User talk:GreenMeansGo/Archive 6

Deletion of FQMT

This is a developing page. FQMT has had 5 international conferences with the latest just concluding today. Our speakers have included multiple Nobel laureates and many otmationher scholars. For more information see FQMT.org. I'm new and I'm adding the info as well as I can.

Good luck on the drywall.

h — Preceding unsigned comment added by HJBrubaker (talk • contribs) 22:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey HJBrubaker. What is needed in order to demonstrate that the conference meets either our general notability guideliens or our specific notability guidlines covering journals and conference proceedings, is to demonstrate that it has received sustained in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources, or that it is particularly well respected, cited, and influence in its field. Unfortunately, when I looked for sources on the conference, I didn't really find anything, but perhaps being more personally familiar with the subject, you might know of better places to look for potential sources. TimothyJosephWood 12:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

21:22:51, 16 July 2017 review of submission by Samihaque7

• Samihaque7 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Samihaque7/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, please advise me how to re-write this page, as i have tried to be as neutral as possible.

thank you

Hey Samihaque7. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be written from a neutral point of view, and in a way, more or less like it was written by a "neutral editorial robot", who gives readers just the bare facts, and without the types of colorful language you might find on an official website or an industry publication.

So for example, just looking at the first couple of sections of the draft:

• A selfless and humble man
• dedicated towards improving the quality of life
• a relentless focus on education
• renowned textiles industrialist
• from a humble start managed to establish a world class textile mill

This type of language is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, and it's pretty clearly trying to say "look how great this person is" and not just presenting the bare bones of who they are and what they've done.

Besides that, large portions of the draft are currently unreferenced, and so it's not really clear where the information is coming from. So you may want to read through our tutorial on referencing for beginners. And you may want to also review our guidance on reliable sources, since a lot of the sources you have included, appear to be generic home pages or social media, and not published sources covering the subject of the article in particular.

Hopefully this is helpful. Feel free to ask any follow up questions you might have. TimothyJosephWood 12:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you. It's nice to not have to reply with things, myself, to certain individuals. Sagecandor (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, it might be better received from someone who's never actually edited the article. And anyway, this is more or less how people learn the deletion process: making an argument you feel is convincing only to have someone explain why it's contrary to policy. TimothyJosephWood 18:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, well, I hope you are right that it will be better received from someone who's never actually edited the article. I hope you are watching the page because certain individuals have a tendency to keep on replying to you until the heat death of the universe. Sagecandor (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, since it means some poor admin has to read through probably an unnecessarily long discussion. Overall, it seems like a good faith discussion that happens to involve fairly newish editors, one of which has literally never participated in an AfD, and the other who has been recently prolific, but still seems to make pretty common argumentum ad article mistakes. TimothyJosephWood 19:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

At any rate Sagecandor, the only two possible outcomes here are probably keep or no consensus... probably no consensus unless the keeps roll in. And I am very tempted to trout the admin who started it without so much at attempting WP:BEFORE or offering a rationale for deletion. TimothyJosephWood 19:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I really hope it is "Keep". There are still several days left in the debate, yes? Sagecandor (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

There's no practical difference. TimothyJosephWood 19:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

There is, actually. Bringing some TNT in a few months if the article remains in its lamentable state will be very straighforward with a "no consensus", but you'd have to wait a little longer if it is "keep". Anmccaff (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes. Starting another AfD that will last 5-10 pages, involve a few dozen people, and likely end in the same conclusion because someone can't be bothered to fix a mess you have a problem with. A glowing example to other editors. Thank you for your service. God bless. TimothyJosephWood 15:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The merits of the article aside, you know that that is correct....and the merits of it not aside, you know that there are a substantial number of people who don't see the article as having any. Anmccaff (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I've put in hours and hours of research. Hours and hours of writing. And editing. Rewrote the entire article basically from its prior version. Every single thing in the article is backed up to secondary sources. The Washington Post, GQ magazine, etc. What else can I do at this point ??? Sagecandor (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Probably do a bit of method acting editing and approach the article from the perspective of someone who doesn't particularly care for the subject, and try to rip out anything that could be seen as promotional. It does come off a bit like the "Wallet in the face" scene from Family Guy (can't link since it's definitely a copyright violating youtube video).

Overall, just because something can be sourced to an RS, doesn't mean it's NPOV to put it in an article. So yeah, you have a source for "YouTube star", but that's... not necessarily the wording that Encyclopedia Britannica would use. They would probably not use a direct quote and instead summarize his history on Youtube in a less sensational way than Heavy.com, which is, at the end of the day, much more concerned about page views than we are. Similarly with the "Amazon best seller", which for some reason needs to be said four separate times in the article, and honestly probably needs a reliably sourced Template:efn to explain what it is that exactly even means.

Probably half the lead could be totally removed and it would be just fine. And generally, avoid using scare quotes (Slate called Timothyjosephwood a "fucking awesome editor", and GQ said "why the hell doesn't he work at the WMF already?") It may be sourceable, but totally not neutral at the same time. Overall, I'd say probably 20% of the current article could be removed outright without really damaging it, since a lot of it is pretty "look how great this guy is" and isn't totally essential for an encyclopedic understanding of who the guys is and why he's notable.

Just think of it as prep for GA, because you're going to get friendly feedback there, but you're going to get viciously honest feedback at AfD. TimothyJosephWood 21:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, the entire filmography section is currently unsourced, and that needs fixed... because... living person things. TimothyJosephWood 21:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood:, thank you, taking your advice to heart, and noting so in the edit summaries. Sagecandor (talk) 22:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

1. In response to your advice, I've removed all quotes from the article. Gone. None left.
2. Trimmed all quotes from the lede intro section.
3. Removed some positive mention of the individual from the lede intro section.
4. Removed some positive mention of the individual from the entire article.
5. Shortened the size of the lede intro section.
6. Changed wording to more matter-of-fact wording, with the reader still being able to find the verbatim material itself in the cited footnotes.

Better? Sagecandor (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I realize we're both editors that often edit in "real time", but I have about ten acres worth of grass to mow every week in the summer, and I have to go do that now. I'll take a better look in the morning. As I said before, the AfD is pretty clearly a no-con as this point, so most of what we're really doing here is prepping for GA. TimothyJosephWood 23:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I sure do hope you're right about your assessment of the overall consensus. Sagecandor (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Well Sagecandor, this might not be the best gift to wake up to, but I've combed through and pretty much ruined the article with notes. It's all inline since... well, I figured it would be pretty clear who they were coming from, and parsing it all out on talk would have taken an extra 20 minutes of formatting. If you have any questions feel free to ask. I normally wouldn't tag bomb an article like that, but you're pretty active on it currently, so I didn't think it would be really detrimental to the project in the interim. TimothyJosephWood 12:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah you did go way overboard, harming the experience for WP:Readers first with a sea of blue tags. Sagecandor (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, if I had thought that it would sit for more than a few hours I wouldn't have done it. It was really out of confidence that you'd be around and working on it. TimothyJosephWood 16:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense, @Sagecandor:. Creating the article was the offensive against readers; marking a few of its many deficiencies was a service to them. Anmccaff (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood:, thank you for your kind words about my efforts to improve the page. Sagecandor (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Anmccaff, I'm assuming you're not aware that not only is Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo an article, but passed AfD twice with speedy keeps, and made it to DYK. Now that's an offensive against readers. TimothyJosephWood 16:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Buffalo to the eighth power is a linguistic classic -whether that means it should have its own article is another question, of course. The POS we were discussing earlier, of course is no such thing.

Most "DYK" articles are crap, of course, so I'd see that as evidence there was something wrong with it. Anmccaff (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood:Hahahahahahaha, Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo, that's hilarious!!! And Charizard is a "good article" on Wikipedia ! How amusing ! Sagecandor (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

If you're up for it

Someone posted on Homosexuality and the Catholic Church asking how to get it to GA. I do my absolute best to stay away from anything modern in that arena because someone inevitably assumes I'm a member of the Spanish Inquisition. I know you do some work with LGBT topics, so if you're up for it, the article could use some help. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I left some comments. The article is bloated, and needs un-bloated. TimothyJosephWood 22:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have an active FA nom, and I've... kindof committed myself via ANI to reviewing about 1000 articles that need cleanup tagging. So, yeah. TimothyJosephWood 22:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem. My disagreeing with you at the above referenced AfD made me think of it. I can't expect anyone else to help fix it if I'm not going to :) TonyBallioni (talk) 22:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Disagreement isn't always a bad thing. I'd say constructive disagreement is many times better than run-of-the-mill agreement. TimothyJosephWood 22:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of elevation extremes by country

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of elevation extremes by country. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Request on 12:46:43, 20 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Joebhaktiar

• Joebhaktiar (talk · contribs)
  • User:Joebhaktiar/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, The page which I am trying to create is no different than this page of a competitor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiquidSpace Why is that page allowed to be on wikipedia and not my page?

Joebhaktiar (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Joebhaktiar. You're right. It's not that different. The other article was also overtly promotional, and I have removed much of it for that very reason. I would have nominated it for deletion, but it does seem like it has received sufficient coverage in reliable sources that it likely meets our notability standards for companies.

Unfortunately, your draft is both promotional and does not yet demonstrate that the subject has received the kinds of sustained in depth coverage from independent sources that would indicate it also meets these notability standards. You may want to consider reading through our tutorial on writing your first article, which will probably answer a lot of your questions and save you time in the long run. TimothyJosephWood 13:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Fuzzybottom

I shamelessly ripped this off and put it on my userpage. Just for a bit; after the nonsense on my talk page today, I need a maligned force of nature to be looking over stuff. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I'm not totally sure, but if this keeps on, I think we may have found our next April Fools RfA.

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

NOT MESSING AROUND

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

NOT MESSING AROUND BECAUSE I DO NOT

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

MESSING CAUSE CONFLICT MESS CAUSE STRESS NO MESS NO CONFLICT NO STRESS

TimothyJosephWood 13:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Teahouse

Great minds apparently do think alike, but Wiki software is unfathomable. I got no edit conflict warning, and according to the page history you posted before I did, and yet your post is below mine. I don't know why, but this kind of thing always unnerves me. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. That is really weird. In times like these, I've generally found that if the right questions are asked to the right people, there is usually a very technical sounding explanation and assurances that it makes sense somehow, or that there is already a phabricator ticket that's been open for thousands of years. ...By which I mean it's usually not even worth it to try to figure it out unfortunately. TimothyJosephWood 15:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• I've noticed that the page history isn't always a reliable indicator of times. There's an option to set your time zone for one thing (which doesn't apply to the stamp that appears in signatures), something that used to confuse me to no end, but even without that, I've seen multiple cases of people discussing an edit timestamps that precede the edit they are discussing by hours. I know en.WP has multiple servers, and I think there might be some issues with how they're integrated as far as timestamps go. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Best thing to do there is set everything to UTC, that way everything matches. If you haven't, there's also an option buried somewhere in preferences to put a running UTC clock at the top right corner of your window. It's mostly useful for things like timers on A1/3, but it's still useful. TimothyJosephWood 13:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Yup, I've done both of those things. It makes sure that the timestamps on my comments line up with the timestamps on history pages for the most part, but I still notice discrepancies. I've been working in IT for a few years now, so I guess I'm tuned in to that sort of thing these days. Just figured I'd share what I noticed, not that it's particularly useful information, but maybe just to say that you guys aren't the only ones. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:European migrant crisis

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:European migrant crisis. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Elijah Daniel

Hello. I erased some poorly sourced material as well as some unnecessary info per WP:Too much detail at the Elijah Daniel article. Can you check it out and change some things if you want? Thank you. Article was full of trivia (and i'm not sure if i even erased every part of that). Anonpediann (talk) 08:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Anonpediann. As I've said a few times, I do agree that the article could use some trimming and maybe a bit more focus. And really, these are the types of debates that often need to happen in gory detail in order to improve an article in the long term, and maybe taken through WP:DR if a local agreement can't be reached through discussion. But overall, lengthy discussions about how to improve an article are more productive than lengthy discussions on how to delete it, especially when those discussion end up having more to do with the article than with the subject. TimothyJosephWood 12:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree. As Daniel has the support of enough reliable sources, i think we could keep it the way i left it (with we less trivia, as you agreed with my changes). The problem i had was Sagecandor undoing the changes i made to delete random facts and poorly sourced/unnecessary events. Anonpediann (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

15:02:14, 21 July 2017 review of submission by MBrame

• MBrame (talk · contribs)
  • User:MBrame/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Asking how my post can be accepted.

Dear Timothy - You turned my post down. This is not a product nor is it commercial. It is a brief description of a new standard that was passed by a non-profit standards committee. Can you please tell me the proper procedure of how I can make it acceptable. The only reference at the moment is the standards committee and I listed it.

