User talk:GreenMeansGo

Movement of my Sandbox to Draft:Hybrid Club

I noticed you moved my Sandbox content to Draft:Hybrid. Why was this done? I no longer seem to be able to resubmit changes. Your rationale for rejecting my article didn't make sense. How is my submission any different than for the following similarly written Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2/1_game_forcing?Papatoad (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Papatoad. Draft "space" is generally the correct place for AfC submissions. This is a technical detail and you should be able to edit normally, although you need to edit it in the "place" it's been moved to. The problem with the article you are basing you draft off of, is that it likely fails the criteria that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Accordingly, I have nominated that article for deletion. There are many many niche sites that explain card games, video games, all kinds of games in intricate detail. But Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a how to guide. Compare the article for Poker, which examines the game as an encyclopedia should, without going into intricate detail in the sense that a poker guide book would. TimothyJosephWood 22:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Your conclusion that my submission is a "How to Guide" about how to play a game is incorrect. It is about one of many bidding system systems used in the game of bridge. This is clarified in the opening sentence. As such, the article defines key elements of the Hybrid Club bidding system to set them apart from elements of other bidding systems. I am a bridge teacher and this article in no way teaches someone how to play the game of bridge. If you could tell me how my article differs from the Wiki page I referred to (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2/1_game_forcing), it might help me to know what corrective steps I need to take.Papatoad (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

If you disagree with my opinion, you may resubmit your draft, and it may be reviewed by another volunteer. TimothyJosephWood 00:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I have to go to my sandbox to find a link to my draft article. Shouldn't I be able to get my draft in a more direct manner. My sandbox has the following statement: "19:04, 31 January 2017 Timothyjosephwood (talk | contribs) moved page User:Papatoad/sandbox to Draft:Hybrid Club without leaving a redirect (Move AfC submission to draft space without leaving XNR) (revert)". What does it mean to move a page without leaving a redirect? Did you omit to do something?Papatoad (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Baltimore railroad strike of 1877

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Baltimore railroad strike of 1877 has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the good work! I only made one minor change, putting the digression into estimates of the strength of the 5th back into a footnote, since it jumps around chronologically and discusses estimates taking place at several different points in the story. TimothyJosephWood 14:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome - happy to help. Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:James O'Keefe

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James O'Keefe. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Euphoria

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Euphoria. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Murder of Seth Rich

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Murder of Seth Rich. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for suggestions and please give me your opinion, I will appreciate a lot

Dear Timothyjosephwood, I seriously appreciated your comments and suggestions on the discussion that regards my case - I found this statement "Subject-matter experts are well-equipped to help articles achieve a truly neutral point of view by identifying gaps in articles where important ideas are not discussed" here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Expert_editors - and I think it really applies to a big gap in the "Empathy" voice, specifically the "intercultural empathy" approach that was lacking completelty, and on which I am studying since 1988. I wrote several books about that, and I thought it would be good to make a contribution, in a fair and balanced way. In this contribution I brought 4 references on the topics, one refers to a model that has been published in a book in 2004 - and this concept is cited in several books and articles. I had it deleted as you can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Empathy&diff=762231586&oldid=761391400 - so that now Wikipedia users and readers will not have any clue about what "intercultural empathy" is, and will not even know that it exists. I found with Google Scholar that this approach has already been subject of interest in about 60 books and papers all over the world, verifiable here https://scholar.google.it/scholar?oi=bibs&hl=it&cites=17930119968961948430,14178877031202502370&as_sdt=5 What is your sincere opinion about this delete, what is it morally good to to in this specific case, what would wikipedia founders do if they were aware of this case?--Culturalresearch (talk) 12:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Just in case you actually come back and see this, as I said at the Teahouse, if you want to contribute at some point in the future in your subject area, you should take great care to avoid the appearance that you are using Wikipedia as a means of promotion. Abusing multiple accounts to spam references to your own work is basically the precise opposite of that.

It may have occurred to you that you are the first person in the English speaking world to have the idea of spamming your own work on Wikipedia in the hope that someone, at some point, will check out the references, and pick up a copy of your book. Rest assured, you are not. In fact, it's such a common thing that we have whole groups of websites universally blacklisted from the entire encyclopedia for exactly that reason.

If at some point you decide to come back, and do so for the actual purpose of improving the project, I'm sure you can ask for the Wikipedia:Standard offer, in six months. TimothyJosephWood 13:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello GreenMeansGo,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 799 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Far-left politics in the United Kingdom

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Far-left politics in the United Kingdom. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2000

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2000. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You're a qualified social worker - can your skills help the Futurist situation?

