User talk:GreenMeansGo/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Precious

"Hopefully I'll meet you out there on an article soon."

Thank you for quality articles such as Thomas Sullivan (Medal of Honor, 1890) and Sabinoso Wilderness, for guiding new editors, dealing with articles for creation and deletion, and for "Hopefully I'll meet you out there on an article soon.", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)"

Thanks Gerda Arendt. That was a pleasant surprise to come back to. Thanks for the motivation. TimothyJosephWood 15:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Question about your feedback

Hello. I appreciate your feedback a few months ago on the VerbSurgical page I am creating. I think I should make these changes. Would you look at it and tell me if I am headed in the right direction? And specifically what changes would you ask me to make?

I hope you have had good travels.

New draft: Verb Surgical is a digital surgery company formed in August 2015 by Ethicon Inc. (a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson) and Verily (formerly called Google Life Sciences and a subsidiary of Alphabet). Verb’s focus is robotic surgery, advanced visualization, advanced instrumentation, data analytics and connectivity. Scott Huennekens was named CEO of the new company in December 2015. Huennekens was CEO of the intravascular-imaging company Volcano Corp. from April 2002 to February 2015. Financial terms and projections have not been disclosed. Verb Surgical headquarters is on the Google campus in Mountain View CA. Ethicon has produced surgical systems and medical devices as a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson since 1949. Google helped form Verb Surgical after previously working with Biogen Inc., Novartis International AG and Sanofi S.A. Verb Surgical company is using robotic surgery technology developed by SRI International. Additional reading • Abdominal Surgical Robots Market Shares, Strategies, and Forecasts, Worldwide, 2015 to 2021. WinterGreen Research. 2 December 2015. References 1. ↑ “Johnson & Johnson, Google name CEO for surgical-robot venture”. Minaya, Ezequiel. The Wall Street Journal. 10 December 2015. 2. ↑ “Robotic surgery to see new entrants Medtronic and J&J/Google, but Intuitive still miles ahead”. Saxena, Varun. FierceBiotech. 9 December 2015.

CWash (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey CWash. As you seem to have seen, I'm not really able to be terribly active right this minute. You may want to check out Help:Referencing for beginners for guidance on how to cite your information using inline citations as well as our tutorial on writing your first article. As a safe bet though, I would probably try to incorporate more than three references when I submit it. Some reviewers at WP:AfC can be particularly tough on articles about companies, and usually want pretty robust sourcing to show that it meets our guidelines on notability. TimothyJosephWood 15:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Syrian Observatory for Human Rights

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

It is Gorka again

Sir! Could You please come back to Sebastian Gorka.--Ltbuni (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey Ltbuni. Unfortunately I have basically zero internet access right now and that will continue for about another week. (I just got lucky today and got about 15 minutes on a computer with nothing in particular that immediately needs done.) I'd be happy to take a look at it eventually, but this may be a good opportunity to stretch your legs as far as dispute resolution is concerned. If you're at an impasse, consider opening an RfC. Prior to doing so, consider discussing the wording of the RfC with the others involved to try to get some level of agreement on how to approach it, and avoid procedural problems that may upend it after several days.

Even if you disagree with someone vehemently, people can usually at least agree on what question it is that needs to be asked and answered. TimothyJosephWood 15:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:International Justice Mission

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:International Justice Mission. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2016 Cure Award

In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 5 May 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) 17:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:En Marche!

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:En Marche!. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

To welcome you back from your travels, here's a drink that will either make you vomit or make you laugh. Enjoy! Exemplo347 (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Exemplo347. Not quite there yet, but definitely looking forward for a return to normalcy, at least for a while. TimothyJosephWood 16:44, 10 May 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) 04:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Otto Warmbier

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Otto Warmbier. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back, man. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Good to be back, at least for a little while. Definitely looking forward to a weekend after basically 22 straight 16 hour days. TimothyJosephWood 13:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Only 16 hour days? You must be some kind of fobbit. ;) Seriously, enjoy your weekend, you've earned it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

wow that was fast

lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeTheGoat (talk • contribs) 14:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

As will be your block if you continue to vandalize Wikipedia. If you would like to do testing or experimenting, you can use your sandbox, which can be created by clicking "sandbox" in the upper right hand corner. TimothyJosephWood 14:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC).

Fursan(Brand)

There are no reasons for speedy deletion for this

please never mind

best regards Leather.Expert (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Fursan(Brand)

Im Leather Expert

The introduction of the brand in the field of leather is my Duty.by speedy deletion you will prevent from Development of Wikipedia

Please don't bother me and other persons by this way

Leather.Expert (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Leather.Expert, if you would like to contest the deletion, the correct place to do so is on the article's talk page, not by repeatedly removing the deletion template. TimothyJosephWood 18:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey man

I didn't created that by myself

I will improve that

please don't delete it

Leather.Expert (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Leather.Expert. In order to qualify for a Wikipedia article, subject need to me our standards for notability. There are many things that exist that do not have articles, and simply existing is not sufficient to justify one. If the company does not yet meet these standards, then it is probably too soon for them to have their own article. TimothyJosephWood 18:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

see this company has more qualify for a Wikipedia article than other company which have Wikipedia page in this field. Please take it easy

we will improve that

best regards

Leather.Expert (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Aegis

Could you specify which areas you believe are areas of advertisement? Also, is the issue with the datamine reference due to plagarism, or is it because the cite is not reputable? Thanks StevenSherry (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey StevenSherry. Basically the entire article is promotional, and reads much more like a company website than an encyclopedia article. Otherwise, with very few exceptions, you cannot copy and past content from other websites onto Wikipedia, because that content is almost certainly copyrighted, and therefore incompatible with the CC BY-SA 3.0 license used by Wikipedia. TimothyJosephWood 19:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I will do some editing. Which other websites are you referring to? It said the datamine reference was the issue, but I didn't take any information from there other than the fact that Aegis won an award. I'm just looking to resolve the issues. StevenSherry (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I pretty much just searched random strings of words from the article and found the website. Looking around, I don't remember exactly what phrase I searched for, and it may have been modified in your subsequent edits. Since you have a conflict of interest, you probably want to submit your articles through our Articles for Creation process, which will allow them to be reviewed by volunteers prior to being published, and will lessen the chance that they will be deleted for things like promotionalism. TimothyJosephWood 19:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Conservative Party of Canada leadership election, 2017

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Conservative Party of Canada leadership election, 2017. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Legitimation Code Theory

Hi (not sure if this is the right place to send you a message. You knocked back my draft of the Legitimation Code Theory page. I've added in a whole lot of references and elaborated the content. I was just curious to see if you think that meets standards now. Marguerite Duras In France (talk) 07:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey Marguerite Duras In France. Hmm... well. There's certainly a lot of references there. It does seem likely that the article would survive a deletion discussion, which is supposed to be the bare-bones core of what Articles for Creation is supposed to evaluate, and of course there is no absolute requirement to utilize AfC rather than simply creating the article yourself. But I'd be lying if I said I didn't have some reservations overall.

I've got a pretty good academic background in social science myself, and having read over the draft twice, honestly, I couldn't really tell you what it's actually about. For example:

Semantics are a type of legitimation code that represents knowledge practices in terms of relative semantic density, the relatively complexity of knowledge practices, or semantic gravity, the context dependency of knowledge practices.

That sentence certainly seems to say something, but what it actually says is something along the lines of:

Term with an apparently specialized but uncertain meaning is a type of ill-defined jargon that represents ill-defined jargon in terms of original term with modifier of uncertain purpose, the relative complexity of ill-defined jargon, or original term with modifier of uncertain purpose, the ill-defined jargon of ill-defined jargon.

I know it can be a pretty steep learning curve to adjust to writing for an encyclopedia, as opposed to academic writing, where you don't always need much explanatory content because you can point to (Explanation et al., 2000), and most readers are expected to have the time, interest, and above all access to do the digging themselves. But that's not really how an encyclopedia is supposed to work.

The way I like to think about it is that writing an encyclopedia is like writing to be understood by a bright and inquisitive fifteen-year-old. Jargon should be used only when absolutely necessary, and then carefully defined in a way that, as much as possible, would make sense to someone in secondary school. Right now, in order to really understand the draft, I would probably need a few hours in a university library to figure out whether half of the content actually has a concrete meaning, or whether they're simply words masquerading as meaning, and that makes it less like an encyclopedia article, and more of... mostly empty prose for the sake of housing references. TimothyJosephWood 13:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ben Shapiro

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ben Shapiro. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Why

Did you have to link that godawful fake magazine cover in the SeaBrian AfD? It was, indeed, too cringey to handle!  :-D JamesG5 (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Heh. That's not the worst part. The real cringe comes when you realize that it's not an actual magazine cover, but a free online magazine cover generator. TimothyJosephWood 17:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of INGIC

This is the first time I have created any page on Wikipedia. I have many resources other than press releases that can determine the authenticity and legitimacy for the existence of INGIC. Please tell what reference that I needs to include in order to create the page of any organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarySimmons (talk • contribs) 19:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey MarySimmons. First off, if you have an outside relationship with the subject you are trying to write about, you probably want to carefully review our policy on conflicts of interests.

