User talk:TimothyBlue/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Hayden21803

Thank you for welcoming me! ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayden21803 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Hayden21803 My pleasure to welcome you. I hope you enjoy the time you spend here and I'm sure you will find articles you enjoy contributing to. If I can answer any questions, please let me know. CaptainEek is also a friendly and helpful person if you ever need a question answered. Greetings from Los Angeles :)   // Timothy :: talk  11:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Great job on Bibliography of the Post Stalinist Soviet Union, another very excellent reference work. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Indexes of articles

Hi Timothy, I saw you recently created Index of articles related to the Russian Revolution and Civil War. Indexes tend to get very out of date and are being deleted at AFD - e.g. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of China-related articles where even the creator of the index said "They were created ... [when] "Categories" did not exist as a feature on Wikipedia, and "Watchlists" most probably didn't either. [They] were at that time more or less exhaustive and served essentially as topical watchlists (through the "related changes" feature). With the availability of tools like "Categories" and "Watchlists", the original purpose of these lists has become obsolete, and unsurprisingly they have been largely unmaintained over the years.". Do you think indexes still have a purpose (that outweighs their costs) ? DexDor ^(talk) 06:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi DexDor, it's nice to meet you. I've actually thought about this a bit, however, I didn't know there was a discussion. I think indexes can be a valuable part of Wikipedia, but only when they are used in a meaningful way with a topic that is finite and reasonably "complete".

In the case of the index I created on the Russian Revolution and Civil War, it has a beginning and an end, it has a manageable number of articles and is a reasonably complete subject. I'm not finished adding articles to it yet.

In the case you mention - China - I can't imagine how a topic of this size could have a useful/manageable index, I'd be surprised if there were less than 250,000 articles related to China, it's probably still very incomplete, spans 5000+ years and is ongoing so its always going to be incomplete / out of date.

In the middle of these two ends could be the index of articles related to the Soviet Union, which I've been adding to. I'm still on the fence as to whether this is a good topic for an index, I'm leaning towards yes, it's finite and is a reasonable size and but I'm wondering if it's complete enough to remain up to date.

I think when an index is used on an appropriate topic, it is easier to use than categories and gives a different perspective, and readers do use them. For example, the Index of the Russian Revolution and Civil War has 15,423 pageviews (30 days) so it's being used (I'm assuming Xtools is accurate).

I think there should be guidelines for when an index is appropriate and indexes that are "stubs" or that are not meaningful because of the scope or are hopelessly out of date should be deleted. I'd say the same about Contents and Outlines (Imo Outlines are much more similar to cats, because of their nature). I don't see the overlap with cats as a problem, having different ways to explore information is useful, but strongly would agree that incomplete/out of date indexes/contents/outlines be nominated for deletion and there should be guidelines for quality and usefulness to guide these discussions. I'd be interested in these discussions if they occur.

I hope this message finds you and your family well.   // Timothy :: talk  00:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

help

Hi: I was working with a student on this page and she tried signing into my Wikipedia account yesterday morning and got a message saying her username or password is incorrect. She requested to reset her password but have not received an email about it yet. She also has checked her junk/spam email and there is nothing there. It is finals week and she needs to be able to finish this up. I am Heidi and my email is hs40@evansville.edu

Her email is kw305@evansville.edu and her name is Kaitlyn. Thanks!

HeidiStrobelUsonian (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi HeidiStrobelUsonian, I'm just a basic user, so I don't have the ability to help with usernames and passwords. I think if you ask an administrator, they might be able to point you in the direction that can help. It might help to leave a message at the Wikipedia:Help desk.   // Timothy :: talk  21:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

List of Nazi extermination camps and euthanasia centers

This article duplicates material already in the mainspace. Both of these phenomena are already listed, separately, at extermination camp and Aktion T4#Number of euthanasia victims. (t · c) buidhe 06:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the qualifies as a legitimate list as a Summary style meta-article WP:SUMMARY. List >> Extermination Camps >> Chelmno. WP:SPINOFF "Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject in different articles, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter." I could be wrong, but I hope not. I do respect your feedback and experience.   // Timothy :: talk  06:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Nazi extermination camps and euthanasia centers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Nazi extermination camps and euthanasia centers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. (t · c) buidhe 07:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Deletion sorting

Thanks for your recent contributions in performing deletion sorting. Please note that regarding the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People page, it states, "Note: In most cases there is another, more specific category than this one. If possible, please use one of these instead". I have removed some AfD discussions you listed there because the discussions were listed on at least one of the more specific biographical delsort pages, and were not needed on the People delsort page. Just a heads up so you're aware of this. Regards Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Synoman Barris thank you for making me aware of this. I appreciate the time you took to let me know. Hope you are well.   // Timothy :: talk  07:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Synoman Barris Hello. I had a question. Does the relationship between listing for example RELIGION and CHRISTIANITY follow the same pattern of Specific over General that People does or is it appropriate to list both? I think both because nothing is stated but wanted to confirm this. Thanks,   // Timothy :: talk  19:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

TimothyBlue, I get you, so I am going to use an example of Sarah Mullally. Let’s say it was nominated for deletion. The most specific DelSort category to start with would be Christianity. Since there is no specific category for priests in the biographical delsort ,we add it to the people DelSort category. So it is better to list both. Regards Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 19:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, i've added additional references to my articles. Could you remove the tags from Concubine Jian, Concubine An, Concubine Xun and Concubine Rong, of the Liang clan. Deidonata

• Reply: Hi Deidonata. Since the process has already started, I cannot withdraw the nomination (WP:WDAFD). However, at the deletion discussion, you can propose that the article be moved to Draftspace as an alternative to deletion. At the end of the 7 day AFD, an admin will review everything. Simply put something like Creator requests the article be moved to Draftspace to continue development. I hope this helps. Best wishes.   // Timothy :: talk  12:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for suggestions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deidonata (talk • contribs) 13:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

frustrations

I get 'em, too. Must be something to do with the forename! Unless you refer to the plant, that is. I spend my life trying hard to learn to step back, and sometimes a little bit of frustration spills out of the bucket if I turn a corner too fast. Fiddle Faddle 09:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

We're part of the kindred spirits of Tim :)   // Timothy :: talk  16:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Simular articles

I saw you commented on the AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UEFA Europa League clubs performance comparison, you may also be interested in the similar articles on the list at WP:FOOTBALL#Nominations for deletion and page moves. Regards. Govvy (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

User: DavidJWhitten

I logged into my Wikipedia account today and saw a notice on my Talk page that you have nominated my User Page for speedy deletion. The comment said that I could contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking on a button. I do NOT see this button, perhaps the software did not work properly ?