How does one solve issues like Futurist110 has? If you read my initial post on the RD talk page, the guy has a dread of the remotest possibility (and I do mean the remotest possibility) of fathering a child he needs to support. And he himself admits as much. You're a qualified social worker - can you put your skills to use in dissuading him from expecting that we wikipedians can do the slightest thing about this major issue of his (answering his questions will not help the underlying issue here, we're not dealing with a rational individual) - and somehow convince him to do what at least one editor does pretty much every time he asks such a question - as in, get professional help? Does your social work training aid in such situations? I just want this problem solved.

Note that he has a long history of "fatherhood fears" questions, most of which are completely non-trollish, yet pointless for us to answer, even if, factually, we can. E.g. his question on "sterilization failure insurance" or some form of pre-sex "child-support waiver agreement" with the woman he wants to have sex with, was by no means trolling (the former could be pointlessly answered without giving legal or medical advice, though the latter, all we could say was "see a lawyer"), but again, reflects his deep-seated issues, which we cannot solve, even if we answer hundreds of such questions of his. Lately, he has started to go off the deep end, as you yourself saw. Which is what prompted me to raise the issue on the RD talk page. See also his question on self-harming in front of his child. Again, what did they teach you in your social work studies, and can it help in any way here? Eliyohub (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

In the case that the user does in fact have a serious mental health issue, and in fact isn't a clever but exceptionally bored troll, probably the best thing that Wikipedia can do for him is to decidedly not act like a surrogate and poor substitute for the actual medical/psychological/legal help that the person would need, and need in the real world. To that end, probably the best thing someone like you or I could do is to collapse such discussions, and insist that the user comply with our terms of use, in seeking professional help from professionals, and not Wikipedia editors. Since the community seems insistent on doing nothing else, that's probably the extent of what can be done. TimothyJosephWood 14:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I concur. I think policy needs to include the mentally ill asking these sorts of questions, which we cannot solve, as prohibited along the same reasoning as the "no medical advice" rules. I have said again and again that we cannot help him, he needs to go elsewhere and see a professional. Just curious, what makes you think he's a troll, as opposed to a user with some sort of pathological fixation of a mental health type issue? As I noted, the rest of his work on Wikipedia seems mostly productive, he does a lot of the sourcing for the main page DYK section, so I'm cautious about calling "troll" here, particularly as his past questions on this topic have not been openly trollish, (though still pathologically obsessive about this fear of his, and equally pointless to answer). So what makes you tilt towards "troll" as opposed to "mentally unwell"? Just curious, I know it's of no practical relevance. (And I fully agree that we should NOT try to be any sort of substitute for a proper, real life, mental health professional, and should hat any such questions. The most I was hoping from you, and probably not possible, was to drive some insight into the guy to acknowledge his issues, and GET proper help). Eliyohub (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

He may not be a troll. He may be both a troll and mentally ill. There may be no way to tell definitively. TimothyJosephWood 16:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Fringe

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:British Empire

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:British Empire. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

SHOWstudio

Hi, I'm not trying to advertise the SHOWstudio shop, I'm trying to show the multifaceted history that has contributed to its current content, which includes MACHINE-A, but without detracting from the original project that launched the shop as well as the fashion illustrations they continue to promote. I'll cut down on the wording if you think it sounds like advertising, and I'm sorry you feel that way. Mustardcreams (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Mustardcreams, first, you are fairly obviously someone who is either in the employ of the company, or is otherwise closely related to it. Likewise, your intentions are fairly obviously to promote the company and it's founder. You are strongly encouraged to review our policy on conflicts of interest, disclose any close ties you have to the subjects, and stop editing all together on topic with which you have a COI. Failure to follow this policy may result in loss of editing privileges. Further promotional material added to Wikipedia will be removed. TimothyJosephWood 14:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm just trying to get the facts on Wikipedia because before the page was a complete mess. Is there anything about the wording you find particularly promotional or is it the overall tone of the post in general? Mustardcreams (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm interested in SHOWstudio and it's something that I've done research on and these are all incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustardcreams (talk • contribs) 14:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The entire tone of your edits is promotional. Additionally, I've been around here for almost ten years, and you are not the first person to get on Wikipedia and try to promote their company, claiming they're "just trying to set the record straight" by heaping unrepentant praise on a subject they just happen to have an interest in. TimothyJosephWood 14:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, super. I'll change the whole tone of every single edit. Thanks for the pro tip!! :) :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustardcreams (talk • contribs) 14:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

amenments which I believe you made to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helensburgh

Hello Timothyjosephwood

I am very much on a steep learning curve as far as Wikipedia is concerned, so please forgive me if I make mistakes in what follows.

