is just fucking awesome btw

TimothyJosephWood 23:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:White Helmets (Syrian Civil War)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:White Helmets (Syrian Civil War). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

For future reference

You had tagged Josiah Lee Hall for speedy deletion as an A7. It did qualify but it also had the exact birth date of a minor. That information should be suppressed not just deleted. It is just luck that I came across it when looking at speedy deletions and was able to suppress it at the same time. In the future if you find an article with personally identifiable information about a minor could you use one of the methods in Wikipedia:Oversight to notify the oversight team about the information? ~ GB fan 11:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Bleh. Yeah. I do know that. I've contacted oversight before. I just overlooked it. Thanks for taking care of it. TimothyJosephWood 12:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Huh. And I'll be damned if there wasn't the exact same issue on the very first new article I looked at this morning. TimothyJosephWood 12:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello TimothyJosephWood,

I'm so sorry but i accidentally deleted the speedy deletion tag, can please re-input it? I will rewrite the article soon, thanks for the notice! Kent961 (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Kent961. It looks like the article has already been deleted. Please note that content you add to Wikipedia has to be your own original wording, so that you personally "own" the content, and can legally license it under the CC BY-SA license. In nearly all cases, content that is copied and pasted from other online sources is a copyright violation, and we are legally obligated to take steps to prevent that, which includes removing the content, and in some cases, blocking users who repeatedly violate our policies.

If you want to try to rewrite the article using your own words, you may want to try doing so in your sandbox, which you can start by clicking the link at the top of your screen. You may also want to check out our tutorial on writing your first article, or take our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. TimothyJosephWood 13:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

James Comey link and reference to asking for DOJ for more resources on "Russian Investigation"

Ok I Edited and removed the incompetent claim. Please see reference 11 the DOJ claims the request for more resources / money are completely false. A newspaper reference to a "senior staff Source" is BS not to be trusted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbieber2001 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Jbieber2001. My... understanding, is that the reason for the dismissal is still very much not a settled matter, and the justification pretty well differs depending on whom you ask, or even when you ask the same person. At any rate, Wikipedia is perfectly fine letting the cards fall where they may, and making sure the article is right once everything is good and worked out. Maybe more importantly, we have to be exceptionally careful how we handle issues relating to biographies of living persons, and these types of claims require exceptionally good sourcing, and often an overview of many sources, especially when they may tend to disagree on something. TimothyJosephWood 14:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why this makes me so happy...

• First I was like, , but then I was like
• First I was like, , but then I was like
• First I was like, , but then I was like

TimothyJosephWood 16:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The middle one reminds me of someone... Stay thirsty, my friend. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: As it turns out, he's actually the director of the museum at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, which is where all these images come from. I've been getting a lot more into Commons lately, and that's the really cool thing about it: you end up on articles and subjects here that you otherwise would have never known even existed. Germanic languages are especially cool, since you can pretty much look at "Museumsdirektør" and tell what it means without using Google Translate. They do have a nasty habit of using compound words instead of phrases though so you end up with a word like aqrjthqzpobhaskjtnekrhjlkhalhnvlkxdf, which actually totally makes sense in their language since they just squish them all together. TimothyJosephWood 23:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I learned to speak German years ago, but I've forgotten most of it except a few (bad) pick-up lines and the lyrics to Rammstein songs, plus the usual random scattering of phrases and words that I just can't forget, even if I wanted to. I do think it's an awesome language though, the way it works not only with compound words (which is basically a free-for-all), but the way idioms and metaphors work. It's probably half the reason for the 'myth' that German and Swiss people make great engineers, and probably half responsible for the partial truth behind it. "Zeitgeist" is one of my favorite examples: it transliterates to "time ghost," and the meaning is so plain and obvious. It's one of those words that, once you learn it, it's just no surprise at all that it would get adopted into English. Similarly but in the opposite direction, Japanese is such a wonderfully lyrical and poetic language, once you start learning some, the Japanese propensity for poetry and and similes becomes so clear. I've always been a little fascinated by language and accents, though I've regretfully only ever learned a handful of languages. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I think I first learned about Zeitgeist from a Dawkins book. Speaking of which, I should probably email them and get an image that doesn't suck. I've been meddling in other language wikis. The Germans have been nice. The French have a bot settings problem. Half the Welch apparently don't actually speak the language. Overall, the reliance on Wikidata for infoboxes is troubling. TimothyJosephWood 01:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

You're a braver man than I; I'd be too worried about making an ass out of myself (not that it's ever stopped me before, nyuck nyuck) to edit in a language that I didn't speak idiomatically. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, but the key is to edit in a language you don't speak in a way that doesn't require you to speak it. It's proper nouns all the way down. TimothyJosephWood 14:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Dude

You are allowing defamation of character on a page. You are allowing lies to stay on the site. Do some research man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Light713 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Light713, there are a few problems with your changes. First, you are essentially removing every source from the article. Content on biographies of living persons must be backed up by reliable sources. Second, your proposed text appears to be copypasted from elsewhere on the internet, which is a copyright violation, and is also not allowed. TimothyJosephWood 18:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, please let me know where that content is coming from (the copyvio search isn't showing anything), so that I can revdel. We are talking about Lee Man-hee, right? Primefac (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't gotten around to marking it for revdel yet. Some of it appears to be coming from here, and some of it from here, although you have to use the archive version because they main site seems to have been taken down. TimothyJosephWood 18:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

No worries, I'll take a look. Primefac (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

You only allow negative posts about an 86 year old man fighting for world peace. I even included sources. I searched the history or edits, that is seriously pitiful. You do no research for yourself yet you deem what is true and false? What a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.7.59.210 (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know the first thing about him. I only know the article exists because it was being vandalized. It definitely needs improvement, but replacing everything with copyrighted content and a link to the main website ain't the kindof "improvement" it needs. TimothyJosephWood 19:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

What do you need to look at the facts and change this defamation?

Sorry, but we need verifiable information from reliable sources, and we cannot except material copypasted from copyrighted sources. Please discuss proposed changes on the talk page of the article rather than making changes not supported by consensus. Thanks, Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

He believes he is not dead?