Thank you,

MARK MBrame (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually [[User:MBrame|MBrame}}, now that I look at it more closely, it's not just promotional, but it looks like it is a copyright violation because it appears to have been taken from other online sources. All content on Wikipedia has to be the original creation of the editor. I have marked the draft for deletion according to our policies, which we are legally required to do because of intellectual property protections. You may start the draft again, but you need to write it in your own words using reliable sources. TimothyJosephWood 15:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

That aside for a moment, MBrame, it's also backwards: this is an article about a particular design standard from a particular design standard organization, about a fairly technical subject....that's pretty deep in the weeds for a general encyclopedia as a stand-alone. First, you should get an article on VITA, or a decent expansion about it on VMEbus, then, maybe, add this to either of those articles. As it is now, you are creating an article about prehensile trunks before we have one about elephants. Anmccaff (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC) Anmccaff (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Qaiser Abbas ( Motivational Speaker / Success Coach )

It's my first time that I am adding article on Wikipedia. The article is deleted. Can you please mention the reasons. Would be very grateful — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taimurajmal (talk • contribs) 12:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Taimurajmal. The article has been nominated for deletion for two reasons. First, it appears to be unambiguously promotional, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a means for promotion. Second, it appears to have been copied and pasted from the official website, which means that it's a copyright violation. Content on Wikipedia has to be the original work of the editors, so that it can be licensed appropriately with regard to intellectual property. Since the text appears on the official website, the person who originally wrote it, or the organization they are connected to, or both, retain copyright of the text, and since they haven't given permission for the text to be reused, hosting it on Wikipedia is basically illegal. TimothyJosephWood 12:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Non Deletion of Thetoybank

Dear Sir

Please note that the Thetoybank in an non-profit organization working for past 20 years. I am currently a volunteer at the TheToyBank. I am currently running a collection centre at my house for the same. I am doing the same for social cause without any remuneration as I work with Yes_Bank. You may search (tarun khurana) the same from the reference link for list of collection centre. This organization has been setting up various new centre. The one in central Delhi was inaugurated by Maneka_Gandhi .

This NGO was founded by Vijay_Goel in 1987. You can find the link in the Vijay_Goel wiki page also.

Thetoybank works with a motive of "Recycling Toys Recycling Smiles". We at [Thetoybank] collect toys and then send the same to a central toybank from where the same are provided to kids with limited resources across India

As a volunteer of this organization, I want to promote the Thetoybank across India so that more toys are donated and provided to kids who are currently deprived of the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarunkkhurana (talk • contribs) 12:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I would further elaborate that the organization Thetoybank is not a doing small work, it is reaching ~50,000 kids each year and has reached 500,000 kids so far since inception. The organization is frugal in resources as it rely on mass collections in schools and via its 29 centres in Delhi. Further, it is currently working in various states like — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarunkkhurana (talk • contribs) 13:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Hey Tarunkkhurana. You should voice your opinion at this discussion, where the community will decide whether to keep or delete the article, or whether to do something else, like merge with an existing article. TimothyJosephWood 13:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Immigration to Sweden

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Immigration to Sweden. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:/r/The Donald

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:/r/The Donald. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not Peter Parker!

OK, I'm guessing that your edit summary here was directed at the Spider-Man edit which you subsequently reverted. Unfortunately, you did also revert my edit, which simply had added a beneficial hyphen to a sentence that is now unhappily unhyphenated. Just want to make sure before undoing your undo. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 02:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Huh? A glitch in the matrix I think. Sorry about that RT. Looks like I only undid your edit. So I guess you edited at the moment I hit undo and things got wonky. TimothyJosephWood 10:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Your spidey-sense must have failed you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I thought I had spidey sense, but I'm starting to think that tingling sensation might just be head trauma. TimothyJosephWood 12:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I've only had my spidey-sense since a particularly rough game a football... And it only ever warns me of headaches. And kidnappers from Zeta Reticuli. I can spot those lil f*kers a mile away... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't edit at the moment you did; my edit was two days earlier. I suspect you clicked "undo" on the wrong line. I've done that before, and much worse. Some days I'm all thumbs. Other days, I'm all big toes, which is far worse. MjolnirPants: never mind spidey-sense. Too many of those rough games, and you might not have any sense at all. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alt-right

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alt-right. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks but

I've nominated CSDs before that weren't deleted (rare but it has happened). So my thing is, might as well make the article as presentable as possible, even if there is a good chance it will be deleted. If it's deleted, it's deleted. I didn't think about having to delete the redirect, but if that's too much work for them, I'll be happy to take an adminship position ;) But, I know you're just giving fair advice and I'll take it, but I just wanted to give you my motivation. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

More likely, the admin won't think to check "what links here", it will languish for a while, get tagged by a bot (I believe there's a bot for that), sit around in another queue for a while, and eventually get deleted WP:G8. The easiest thing to do is just add it to your watchlist and if a hero shows up to improve it beyond CSD, then join in. TimothyJosephWood 14:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of ScratchSchool

Hi Timothyjosephwood , You have recently deleted the page ScratchSchool which I created. Don't mean to be rude, but please can you tell me thoroughly why this page was deleted? This is only so I can understand why this page was deleted and so I can improve it to prevent it getting deleted in the future.

Thanks! CodingisAwesome— Preceding unsigned comment added by CodingisAwesome (talk • contribs) 16:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey CodingisAwesome. In order for a topic to warrant its own article in Wikipedia, it needs to meet our standards for notability, which means it needs to have sustained in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Most new website will not meet this standard, and almost certainly website which do not yet exist also will not. Further, Wikipedia is not a means of promotion, and since you appear to have an outside connection to the subject, a conflict of interest, you should probably not be writing on it to begin with, and if you do, you should utilize our Articles for Creation project, where a volunteer without a COI may review your submission prior to publishing. TimothyJosephWood 16:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Timothyjosephwood Okay, thx for the reply

Lillie Rose Ernst

I saw you have reviewed and tagged the page for the Bio portal, but it has been tagged for deletion, may you please weight your opinion on why the article was relevant? Regards, --Elisa.rolle (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I saw you did it while I was writing to you. Your reply is very reasoned, really thank you.--Elisa.rolle (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing Elisa.rolle. There's a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE that sometimes has to be applied to subjects between 1923 and the internet (there's a reason most of what I've written about in depth has been prior to 1900). And the early 20th Century wasn't a great time to be written about if you don't happen to have... you know... the "right kind" of genitals. At the end of the day, while I think the article has enough to stand on its own for the moment, these are often the types of topics where the web is the least useful, and more often than not, benefit the most from a good old fashioned library card if you happen to have access to a university library or a large metropolitan library system. TimothyJosephWood 12:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately since she did not have "the "right kind" of genitals" (I completely agree, and it's happening still now that we are in the XXI century) and she was probably a Lesbian too, she herself deleted most of her private papers, and very few remains available, mostly linked to her being the leader of the Potters.--Elisa.rolle (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You might be surprised Elisa, but... it might take ~30-50 years for us to get there, when things from the 1940s and 50s start falling out of copyright and get dumped en masse (both images and written works) into repositories like Google Books and Wikimedia Commons.

I had a similar argument a while back with a very experienced user who didn't take kindly to my article on a Swiss mathematician, and didn't really seem to understand that many times these kinds of things kindof have to be "weighted" by context, like language, time period, and in this case, gender.

Anyway, I think the article will easily survive AfD, which will only protect it from future AfDs. Thanks for your contributions and for helping expand our coverage of women on Wikipedia. You've only been around for a short while, but I suspect you may have a long and productive editing career. If I can ever be of help in any way feel free to drop me a line here. TimothyJosephWood 16:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Please advice how to edit page: Lela Orr

You nominated my page for speedy deletion. My group is trying to add new American designers to the Fashion Designer article backed by articles that profile each individual listed. Please further advise. Thank you, Laura Grimillion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LCO89 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey LCO89. The article was deleted because it was unambiguously promotional and because Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Many widely notable things get articles on Wikipedia because they are notable, and those article may lend credence to the importance of the subject generally, but that is only because Wikipedia is a project compiled by volunteers without a conflict of interest, who independently write articles about things they feel are important. If you yourself have a conflict of interest, you are strongly discourage from writing about things with which you have an outside connection. If you do not, you may want to review our tutorial on writing your first article or consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. TimothyJosephWood 17:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:James O'Keefe

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James O'Keefe. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Articles for discussion

The term is just too loaded from prior proposals and other processes with similar names. Perhaps if you came up with a name which reflects your purposes other than "articles for discussion" then you might get a better response. Hut 8.5 06:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Walker Lukens

Hello,

You recently reviewed a page Walker Lukens after checking, i believe the page shouldn't have been tagged so quickly. Walker Lukens has been nominated for awards and is well known with sufficient coverage. Just notifying you Zazzysa (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Zazzysa. You are welcome to improve the article to the point where it meets our minimum standards, which includes a credible claim of significance and reliable sources to support content on biographies of living persons. However, my tagging was done some 20 minutes after the article was created, and it has been at this point an hour, so I'm not sure the time frame makes a practical difference at any rate.

If you cannot improve the article in the short term, then you are welcome to recreate it later in a way that meets these criteria. The appreciable difference between improving the existing one, and creating another, would be basically zero, so there is probably very little harm to the project either way, especially given that author of the current unsourced stub seems to have a fairly obvious conflict of interest. TimothyJosephWood 23:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Pipul TV Logo

Hello Timothy.

Please can you enlighten me further on how I violated copyright provisions with these uploads? I was a bit worried since I created the logos from the scratch up and was rather surprised when you instantly flagged them for deletion. Please help me understand so I do not repeat the same mistakes. What did I do wrong?

Bigbenonline (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Bigbenonline. I may have been mistaken, and if I wasn't, I'd be happy to explain why, but I'm afraid I'll probably need a link to where it is, or where it was. I can sometimes nominate a few dozen things for deletion a day if I'm actively patrolling in areas where deletion is a common outcome. Did you get a notification about the deletion that I'm missing that could indicate what the reason was? TimothyJosephWood 00:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Oops. Nevermind Bigbenonline. It looks like it was on Commons. The reason they were nominated was because they appeared to have been taken from online, with no indication that they were available for free use. While Wikipedia sometimes accepts non-free images, Commons only accepts images that are free to use for anyone for any reason with very few exceptions. You cannot simply copy other's images from elsewhere online, because that is a copyright violation. TimothyJosephWood 00:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I created the images myself. How can I convince you of this please? There is no copyright violation. This is actually the logo of Pipul TV, Nigeria. Maybe I got the commons licensing part wrong. How can I fix this please?

Bigbenonline (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Well Bigbenonline, if you recreated them yourself, they were sufficiently exact replicas of other images online that searches matched them, meaning that they were sufficiently faithful recreations that the copyright of the original creator would still apply. If there is already an article on these topics, I would encourage you to leave a request at WP:FFU and I'll look into it more to see if it can be used according to our non-free content criteria. TimothyJosephWood 00:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:White House Press Secretary

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:White House Press Secretary. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Copyright and images

Hi Tim

I am using wikipedia for the first time and I am following all the guidelines and trying to make things work.

Please assist me as I cannot understand what is stopping my wikipedia from going through.

I have tried around 6 times now to put the same content up

Thanks

--Cold Press (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)--Cold Press (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)--Cold Press (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)--Cold Press (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Cold Press. I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific, since it doesn't look like I've left you any deletion notices either on Wikipedia or on Commons. Maybe you were using an alternate account? TimothyJosephWood 10:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

deletation of sarmad gardezi

why you deleted it its an official article by my team please need help reguarding it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Developerspk (talk • contribs) 10:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Developerspk. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, and is only for subjects that meet our standards for notability, which usually means that they have received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It is not for individuals to post social media profiles to. For that, you should probably look to something like LinkIn instead. TimothyJosephWood 10:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Fabform - About Speedy deletion nomination

Hi Timothyjosephwood,

As per my knowledge I have follow all the guidlines and now i have updated infobox information again. Can you please advise me how to re-write this page and what corrections should be made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramesh-menon (talk • contribs) 19:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Ramesh-menon. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabform as to whether the article is appropriate for inclusion at this time. If you can demonstrate that the company meets our notability standards by showing that it has received sustained in depth coverage in reliable sources, then you should do so there so that others may weigh in. If the company has not yet received such coverage, then it may be too soon for it to have its own article, but you are welcome to recreate it when it does meet those standards. TimothyJosephWood 19:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cold War II

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War II. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Catholic particular churches and liturgical rites

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Catholic particular churches and liturgical rites. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cold War II

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War II. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Just thought you might appreciate that...