Secondly, while there is no hard fast number of sources that qualify a subject for a Wikipedia article, the overarching guidance is that it needs to meet our standards for company notability, or out general notability guidelines. Since you are new to Wikipedia, you may want to check out our [[WP:YFA|tutorial on writing your first article, and consider creating a draft and submitting it through our articles for creation process, where it can be reviewed by a volunteer who can offer feedback prior to publishing. TimothyJosephWood 19:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Bir yıldız da sizin için!

	Parlak Fikir Yıldızı
	tesekkür ederim Cagribeykantura 19:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

CT examinations

Wow. Quick response to my first draft. I'm splitting this outline from another article. I'd ask that you check back in an hour or so and consider removing the tag. Lfstevens (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey Lfstevens. For the time being I have moved the article to draft space at Draft:CT examinations. Starting a new article in draft or user space is usually a good idea if the article isn't really the type of thing that can be started as a stub and "make sense" without being relatively complete.

So for example when I first started Foreign electoral intervention, I got it up to a pretty substantial size while it was still in user space, so that when it was moved into main space, it kindof already "worked" and had enough structure that others could take it and run with it.

When you think you are fairly well along with the CT article, you can move it back into article space. I didn't leave behind a redirect, so you shouldn't have any problems. TimothyJosephWood 20:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have moved the first draft, rather than the article as I left it later. I have no idea how to recover the edits I made. Help! Lfstevens (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Lfstevens, see WP:REFUND. I would do it for you myself, but I don't have the user rights. TimothyJosephWood 01:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

getlix.cz

the site is a good site, leave it alone

Getlix

Hi. I appreciate your feedback a few minutes ago on the Getlix page I am creating. I think I should make these changes. Would you look at it and tell me if I am headed in the right direction? And specifically what changes would you ask me to make? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vit.krivan (talk • contribs) 20:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey Vit.krivan. In order for a company to have an Wikipedia article, they need to meet our standards for notability. Since you seem to be new to Wikipedia, you may want to check our our tutorial on writing your first article, and consider making a draft and submitting it to our Articles for Creation project, where it can be evaluated by volunteers who can give feedback prior to it being published. TimothyJosephWood 20:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

My involvement

Glad I wasn't being overly cautious there. It's been a very long time since I was involved in anything that got this heated, so if I ever knew what the process was, it had totally slipped my mind. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

BigHaz, you know how it goes. Caesar's wife must be above suspicion. TimothyJosephWood 00:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Very true. And a hat-tip for the reference, too. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2017 Stockholm attack

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

Feedback

Why are you intent on deleting pages! Just because you don't feel that something is of value doesn't mean it isnt to someone else, the whole world doesn't all value the same things. People are different. Why are you to decide if your opinion is more valid than someone elses?

Some people spend a few hours on a page for you to come along a delete it without giving them chance to fight for it or give a counter argument. Thanks a bunch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpricy93 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey Mpricy93. In order for an organization to qualify for its own article, it needs to meet our notability standards. If you would like to request the article back, you can do so at WP:REFUND, and it can be moved to a draft where you can have more time to work on it and improve it before submitting it for publication. TimothyJosephWood 09:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

AgilePM page

Hi Tim I value your feedback. Do you think that a page that tells people what AgilePM is would be valuable on Wikipedia. There seem to be pages for PRINCE2, PMBoK etc.

Presumably it's not the existence of the page but the route I've taken that is an issue?

ThanksPAshby (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey PAshby. The problem with your article is that Wikipedia is not a means of promotion, and promoting the company is the only purpose that the article currently serves. Unfortunately, pointing to other articles that exist is often a poor standard to judge by. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and there are probably currently several hundred thousand articles that are exceptionally poor inequality and/or for which the subject does not meet our notability guidelines, but which simply haven't been deleted or rewritten yet. TimothyJosephWood 12:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

HOW CAN I EDIT IT TO AVOID TO BE DELETED

Hello please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemiene Mueni (talk • contribs) 13:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Gemiene Mueni, the short answer is that you edit in a way that is not unambiguously promotional. TimothyJosephWood 13:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Antikythera

Just saw your post. It's already got pending changes which seems to be working, I wouldn't want to override the Admin who set that without a very good reason. Doug Weller talk 16:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

DW, Not entirely sure why it was pending to begin with. It's just a gigantic waste of time, and 24 hours semi is basically standard operating procedure for Google Doodles. Probably the bigger issue is why RFPP hasn't been touched in ... getting on toward six hours now. TimothyJosephWood 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It's been protected. I was going to get back to it but got distracted. I've been busy, only on sporadically. Doug Weller talk 18:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

SlickPie

Hi Timothy,

Thank you for your feedback. I'll make fundamental changes on the article so it can become encyclopedic material and I'll let you know once I'm done. Best, William. WilliamAnderr (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

WilliamAnderr, Wikipedia is not a means for promotion, and if you have an external relationship with the subjects you are writing about, you need to carefully review our policies on conflicts of interest. If the company is notable, the article will probably be written eventually, but having the article repeatedly created and deleted is likely only to end up getting it create-protected, so that no one can make it without requesting un-protection from an administrator. TimothyJosephWood 19:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Jessica M. Thompson new page I created Charissawest (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC) 5.17.17

Hi Timothy,

I just created this page today and it's my first time creating a Wiki page. I will be adding the cite records shortly. Please don't take the page down. I put the content up first and I'm learning how to add the citations.

Thank you kindly. Charissa Charissawest (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC) May 17, 2017

Hey Charissawest. As the template indicates, you have a time period to provide sourcing for the article. However, all biographies of living persons must have sources or they will be deleted. You may want to explore our tutorial on writing your first article, or our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. TimothyJosephWood 19:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Asahd Khaled

Thanks for your message. I disagree with the speedy deletion. Generally, I don't create pages for babies but in this case - it was different.

WP:ENTERTAINER

Has had SIGNIFICANT roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions -- exec producer on the album, also produced the song "shining".

WP:MUSICBIO Wiki rules state a person must have at least 1 of the 12 requirements for notability. Asahd has 3.

So, I will take down the speedy deletion for now. If you disagree again, I'd ask that you recommend for the page to be deleted, not a speedy deletion - and I'll ask members to give their opinion. We can use the talk page on Asahd's page.

• Has been the subject of MULTIPLE, non-trivial, PUBLISHED works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

• Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

• Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.

Cheers. AjayTO (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

AjayTO, if you would like to request the article be restored, especially as a draft so you can have an opportunity to further work on it, this can be requested at WP:REFUND. TimothyJosephWood 20:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Next time if you disagree with someone, please visit my talk page first. Don't be so quick to delete something. Considering the fact, the requirements for notability are within the guidelines and rules set by wiki. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AjayTO (talk • contribs) 20:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't delete anything, I nominated for deletion and it was subsequently deleted by an administrator. Also for the record, you were notified, but seeing as we are one of the most visited sites in the world, it's unfortunately not feasible to contact every user who creates an apparently inappropriate article, and wait for their response. This is why we have a process for undeletion, as explained above. TimothyJosephWood 20:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dick Cheney

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dick Cheney. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Bang On Brewery

Hello Timothyjosephwood. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Bang On Brewery, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: claims coverage in RS, text is not exclusively promotional, use WP:AFD instead. Thank you. SoWhy 13:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Being mentioned by anyone anywhere for any reason does not constitute a claim of significance, and I wish the people who seem to think it does would take them time to actually put together a proposal for the community and submit it for addition to the policy, rather than simply deciding it is somehow implicit in it.

I'm exceptionally tired of explaining this. TimothyJosephWood 13:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Nonstop Casiopea

Hey. Just like anything on the internet, there is always a need for a page where general information is needed about a certain subject.

For instance. I dont understand why some of the internet only radio stations on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_radio_stations are published and available as a wikipedia page. Compared to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonstop_Casiopea. Which is also an internet only radio station.

As the founder of the station I found the need to have a wikipedia article about it.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otviss (talk • contribs) 17:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey Otviss. Wikipedia isn't the rest of the internet, and in order to have an article, a company needs to meet our standards for notability. As to the other stations, some of them probably meet this standard, and other probably just haven't been deleted yet.

Beside that, Wikipedia is not a means for promotion, and while you may "need" an article on your organization, that doesn't necessary have any bearing on whether Wikipedia needs it, or for that matter, wants it. TimothyJosephWood 17:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Alright gotcha.. Thanks for letting me know the rules. － comment added by Otviss —Preceding undated comment added 17:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Inner Explorer

Hi Timothy,

I understand the violations that I have made. I'll rework on the article and submit again. Please allow me to re-create the page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishaangoel (talk • contribs) 19:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey Ishaangoel, given that this is the second time you have recreated this article as an unambiguous copyright violation, I would caution you that we take copyright very seriously, and continuing to do so will likely result in accounts and potentially IP addresses associated with you and your organization being blocked from editing Wikipedia. TimothyJosephWood 19:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Brewery article

Good evening. Just to say, I am an inexperienced contributor , but am quickly learning conventions. Honestly, did not create the page for promotion. The fact you tagged for deletion and there has been some resultant comment and tidying up of the piece is helping me understand what makes a good quality contribution. Thanks! Manicmig (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey Manicmig. First off, I apologize if I failed to assume good faith. We get hundreds of spam articles every day, and sometimes its hard to tell the difference between someone spamming and someone learning.