Me too, I guess. Is this a fragment or something removed from context? It just blasts off the page and hits me in the eye. Do you know what it means.Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Umm... the only thing I can think of is that per this source apparently his followers think he is immortal. Seems likely that "not dead" was a bad machine translation, and actually not vandalism now that I look at it. TimothyJosephWood 19:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

But, no, I mean, the whole thing seems pretty culty. You know, for whatever that's worth. TimothyJosephWood 19:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Glen Cook says no religion makes sense even to its adherents. To which I shrug and say, "you got me there."Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2017 (UT

• On a brighter note, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism. TimothyJosephWood 20:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

  Everone thinks the little so-and-so's are sooooo cute. Don't believe it. Once they cut all our com lines, watch out!Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Eh... a cult is somewhere between a religion and a domestic violence relationship. Isolation from family and friends, loss of personal autonomy, reality bending in a "make you think you're crazy if you don't agree with me" way. It's more sad than anything. TimothyJosephWood 20:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I was gonna say hard to imagine. Then I remembered some of my younger experiences with mainstream Christianity. Fortunately, my karma ran over my dogma.Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Neither me nor my wife are really religious. I used to be actively anti-religious in college 100 years ago, but I realized that I honestly just don't care enough to put in the effort. They're both exceptionally interesting though, at least from an academic standpoint, and I wont lie and say I didn't once stop by a local parish to talk to a priest once in a particular low point in my adult life, because that the closest thing I could find to a therapist-on-demand. TimothyJosephWood 22:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

the official team

I've protected the page and warned him about COI and 3RR. You've warned him. Hopefully he'll now take a breath and read our messagesDlohcierekim (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but probably not. The unfortunate thing about a lot of COI editors is that they're stuck between their bosses and us. TimothyJosephWood 22:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Poor guy. I hope he did not have money/pay riding on this. I did not lay a PAID warning on him, but he seemed awful frantic about fixing "his" page.Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I like to invite them to link their bosses to my talk page and assure them I'll be happy to explain it to them too. So far no one has taken me up on the offer. If they're aggressive, I also like to point out that we once blocked the entire Church of Scientology from editing, and so categorically blocking entire organizations isn't totally unprecedented. TimothyJosephWood 22:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft Muslim Women's National Network Australia

Hi Timothyjosephwood, I've taken your feedback of this page into consideration and made some changes. I am having some trouble however regarding finding the best quality sources, which I have discussed in more detail on the draft's talk page - if you would be so kind to read and provide further advice.

As mentioned previously, I wrote this page as it was listed in the Women In Red project as a desired page. Many thanks, Powertothepeople (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Powertothepeople. So, here and here may be some sources that could be useful. Here it looks like the org has been mentioned in... honestly a metric ton of books. And until someone goes through them, it's untelling whether they're useful or not, or even available online without having to visit a library or consider an interlibrary loan if you happen to be close to a university library.

The kinds of things you're looking for are first that it generally meets our reliability standards, so no blogs, no press releases etc, and nothing that relies primarily on them. Then you're trying to vet for what's called "trivial mention", meaning that they show up on a search because the name is there, but there's not much substance to the coverage in a way that would contribute to notability, or to help improve the substance of the draft.

If these all end up being dead ends, it may be that, since their primary audience is Muslims, that you could reach out to Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam. There may be significant coverage in Arabic, and maybe even in Persian or Pashto, but that doesn't really do us much good unless we can find an editor who speaks the language and is willing to help out. Also, sometimes if you can figure out the actual proper name of the org in these other languages, you can do some web searching yourself, and if you find what looks like a good source through machine translation, you can take it to Wikipedia:Translators available and get someone to look into it for you.

Finally, we always have the nuclear option, which is to send an email to the organization itself. Presumably, they're experts on themselves, and would know where most of their best media and scholarly coverage has been. But this should normally be a last resort, and has to be done somewhat carefully. So for example, it's important to explain that you are a volunteer and that you're only looking for them to point you to useful sources, and not really to get them to write the thing for you, since that's getting into touchy conflict of interest territory.

Sorry if this is a bit overwhelming, but honestly, this is the fun part, where you get to do a little bit of Wiki-detective work and really contribute to the encyclopedia in a way that many people can't or won't do. As always, I'm happy to help answer any questions you might have. TimothyJosephWood 12:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Ninestar Connect

Timothy,

I recently submitted an article for NineStar Connect and it was deleted for "unambiguous advertising or promotion."  However, all of the content is original and drafted by me.  We did site sources for some of the information, but that was not done to be promotional, only to link to articles about material on the page.

Can you please help walk me through the process that would allow me to post information about Ninestar Connect. This is not intended to be for promotional purposes. I am new to the Wiki process so any information you can share would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

02:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC) Sam Klemet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Klemet (talk • contribs)

(talk page watcher) @Sam Klemet: High, I took a look and it is unambiguously promotional. It is unsalvageable and needs to be rewritten from scratch. Sorry to bear bad news.Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Politics of the Republic of China

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Politics of the Republic of China. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hwyl

I don't really. :-) Deb (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

We're on Twitter!

WikiLGBT is on Twitter!

Hello GreenMeansGo! Follow the Wikimedia LGBT user group on Twitter at @wikilgbt for news, photos, and other topics of interest to LGBT Wikipedans and allies. Use #wikiLGBT to share any Wiki Loves Pride stuff that you would like to share (whether this month or any day of the year) or to alert folks to things that the LGBT Wikipedan community should know. RachelWex (talk) For more information about Wiki Loves Pride, → click here ←.

RachelWex 19:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't twit. I don't even use facebook. TimothyJosephWood 20:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

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

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Plot to Hack America

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Plot to Hack America. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia in Watercolors

• Commons:Category:Wikipedia in Watercolors

So yeah. Not sure who's idea this was but it's pretty cool. TimothyJosephWood 14:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

How fast??

Wow. How fast did you do that? Great. Airkeeper (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hah. Latest files feed. It takes you all kinds of places. TimothyJosephWood 15:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

ORCP

I wanted to let you know I closed your poll request at ORCP. Tomorrow will have been three weeks since you submitted your name, there have not been any recent commenters and, as you know, the comments have not indicated a likelihood for success. Please don't take the ORCP personally or view it as a referendum on your editing. Adminship is a very specific thing to which very few Wikipedians will be selected. Should the cabal desire to have you as an admin, they will be aware that you would be willing. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Eh? I figured someone would've closed it a while ago. TimothyJosephWood 19:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2017 Portland train attack

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017 Portland train attack. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

remove(삭제)

You can delete the U:Jeju Panda document.(U:Jeju Panda 문서 삭제해도 됩니다.) 제주판다 (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Jeju Panda. There's nothing wrong with experimenting with the features of the Wikipedia software, and there's a place exactly for that sort of thing, which is your sandbox. You can start your sandbox by clicking on the link at the top of your screen. TimothyJosephWood 13:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

edits and assumptions

You're assuming bad faith here, and assuming incorrectly. No temper tantrum, that was unintentional problem with my laptop that froze. See what happens here though? Poison the water is a logical fallacy. The real violators are all of you who ignore the actual specific issue and want to suppress valid sourced information that you don't like. That other thing was a problem with my laptop, and not intentional. And irrelevant to this particular matter. The point is nowhere in the article was it mentioned already the FB club of "Terminate the Republicans". So where was the "duplicate" exactly? Namarly (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Whether you are throwing a temper tantrum is, at this point, no longer an assumption. TimothyJosephWood 17:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Commons category in the articles about Russian districts and localities

In these articles, a link to Commons is already incorporated in the infobox, such as in Pskovsky District, and there is no need to add it in the end of the article. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Huh. I didn't notice at all. I've seen it on a lot of non-en wikis, but it's not very common (no pun intended) here at all. I'll try to make sure to check more carefully. TimothyJosephWood 19:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, and I see why. It's supported by Template:Infobox Russian district but not at all by Template:Infobox settlement. TimothyJosephWood 19:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is right. Thanks again.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Timeline of events related to Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Timeline of events related to Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

History repeating itself...