Pictured here, one standard Marine MRE

...a google search for "shut the fuck up, carl" (which started as a search for "how about a great big cup of shut the fuck up?", a result from which which I was unwisely considering adding to an ANI thread) leaves me entirely too enamored of Carl. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

It would have been a useful addition to that thread.:) Objective3000 (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Heh. I've spent way too much time around marines over the last little bit. I've got crayon jokes for days. TimothyJosephWood 18:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

There's plenty of reasons to hate on the corps, but giving them grief just for eating? That's harsh, man. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• An Army general and a Marine general were talking one day, and the subject of which branch was braver came up. After a bit of back and forth, they each bet ten dollars that their branch is the bravest. Once they had shaken on it, the Marine general called a Marine private over to him (believe it or not, Marines can talk. A shocker, I know). "Private," the generals said, "I want you to climb the top of the tallest building on base and jump off."

"Sir, yes, sir!" shouted the private and ran off. A few minutes later there came a loud thump. The Marine general smirked at the Army general, thinking there was no way any soldier could be that brave. The Army general shrugged and grabbed a passing private.

"Private, I want you to climb to the top of the tallest building on base and jump off," the Army general said. The private looked at him for a minute, snapped back to attention and replied "Sir, fuck you, sir!"

The Marine general meekly took out a ten and walked away.(TBH, that's probably the only SFW marine joke I know. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

...and for you Marines, Mickey's big hand is on.... Anmccaff (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Wow, I had actually forgotten about that one... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Background section for "Russian..."

Hey TJW, some time ago you proposed a background section for the article, Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. I know the editing environment there is a pain, but I was wondering if you'd consider thinking about what a decent background section might look like. Right now the background section appears second (which is odd), is confusingly written, and doesn't always seem on topic. -Darouet (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Darouet. Unfortunately my original proposal there was met with nearly unanimous opposition, and eventually was expanded as a starting place for Foreign electoral intervention, which is currently somewhere in an awkward place between an article and a list, and unfortunately hasn't seen the kind of attention I was hoping it would get, given how... enthusiastically editors contribute to articles on contemporary politics.

I'd say if enough quality sources could be rounded up, a main article could probably easily be written on the history of US/Russian (USSR) electoral interventions in one another's affairs alone, and probably Template:main from both articles for those who are interested in the nitty gritty background. But I would expect that another similar attempt to substantially change the background section is going to be pretty quickly shot down with the same rationales as before, only perhaps with more vitriol, especially if its coming from the same user. TimothyJosephWood 18:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2020

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2020. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Whataboutism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Whataboutism. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:John Green Turtles All the Way Down Book Cover.png

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

New reply

Belated reply here  JGHowes  ^talk 02:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Political appointments by Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Political appointments by Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rideau Hall

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rideau Hall. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

KNVB logo

You've uploaded File:Netherlands national football team logo 2017.png which is a non-free logo that needs a rationale for every article it is being used in (see also Template:Non-free use rationale logo). – Editør (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done Looks like the IP editor who requested it on FFU took it upon themselves to add it to a half dozen related articles. TimothyJosephWood 12:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Baltimore railroad strike of 1877

Hi TJW, I just posted a handful of comments for the Baltimore railroad strike of 1877 article's FAC. I just wanted to stop by to note how genuinely impressed I am with the amount of work you've put in since I last read the article, and I really hope it gets promoted this go-around. Best! ceranthor 23:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Zapad-2017 exercise

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Zapad-2017 exercise. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:British Somaliland

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:British Somaliland. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

New to this

Hey I was wondering how I could put more on my xydewayz8 article with out it being tagged for deletion. I plan to put more along with a better reason why it should be in wikipedia. However i currently do not have the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudyalexandrio (talk • contribs) 20:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Rudyalexandrio. In order to qualify for a Wikipedia article, subject needs to meet our standards for notability, which usually includes having received sustained in depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If the subject has not yet received this type of attention in relevant publications, then it is probably too soon for them to have their own article. TimothyJosephWood 20:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Standstill agreement (India)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Standstill agreement (India). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your Review... But I need Help...

Hello Timothy,

I am Aurick. You reviewed my article on Cleeng(video broadcasting) recently. Your review said, the article sounded like an advertisement. Since, I am new, I will need more details. Could you please point my mistakes; like the exact point where you felt the content that not meet the standards of Wikipedia?

I will wait for your reply, which will be guidelines for me.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurick Shaffer (talk • contribs) 05:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Aurick Shaffer. Tone is unfortunately one of the more difficult parts of the encyclopedia to explain, since it is one of the most subjective. But some examples of wording that's not totally appropriate:

several leading partnerships - "Leading partnerships" doesn't actually mean anything concrete.

With 15 years of experience... - Other than being very "look how cool this guy is" in tone, this bit is just off topic, since the topic of the article is supposed to be the company, and not individual people connected with the company.

Beside that, the entire overview section is basically the kind of thing you would expect to see in a product catalog, is totally unsourced, and is again more about a topic related to the subject, and not the subject itself, which is ostensibly the company.

Hopefully this helps some. Overall, encyclopedia articles are supposed to be written more-or-less like a "neutral editorial robot", that provides just the facts without colorful language or anything that could really be construed as overt praise. If you have any follow up questions feel free to ask here. TimothyJosephWood 12:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

15:18:18, 22 August 2017 review of submission by Population datasheet

• Population datasheet (talk · contribs)
  • User:Population datasheet/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

TJW: My error. I should have added a Creative Commons license. The information PRB produces is freely available to all and is frequently used by educators in particular. If we add a creative commons license, would the article be permitted? Thanks for your time.

Hey Population datasheet. Unfortunately, being "freely available" per se is not quite the same as being released for public use under a Creative Commons license. Only the original author/owner of the content may consent to license it in this way, and for verification on our part, that license needs to be available at the source. Currently, the sources includes a copyright "all rights reserved" notice, which is not compatible with a CC license. TimothyJosephWood 15:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Well. I suppose the nature of information on the internet requires that origination and attribution be reciprocal. I'm not sure how that works. But in our case since we do "control" the information having produced it in the form published there's a good chance there would be no objection to CC. I'll talk to my colleagues and see if there's a good reason for the current practice. It might be vestigial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Population datasheet (talk • contribs) 15:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

OK. You were right decline submission. An example of Wikipedia upholding standards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Population datasheet (talk • contribs) 15:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Population datasheet. Since you appear to have an outside connection with the subject, you probably want to take some time to review our policies on conflicts of interest. If those who own the copyright to the text would like to license it appropriately so that it can be used by the general public, including Wikipedia, instructions for doing so may be found at WP:CONSENT. TimothyJosephWood 16:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

TJW: Thanks again. Very useful and probably not the first time you've walked down this particular path!Population datasheet —Preceding undated comment added 13:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Editathon Meetup Page

Hi! I realize that my edit-a-thon meetup page is a meetup page and not an article. How can we make it live? I do not have clear directions on how to do this. Please keep me posted-- RachelWex 16:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey RachelWex. Looking through the guidance at Wikipedia:How to run an edit-a-thon, it looks like most users create a subpage under Wikipedia:Meetup. For an example see Wikipedia:Meetup/Eugene/WikiAPA. So maybe you should create the page at Wikipedia:Meetup/St. Cloud/What is Wikipedia? and point interested folks there. TimothyJosephWood 16:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way to move it from where it is to the new place? If you could give me some instructions on how to do that, so that I do not duplicate my work, that would be great. RachelWex 16:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

RachelWex,  Done See Wikipedia:Meetup/St. Cloud/What is Wikipedia?. TimothyJosephWood 16:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Timothyjosephwood!!! RachelWex 16:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

No worries Rachel. Good luck on your edit-a-thon. Feel free to drop by if you have any questions and I'll do my best to help out. TimothyJosephWood 16:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Madrassa Tuz Zahra

Hi this is not a promotional article. The school was established just after India - Pakistan Separation, then taken over by State (Nationalised) and now Started by grand father some 20 years ago. It was listed in the schools of the sialkot, hence I thought I will edit a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fhtoor (talk • contribs) 19:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Fhtoor. The article currently is almost entirely inappropriately promotional language (e.g., incredibly dedicated head teacher, these people will grow in to fine Muslims and face nothing but success, we also create a sense of community where children can feel safe and learn) and includes no sources to indicate that the subject, (if the article was nearly totally rewritten) would potentially meet our standards for notability. Wikipedia normally only presents plain facts in simple language as it appears in reliable sources. If there is nothing more notable about the school than merely the fact that it exists, then it is probably too soon for it to have its own Wikipedia article, and it will need to wait until it has received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable sources. TimothyJosephWood 19:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Page marked for deletion

Hi Timothy,

You recently marked a page I wrote for the company I am interning at for deletion. I have been given permission by artspace 8 (chicago art gallery) to post information from their Master Price Sheet Artist Biographies 2017 book online. That is the only source I have that can be used. Please message or email me as to how we can solve this dispute. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshArtSpace8 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey AshArtSpace8. First off, since you have an outside connection with subject you are writing about on Wikipedia, you should review our policies on conflicts of interest, and note that these types of relationships are highly discouraged, because it is exceptionally difficult to write about these types of subjects in a way that conforms to our policies on neutrality.

Second, if this single source is the only thing available with which to write an article, then the subject almost certainly does not meet our guidelines for notability, which usually mean they have received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If this is not the case, then it is probably too soon for them to have their own article, and they will need to wait until more people have covered them in reputable sources. TimothyJosephWood 19:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Request on 21:30:20, 22 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by AW at PACA

• AW at PACA (talk · contribs)
  • User:Mark McWatters/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, a page I requested created for J. Mark McWatters has been rejected due to tone and sources used. The page follows the same tone as other federal government leaders who have pages on Wikipedia. Could you please provide me with some assistance on how I can get the page published? Thank you.

AW at PACA (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey AW at PACA. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be more-or-less written from the perspective of a "neutral editorial robot" that doesn't use colorful language and only gives "just the facts". Looking at the lead of the draft, it is full of really vague statement that our neutral robot would kindof disregard as "does not compute" because they don't give very much meaningful information. For example:

more than 30 years How much more? 32? 150? 9000? Why is this important for a busy reader to understand? Lots of people work in their fields for 30 or 40 years and that doesn't have very much to do with whether they deserve their own article.

worked in both federal and state government, the private sector and academia Again, lots of people do this who don't deserve an article. This kind of thing is appropriate for a summary on a resume, but doesn't necessarily have anything to do with an encyclopedia.

significant experience in public policy issues According to whom? As measured by what?

Overall, this kindof fluff makes it seem like the article is trying to make the person seem more important than they might actually be, rather than just presenting the facts and letting them speak for themselves. Hopefully this makes things more clear. If not, feel free to ask any follow up questions you may have. TimothyJosephWood 21:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Joseph Mfaniselwa Nhlapo

Hi Timothy

The above entry is partially in my own word, and the source does allow their entries to be shared as I did also contact them prior. My worry is that entries like this wont see the day light just because they have been published soemwhere. What happens even in cases where the source has given permission to share such?? Thank you 06:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)TwinMosia (talk)

Hey TwinMosia. Unfortunately, there is no way for us as a community to verify claims by users that they have been granted a sort of "informal permission" to use copyrighted content, and for the purposes of Wikipedia, permission per se is not enough, but rather the content needs to be licensed for public use (which is a decidedly legal issue). If the owner of the copyright for the text would like to appropriately license it in this way, they may follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. Otherwise, all content on Wikipedia needs to be written in editors' own words, to avoid issues relating to copyright violations. TimothyJosephWood 12:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Could you please help me with your opinion?

Hello Timothy,

This is Aurick again. Thanks for your yesterday's reply. I have modified the article for Cleeng(Video Broadcasting). This time, I have made sure that all my statements have references- User:Aurick_Shaffer/sandbox

It would be great, if you could go through it, and let me know your thoughts.

AurickAurick Shaffer wants to be a very good Wikipedian (talk) 08:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, well, it does look a good deal better, but this seem to be complicated somewhat by the discussion happening at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cleeng (2nd nomination). I have commented there and I suppose we'll have to wait and see how things go. TimothyJosephWood 12:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for answering my questions so quickly and giving the example as well! GrammerCracker96 (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, no worries. Feel free to stop by if I can be of any help. TimothyJosephWood 17:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your note about the article I started on Wounded No More today, I do think it is an important/significant organization, and I didn't think someone would immediately nominate it for deletion right after it was created. I am sure people create stuff out here all the time that warrants being deleted (which may also turn out to be true in this case), but it also seems a little presumptious to flag and delete something without giving someone a little bit of time to work on it. I assumed it was normal to take a few days to develop an article so that it meets necesarry criteria, as opposed to having it perfectly meet required criteria at it's point of creation; perhaps I was wrong in my assumption. Thanks again for policing Wikipedia articles. Doctor^G  (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey DoctorG. As I indicated on the article talk, making a credible claim of significance is an exceedingly low standard, and for the purposes of our speedy deletion criteria, must be neither true nor supported by a reliable source, (although this would not prevent the article from being nominated at Articles for Deletion).