Secondly, writing a new article for Wikipedia is one of the more difficult things here to do, and a lot of that has to do with getting a handle on all the difference policies for notability that we have. So, for example, an article on a company needs to either meet our standards for notability of companies and organizations, or our general notability guidelines.

If you would like more time to find additional sources to try to improve the article, we can get it moved to a draft where it will be generally safe from deletion in the meantime. TimothyJosephWood 12:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Please consider my reasoning for why the article should not be deleted and provide your rational if you disagree. Thank you

No one in Wikipedia should abuse their power individually or collectively by deleting topics without a discussion or before the deletion can be contested. I am requesting that you remove your tag for speedy deletion until you have read and considered the reasons against deletion. This page titled Pioneers of Internet Marketing should not be speedy deleted because... it is a branch of “notable” Internet Marketing history same as African American History and Native American History is a “notable” branch of American history.

Do you see the following links of Wikipedia articles on American History, African American History, and Native American history?

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Native_Americans_in_the_United_States

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_history

The topic I have begun should be allowed to remain for the same reasoning those articles are allowed. And it is not a duplication of any other article or topic. Please give the Wikipedia community the opportunity to improve this page which can be done by including more pioneers of Internet marketing and more sources and references.

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by BusinessEdit (talk • contribs) 23:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

BusinessEdit, it looks like the article is now a draft, which is generally the preferred place to work on things that currently lack sufficient focus or content to work yet as a stand alone article.

Having said that, your current draft not only duplicates an existing topic, but duplicates several existing topics that are apparently only loosely connected by your own conception of the high points of early internet marketing. This kind of writing is fine for blogs, press, or industry publications, but on Wikipedia is usually considered a form of original research and is against our content policies.

That doesn't mean that it's totally inappropriate; it just means it needs to be incorporated in the proper way. So, for example, content on bulk email should be added to Bulk Email, content on Usenet should be added to Usenet, and so on rather than taking lots of bits about distinct topics and combining them. TimothyJosephWood 12:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Deleting pages

Hello Timothy. I understand that you are trying to do your job. However, it would be greatly appreciated if you stopped marking the Carlickers page for quick termination. We are gaining popularity around our city, and your changes to our page are not merited. Thank you!

No. Additionally, if you continue to remove speedy deletion templates, and make blatantly vandalizing edits to Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. TimothyJosephWood 17:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

oh, dear

I have deja vu].Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, there's plenty to go around. TimothyJosephWood 18:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

LOL. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Any takers?

User:Chrissymad, User:TonyBallioni - Anyone feel like putting together diffs for an ANI to take care of this issue? Unfortunately I'll be traveling this weekend basically starting now, so I won't be online terribly much, but I spent probably the better part of three hours today cleaning up the mess this user left in their wake, and I don't intend for that to become a weekly tradition. Happy to start the thread if those more familiar with the situation want to highlight the high points for me, since there's obviously a lengthy history of this, and more than willing to pull the trigger myself, but it'll probably have to wait until Monday. TimothyJosephWood 21:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I have more mixed thoughts on this than others, but I have told him multiple times that this is the best advice he's ever been given. I also think this thread was very helpful advice that I don't think has been followed. These AfDs (and I think this one, but can't be sure) might also provide some background. I won't take it to a dramaboard, but will probably chime in if someone does. I'd also suggest AN over ANI if it is going to be done: less drama and you can put forward a more straightforward proposal. Primefac has also been active in this situation, so he might be able to chime in. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Chrissymad has an ANI pretty much set to go, was going to put it up but he went on wikibreak and it didn't seem right. Guess it's time to wheel it back out of storage... Primefac (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

And now that I've thought about it for a minute, you're right - AN might be better than ANI. This is basically an issue of "should this non-admin who's not doing it right be doing admin-type work." Primefac (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with them doing disqualifications of obviously categorically ineligible A7s, like software or educational institutions. Those seem to be alright. But their judgement on significance itself for A7s or on promotionalism for G11s does not at all have an acceptable error rate. Having gone through quite a few, I'd say probably half of these are wrong, and that is entirely too many. TimothyJosephWood 01:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Looping in Dlohcierekim on this, because they just gave Adam a Final Warning of sorts, never mind the fact that it looks like he's going to just up and quit over it. Primefac (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but the recent up and quit was actually the thing that convinced me this needs to go to AN. This is a pattern that happens about every time someone complains on his talk page, and doesn't ever happen (which I am glad about, he is a very positive contributor in other areas.) The best way to end the drama-cycle at this point is to ask the community the question Primefac posed above. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Echo TonyBallioni.This pattern is now becoming fairly repetitive.Everytime there are a few complaints about his work-flow, in a short span of time--the stress level alters, an about to retire template sets in, some sympathy-seeking--I'm going to leave the project bellows out and he is out of the area for a few days.As days pass by and the editing community gradually forgets the issue, he is back doing the usual nonsense.And I'm having a hard-time believing that Chrissymad's advice is going to weave the magic--that has so far eluded the hands of a chunk of the long-standing editors.But still, why not hope for the best? Winged Blades ^Godric 13:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric I hadn't read Dlohcierekim's last warning to him before I wrote that, so scratch it being my final appeal. Ready to go whenever. *sigh* CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

<ec>I was trying to persuade him to just stop with the CSD tagging. I think that was the major source of his wiki stress. I advised him to just leave them alone if he did not agree with them and offered alternatives to removing tags. His response to my first comment on the manner did not receive an encouraging response. It would be unfortunate if they left over the issue. I just get the sense they aren't heeding good advice.Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

This is my final appeal to him. I don't want to go to ANI and I don't think any one else wants to deal with that shit-show but I am also prepared, depending on the response, to follow through with it. This cycle needs to be broken and I hope it's done willingly by the user in question rather than forcefully through ANI. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, per above, if this goes to a noticeboard, I think AN has many benefits over ANI for all involved. This is ultimately a straightforward question: do there need to be sanctions to prevent further disruption. AN would be the best venue to handle that simply. ANI could muddy the water, go on for weeks, and leave everyone feeling worse off afterwards. Not that any dramaboard trip would be pretty, but I think AN would at least be somewhat less ugly. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I've just come from another of his messes, created before his "retirement". The bombast and argumentativeness I encountered are part of a long standing problem. If this is a straw-poll, go on WP:AN. Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm AGFing as hard as I am here, but I was just having a conversation off-wiki with another admin about "not giving a lvl3 warning and immediately reporting to AIV anyway" so maybe that's influencing me - I'd like to at least see his response to Dloh and Chrissy. I would be highly surprised if he gives anything other than his cookie-cutter, boo-hoo replies, but maybe I'm an eternal optimist. And obviously, if he does give such a response, I wholeheartedly support this venture. Primefac (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: It's because we're talking about shooting a puppy whose only fault is to eat our slippers and then regurgitate them on the sofa.Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Were that mobile wasn't god awful, so I've not really been keeping up. Anyway no one is expected to be perfect or know everything, but we are all expected to be responsive when someone points out a situation where we don't. If someone is feeling victimized it's usually because their immediate response isn't "hey thanks for pointing out where I was wrong" which is the preferable out of only a handful of acceptible responses. TimothyJosephWood 11:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Permanent or not, he's {{retired}} now. Let's see how long it lasts this time... Primefac (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I hope (and suspect) it won't be too long. Should he return, this is something that needs to be addressed with him at the beginning, so we don't have another 6 months of drama followed by retirement. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't want to see anyone leave, much less someone who has been around long enough to engage in something as comparatively advanced as patrolling. But neither am I overly sympathetic to someone taking themselves hostage and holding a gun to their own head over a fairly minor correction in the face of otherwise overwhelming support. TimothyJosephWood 01:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood I plan on going to AN in the morning at this point given recent developments. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 02:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I agree with this. It's not just A7s, but spam too. A helluva lot ofother editors are being put to work they shouldn't be. That's wasted resources, and that indicates a troublesome element. My POV. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 21:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• <grabs his torch and pitchfork>YEAH! Let's get 'em! (I'm just kidding. I haven't been involved in this and will likely mind my own business wrt it. I just can't pass up a good torch and pitchfork joke.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Classic template! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

And he's back [1]. AN anyone? @Chrissymad:@TonyBallioni: @Dlohcierekim: Toddst1 (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah Toddst1. I've actually got his contributions pulled up already in a different tab. As long as he isn't removing CSD tags I don't really have a personal problem. I mean, I gave him the opportunity to agree to the conditions I intended to start an AN thread over, and if he's abiding by them, then that's just as good a signal that he's agreed, at least for the time being. No reason to demand a appropriately humiliating public apology to appease blood thirsty editors.