Earlier today I posted a request for help on the Wikipedia help page regarding a modification which I had made unsuccessfully to the template on the page on Helensburgh (my home town for nearly 60 years) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helensburgh. If I understand the system correctly, you are the person who made the last amendment, although Lotje may also have been involved (and I am uncertain as to whether I should be copying this to her).

I had spent a considerable portion of this afternoon inserting photographs into the article and, although I previewed them as I went along, I failed to save them after each preview. I am therefore suspicious that the amendment which you made in answer to my request to the helpdesk resulted in the deletion of all the photographs which I had tried inserting – am I correct?

If I am correct, it would appear to me that I should have been saving all the changes that I made during the afternoon much more frequently than I actually did. If I am not correct, I should be grateful if you could tell me if I have breached some part of Wikipedia etiquette, perhaps by trying to insert too many photographs into an article. I don't want to try putting the photos back in again only to find that they might be deleted again by someone else. I had not appreciated that more than one person can edit the same page at the same time.

I see that you have made some comments regarding my changes. I removed the original static image and replaced it with a new one because the original one was out of date – this was the result of considerable changes which have been made to the town centre in the last couple of years.

Towards the end of the article there is a section entitled "Other Prominent Residents". I was not responsible for drawing up this list and, to be frank, it includes many people of whom I have never heard – and I should say that I am a former chairman of Helensburgh Community Council and a former chairman of Helensburgh Heritage Trust, and currently still treasurer of both. My preference would be to prune this list considerably, but I do not wish to offend whoever drew up this list in the first place.

Any help that you can give me on all these matters will be very much appreciated. Thank you!Stewartnbl (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Stewartnbl. You're right that Wikipedia is an exceedingly steep learning curve sometimes, and after a long time editing, I still run into this when I find an unfamiliar problem.

If I understand you correctly, it seems like what happened is that you made a lot of edits without saving, and since I made another edit before you saved, you basically lost your work. Unfortunately, this is more of a software problem than an etiquette one. It's called an edit conflict, and there are two main ways I would recommend to avoid it:

1. Edit individual sections instead of whole articles. Two users can edit different sections of the same article at the same time without conflicting, but if you are editing the whole article, if any user edits any section during that time, you won't be able to save.
2. Minimize the time between clicking "edit" and clicking "save". Sometimes this can be done best by making small incremental edits, instead of large sweeping ones. If you do need to make a large edit, like inserting a complicated table, or something else that might require a bit of trial and error, it may be best to start it in your sandbox (click that red link to start your sandbox page), and then copy it into the article when you are done.

Sorry if I caused a mix up. If there's any way I can be of help feel free to let me know. TimothyJosephWood 20:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Armenia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Armenia. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Give me reason

I just asked you to provide valid reason for proposing my article to get deleted. But you are threatening me. This is not the right way . If you want to threaten me saying that i have included comments against you, you may move forward . Before that tell me the reason for proposing my article to get deleted. I have given many references. Don't speak as you think. Not all my articles were referred for deletion. So mind your words . Without having proper reason you may ask to delete my article. If I ask against that you are threatening me saying that i may attain harassment. Edson Frainlar (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not threatening you; I am warning you. And if you look at your talk page, the notices provided to you for each article nominated for deletion, all include links to the relevant policies under which they are being proposed. TimothyJosephWood 13:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Article "Abdoulahi measure"

An article was published on the subject in TELKOMNIKA Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering Vol. 12, No. 8, August 2014, pp. 6361 ~ 6368 , so we have sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitsidibe (talk • contribs) 04:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Bitsidibe. In order for a subject to qualify under Wikipedia's standards for notability it need to have received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Publications by the originators of a thing don't count as independent for the purposes of Wikipedia, and so don't count toward notability. If others have not yet also published about it, then it may be too soon fo its own article. TimothyJosephWood 12:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Please delete my page

Thanks for your input. Please delete my submission when / if you are able. Msmullen (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Msmullen. Unlike a lot of drafts at Articles for Creation, this one is almost certainly worthy of an article. The real problem is that it relies too much on primary sources, like the original legislation, and not enough on secondary sources that interpret the meaning and impact of the law. If you decide to change your mind and work on it some more, I and other editors are always happy to help. If you do not, normally the draft will be deleted after six months as abandoned. TimothyJosephWood 19:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Article "Abdoulahi measure" IMPROVED