I am concerned that my effort to be verbose about myself and my interests has caused you to feel I don't have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. It is also a bit confusing as I have made pages and edited pages for over twenty years here. Many of them anonymously, but still, I have been a participant. I remember when the Wiki wasn't even using SQL but solely text files.

Have I done something personally to offend you ? I don't think I have ever met you or interacted with you in the past. 18:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveJWhitten (talk • contribs)

Nomination of Indian Defence Contract Management Service for deletion

Hi @TimothyBlue

I got your message regarding nomination of the subject page for deletion.

I just want to inform that it is a genuine page having all the correct information and relevent supporting documents can also be presented to you. If there is any query regarding this page, you can freely message me, i shall be happy to answer all the queries.

Regards

Potential concern

You may already be doing this, but it strikes me that a couple of your recent AfDs—I'm thinking in particular of Pwalugu Tomato Factory, Uzair Gul, and to a lesser extent Thumama ibn Ashras—could be seen as rather harsh on the newbies. All of these articles appear to have been created in good faith by relatively new users, make a reasonable claim to notability (even if they're ultimately found non-notable), and cover topics that are underrepresented. I'm a little concerned that rapid-fire AfD noms would turn off potentially valuable contributors to the project. Perhaps reaching out to the users to suggest draftification could be an alternative in some of these cases. Of course, I know that you're nominating only in good faith, and don't mean to turn people off contributing—I'm just thinking that this might be an unintended consequence to guard against. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings, you offer a valid point regarding new editors; I hadn't taken this into consideration and agree with your observation about it being potentially discouraging. I also think your right in each of these cases the creators seem like potentially valuable contributors. This is all something I will take into consideration in future nominations. Thanks for taking the time to provide feedback. Hope you're well.   // Timothy :: talk  01:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for such a gracious response! All my best to you, and hope you're well too. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings, my pleasure. I went back over the last couple of days and left encouraging notes for new editors whom I had nominated (except for a few that were obviously promo accounts).   // Timothy :: talk  02:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, that's amazing! Really appreciate your taking the time. I would give you another barnstar but I just gave you one … Instead, please accept my sincere thanks. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Best of Shopping (TV channel)

Hello TimothyBlue. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Best of Shopping (TV channel), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: TV channel that was operated and owned by a notable company. Consider merging/redirecting to parent company's article per WP:ATD. Thank you. SoWhy 07:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestion SoWhy. I hope all is well with you.   // Timothy :: talk  07:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  No worries. Have a good day as well and don't hesitate to ask if you need anything. Regards SoWhy 08:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

General Communications

@Wikiuser100: Sorry to hear about your broken leg. Hope you heal quickly and completely.   // Timothy::talk 01:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @TimothyBlue:. Sorry to take so long to acknowledge your well wishes. I'm lucky. Two spiral fractures, and my leg is fine. I am very lucky, and grateful.

Whatever happened with that Dilidor administrative action? By the time I got back to my computer again that notice board page had moved on, and I couldn't readily find the string checking its archive. Were there any sanctions? Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

No outcome? Wikiuser100 (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Deletion request for Donvale Christian College

Hello Timothy, Thanks for getting in contact about your concerns for the page titled 'Donvale Christian College'. As a student myself, I believe that information on schools is vital for people who have an interest in that area. As one of the only schools in the Eastern Region that does not have a Wikipedia page, I believe that it is only appropriate to create a Wikipedia page for this school. Whilst you may raise some concerns about the references, I can assure you that all on that page is correct. The lack of articles online regarding Donvale Christian College has driven me to use primary sources as my main outlet of information and referencing. I believe that this deletion request is invalid as it contains no opinions or promotions, rather, an attempt to inform students, teachers and parents of the school, its history, its layout, etc. Deleting this page will cause disappointment and anger, as I put a lot of effort into creating this page, and if it is deleted for minor reasons, that causes me grief. Please consider removing the deletion request... this deletion will remove a prominent Christian school in the eastern Melbourne region, one that deserves the right to have an informative Wikipedia page.

Please consider my frustration in this request, as I believe this page is totally valid.

Kind Regards, DaviSte02 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaviSte02 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reply: Hi DaviSte02, I think I have good news for you and this is absolutely nothing you should worry about, it's a problem that really should be easy to solve. All that it is lacking (from my view, but I don't decide anything) is at least two sources which are independent of the school that discuss the school itself (not an event at the school like a football game or student meeting, but about the actual school).

What this practically means is you need two newspaper articles about the school. It can't be the school paper, because this is not independent of the school. I am almost positive there was some newspaper article written about the school with it opened, which is one. The other could be about anything regarding the school itself, the appointment of a chancellor/president, an article about a building project, a new program or something significant the school has done for the community. Also you mentioned there were other Christian schools in the region with articles, check what newspaper sources they use and you may be able to find something about Donvale in those. Two sources are the minimum, but the more you can provide the better. Your school library almost certainly can assist you with this and the local public library probably has newspaper archives you can search. They don't need to be online, you just need to be able to reference them (newspaper name, date, the title of the article). Also, your local newspapers may be able to help you find an article. All I was able to find was routine coverage, but I think there might be articles in Herald Sun. If these are about the school, there should be more in the Herald Sun. You might check the Wangaratta Sun also.