In the meantime, I have taken the liberty of moving the article to Draft:Wounded No More, where you can continue to work on it without the risk of immediate deletion, although if no work is done after a period of six months, it is liable to be deleted as an abandoned draft. I have also added the banner for our Articles for Creation project and when you think you are ready, you may submit the draft for review by a volunteer prior to publishing.

Is this the normal fashion for creating new articles, to mark it as draft? Doctor^G  (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, I already found the answer. Doctor^G  (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

If you have followup questions, feel free to ask here, and I'll be happy to help as best I can, or you may ask at The Teahouse where there are always folks around happy to try to explain things. TimothyJosephWood 19:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Also DG, you probably want to amend your signature to link to User:Doctorg rather than User:DoctorG, since the capitalization difference actually leads to a different user page all together, and not to your own user page as intended. TimothyJosephWood 19:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for that tip. Doctor^G  (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

EG: Is it normal? Depends on what the article is and how quickly it can be made into something that is stand-alone without the risk of deletion. So, in the case of Stitzel Weller Distillery, I started the article in basically one edit, without it ever being a draft, but I did so with a total of eight references, and within about a day expanded that to 19 references. On the other hand, it took me almost two full days to get Foreign electoral intervention to the point where I felt comfortable publishing it, since it was a much more difficult subject. TimothyJosephWood 19:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

You're a liar and a disgrace

You knowingly removed the founders of Peak and Spartan...both Andy Weinberg and Julian Kopald. That is disgraceful... You are a promoter of lies and have removed references and engaged in defamation. People like you who lie and promote lies are the lowest form of human scum.

Hello anon. The problem isn't the content you want to add, it's with the sources you want to use to support it. I don't know the first thing about Spartan or the people you have repeatedly referenced, but I do know a thing or two about whether sources meet our standards for reliability, and the one's you're trying to use don't.

Making personal attacks and spamming talk pages isn't going to get you anywhere. More dedicated and inventive people than you have tried that route. Either you find better sources, or you may as well move on. After all, Wikipedia has shut out entire multi-thousand-person-organizations before; ignoring one disruptive person isn't going to break the bank. TimothyJosephWood 20:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Donald Trump series

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Donald Trump series. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Teahouse reference post

I got a great kick out of seeing the reference you used as an example for the cite just now! I realized seeing that I haven't heard that song is maybe ten years (but I can sing it word-for-word).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Glad you like it. Been using that for about a year now. I've got two versions of it saved on my userpage under FAQ in case you find it useful. It's a heckuva lot better than trying to manage all that formatting every time the question is asked. TimothyJosephWood 12:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I just listened to it on YouTube:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Network Homes page

Hi, I've just updated the content on the Network Homes page providing factual information about this company and you've marked it as speedy deletion. All of the information is from their website and i haven't made anything up. Please can you explain why you have marked it as speedy deletion. It's not promoting the company it's just providing information about it on an empty page. I've deleted some of the content as maybe i put to much information there but as said it's all factual and just provides a bit of information about Network Homes. Thanks Peakess2017 (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Peakess2017. The article was, and still is overtly promotional in tone, to the point where it would have to be basically entirely rewritten to conform to our policies on neutrality. Now that you've mentioned it, yes, it does also appear that it has been copied directly from the company's website, and so I have also marked it for deletion as being an obvious copyright violation. Content on Wikipedia needs to be the original work of contributors since nearly everything available online is covered under copyright, making the rehosting of it here an infringement on intellectual property rights. TimothyJosephWood 15:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Timothyjosephwood. Can i write the following without it violating something? "Network Homes is a housing association with homes in London, Hertfordshire and the South East. Network Home is part of G15 (Housing Associations).

Peakess2017, if you are concerned about your ability to write a neutrally worded article on the subject, you should consider submitting a draft through our Articles for Creation project where it can be reviewed by a volunteer prior to publishing. You may also want to check out our tutorial on writing your first article or consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. Finally, if you have an outside connection with the subject, you should carefully review our policies on conflicts of interest prior to doing anything, since this type of editing is strongly discouraged, and can result in some unintended negative consequences if not done correctly. TimothyJosephWood 15:43, 24 August 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 16,991 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.

Technology update:

• Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
• Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Good father

You dinged an article apparently written by its subject. If you check the user's talk history, you will see plenty of related and similar rejections, all of which the user deleted almost immediately after they were posted. Rhadow (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Rhadow, it's very likely. I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific. My contribution history is just a mess. TimothyJosephWood 18:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Frdosscap. Rhadow (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I only came here because Catholic clerics tend to be an area I deal with frequently on Wikipedia (and I actually know a thing or two about the Capuchins and South Asia). Only commenting though because of the caption here. Cary on, friends. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I... She looks differently than I remember.

There's also apparently Fr.Doss,Cap, which was BLPPROD, but is now A7. As to the draft, not much we can really do about it. A7 has an A for a reason. I suppose they'll eventually give up. And they've at least attempted to do things where they are not the subject, so we can't totally say they're not here, at least maybe not yet. TimothyJosephWood 19:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

That's too bad. I've offered the reverend father some advice. Our historical Catholcism articles need so much cleanup, so hopefully he takes me up on the offer... TonyBallioni (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Woot, and including, but not limited to, Woot

Hey buddy! I heard from a lil birdie, okay more like a flock, that you're joining us in IRC! Well I couldn't be happier since you've been doing awesome things. Anywho, hit me up in there, or here, if you got any questions. I tend to reside in both, to what my doctor has labeled, troubling amounts. Anywho, see ya soon! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 18:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, well. I've been trying to branch out. I'll keep you in mind when I inevitably screw something up. TimothyJosephWood 19:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

FYI

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

---

Per WP:NACD: "Closures may only be reopened by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning, or by consensus at deletion review." This is in the context of deletion discussions, technically, but in practice it's been applied to all closes. See also WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. This is mostly just a matter of practicality. Did you make the right call here? Sure, but some new guy convinced that any close against his viewpoint is invalid is equally sure he's in the right. Best to stick with formal review or review by an uninvolved admin. It's usually quick. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13 Having at this point written about half of WP:NAC, I am fully aware of the technicalities. It wasn't quite an IAR, since the "rules" don't actually forbid it. But, it wasn't just the "right call", but was unambiguously so, and not simply a difference of opinion. I stand by it, and I'd do it again. That the rules aren't explicitly clear is a problem with the rules, and not with the users, and if they had been written more clearly, I would have still ignored them in this particular case, because that's what the rules governing the rules instruct us to do.

The community mandate given by the mop is one to, in many cases, make potentially controversial decisions with potentially lasting consequences, not to make uncontroversial decisions that any experienced user would agree with simply by virtue of the fact that they have the mandate. TimothyJosephWood 01:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The edit-warring that resulted is the cost of the correct but impractical action, though. Whether or not an action is correct is rather immaterial. Sometimes, the path of least resistance should be followed merely because the extra resistance would outweigh the good of getting the close reversed two hours sooner. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The close itself isn't all that needed to be accomplished. There was an implicit lack of respect for the community in both their talk page and the AN thread. The authority lies with the community, and is endorsed in, but not transferred to sysops. The sooner they learn that the better, especially given their apparent ambition. TimothyJosephWood 02:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

How laughably WP:POINTy of you. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 12:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Your level of prior involvement aside, when someone first took issue with your early closure you had two options:

1. Quietly reopen it, since your original assessment that interest had entirely died away was apparently incorrect, or
2. Fight tooth and nail to keep it closed at all cost

The former had at least some possibility of materially improving the encyclopedia, in the case discussion did reignite and somehow reached some appreciable consensus. If not, a fully discussed no-consensus is still better than an early and improperly assessed one, since it at least sets some precedent that the topic probably shouldn't be soon revisited unless there is some new angle to approach it from.

The latter simply makes you right.

More so, as you managed to demonstrate in each successive discussion that your primary concern was in fact being right, you succeeded only in wasting more time from successively more editors. I have no patience for that, I do not intend to at any point in the foreseeable future, and anyone who does should be censured for it.

It's good that you are being bold, and trying to participate in comparatively advanced community processes. Most editors, myself included, are willing to help you do that in any way we can, but this isn't a debate club, we aren't here to "win", and if you ever find yourself in a position where you are, you are wrong, and you need to fix yourself, or someone else will probably come along and do it for you. TimothyJosephWood 13:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I took the third option you so conveniently failed to mention, which is, direct the person who opposes it to the correct venue to protest it so that it can be reversed by an administrator if they feel it necessary and for others to state their opinion. I did not do it so that drama vultures could sweep in, edit war, and disrupt the process entirely. Perhaps you should have familiarized yourself with what had gone on prior to your unneeded and disruptive arrival. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Let me help you: [1] [2] [3] [4]. That looks like me wanting to be right, right? — nihlus kryik  (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what it looks like. TimothyJosephWood 14:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

That was a polite way of me saying WP:MYOB. Clear? — nihlus kryik  (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes well, I seem to have made it my business, haven't I? That sort of thing tends to happen when you refuse to reach any local consensus with other editors, and obstinately demand that they take the issue to a public form. The "public" has a tendency to get involved.

Now do you have anything of any substance to add, other than posting diffs where you yourself egregiously violate policy? Or do you intend to continue your temper tantrum until I start point to them out to you? TimothyJosephWood 14:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The only one who violated policy was you and your edit warring over a close. You are not an administrator, stop trying to act like one. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Please comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn

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

aram gesar article not ready to be published

moved it to sandbox to edit and prepare, published too soon, sorry, it needs a lot of work, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmgeditor (talk • contribs) 14:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes Pmgeditor, it does need a lot of work. Specifically, it needs work from editors who are not here with the objective of publicizing a company and the people connected to it. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion, and while anyone is welcome to constructively contribute to the encyclopedia, using it as a means of promotion is not allowed, and doing so, especially repeatedly, may lead to a number of negative consequences, including having accounts and IP addresses connected to the organization blocked from editing, and articles related to the organization prevented from recreation in the future. TimothyJosephWood 14:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

William Cubbon

Thanks for your input regarding my article on William Cubbon. Cannot see what additional sources you refer to, I would say the article is well structured with the right balance of verifiable sources. Would be happy if you could elaborate on what additional sources you consider required.

Regards, Harvey Milligan (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2017. (UTC)

Hey Harvey Milligan. Well, right now the entire article is only based on three sources, one of which is an obituary, and obituaries are normally considered routine coverage that doesn't contribute to notability. Sometimes historical figures kindof have to get weighted for the fact that they lived pre-internet, but two sources isn't a very solid foundation for an article. Looks like there's a few mentions in records here. Seems one of his books got republished in 2009 here, and there's at least honorable mention here. So I'd probably recommend poking around on Google Books for a while and see what else you can find. Otherwise, if you want to get super into it, local historical societies are usually a good resource if you can find a friendly contact. TimothyJosephWood 17:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of FICO World Page

20:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Regarding the speedy deletion of the FICO World Page. FICO World is a bi-annual global conference that takes place. We are trying to help folks understand what the conference is about. There is no promotional aspect about it. Its purely to help drive awareness like the Oracle Open World conference page you have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaheenfernandes (talk • contribs)

Its purely to help drive awareness. That is literally the definition of promotion. TimothyJosephWood 20:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Shaheenfernandes -- It is a cut-n-paste copyright violation. It has no references. It's not encyclopedia material. Rhadow (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Google's Ideological Echo Chamber

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Google's Ideological Echo Chamber. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Your teahouse reply

Thank you very much for the explanation. I'll get with him & we'll add additional information vs a display gallery. Mikeofv (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Article Tagged for Swift Deletion

Hello, thanks for reviewing my post about NinjaTrader. Per your suggestion I did not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page. Nor, did I contest the deletion. Rather I’d like to communicate with you via your talk page to understand specifically how this article violates criteria G11 & G12, and how the article can be potentially massaged to gain your approval. Thanks – WikiJergen (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC) 8/29/2017

Well WikiJergen. I don't know what the article contained, since it has been deleted, but since it was deleted according to WP:G12. That means it was almost certainly copied and pasted from another online source. Content on Wikipedia has to be written in the original words of the editors, because copying and pasting content from elsewhere online constitutes a copyright violation.

