User talk:TimothyBlue

		Welcome to my Talk Page
		Thank you for dropping by. Please assume good faith. I really don't like hyperbole, profanity, or hostility and I'm sure you don't either. If I've made a mistake, please don't assume bad faith. If we have a difference of opinion, I'm open to discussing it (time permitting). I have very strong feelings about the importance of notability, policies and guidelines, sources and evidence, and process and consensus for building the quality of the encyclopedia. Best wishes from Los Angeles,   // Timothy :: talk

		Are you here about an Article for Deletion nomination?
		Hello, if you are here about an article for deletion nomination I've made or !voted on, please read this note and assume good faith. After reading, please feel free to leave a polite, civil message at the bottom of the page. Thanks :)   // Timothy :: talk

Discussion and Messages

A Barnstar for you!

		The Russia Barnstar of National Merit
		Your efforts have been worthwhile comrade! You bring pride to the motherland. For an impressive job creating Bibliography of the Russian Revolution and Civil War, I hereby award you the Barnstar of National Merit. Keep up the good work! CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For your thoughtful AfDs (and not just because of your gracious words here). I've enjoyed working with you, and not just when we agree! (Surprised there isn't a "barnstar of deletion"; perhaps that would send the wrong message?) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings The feeling is entirely mutual. It's always nice to be able to have a pleasant conversation, learn new things and improve the encyclopedia :) Hope this finds you well. Greetings from Los Angeles.   // Timothy :: talk  17:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

May I second that barnstar? Very much appreciate your comments on the AfD and am going to withdraw. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your excellent work... Illegitimi non carborundum! Theroadislong (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello TimothyBlue: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Happy New Year!

Empire AS ^Talk! — is wishing you a Happy New Year! It's the last day of 2024 and tomorrow will be 2025. Hope the coming year brings pleasures for you. Have a prosperous, enjoyable and a productive 2025. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Empire AS ^Talk! 18:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Precious

blue bibliographies

Thank you for quality articles on bibliographies such as Bibliography of Stalinism and the Soviet Union and Bibliography of Martin Van Buren, for Green Banana Hole and William John Read, for friendly blue messages - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2504 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, Thank you :) I am really proud of the three Soviet history bibliographies. I always enjoy seeing your encouraging notes. Best wishes from Los Angeles,   // Timothy :: talk  23:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, also for making me notice that "encourage" might have been a better motto for the year than "take courage" (coming from this song)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the speedy deletion of Morning Star High School

Hey man why did you suggested my article for speedy deletion. If you think that it is not suitable for Wikipedia then please first try to improve it. Please don't remove it , please. It is an organisation . i have added some sources too. I need some more time please dude Jogesh 69 (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Re-open of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ozan Boz (2nd nomination)

Hello Timothy, just wanted to reach out and kindly ask you to review your vote. Discussion is re-opened [[1]], and I’ve added a few objections to the Nominator’s arguments. Please consider whether the article satisfies the guideline WP:MUSICBIO. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neckhumbucker (talk • contribs) 20:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reply Neckhumbucker, I will look at the update you posted. I promise I will consider it and give it thought for at least a day.

re: WP:MUSICBIO, states: "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. Rather, these are rules of thumb used by some editors", WP:MUSICBIO is a guideline, not a rule or policy.

One final item, you may not realize this because you are a new editor, but in situations such as this, when a member of a group is split off into their own article, that separate article receives substantially less views compared with when it was in the main article. Why do you wish to create an article that will give the subject substantially less views? I do not believe you want to make the content more obsure, but that will be the result of a separate article; personally I think the subject deserves the content where it will receive the most attention, not the least.   // Timothy :: talk  01:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reply Thank you Timothy.

re: WP:MUSICBIO, I am getting up to speed with the policies, guidelines and rules. As far as I understand, policies have the most weight in a discussion, and then guidelines. Deletion Policy directly points to relevant notability guidelines. So I was thinking that satisfying a couple of sections of the WP:MUSICBIO guideline would give the necessary weight to my side of the discussion.

I wasn’t aware that the view count of Wiki pages was relevant. But when I was updating the band’s page, I realized the subject is an artist with a singular voice and with his own accomplishments that do not overlap with the band, so I created a new page for him. I’d think the subject’s page would be an additional entry point for the music community in Canada when wiki users who are interested in electric guitar or filmmaking find their way to the subject’s page.

Thanks.

Neckhumbucker (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Neckhumbucker, The views do not matter for AfD, it is just strange you would want content where it will receive less views; most editors want the content they create read more not less. If you are thinking a significant amount of the content will be in both articles you are mistaken. If they are distinct topics, there should be minimal overlap.