You also reference a publication called "40th Year Celebration. Donvale: Donvale Christian College." which is 22 pp. long. There may be some sources in there. (Just a a side note not related to the deletion discussion, but there is might be a lot of good information that could improve the History section of the article).

A lot of articles go through this process (100-200 newer articles every day), so please don't feel this article is being singled out. It has a harsh name "Articles for Deletion", but this is actually the equivalent of writing an article for a magazine/newspaper and the editor returning your first draft with a request for a couple of changes and then it's published.

After you add any sources you find to the article, place a note on the article deletion discussion [1] that you have added sources and answer any questions the editors there have. Again from my view the issue is no independent sources, but others may raise issues. Also state that if the article needs more sources or improvement, please move the article to your Drafts as an alternative to deletion. This will give you all the time you need to add sources or make any requested changes. Once you do, just click the submit button and you should be done.

I actually don't decide anything about the article or deletion process. This is decided by a Wikipedia administrator with the advice of editors. So I can't guarantee anything but I think you should be able to find the needed sources and pass the review. Let me know if you have any questions. I will help you in any way I can (which is why I left the message) and I do hope this article is kept. Again this is a common occurrence, almost all new editors have an article reviewed at AfD, so please don't be discouraged or frustrated (one good point is once the article is reviewed and kept at AfD, its rarely ever deleted after that).

I hope you're planning another article, I think you would be a good contributor to Wikipedia. Greetings from Los Angeles and Best wishes, let me know if I can answer any other questions.   // Timothy :: talk  12:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

PS: I didn't mention it, but I have no doubt the information is accurate and the school sounds like a great place to learn.   // Timothy :: talk 

Reply regarding the Deletion Request of Donvale Christian College

Thanks for that response Timothy, Whilst I would like to be able to access my school library, currently my state (Victoria, Australia) are in Stage 4 Lockdown restrictions. This means that I am at home, doing online learning, and I cannot get into my school as I live more than 5km away from it! It also means that the librarian is mostly not in at school... when we are able to finally return to school (some time in October), I will consult my librarian about references for the school's Wikipedia page.

Of course, I will look for more sources, and I will make sure to add them to the appropriate places, so that the page is more credible, I was just shocked and upset that something I put effort into was requested for deletion!

I ask for an extension on the request, as I believe the current circumstances do not allow me to add much more.

Kind Regards, DaviSte02 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaviSte02 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reply DaviSte02, please add your above request to the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donvale Christian College. After you do this, I will add a comment supporting the request to move to drafts. Some others have added concerns there also, you'll want to respond to those and someone may want to discuss WP:COI, since you appear to go to the school. Just in case, make a copy of the article if you don't have one.

Don't be shocked and upset, this happens to literally everyone. It's a very normal part of working on Wikipedia, something you will go through repeatedly if you create more articles (unless you're very lucky). It's very important to remember that Wikipedia isn't like other websites, we all work together as a collective, not as individuals, so anything you add will be edited and scrutinized by other Wikipedia editors, sometimes in ways you don't like. Once you press "Publish" it belongs to the Wikipedia community, and you have no more control over it than any other editor. In the same way, you can edit and comment on any article here and your voice matters as much as anyone else. I've had articles I put a lot of work into edited and deleted for reasons I disagreed with and all editors that create articles have as well. Remember this is not a normal part of the web or social media site; its an encyclopedia written collectively by a community.

Wikipedia also has a very large body of policies, guidelines, procedures that control what and how we work, edit and create; the better you know these the more successful you will be here. Usually a good place to start is learning WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:BRD, WP:WWIN and WP:MOS; this is a starting point, there is much more.

This might seem like a lot but there is a huge upside. If you put in the effort to learn how Wikipedia works, you get to be a completely equal participant in building one of the most referred to websites in the world and you get to work with others from all different backgrounds, ages, and experiences. Your ability to write, think and debate will be strengthened. If you don't let yourself get frustrated, angry, or discouraged, and enjoy writing, thinking, learning, and debating, this is a wonderful experience and the skills you learn here will benefit you in every area of life.

Also once you've been here a while (6 months), you'll be able to apply for access to the Wikipedia Library, which is a college-level library collection of newspapers, academic journals, research databases and more, all to assist you in writing articles. You can read about it by clicking here.

One final thing, when you add a comment, end the comment with four tildes ~~~~ this will sign your name and add the date automatically. Best of luck.   // Timothy :: talk  12:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

My AfD reply

I just read over my reply to you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Wohlman and thought it looked slightly abrasive lol apologies if it came across that way, I was still in morning mode. Thank you for acknowledging my point of the significant coverage aspect, I was beginning to think I was being stupid and misinterpreting GNG lol – ².O.^Boxing 12:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Squared.Circle.Boxing, I didn't think it was abrasive, it is a boxing discussion :) Your point about presumption and significant coverage is one I often make, I definitely feel the "presumed" clause is too often misinterpreted as an excuse to keep an article that lacks notability based on reliable sources. I always appreciate a reasoned response, always try and show that by responding in kind and with a willingness to change my mind based on a discussion. Hope this finds you well, Greetings from Los Angeles,   // Timothy :: talk  14:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Central Business District

Your attention is called to the addition of this display to the article on the Central Business District, Los Angeles (1880s-1890s). Do you have any feelings, for or against? Discussion should take place on that article's Talk page. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, and thanks for all your contributions to date! I noticed that you have been starting AFD discussions such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darkness of Eternity by !voting to 'merge' the article. Please note for the future that AFD is not the correct place to propose merges. Potentially controversial mergers should be proposed at proposed mergers. Best wishes, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Walking away

