User talk:GreenMeansGo

Happy New Year, Timothyjosephwood!

Happy New Year!

Timothyjosephwood,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. GAB^Hello! 05:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message

Best wishes,

GAB^Hello! 05:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Gender roles in childhood

I removed the {{POV}} template that you added to Gender roles in childhood per "When to Remove, rule 2," because without a Talk page section or any stated reason in the edit summary, it's difficult to know what issues to address, or what you see as problematic or lacking. I don't find the article POV (although it's partly OR, and also needs additional references) but if you still think it is, please readd the template, along with a link to a Talk page section where you discuss your reasons, and perhaps a helpful edit summary as well. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 22 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Domestic violence page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Glad to see you around again. GABHello! 20:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks fam. Trying to get back in the swing of things. Found out we're pregnant though, so no promises. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, congrats! Wishing you the best. GAB^Hello! 23:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Domestic violence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Normalization (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the closing of the debate on Operation:Impact. I'm sorry for my behaviour. Llammakey (talk)

Llammakey, no worries.

RE User Karst

Sorry about my initial long winded essay Drmies and you rightly pulled me up on. It was 7 o'clock in the morning here in Aus and decided to write an essay for some reason first thing. I've edited it to be much more concise and straight forward. Also reticent to condemn Karst, as someone who had an initial battleground-ish thing with and others, especially without very clear proof of him being at fault. Nuro msg me 03:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Tell you what, it's past 10 PM here and my old brain is a bit tired, possibly impacting my reading skills. Next time, we'll synchronize our watches and we'll get along much better, no doubt. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

HA...fair enough mate Nuro msg me 04:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Social Work

Check https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Social_work&diff=714938398&oldid=714938213, my other posts too are deleted from them is this normal or ...117.241.21.168 (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

117.241.21.168, editing others comments is generally not permitted. Please see WP:TPO. This can be considered a form of vandalism, especially when done repeatedly, and may lead to your IP address being blocked from editing.

If you would like to contribute to the discussion, leave a comment as you did here, and sign using four tildes (~~~~). TimothyJosephWood 19:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, i thought it was normal to edit since more than one editor has edited on it. I only changed the title, I reverting it back to the old title. But removing other comments made by me seems a bit ridiculous.117.241.21.168 (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Career Talk

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

---

I only noticed now and I am stoked to see a MSW guy. Do you work as Social Worker in the Army. If so what are main duties of a social worker in Army. From where did you complete your MSW. Not to be weird but I would like to talk to you off-wiki(through emails) about the career and current opportunities in your place. Do reply, at least in my talk page, for the time being we can talk through talk page.117.241.21.168 (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I am living for now will look later for a reply. I will check later from an other network, hoping response.117.241.21.168 (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Social workers do lots of things, both in the armed services and in the civilian world. But social workers in the Army do the same basic thing social workers do everywhere, work to improve the lives of our clients. That's what great about the field. TimothyJosephWood 21:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey big thanks for responding.

Does the duties given in Social work in the military reflect your work or would you say.- yeah that's what we do or thats what I know military social workers do in general.117.213.19.188 (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

By Master's in Social work with a concentration in family practice and non-profit administration, The non-profit administration part you mean Community and Social Development.(https://socialwork.uky.edu/msw/msw-program-curriculum/)117.213.19.188 (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

How is the job market over there for social work graduates. In which all fields are social workers employed more often. 117.213.19.188 (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Certainly if you compare the official description, the article is very bad. But otherwise no, my experience is that most social workers in the military are involved in substance abuse treatment and case management, especially as it applies to veterans. We have a fairly well known problem with substance abuse as self medication of combat related trauma.

Non-profit admin is more...well...admin, doing grant proposals and running the business side of a non profit. Social workers are employed everywhere, I'm not really up on the latest labor market statistics.

Also, keep in mind, that military social workers are officers, meaning that you would almost certianly have to give up home country citizenship. TimothyJosephWood 22:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Try to keep an eye on that IP group from social work if you can. One of them is asking some odd questions on my talk and is adamant about talking off-wiki. Seems scammy. My OPSEC is tingling.

Hey don't worry nothing scammy - I know it might be weird for some. For current comfortability don't have to be off-wiki.117.213.19.188 (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Well. You're a bit more savvy than I figured. Don't take it personally. I'm immediately suspicious about anyone who asks about my military service, which is exactly how I should be. TimothyJosephWood

Its all right.117.213.19.188 (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I would say that crisis intervention makes the topic a bit more cerebral than it is in real life. Like a lot about social work, it is more about your relationship with your client than anything else. Crisis management is different for different people in different situations.

Non-profits are a special class of organization under the US tax code. They operate similar to a business but can receive tax free contributions, and usually serve some civic purpose. The center piece of the courses was grant writing, which is how non-profits get a lot of their funding. Grants are a way for governmental organizations, other nonprofits, and foundations funnel money to achieve a societal goal. Grant writing is a way of making a professional proposal to get this money.

I'm not the guy to talk to about psychosocial assessment. Personally, I think it's a buzzword and doesn't mean very much in real life. Basically, it means figuring out whats going on with your client. People try to formalize it, and make it more complicated than it really is. Again, it's all about forming a relationship with your client. TimothyJosephWood 23:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Lets say i am an addict and as a social worker what will be your main duties in assessment and treatment {work done should be reported to the officer in charge of the program -right, what world be the main process points). Harm reduction, is it really practiced in US. Opinion-wise does it work.117.213.19.188 (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

My first priority would be establishing a rapport. I would ask you how you are, how is your family, your job. I would spend an hour or more talking about what you wanted to talk about, to learn what you want to talk about. If your addiction is important to you, then you will talk about your addiction. If your family is important to you then that will provide a window into why we're here talking about your addiction. I would not try at all in the first meeting to assess you, or diagnose you. I would just try to get to know you.

People are odd like that.

Does it work? I have no idea. Research in the field is of very poor quality right now. And there are far to few people who would admit we don't have good research. That's a systemic problem in the field. We need good researchers.TimothyJosephWood 02:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank You, is it possible to find other MSW holders on wikipedia. Is there filter kind of search.117.241.20.63 (talk) 07:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

You can check out Wikiproject Social Work. Follow the link on my user page. Other than that, no. There is no filter I'm aware of. TimothyJosephWood 10:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

This is getting bizarre: Special:Contributions/117.241.21.168 & Special:Contributions/117.213.19.188 You know these IPs geolocate to the same city in India? And, the first one edited until s/he was blocked, then the second one suddenly appeared and edited as a different person? Not the first time it has happened. Jim1138 (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Jim1138. Yeah, It's a bit odd. At this point I'm leaning toward thinking they may be someone interested in a student visa, who figured social work was as good a place to start as any. TimothyJosephWood 10:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