Remember when we talked a few months ago about the pattern and how history repeats itself? I didn't want to do this but here we go again. Am I mistaken or was the idea that it would be a no a7 at all? These aren't terrible but as I said many times before. We've seen this tree before. Thoughts? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

AN proposal

Yeah... I'm not issuing an final^finalfinal warning. Here's wording for review, anyone can feel free to suggest changes. This is written from the first-person in my case, but if someone would rather make it more generic and be a weird sort of co-nom that would be fine too. TimothyJosephWood 13:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Propose topic ban of Adam9007 from removing CSD tags

I'll preface this by saying that the user is a pretty prolific NPP contributor, and their accuracy on proactively tagging and reviewing articles is not really at issue. What is at issue is their accuracy in removing CSD tags added by others. Their accuracy in removing tags that are categorically disqualified (e.g., software, books, etc.) is fine, but their accuracy on subjective eligibility for A7 and G11 is probably somewhere around 50%, which is entirely too low to be taking these out of the que for admins to evaluate.

This has been raised on their talk page by basically the roster of our NPP regulars. There's been final warnings and final final warnings, including here and the latest response was to "retire" for a few weeks and then resume business-as-usual. Apparently this is the standard MO, since it's exactly what happened when the exact same issue was raised at ANI a year ago. They've shown themselves to be immune to advice in this area, and at a time when we have exactly 9,000 discussions going on as to how to clear our 20k article backlog, the last thing we need is someone actively working against the few people we have actually working to fix the issue.

So, propose topic ban for a period of one year from removing CSD tags for any reason. I'd like to be more specific, but I don't want to set ourselves up for gratuitous wikilawyering that will just waste even more time. Adam9007 is indefinitely topic banned from removing CSD tags from pages, broadly construed, and that this may be appealed to AN after 6 months.

Discussion

Feel free to discuss here. TimothyJosephWood 13:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging the crowd from the last discussion: @TonyBallioni:, @Primefac:, @Winged Blades of Godric:, @Dlohcierekim:, @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:, @Toddst1: TimothyJosephWood 13:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

As someone who has brought this nonsense to ANI before, I think we'll need more WP:ROPE. WP:ANIISLOUSY applies. Unless you have the history here, it looks pretty benign. Adding @Cabayi: who had some of the best commentary in that discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Toddst1: The problem is, how do you link to badly untagged articles that were subsequently deleted? That's the relevant history, but it's not really practical to have a deletion-review-type undeletion of dozens of articles for the community to review. And anyway, the ROPE is the dozen conversations that have already happened about this, culminating in multiple final warnings. They recently had their NPP rights simply removed, and then had them restored only once they started reviewing like a regular user and not like a permissionless admin. As of their history right now, if they're going to keep untagging, then someone needs to take the time to review their edits two or three times weekly to ensure that they're accurate. I'm not terribly keen on doing that, and it's a bloody waste of time. TimothyJosephWood 14:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

TJW/Toddst1: from my AfD log

I'm sure there's some I'm missing, but all of these were pretty questionable detaggings. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

It's be super if someone with mop-goggles could ad in some actual non-AfD CSD retaggs that were deleted. TimothyJosephWood 14:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

If we get to the point of actually filing this, let me know and I'll see if I can do something. --MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

FYI I just took a look at deleted contributions of his from recent weeks. I found only two tag removals since May 19 that wound up getting deleted. On June 6, he removed an A-11 tag from Elemental Dragon; someone restored the tag but an admin agreed it was not A11; it was eventually PRODded. On May 19 he removed G11 from Brainspotting saying "not unambiguously promotional"; then it was G4ed because it had been AfDed a few days earlier. So there we have one valid tag removal and one questionable - it was speedyable, just not as tagged. And we all agree the two current removals are valid. Maybe he is getting more careful, more accurate? I notice several of the AfD discussions had people saying speedy, so that is going to be your best evidence if you decide to go forward. Do we want to risk a probation period, or will we soon wind up with his talk page full of complaints again? --MelanieN (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Melanie, thanks for that. There's also this, which is technically right, but I've tagged as U5, and it could probably be G3ed as well. I have two concerns here: first, I actually care about Adam and don't like it when he gets upset, which is what the CSD tagging inevitably leads to. Next, he has literally stopped two topic bans by getting blocked for edit warring by Primefac (Chrissymad has said she was going to go to ANI the next morning), and then the last time by retiring for nine days, and not touching A7 for less than a month. I don't think he intends to game the system, but I'm tired of the monthly "stop or we try for a topic ban" conversation that as TJW points out wastes our best NPP people's time, and has wasted the time of many admins and arbitrators. My post to him was mainly saying: "Adam, let's not do this again, pick an option so we can move past this drama." TonyBallioni (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

100% agree with TB. Toddst1 (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The current tag removals were actually good IMO. The grandson of Muhammad/the son of Ali is definitely a claim of significance, and the others were justifiable but less clear cut. If this does go to AN, I'd support it because history suggests we're in for more drama, but I'd suggest the wording: ...indefinitely topic banned from removing CSD tags from pages, broadly construed, and that this may be appealed to AN after 6 months. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC) Also pinging Nick, since he brought the latest thread on Adam-talk TonyBallioni (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Let's wait.The current edits were good.That he has stepped on to the forbidden grounds, I believe the previous problems will begin again soon. But at the same time,I am left to wonder about the pin-point correctness of this definition.Winged Blades ^Godric 15:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I mean, I'm not super excited about starting what's sure to be a god awful thread. I'm also not super excited about potentially losing a reviewer completely, when there's only a few dozen that are actually doing it to begin with. But I am all together much less excited about this exact shit right here being a monthly tradition, where 15 odd of some of our most experienced and active editors waste entirely too much time and energy trying to talk to an editor who just ain't gonna listen. TimothyJosephWood 16:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• I posted this on his talk after I saw MelanieN's post there. No one wants drama, we have two choices, and they are his to make. No one wants another back and forth, and if that happens, I'm prepared to take it to AN to prevent this being a 3 day long exercise of everyone commenting on his talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Solved

• For what its worth the issue appears to be solved. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I hope so. TimothyJosephWood 11:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Rfc notification for Expand language

Hi Timothyjosephwood, If you wish to gather more eyeballs for the MOS Rfc regarding the Expand template, here are some related locations you could consider posting a link to:

• Wikipedia talk:Translation
• Template talk:Expand language
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages (WT:LANG)
• Template:Announcements/Community bulletin board (WP:CBB)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Intertranswiki (this is the project that created all the Expand language templates)

And see also: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion (WP:CENT).   Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 03:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks Mathglot. It's usually better when these things get settled decisively, regardless of which way they go. The more daylight the better. Linking to a half dozen discussions and changes is bad enough.