At some point you said you would stop posting to the discussion. And then you kept posting. I think your first instinct was correct. You’ve made your point, give space for others to look into it. —JBL (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reply to JBL, good advice and I do wish I hadn't looked again; I've said a few times I'm walking away. I know I'm responding to obvious things out of the need to make a point and that's a bad place to be in. It also shows unintentionally lack of faith in others to appropriately respond. I've muted the user and unwatched ANI and that particular AfD. If you think it's appropriate, note that I've muted the user and unwatched on the threads, because I really do want to walk away; this might help me resist the temptation to look (I'll just assume you did and not look). Thanks for your thoughtful advice.   // Timothy :: talk  17:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Elmsleigh centre deletion and references banner

Dear Timothy please could you remove the 2 banners as I am unable to remove them thanks. Takumi (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reply: Hi Taku20072019, I think you're referring to the deletion and primary sources/notability banners. The deletion review banner cannot be removed until the review is finished and closed. The primary sources/notability banner cannot be removed because the article is sourced using primary sources and it needs secondary sources and there is a question regarding notability. You will want to read WP:RS and WP:V to become familiar with requirements for sources and verification and WP:N, WP:WWIN, and WP:NORG to become familiar with the notability guidelines. You can certainly improve the article while it is going through the deletion review. If the article isn't deleted and you feel the issues have been handled, I would post a note on the article talk page and ask an experienced editor to review the changes and see if the banners can be removed. When you post to the talk page, add this {{Help me}} and it will alert others to your post. Best wishes.   // Timothy :: talk  15:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Why removal of links from Hitler page?

Hi, I am curious as to why you removed the link to Werner Maser's book on Hitler and also the Otto Wagener memoir.

Both books are seen as valuable sources in the study of Hitler.

See:

https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article-abstract/79/4/1205/74176?redirectedFrom=fulltext

https://www.nytimes.com/1985/08/25/books/enshrining-the-furhrer.html

180.129.77.73 (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Descendants of royalty and nobility

Hi Surtsicna, PatGallacher, JoelleJay, I just noticed this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Monarchs and nobility and it might be useful to refute the claim that members of royal families are always notable nonsense. It's an "explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Deletion policy page." so it carries weight.

"The descendants of monarchs or nobles, especially deposed ones, are not considered notable for this reason alone. "

This might be old news to you, but I thought I would mention it.

Greetings and best wishes from Los Angeles,   // Timothy :: talk  10:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tri City Mall

I gave the article a major improvement in the sourcing department. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Serious question: is every scrap of coverage on Colonial Plaza "routine coverage" that "doesn't establish significance" to you? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Honest answer: I just saw this message, but I will look after dinner. I have reversed my position before and honestly look at these sources; I'm not in anyway stubborn about saying I was mistaken about a nomination. Here is an example of me doing this 2 days ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Joseph Academy (Adrian, Michigan) based on new sources. I do have very strong feelings about notability being established by guidelines and policy and that notability means what WP:N says, that something is "worthy of note" in an encyclopedia, not just something that happens to be true or simply existed.

I left this message on another page for everyone, I'll leave it here also:

Guidelines are not just random arbitrary statements, there is a purpose to them. I see this as wheat and chaff. If we have 2000 articles for American malls (don't know the actual number), but only 200 are genuinely noteworthy, the 200 (10%) will be obscured by the other 1800 (90%). Removing non-notable malls, helps the visibility of notable ones. If all readers see when they look at malls, is open, renovate, close, boring routine items, they will miss the truly interesting and noteworthy malls. I believe this is what WP:NBUILD is going for when it says "may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance".

• Is there some historical importance, such as the malls that were the first of their kind? I'm thinking here of the same way department stores are viewed, every department store is not notable, but the first department stores were pioneers, those have a history that is interesting and notable.
• Social, a small/average mall in an urban area not socially notable, it's just one among a vast array of social environments. But a mall in a small town may be the center of the community and a significant part of the social fabric, not duplicated in other places.
• Architectural speaks for itself, there are lots of architectural journals and magazines and if they cover a mall because of its design, then I see that as an indication something about the mall is notable and this can be in the article.
• Economic, I'd go to the social reason above. A mall in a large urban area is going to make a negligible impact on the economy, even if it makes good money. But a mall in a small town may be a significant part of the local economy, even if it makes a fraction of the money the mall in an urban area does. In the same way as a factory in a city with a huge manufacturing base like Los Angeles or New York wouldn't be notable, but if you move that same factory to a small town, it could be the lifeblood of the economy, if it closed the town would (and sadly have) dry up.

  // Timothy :: talk  04:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

And copying what I said in the Hawthorn discussion...

*"Historical": "every department store is not notable, but the first department stores were pioneers." So by that logic, Bon Marche in Paris is notable because it was a first, whereas Kohl's, Burlington, and J.C. Penney aren't notable at all because they weren't the first of anything nor did they pioneer anything.

"separating the wheat from the chaff.... helps the visibility of notable ones." That's like saying that a musician who never entered the Hot 100 (for example The Forester Sisters, which is a WP:GA) should be deleted so that an article on, say, Maroon 5 or Metallica can have its visibility helped, whatever that means. Because by your standards, the Forester Sisters were just a "routine" band who routinely got together, routinely released singles and albums, routinely got reviews from routine music reviewers, and routinely broke up like most other bands do.

"it's just one among a vast array of social environment". So by your logic, Northland Center is notable because it was one of the first and a "pioneer", whereas literally every other mall in Metro Detroit is "just one among a vast array" and therefore not notable. Not even the one that had the very first American Eagle Outfitters in it, huh? Because it's in a mall that's "just one among a vast array" by not being notable in any other fashion.

"Architectural speaks for itself". Not every structure has to be architecturally notable. Again, I guess that means that Forest Fair Village is just another run-of-the-mill, routine mall that routinely got built and routinely died because it didn't have anything significant from a structural standpoint.

" A mall in a large urban area is going to make a negligible impact on the economy, even if it makes good money." How much is non negligible by your standards? Is Colonial Plaza no longer notable because it got torn down? Rolling Acres Mall is not notable because it didn't make enough money and failed?