He certainly isn't making many friends here. Jim1138 (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Jim1138, actually, now that I look at it, this def is pretty strange. The understanding of 3RR, yet the lack of understanding to not know the edit was inappropriate and wouldn't stand. I dunno. TimothyJosephWood 23:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I have had a few interesting cases Claudebone & Wordfunk. Dealing with that kind of event takes way too much time and is exhausting. Poor Barek hasn't edited much since then. I'm rather burned out too. I wish warning messages would focus the addressee's attention more on the issue somehow. Jim1138 (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Being from Karnataka doesn't have anything to do with anything what you say Jim1138. If anything your edits in that page is disruptive and highly flammable. You are the one who is being bizarre, you are teetering around and going beyond certain lengths to prove your points, certain libelous remarks and actions in Social talk page. There is no question in whether its two or a single person who is conversing in this section, so don't bring your rants. But if that's what you do that's what you do.- (Certainly making no friends....needy to get assured?). Timothyjosephwood this edit was done thinking it was appropriate and no exact details were given until you mentioned why it was reverted along with my other comments. Actions of Jim1138 were beyond odd for an responsible editor and it was notified with reversal policy and when these actions were persistent, they where simply notified to the anti-vandalism board. The editors own edit history are absurd at times if looked up by anyone who has the time and energy. Also Jim1138 I didn't know you blocked my IP that time.-Nice to know your actions in biting and harassing when someone doesn't agree with your opinions. "Poor Barek hasn't edited much since then. I'm rather burned out too. I wish warning messages would focus the addressee's attention more on the issue somehow".- This just simply shows how slippery this person is in conveying, bullying and re-framing incidents.117.241.20.244 (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Jim1138, this might help you or not. Its all in how you accept it. Your online racism and anger shouldn't be forced in Wikipedia. You can argue with someone if you find something is wrong. But the argument shouldn't be against the editor, it should be for the content. If you are burned and exhausted using your user-rights or gaming the system isn't the solution. Leave the topic to be handled by an another editor with the project. If you revert something it should have an explanation that people can relate with WP:COMMON. Don't delete articles as soon as they are published if an editor asks for time give them at-least 20 days.(It wouldn't crumble your world). Please don't consider this as patronizing or something that diminishes your value. This is a friendly and patient approach.(The above paragraph is not, it is just an appropriate response to your rants) There is also a clear line between being bold and being a bully. The positive thing about you is that you post notices in the user pages, but in future also post specific guides or specific errors made in editing or decision taking within the policy structure. I will also try to learn more about the policies, hope your help would be there.117.241.20.244 (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, thank you for being open and generous with the talk. You have some remarkable insights "If your addiction is important to you, then you will talk about your addiction. If your family is important to you then that will provide a window into why we're here talking about your addiction." that was really helpful in clearing doubts regarding how to approach a person rather than through a preset of questionnaire's. If possible look into Grant writing, if there are gaps of information and if time allows do fill them. You should really get into writing more related articles and post links in user page.117.241.20.244 (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not that you are from Kerala, it is that all of the disruptive edits are from Kerala. Understand the difference? Your trolling and use of the racism card on my talk page is quite telling. I could understand that you might think one or two people accusing you of trolling, vandalism, and disruption are psychotic... Say, what is it called when one believes that everyone is out to get them? - WP:ANI#IP-hopping vandal/troll from Kerala, India still at it. Need a permanent solution.. Jim1138 (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Timothy, Per WP:DENY, please don't feed the trolls? Thank you! Jim1138 (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Well it seems like you have beef with someone, i think that's the reason for your trolling. Timothy seems to be a better editor, and you wouldn't stop with these accusations, I am sure. Out of respect to Timothy I guess I shouldn't entertain you anymore. I have seen that "troll from Kerala, India" - what can i say. It was done by a Softlavender right the same one that uses excessive user-rights and reversions without checks from the social work talk page along with you . Take your time to understand whats been said before. - Attack the edit if it isn't passable. Don't attack the editors or an editor.117.241.22.57 (talk) 10:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Credit where credit's due

Hi Timothyjosephwood. Just a quick hello and note of appreciation for your diplomacy and peacemaking attempts I've noticed on different articles. The project needs more editors like you.Charlotte135 (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey thanks. As always, if you need anything ask away. TimothyJosephWood 13:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Hope you also settled on a name for your new baby. Rosalind is another option. Spanish in origin, I think.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Charlotte135 Should find out in a couple of weeks if it's a boy or a girl. In the meantime, good to see you've been up to some productive editing. TimothyJosephWood 00:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Exciting time. Especially if it's your first.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Pomeranian Library

Looking at the German and Polish equivalent pages there is enough material for an English WP page - the Icelandic WP has an entry.

Or should there be a table of 'libraries in Poland' (see [1]) with brief details? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Noted. Retracted. TimothyJosephWood 18:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, Timothy

Hi Timothy, greetings. I saw your recommendation for a speedy deletion of an article I just started. Yes, you are correct, I did essentially copy and paste. However, I will re-write it when I have a chance. Or perhaps another Wikipedian will come along and help us. Best Regards, Nate — Preceding unsigned comment added by RNLockwood (talk • contribs) 02:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

RNLockwood, Any way I can help lemme know. TimothyJosephWood 02:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Please contact editors first, before you tag their work with "speedy deletion." It was a work in progress, and now I have to start from square one. No thanks to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RNLockwood (talk • contribs) 02:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

RNLockwood, I've tagged a few articles for speedy deletion, so I'm not entirely sure which one you're referring to, but if you "essentially copy and paste" then it was likely a copyright violation and should be deleted immediately. TimothyJosephWood 03:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The Long Cosmos

Hi. I've declined your speedy as the article is not written in a promotional manner, and the book is by two notable authors. An article about a not yet released book by a non-notable author could be taken to be promo despite the style, but this one as part of a series, and with its authorship, is bound to attract advance notice. The referencing could be better, but that's not a speedy matter. Peridon (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

enra

I strongly object to your "speedy deletion" tag for the page enra. I took great care in working on this page to make the information factual. I recognize that some of it could be improved to better meet style and formatting guidelines, but it hardly seems reasonable to suggest that the entire page should be removed for a group that has such a notable history and recognized in international media. Rather than suggesting the page be removed, it would be far more helpful if you offered constructive criticism, added notes, or implemented stylistic changes that you feel are necessary. Kerfuffle8 (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Retracted. Cleanup tags added. Addressed on the talk. TimothyJosephWood 16:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Douglas Self

Thanks for your support on ANI. I don't know whether an admin is allowed to tell me "Do not recreate the article until it cites at least two independent reliable sources" in regard of a deleted article. But there's no need for an article to meet WP:GNG from the outset if it has potential to do so in the future. And failure to meet WP:GNG is definitely not grounds for a speedy del if the article makes a WP:CCS. So the original deletion was against policy. I'd have hoped that admins would follow the rules properly. There are probably thousands of articles that don't meet WP:GNG yet. I don't know why Douglas Self got picked on and deleted in less than an hour. It's never happened to me before and wasn't a pleasant experience. I appreciate your help. SmilingFace (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

SmilingFace Everybody messes up. You can see here where people have disagreed with my speedy nominations. I usually 100% retract as long as the argument isn't patently silly (No, sorry, there is not a dire public information need to have an article on your ultimate frisbee team.) TimothyJosephWood 17:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

help me

regarding Marketplace Radio Program

Hi there - really appreciate your response on the talk page for Marketplace (Radio Program) as we have struggled to accurately update information about our broadcast programs. I apologize in advance for this battery of questions, but I am new to this process. I think a bunch of the outdated content was recently deleted on our page (rather than the edits I suggested being made). However, the brief content that remains is still not very accurate or comprehensive. I completely understand the need to offer unbiased sources (and not merely our own website) as much as possible. That said, the information that I really care about correcting and adding is pretty bland and factual in nature. For example, Marketplace is a suite of business news programs, which includes four different broadcast shows (which are clearly defined on our website along with current host names). And each show is available as a podcast. This doesn't seem to be adequately represented at present, and I am not sure what other source I could cite other than our own website, to accurately provide this correct information. This seems like straightforward information (the name of a show and its host; or when and how our content is aired) and not particularly subjective. Isn't it best provided by our own website, as we know what our shows are and our hosts? I am more than happy to hear suggestions of other ways we might provide a reference to this information, but our website or the website of our parent org (American Public Media) have the most current and accurate information by far. The staff listing on the right sidebar is also outdated, but other than pointing to our own Cast & Crew page on our site, who else could I reference for that correct info? Our website has the only Marketplace staff listing that I am aware of. On a related note, there is a Wikipedia page for the host of our evening program: Kai Ryssdal. We would like to have his photo changed to his current headshot (which is on our website and the website of our parent org) but don't see a way to change an image. Any advice you could give on having a photo updated would be much appreciated as well. Again, sorry to bombard you. But it has been difficult to navigate these intricacies. And I am very happy to work one-on-one with any Wikipedia contributor to provide accurate information for our pages. Jmhatfield (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Jmhatfield, you should be starting this discussion on the Marketplace talk page, rather than a user talk page. That way, people who are interested in the subject will see it and be able to comment and give thoughts/advice. 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) 18:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Template:Z163

@ Primefac, no worries. I've got it.