Incidentally, if you have an outside connection with the subject, you should review our policies on conflicts of interest, since not complying with those standards can result in a number of unwanted attention. TimothyJosephWood 21:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hello WikiJergen, the easy part is criterion G12: At least parts of the content were copy-pasted from elsewhere, partly the NinjaTrader website or their help guide, in violation of copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously; infringing content is deleted on sight.

The other issue, G11, concerns the tone of what you wrote, and the fact that the only source for most of the content was NinjaTrader itself. Take this example: "NinjaTrader provides a state of the art internal simulation engine that can be used to test trading ideas and hone your trading skills." That's suitable for an advertisement, not for an encyclopedia. "State of the art" sounds nice but ultimately means nothing. An encyclopedia should never adress the readers. And if there's praise, it should be attributed to an independent authority ("John Doe, reviewing NinjaTrader in The Economist, called the simulation engine ..."). That was just one small sample; the rest of the draft had the same issues. A complete rewriting that neutrally summarizes what independent reliable sources have reported about the company would have been necessary. Huon (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European Union

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European Union. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Clinical method

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_method This page creation is a translation from : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Méthode_clinique — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeclect (talk • contribs) 17:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC) --Epeclect (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

...Epeclect... Whatever "it is" right now is barely, if at all intelligible apparent psychobabble. TimothyJosephWood 17:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It is a professional view and a start. Is psychology forbidden here ? --Epeclect (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Epeclect... I have an academic background in social science myself, and what that is currently is unintelligible psycho babble that says literally nothing, and without the link to the French article, is basically insufficient to identify the subject of the article. TimothyJosephWood 18:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Surprise Asteroid

Good afternoon, I understand you have tagged the article "Surprise Asteroid" for deletion. The entry is valid because this is a creative entity that has been in existence for over 8 years, and has professionally published work available worldwide (Asia, United States, Europe). Had this been a new entity, completely unknown, and with very little history, I would agree and advocate for its deletion. In this case, however, you may take the time to verify it's legitmacy via records in both news print and digital outlets. Feel free to respond with any questions or inquiries. Greigner (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Greigner, if you would like to request that the article be restored, and perhaps moved to a draft so that you may continue to work on it without the risk of immediate deletion, you may do so at WP:REFUND. I would also highly entourage you to read over our tutorial on writing your first article, or consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. TimothyJosephWood 17:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

submission declined

Hello i saw that my page submission was declined due to insufficient page citations. Was that the only reason it was declined or is there something else i culd add to better help my chances of it being approved in the future

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klbsolution (talk • contribs) 17:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Well Klbsolution. Aside from being almost entirely unsourced, it is far and away too detailed, and gets somewhere into the area of a medium sized novella on the subject, and not an encyclopedia article. TimothyJosephWood 18:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Wiki page manager

Hello,

I was wondering if you could help me/ point me in the right direction.

I work for a dating App and we are looking for someone to keep our page updated and was wondering if you would be interested in helping?

If this sounds like something you would be interested in then please let me know and we can discuss further over email.

All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessfoxox (talk • contribs) 09:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Jessfoxox. Although paid editing is technically allowed given certain conditions, it is pretty universally discouraged, and in many ways, betrays a fundamental level of trust within the community. There are certainly some experienced editors out there who would be willing to accept such a request, but I'm afraid I'm not one of them, and don't really know off hand who would likely be. TimothyJosephWood 11:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Cyber bullying

why did you blank john Riddell Cyber bullying. All the references are valid and it's a serious issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.58.5.223 (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2017‎

Hello anon. All content that concerns living and recently deceased persons needs to be attributed to a reliable source. The "references" that you included appeared to be simply the names of local publications, and not actually references at all, in any way that would allow someone (even with access to local publications) the ability to verify any of the information that was in the article. TimothyJosephWood 20:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Nominating Venture Platform

Hi, you recently nominated Ventures Platform for speedy Deletion. It's not a duplicated article. Kindly recheck. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Laru0004 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Laru0004. I see you were using a previous article as a template to work from. However, the article still qualifies for deletion for two reasons: first, it is pretty unambiguously promotional, and second, it appears to be copied and pasted from multiple sources online, which is a copyright violation. If you have an external relationship with the subject, you are strongly encouraged to carefully review our policies on conflicts of interest, and take care to abide by it, since this type of editing is strongly discouraged, and may result in sanctions if those policies are not adhered to. TimothyJosephWood 19:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:Timothyjosephwood, the article is not promoting any organisation. I only ensured that all sentences were properly cited and linked where necessary. I have no affiliation with the organization. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Laru0004 (talk • contribs)

I... don't mean to question your honesty, but most of the time we see articles like that one, it's from people who have some type outside connection. Regardless, you cannot copy and paste content from elsewhere online. That's not Wikipedia being snobby; it's because it's basically illegal, since it is a violation of copyright. TimothyJosephWood 19:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Re: LAYTONGKU adding photos.

I received your message concerning the addition of photos on an article I created: LAYTONGKU on Wikipedia. I am new at creating articles and only did so on this since I felt it very important for the preservation of a sect of animist Karen living and striving for survival in their ancestral lands. Any photos that I might add to my article are of my own since I have taken many photos in order to preserve the village and villagers. There is only one that I might add that was recently published in the Bangkok Post, however, I can eliminate this one although it is of a nature that is universally acceptable and I don't think copyrighted since it was published to the public. You may have noticed that most of my three days labour to record the article based on free information that is circulating around the globe was deleted with Wikipedia claiming it infringed on copyrights. Fortunately my main writing and the basic article has been preserved for me to consider how to proceed. Photos may or may not be important to add, however, I cannot find anything to click on to add photos on the edit source page. I cannot understand why Wikipedia makes it so difficult to manage and/or organize an article and then delete most of it based on copyright issues, source issues, cite issues, category issues without specific instructions to add or submit by simply stating and/or adding divisions for acting on such. In any event I hope to preserve my article: LAYTONGKU even if it is a simple article. Unfortunately I do not understand the language Wikipedia uses to direct how to deal with such issues. I very much like Wikipedia and search its many articles before I do any other on the Internet but I am very disappointed that the process is so complicated it discourages contributions such as my own. Thank you for your answer to my question. I tried to contact another who answered but it was a futile experience since his 'talk' page didn't have any way to answer. Yours, PalukiwaPalukiwa (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Palukiwa. It took me a little bit to figure out exactly what was going on here. As a general rule, virtually everything that is available elsewhere online is not suitable to post on Wikipedia for copyright reasons. Most often this also extends to things you yourself may have produced in the case that you have published them previously through an organization like the a newspaper, since the newspaper most often becomes a party to the copyright, since they're the ones who published it.

However, if you have taken unpublished images, then you can upload them to Wikimedia Commons at https://commons.wikimedia.org, by clicking the blue upload button and agreeing to release those images for unrestricted public use. You can then add them to an article by inserting [[File:IMAGENAME|thumb|CAPTION]]. Replace IMAGENAME with the file name, and replace CAPTION with a description of the image.

Copyright can be really complicated sometimes, and you're right that Wikipedia doesn't often do a very accessible job of explaining that clearly. Unfortunately, content that does pose copyright issues has to be removed out of necessity, since it poses potential legal risks to the Wikimedia Foundation. Hopefully this helps clarify things. Feel free to ask any follow up questions you might have and I'll try my best to help. TimothyJosephWood 14:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dismissal of James Comey

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dismissal of James Comey. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Reshoring Institute

Hi Timothyjosephwood,

I posted a topic about the Reshoring Institute and it was marked for speedy deletion based on being promotional. Would it be possible to get some help in rewriting the page in a non-promotional way? Or, would it be possible to provide further details on which areas of the content are considered promotional - or recommendations on how to change it? I would like for this organization to be added before any additional changes are made to NAFTA and other trade agreements but am having a difficult time determining how to improve it.

Thank you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan Reed (talk • contribs) 14:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Ivan. Unfortunately, right now the article reads very much like what one might expect from an official company website, and not from an encyclopedia article. So much so that I was very surprised to find it apparently had not been copied and pasted from elsewhere online. An encyclopedia should describe a subject as objectively and neutrally as possible, according to the types descriptions that may be found in published independent reliable sources, not on things like the official company website, or in official press releases. So, your first step is probably to see what kinds of high quality sources are available. If they are out there, then they should be used as the basis for a Wikipedia article. If they are not out there, then it is likely the subject does not yet meet our notability standards for organizations.

If you would like a second go at it, it may be advisable to start working on it at Draft:Reshoring Institute, where it will not be at risk of immediate deletion for reasons related to being unfinished. You may also want to review our tutorial on writing your first article, or consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. Hope this helps clear things up a bit. Sorry if your first introduction to editing has been frustrating. It gets very quickly less frustrating as you learn a few of the basic rules the encyclopedia works off of. TimothyJosephWood 14:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood - I have given it another go as a draft as recommended. Can you please take a look and let me know if this is the appropriate direction for the rewrite? Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan Reed (talk • contribs) 15:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Ivan Reed: I've done a touch of cleanup, and added a banner for our Articles for Creation project, where you can submit your draft for review from our team of volunteer for feedback, and publishing when it's ready. It does look however that a lot of the current sources may have to do with things kindof related to the subject, but not necessarily in depth coverage of the subject itself. I'd would probably look for some better sources before submitting, and consider reading over our guidance on reliability in sources. TimothyJosephWood 16:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

ok great, so I can look for more sources and wait in the meantime for others to help contribute to the subject matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan Reed (talk • contribs) 16:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Ivan, try to remember to sign your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end. That way folks won't end up getting confused as to who is saying what to whom.

I would definitely look for some better sources, like I said. And you're looking for independently published sources that are directly about subject of the article. So if I was writing about a company that made rubber, I wouldn't want a source that was about rubber generally, but not about my company specifically, who just happens to make rubber.

As to AfC, reviewers are generally there to offer feedback and make sure an article gets up to a point where it is unlikely to be deleted once it's published. Some are more hand on than others, but most don't actually write the article on their own. Mostly the onus is on the person submitting it to take the advice and try to use it to improve their submissions. TimothyJosephWood 17:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Appreciation

Just dropping by to say that I was quite moved by your comments at Robert's talk page. So, thank you. Alex Shih^Talk 15:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

(Yeah. Might want to make a mental note of the context there, for when it eventually gets quoted back to me in an ANI thread.)

I do see he hasn't really come back yet. We should add a panic button in preferences, where a few editors can show up at your door with a six pack of beer, a few good cigars, nice big stack of books and a fresh new stub. This seems like it would be a good time for that right about now. TimothyJosephWood 15:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Haha, is that a cynical reference? I do agree with the panic button, since wherever Robert is I feel like that is exactly what I want to do, especially since I feel partially responsible. Alex Shih^Talk 16:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I feel partially responsible too. I brought up RfA on his talk page in December, and I think that may have had a good bit to do with helping set things in motion. I've also had his talkpage watchlisted for what seems like a thousand years, and I wish I wouldn've caught the thread beforehand, and maybe pinged a few editors with the sharpest pitchforks to weigh in before he took the plunge. TimothyJosephWood 16:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Baltimore RR Strike of 1877

Hello Timothy, I know you've been striving diligently to get it to FA, so here's a very relevant article from yesterday's Wash. Post. Hope this is useful.  JGHowes  ^talk 03:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Well JGHowes, that is quite interesting indeed, and I do wonder where he is getting his numbers from. Probably one of the first times I've read something similar and thought "that guy definitely did not read the Wikipedia articles on this". He puts the size of the crowd in Chicago at three times the size of contemporaneous sources, and seems to err on the upper estimation of dead pretty uncritically. I definitely have the presence of two gatlings in Pittsburgh, but this is the first I've seen on whether or not they were actually used.

I guess you can't do much but take WaPo at their word, at least in concert with the other sources, but I do wonder intensely who Kunkle is himself reading. I'm very tempted to fire up the old email. TimothyJosephWood 12:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hah. I know one thing. I be up in your news article stealin' your public domain images. TimothyJosephWood 13:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Mostly for an TPS that have worked on these, seems this Dray fellow is Phillip Dray, and it appears Dray is probably the actual source for near all of the WaPo article. TimothyJosephWood 14:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for the warm welcome and uploading the logo file I had submitted. Psbhd (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

No problem, Psbhd. Welcome!. TimothyJosephWood 16:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Music

I think you'll find that iTunes is not a reliable source for notability. For anyone who is not signed to a proper label it's self published work . Anyone can upload something for sale. Best check with the RS noticeboard. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, wasn't totally sure about that one. Gladly someone quickly took me up on my offer to be corrected. Sometimes it takes two or three hosts, but we usually end up with something resembling good advice.