I'm glad he's back. I just sincerely hope he doesn't think that a dozen or so of our most active new page patrollers are going to somehow forget in a week that his was an issue. TimothyJosephWood 18:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

FYI that I didn't get the ping, so don't know if @Chrissymad and Dlohcierekim: did either. My thoughts are like TJW's. I don't see an issue here now, but I also think that TJW's most recent post from May is clear enough that if it becomes an issue again, AN is the correct place to resolve it rather than another three days of talk page back and forth. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Hm yeah, didn't see it either.I had something else typed out but I'm just gonna say, I think y'all have way more patience and faith than I do and that I feel like I'm watching history repeat itself. I would like to see an acknowledgement (on the user's part) that we won't have to fight this battle again but I won't hold my breath. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep tabs, but I'm with the general consensus that he should actually break something first. Primefac (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

He'd fallen out of my attention. No need to escalate unless problems resume. Will review his work from time to time. Means well, just too literal and compulsive in acting on his opinions. (If I went around declining all the CSD's I didn't agree with, I'd be hauled before WP:AN/I too. I've learned to restrain myself.)Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Robert Mueller

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robert Mueller. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello GreenMeansGo,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 809 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

FMD page

I was going to continue working on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Countach1017 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey Countach1017. Because we have many hundreds of new articles created per day, many of which are patently not appropriate for an encyclopedia, new articles need to meet the standard of credible significance in order to be retained. If you think the subject meets this standard, but the article just needs more substantial work in order to demonstrate that, you may want to consider creating it first as a draft, where you can continue to work on it without the risk of it being deleted in the meantime.

You can do this by clicking on Draft:Future Motor Corporation and starting it there. When you think you are ready to publish the article you can do so by clicking the move button at the top of the page, or by submitting it for review by one of the volunteers with our Articles for Creation project by copying and pasting {{AFC submission}} at the top of the draft. TimothyJosephWood 13:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The BIO Agency

Hi there

I have amended The BIO Agency page now so it is very brief and factual which I hope now complies. Please can you take a look and let me know. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebecca crook (talk • contribs) 14:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Rebecca crook, Wikipedia is not a means for you to promote your company, and from the looks of it, the most you have done is recreate the page so that it may again be deleted. This is generally considered disruptive and may result in sanctions, including your account and potentially IP addresses associated with you and your company being blocked from editing. TimothyJosephWood 14:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Rebecca crook, your page is now a little too brief; there's nothing that demonstrates that the company is notable. In order to let you keep working on the page, I have moved it to Draft:The BIO Agency. Please add additional independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Don't delete Winthroopstan!

Hi, my page Winthroopstan has been deleted. Why? It is not vandalism or a hoax. It is my micronation, there are pages of micronations on Wikipedia, I don't think mine should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winden89 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

It's great that you and/or your friend found a book on micronations, designed a flag, and made a website. But that doesn't make it appropriate for Wikipedia. TimothyJosephWood 15:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Gary Larcenaire Page

Hello. I am trying to create the Page Gary Larcenaire, but the page has been flagged for removal. Gary Larcenaire is very important to the SLC Mental Health community. He has been the CEO for Valley Behavioral Health for over 5 years now and has contributed so much to our needed community. You can look up our website: www.ValleyCares.com and also Gary Larcenaire if you need more information. I think it is very relevant for him to be listed on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary G Larcenaire (talk • contribs) 16:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Gary G Larcenaire, Wikipedia is not a means for you to promote yourself or your business, and repeatedly recreating the article is likely only going to result in the it being creation protected, making it more difficult for anyone in the future, even someone without a blatant conflict of interest to make an article which may be likely to not result in deletion for promotionalism. TimothyJosephWood 16:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Gary Larcenaire Page

Ok.... How do bio's get posted on wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary G Larcenaire (talk • contribs) 16:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. We do not have "bios"; we have encyclopedia articles. If you want to post a bio, I would suggest something more along the lines of LinkedIn. TimothyJosephWood 17:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion Colorado State University Online

Hello Timothy,

I hope you'll reconsider the speedy deletion tag on the page I just created. I created a new page to reflect the new name of the division of our University. All of the text was copied verbatim from our old page (Colorado State University Continuing Education) which existed for years. It simply explains the role of our division, and is not unambiguously promotional.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliaCSUOnline (talk • contribs) 17:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

JuliaCSUOnline, if the name of the organization has changed, then the entire page needs to be moved. Copying and pasting is not the proper way to do it. Please see WP:MOVE. Primefac (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

All due respect to Primefac, but the previous page was also unambiguously promotional, and I would have nominated it just the same were I to come across it. @JuliaCSUOnline:, with more than five million articles, just because something is around for a long time and doesn't get deleted doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't eligible for deletion. It often simply means that no one has come across it yet.

Overall, Wikipedia does not contain content the primary purpose or function of which is to inform potential consumers, or detail services offered by a company or organization. Nor do we cover entities simply by virtue of the fact that they exist. I'm sure CSU has their own website, and that is exactly where that type of content belongs. TimothyJosephWood 17:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

You make a good point, and I just finished deleting it (since you sort-of nominated the original page). I was mostly pointing out the issues with copy/paste moves for future reference. Primefac (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, you're actually slightly more ambitious than I in that regard I guess. I worked up an AfD when I saw how many previous revision it had, but it was gone before I clicked create. Maybe six of one, half dozen of another. TimothyJosephWood 17:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. We will rewrite our page content to be purely informational only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliaCSUOnline (talk • contribs) 18:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

JuliaCSUOnline, as a general rule, you should not be writing your page at all, because you have a conflict of interest. This was not an invitation to write it better; it was a suggestion to allow someone else unconnected with the organization to write it, if and when they choose to. TimothyJosephWood 18:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Hi! I have created the page for a new hotel in Delhi. It is not an advert. There are facts and information about the first luxury lifestyle hotel in India. How can i stop it from getting deleted? Should i change the tone of the facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhilsharma21 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Nikhilsharma21 You have made eight edits to wikipedia, creating a page for this hotel, or adding it to other existing articles. That is pretty much the definition of promotional editing. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nikhilsharma21, the first thing you should probably do is review our policy on conflicts of interest, and assuming you have an outside connection to the company, which most new accounts that create a business article on their fifth edit normally do, then you should probably do nothing, and if the company is notable, a volunteer will probably eventually create and article for you. TimothyJosephWood 19:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Request on 19:35:37, 22 May 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Martineastwood

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

Thanks for your comment on the reflection of my offer of a Mss. Dietary fibre and sugar. I wonder if it is retrievable.

The question is , with your practiced eye is it worth my while working on this? Or is that too abstract a question? Martin Eastwood

Martineastwood (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey Martineastwood. Your current draft reads a lot like original resarch, which generally isn't allow on Wikipedia. That doesn't mean some of the content might not be useful elsewhere, like the main article on Dietary fiber, or on the main articles for the individual's you discuss. But overall, we should add material to Wikipedia according to how the material is presented already in reliable sources, and avoid grouping things in broad articles according to how we personally think they fit together. Hope this helps. Feel free to ask any follow up questions. TimothyJosephWood 19:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion tags

You tagged Mrs urada as vandalism and an attack page. You find the simple phrase "Best English teacher at kms" somehow derogatory? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

WikiDan61 - kms = kill myself in "internet/text message speak", similar to fml = fuck my life. TimothyJosephWood 20:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Or Kirkwood Middle School. Let's not jump to conclusions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Eh, fair enough. Obviously inappropriate either way, and rightfully deleted. TimothyJosephWood 21:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• In hindsight, it seems likely that NPP is pretty corrosive of AGF. I've been hitting it pretty hard, and this may be a good indication that I need to find some other project to work on for a while. TimothyJosephWood 22:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the article - Visthapit Parivaron Ka Samajshastriya Adhyayan

Respected Sir/ Madam,

                    I have edited this article - Visthapit Parivaron Ka Samajshastriya Adhyayan and submitted. I have removed the section which seems to be promotional. But if still you seems that this article is promotional so please help me and tell what all things I should edit so it not seems to be promotional.
                    My aim is not to promote the product but to provide useful information to the people.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Ashish Upadhyaya (talk • contribs) 11:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC) 

Hey Dr. Ashish Upadhyaya. Unfortunately, per the criteria it was nominated under, the article would need basically a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic, and even if it was, it's not entirely clear that the subject would meet our guidelines for notability, which usually means having received substantial in-depth coverage in reliable sources.

Beyond that, if you have an outside connection with the subject, and it seems likely you do, you should carefully review our policy on conflicts of interest. Editors are strongly discourage from writing about topics with which they have a COI precisely because it is difficult to impossible to do so in a way that is neutral.

If you would like to continue working on the article to try to improve it, it is possible to move it to a draft, and submit it to our Articles for Creation project, where it can be reviewed by a volunteer who can offer feedback prior to publishing. TimothyJosephWood 12:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

17:48:17, 23 May 2017 review of submission by Zsomko

• Zsomko (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Peer effects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you specify exactly what is the problem with my article? I am not relying on any original research or so, and all my statements are based on published articles. Thanks.