If you contrast Tri-City Pavilions with other GA-class mall articles like Colonial Plaza or Forest Fair Village (again, both of which are GAs), then you will see that the scope of coverage is exactly the same. But by your standards, not notable because they're "routine", "not historical", and their removal will "help the visibility of notable ones", whatever the hell that means. Wikipedia does not have a limited amount of storage space so it's not like there's a pressing reason to "separat[e] the wheat from the chaff". Again, that's like saying that lesser-known, defunct bands should have their articles deleted, or that canceled TV shows should have their articles deleted to "increase the visibility" of currently-airing shows. Are The Forester Sisters "chaff" because they're "routine" and no longer active? Is Lonestar "chaff" because they haven't had a hit single in years? Is Joe Diffie "chaff" because he's no longer alive? Is Colonial Plaza "chaff" because it was torn down? Is Rolling Acres Mall "chaff" because it was torn down? You seem to be concocting an utterly absurd and overly narrow view of notability that in no way lines up with WP:GNG.

Getting personal?

""When you attempt to get personal with comments such the ones above, you're only showing emotion that betrays the weakness of your reasoning and evidence."

That sounds like what you're doing, by insisting that something suddenly isn't notable because of your own arbitrary reasons. Again, you've addressed none of my issues.

Is Colonial Plaza "not notable" or "run of the mill" or "routine" or "not architecturally notable"?

Is Rolling Acres Mall "not notable" or "run of the mill" or "routine" or "not architecturally notable"?

Is Great Lakes Crossing Outlets "not notable" or "run of the mill" or "routine" or "not architecturally notable"?

Is Castleton Square "not notable" or "run of the mill" or "routine" or "not architecturally notable"?

By what you've said in the other AFDs, every single facet of those four is "routine". Especially Rolling Acres since it's been closed and torn down.

How would Wikipedia be improved by deleting any or all of those? Wikipedia isn't running out of room so it's not like your "wheat from chaff" argument holds any water by this merit alone. No focus is being taken away since hardly anyone has the passion for retail articles anyway; I often seem like I'm the only one even editing mall articles anymore. Again, your argument is very much like saying that a secondary and/or defunct musician should have their article deleted so that more attention can be focused on that of a bigger and more active band. Because that lesser band is just "routine" and didn't pioneer anything.

You yourself said that being the first or largest is not a valid superlative. Castleton Square is the largest mall in its entire state and has been since 1972, but since by your standards it's "run of the mill", I guess it's headed off to AFD too. Rolling Acres has been torn down, which means by your standards that it's not economically significant since it can't impact Akron's economy anymore. Guess it's headed for AFD too. Architecture is not the only thing that makes a mall or any other building notable in the long run.

You are extrapolating extremely contrived, overly strict, and patently ludicrous interpretations of notability guidelines that do not in any way mesh with WP:GNG. "Run of the mill/routine" is not official policy and shouldn't be used as a benchmark.

I may be emotionally involved since this is a topic of interest to me, but it still seems like you are literally the only editor bending over backwards to try and prune something that you don't like or don't think is noteworthy. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reply TenPoundHammer, because you don't seem to be able not to make arguments or have a discussion without personal insults, I will request you not post on my talk page.   // Timothy :: talk  05:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• What part of that was a personal insult? Literally all I said was that your arguments make no sense. You're the one filling every deletion discussion with literally an entire screen's worth of contrived arguments and repetitions of the same phrases. I'm the one trying to unpack what you're trying to say and presenting counterpoints, not a single one of which you have addressed in any other means besides repeating the same argument over and over again. Either way it's clear you don't want to have a valid discussion despite my best efforts, but I myself feel insulted that you somehow misconstrued anything I said as a "personal insult". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• You do realize that WP:ROUTINE applies solely to events, and not to places or establishments? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reply I explained your misunderstanding to you at ANI. I asked you not to post comments here. Respond there where everyone else will see the discussion.   // Timothy :: talk  06:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Malls AfDs

Hi! I have been informed by people who work on malls-related articles that your AfD nominations are being posted at a rapid pace, with the result that they're having a difficult time keeping up with the research required. Would it be possible for you to post future AfDs in this topic area at a slower pace, such as once per day? Thank you! Enterprisey (talk!) 09:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reply Hi Enterprisey, nice to meet you. I've seen your posts, but never had a chance to speak with you.

I nominated three malls yesterday, in the past I've nominated more, but three is hardly excessive. I won't promise a number, but I will try and keep it reasonable. I understand keeping the peace is important. My before's are pretty good, and there are several editors opposing all the noms period, so they aren't really under pressure. I think the problem is they don't want any malls deleted period. If you look at the Keep reasons, they are basically just votes, not !votes. You mentioned time for research required. In some cases, such as this one [2], an editor states, "The sources in the article establish notability", but the sources are two dead links and a link to an article about a university center. Nothing about the mall. They aren't doing any research; it's pretty obvious they are just voting based on emotion and not even looking at the sources in the article, let alone posting new sources showing notability.

You asked me to slow it down on malls, fair enough, I know some people are getting emotional about it. I'll throttle it back a bit (no promises on a number). I exchange, please consider discussing WP:DISCUSSAFD, with those consistently voting to keep without justification based in policies or guidelines: "When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive." This isn't a condition in any way, just a good faith request.

If those on the Keep side were providing RS that show the article meets notability GNG or NBUILD, I'd have more than enough to do rebutting them and wouldn't have time to nominate more. It's really the voting and the lack of !votes here that is causing a problem. Further, if my AfD's keep getting kept, I would simply stop because it would be pointless, the consensus would be clear that my AfDs are incorrect, and continuing would be disruptive. In the same way, consistently ignoring WP:DISCUSSAFD is disruptive. Since there are several editors who are opposing every nom, it wouldn't be hard to shut these down if sources, policies and guidelines are on their side.

