User talk:TomVenam2021

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, TomVenam2021! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 06:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Peter Gutwein[edit]

The image you are trying to add appears to be a copyright violation. Just because the picture was taken by the Tasmanian state government or the federal government does not make it a public domain item unless the source specifically says so. Works produced by a state or the government have a copyright period of 50 years and this image isn't that old. Nthep (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TomVenam2021, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi TomVenam2021! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Nick Moyes (talk).

Visit the Teahouse
We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


Your submission at Articles for creation: Alexander Clerke has been accepted[edit]

Alexander Clerke, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DanCherek (talk) 05:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Thomas Cowley (April 1)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CommanderWaterford was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021[edit]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to John Quincy Adams, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Your edit violated the consensus that your fellow editors decided at Talk:John Quincy Adams/Archive 2#subject lede photo discussion AGAIN. Peaceray (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Richard Nixon shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. BusterD (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry sir. TomVenam2021 (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to come across as a WP:DICK. I especially don't want to discourage you from editing WP:BOLDLY. What I'm seeing in your edits is a desire to make changes to infobox images. Aside from the WP:Discretionary sanctions which could be leveled at you from edit warring in infoboxes, there's the local consensus on the page itself. Editors who've been able through hard work and consensus building to advance very visible pages to Featured Article status might object to sudden changes, especially when those kinds of changes have already been discussed on talk. I would suggest if one is going to make image changes, try working on pages which are B-class or lower. A great place for new editors to contribute is on stubs and start class pages which can really use the help. If I can be of any assistance myself, please feel free to call on my talk page. Thanks for your contributions thusfar. Welcome, good luck, and happy editing. BusterD (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay man, I’m just trying to be good. I don’t wanna seem like a bad user. I’ll discuss changes on the talk page before changing them. TomVenam2021 (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Thomas Cowley (April 11)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
fails WP:MILITARTY
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
DGG ( talk ) 08:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Rupert Holmes.jpeg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Rupert Holmes.jpeg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Venam tagged for deletion[edit]

Hello TomVenam2021, I wanted to let you know that I've tagged Tom Venam for deletion because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia. If you feel that this assessment is incorrect you can either edit the article to explain better how the subject is notable or you can click on the "Contest this deletion" button and explain it on the talk page, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. – Thjarkur (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually best not to write about subjects that one is close to. Note that Fandom is not a usable source (it is user-generated), Wikipedia has to summarize what reliable, independent soures say. – Thjarkur (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for letting me know. I, however disagree. There are many people on here who aren’t relevant too much, this article included, but, I still think if people who were part of the 106th district of the house of reps in Michigan 160 years ago, then it should be fine for this article to be on here as well. TomVenam2021 (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does indeed have some arcane standards for what counts as notable, but: People who have served in state legislature are considered notable by default, while people who have not been mentioned by a reliable source are not notable. There is further discussion of this here. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well where can I make sure which websites are reliable? TomVenam2021 (talk) 06:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read & heed Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Peaceray (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Tom Venam The Future.jpeg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tom Venam The Future.jpeg. 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. Whpq (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Butterfield (comedian) moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Isaac Butterfield (comedian), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ... discospinster talk 22:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Isaac Butterfield (comedian) has been accepted[edit]

Isaac Butterfield (comedian), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Thomas Cowley for deletion[edit]

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

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

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

Onel5969 TT me 14:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:BadForYourHealth.jpeg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BadForYourHealth.jpeg. 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) 17:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Isaac Butterfield (comedian) for deletion[edit]

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

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

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

FMSky (talk) 11:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Thomas J. Cowley[edit]

Hello, TomVenam2021,

Thank you for creating Thomas J. Cowley.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Hello there, thanks for creating the article. I found some issues while going through it, could you link the article to other related pages? Also please do add the necessary categories. Thank you!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Rejoy2003}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 06:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Thomas J. Cowley[edit]

Notice

The article Thomas J. Cowley has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Simply not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and even if the now deprecated NSOLDIER was still around, would not even meet that lower standard.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Onel5969 TT me 11:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022[edit]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Dylan Mulvaney, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Bridget (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TomVenam2021&oldid=1130606068"