I'll admit, I've been putting off starting an RfC on WT:CSD just because the issue has gone on long enough that ... there's a decently sized novel's worth of previous discussions and essays that need to be compiled, and somehow presented coherently and neutrally. Better to get to things before we get to that point. TimothyJosephWood 12:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Zala Aero Group logo.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:National Emblem of Taiwan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:National Emblem of Taiwan. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Globitex Page

Hi Timothyjosephwood, what seems to the reason my page "Globitex" has fallen under you deletion spell? It is a valid business and a registered entity. Same as, for example, Bitfinex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Licere (talk • contribs) 17:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Licere. First, subject don't receive encyclopedia articles because they simply exist, but rather because they meet our standard for notability, which usually entails demonstrating that they have received sustained in-depth coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Second, the article appears to be written like an advertisement, and not an encyclopedia article, and Wikipedia is not means to promote people or organizations. Also, if you have an outside connected with the subject you are writing about, you should probably take the time to review our policies on conflicts of interest, since this type of editing is strongly discouraged, and ignoring those policies can result in a lot of unwanted attention, including having accounts and even associated IP addresses blocked from editing. TimothyJosephWood 17:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, I took out all the adjectives. Please check if it reads like a neutral entry about a valid business now. If ok, I will further edit the titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Licere (talk • contribs) 17:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Licere. It looks like it's been deleted. But I did see one of your edit prior to that, and all I really saw was adding product features that probably actually made it more promotional than it already was.

If you need time to work on an article you can create it in your sandbox by clicking the link at the very top of your screen, or you can start it as a draft by clicking the red link here: Draft:Globitex. In these ways you can have additional time to improve it before it is published, and continue to work on it with out the immediate threat of deletion.

But again, the appropriateness of a subject for Wikipedia is ultimately determined by the sources that are available about the subject, and you need to incorporate these reliable sources into your draft as you work to improve it. You probably want to review our notability guidelines and maybe check out our tutorial on referencing for Wikipedia. TimothyJosephWood 17:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Princeton in Africa

This page should not be speedily deleted because... I'm sorry I was taking so much content from the website. I thought stating the website as a reference would be adequate. I would like time to rewrite the content in my own words, the page can still be deleted for now but at the very least, I'd like what I'd done so far so that I can keep my organization structure and the original content

Deletion of Princeton in Africa

This page should not be speedily deleted because... I'm sorry I was taking so much content from the website. I thought stating the website as a reference would be adequate. I would like time to rewrite the content in my own words, the page can still be deleted for now but at the very least, I'd like what I'd done so far so that I can keep my organization structure and the original content Blaise Umeh (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC) 19 June 2017 Blaise Umeh (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Blaise Umeh. In virtually every circumstance it's not ok to copy and paste content from other online sources, because doing so is a copyright violation, even if you attribute it to the original source. Content on Wikipedia should use the information from the sources, but the actual writing has to be original work, so that you "own" your contribution, and can legally submit it to Wikipedia.

It looks like the article has already been deleted, and its been deleted three separate times for the same issues. I should probably warn you that if you continue to post copyright violations on Wikipedia, it's likely that your account, and potentially associated IP addresses may be blocked from editing. TimothyJosephWood 20:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Russo-Georgian War

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russo-Georgian War. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For the London 2017 Finsbury Park terror attacks Funkinwolf (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but you probably want to go ahead and switch on the safety for that revert button, because it's starting to look a touch like an edit war. TimothyJosephWood 12:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Saurabh Kochhar: CEO foodpanda india

Hi Timothyjosephwood! I'm a new user of Wikipedia can you help me get the image on the article. Can you guide me what is the pattern of adding an image & what should be the name of the file & what all image from where I can use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkharawat1523 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Barkharawat1523. Most content on Wikipedia has to be licensed in a way that it can be reused by anyone for any reason, that is, unless it qualifies under a claim of fair use. Usually for legal reasons, images of living people cannot be used under fair use, meaning we'd have to find one that is either in the public domain, or freely licensed. Usually this means an image that was taken by someone at a public event, and then uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. However, it is also possible to have the individual upload an image they own themselves, and verify that they own and release the copyright. Instructions for doing this are at WP:CONSENT.

Sorry if this isn't the most helpful thing. Copyright on Wikipedia can be complicated. Feel free to ask any follow up questions if I'm being unclear. TimothyJosephWood 17:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

This: Edits → reverts → talk → RfC/other WP:DR → sometimes "lower tier" notice boards like WP:BLPN, WP:RSN and WP:ORN → nuclear noticeboards like WP:ANEW and WP:ANI. is a brilliant summary of How Wikipedia Works. Thank you for writing it. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I'm still waiting to find an editor who knows the Green brothers to get them to make a series of videos explaining this. TimothyJosephWood 02:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Husan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Husan. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Abhay Shukla (Actor)

Ok I will add references in few minutes please wait — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha-Purva (talk • contribs) 10:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure i am adding references in Ravi Raj page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devanshdewan14 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

List of active us navy ships

Could continue to fight for my cited edit on the list of active us navy ships. I have already been banned from editing it twice so I don't want to risk another ban.

--Phuerbin (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, you're right to think that being twice (I assume) topic banned from an article is a pretty good sign that you weren't going about things the right way, and you should maybe try a different approach. Probably a good place to start would be to more specifically cite the information, because it's not entirely clear exactly where this information is supposed to be coming from either way. But my revert was based only on the user openly edit warring in addition to using uncivil edit summaries.