Of course I'll take this chance meeting as an indication you've been feeling convicted and are considering hanging out at the teahouse. Of course we'd love to have you if you feel yourself getting bored. More the merrier. TimothyJosephWood 20:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Bawlermore Strike

Are you really sure about that there there? Looked better in the version back, although this slightly archaicized diction does fit in with some of the 19th century quotes. Anmccaff (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Well... I think "to there" forms a prepositional phrase, right? I know it's somewhat more archaic, but I think it's technically correct. Maybe I'm wrong. TimothyJosephWood 14:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, one of those rules that goes back to Latin grammar; I think it doesn't work well here, unless you are trying to keep the whole piece in the style and diction of the (over-)quoted matter from old sources. (That last part is Wiki's failing, of course, not yours.) Anmccaff (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Incidentally, it would not at all surprise me if someone started an English Wikipedia entirely written in like... Victorian English. After all, Old English Wikipedia is a thing that exists. It was even nominated for deletion once and was pretty resoundingly kept. TimothyJosephWood 15:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Speakers of OE are a ...determined?... bunch; I know directly: my father was one. Anmccaff (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

What about just removing "there"? If one is marching towards a train station and intending to board a train, "there" would seem to be implied. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

RT you are... apparently way better at brain-ing than both of us. TimothyJosephWood 00:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk Page

Do not leave messages on my talk page. Also, do not intrude on my discussions when they have absolutely nothing to do with you. I have no time for your peanut gallery comments that only stir up further drama. Feel free to revert this once you get the message. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm good. I normally don't revert comment's on my talk page, no matter how vitriolic, unless it's clear that sends a message more valuable than responding. Note please very carefully that the peanut gallery stirring up drama seems to be yourself in this instance, aggressively seeking a block for someone in a dispute you were not involved in because someone notified you repeatedly on your talk page. I see you entirely too much on my watchlist on drama boards, and you are basically non-existent on articles, and I have about 5,000 pages on my watchlist currently. So that seems a bit out of place. Please fix that. TimothyJosephWood 01:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. First of all, I edited Lakewood Church on September 1, before anyone mentioned anything on my talk page, so I was very much a part of the dispute. Had you not interjected yourself unnecessarily, you might have known that. Secondly, please read WP:CHOICE/WP:VOLUNTEER. I have substantial edits dealing with vandalism and don't need recommendations or guidance on what I should be as an editor. Suggesting otherwise is rather presumptuous, no? Or is this where I remind you that you are not an administrator and you should learn when to hold your tongue as you are in no position to tell someone to "fix" what they edit (i.e. "Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians"). The gall. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 02:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh Christ. That's not contributing anything but the undo button. And I seriously doubt whether you've ever stacked up your four best books and smashed them against someone else's and really figured out in minute detail which one was actually right. If you haven't, don't presume to judge people who have. Because that shit right there is hard. It takes hours of time that doesn't contribute to your precious edit count and no one ever sees it in anything other than the arguments you make making sense. If you wan't to gnome then gnome on and fix things as you see fit, but if you wan't to put yourself in situations where context matters, then you need to read more than the policy, because the policy is meant for people who have lived the arguments behind it. Get the fuck off my talk page and go build a fucking encyclopedia, and I don't want to see you back here until you do. TimothyJosephWood 02:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

LOL. Now that's not nice. Not once did I mention edit count, so keep stirring the pot like you love to do. (The least you could do is admit you're wrong.) — nihlus kryik  (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, you know, at the end of the day an admin seemed to agree with me, and I know how important you think that is. I'm pretty sure it basically makes me immortal. But no, I don't take very kindly to you trying to get someone blocked on a technicality, who I was working with constructively years before you decided to show up and mete out "justice".

So if you don't mind, a lot of new editors come to this page, and you seem to be giving me feels that I can only express using four letter words. That's probably not "good for business". TimothyJosephWood 10:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Nihlus Kryik, for what it's worth, I've been seeing your name pop up in a stupidly large number of places, and it is invariably you complaining about someone or picking a fight. I am an admin, and while there are plenty of vitriolic characters on Wikipedia that I ignore, when I start seeing the same name over and over it starts making me think that something should be done. This isn't a warning, just a note that you're currently on a well-travelled road previously occupied by now-blocked users. Primefac (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

@Primefac: Large number of places equals two 3RR reports and a report about Hillbillyholiday that got approved by the community? Save your manufactured drama for someone else. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Never said you were starting the posts, though I'd definitely add this thread to your list. Clearly you have no interest in listening to anyone but yourself, so for the sake of TJW's talk page I think it best we consider this discussion concluded. Primefac (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Some positivity

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

---

Hey TJW, I had a good laugh at this edit summary. By the way, do you do GA reviews? I've been thinking about bringing some articles to GA, but WP:PR seems to be terribly inactive (probably since the beginning of time). Alex Shih^Talk 02:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Uggghh... You are a terrible person. </sarcasm> I have been roped into doing some unfortunately good faith FA reviews and I was really only there for the learning opportunity. Honestly, I've really been a new editor oriented person, and I... don't know if I have enough attention for both ends. I'd be happy to look at it, if you'd like to link. I've definitely learned a lot through my GA/FA/DYK adventure. TimothyJosephWood 03:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I laughed more at this one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't judge me. It's hard to edit, cook dinner, and keep a toddler from killing themselves at the same time. Why are toddlers so intently suicidal anyway? TimothyJosephWood 03:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Because they hate you and feed off of your misery and stress. Look at the bright side; in a few years you can do it again, only this time with a big brother/sister egging them on and inspiring new, more inventive methods of suicide. Hope you've got good health insurance! (I, quite literally got home from work today and walked in to my older son screaming at his brother "Come at me, ya poop-faced tornado!" Which immediately inspired frantic spinning around the living room in my younger son and a request for some poop to put on his face. I declined.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm not ignoring your ping, I just don't have time right now to figure out a conversation that happened two weeks ago. TimothyJosephWood 03:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Why are all these folks poking through my edit history anyway? Alex, was that you outside my house the other day hiding in the bushes? I could've sworn it was a deer. And how did you even find my house? I'm basically in the middle of a national forest. Is this the gum-ment? TimothyJosephWood 10:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me. I got hypnotized by Mr Fuzzybottom and ended up posting your entire contribution history onto the dark web. The rest is a blur, but I seem to recall something about heads rolling and blood on the walls... Primefac (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

You're playing a dangerous game there buddy. Mr Fuzzybottom may or may not have had a thing or two to do with the Great Chicago Fire. Just a note that you're currently on a well-travelled road previously occupied by... well... mostly just ashes and suffering. TimothyJosephWood 12:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Burn. -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 12:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh Christ. Get off my lawn all you busy bodies. How am I supposed to get anything done when that stupid bar at the top is always flashing orange when I open a new page? TimothyJosephWood 12:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

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

• Ok, seriously though. Is the lead image on Great Chicago Fire just completely not loading for anybody else? TimothyJosephWood 13:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, I figured it out. I still haven't learned how to computer. TimothyJosephWood 13:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I am so confused. I better have a drink to catch up. Alex Shih^Talk 14:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I advise caution. People seem especially bored today. Bored admins are dangerous. After all, that's how we got in the neighborhood of a GA class article for Toilet paper orientation. TimothyJosephWood 14:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Aaand TWA is apparently useless...

https://mako.cc/academic/narayan_etal-the_wikipedia_adventure-cscw2017.pdf TimothyJosephWood 18:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Assessing (A Very High Amount of) Articles for Deletion

Hi!

Sorry if I'm bothering but I've stumbled across a series of articles that might be considered for deletion. Firstly, I've considered to put them up for deletion myself, but upon realizing the sheer number of them, and considering that I'm pretty inexperienced in Wikipedia, I thought about reaching out to a senior editor that could give their fair assessment, and I noticed that you seemed particularly active.

These dozens of articles on tiny unremarkable Iranian villages in many cases with less than 50 inhabitants each were all created by the same individual and have not suffered any changes at all since their creation in February 2014.

Examples of such articles: Baliu, Zirgar, Zaval, Gol Gerd, Cheshmeh Chahi, Cheshmeh Chai-ye Olya, Naseh, Karezan Rural District, Perin, Naseh-ye Mur-e Gham, Naseh Anjireh, Naripat, Par Eshkaf, Par Eshkaft, Kal Ghur, Qarah Chaman Rural District, Sar-e Sal, Lapui, Kharagan, you get my drift. Dozen of pages with the same two lines and two sources that make it look like an exhaustive directory for Iranian geography.

It seems to me that none of these articles meet any notability guides for geographical places but I'm admittedly not equipped to deal with this issue.

Thank you for your consideration, I hope you have a nice evening. RetiredDuke (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey RetiredDuke. Unfortunately, there's no real simple answer here, since the only right answer I can give you is very heavy with nuance. In principle, WP:GNG (which is our overarching guiding principle when it comes to notability) rules all else, and ultimately determines whether something should be kept or deleted. But there are also broad trends in how the community feels GNG should be interpreted and applied. Populated places are one of those grey areas, and are generally kept regardless of their size when taken to AfD. In a nutshell, they're not really hurting anything and they have a pretty obvious encyclopedic relevance, so we tend to keep them around. So even if they would be deleted, it's not clear they totally should be, and even if they should be, it's probably not worth the trouble. A lot of the time, someone who is actually from that particular place will eventually come along with sources from a local historical society or something similar, and improve the article in ways others can't.

Looking at your editing history, and seeing something like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael_Hamilton (economist), I think you may be well advised to slow down a touch, and read through our guidance at WP:BEFORE, because AfD usually doesn't decide whether an article is "good enough to keep", it usually decides whether a subject is "notable enough to have an article". And as a nominator, it's your responsibility to determine whether a hypothetical perfect editor, given all the sources available, could at all potentially write an acceptable article on the subject. That's not just sources online, but every source that exists in the universe. If you're not pretty confident about it, it's usually best to leave it be, and it will eventually get improved, or someone who might have more confidence, or better access to certain sources will eventually assess it themselves, and make probably a stronger argument than you or I could make. TimothyJosephWood 23:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi again, Timothyjosephwood. Thank you for giving me the time of day when you had no obligation to do so. That was ultimately the answer I was looking for and I understand now that the process is far more nuanced than I had previously realized. Duly noted. Though I must say that those villages struck me as odd not because of the absence of content per se (I understand that a lot of worthy articles are just waiting for an editor with some time on their hands) but more because of the lack of villagers. I couldn't wrap my head around the idea that there were articles about places with 46 or even 200 souls in it, the potential for future improvement seems to be greatly lessened from the get-go. But I do agree that it's all pretty harmless. I appreciate all the advice you provided. RetiredDuke (talk) 08:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

No worries RetiredDuke. Sometimes with AfD one of the first things you have to consider, especially when dealing with massive nominations, is the pretty basic cost/benefit of the effort. In other words, would the improvement in the project done by deleting these articles, be better or worse than the improvement you could do using that time helping to build an encyclopedia in other ways? Many times the answer is no, even if certain article might be deleted in perfect world. We're not really trying to build a "perfect encyclopedia", and we never will; we're just trying to build a better one than we had yesterday, and do that for as many days as possible.

Anyway, feel free to stop by if I can be of any help, or keep The Teahouse in mind, where there's always lots of folks with good advice. TimothyJosephWood 11:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Josh Sugarmann

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Josh Sugarmann. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Prose review

Hi Timothy. One of the FA coordinators is reluctant to throw his support at my FAC here even though another FAC regular has had a look at the prose, giving his "tentative" support. Would you like to have a look at it? I think you really are my last resort since I don't know anyone else to turn to. I make sure to give my thoughts in your FAC if you have one at the moment. :-) Many thanks, SLIGHTLY^mad 04:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done TimothyJosephWood 13:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Right of return

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Right of return. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Prometeia

Hi, sorry if I committed any mistake in editing this page but I did not mean to promote the company. Would you be so kind to help me to correct this article? Prometeia is a historical company and reasearch institute. I think it has its relevance because its forecasts are used in Italy and EU. It is an important player in the financial field. It is also cited here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EUROFRAME Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pier Luigi Cara (talk • contribs) 11:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Pier Luigi Cara. First off, if you happen to have an outside connection with the subject, you should carefully review our policies on conflicts of interest. Failure to abide by those standards can result in a lot of unwanted attention.

Besides that, writing a brand new article is one of the harder things to do on Wikipedia, and most editors usually start out by helping to improve existing articles to get a feel for how things kindof work. Writing for an encyclopedia can be very different from writing for academic or industry purposes, and the difference can be frustrating. But in order to get you caught up, you probably should consider reading through our tutorial on writing your first article, or taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure.

When you think you're ready, you can also first create the article as a draft by clicking on Draft:Prometeia, and consider submitting it through our Articles for Creation project, where it can be reviewed by a volunteer who can offer specific suggestions prior to publishing. As a draft, it's also much safer from summary deletion, because of meeting our speedy deletion criteria.