@ Jmhatfield, I'm going to try to look into this more this evening. You are correct in that primary sources are acceptable, particularly in cases where the content is uncontroversial, and particularly in cases where there are no secondary sources available. If you want to look in the interim, I would suggest looking for information online about them individually, and following that route back to Marketplace. Seems to be the route followed to locate the Mediabistro source on Kai Ryssdal. But if that's a no go then the primary source is all we're left with.

Listing the individual shows in principal seems relevant. I tend toward stopping short of listing things like air times. That's getting into WP:Promotional territory a little bit.

The picture thing can be a little tricky. Pictures on articles need to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. To do this, if you are the owner of the image, you generally have to license it for free public use, meaning that you lose ownership of it. That's an issue for you and your leadership to decide. There are certain exceptions, such as the use of the Marketplace Logo (which incidentally, is subject of a related discussion you may want to comment on). If you want to use the image under a non-public license, may be best to contact someone over at wikimedia commons. I'm hardly a copyright expert. At the end of the day, the easiest thing is for the owner of the image to release it under a free public license. See below.

Again, I'm going to look into this more later today, so we'll see where it goes. As always feel free to ask away for any questions you may have. TimothyJosephWood 19:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jmhatfield or Jeni, who I assume this is. I began looking into sources and made a small article on Lizzie O'Leary, as she was the first host without an article. There are a few things you can do to help with this, mostly because I don't know enough about what I'm looking for to find it:

• Place of birth
• Date of birth
• Full birth name
• Date of graduation from Williams College
• Also please confirm that she is American

When you sort out whether you can license the headshots of your hosts for free public use, a head shot of O'Leary is also needed, and you may as well address the same issues and information for Ben Johnson, Millie Jefferson, and Deborah Clark.

Also, it would be helpful to have general information on the history of the program. Where was it first created, what were the major studio moves, dates of major partnerships and changes, etc. At least per this article there was a major shake up at some point. Again, I'm not going to use you as a source, but without knowing what I'm looking for it's doubtful I'll be able to easily find sources. TimothyJosephWood 23:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm an administrator on both Commons and Wikipedia, so I may be able to help here on the photo issue. There's a somewhat incorrect statement above, although the gist of it is correct: "Pictures on articles need to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. To do this, if you are the owner of the image, you generally have to license it for free public use, meaning that you lose ownership of it."

1. You don't "lose ownership" of a picture when you grant a free license, although you do give up some control of where and how it is used. Commons does not ask anyone to sign over their copyrights. The copyright holder retains the copyright.
2. Under U.S. law, the copyright holder for a photo is the photographer unless rights have been explicitly signed over. In the case of Marketplace, I have no idea whether the photographer retains copyright or has signed it over. If the copyright holder is the same person as the uploader, things are simpler, because they can grant a free license as part of the uploading process. If not, see commons:COM:OTRS which explains how the copyright holder can send an email granting a license on one or more photos, which someone else may then upload.
3. At Commons, the most restrictive license we accept is what is known as Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike ("CC-BY-SA" for short). There are several variants on it, but the later versions have merely been clarifications of the earlier ones; see Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License for quite a good rundown. Although this allows anyone to reuse the picture with attribution, their is no waiver of moral rights, personality rights, etc. In my view, CC-BY-SA doesn't really offer anything of value unless you have the sort of picture someone might pay to use. Normally, that isn't an issue for a headshot in any context that wouldn't also require some sort of waiver of personality rights (e.g. use in an ad).
4. Within certain limits, certain photos can be uploaded directly to Wikipedia on a strictly fair use / non-free use basis. See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. However, that is not relevant here. To quote that page, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Since it would be possible to take a different photo of any living person, headshots of living people never qualify as non-free content on Wikipedia.

I hope that helps. Feel free to leave me a message on Commons if you have further questions. - Jmabel | Talk 03:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

NPP

Hi. Please be sure to thoroughly familiarise yourself with both WP:NPP and WP:DELETION. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Seems we've only had one interaction in at least the last 30 days, and it was your deleting a page I nom'd for speedy.TimothyJosephWood 22:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Picnic (2004 film)

WP:A7 applies only to articles about a real person, individual animal, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organized event. It does not apply to articles about articles about other topics such as films. Please do not apply A7 to articles about other topics. —teb728 t c 22:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

teb728, As I indicated on the talk page, the article appears to be about a youtube video, with the only source being a youtube video. I seem to have missed the announcement where youtube started being film and stopped being web content. I went again, just to make sure, through the first five pages of google results for the author and name, and came up with nothing that didn't reference youtube. If you have found a source where this has seen daylight outside of youtube, then I am happy to oblige. Otherwise I suppose we'll go to AfD. TimothyJosephWood 23:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I restored the speedy with a more specific {{db-web}} rather than the generic {{db-a7}} and with an edit summary mentioning youtube. —teb728 t c 23:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Timothyjosephwood. Thank you for your review of the Jozef De Vroey article. And if you'd be so kind, could you please point me towards any Flemish language editors you know about to help me with some translations for this article? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I would probably start over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Belgium. TimothyJosephWood 17:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank for this direction Timothyjosephwood, it is most appreciated. Picomtn (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Afd

Hi. Per your comment on my talk page, I can see no record of your ever having nominated the original article Safdar Butt for deletion, and you are still welcome to do so. This is a mere duplicate, and could have been redirected by you -- or speedily nominated for deletion, per WP:A10. One doesn't need an Afd to discuss eliminating a recently created duplicate page. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Shawn in Montreal, I originally simply added the page to the existing AfD, as it seemed to be all the original issues I was nominating the duplicate for anyway. Honestly, when I first did web searches I did not realize at the time that the original I was seeing in search was not the article I was looking at in the other tab, but a copy of it (or visa versa). However, I do now see the the cleanup tag from 2010 seems to have been added to the original piecemeal, and was not also in place from article creation, as it was on the duplicate.