As to one side or the other, like I said, need to fix the thing so that someone like me who's never seen this database can do one click and tell which version is actually right. TimothyJosephWood 19:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Whats Wrong With House Operating System Wiki

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (It Handles An Already Running System that have solved a real issue That Not So many People Aware About and been handled in many articles online The Product is considered on the best 20 Smart Home Softwares 2017. Still the article is Under Construction so please indicate the promotional materials that you have seen violating the wiki rules to remove it. Best Regards) --Ostourahos (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ostourahos (talk • contribs)

Hey Ostourahos. Well first it doesn't include any sources to indicate where the information came from, or why it's important. "Importance" in Wikipedia-speak is notability, which is normally established by demonstrating sustained in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Second, it still pretty much reads like an advertisement, and is much more like "looks at all these cool features you should download/buy this cool thing", rather than a neutral encyclopedia article. TimothyJosephWood 21:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

hi Timothyjosephwood, I'm just new in this wikipedia and it's my first article ...anyway could u please direct me where to add this sources which i'm sure it's independent, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ostourahos (talk • contribs) 22:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Ostourahos. For the time being I've moved the article to a draft, which can be found at Draft:House operating system. As a draft it's not visible to things like search engines, but it does allow you to continue to work on it without the risk of it being immediately deleted. Writing a new article is actually one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, and most users start out by improving existing articles to get the hang of things. You may want to check out our tutorial on writing your first article, or take our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure to try to get oriented.

I've also added a banner for our Articles for Creation project, and when you think you've sufficiently improve the draft that it can be published, you can hit the submit button and a volunteer can review the article and offer feedback or publish it if they think it won't be eventually deleted. Hope this helps. TimothyJosephWood 22:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Edits to my post - LifeCell International

Hi,

I just wanted to connect with you on the content that i uploaded.

I can clarify that i am a third party writing on the organisation on my own, but am not very good at it. Request you to share any pointers on how i can make the post less promotional and i will make the necessary edits

Thanks Somayapalecanda (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Somayapalecanda. Well, to pull out a few examples. Some parts are not really related to the organization at all:

• The umbilical cord that connects the mother and baby during pregnancy consists of master cells called stem cells.
• Prenatal Screening is recommended by Gynaecologists 26, across the globe
• Newborn Screening is a simple test recommended by paediatrician for over 50 years 25 across the world, to detect inborn born metabolic errors that can be hidden in a baby at birth

Some parts are pretty clearly trying to "sell people", with basically everything short of giving prices:

• based on the concept of sharing that offers access to donor & own stem cells thereby extending protection of stem cells not just for baby but the family too. Through Community Stem Cell Banking LifeCell aims to provide access to stem cells for 80+ medical conditions treatable by stem cells10 thereby providing protection for the baby and family.
• At LifeCell, Prenatal Screening is a comprehensive panel of screening and diagnostic tests done on pregnant women.
• The personalised proprietary processing technique of LifeCell done prior to the storage process gives the highest recovery rate of 85% with low rate of red blood cells, which helps in better outcome during transplants.
• The frozen stem cells can be accessed immediately without any dependency on the donor

And those examples are basically the way the language is throughout the entire article. The company probably meets our notability guidelines, but currently what there is is a full page newspaper ad with sources, and not really an encyclopedia article at all. TimothyJosephWood 16:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of secret police organizations

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of secret police organizations. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyright

Anything that relates to a murder requires that policy be changed to allow the articles to be deemed as significant and all copy right technicalities waved. When you are speaking about murder, you talking about very life itself. There should not be so many rules preventing access to major world events that are reaping havoc around the globe because of some fine print someone in his basement wrote to feel powerful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahm91 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Rahm91, We cannot "wave" copyright. Copyright is determined by the law, and we do what is necessary to stay in compliance with the law, which is to remove copyright violations wherever and whenever we find them. You may base an article on the information in a news story, but you cannot copy and paste the wording of the story, because that's breaking the law. TimothyJosephWood 19:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Review request and change of name

Hello timothyjosephwood, I created a page choirmaster(musician) but will like to change the name to choirmasterGH and also review it for me.. ThanksBloomshouse (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Choirmaster(musician) should be renamed, but just to add a space before the parenthesis, because no source given cites his name as choirmasterGH. There, done. Dakleman (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Huh. Somehow I totally missed this thread. Thanks Dakleman for following up. TimothyJosephWood 20:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Sigh...

There are 1.3 billion people in India. Four of them have not attempted to make a LinkedIn profile on Wikipedia.

...Also, at some point I'm going to end up getting frustrated and writing WP:NOTNOTNEWS because, you know, consensus in practice often beats consensus on paper. TimothyJosephWood 15:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Can we U5 India...? — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Nah, U5 only applies to user space. India is in Asia, so I'm pretty sure it would have to be one of the A criteria. TimothyJosephWood 15:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course. How bout A7.5= an entire subcontinent that doesn't make a credible claim of significance  :) Mind you; I know who would turn that down! Probably rightly so actually! For once. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, FIM, I think I know the reference you are making to declines, and if you look above, that drama has probably died down for now. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @TonyBallioni:, you're dead right. I'm glad that seems to be the case; I do apologise for casting WP:ASPERSIONS. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The really sad part about this is that there is actually quite a lot of things in regards to South Asia that do need expanding and that because of the issue that you are pointing out some people jump the gun on Indian and Pakistani stubs that actually should be on Wikipedia. Sigh is right. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course: excellent example- WP:BIAS exemplified? — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, a lot of these are probably people in the US on H1B visas, just because of the time difference, since a lot of my reviewing comes from recent changes. In a weird sort of bias, I'm willing to bet that as far as Southeast Asia goes, even though the whole area is probably really underrepresented, India is probably comparatively exceptionally overrepresented, just because of the preponderance of English speakers.

As to Hippolytus Anthony Kunnunkal... umm... not just a bishop, but a bishop over an area covering two million people. Incidentally, there are about twenty articles related to the Archdiocese of Houston, Texas, which is about the same population. TimothyJosephWood 16:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

And the bishop that began/was the patron of the first bible translation project into Kashmiri, and Google Books had more than enough on him in their history of the Capuchin missions, though most of it was in snippet view for me so I couldn't expand much based on that. I agree with your general critique re: a lot of the stuff that enters new pages from India and Pakistan, I was just commenting that because of that, we get a lot of gun jumping from that area. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh definitely. Some of that is I think that people don't realize just how freaking big places in Southeast Asia are. You know... like many many cities that are larger than Chicago but that people in the West have literally never heard of. I mean, Chennai has almost ten million people in it, and I'd wager most people in the US couldn't find it on a labeled map. TimothyJosephWood 18:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

CSD conflict

Dear Timothy, I am sorry that I have caused a conflict with my post on Cosmobilities. I need to say that it is a serious misunderstanding if you think this isnt serious. I had started reworking the article completely and before I could safe the changes they all disappeared. maybe you have access to the history. I hope it ius not all lost. In fact Cosmobilities represents as an approach the integration of two major social theories in contemporary sociology: theory of reflexive modernization aka as risk society theory and linked to Ulrich Beck and the new mobilities paradigm linked to John Urry's seminal work on mobility and complexity theory. As this is the first time that I am editing an article here I would like to ask to be able to revise the text according to the standards of wikipedia.

sincerely, sven — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sven Kesselring (talk • contribs) 14:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Sven. For the time being, I have taken the liberty of moving your article to a draft, which can be found at Draft:Cosmobilities. As a draft it is invisible to things like search engines, but it will allow you to continue to work on it without the immediate risk of deletion.