But overall welcome to Wikipedia, and if these tutorials don't answer any questions you might have, feel free to drop by and I'll do my best. TJW^talk 12:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Wiki certification query

Hi Timothy,

Hope you're well. I was hoping if you could explain how will i be able to get a Wikipedia certification considering you're a Wikipedia veteran. I look forward to your quick response.

Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinza Peracha (talk • contribs) 11:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Kinza Peracha. It's not totally clear exactly what you mean by "Wikipedia certification". Maybe if you can tell me what it is you're trying to do I can point you in the right direction. TJW^talk 12:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I just needed to know how do i get an administrative account? Is it based on my number of contributions? Can you give me tips on how to become a recognized contributor such as yourself? Sorry for all the trouble that i'm causing, i'm just new to this. P.S. I've heard there are certified Wikipedia content writers. Can you link me to another established contributor like yourself.Kinza Peracha —Preceding undated comment added 12:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Kinza Peracha. The decision to grant administrator access is one that is made by the community, after an editor has demonstrated a thorough knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, the ability to work well with other editors, and a need for that level of access. Since there are lots of policies that are often very complex, all types of editors to learn to work with, and only a few select areas where administrator access is actually useful, editors are normally not granted this access until after some years of actively editing, and helping to improve the encyclopedia. Some editors are never granted administrator access, even after ten years or more, and many editors simply don't ever want it, since it's often more of a hassle than anything else.

It's no trouble at all, and I'm happy to help if you have additional questions, but gaining administrator access isn't really "a goal". The goal is to build a better encyclopedia, and different levels of user access is just one of the ways we work together to do that.

If you'd like to hang out with the lot of our most experienced and friendly editors, you're more than welcome to join us over at The Teahouse, where there's always plenty of folks with good advice around. TJW^talk 13:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

application for preventing Page Deletion of Cafe Lets Meet

Hello,

I created a wiki page titled as Cafe LEts Meet. Its a genuine Shop started in Jaipur with verifable sources from citation sources like Brownbook.

I want to know why the page was deleted even when it was not promotional at all but only informative.?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KshitijSinghRana (talk • contribs) 13:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey KshitijSinghRana. The article was deleted because it didn't indicate why the subject might be important enough to potentially warrant an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia generally doesn't cover things simply by virtue of the fact that they exist. Rather, in order to qualify for an article, a subject needs to meet our standards for notability, which usually means having received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable sources, normally things like books, magazines, and newspapers.

You might want to take some time to review our tutorial on writing your first article, or consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. These can help orient you a little better to how Wikipedia works, and probably answer a lot of questions you haven't thought to even ask yet. TJW^talk 13:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

New signature

Just a quick note to say I appreciate your new signature. The old one was a touch obtrusive, but this version combines the same design with a more streamlined presentation. Good choice! —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 21:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks? I was a little concerned about not having a talk page link in it, and that some new folks might not make it past my userpage. I had tried to fix it before, and ended up having to appeal to IRC this time in order to make this one fit in the character limit. Mostly I'm just terribly uncreative and technologically inept. I'm sure I've managed to be obtrusive in more ways than just my signature, but it's good to know I'm apparently getting better. TJW^talk 21:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I honestly didn't mean for that to be a backhanded compliment. Your work at the Teahouse is exactly the right amount of obtrusive, if that helps? —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 00:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Mission completed - thanks to you...

Hello Timothy, I have just seen that "Mission Impossible" has turned into "Mission completed" ♥. That was so nice of you, noe the cover can now stay here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_(1986_TV_series) I swear, I could not have done it. Since I live in Europe and you probably in another time-zone, I saw this only this morning. However, thanks again, I should have contacted the Tea-House right from the beginning, but it all is so new to me. I understand now that just adding little information on an Wikipedia article, is not the same as acutally working on an article or writing a new one. Have a nice day ♣ Laramie1960 (talk) 08:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor

Hello Timothy, I have just seen that "Mission Impossible" has turned into "Mission completed". That was so nice of you so that the cover can now stay here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_(1986_TV_series) I swear, I could not have done it. However, thanks again, I should have contacted the Teahouse right from the beginning, but it all is so new to me. I understand now that just adding little information is not the same as acutally working on an article or opening one new. Have a nice day Laramie1960 (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

No problem at all Laramie1960. Thanks for helping us build an encyclopedia! Feel free to drop back by if I can help. TJW^talk 10:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Alisha Actress

Thanks for letting me know, I blocked the IP. Best, GAB^gab 15:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Glad to know you're making good use of that thing. Idle mops tend to grow mildew. TJW^talk 15:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Grayscale Investments LLC

What is the proper way to add a company information page? Our parent company is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Currency_Group which lists us (Grayscale Investments LLC) as a subsidiary. Can we create our own page with more details for our particular company? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redlabtech (talk • contribs) 22:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Redlabtech. Wikipedia is not a place to post an information page. Wikipedia is a place for encyclopedia articles. No one owns those articles, and they don't exist to promote companies or organizations. Since you seem to be connected with the subject, you should carefully review our policies on conflicts of interest, and be careful to abide by them, because failing to do so can attract a lot of unwanted attention.

If you want to make an article, you should probably take the time to review our tutorial on writing your first article, or consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. Then, you should probably submit it to our Articles for Creation project, where it can be reviewed by a volunteer who can offer feedback prior to publishing. TJW^talk 23:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ed Murray (Washington politician)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ed Murray (Washington politician). Legobot (talk) 04:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Totally confused...

Dear Timothy, I hope it is not wrong to come and contact you here instead at the Teahouse. Yesterday I had arrived at the point where I thought I delete all I have done on this page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Laramie1960/Catherine:_One_Love_is_Enough#cite_note-OPERA-6 I try to explain. I had created the page some weeks ago and had looked at the twin-page so to say on French Wikipedia. As far as I thought I had given enough information - yet I was wrong. French Wikipedia and English Wikipedia do work differently! The result was that my request was rejected and I felt as if someone had given me a slap in my face! Of course I understand now, rules are rules. But... this page begins now to be my “Waterloo”! I thought it was still hidden and no one could do anything except me. But to my shock I realized that everyone can come and fix and change what I do there. The other day I was on it for hours and when I wanted to "save" it, it told me that someone else had worked on it and if I click again SAVE, my work is all gone! For an expert like you it would have been easy not to loose the oversight, but it took me ages and ages to add my new work - and not overwrite the new (and correct) contribution by this at that time unkown user. Then the same thing happened to me yesterday and I admit, I got really upset. I tried to compare my new text and correction with that new text someone (who really wants to help and I appreciate it) had done without my noticing. Yes, during that time, I came to the Teahouse and you told me about the missing tag. I had also fixed that. But I gave up in the end and thought I have a look at it today. Would you be so kind and explain to me what happens when a article is rejected? I thought I was to finish it the way asked of me - and then submit it again? at the moment I have no courage to start writing on my own article, in case someone sees the new mistakes, the old ones and so on. I am looking forward to your answer. Have a lovely day, kindly Laramie1960 (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

No problem Laramie1960. First, the big mess you got into is called an edit conflict, and it's an unfortunate side effect of having multiple people working on the same page at the same time. Basically, from the time you click "edit" to the time you click "save", if someone else makes an edit, the software panics and doesn't know what to do. It can't reconcile them both, and this has to be done manually, which can be difficult. The best way to avoid this is to make small changes and click "save" often, or to use Template:Under construction at the top of the page when you are actively editing. (However, if an article is already published, using the under construction template for long periods of time is generally considered rude, since it "locks" others out of improving the article too.) You can also avoid this by editing individual sections when possible, since two people editing different sections wont cause a conflict.

As to the initial rejection, the main thing that you're looking for is independent published sources talking about the subject. It looks like some of your old clippings might be good (although I can't read them), but it may be helpful to provide more information in your citation to show where they were first published. So, for example a newspaper article would be really good, but a press release or advertisement wouldn't, since it wouldn't be considered independent. This can also help because some of the sites you link to seem to be kindof "fan sites", which wouldn't be considered reliable in themselves, but can be a valuable source for reprints of older reliable sources that they've compiled for us.

Looking at a news search online it looks like there are several modern sources available too, and those might help (I still cant read them). You may also want to consider signing up for The Wikipedia Library, which may give you access to lots of additional sources. This can be really helpful for topics around the mid 20th century, since a lot of publications in this era won't be available for free online. You may also consider contacting any historical or preservation society related to the subject by email and see if they can point you to things like in-depth reviews.

But overall, sources are the key, and are really in the end what determines whether an article passes. Hopefully this is helpful. As always, feel free to ask any questions you might have and I'll do my best to help. TJW^talk 10:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I suppose I would add that you shouldn't be afraid of making mistakes. Making good faith mistakes is actually actively encouraged here. Otherwise we've got no way to learn how to avoid repeating those same mistakes in the future. Some of our best editors are the ones who manage to make the most mistakes, but are very good at learning from them. TJW^talk 10:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	(y) Paghadar (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Paghadar. Did you have a particular question? If you look at some of the links that were provided on your talk page, they should be able to explain fairly well what the overall problem is. TJW^talk 12:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Question

Sir, May i know the reason why page marked as deletion? VIP HEXA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paghadar (talk • contribs) 12:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Paghadar. Your article was marked for deletion because it did not make a claim for why the company could potentially be suitable for an article. Wikipedia doesn't cover topics simply because they exist, but rather because they meet our standards for notability, which usually means having sustained in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources, often things like newspapers, books, and magazines. If the subject has received this type of coverage, then it may be appropriate for an article. If it has not, then it is probably too soon to have it's own place on Wikipedia. TJW^talk 12:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Hello Timothy, its really nice of you to explain this all to me. I do understand now what happens and I shall take your avice to save more often - and I try to stay at one section at a time. Now about the sources. First I like to explain that this book was written in 1962 and until recently it was not possible to lay hands on any old original material concerning Benzoni's first bestseller Catherine. Be that photos, articles, journals or magazine. At that time, there existed no internet and except Juliette, no one had seen in the last fifty years the material she kept in a box in her cellar. The only thing missing was the Catherine manuscript which burned together with a letter from the late President Ronald Reagen, (thanking for the way she had mentioned the Indipendence War in her book The Lure of the Falcon) which he had sent to her. Those “fansites” you mention were known to her and she approved of them immediately (she had invited them many times when they were able to get in contact with her) and gave permission to call them official. A fact which the French Juliette Benzoni Wikipedia refused to accept - saying it can only be official when authors works on their own website. Juliette Benzoni hated computers and wrote on a old electric typewriter. These two webmasters received everything from the author and started a few month ago to upload more and more of that long forgotten treasure.

I was a friend of the author and I have seen that material (some is in my own possession) yet I have never seen anything on any other website or Media concerning the material I give links to. (if they pop-up now it has been taken from their websites) I know it is such a pity. We find only articles from her works in the nineties up to now. It is extremly difficult to find any sources, concerning Catherine, except the material the author shared with her two fans, whom she trusted completely. Catherine books were available in at least 30 countries. There is proof of that from all the book covers the webmasters found online. (or on Ebay, Abebooks ect.) In the case of the www.catherinedemontsalvy.ch website https://www.catherinedemontsalvy.ch/ it is also in English and some of the original articles have been translated by the webmaster.

I will go over the references and link only to the articles, but as you can guess. I counted myself already lucky that I got two English articles from 1964 which the author had kept. Not even the Telos Publishing house, which re-issues the books since 2015, have authentic old material. I am in contact with them, they told me that I might use one of their new book covers to add on the article here. I need to get a written permission I know ;-) but that is no problem at all. It will be more difficult to upload a book cover from the sixties. I have already no idea how to do that. The French company does not exist anymore - and the English company Heinemann is sold to Random House who have never answered any of my letters! What do you suggest? Shall I always mention the source came from the personal souvenir of Benzoni? When I think of lets say Diana Gabaldon or Game of Thrones books, how easy it is for them to lay hands on verified material, it could almost make me give up. To you Timothy, I send a big thank you for all your good tips and that I may return to you for help. I have already signed up to the Wikipedia library. Would be fantastic if I find something I did not have yet. Best to you, Laramie1960 (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Laramie1960. There's a lot to unpack here. First the easy stuff. You don't actually need permission for the book cover, rather it can be used under a claim of fair use. But we can't have a fair use image until an article is published, since they aren't allowed in drafts. So that'll have to wait for now.

As to sources, to oversimplify things a bit, what we're looking for right now are sources that are 1) published, and 2) independent.