Redirect and fix the original is the correct course of action. TimothyJosephWood 18:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

openQA May 3

openQA was written by me in my own words. I'm not sure why this is being deleted. The first draft, May 2, was written together with a group of people from our project. The second post, May 3, was written in my own words. Please undelete. Dema9049 (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Dema9049 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dema9049 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The article in question was nominated for speedy deletion due to verbatim text found elsewhere on the internet. Please see WP:COPYVIO. TimothyJosephWood 12:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Further reply on my talk. BethNaught (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

stop deleting my wikipedia pages

hello this is hayleybox00. why do you keep tagging my pages for deletion? i write about famous people and about things they did. i know my first examples were not very good but later i wrote pages with Alot of information and references. so please stop deleting my pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayleybox00 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Picnic (2004 film) has been nominated, and was previously deleted as the article appears to be about a youtube video with no coverage in secondary sources, and no claim of significance. For guidance on article notability standards, please see WP:NOTE. For guidance on the speedy deletion criteria for the current nomination and previous deletion, see WP:A7. TimothyJosephWood 12:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

You may wish to take part in the deletion review of the article. → AA ^(talk) — 17:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm around. TimothyJosephWood 17:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The Getaway album

The article I posted can be deleted. I had the article ready to post as soon as the album was officially announced but someone else clearly beat me so it appears we both posted the article at the same time. Jason1978 (talk) 11:25, 05, May 2016 (UTC)

Probably should turn that plugin off

It modified Drmies comment. He was called out as the author by Only in death but it was your edit that changed it. You should probably fix it and OiD can strike his comment. --DHeyward (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hah. Oh wow. Good catch DHeyward. TimothyJosephWood 14:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• DHeyward, I'm really beginning to feel the love here. Thanks. Timothyjosephwood, wut? Are you just trying to get me in trouble? :) Drmies (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I just like to keep ANI interesting is all. TimothyJosephWood 16:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Question per rem cn

Hi, I saw your notes at LGBT congress people talk. You said you removed "cn". I can see this in the history but what does "cn" do or signify? I am a new editor and I'm trying to learn. Also, I share your concerns about the edits by TrumpEN and the IP. Neither of them leave edit summaries, which makes things even more suspicious. If no one steps in at AN/I, I suggest you ping Drmies to the page. Also, he is the editor who blocked Hugh456. Best, Tribe of Tiger (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tribe of Tiger: CN is short for "citation needed", or more specifically, for the template {{cn}}, which looks like this. It's mostly useful for times when you can't find a source right away, but the claim is generally uncontroversial, and you intend to come back later and add a source for it. It's also useful for things that explicitly need a source. For example, quotes and statistics must always be sourced, and this can be a reminder to whomever added them, that they forgot to include their reference.

I'm always happy to help if you have questions. Feel free to ask here or ping me to a specific page by adding {{ping|Timothyjosephwood}} to a talk. TimothyJosephWood 10:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Masculism redraft

Hi, I've put it on the talk page. T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 12:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Social work

I believe actions taken by me following your example will regulate unnecessary and maladaptive practices in its talk page.59.89.239.32 (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

You are currently the only unnecessary and maladaptive practice on the talk page. Stop. TimothyJosephWood 15:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

why do you feel that, dont you think it would solve problems in the article.59.89.239.32 (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

No. TimothyJosephWood 15:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you open for discussion. Also can you add that blinking button used to show you are online, it would help me and others in the future.59.89.239.32 (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

No. TimothyJosephWood 15:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

What should i understand from this or what are you trying to convey.59.89.239.32 (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you active or is it intentional silence. This was an inappropriate move:[2] while we were trying to resolve. Good luck.59.89.239.32 (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	I see you have been busy! Thanks for all of your work here. Cheers -Jim Jim1138 (talk) 08:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Toooo funny

Hello T. this is hilarious. Thanks for getting my weekend started with a big smile. MarnetteD|Talk 21:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waiters and waitresses. TimothyJosephWood 21:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2016

As a participant of WikiProject LGBT studies, you are invited to participate in the third annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs through the month of June. The purpose of the campaign is to create and improve content related to LGBT culture and history. How can you help?

1. Create or improve LGBT-related Wikipedia pages and showcase the results of your work here
2. Document local LGBT culture and history by taking pictures at pride events and uploading your images to Wikimedia Commons
3. Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Looking for topics? The Tasks page, which you are welcome to update, offers some ideas and wanted articles.

This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. The group's mission is to develop LGBT-related content across all Wikimedia projects, in all languages. Visit the affiliate's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hm

I removed this from Flyers talk page. I don't know where that come from; if citing that very bad source was a joke it was not good taste and if you meant it, it is pretty much harassment. ack. No drama, i hope. Jytdog (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

My finger is quite literally on the block button; I'm only holding off because of your clean block log. Please tell me that this was intended as a joke that came off badly, because if it wasn't, I'm not going to stand for that sort of crap harassment. Would love to hear Flyer22's thoughts. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, Ed, Yes it was just a stupid joke before bed. I've worked with Flyer a bit on a range of gender articles and I often just say stupid things to let people know I'm unfollowing their talk, which I followed at some point for some reason because of a relevant discussion. My recent follow was most likely related to drama between Flyer and Charlotte135 on Domestic violence and a half dozen other articles, that resulted in an IBan/TBan. TimothyJosephWood 10:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Admittedly, I didn't actually read through the source, I just googled for something that looked obviously dumb. At any rate, I have a few thousand miles to fly. Sorry for starting the wikibreak on a sour note. No hard feelings I hope. TimothyJosephWood 10:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

No prob. Please be careful with jokes like that, they can easily be misconstrued. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Really, it seemed like I had annoyed you by responding to the IP the way that I did, but I was simply stating a matter of fact regarding the literature. Either way, I wasn't going to make a big deal out of your comment. I kept on editing after seeing it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Inspire Campaign

Hi, just looked into this - a campaign for ideas on "dealing with harassment" on Wiki projects. One was "Don't feed the trolls" - easier said than done when some of the editors are trying to get work done, and one is disruptive. But thought you might like to look at the project and posted ideas - everyone can contribute other ideas as well as help develop these for action. <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Don't_feed_the_trolls>Parkwells (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 3 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Pittsburgh Railway Riots page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Timothyjosephwood. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Widr (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Revdel

Hey there - just wanted to say that if you think something ought to be revdelled, please email it to the oversight queue at oversight-en-wpwikimedia.org to help prevent drawing attention to it. Thanks! — foxj 06:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@Foxj:, thanks. I knew there was an address, but I didn't want it to sit there in the interim while I looked, and I hoped that admins would be quick on the trigger on such a high visibility board. I'm glad the address is on my talk now; I'll know exactly where to look for it next time. TimothyJosephWood

Neophysics

Neophysics will have an interesting experience at WP:WikiProject Physics. He wants to rewrite a certain amount of what we have on physics based on original research. They won't welcome him in the usual sense, but they may set him straight. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:, well he won't see any personal growth by hanging out with people like me, who lack the basic physics knowledge to even have a discussion about WP:OR. He seems highly motivated if nothing else, and so hopefully that can be channeled into something productive. TimothyJosephWood 12:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I wish I could be optimistic. In my experience, there is nothing that Wikipedia can do for or about people who have persistent eccentric scientific views except either wait for them to get tired (they sometimes do and sometimes don't) or topic-ban them. They don't learn, because they know beyond knowledge that they are right. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:AGF and stock up on rope. That's about all you can do. TimothyJosephWood 12:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

re: Self-contemplation?

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

---

Which posts are NPA or CIVIL issues? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

So, you revert to the version that is A) against policy and. B) the other user's hand-crafted, pet version. Brilliant solution. Maybe, since you posted on my page - and my page alone - about my "uncivil" behavior, you were perhaps not the right person to make the neutral "antebellum edit". Way to stay "neutral". - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I never claimed that the edit was neutral, or the better version of the lead. It is however, the way the lead existed for most of the life of the article, and that makes it the status quo. You wanted it changed, and others on the article disagreed. Therefore you must seek consensus. TimothyJosephWood 10:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Slavery used to be the status quo, Timothy; it didn't make it any more right than fucking up the Lede by removing the wrong version. Perhaps, instead of letting your own lack of neutrality get in the way (which, by your own admission you absolutely did), you should have actually contributed something and fixed the Lede. Do you think you contributed one fucking iota to a discussion seeking consensus? You just supported the wrong version and did so under the blanket of neutrality.