@Zsomko: - This is... actually a pretty difficult thing to explain, but here goes. So, in academic writing you really just need references for the "big stuff" (e.g., Use of Cream™ reduced foot fungus by 23% compared to a placebo) and everything in between is "the writer"... writing as a writer.

However, for an encyclopedia, you pretty much need references for everything, sometimes even down to decisions regarding word choice, and original research in the Wikipedia sense means basically anything in an article that goes beyond what the source says.

So, for example, phrases like:

• In the years of adolescence peers have great influence on the development of individuals

According to what? As measured how?

• In collage a quite interesting situation emerges

Quite interesting to whom? Based on what?

• Similar tendencies can be observed

Can they? What tendencies. How were they observed? Who observed them?

These types of things would pass for kindof... generic filler statements in academic writing and no one would probably give it a second thought. But they're not really appropriate for an encyclopedia.

Similarly, basically the entire introduction section is evidently written by a particular Wikipedia editor with a particular viewpoint. But the tone and content of an encyclopedia is more supposed to be written like a "neutral editorial robot", that could have actually been written by anyone, without a strong personal "voice" or discernible viewpoint, and basically provides just the bare facts.

I hope this helps. Like I said, it's often a difficult thing to get used to at first. So feel free to ask any follow up questions if I'm not totally clear (which I'm probably not). TimothyJosephWood 18:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Thank you for the detailed answer, I think I get it now, I will try to reiterate over the text and eliminate the somewhat subjective parts or back them with references. --Zsomko (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: I have rewritten all the stuff that you pointed out and reviewed the entire article based on the aspects suggested by you. Can you take a look at it? Thank you a lot! --Zsomko (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The ongoing attempts at a coup d'etat of the democratically elected President of the United States - Donald J. Trump

thanks for feedback. I will work to improve. Is the premise valid for a wiki page? Let us eat lettuce (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey Let us eat lettuce. Unfortunately, in it's current form, probably no. The premise from the very start is pretty clearly trying to advocate for a particular social/political viewpoint, in favor of the current US administration and against its critics, which is against out policies on neutrality.

As Wikipedia editors, we don't really "get" to have opinions on things, and when we do, we're supposed to keep that out of our writing. Our job isn't to try to shift or frame the narrative, or to right great wrongs, but simply to record what is reported in reliable sources, and do so disinterestedly without going beyond what the sources themselves say.

You may want to check out our tutorial on writing your first article, or take our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. TimothyJosephWood 18:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

okay, I did some editing and named the reliable sources. I did a resubmit, but did not get an acknowledgement it was rec'd I.E. the yellow notice... Has it been rec'd?? Let us eat lettuce (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Let us eat lettuce - It doesn't look like it's been resubmitted. You have to click the blue resubmit button, but it looks like the scope of the type of thing you are trying to write about is pretty well covered in Efforts to impeach Donald Trump. So it's probably better to try to improve that article. Just remember the Bold, Revert, Discuss process and if someone reverts one of your additions, you should discuss the content on the article's talk page. TimothyJosephWood 20:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I did try the resubmit button. will do it again and see. Efforts to impeach Donald Trump editors did not want my input.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Let us eat lettuce (talk • contribs) 21:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Let us eat lettuce, if you want to edit in political topic areas, then learning to get along and compromise with people who don't really seem to "want your input" is pretty much required, as is learning how to keep your cool in otherwise heated debates. But otherwise, because the topic already exists, your article is what's called a WP:POVFORK, and is exceedingly unlikely to be accepted, and very likely to be deleted eventually if it is.

Having said that, editing in political topic areas is one of the more difficult things to do on Wikipedia. I've been around for almost ten years and I still shy away from it occasionally just because of how stressful it can become. So it may be a good idea to get some experience in a less contentious area first and then move on to something more challenging. For example, I highly recommend Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, where there no shortage of work to be done, and lots of enthusiastic people doing it. TimothyJosephWood 21:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, understood. I did not get into anything heated there. I merely would like to document the ongoing bashing and piling on by the opposition. Hey, thanks for helping!!! Let us eat lettuce (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Let us eat lettuce I can tell you now, just from the title, that this draft will never be accepted. It is what we refer to as a POV fork of an existing article. Our policy is to not publish POV forks, but instead to include all relevant views in the original article. Reading through it, it is clearly written in order to influence the views of the reader. No article on WP should be written to influence the views of the reader. We often make claims that may seem partisan, but only when such claims are important to the subject, covered in reliable sources and most importantly not contested by other reliable sources. I understand that this may result in articles that appear biased and in need of correction, but I have found that the best solution in these cases is to accept that reality is messy, and the "right" side of any issue is not necessarily going to be right about every aspect of the subject. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Abdullah Alhuwaidi

i created a page about an up and coming author who has published 1 books with 2 editions and has been on many interviews after i saved it just to see how it looked and then continued writing and after writing a lot more and adding references i saw it was put up for speedy deletion and you said i should contest it which i did and after i submitted it it was already deleted.3bood260 (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey 3bood260. Brand new articles don't have to be perfect, but they do have to make a credible claim of significance, or they are liable to get deleted under speedy deletion criteria A7. If you would like to request the article be moved to a draft you can do so by visiting WP:REFUND, or you can simply recreate the article as a draft by clicking on Draft:Abdullah Alhuwaidi and starting it there. Starting as a draft means it probably won't been seen by anybody, and won't show up on search engines, but it does mean that you can continue to work on it without the risk of it getting deleted for being unfinished, and when you're done you can publish it back as a regular article. TimothyJosephWood 19:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

PROD on Giovanni Mallia

I wish to why you proded the page Giovanni Mallia not speedy delete under A7: Unremarkable person Daniel0wellby (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey Daniel0wellby. The article claims that the subject has won and been nominated for multiple awards for their work. Now, for all we know that's a total lie, but A7 doesn't care about true or false, it just care about whether, if it were true, it could indicate that the subject might meet WP:N once... basically the whole dang world is scoured for every source in existence (see also WP:NEXIST), and usually a claim of winning some type of award is enough to satisfy this.

So when you dig into it a little bit, the venue for the award is totally notable, but the award itself is fairly minor among the venue, and the film itself is only a 13 minute short, ...and the individual seems to have actually shared the writing credit with two other individuals. Probably easily not notable, but we had to dig in order to find out, which usually means it's not A7 territory. TimothyJosephWood 19:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, I am still learning most bits of Wikipedia guidelines and Processes Daniel0wellby (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

No worries Daniel0wellby. It's a big project and there's flatly absurd amounts of stuff to learn. Feel free to pop by if you have any questions. TimothyJosephWood 20:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Women's Equality Party

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Women's Equality Party. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The ongoing attempts at a coup d'etat of the democratically elected President of the United States - Donald J. Trump

yes, I keep polishing this into wiki territory. hard subject.... I'll get there Let us eat lettuce (talk) 08:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Feedback on Awfis Page

Extended content

Speedy deletion nomination of Awfis If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article. You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles. A tag has been placed on Awfis, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information. If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator.

Hi Timothy can you please elaborate on the mistakes or promotional phrases which I have used on the recent saved article on Awfis page, so i can make the changes required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jovian 13 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey Jovian 13. You article was deleted (actually twice now) because its content was unambiguously promotional. Wikipedia is not a means for promotion for companies, organization, people...basically anything, and article content has to comply with our policies on neutrality.

Having said that, writing a brand new article is one of the harder things to do on Wikipedia, and you may want to try spending some time working on improving existing articles in order to get the hang of thing a little more. You may also want to check out our tutorial on writing your first article or take our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. TimothyJosephWood 13:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

INL is not Linux

Hi! I'd like to put on wikipedia my new operating system. Could you help me about how can I do it? I can't put my own work. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outrosdiasvirao (talk • contribs) 16:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey Outrosdiasvirao. In order to qualify for a Wikipedia article, a subject needs to meet our standard for notability which usually means receiving substantial in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. If the program has not yet received this type of coverage, then it is probably too soon for it to have its own article. TimothyJosephWood 17:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Help requested

Hello I'm currently working on the page for Alison Fernandez and she has over 30 IMDB credit which is ranking her at 994 in the under 5000 mark. Im really new at this and maybe I should seek some professionTVAlison (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC) expert help. lol

Hey TVAlison. In order to qualify for a Wikipedia article, a subject needs to meet our guidelines for notability, which usually means having received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If there are such sources that have been published for Alison, then they should be added to the article so that the information contained in it is verifiable, and so the notability is readily demonstrated.

Since you have a close relationship with the subject of the article, you should carefully review our policy on conflicts of interest, and consider using our Articles for Creation project, where a volunteer can review your submission and offer feedback, and where it will be safe from deletion while you work on improving it. If you would like me to change your creation from a new article into an AfC submission, just let me know and I can take care of it for you. TimothyJosephWood 19:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes , i think that may help but what if i place any of these sources in the page?

Hello Tim, Are any of these considered a source?

19:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)19:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)~~

(talk page stalker) TVAlison Those sources are largely either profiles or unreliable. Generic searches are not useful for the purposes of establishing notability and you should be referencing specific parts of published content within your article. Other wikis, celeb birthdays, "person" profiles etc...are not considered coverage and are not considered to be reliable sources. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hey TVAlison. The Entertainment Weekly is probably along the lines of the things you should be looking for. Thinks like wikias, Wikipedia itself, and IMDB are all user generated, and so do not count as reliable sources. Poking through, some of the others seem to be promotional profiles for casting purposes, and so they might be usable for fairly mundane personal details, but they don't really contribute to notability.

Bascially, you're trying to show that the subject is important enough, that people who write for a living, and who don't have any personal stake in promoting her, decided to write about her because they thought she was important to write about. TimothyJosephWood 19:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

OK got it. so maybe the AFC is the way to go. It just that there are so many Wiki pages that refer to her but have no link yet. Like law and order svu, det. nick Amaro, Lucy from Once Upon A Time, Delilah from Logan.

Is it ok to delete this request for help so the wiki bots dont pick it after you refer me over to the AFT submissions? .21:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)21:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)~~

@TVAlison: I have moved the article to Draft:Alison Fernandez where it should be largely protection from deletion while you work on it. I have also added the AfC template to the top of the article. So when you think you are ready to have it reviewed by a volunteer, just click the submit button. Although there is a pretty big backlog right now, so it may take a while. TimothyJosephWood 21:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I have re-written the page and believe I have satisfied the requirements with named source links including "the Hollywood reporter" and "Entertainment Weekly". Please take a look. Also if the link to AFC is still required, I don't see the submit button. 22:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)22:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)~~

That's... because you recreated the article Alison Fernandez instead of editing Draft:Alison Fernandez. I could have technically prevented this confusion and didn't have the good sense to. So.. who is the last admin that posted here?.. looks like @Primefac: is our lucky winner. Can we histmerge these two versions? Recommendations welcome, and also I'm getting ready to leave town for four days and would appreciate someone else having eyes on the issue. TimothyJosephWood 22:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done. So glad I'm the lucky winner :p Primefac (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Much appreciated. TimothyJosephWood 13:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

You are way off base in deleting my page. There is a category in Wikipedia Called “HVAC Manufacturing Companies”, many of our competitors have a presence on your site. AAON, Daikin, Johnson Controls, Trane and York International all have a presence on Wikipedia. Nothing in what I wrote was promotional or sales jargon. Just facts about an American company that has existed for almost 30 years that creates a unique product. ColdAir (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)ColdAir

Hey ColdAir. Unfortunately, it looks like the article has already been deleted, so I can't give you exceedingly detailed examples of which portions were unambiguously promotional. But subjects on Wikipedia don't get their own article because they exist, or because their competitors also have articles. Rather, subjects qualify for an article by meeting our standards for notability, which normally involves demonstrating that they have received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject itself. If the company has not received this type of coverage, and searching around a bit it seems likely that it hasn't, then it is probably too soon for it to have its own article. TimothyJosephWood 12:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no way you checked our sources in the times frame you deleted us. You deleted in 2 minutes after posting. Most of the companies in your HVAC Companies section nobody has ever heard of. We were written about in a notable and reliable publication (Air Conditioning, Heating & Refrigeration News June 27, 2016) I respectfully disagree with judgment and ask that my post be reinstated.

ColdAir, I do not have the user permissions to reinstate the article, or for that matter even to view the deleted version. But if you would like the deletion reviewed, you can request that the page be restored at WP:REFUND. TimothyJosephWood 13:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Question about your feedback - Draft:Muslim Women's National Network Australia

Hi Timothy, thanks for your feedback on my draft! Apologies in advance as I am a newbie.

I created this page as it is listed as a desired page for the Wikipedia Women in Red project

To be honest I don't know what information should be included and what shouldn't be. I didn't previously know anything about the organisation, so have just been researching it to see what I can find. They sound like a significant organisation here in Australia in terms of advocating for progressive Muslim integration into Australian society - which has been a hot topic since 2001 - so I tried to include information that related to that. It's not a huge organisation so there isn't that much to draw on.

From what you're saying, most of it isn't necessary? Should I cut the extra sections (Advocacy, Educational Initiatives, People)? I was worried that the introduction wouldn't be enough content to be considered "noteable."

Many thanks for your patience and help Powertothepeople (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey Powertothepeople. First off, thanks for working to improve our coverage of women and women's issues. It's greatly needed and appreciated.

As to the draft itself, article quality isn't necessarily measured in length, although it is sometimes hard to demonstrate notability in an excessively short article, since there's very little content to support with reliable sources. But quality often makes up for quality. So for example, if you could find a really in-depth examination of the organization, that can be worth a lot more than lots of passing mentions, like this source, with deals very little with the organization and more with the social issue and the person.

As to the tone, see Wikipedia:Avoid mission statements for the kind of thing I'm talking about. Overall, kindof "pie-in-the-sky" mission statements should generally be avoided if possible, since they rarely contribute any meaningful information, and are by their very nature slanted in favor of the organization, how they see themselves, and how they want to be seen by others. Overall, Wikipedia is supposed to be a lot like a "neutral editorial robot" and... like you as a writer are indifferent to the topic as a whole.

As to the focus, a lot of the stuff about people or books doesn't necessarily have to be removed all together, it just may need refocused. So, for example you may be able to talk about how the organization maybe operates a publishing arm that puts out books aimed at accomplishing its goals, and that way you are still talking about the organization, and avoid talking mostly about a book, which ultimately isn't the subject of the article. TimothyJosephWood 14:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Kristen McGuire

For context, copy/pasted from the user's talk page: TimothyJosephWood 22:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Umm... Is there a reason you are recreating an article that you yourself brought to AfD and had deleted basically a month ago? TimothyJosephWood 17:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I kinda think she does deserve one now.Therainbowsend (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm... gonna go ahead and ping @Black Kite: as closer to see if they have a strong opinion one way or the other. TimothyJosephWood 17:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Has a decision been made about this yet? I'm not sure this article was improved from the deleted version. Esw01407 (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

No. I'm travelling currently and putting off most things that require a keyboard and/or thought. I'm conflicted, and glad that someone else is aware, since I hadn't made a decision, and wasn't entirely sure how my nominating or failing to nominate for CSD would basically be a super vote nearly noone would see. TimothyJosephWood 22:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

User:KGirlTrucker81, User:AngusWOOF, User: Rhododendrites

I don't really see a non-messy way to do this, but I'm pining the !voters in the deletion discussion to see if they have strong opinions. In a nutshell, the thing is pretty much auto-eligible for WP:G4, if someone wants to nominate, unless the individual has somehow done something in the past month to change the nature of the discussion.

To Therainbowsend, you mucked up buddy. If you haven't done enough WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for AfD, so much so that you can change your mind a few weeks later, then you shouldn't be nominating. AfD is a very time intensive part of project maintenance, and it has a finite amount of attention to spread around. We should not be nominating frivolously, and a consistent pattern of doing so may result in a topic ban from nominating articles for deletion. Do your homework next time before you start using up other's time that could be better spent. TimothyJosephWood 22:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Also ping User:Esw01407 since they're interested. TimothyJosephWood 22:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, pardon me then. Therainbowsend (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Please don't re-create the page. You are welcome to make a draft in your own userspace or in the draft area though. You'll have to prove she meets notability. Has she had significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I won't even bother. Therainbowsend (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I've moved it to Draft. Please continue to work on it there until she gets enough notability to meet WP:GNG AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:06, 29 May 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) 04:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Request on 07:32:58, 26 May 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Pedro dreamcheaper

• Pedro dreamcheaper (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:DreamCheaper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Publishing Wikipedia article

Hello,

Please Timothyjosephwood, help me to publish this article. I am working at DreamCheaper, they asked for this article a month ago, and since then I am trying to publish it. But I really don't know how to meet my managers' requirements and your requirements.

The thing is that I cannot totally explain your position as if I say to them that "the article is too marketinish for Wikipedia", they will reply "ok, and what about Booking.com article or Trivago?" So at the end, it looks that I am not doing good pushing their article.

Therefore, I will modify it a little bit, but please, help me out because I need to publish this article properly on Wikipedia.

Best regards, Pedro Salas

Pedro dreamcheaper (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey Pedro dreamcheaper. So to start with (and since I see you've already been advised of our WP:COI policies), subjects receive or don't receive articles on Wikipedia based on whether they meet our standard for notability, which usually requires demonstrating that they have received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I rejected your draft based on it seeming promotional, which isn't really here nor there regarding whether or not the company is notable, and that the ultimate standard that needs to be met.

I see your current draft has 11 sources in it. Unfortunately a lot of those are in German, and while I may be able to tell whether they contain the name of your business, I'm really not able to evaluate them on the basis of how reliable they might be. So for example, in depth industry coverage of a company may go a long way toward establishing notability, but more puffy human interest pieces, press release type stories, opinion pieces, or blogs don't really go anywhere in that regard. So we may have to wait for a German speaker to try to evaluate them more fully, that is, if most of the coverage is indeed in German, and there just isn't that much coverage in English, which may be likely as a German start-up.