Writing for an encyclopedia can sometimes have a very steep learning curve, especially for people who are used to writing for industry publications or academically. So I would recommend a bit of light reading. First, you should probably look over our notability guidelines, which is ultimately the arbitrator of whether a subject is suitable for an encyclopedia article. You may also want to look through our tutorial on writing your first article or consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure.

I have also added a banner on the draft for our Articles for Creation project, and when you think you are ready, you can click the submit button and it will be flagged for review by a volunteer, who can offer feedback and publish the draft if they think it's ready. TimothyJosephWood 14:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear Timothy, Many thanks! very much appreciated. Only strange thing is that all my editing got lost. But anyhow, I am working on it and will do my best to meet the standards.

best wishes, Sven — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.230.11.2 (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sedat Sonmez(Businessman)

hello dear admin

im forking on creating new article about Turkish famous businessman improve old articles about Turkish famous businessman .

sedat sonmez is a famous and notable than other Turkish businessman which have Wikipedia

if your search his name on google you can see more than 200 news about him on valid and famous Turkish news website.

he's innovation in breath tent happened for the first time in turkey.

please remove the Speedy deletion nomination of Sedat Sonmez and let me and other editor to improve that

best regards AMIRABBAS3 (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Sedat Sonmez (Businessman)

thank you my article was deleted

you should help me and guide me to improve that. deleting an article is very easy.

best regardsAMIRABBAS3 (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey AMIRABBAS3. Well I was attempting to move the article to a draft, where you would be able to continue to work on it without the risk of it being immediately deleted, but it looks like someone else deleted it while I was in the process. If you with to recreate it you may wish to do so at Draft:Sedat Sonmez (Businessman) so it doesn't happen again. When you are ready, you can paste {{AFC submission}} at the top of the draft and it will be submitted to review from a volunteer from our Articles for Creation project, who can offer feedback and publish the draft if it meets our standards for notability.

You may want to review our tutorial on writing your first article or consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. TimothyJosephWood 19:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Owen Johnson

The Owen Johnson thing was NOT supposed to be an article it was a list of references added to the Owen Johnson Page. I thought those references were archived. Sorry if they were not.Nicodemus (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I found what User:Oldsilenus was talking about at User:Oldsilenus/sandbox. The main name space for articles is exclusively for Encyclopedia entries, with references used to support the text of the article at the bottom. There is no standard for creating short bibliographies as separate articles. The name "Owen Johnson" does not uniquely identify a notable person with Wikipedia article. The encyclopedia article Owen Johnson (writer) already has two of your three references used to support the text of the article. {{Citation}} has more details on how to format references. <ref name="shortname">{{cite web|...}}</ref> creates the first footnote and <ref name="shortname" /> reuses the footnote number. For your convenience, I have modified the broken link on your user page to point at the moved page. Dakleman (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure what you meant by “I thought those references were archived.” Could you explain? See also: User_talk:Oldsilenus#Creating_non-Articles for User:Timothyjosephwood's original comment. Dakleman (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Not totally sure what this is in reference to, but so long as you've found your sandbox, which is the place to basically store all your junk until you can work it into an article, then it's probably all good. Cheers. As to Dakleman, I assume they got confused about name spaces, which... overall is a pretty esoteric thing unless you've been here for a while. No harm done it seems. TimothyJosephWood 23:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

ANI close

Perfect. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Nah. I cheated. Pro tip: if you only close threads that Softlavender recommends a close on you'll have a 100% accuracy rate. TimothyJosephWood 12:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender is having a good day in enhancing their reputation in Dweller's eyes. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Not gonna lie... that your username is "Dweller" and you're referring to yourself in the third person... for some reason I can't not read that in the voice of Gollum. TimothyJosephWood 14:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't do that very often. It's just that I wasn't sure which pronoun to use for Softlavender, hate guessing, too lazy to check, so went without one, and then it felt weird to couple it with a "my" and then... oh balls. Where's that lovely ssslimy fish gone? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

RfA

As I say, I'm lazy. Especially at the moment, when my time is fairly short and I'm tending to do mostly simple stuff, rather than content work. So forgive the FAQ but is there a particular reason why Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Timothyjosephwood is a redlink? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Eh. I went to ORCP and it didn't go great. TimothyJosephWood 15:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh yuck. Drop me a line in September please. If you're interested in adminship. Meanwhile, I might not so humbly refer you to my essay on becoming an admin, in the serious stuff at User:Dweller/quirky. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll keep it mind, although I'm likely as anything to forget. Lord knows if I were king of Wikipedia there would be no adminship at all, and the whole thing from top to bottom would be parsed out as individual user rights according to need and experience, with crats at the top and individual "right granters" for each individual right below them. If I had a nickel for every time I've seen an RfA go: "It's great that you have 9000 AfD closes and/or 9000 CSD noms and/or 9000 AIV reports... but to really trust you you're going to have to answer 30 UAA questions and explain the most esoteric parts of copyright law." But you know, wish in one hand and edit with the other and see what gets you an encyclopedia first. TimothyJosephWood 16:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

You get !voters like that, and some of the editcount (etc) standards are getting silly too, but most people are actually fairly sensible. What really sinks RfAs are incivility, drahmazz, bad attitude (esp in the RfA itself) lack of track record in building the pedia and claiming interest or expertise in areas where the candidate doesn't have it. And sometimes just poorly worded answers. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, appreciate the sentiment Dweller, but if you're really interested in breaking our RfA dry spell, there are better candidates than me. GeneralizationsAreBad comes to mind as basically the perfect candidate. Six GAs, one FA, four DYKs, almost 40k edits, clerks for SPI, 7k page patrols.