Seriously, dealing with Wikipedians like you is like dealing with bad dentistry. I may be rude and unrefined, but I'd never game the system like that.. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Linguistics is a social science

Linguistics is a social science. Only languages are humanities. I want to make the part of outline of academic discipline page more coherent with their own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.231.247.247 (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

vandalism my rosy red ...

Just deleted all this verbiage as it no longer serves a purpose. Saw what you proposed at the ex-Barefruit advertisement page, looks great to me. All's well that ends well, thank you :-)

(I still don't think it was vandalism, maybe more like Hunism or Visigothism :-) ) 210.22.142.82 (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Insider Threat Management Group

Hi Tim,

I deleted the data on this page. The wrong information was inadvertently copied and pasted into this page. The page is intended to offer information on the the types of groups that engage in insider threat research, activities, and their various methodologies. Will make necessary changes, forthwith. Thanks.ShawnITMG (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

ShawnITMG, your name strongly suggests that your purpose on Wikipedia is to create an article for the purpose of advertising a company for which you work. I strongly recommend you review WP:COI and WP:PROMO. TimothyJosephWood 19:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Insider Threat Management Group

Tim,

Intention is not to promote a particular company, product, or service but to provide information on the overall discipline of managing insider threats generally as their is much confusion and misunderstandings regarding such. There will be no specific references to companies or products. The initial post was in error, as stated. Thanks. ShawnITMG (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Ruth Smeeth page

Hello Tim,

The edit that I have made is one of fact and not of opinion. Specifically, I have stated that the speaker did not use the term "media conspiracy" , which is what Ruth Smeeth alleged - very specifically - in the statement that she put-out on her website and which is quoted in the Wikipedia article on Ruth Smeeth. The evidence that the speaker, Marc Wadsworth, did not use that expression is clear from the vide of the event that is available on the website of The Independent, which is a mainstream newspaper in the UK, In fact, it is one of the "reliable sources" that the user This is Paul, who keeps undoing my edit, suggested that I might use to prove my point. Having been able to cite The Independent as a source for my edit, he continues to remove the key fact that I have included, without challenging or disproving that fact itself. My source is the artcile in The Independent that is exactly the same video and article that some other editor has cited as a source for source 6 in the Ruth Smeeth article. I have also included a second source, which is the Craig Murray article, which simply states the point that I make in my edit on Wikipedia - that Ruth Smeeth's calim that Marc Wadsworth accused her of being engged in a "media conspiracy" is factually inacurate. In my last restoration of my edit, I cited both The Indenpent and Craig Murray. If the issue is the inclusion of Craig Murray as a source, than the correct course of action by an editor or admin would be to remove the Murray citation and you can inform me of this clearly. That does not change the validity of my edit, which relies on The Independent artcile and video which I have cited. I note, that my most recent restoration of my edit to the artcile, with both sources cited, was, once again, immediately taken down , this time for supposedly "not adhering to a neutral point of view". I am not failing to adhere to a neutral point of view when I point-out that Smeeth's statemetn was factually inaccurate as shown very clearly in the video in The Independent article that I have cited. Ruth Smeeth's statement that Marc Wadsworth had accused her of being part of a "media conspiracy" (her use of inverted commas") is factually inaccurate as shown by the video that I have cited as a source. My statement is not biased nor is my source dubious.

I look forward to your comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.139.7.160 (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

175.139.7.160, what is the citation for the Independent article? TimothyJosephWood 01:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Assuming your source is this article, which it seems to be, the source doesn't very strongly support the claim. As to the video, that is a WP:PRIMARY source, and there is no indication about how it is edited. Further, the audio is terrible, and I couldn't tell you what he did or didn't say, even with headphones on. So its quite a poor primary source.

That doesn't mean what you say isn't true, or what you suggest shouldn't be in the article, it just means if it is, and if it should, you have to find a better source. That's how this works. TimothyJosephWood 01:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Ruth Smeeth page

On the dispute on editing the Ruth Smeeth page, the facts are as follows. Ruth Smeeth has put out a statement on her website stating that a speaker at an event had accused her of being part of a "media conspiracy" and that this constituted an anti-semitic trope. Smeeth placed those words in inverted commas in her statement and this is widely understood to represent a direct quote. Video footage of the event shows, clearly, that the speaker, Marc Wadsworth, did not utter those words,or even either one of those words. That video footage is available on the website of The Independent newspaper, in an article entitled "Labour activist who berated MP Ruth Smeeth says he did not know she was Jewish and denies Momentum links". This article is included as cited source 6 in the Ruth Smeeth page, which is a point made by an editor other than myself. While the article does not specifically say that Smeeth's statement was factully incorrect, it is clear from watching the video of the event, which is included on the article page, that he said no such thing. That is a perfectly valid source for my edit which says that Ruth Smeeth's statement was factually inaccurate. Subsequent to my editing the article to say that, my edit was almost immediately reverted by the user This is Paul, on the grounds that I had not cited a proper source. I had initially cited an article on the blog of the senior British diplomat and former amabassador, Craig Murray. Murray's article includes a link to the video on The Independent as well as direct quote from Ruth Smeeth's statement and compares the two. He draws the explicit conclusion that Smeeth's statement was factually inaccurate. This is Paul objected that Murray's blog was not a valid source and suggested that I use more "credible" sources such as mainstream media, providing a list of what he considered to be "credible" sources, including The Independent. I subsequently removed the link to Muray's article and linked solely to The Independent article that included the original video footage of the event. That can be viewed here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-activist-who-berated-mp-ruth-smeeth-says-he-did-not-know-she-was-jewish-and-denies-momentum-a7111366.html

I also edited my contribution to read " Video footage of the event, however, shows that Smeeth's statement was factually inaccurate as the speaker, Marc Wadsworth, did not use the term "media conspiracy" or either of those two words individually." This makes explicit that my source is the video footage of the event itself, rather than the opnion of the journalist in the article. My source is entirely within the standards required for a Wikipedia edit and it also clearly supports my contribution that Ruth Smeeth's statement was factually inaccurate. This is Paul has repeatedly reverted my edit, offering a variety of changing reasons why he has done so. Initially, he claimed that my source was not reliable and, ultimately, in our discussion on this article on the Admin noticeboard he states "FWIW I personally don't believe she is directly quoting Wadsworth, but is instead using the quotes to define the term, which is something slightly different." He is now basing his reversions of my edit on his personal belief of what Smeeth meant, rather than the facts that I have cited and backed-up from a higly-creadible source. He is not editing from a Neutral Point of View and my edit should be allowed to stand.

The debated issue in this article involves a politician at the heart of a high-profile controversy and there are clearly people interested in guiding this narrative. The involvement of the user Philip_Cross in making the exact reversions to my edit that This is Paul did withim minutes of my having put the information back into the article also suggest that the removal of my edit is not being done from a neutral editor. Philip_Cross's activiities on Wikipedia were flagged in the March 2016 issue of Wikipedia Signpost; please see the March issue of Signpost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-03-16/In_the_media . He took over the job of reverting my edits after I flagged the matter of This is Paul's constant reversions on the Admins' noticeboard. To reiterate, these reversions are not being done from a Neutral Point of View and my edit should be allowed to stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.139.7.160 (talk) 07:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

"My source is entirely within the standards required for a Wikipedia edit and it also clearly supports my contribution that Ruth Smeeth's statement was factually inaccurate"

No, it doesn't. That's what half a dozen people have been trying to tell you. TimothyJosephWood 13:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

You ask why?