At least one English source seems to fail the reliability test, since it seems to be a blog entry, and one written by a "Judith" who is apparently affiliated with the company, so it's more like a press release which means literally nothing as far as notability. In contrast, the Tech Crunch piece is probably along the lines of the type of coverage you should be shooting for. It seems to be an independent and fairly in-depth overview of the company without being overtly promotional, and it appears to be one of their regular stories, and not an opinion piece or a blog.

As far as your job is concerned, unfortunately this happens pretty often, and I'm sorry that your boss, who doesn't seem to understand Wikipedia themselves, has put you in an odd position. If it turns out that your business isn't in fact notable, which is ultimately determined by community discussion (AfC is only supposed to try to predict how that discussion is likely to go), then you boss's job is to help make the type of company that gets quality coverage in reliable sources. Unfortunately, a lot of bosses take a "just get it done" approach to Wikipedia, which often causes more trouble than good, and in extreme cases, can cause whole organizations to be banned from the site (e.g., the entirety of the Church of Scientology is banned from editing Wikipedia for various abuses).

For now, if your boss needs an explanation, just send them the url of my talk page and I can try to explain it to them as best I can. As for you, I would try to continue to improve the article using quality sources, and if you can, spend some time editing and trying to improve other articles on businesses to get a better feel for the way things work. Feel free to ask any follow up questions you may have, and sorry for the lengthy reply. TimothyJosephWood 21:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

National seal of the Comoros update

country official name
République fédérale islamique des Comores (Federal and Islamic Republic of Comoros) : 1978-2001
Union des Comores (Union of Comoros) : 2001- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.40.137.198 (talk) 07:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey anon. I'm sorry that English doesn't appear to be your first language, but what I need is a source that says that the country officially changed to this new logo, to justify using a non-free file. The reason I didn't find it is likely that it is in a non-English source, but we still need a source in order to change it. TimothyJosephWood 21:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

New speedy deletion criterion?

Unfortunately there is no such a speedy deletion criterion as {{speedy deletion-cringe worthy new article}}, but I agree that for the article Sameer khan there should be. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll admit... I was tempted to make a template. TimothyJosephWood 17:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

{{db-cringe}}, {{db-garbage}}, {{db-why isn't there a way to burn this with fire already}}.... yeah, there are a lot of templates I'd like to create! Primefac (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

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

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:White Helmets (Syrian Civil War). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Visthapit Parivaron Ka Samajshashtriya Adhyayan

Respected Sir/ Madam, In Google it is showing - Visthapit Parivaron Ka Samajshashtriya Adhyayan - DeletedWiki deletedwiki.com/index.php?title=Visthapit_Parivaron_Ka_Samajshashtriya... May 16, 2017 - Dr. Ankur Pare is a famous young sociologist and author. Many important research papers have been published by him at International and ... Please remove it from google — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Ashish Upadhyaya (talk • contribs) 04:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey Dr. Ashish Upadhyaya. Unfortunately, we have no control over other sites that Google shows in its search results (and sometimes little or no control over how they display results from Wikipedia). The site you are referencing isn't Wikipedia, but is a mirror site that rehosts content from Wikipedia. When you submitted your article here, you licensed it in a way that allowed anyone to reuse it for any purpose, and that's what they're doing. If you would like it taken down from their site, I'm afraid you'll have to contact someone there. TimothyJosephWood 21:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Here you go!

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		Says without going, you helped me a lot in order to become a better editor, so here you go. :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey Adityavagarwal. Thanks. Happy to help. It's good to see you're staying busy and even getting involved in new WikiProjects. Keep up the good work! TimothyJosephWood 21:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, after my exams have been over, I am back to editing some articles at Wikipedia. :D You mean the Wikiproject Equine? Yeah, contributing to Wikiprojects is really cool! :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Dennis Crouch

Hello Timothy, I'm Dennis Crouch a American upright Bass player. I wrote a article about myself listing the artist I've recorded with. Looks like you may be deleting it because of lack of proof. It would be great if someone within Wikipedia looked it up themselves, for instance Ampeg amp, allmusic or look within this site. Thank you for you time, Dennis Crouch 5/28/2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crouchdennis (talk • contribs) 20:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Crouchdennis, the page was originally put up for deletion because there were no references. Since you have added some, that nomination has been removed. Primefac (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Yes Crouchdennis. Much thanks to User:Uncle Roy for standing in the gap on this one and largely saving the article. Since you are probably familiar with yourself, if you happen to know of some high quality reliable sources that cover you and your work, feel free to provide them on the article's talk page so that they can be used to improve the article. TimothyJosephWood 21:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Militarization of police

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Militarization of police. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Ukraine football

Football Federation of Ukraine logo with clear title and white background
http://www.ffu.org.ua/img/forall/ffu_logo.jpg
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.40.137.198 (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done TimothyJosephWood 12:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Defend for creation of Titan Sports Plus

Hi, Timothy.

I am the creator of the article 'Titan Sports Plus'. This article is being considered for deletion. I would like to defend that this article is of significance for wiki users and this article should not be deleted.

Two counter-arguments from Wiki editors. (1) I am a COI user. (2) This may be notable, but if it is, there's absolutely nothing in the English language to indicate that this is the case

Regarding to counter-argument (1). It it not true. I am neither employed nor payed by the relevant organization (Titan Sports). I used to be their reader and their chief-editor is my friend (I don't think such a relationship is COI.). In writing the wiki articles about 'Titan Sports', I was trying to use descriptive phrases as much as possible and trying to write neutrally. I don't think I used any subjective judgement on the objects I was editing.

The reason I created the Titan related articles is (1) One of their editors used to ask me if I have interest to write an article in English Wiki (2) As a wiki user, I was surprised that as the most influential Chinese sports media group/newspaper, they even don't have their wiki article, while the much less notable sports newspaper in China 'Oriental Sports Daily' has their wiki article. This drove me to write the articles for TitanSports, which is a main source for a generation of Chinese sports readers to receive information when Internet had not been widely used in China.

Based upon the above propositions, I don't think I should be considered as a COI user.

(2) why the term 'Titan Sports Plus' should not be deleted. Your counter-argument is: This may be notable, but if it is, there's absolutely nothing in the English language to indicate that this is the case. I don't think every object of wiki articles should have many other English language sources as support.

You could see that the object of this article is a new-media product. In the world of new media, a product or a company could surge to fame within a very short period of time. Titan Sports Plus won had a big fame in China since its foundation in 2015. I can find dozens of such links in Chinese to prove its notability. It is quite understandable why we cannot find any relevant English articles to support its notability. Many non-English/non-western products/companies become prominent and notable before English world starts to focus on it.

And one of responsibilities of wiki is, I believe, make those objects which is notable but lacks English information acknowledged to English readers.

Another proposition could support my defending. How an obscure new media platform could get the chance to make an exclusive interview on Yelena Isinbayeva. Titan Sports has dozens of pictures of interviewing sports star of this level. I uploaded one only as I want to keep the article simple, neat and neutral.

I am really furious with Editor Mr. Trekker's prompt deletion without explanation and suggestion. I used to send him messages about the reasons of deleting the article and in which aspects the article could be improved to meet Wiki's criteria. Finally I did not receive any response from him AT ALL.His attitude is rough, gruff and arbitrary. If possible, I would like to file a complaint on him if there is a place in wiki to file complaints.

If you need any further explanation or information, please let me know. I would like to answer as much as I can.

Many thanks Best wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujishadow (talk • contribs) 07:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey Ujishadow. If you do not in fact have a conflict of interest, perhaps you'll forgive the fact that it can look to an outside observer an awfully lot like you do, since you have edited exclusively in areas related to this subject and its brands. If you would like to defend the subject's notability, the appropriate place to do so is at the ongoing deletion discussion. Per our policy on non-English sources, they are allowed and may help establish the notability of the subject, but as an English speaker, I cannot personally either find such sources or evaluate whether they are reliable in nature. If you however can, then you should add these sources to the article in an appropriate way, so that they may help demonstrate the subject's notability.

It's not entirely clear what interaction with User:*Treker you are referring to. I'm assuming you mean this series of warnings on your talk page. On the face of it, they seem overall fairly appropriate, since you seem to have uploaded several images to Wikipedia, without indicating how they are allowed for use here, and are not copyright violations. This is an area in which we do not have a large degree of personal discretion, since our copyright policies are dictated largely by 1) the copyright laws of the United States, which houses the host organization for Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, and 2) the laws of the country in which the image was taken, or in which the copyright holder may reside. In certain cases, you may upload and use copyrighted material on Wikipedia, but it must clearly indicate how the use of the content would meet with our standards for non-free content, which is again, largely dictated the the applicable laws, and not by Wikipedia or its users. If you would like to do so, I can help as best I can, or you are always welcome to ask any questions you may have at Wikipedia:Help desk‎ or The Teahouse, where there are always users willing to help in any way they can. TimothyJosephWood 10:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Timothy. Many thanks for your reply and understanding. I was furious on UserTrekke is not on copyrights of images, but on the prompt deletion.He promptly deleted 'TitanSportsPlus' article promptly without listening to nor replying my questions for explanation/questions for improvements. I did not get paid by editing wiki. What drove me to get my wiki articles approved is a sense of accomplishments. In that case I would not like to see my articles deleted promptly without explanation. The reason why my articles focus exclusively in one area is simple ---- only full-time wiki editors will have time to cover all topics of wiki. At moment I would not like to focus on these issues which makes me uncomfortable. What I should focus on is how to make 'Titan Sports Plus' meet wiki criteria. So far the key issue is to confirm the 'notability' of the object of the article.