Perhaps you could act as a neutral referee in the above situation and also make sure they are closed (I know you couldn't be the closer in this situation) closes based on evidence, policies, and guidelines and not votes. This way each side will know the strength of their arguments.

Please don't interpret anything above as trying to be hard-nosed, stubborn, or unfriendly. I mean it in the friendliest possible way. Again, I understand keeping the peace is important. Best wishes from Los Angeles,   // Timothy :: talk  13:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

PS: thanks for all the great scripts.   // Timothy :: talk 

Regarding my disruption on topics in the Russia, Chechnya, or Eastern Europe spaces

Hello again Timothy,

I wish to continue our previous discussion but I do not see an option to reply. Can you please show me?

I have read Wikipedia articles that describe the Nazi settlement in occupied territories as "colonization" also. They called the German immigrants colonists and settlers. I feel like the issue of forced Russification is being underplayed, and I am hoping you, as an editor, can help me and others who desire to contribute to writing history can address it in an appropriate manner.

Here is an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Germanic_Reich#Expected_participation_in_the_colonization_of_Eastern_Europe

Check the header titled "Expected participation in the colonization of Eastern Europe"

Here is an article about Lebensraum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum

In the introduction you will find this: "The Nazi government aimed at repopulating these lands with Germanic colonists in the name of Lebensraum during World War II and thereafter."

If my word choice is biased against Russian migrants under the Soviet occupation, do you think the authors' descriptions of German migrants under the Nazi occupation are biased also? My concern is that there might be a bias among Wikipedia editors that is in favor of a certain nationality, and bias of any kind is something I know Wikipedia is trying to minimize.

I also had difficulty understanding the instructions on the process of how my edits will be considered. Can you please guide me through?

I wish you the best also.

-Andrew T — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atang1200 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding my disruption on topics in the Russia, Chechnya, or Eastern Europe spaces

Hello Timothy

I appreciate your message notifying me of the status of certain articles I edited. I will copy and paste the message:

"Hello, I'm TimothyBlue. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Chechnya, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. In addition, many of the recent changes do not conform to WP:NPOV. // Timothy :: talk 01:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)"

I would like to start by providing a citation on the deportation of the entire Chechen nation and the replacement of the indigenous population by Russian settlers. The book is titled "Chechnya: Calamity in the Caucasus," written by Charlotta Gall and Thomas de Waal, published by the New York University Press in 1998 in New York and London. Chicago Style Citation: Gall, Charlotta, and de Waal, Thomas. Chechnya: Calamity in the Caucasus. New York and London: New York University Press, 1998. I cite pages 56 and 62 of this book under the chapter "The Deportations."

It reads on page 56: "The Chechens and Ingush were disgorged in places like Pavlodar and Petropavlovk in northern Kazakhstan, low-slung towns in the featureless steppe, where there was almost nothing to eat and winter temperatures sank to -30 degrees. At least 100,000 of them died in the first two years of forced exile."

Page 62 reads: Russians and Dagestanis moved into the Chechens' houses and Ossetians were resettled in the Prigorodny Region of Ingushetia. A systematic programme to eradicate Chechen and Ingush culture completely began. Old Chechen village names were changed and books in Chechen and Ingush were swept off the shelves of the Republican Library of Grozny to be burned, despite the efforts of the Russian librarian who his many of them at home.

(Link: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Chechnya/-tmEauyJZF0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=chechnya&printsec=frontcover)

I understand the need to maintain neutrality without pushing a biased or political agenda, and that is what I was intending to do. My belief was that the original authors of certain Wikipedia articles were underplaying Russian immigration and settlement in Chechnya, Estonia, and Latvia by using terms such as "Russian-speaking" or by using descriptions such as "influx of industrial workers from other Soviet republics." This underplays the fact that Russian settlement reduced proportion of ethnic Latvians and Estonians in their own lands to 53% and 61% respectively. Chechnya experienced a similar influx of settlers that changed the demographics and character of the nation.

In my opinion, using passive language or merely describing the settlement as an "influx of industrial workers" is equivalent to downplaying or even lying for propagandistic purposes.

Specifically for the Latvia article, my explanation for my change of certain words used to describe the settlers was this:

"The original author(s) describes overwhelmingly Russian settlement in Latvia as an “influx of people from other Soviet republics.” Underplaying is equivalent to dishonesty and even lying. Wikipedia in my opinion should offer objective facts and not push agendas or underplay the seriousness of events that are seen as tragedies."

I also appreciate that my edits were archived. As an aspiring professional writer who seeks to inform people of the world on various issues, I hope we can discuss further. Regarding citations on the Baltic states, in the future I do intend to add information using my books, translations of documents from other languages to English, or primary source quotations, but for now my concern is the nature of my most recent content changes. I largely only changed words such as "Russian-speaking" to "Russian settler" or felt that the sentence structure could have been improved for greater readability.

Can we please discuss my edits further? What agenda did you see in my edits that needs to be worked on, and are my citations for Chechnya acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atang1200 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reply @Atang1200:: The edits all have the intention of describing demographic shifts or migration (forced or otherwise) as colonization which is inaccurate and unsourced and with an underlying bias against the migrant.

For example here [3] you describe demographic shifts in Los Angeles as "the beginning of the mass black American colonization of Los Angeles". I have no idea why you would think this is an appropriate way to describe this demographic shift.

The edits regarding areas in Eastern Europe are in the same vein.

You have a very strong POV about these topics. It is very difficult for editors, even when they have good intentions, to edit properly when this is the case. Many editors choose not to edit in areas where this is the case because it only leads to frustration and problems; this is true for myself and I know it is true for others. This is compounded by the fact that this is a controversial topic area. I'd suggest that editing in another area you feel less strongly about would be the best way to gain experience editing and writing.

Absent the above choice, the standard way this type of situation is handled is WP:BRD - bold, revert, discuss. If you wish to propose changes, post to the talk page, with WP:RS that support your proposed wording; if other editors support or oppose the change they will respond. If a change has a WP:consensus in favor being made, then the change is adopted and made. This is not necessary for minor changes that do not impact the meaning of a passage, but is necessary when a change is made that effects the meaning, such as the ones you have been making.