Regarding your comment, the reason why is that you rewarded Calibrador for failing to discuss until they found a compromise, and thus engendered a feeling that they could revert and edit-war with impunity. This is why I was so very, very pissed with you. You may not like the back and forth that discussion entails, but it is a crucible in which compromise and, consequently, the most stable article changes arise. By foregoing that process (ie. restoring an "antebellum" version, you rewarded one side for refusing to work with the other). This is what I tried to tell you before. This is why I thought you were irresponsible in your actions. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian, This was not an us/them, winner/loser, reward/punishment thing. The fact that you seem to be unable to think about the issue in anything other than competitive terms is probably the reason it descended into an edit war.

This was not even a neutrality issue. I never claimed that I was neutral nor did I claim that the original version was better factually or stylistically.

The issue is entirely article prior to suggested change vs article following suggested change, and that applies regardless of the content of the suggested change. It is good to make WP:BOLD edits, but if someone disagrees, you go to talk and seek consensus. In the meantime the article is retained as it was prior to the suggestion, and per WP:NOCON, if no consensus can be reached the article is retained as it was prior to the bold edit (with few exceptions such as copyright violation and violations of WP:BLP).

You are probably right that at the time I reverted to the status quo, no consensus was possible, and may still yet not be. This is part of what happens when you engage in protracted edit warring and dragging all involved to notice boards: it turns collaborators into competitors. It's also what happens when you consistently tread very closely to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. People don't much like to work collaboratively when you call them names.

So take it as a lesson moving forward, to adjust your tone and behavior so that you can work together with others and find a middle ground. It's not my fault for picking a winner. It's the fault of those involved, including yourself, for setting it up as a winner/loser paradigm to begin with. TimothyJosephWood 11:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Reversions on Control rod

"kayuweboehm" is a long-standing problem. Thanks for catching them. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Andy Dingley No worries. User posted a long rant on another talk also. I don't think (?) there was any obvious reasons to request a revdel, but admittedly I didn't read through the whole thing. TimothyJosephWood 16:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 13 July 2016 (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) 04:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

NPOV vs. POV

You've been misusing this term in a couple of discussions. When you say the statement is "NPOV" - that means it's OKAY. It is "neutral." The context of your comments on the Nice terrorist-muslim attack in France means what you meant to say is the statement is POV - it takes a non-neutral Point Of View. You can say "there is an NPOV issue" with such and such, and that makes sense. Just FYI. 15:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.182.246 (talk)

@98.67.182.246:, Nope. I've referenced it thrice in that discussion, and both times I said "non NPOV". TimothyJosephWood 15:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Singapore

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Singapore. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Theresa May

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Theresa May. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Elizabeth Dilling

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Elizabeth Dilling. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Accompong

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Accompong. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Iraq War

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Iraq War. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Images on the Commons

The problem is that you say the sources is from existing commons images but you have not provided links to the images they cam from. We need this so its copyright status can be verified, and in addition to the original commons image link, it is good practice to also provide a link to the original source which the original upload will have. So now you know how to fix them. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is another one of your uploads c:File:A Husband Beating his Wife with a Stick - Google Art Project.png, claimed to already be on the commons, but you have not provided a link to the original. Please do so, as I have looked around quite a bit and cannot find it. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

ww2censor, I think I've gotten everything fixed. I'm not sure whether I can go ahead and remove the file source templates, but I've added {{extracted from}} to the images in question, including the Husband Beating his Wife with a Stick. I will be sure to include this template on future extracted images. Thanks for looking into it. TimothyJosephWood 14:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so thanks for that. I have refined some of the details, such as, using the same license as the original, providing a source to the original author as the source instead of just the "extracted from" template. It is also better to use jpg for photographic images instead of unnecessarily changing to png and it is also good practice to add a commons {{extracted|file name}} template to the original image so we can see there is a derived image. On the commons you can use the "Crop Tool" to do such extracting work and save as a new file which keeps all the original details - it is a link on the left side of an image page and works really well. Good luck and thanks for dealing with these quickly. ww2censor (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: I don't seem to have crop as an option on commons under my Tools menu when looking at a pic. Currently looking at this image. Am I doing something wrong or maybe is cropping something you need a permission to use? TimothyJosephWood 13:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Disregard. Figured it out. TimothyJosephWood 13:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just looked for the answer fo you and see it is an option in the Gadgets, Preferences, but you found it yourself. It lets you either overwrite an existing file or upload as a new file and keeps all the important info for you. Good luck and enjoy! ww2censor (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Philippines v. China

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Philippines v. China. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Timothyjosephwood. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, post here, or just let me know. Thank you, and happy editing! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Why have you repeatedly removed facts with citation on the Libon_(service) page?

I do not work for Libon, I do not even like them. However when I edited the Libon_(service) page to include factual information that demonstrated a change in their business model made by the removal of the Answerphone service on which the entire company was originally based - you removed it.

You removed this twice. The second time you removed it even though there was a note explaining that all information was factual, non-marketing and contain a large number of citations to multiple sources.

The reason given for the removal in both cases was "Marketing Information". This claim was not substantiated in anyway - simply a belief you hold.

Subsequently the change was made by a non-registered member (I registered to attempt the correction after not being registered first time). The content of the page has now been changed to state a date of a service removal without context and the date is many months later than the act itself took place.

So what is your level of requirement to base your repeated changes? If it is lack of multiply sourced citations, facts based and referable to those citations and a wish to to allow inaccurate information to be left on the page - then you nailed it.

So is the way of Wikipedia? Are you deemed a good ambassador? I decided to start contributing and you are my impression so far. I have of course heard the many stories of egotistical editors who decide unilaterally what can and cannot be included. I hoped this has been handled, if my interaction with you is anything to go by - it has not.

So again - what bar do you set for edits? Facts or Fiction, sourced or unsourced, complete or incomplete?

Malcolm Hollingsworth (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Malcolm Hollingsworth, Wikipedia is not a means of promotion for a company or product. The content was removed because it was promotional in tone and sourced only to the official website. Articles should be written in a neutral way, giving only encyclopedic facts about a company, and information should be cited in reliable secondary sources. Primary sources, such as an official company website, should be avoided. If you have general questions about Wikipedia, I can try to answer them here, of you can check out Wikipedia:Teahouse, where multiple people are willing to answer specific questions, especially for new users. TimothyJosephWood 12:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood you again state the same flawed argument - the additions and corrections were NOT promotion in any way, I have no wish to promote a company via Wikipedia, nor do I have any stake in the company nor related in anyway. I added additional information to clarify the point that the article continued to state that the company was primarily a provider of Voicemail services when it had stopped doing so many months before hand. Supporting citations were provided to back up those facts. YOU decided facts meant promotion, when as I mentioned I do not even LIKE the company so if I was going to do anything I would certainly not been likely to have promoted it. So your defence in removing information is that I am adding promotional material to a company I do not like - I am not sure you understand what bias means, you obviously do not understand what factual information is as you removed it. It was then replaced with non-factual information. So you are comfortable in allowing additional information that has no basis in fact with no supporting citations - at the expense of factual information backed up with citations. If you had issues with a citation, note the issues and request a remedy or request further supporting information. To wipe out facts without cause and without merit, not once but twice. The second instance a note had been added that provided additional information as to the factual nature, this is simply ignorant and moronic at best. So I cannot see how this makes you a good Wikipedia member if your views override those of proven and supported factual information. Please feel free to explain what content I added was not factual and what content was biased. Malcolm Hollingsworth (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• The Libon Out calls allow you to call landlines and mobiles in more than 100 destinations.
• Thanks to this technology, Libon is the first messaging app...
• This brand new service works using...
• 'We have big plans for this year and our teams are working hard to give you the best experience on Libon with the features you love the most!
• To give you a lighter and more user-friendly app, Libon Voicemail will stop on 31/03/2016.
• Plus a plug to the new website: http://launch.voxist.com/libon/en
• contains user reviews bestowing the virtues of a product