Published - This means that even if all you have is a newspaper clipping from 1960 at home in a shoe box, that's fine, so long as it was actually published by the newspaper originally. However, things like personal notes, correspondence, etc. which may be of great use as a primary source for someone writing a book, aren't really that useful for Wikipedia (with all our nit picky special rules). You can often use them for raw information, but they don't really count toward establishing notability for our purposes.

Independent - For Wikipedia (again, with all our special rules) having these websites be "official" actually makes them less reliable. What we're really looking for is people who are unconnected with the subject, writing about the subject in detail, because they felt it was important enough to write about on their own, and not necessarily because they were a personal fan writing for other personal fans.

But yes, The mid 20th century is one of the most difficult periods to write about on Wikipedia, because the sources are not old enough to be in the public domain, but they're not new enough to be published originally on the internet. Keep in mind though, that if you can't find enough sources to publish a stand alone article on the individual book, there are also some other options.

So for example, maybe this book on its own isn't notable enough for its own article, but maybe the series of books is. Using your own example, we do have a stand alone article for the individual book A Game of Thrones, but we also have an article for the entire series A Song of Ice and Fire. Alternatively, we have an article on William Shakespeare as a person, and an article on Macbeth as a stand alone work, but we also have an article on Shakespeare bibliography for his entire body of work. So maybe if this book or this series isn't independently notable, maybe the author is prolific and well known enough to warrant an article on her entire body of work. TJW^talk 13:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Timothy, so the book cover or covers are not going to be a problem thats great news. Now to the books. It was a series of seven books, translated into more than twenty different languages. England belonged in 1964 to one of the first countries and the USA followed in 1967. (they made her a millionaire) The books were adapted first for cinema and then in 1986 for the longest TV-Series so far in France. Benzoni sold millions of those books. This we learn from newer articles I found online. Alas, all in French. I first thought I had to create an article for each book. But when I asked if I can change the name from Catherine, One Love is Enough (name of the first book) to Catherine (Juliette Benzoni) it was to write just one article about the whole series. The series is known as the Catherine series. Juliette Benzoni does have an own article - but I do believe the books deserve likewise an own article on Wikipedia. The author received in 1973 the Prix Alexandre-Dumas for her work. She received also the most important Award France can give, that of the Chevalier of the National Order of Merit awarded by the President of the French Republic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Order_of_Merit_(France)

50 years later a publisher came to ask for the rights to publish them again, speaks for the quality of the books. It may appear to be a simple love story, but that would do the book injustice. The reader learned so much about Medieval times and it inspired many authors to become a writer. There are French historians who adored the story as we can read in some of her later books. I do understand Wikipedia's sceptic about "Fansites", but thanks to Fans in this world Wikipedia does have so many gorgeous articles. I am a fan for example for Gone with the Wind. Without Wikipedia I would never have learned so much about the author and all that was behind the filming of the book. Also the author deseves the attention, this woman died at the age of 95 two weeks before her latest book was published.I know I sound like I want to sell you the book dear Timothy, but I only wanted to explain why I am so eager to see that the books get their place with all other great books on Wikipedia. I will search for more sources. The truth is the author got forgotten by the English media until 2015. My new question is: what would you call the article? Thanks for all the time you give to support me with this article. Best to you 15:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC) p.s I am sorry my messages are all so long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laramie1960 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Well Laramie1960, it sounds like the books are successful enough that there should be sources out there, we just gotta find them. As to the name, again, I don't personally sweat the name too much. As long as it makes sense it usually works out fine. It may be a better options to just use an article on the series as a starting place, and if sections get too long, then spin them off into their own individual articles later. If you want to try to start with an article on the series, you could do something similar to Alex Cross (novel series), Transitions (novel series), and Gossip Girl (novel series).

It's good that you're excited about it. That's how most people end up here: they find something they love, and know enough about to write an article, and end up totally surprised that there isn't one already here. TJW^talk 15:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I like the examples you showed me, especially the Alex Cross novel series. I best take the text out and put it on a save place and start all over again, so it will be similar to those you showed me. Like that I can now find the right sources. As you say, I can still think of a good title. Thanks again for all your help today. Kindly Laramie1960 (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Yes, I was dead in the middle of Hurricane Irma, but we did ok. Thanks for asking. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Glad to hear it Niteshift36. Good to have you back. TJW^talk 14:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The page Flags of the Cities should not be deleted because: 1. My name is Timothy 2. My first page — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolandBallKurwa (talk • contribs) 17:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	vmjg PolandBallKurwa (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey PolandBallKurwa. While I understand you may only have the intention of experimenting with how to make pages on Wikipedia, this can actually waste a lot of time for volunteers who are working to build a better encyclopedia. If you would like to create a place where you can experiment, and make pages for whatever interests you, without the need to meet encyclopedic standards, you should create a personal wiki, which can be done at http://www.wikia.com/Special:CreateNewWiki. Otherwise, you're being pretty counterproductive, and you may likely end up with your account blocked because of it. TJW^talk 18:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

A new begin...

Hello Timothy, before I continue on the article here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Laramie1960/Catherine:_One_Love_is_Enough I wanted you to have a look at it to tell me if that is the way you had in mind to begin the article? I have deleted the first section and took your advice from similar articles. I tried to find new sources and I believe you will be happy with it. When I continue I shall probably re-do more and then I will add information about the characters. Would be happy for your feedback if you have a moment. I shall not work on it until tomorrow, so that there will be no confusion in case someone comes and correct the text. Kindly Laramie1960 (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Laramie1960. I would point out that amazon.com is considered basically entirely unreliable, since content there is generated by the people who upload products to sell. But other than that it does like you are moving in the right direction. Unfortunately, I will be travelling over the weekend with limited internet access/time, but keep going and maybe I can give thing a more thorough look over next week some time. No rush. There is no deadline. TJW^talk 19:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Timothy, thanks for your quick reply. You know, I thought myself Amazon was no good, but I saw it on someone elses article and thought: maybe Amazon is after all aloud. I will exchange that of course. I wish you a lovely weekend, take care and thanks for all the tips you share with me. Best to you Laramie1960 (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

And to you also. TJW^talk 20:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Indian annexation of Hyderabad

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Indian annexation of Hyderabad. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

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

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Bitcoin Magazine for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bitcoin Magazine is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted, or merged with Vitalik Buterin. I notified you as you have contributed to Buterin's page.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Jtbobwaysf. It's not usually customary to notify everyone who has ever edited an article when it has been nominated for deletion, and this might be seen as an attempt to canvass support, which is generally frowned upon. TJW^talk 10:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

AGF Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The only thing I was assuming was that you were unaware. TJW^talk 18:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

RfD

Hi! At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017_September_14#Wikipedia:FAKENEWS you !voted for a redirect to WP:Zimdars' fake news list, but after you !voted I presented an argument against doing that, and none of the !votes after that were for that redirect. The MfD has been relisted. Would you be so kind as to re-examine the MfD and see if the arguments put forth after you !voted might cause you to reconsider? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I... think you're a little turned around there, Guy. I was the nom on that one. TJW^talk 10:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Also WP:CANVASS. TJW^talk 10:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You are right. I saw

Retarget to WP:Zimdars' fake news list for the relevant topic on lists of fake news. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 17:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Suppose I'll ping User:Guy Macon, since they were one of the two involved in this. I trust twinkle has dutifully notified MA. TimothyJosephWood 18:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

And misread it, thinking that you were the one who !voted for the retarget. Sorry about that.

Note to self: next time, smoke crack AFTER editing Wikipedia...

It's quaaludes and barnstars all the way down. TJW^talk 14:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Philosophy sidebar

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Philosophy sidebar. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

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

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Request

Please keep stupid, off-topic comments to yourself. In addition, please stop hounding my edits and situations in which I participate. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Nah. When people consistently show up for a few minutes a day and primarily edit noticeboards, I reserve the right to poke fun of them if at any point I feel something clever has entered my tiny brain. Don't worry, it's a very tiny brain indeed. It can't possibly respond to every noticeboard thread you're involved in. TJW^talk 20:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

If at any point I feel something clever has entered my tiny brain. Let me know when that happens. Until then, keeping it up will only get you blocked, and that won't look good on that RfA CV now will it? — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You're adorable. Go make a mainspace edit or something. TJW^talk 20:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Good to know there are fellow relatives of Pooh around here. Anmccaff (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah. We go way back. I ever tell you about that time I got my head stuck in a honey jar? Well... it was a mason jar full of moonshine, but close enough. Well... it wasn't "full", but it used to be. TJW^talk 20:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Reassure me: it was a wide-mouth mason jar, right? Anmccaff (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Tiny brain remember? TJW^talk 20:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, we've all been there. Primefac (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

No joke. My wife stopped on her way to work this morning an pulled a fun sized bag of Cheetos off the head of a stray cat. Living in the country is fun. TJW^talk 21:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

There ain't much to country living... Anmccaff (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You remember Anmccaff. We were at each other's throats for a good six months. Me and NK might end up being best buds before all's said and done. TJW^talk 22:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hell, I still hate ya, and you and I get along just dandy! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've pinged you to a conversation or two before to the effect of "this guy don't care much for me so I value his opinion" ... and that's actually not a joke. TJW^talk 01:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Truth be told, I'm an awful friendly guy. But I got a mouth that'd make a DI cry and all the social skills of a hemorrhoidal gorilla. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

A true poet if I've ever seen one. TJW^talk 10:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Best of friends! — nihlus kryik  (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Learn to take criticism. You spend way too much damned time on noticeboards and not nearly enough time on the project. Making enemies on the project often makes friends. Making enemies on the drama boards only makes enemies. TJW^talk 01:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I spend minutes out of my day on noticeboards. They also take a lot less time than content edits (at least how I would want to do them), and I don't have a ton of time to devote to the in-depth process required. That might change soon, who knows. Plus, I can't shirk my duties as a Drama-watcher-troll, unnecessary hyphens included. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Consider picking some of the low hanging fruit on WP:BACKLOG. Some of those categories have a quarter million or more articles in them, and many of them only take a few minutes to fix. TJW^talk 10:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I wish I was good enough to fix a quarter million articles in a few minutes.... Primefac (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hardy har. Don't you have a mainpage to delete? TJW^talk 13:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Nah, that's too pedestrian. I've been using the random article link then using d-batch to nuke every page connected to it. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Naw. Don't mess with the poor articles. They never did nothin to nobody. Now... range blocking Australia... That's something I can get on board with. TJW^talk 13:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I did rangeblock the entirety of T-Mobile in the USA for a month once. Primefac (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Primefac, weren't you the one who was in on that whole 1843 in Antarctic television debacle? TJW^talk 13:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Probably. It was giving the penguins a bad reputation. Primefac (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe not. It was like... I dunno... 70 or 80 articles that were all YEAR in COUNTRY television that were all almost entirely empty. TJW^talk 13:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that was me. My co-conspirators all jumped ship because they bet on the wrong horse (I nominated Albania, they nominated Italy) and I haven't really gotten around to dealing with the rest. Primefac (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

1955 in Czech television. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Them's the ones. TJW^talk 14:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm firin' my lazer. Primefac (talk) 14:45, 19 September 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 14304 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 day.
• Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

• On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
• Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

White logos

Hey there, I noticed that you recently uploaded some logos that are plain white, an as such hardly to not at all readable to the casual reader. If you find such logos, I'd be nice if you just shortly put it through GIMP and inverted the images' colors before you upload them. Also, please remember to put down the link of the (sub-)website where you found the image, not the link to the image itself, so that Wikipedia may back-trace copyright claims et cetera more easily. Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 05:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah... an eager IP dropped about 50 requests at FFU and I was trying to shovel through it. After I switched to my laptop the white logos were definitely a lot less clear on the grey background. Good advice. Will do. TJW^talk 10:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

:) BigSugarDaddy 16:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Have we met? Hi, I'm Tim. Most people don't care for me because I'm ugly and have a terrible personality. TJW^talk 16:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Aww, and here I was feeling good that we're both attractive people with sparkling personalities. At least, that's what I assumed when I got one too. Primefac (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Anyway BigSugarDaddy. Welcome to Wikipedia. If you have any questions feel free to stop by. If I can't find the answer I can usually find someone who can. TJW^talk 16:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

TJW and Primefac, thank you very much for the help in Wikipedia! You both answered on my questions not long ago. :) BigSugarDaddy 17:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

No problem at all. Happy to help. TJW^talk 17:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Debbie Wasserman Schultz

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Filemover granted

Hello Timothyjosephwood. Your account has been granted the "filemover" user right, either following a request for it or due to a clear need for the ability to move files. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:File mover for more information on this user right and under what circumstances it is okay to move files. When you move a file please remember to update any links to the new name as well! If you do not want the file mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Alex Shih^Talk 12:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)