I'm a Pole, so I'm very aware of forced Russification, but the way you are writing is not the way to address this issue.

Best wishes from Los Angeles,   // Timothy :: talk  05:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of “Cappy Burnside” Please help

I received notification about this discussion on the same day it occurred. I had some other issues to deal with and couldn’t log on and get involved. I’ve been reading over the discussion of the deleted page “Cappy Burnside.” First, he was the subject of front-page Washington Post article complete with a large full-length photo of him. The article is not about a person who merely had a bridge named after him. The bridge, which leads to the vital FBI CJIS Division, would not exist without him. The FBI would not be where it is or even in West Virginia, had it not been for Cappy. This is all clear in the article. At the time, the last glass factory had just closed and people were unemployed. He took his existing position in the local chamber of commerce to create a committee and contacted Senator Byrd when he heard that Byrd had claimed the new fingerprint center for WV. He personally (this is not an exaggeration—this is substantiated in the article) solved a multitude of problems that almost caused the FBI to pull out several times. He had the connections from his business and such to do this. I could go on and on. As I mentioned, the bridge wouldn’t be there without him. The FBI was going to end the deal immediately unless a new exit and interchange were created from I-79 directly to the FBI. Cappy took two FBI agents that morning to Charleston and met first with his friend, who then the head of the Department of Highways. Later that day, they met with them-governor Gaston Caperton, also a friend. By the end of the day, the exit and interchange was approved. Cappy designed much of it himself (that was his profession). The FBI project was saved. Other problems popped up and Cappy put out the fires. He put his own family and business on hold (having to close the business soon after). As a result of his hard work (and the hard work of others, of course), the FBI CJIS became the primary employer for several counties. Classes were available at colleges to prepare students for high-tech jobs. Other government contractors moved in nearby. There is now an I-79 High-Tech Corridor including NASA’s recently-renamed Katherine Johnson Independent Verification & Validation Facility. Most of the top government contractors and aviation companies are here. Amazon recently considered it as a location. Cappy had worked his adult life trying to make North Central West Virginia a better place. He finally found an opportunity to do something that would change everything. He would say everything would be different. I didn’t live here while all this was happening. I was in DC. I saw his photo in the Washington Post and realized it might be kind of important. Jesse Jackson was verbally attacking Sen. Byrd and Cappy for taking jobs from Washington. He was interviewed on “All Things Considered” I visited briefly and he showed me where things would be. I came back a year later and I saw progress. I moved out of the country and returned after a couple of years and didn’t recognize the area. People were employed. There are two developments near the FBI, White Oaks and Charlespointe. Large office buildings including MITRE (the government contractor), hotels, restaurants, and a convention center were built. These would never have been imagined before the FBI. Cappy certainly didn’t work alone, but he was, as Don Flynn, the FBI special agent in charge of the FBI project said, the “driving force.” Flynn also said the FBI would not be there had it not been for Cappy. Hence, several references to one article that quotes Flynn. I had promises from other people who said they’d edit and finish the article. He also played a significant role in holding West Virginia Public Radio together during a rough time. The director of WVPR said she’d get involved but, like everyone else, she’s been busy. I realize my own connection with the article is taken into consideration. I was careful to cite everything. I also spoke with others who were involved to ensure I was being objective. I do have the advantage of having been away from the area most of my life. Cappy was always modest and never said anything about his personal efforts. I discovered this from other sources. He passed away in August 2014. I did see in the discussion that there was some leaning in his favor. This is not an article about a bridge. The bridge is one of many honors because of his contribution. When you consider the number of people employed, the people this has brought into the state, the revenue, and the fact that several people, including the FBI SAIC said it would not have happened without him, I think he deserves notability. He created a tremendous positive economic effect and the growth continues. Construction continues. Please help me. Reconsider the deletion. Appl atcha (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reply Hi Appl atcha, He sounds like a wonderful person. I was just a participant in the discussion, I don't have the power to undelete an article. It might be possible to have a copy of the article sent to you so you could continue to develop it (Disclaimer: I'm not sure about this). You could ask Malcolmxl5 if this is possible. No need to send him all the above text, he will see it here. It might help if you were able to cite multiple references (newspaper name, article author, and date; obituaries usually are not considered, but other articles) you could add to the article. Again I'm not sure this can be done. Best wishes,   // Timothy :: talk  17:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Sa'id of Mogadishu

Greetings, could you help in figuring out if this person Sa'id of Mogadishu deserves a page on Wikipedia. He seems to be one of the individuals sent as an envoy to China in the 14th century, but is that enough to justify a page dedicated to the individual?--AlaskaLava (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• Hi AlaskaLava, Sorry for the delay in responding, I just saw this message. I'd be happy to help if I can. If you could post a list of references here I'd be happy to look at them. If the reference is a book, please include author name, title, pages, date of publication; if the reference is to an academic journal, please include author name, title, journal name, volume, issue and date. If you need to search for sources, you may have access to the Wikipedia Library] or be able to request access to it. I'd start with JSTOR, it will probably provide the best example of what is available about them; He is a list of journals they archive about this area. Best Wishes from Los Angeles,   // Timothy :: talk  17:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Malls/dead malls