All of this is promotional language and is inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and all of it was sourced to the official webpage. Exactly zero was from a secondary source. Whether you personally like the company is irrelevant. To add substantial content to this article you need neutral language, and secondary sources. It is not enough to simply cite the company web page in every paragraph. The purpose of a company website is to promote the company, and that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. TimothyJosephWood 15:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, is WP:SOCK can be reported here? Just a note: User:Malcolm Hollingsworth and User:86.17.47.223. NgYShung ^huh? 10:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

NgYShung, using multiple accounts per se is not prohibited, but only using them to circumvent Wikipeida policy and guidelines. Editing under an IP before registering an account is fairly common, and is most likely how the majority of users get started. TimothyJosephWood 12:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Book_of_Daniel

I am interested in improving the article, but you've interposed a diversion of some sort. Purely for the sake of improving the article would you kindly answer the question put to you at the subject/headline address? - Exodus2320 (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Vijay Mallya

If some a tax offender, now on a witch hunt hires some beer drinkers to edit his "page" and claim himself as a hero in Wikipedia, is that spam? He is the next Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.65.24.151 (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

List Of Dictators Who Had Cats

This was the name of a article that you deleted. Now I do have sources relating to this article, but when I went to put these sources on, I discovered that you had in fact deleted this article. Now I would like you know if you be able to revive this article, if not I will recreate and put sources on there. This was a article I believed it would be useful to people, people love to love cats, people love to hate dictators, a blend of both. What more could you ask for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resuenam (talk • contribs) 17:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Resuenam, you need to post your request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. TimothyJosephWood 18:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Marijuana

Those three dots were a wikilink. -- Gestrid (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Gestrid I was being facetious. TimothyJosephWood 23:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I knew you were joking about the marijuana thing, but I wasn't sure if you'd seen the link or not. -- Gestrid (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course, or is this exactly the type of deception I've come to expect from Team Valor. TimothyJosephWood 23:51, 30 July 2016 (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) 04:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Frank Gaffney

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Frank Gaffney. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Philippines v. China

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Philippines v. China. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

New section

Timothyjosephwood, Hey i was the owner of the website and just created the wiki page from the info that was given to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zthomasonline (talk • contribs) 20:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Zthomasonline, content from other websites is almost always covered by copyright, and shouldn't be copied and pasted onto Wikipedia. If you are the owner of the copyrighted material, and are interested in ways to release it legally for use on Wikipedia, see guidance at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. TimothyJosephWood 20:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

BusinessBecause

BusinessBecause page should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because:

-BusinessBecause is the world biggest MBA network (gathering more than 35,000 people). -BusinessBecause articles are read by thousands of people and are on the top of google news for MBA relating subjects. -BusinessBecause is useful for MBA Applicants who are looking for advice from MBA, School Admission Officers or Admission Experts. -BusinessBecause job board enables MBA to find jobs dedicated to them.

So I don't understand how I can create that page without being deleted for lack of asserted importance. How can I "prove any asserted importance" ?

Thank you for your answer, Antoine 1704 (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GreenMeansGo. You have new messages at MediaKill13's talk page.
Message added 06:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MediaKill13 (talk) 06:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Agnishwar

I reverted your speedy deletion request for Agnishwar. Since this is a film, not a person, organization or event, WP:A7 does not apply. If you take another look at the article, you will see that it's a film by a notable author, with several notable actors. I believe it thus meets the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Other evidence of notability, in spite of the apparent lack of significant coverage. Of course, if you disagree, you're welcome to open an AfD, but I feel like I'm on pretty solid ground here. Also, please note that I was not the creator of the article, I just cleaned it up a bit. ubiquity (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

ubiquity Yeah, I know damned well A7 doesn't cover movies. I just didn't think about it. No plans on taking it to AfD though. No harm no foul I suppose. TimothyJosephWood 19:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

TJ Grubbs

Stop deleting my edit please. You don't even know what wildwood is. You do not live there. TJ Grubbs is a local celebrity. He has traveled across the country to compete in competitions. He has a factory Honda sponsorship. Please can you just not delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigkidbigmac (talk • contribs) 13:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Bigkidbigmac, as I indicated on your talk, notable people sections are for people who already have a Wikipedia article. If you would like to create an article for this person, you may want to check out Wikipedia:Your first article, for help on creating articles. Alternatively, you can check out Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions, which is a forum for asking questions about Wikipedia. TimothyJosephWood 14:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ajamu Baraka

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ajamu Baraka. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

re. Quest Technology Management

Hi Timothyjosephwood,
Per the possible copy-vio situation there, take a look at here, where I located a copyright violation at International Surfing Association using "Earwig's Copyvio Detector". This tool shows the percent likelihood of a copy-vio, in this case 96.3% confidence. You do need to know (or suspect at least) where the text came from though. There may be some 'sooper-dooper' "fancy search thingy" tools, but I find that Googling a chunk of suspect text is a good way of finding where it came from. Sometimes the editors even provide it as a reference. AGF, some dont realise they usually aren't allowed to just copy slabs of text.

Also a good idea to drop a warning template like {{Uw-copyright-new}} on the editors' talk page as I did here, via Twinkle. 220 of ^Borg 04:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

220, I actually just enabled Twinkle yesterday, after a long time of Luddite manual templating. I've still not used it quite enough to feel it out. Also the second plug for Earwig in as many days. I'll have to check that out too. TimothyJosephWood 10:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I used 'Earwig' via the copvio template (via Twinkle etc). It and 'Duplicate Detector' links appear when the template is placed. I too spent a lot of time manually giving welcomes and warnings etc. Mostly when I edited as an IP (static fortunately) for my first 2 years (2009-11) on WP. When I started 'twinkling', I sometimes wished I had registered earlier. :-/ 220 of ^Borg 10:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Twixx31

Hey , what the fuck you do ?

Hey Twixx. As I indicated on your talk page, in order for a person to qualify for a Wikipedia article, they should have coverage in things like magazines, newspapers, and books. If you are the subject of the article, you can create it instead as a userpage for yourself by clicking on that link. TimothyJosephWood 14:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Timothyjosephwood|TimothyJosephWood]] I am sorry OK.