I hope you are happy with the article "Abdoulahi measure" now. There is a big improvement there. Have a look my friend and tell us what you think now. If you are still not satisfied let us improve it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.32.120.152 (talk) 06:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and comments my friend. We are working to make the article better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitsidibe (talk • contribs) 06:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Here are two publications from Google sponsored authors using the Abdoulahi measure. You can check it here: https://www.google.com/patents/US9424299 https://www.google.com/patents/US9424298 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitsidibe (talk • contribs) 07:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Bitsidibe. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you don't need to convince me, you should be posting at the deletion discussion. I only nominated it for deletion, but it is the community that decides whether it should be deleted or not. TimothyJosephWood 12:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Lancelot Cooper Draft

Hi Thanks for your reply to my query on the Tea House page. I will look at my article again given your comments and revise were necessary Alantaylor17 (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Alantaylor17. No problem at all. The other main thing I can see that you might get dinged on is over reliance on primary sources, and this may be why you are having a rough time keeping "your voice" as a writer out of the equation. It's probably a good idea to dig deep and see if you can find more secondary sources. Wikipedia is not really supposed to be people writing about things, but rather "people writing about people writing about things" as it were. This helps to keep the project neutral, and to demonstrate that a topic is important out in the world, and not just important to an editor on Wikipedia. TimothyJosephWood 15:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I take your point about use of secondary sources but in this case there are none as far as I can discover - this I believe is the first article ever about this forger Alantaylor17 (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm...if there really is no coverage in secondary sources at all, then it may in fact not be suitable for Wikipedia, but rather, suitable for an original publication on the subject. Per guidance at WP:PRIMARY, articles should not be based entirely on primary sources, but require at least some secondary coverage to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. TimothyJosephWood 17:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

"I vandalize even even my own talk page"

Hi Timothyjosephwood, I would just like to point out (not harshly by any means) that there is a typo in your section "All the reasons why I am terrible". On the second to last bullet, the word even is duplicated twice. Whether you choose to change the text or not is up to you, I just thought I would point it out to you. Have a nice day.

Checks Facts _{will happily talk} 17:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hah. Good catch. TimothyJosephWood 18:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Lancelot Cooper Draft

So if I am interpreting your comments about Wikipedia's guidelines correctly my draft should not be an article because it lacks 'notablility'. If this term refers to 'being worthy of being known' then I think the article is worthy of being known. Here we have a noted English conman/forger who not only duped many people into handing over money and also daughters ( there is evidence of more than one) but also managed for a considerable time to pass himself off as his Britannic Majesty's Consul in Venice and even exerted some kind of influence in the Court of George III in getting a letter written for him by Queen Caroline. Also there is much that could be still explored in his extraordinary detailed account of who he met, corresponded with etc when at Venice ( although I have discounted this in the article) I only got interested when I acquired a letter from John Powell in London chasing Cooper (or Cole) recounting this lack of success which led him putting the notice in the Times. What followed was six months of research using copies of many pages in the National Archives plus the other online resources. It has surprised me that nobody else had previously done this. In the Times article of 1827 he is even compared to Henry Fauntleroy, a forger (see Wikipedia). In terms of getting this published elsewhere I am not a historian - in fact I have no qualifications in history at all - just a good academic education. Consequently I would find it difficult to get this published elsewhere so I thought Wikipedia would be a good start! Do forgive me for rambling on ( getting old!!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alantaylor17 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Well Alantaylor17, we may be talking across purposes a bit. For Wikipedia, and specifically for history articles (things like medicine topics are bit different), coverage in a periodical like The Times would count as a secondary source. This is, for example, as opposed to things like death or birth records which would definitely be primary. TimothyJosephWood 15:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Collective punishment

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Collective punishment. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Chih Ping Wang

Hello, Timothyjosephwood. This is the first time I post an article on Wikipedia and I have very limited experience on it. I wonder if you can help me to edit the page in the proper way. I personally believe Mr. Chih Ping Wang is a very important person in region history in China. He is the first Chinese bishop in China Of The Methodist Episcopal Church. Very much appreciate your help in advance. YueerYLM — Preceding unsigned comment added by YueerYLM (talk • contribs) 15:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey YueerYLM. In order to demonstrate that the subject meets Wikipedia's standards for notability, article should include coverage of the subject in reliable sources. These don't necessarily have to be in English, but if there are no sources available which document the person and their accomplishments, they they are probably not appropriate for their own article.

For further information on referencing for Wikipedia, you may want to check out the tutorial at Help:Referencing for beginners. TimothyJosephWood 15:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Lancelot Cooper Draft

Concerning Times articles being classed as a secondary source does this mean Timothyjosephwood that my article is now more likely to be accepted? Alantaylor17 (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)