Their previous RfA went okay, but hinged mostly on a lack of non-automated edits: 7k mainspace edits of which 4k were semi-automated. But they've pretty much doubled that at this point. Their ORCP didn't get anything lower than a 7.5/10. From where I sit the biggest thing they're lacking is a good nomination from someone with some name recognition. TimothyJosephWood 12:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Whaddayasay, Generalizations? Please do take a look at my tips page. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood and Dweller: Thanks for the mention, guys. I have a demonstrated need for the bit (SPI clerking) and it would be immensely helpful in that area of work. The main issues impeding a successful run would deal with edit count, including areas of focus and semi-automated edits. I may just go for it, though... GAB^gab 01:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

GAB: Hell yes you should go for it. We should just be smart about it and think about what the best noms and conoms re name recognition we can pull together. No doubt in my mind you would make a fine admin. The recent comment on your talk from User:Bbb23 is likely to raise some eyebrows, but not if we can pull things together enough to get ourselves a good new admin. TimothyJosephWood 02:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I should hope that my comments about merges and moves at SPI on GAB's Talk page wouldn't raise any eyebrows (unless they're Groucho Marx). Everyone makes mistakes (I won't list mine in the interests of space), and GAB's wasn't a big deal. It was my decision to invite him to become an SPI trainee, and I've never regretted it. Finally, as others have said before me, I would encourage and support GAB if he decides to run for administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: I agree; for our purposes, I believe that email may be better for communicating about this, if you don't mind. Thanks again, GAB^gab 02:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

GAB: My email seems to be broken, but the one I use for Wikipedia is my username at the google email client. Feel free to message me, but it's probably better if things get discussed on wiki. I mean, why not? TimothyJosephWood 02:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. Transparency shall carry the day Yes, I am concerned about RFA chances for the aforementioned reasons raised by both of us. Mistakes look bad, as does a distorted edit portfolio. The content creation is substantial, and the tools would be mainly for working in a critical area that really needs admins to function smoothly. Much of my SPI work is independent investigation, and so I would be able to hunt down socks and block them much more efficiently with the admin bit, of course. GAB^gab 02:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Have you been to WP:ORCP recently? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dweller: Yes, and the result was reasonably favorable. GAB^gab 13:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Fwiw, see User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad#Potential RfA nomination. GAB^gab🐧 14:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Well I'll say this, the first time we met you were standing in the gap between a Pulitzer prize winner and a sock, in a months long argument that went to ANI and back, and eventually made it to GA. So if there's one thing no one can call into question it's probably your temperament.

If you're willing to pick through the garbage pile that is SPI, then more power to you, literally. It's tedious and thankless and work that basically no one ever notices. In fact you've been such a behind-the scenes editor recently that before I pinged you I had to go back and check to see if you were still active.

Whether someone like Dweller wants to throw their good name behind you is ultimately up to them. Obviously no one is guaranteed to pass an RfA, but if you can't, it makes me question the experience and judgement of the community, and not you. TimothyJosephWood 15:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I know we have banged heads over disagreements over the CSD policy, but that's actually a reason for me to want to support an admin candidate - I like people who can stand their ground and talk a good argument. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Huh. Well, good to know you wouldn't be leading the charge if ever I do end up on RfA. BTW I've been dreading putting together that A7 AfC, and been trying to find literally anything else to do instead. I suppose I'll have to at some point. TimothyJosephWood 15:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2017 Finsbury Park attack

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017 Finsbury Park attack. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Climate science opinion graph2.png

I generated an SVG of c:File:Climate science opinion2.png - c:File:Climate science opinion graph 3.svg. Something's going on with Wikimedia's thumbnail generator and the text is malformed. The full SVG image looks OK on Firefox, Chrome, IE, and Edge. Not sure when it will be resolved. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Maybe it just got fixed before I got to it. Commons has been weird lately, as in images I upload being completely broken for like an hour and a half before I can even view them. Maybe they're in the middle of a software update or something. TimothyJosephWood 21:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Identitarian movement

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Identitarian movement. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Yashovardhan (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC) This notice is being delivered on behalf of the DRN filer by a volunteer. You are requested to respond directly at the noticeboard

Please comment on Talk:Breitbart News

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Breitbart News. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Baltimore railroad strike of 1877

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Baltimore railroad strike of 1877 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 Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

List of years

I'm certainly not canvassing you, just wanted to let you know that I remembered the "list of years in <country> television" articles and have started combing through to find the most atrocious of them. You're welcome to (re)join the fun if you'd like. Primefac (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Primefac. This was definitely an avenue I intended to pursue aggressively at first. But after the last mass AfD that failed, I had considered that the initial AfD might actually have a decent chance of failing a DRN if someone pursued it equally aggressively, given that it was so heavily influenced by the ANI thread.

And anyway, I have a phone full of pictures and an article to write, and I've found another orphan large scale maintenance project to fill in the gaps whenever I'm not doing that. Maybe it's best that I sit this one out, and if you get another mass AfD through, with maybe a more virgin type of consensus, and you just need help compiling, then I may be down. But for the meantime, a bit fat red link on a ~100 year old distillery is calling my name. TimothyJosephWood 20:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Heh, I think I'd rather visit that distillery than write about it, but I hear ya. Have fun! Primefac (talk) 01:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Why not both? We've been doing almost Wiki-scavenger-hunts this year. Like, we'll go to a city on a long weekend, and actually try to find things that are underrepresented and visit them. I just wish there was a commons mobile app like the way Google Maps annoys you into taking images of things your visiting because there aren't any. BTW, the barrel strength is pretty good, but it's only sold in Kentucky. They're are a few advantages to living in the bourbon capital of the world. TimothyJosephWood 02:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Baltimore railroad strike of 1877

The article Baltimore railroad strike of 1877 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Baltimore railroad strike of 1877 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Monarchy of Canada

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Monarchy of Canada. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

"News also ran..."

I can understand why you are doing this, but there's gotta be a better way. Maybe some "were reporteds" (right next to the cite.)? Anmccaff (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Anmccaff... It's... kindof awkward, yeah. If you can think of a better way to phrase it go for it. I was just trying to find some way of avoiding saying exactly the same thing over and over and over.

I'm not totally conceptually on board with treating The Sun 100% as a primary source anyway really. I mean, when you have the paper reporting on things like the broader socio-economic situation then yeah, but when you have them reporting on literally the price of cabbage on a given day, or how many ships are sitting idle in the harbor, I don't personally see them as being too close to an event to be relied upon as a statement of fact. It's definitely a step removed from, for example, pulling from a museum archive with the ledger from the dock itself, which would be unquestionably primary.

Anyway, the whole point of FA is to scrutinize every little detail, so here we are. TimothyJosephWood 16:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The root problem is there are a lot of bad "WP:RS" (and yes, them are scarequotes) cites surrounding anything with this much political symbolism, and Wiki has a lot of cranks who aren't afraid to get their hands dirty using them, and will add sources like Bellesiles.

For what it's worth (which, of course will, along with a fin get you a cup of coffee a at $tarbuck$), I agree that many contemporaneous cites can be taken more at face value than some secondary sources, and, if you have to chech them anyway, why not just use them directly? Anmccaff (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll say that when you spend enough time starting at the archive newspaper reports, it becomes pretty apparent that those are what the later authors are largely drawing from anyway. And if contemporary authors are required, McCabe is right out, even though his is probably the most thorough account. TimothyJosephWood 19:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I dunno...if McCabe says "on the 17th of March, the seething mob of a thousand was quelled by the valiant 54th Snurdlewonger Battalion's bravery", I'd put money that there were about a thousand rioters give or take, and the date and unit were right...which is a lot more than you can say for some of the modern works. But, yeah, there are some POV issues there. Bruce, I'd say, is the best out there on the disturbances as a whole, although you're giving him a run for his money on a couple of them, POV POS titles like "Scranton General &cet" aside. Anmccaff (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Attack on Prekaz

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

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russia. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

More time needed to work on the copyedit of tone.