Twixx, no worries man. If there's any way I can help feel free to ask. TimothyJosephWood 17:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Turks in Germany

Apologises for not explaining the removal edit. I have done so now. I'm trying to update and improve the article - sadly it is pretty out of date and poorly written. best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.93.50 (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

86.191.93.50, I saw after I reverted that you have a lot of recent edits to the article. Just try to be sure to include an edit summary when you make a big change, otherwise someone like me might see it on the recent changes list and think it's vandalism. TimothyJosephWood 16:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Man , thanks for the help . And yes I need help with the references ; you know I am know on this world. How to create a reference ? Twixx31 (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC) Thanks man Twixx31 —Preceding undated comment added 18:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox organization

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox organization. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Republic of China general election, 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Republic of China general election, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit

You chipped in a while back on a Request Edit I made on the Yelp page. I was hoping you could also take a look at this edit really quick. Usually this stuff gets picked up by vandalism watchers, but that's been up for a few days now. CorporateM (Talk) 00:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done TimothyJosephWood 10:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey CorporateM. As a reminder, editors with a conflict of interest are allowed by policy to make uncontroversial edits including repairing obvious vandalism, which this seems to be. TimothyJosephWood 12:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

BLP violations apply to talk pages as well

Hi Timothyjosephwood, An editor calling a person a racist is a clear BLP violation and should not be tolerated, even on talk pages. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Malerooster please read WP:BLP. I will address on the article talk. TimothyJosephWood 19:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Read. It applies to talk pages as well. --Malerooster (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Clark County Democrats Central Committee

Hey! I just wanted to let you know I removed your CSD for G12 and Mine for G11 so I could bundle them together in one CSD tag. Thanks! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

revert?

You reverted my edit. Can you put it back to how it was please. I realise it was just 4 minutes before but you could check. Victuallers (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Victuallers. Most of the content I removed appeared to be unsourced, and seemed to be about related individuals, and the convention, but not about the park directly. This information (if based on reliable sources) should be added to the main articles on the people or event, and not to the article about the park. TimothyJosephWood 14:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

So I think that you should have deleted that, just that ... I guess you mean sorry.Victuallers (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Victuallers. The content you added was a minor change to an essay added by a user with five edits, all of which were readding the same content to this article, all of which was not about the subject of the article. Leaving the four words of content you added while removing the format breaking coatrack would have made no sense, and disputing such a minor detail seems fairly petty for an admin. TimothyJosephWood 23:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

OK - my misunderstanding - thx 4 your patience Victuallers (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Network Device Interface

Hello Timothy,

Thank you for your attention and review of the Network Device Interface article. Upon further educating myself on how copy-paste copyright concerns are treated in the Wiki community, I have changed the article in an attempt to comply. Thank you again for your keen eye. Willh20 (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Frankfurt School

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Frankfurt School. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lesley Wyborn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Geoscientist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Turkish Coup 2016---edit warring

Hello, i may respecfully ask, if you disagree with me or agree with User:Arnoutf, can you please give the Arguments in the debate in the correspondant Talk page???, the user has rejected to follow the debate considering my arguments to be fallacious, i may be interested and what you have to say in the matter

Jazara90 (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. TimothyJosephWood 19:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Planned presidential transition of Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Planned presidential transition of Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Philippines v. China

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Philippines v. China. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Slut-shaming

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Slut-shaming. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack

Thanks for commenting on my Talk page today. I've replied to it with a question for you, on User talk:Corbertholt#Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack. Perhaps you'll do me the honour of reading that. --Corbertholt (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Frank Castle (sprinter)

I declined your CSD nom (for now) for Frank Castle (sprinter). There are many incoming links to it. See the RM at Talk:Frank Castle, if this was a db-move request for the sprinter specifically. There also appears to be some incongruency at Frank Castle (disambiguation). Unsure what the intent was there — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Andy M. Wang. I just saw on RC feed that the PROD was declined by Calathan who suggested G6. So I went ahead and tagged it for the original PRODer. TimothyJosephWood 20:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit Warring: August 2016

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

---

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Antinoos69, one edit is not an edit war. You were already warned that the addition of original research would be reverted. TimothyJosephWood 12:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

There was no original research, but you are free to gather consensus on that particular matter of interpretation. You have also clearly revealed your intent to edit war this matter to death, no matter what. I can't begin to fathom what you could possibly be objecting to, and certainly not the entirety of my edit. So stop it now. Gather consensus on the talk page before touching your keyboard any further. We can RfC each and every step of this, if you like, but being reasonable and rational will get you much further. Give it a try. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I would advise you pay a visit to WP:BRD. The WP:ONUS is on you to gather consensus for you preferred changes, not the other way around. If you do not know what I am objecting to, I would advise you read through the last dozen or so pages of the talk. TimothyJosephWood 12:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I reject your mischaracterization. If you have specific problems with specific aspects of my edit, then address those, and only those, on the talk page and await feedback from other editors. You may not hijack the discussion or my edit to your personal pet peeves and personal conflicts. Get consensus or move on. Period. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:ONUS: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. TimothyJosephWood 12:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

As of now, there is no disputed content. I provided very detailed explanations for my edits on the talk page. You haven't addressed any of it. It would be impossible for you to disagree with the vast majority of those edits, so reverting the whole thing was absurd, indicates an edit warring mindset, and proves you have no intention of collaborating, being reasonable/rational, or doing anything but reverting anything I do, even if I merely state the sky is blue. So, for the last time, take detailed and specific objections to the talk page. I was very detailed and specific in explaining my edit. I will expect you to be just as detailed and specific, and to get someone to agree with you. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I dispute it; therefore it is disputed. I disagree; therefore it is either not impossible for me to disagree, or I have managed to do the impossible. TimothyJosephWood 12:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Until you provide detailed objections to every aspect of my edit on the talk page, I will not give you the time of day. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I have only one objection, and I have provided it. I would template you for edit warring, but you can just as well see the template above you improperly posted on my talk. Consider yourself warned. TimothyJosephWood 12:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

You are about to violate the 3rr. Engage in a serious discussion, and only of what you actually object to, or drop it. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

If you will notice: I have reverted twice, you have reverted three times and have been reverted by two users. TimothyJosephWood 12:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Please comment on Talk:Jill Stein

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jill Stein. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jill Stein

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jill Stein. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Han Chinese

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Han Chinese. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Maryam Elisha

Dear Timothy Joseph, I saw your comment and the clarity tag on the Draft:Maryam Elisha I created. Thank you very much. I have reworked the section in question. Could you please look through and advise whether I can go ahead to resubmit the article? Thank you very much.Zayzeeltd (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Zayzeeltd, the only remaining issue I can see off hand (after a bit of copy editing), is I would recommend reading through the use of Template:Cite web, and repair the bare urls still in the article. But that doesn't have much to do directly with notability, and since another editor has already comment in support, I'll go ahead and accept if you would like to resubmit. TimothyJosephWood 13:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood,thank you for your great help. I returned and repaired the bare urls with the exception of two because there are information about the date of publication of materials. Can I leave it the way it is? Can I go ahead and resubmit?Zayzeeltd (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyrights

You might be interested in reading a discussion from a few weeks ago at Talk:Asperger syndrome#Non-free historic file version of image. I think the conversation got started in the previous section, so maybe scroll up a little to start reading. I'm not sure if you've ever filled out the {{Non-free use rationale}} template before, so just in case you hadn't and were considering doing it for the Baltimore railroad strike of 1877 article, I wanted to point out that thread, because it might be helpful in framing your rationale to understand why that one was rejected. If you're probably not going to do that or if you're familiar with the process, then don't bother reading. The short version is that we basically said all of the wrong things. —PermStrump(talk) 17:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Permstrump I usually try to avoid these kinds of legalistic issues like the plague. If it comes down to it, I'm going to have to admit idiocy and make a broad plea for help. TimothyJosephWood 21:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)