Your reasoning about "entry points" and multiple articles is faulty, Wikipedia does not create articles for entry points. This is what a redirect is for. If there are alternative terms the content could be searched by and the content is in one article, then a redirect is created to the article or to the appropriate section in the article. This creates the most exposure and readership for the content. It also has the benefit of helping keep content up to date: the more people that read the material, the more likely it will be kept up.

People have the mistaken impressiion that separate articles are always better, as I've outlined above there are disadvantages to having content split into another article which people don't think about and often no advantages in return. People don't click through to other content as often as we think they will. Sometimes it is appropropriate or necessary to have separate articles, but often it is not. I see the same thing at work inside an article, people think the more sections an article has, the better it is; so you end up with twelve sentences spread over six sections; this just makes the article appear fragmented and disrupts the reading flow. In the same way separate articles fragment the content and disrupt the reading flow.

I really think you should consider listening to more experienced editors on this matter. If you want maximum readership for the content, the place for it is in the main, not a separate article; if you want entry points, then you create redirects, which is what was being done before.

Drmies is far more experienced than I am and is familar with the circumstances. Drmies, please correct me if I am wrong about any of the above and any other input would be valuable.   // Timothy :: talk  18:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Timothy. After reading your reply, I understand now that "entry points" means something else in the wikisphere. I used it loosely to describe another page. Thank you for the insight. (sorry about poor formatting I am still learning...) Neckhumbucker (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Timothy, no, you're not wrong about anything here. I would just add that this is the first time I see the term "entry point", and I think the editor's specification of "for the music community in Canada when wiki users who are interested in electric guitar or filmmaking" is just really not a propos here. Neckhumbucker, for notability there are two things: MUSICBIO (in this case) and GNG. None of the criteria in the former are met (with the possible exception of being nominated, not winning, an award or two), at least not verifiably, and the same applies to the GNG, the general notability guidelines, which simply says that a notable subject should have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and that is not applicable here. Yes, these are guidelines, but they're not "just" guidelines; there are no policies that dictate that anything should get an article. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Drmies. I will focus on the two things as you summarized: MUSICBIO (in this case) and GNG

I’ve gotta admit I am a little lost here. Please help me. I will try to explain.

You are saying re: MUSICBIO “None of the criteria in the former are met (with the possible exception of being nominated, not winning, an award or two), at least not verifiably”

So, no criteria is met with one exception which is not verifiable. This is exactly what I am trying to get the editors’ attention. Awards websites might be confusing but it is there. How do I prove that it is there and verifiable if editors refuse to take a closer look? I am guessing you didn’t look closely either. Because it is there.

But then again, even if I prove that it is there and verifiable, you are saying it is “just” a guideline. Now the rug is pulled out from under my feet. What am I supposed to lean on to prove my point of view? Voters can rely on their interpretation of the guidelines, but I cannot even rely on the guideline word by word.

As for GNG, significant coverage cannot be limited to the voters/editors' knowledge of the media. CBC and Jazz.fm etc are as significant as it gets in Canada. Saying they are not significant, isn’t that an opinion? Jazz.fm allocates a 1-hr episode of a documentary series. Is it that significant? CBC is like NPR in the US, or more like BBC radio/tv in the UK. (On a side note, I think putting too much emphasis on media coverage is not a good idea. Media will always follow what’s popular, not what’s notable as they need to sell paper/clicks.)

(With some help) I can add some foreign sources to the article to satisfy GNG. As far as I understand, foreign sources are acceptable, correct? But then again, it is just a guideline. So confused.

I will keep improving the article. But if it is deleted now, next time it’ll be the third deletion nomination. Because now the nominator dug his heels in, It’ll get harder and harder. Because he is more experienced and tag and invites others to vote. From what I’ve read about Wiki so far, this needs to be avoided if it can be. Let the article live, give it a chance. There are so many tags to invite editors for improvements, such as primary sources, unreliable sources. You guys know about these better than me.

I really don’t mean to take up so much of your time. But a few lingering concerns.

Timothy is concerned about the view count of the article. You are concerned about verifiability, and I am sure other voters have their own concerns based on their own take on what is most important. And I understand all that. But I don’t see how articles about notable but not popular people ever stay on Wiki. My concern is that voters just want to see popular subjects with in-your-face media coverage. I am now too reluctant to add more jazz/world musician pages because this will be what I am going to go against.

If you’re short on time, I’d appreciate it if you can answer my questions about verifiability and foreign sources.

Thanks so much for your time. (and yes, the water is still running here) [[2]]

All the best. Neckhumbucker (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)