For the reference, I used one reference of the self-introduction on the official website of the object and a reference from a third-party, which is from 163.com, a top 4 Chinese portal website. One reference from an 'insider' point of view and a reference from an 'outsider' point of view, I believe, is enough to keep the description neutral. And two references for a 100-word article is enough, I think. When I wrote this article, I just tried to catch the key points of the object. So far I think the introduction is neat and clean. Any suggestions to improve the notability of the object? Shall I send more Chinese third-party reports on this object? (I did not put up many of them as I think too many references are not helpful to the quality of an article, like an academic essay.)

Lastly, many thanks for your reply Best wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujishadow (talk • contribs) 14:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey Ujishadow. So, there's definitely a balance to be had there. Adding lots and lots of references for no real reason can be seen as spammy, and is generally frowned upon. And per the relevant policy, sourcing content to self-published material (including a company website), is allowed, and often required for fairly mundane details about a subject, but it doesn't lend any credence to notability, since pretty much anyone can start their own website and write about themselves for a few bucks and a little bit of time.

So the question is I suppose what is it that needs citation, and the answer is really another question: why is this subject important? And the answer to that question is the "stuff that needs citation". If there isn't really any of "that stuff", then there may need to be another approach.

It's possible that maybe the app itself isn't that important, but the company, Titan Sports Media Group is. If that's the case, then the article on the app might need to redirect to the article on the company, and the app might be better suited to a section in the main article on the company. The same might be true of Titan Sports (newspaper) and Best Footballer in Asia, where basically the entire articles may as well be completely unreferenced because they're referenced only to the official website.

Looking at the company article, there does look like there's a bit of room for more citations there already. For example, one of the largest sports media groups in China, isn't really the kind of mundane and uncontroversial detail that we want to cite to the company itself. We really should have an independent source for that, since it's a pretty self-serving claim.

Overall, I think my personal recommendation at this point would be to try to consolidate all of these articles that are related to the company, into one condensed really good article on the company itself. Just keep the really important things out of each one, and provide independent citations for all the important things that are kept. If you do that, then you probably have a fairly wide range of things that actually need citation and opportunities where the references you do include to support the content that's already there, end up showing that the company and all the things it has done/is doing actually does easily meet our notability standards. TimothyJosephWood 15:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear Timothy I would apologize for the short response, as it is pretty late in China now. For 'Titan Sports(newspaper)' and 'Titan Sports Media Group' and 'Best Footballer in Asia', they should no doubt each be independent articles. I think the problem is lack of 'background information'. NYtimes is one of largest English newspapers in the World? no doubt. Anyone who is is sports industry would hear the name of titan sports no matter he is a Chinese or a British. So 'one of the largest' is a common sense. Actually it is the 'largest'. For consideration of 'neutrality', I used 'one of the largest' instead. Actually in the section of 'Titan Sports(Newspaper)' there are quite a lot of data to support the 'one of the largest' argument. Regarding the citation problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballon_d%27Or_1959 Just see similar article, only one citation from UEFA website(which is not a third-party). It is the similar case of 'BestfootballerinAsia' article.

Back to the 'TitanSportsPlus' article, it is important as 'it is one of the most popular sports app in China now'(basically you cannot find many data or news relating that, but it is a widely accepted thing), not only because of the fame 'Titan Sports Media Group'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujishadow (talk • contribs) 15:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Ujishadow, Well, "one of the largest" is problematic in a number of ways, which is why it needs citation and probably more explanation. Largest in terms of what? Employees, market share, audience, earnings, assets...? And what does being "one of" mean? Number 1, top 100, top 500...? As an encyclopedia, if it is... for example... the 3rd largest sports media group in China in terms of audience, 11th in terms of employees, and 6th in terms of revenue, then article should just flatly say that, with clear citations for where the information came from and how it was measured. That gives the reader real information, whereas "one of the largest" sounds nice, but doesn't actually say much. TimothyJosephWood 16:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

As to the notability of the app, if it is the case that one cannot find many data or news relating that then the subject is simply not notable, and does not warrant a stand-alone article, and it doesn't really matter how "widely accepted" it is. TimothyJosephWood 16:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for suggestion. I have changed 'largest' to 'influential', which seems to be more precise. Per 'Titan Sports Plus', I will check other sources on time. The problem is.... there are thousands of such reports and news in Chinese similar with reference（163.com） I used in the article. I am wondering what kind of news, links could meet the standard of notability..... And photography is a way to indicate notability of a object. The one of the interview with Yelena Ishinbayeva is no doubt helpful. Do you think adding other such photos (with sports celebrities and TitanSportsPlus together) is helpful? Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujishadow (talk • contribs) 14:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey Ujishadow. Images themselves don't really do anything at all in establishing notability. On our own project, Wikimedia Commons, alone there are tens of millions of images, and the subjects of the vast majority of those will mostly likely not be notable enough for an article. As to what types of references you should be adding, simply put, you should add whatever references show why the subject is somehow important. You're not simply trying to demonstrate that "this app" or "this company" exists, but that they are somehow remarkable among apps or companies and therefore deserving of their own article. TimothyJosephWood 14:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

separate Ukraine national football team logo ?

like Slovenia case, Slovenia FA and Slovenia team have different logos

football team logo with word "UKRAINE" https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/755676740320653316/qbtXPWWa_400x400.jpg
football shirts with word "UKRAINE" https://twitter.com/FFUKRAINE/status/867736761857957888/photo/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.40.137.202 (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey anon. Unfortunately, I don't really follow football, and there are about a half dozen current articles that use the logo you suggested previously. Is this the logo for all the teams and the previous logo is only for the association itself, or is this only the logo for the main national team? TimothyJosephWood 10:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

the logo for all the teams and the previous logo is only for the association itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.40.137.128 (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination Momentum

Hi Timothy,

Thanks for reaching out to me! Unfortunate to hear that my page got flagged for speedy deletion. Some people of Podio had advised me to write a wiki page about our product and its features.

To understand better what is appropriate for Wikipedia, could you please explain the difference between for example Podio's wikipage and the one for Momentum? I would really appreciate it!

Best regards,

Willem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willem Dewulf (talk • contribs) 14:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey Willem Dewulf. First off, since you have an outside connection with the subject, you should carefully review our policies on conflicts of interest. Aside from that, subjects on Wikipedia qualify for a stand-alone article by meeting our standards for notability, which usually involves demonstrating that the subject has received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject itself. The current article not only includes no such references, but does not appear to make any credible claim of significance for why the company is somehow important or remarkable to potentially warrant coverage in an encyclopedia (besides making apparent claims regarding what "happened" to the company in the future).

Given that the company apparently launched its first app within the past month or so, it seems unlikely that the company has received the type of sustained coverage needed to support an article, and the creation of an article may have to wait until such a time that is has. TimothyJosephWood 14:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump

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

AE comment

I would like to know too how you discovered my name after the banter linked below and your comments on my talk page here (is the 1000 year plan you mentioned in just a friendly suggestion related to Objective 3000? At the time I thought it was meant to make me think of the 4th Reich which was intimidating, just as your satirical outing of me was. Now I know you built plausible deniability into that "outing", but if Arbcom asks me to reveal my private info (again) and your offending edit I will. To help you find it, it was shortly after this bit of gravedancing banter. Also, insofar as I live in France, you have no need to fear that I am "stalking" Americans. I am studying unhealthy edit patterns that have been identified by numerous sources (who actually use the word "toxic editing environment"). I have no intention of harming anyone, and certainly will never reveal any personal info except through proper channels. SashiRolls (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I... I'm actually really not saying this as a personal attack. But, you should consider seeing someone, because even with the diff, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, or even which part you may have misconstrued as an outing. This... may actually be a clinical level of paranoia.

I'm not sure how to say this more unequivocally, but I really don't give a shit about you, either as an editor or a person. I literally forgot you existed until your talk page started popping up on my watchlist. And no, that doesn't make you special. I have literally thousands of pages on my watchlist. The only thing that could be at all construed as giving a shit about you is the fact that you are flatly and very publicly disruptive, and even then, you're probably only in the top 100 most disruptive editors I've come across.

The only strong opinion about you whatsoever is that I hope you're quickly indefinitely blocked, because you're wasting a lot of people's time for no good reason, and that just makes you another name I'm going to forget as soon as you're gone. TimothyJosephWood 22:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)