Respected wikipedians, I need more time to work on the article I had uploaded earlier. Kindly let me work on the tone and work on the styleSiddy sj (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Siddy sj. Since your article is now a draft, it falls under somewhat different rules. Drafts are normally not deleted outright unless they have been "abandoned", which means they haven't been edited at all in six months. As long as you are continuing to work on it, and it doesn't contain things like copyright violations that we legally have to delete, you should be fine. TimothyJosephWood 17:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Movement Strategy reminder

Hi. You contributed in a previous part of the discussion, so this is just a reminder to you (and any interested talkpagewatchers), that it's the second week of our Movement Strategy Cycle 3 discussion. There's a new topic each week in July, and this week's is: How could we capture the sum of all knowledge when much of it cannot be verified in traditional ways? You can see more details, and suggest solutions or respond to other people's thoughts (from this week and last week) at Wikipedia:Wikimedia Strategy 2017. You can also read a summary of discussions that took place in the past week. Cheers. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 03:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Raw Pressery Submission

Hi Timothyjosephwood,

Thanks for your feedback on my write-up.

Can you please guide me on which part of the article do you think is looking promotional? It would be a great help to me if you can help me in framing the non-promotional content for the article.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maniksha.sharma (talk • contribs) 08:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Maniksha.sharma. I'm not sure how to exactly say this more constructively, but basically all of it. So, if you opened a page in the World Book Encyclopedia or Encyclopædia Britannica, you're not going to find an article on how Pepsi or Coke offer "a range of refreshing beverages using all natural ingredients", but that's kindof how the draft on Raw Pressery currently reads. The tone overall is pretty much "look at these cool products," while an encyclopedia article is generally supposed to be "just the facts" and if there's not really enough bare facts to make an article without delving into product details, then there's probably not enough to meet our standards for notability for companies. TimothyJosephWood 12:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Timothyjosephwood Thanks for your quick response. It would be a great help to me if you can please guide me in creating the content for the Wiki Page - Raw Pressery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maniksha.sharma (talk • contribs) 06:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Maniksha.sharma. I would recommend you start by reading our tutorial on writing your first article, which hopefully will answer a lot of questions you may have, and and some you may not have realized you wanted to ask. TimothyJosephWood 14:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Timothyjosephwood, Thanks for your support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maniksha.sharma (talk • contribs) 05:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Tyler Shields....

Thanks for your edit, it's a situation that's been ongoing the past few days or so. These 2 editors seem to (at least) closely-associated if not the same person, they are insisting on their POV/attack content. I even posted on an admin's talkpage asking for advice because I didn't know quite what to do - I don't want to run foul of 3RR. I posted on the article talkpage about my initial reversion earlier today. This SPA is also being very personal in that they posted on the talkpage under "Note regarding possible COI editing by Tyler Shields or his staff" characterizing my edits as being from Tyler Shields?!? This SPA obviously has not actually paid attention to my editing on this article. I have never revealed how I personally feel about Mr. Shields because, frankly, it has no bearing on how I edit the article. I only pay attention to the WP policies/guidelines, especially as it pertains to WP:BLPs. Shearonink (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't have a clue who he is, but you need more than one critical quote in one critical piece to make broad sweeping contentious generalization like that on a BLP. I've watchlisted the page, and I'm usually around. If I'm not, and it crops back up, and there is still no substantive discussion to be had, seems a lot like there's two options: 1) Revert on BLP grounds (a 3RR exception), and if it's at all borderline, consider self-reporting to WP:BLPN for outside evaluation of whether your revert is definitely covered under BLP, and/or 2) report to WP:RFPP. RFPP is usually a better option than trying to contact individual admins who may or may not be active at that moment, especially as it concerns BLPs. TimothyJosephWood 18:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep all that in mind. I'm keeping an eye on it too, I'll see what this SPA/these SPAs do next. I think BLPN might be a better option than RFPP, mostly because I would want editorial consensus as to the SPAs' content and getting the article protected won't really solve the edit-warring behaviors. Shearonink (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Ideally, that discussion should happen on the talk page first, and a good six months or so of semi protect can often help encourage that discussion. Well, either that or one side gets bored and forgets about the whole thing. TimothyJosephWood 19:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

True. I have been trying to engage this editor/editors on their (various?) talkpages & on the article talk without much real traction but (depending on their editing if/when they return)...it's their move at this point. I keep an eye on some BLPs that attract repeated vandalism or POV-editing and that's the way these things usually go - flurries of vandalism/puffery and then the problematic editing usually just stops. Shearonink (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Larsconks/sandbox

Check again, check at the very bottom of the page. There's a stub sign. Larsconks (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Larsconks, a stub category doesn't relieve the requirement to include sources. Were this created in its current form, it would likely be speedy deleted because it makes no credible claim of significance, much less having no sources to demonstrate that it might meet our standards for notability. TimothyJosephWood 20:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, here's a link to prove that this is actually true and does have somewhat some significance and importance: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0vQLzVNqEsA7rNAOH3oY5gQRSpe4n5Rc Larsconks (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Larsconks. While that link may show that it exists, existing is not enough to have an article. For that, it needs to meet our standards for notability, which usually means receiving lots of coverage in independent sources like newspapers, magazines, books, or on similar websites that write about those types of things for a big audience. Unfortunately, if the web series hasn't yet gotten that kindof attention then it's probably too soon for it to have it's own article yet. TimothyJosephWood 20:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh. Okay. Larsconks (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Exec 13769

I kinda gave up when I searched for the term "muslim ban" in the article, and how freely it was slung around. I simply don't have the time/patience/competence to go through and fix that article. Need to recruit a wikignome on that one I think. Arkon (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah Arkon. I'm sure in five years it'll be a fairly neutral article. For now we do what we can, and what recentism will allow. If it helps, Watergate was last edited five days ago. TimothyJosephWood 22:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello GreenMeansGo, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
• Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

• Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
• The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
  • User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:

• Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Explanation

This Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse/Archive_14#A_proposal will help explain my recent post at the teahouse.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I mean, I guess it makes sense if you ping them, if you can, but... it seems a little silly to post "an editor needs help, but no need to do anything". If they can't figure out how to click a link, and click a big blue button that says "Ask a Question" then I'm afraid we're not going to be much help anyway. TimothyJosephWood 17:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)