Hi there, I noticed a general tendency for you to nominate malls, particularly dead malls, for deletion, even in some cases where the sources showed notability (e.g. marking the mall's opening, closing and so forth). And in some cases, such sources were not in the article, as is the case with Golden Mall which I tried to fix to get up to standard. But since this is a pattern, I would just like to suggest that in most cases a regional mall almost always are notable, as they were generally the largest commercial complex in any suburban community, and there are almost always, in the local press, articles marking their opening, major changes and closing. By missing them we miss a key institution in communities during a certain historic period. I am not a fan of malls at all, but as my passion is urban design, urban planning, architecture and so forth, malls were a huge part of the landscape or social environment in our communities until recently. Particularly now that they are disappearing, changing, going through crisis and so forth, I think they are items that people will be looking for some basic information about. When it is a simple question of finding the relevant sources to stand up to notability, I would be delighted to try and find these for articles in jeopardy of deletion. Best Keizers (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reply: Hi Keizers, it's not a pattern, yesterday I went through a category; I have maybe another dozen to do a WP:BEFORE on. In the past, I've gone through other cats that I believe contain a lot of non-notable articles, you can see this on my AfD report. Specifically, about your concern regarding shopping malls, I don't see malls in the same way you do, but what matters is if they meet notability guidelines, not the way we feel about something. WP:ROUTINE coverage in local media is not enough to satisfy the criteria for WP:SIGCOV in WP:NBUILD. Articles about openings, closings, renovations, local events, etc are WP:ROUTINE; every mall has this kind of local routine coverage. WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful.", WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Notability means the subject is "worthy of note". If the malls I've nominated are a "huge part of the landscape or social environment in our communities" or if they are of historical significance, there will actually be WP:RS to back that up, otherwise its an opinion. I think your goal should be to show RS that document this about these malls. Newspaper archives are easy to search (as I'm doing for BEFORE), so if there is coverage, it can be found. The passion you mention above is fine, sports fans think almost every athlete is notable, film buffs think almost every movie is notable, royal watchers think every member of a royal family is notable. But what matters are the notability guidelines. I'm sorry I can't agree with you on this, but if you are right, you will be able to show it at AfD; I have no intention of nominating articles I know will be kept, so if you show notability and there is a consensus for keeping this type of article, I will respect that.   // Timothy :: talk  04:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Since this is a passionate hobby, I have a couple follow-up questions because I want to use my time towards something which will be of use to other people. You say that coverage of opening, expansions, closings, etc. is not notable. I get that. Could you give some examples of what would make a mall is notable? Examples:

• "It is the largest commercial structure in La Mirada" - Notable?
• "It's the first enclosed mall in California"
• Golden Mall - if I show that it was a project of huge civic importance and then failed, is that notable?

When I look at it in the light of what you stated, good grief, I think 80% of malls are not notable. They are simply large structures with such-and-such anchors and this many square feet, built in 19XX, expanded in 19XX, closed in 20XX etc. And even worse by that standard are articles like List of shopping malls in California. What possible value could those have if Wikipedia "is not a directory"? And if none of that IS notable, should I try to include this in the articles about the community, for example in La Mirada, California under History or Economy. In the context of a La Mirada article, I would expect that mentioning that it had a regional mall would be a relevant "factoid" in its history or the history of its Economy. Thoughts? Keizers (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reply: Hi Keizers. As far as deleting some of the malls, I see it as wheat and chaff. If we have 2000 articles for American malls, but only 200 are genuinely noteworthy, the 200 will be obscured by the other 1800. So in a way removing non-notable malls, elevates the remaining ones. If all readers see when they look at malls, is open, renovate, close, boring routine items, they will miss the truly interesting and noteworthy malls.

I think this is what WP:NBUILD is going for when it says "may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance".

• Is there some historical importance, such as the malls that were the first of their kind? I'm thinking here of department stores, every department store is not notable, but the first department stores were pioneers those have a history that is interesting and notable. It might take some work to dig out the information, the simple fact they were among the first is enough to make a claim to notability because sources probably do exist.

• Social, a small mall in an urban area not socially notable, it's just one among a vast array of social environments. But a mall in a small town may be the center of the community and a significant part of the community not duplicated in other places. If the article relates how a mall is an integral part of the social fabric of a community, this is interesting and notable. This would be reflected in the newspapers and local sources for the community and it would establish notability.
• Architectural speaks for itself, there are lots of architectural journals and magazines and if they cover a mall because of its design, then I see that as an indication something about the mall is notable and this can be in the article.
• Economic, I'd go to the social reason above. A mall in a large urban area is going to make a negligible impact on the economy, even if it makes good money. But a mall in a small town may be a significant part of the local economy, even if it makes a fraction of the money the mall in an urban area does. In the same way as a factory in a city with a huge manufacturing base like Los Angeles or New York wouldn't be notable, but if you move that same factory to a small town, it could be the life blood of the economy, if it closed the town would (and sadly have) dry up. Again this would be reflected in the newspapers and local sources for the community and it would establish notability.

This is my thinking on notability. It's not about the existence of routine coverage, but about coverage that shows notability. I'm glad we're having this conversation. There was a failed guideline for shopping malls Wikipedia:Notability (shopping centers), it might be a good time to revisit this and see if some clearer guidelines. I was thinking the same about royalty, nobility, and awards. I saw AleatoryPonderings was working on something for lawyers (good luck on telling a lawyer they're not notable). I think clarifying notability on some subjects will focus AfD discussion and make arguments based in guidelines easier.

Not to repeat myself, but the pruning only makes the good stuff more visible. It hurt to nominate the La Mirada Mall. I used to get off the bus from Union Station in La Mirada to visit someone at Biola and walked past it when it was a construction site. We couldn't hang out on campus without being noticed, so eventually the mall became a meeting place. We saw a lot of films there because it had SIX screens each with a double feature and clean restrooms and new seats without years of grime! But sadly none of that is notability, just nostalgia. Grauman's Chinese Theatre for all its grime is notable.

This is a stream of thought post, so excuse anything I've muddled. I look forward to your thoughts.   // Timothy :: talk  21:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, again. I have no doubt La Mirada mall had such a role in La Mirada, however I think it might be difficult to find newspaper coverage of that - what is published that would reflect that might be sales numbers, the frequency of events like the Easter Bunny and Santa, but again those are going to turn out to be mundane. Blogs are pretty much off-limits as sources. At best I might be able to find some text in the articles about its initial planning and opening - but I would be lucky if those weren't emotional and promotional, unless I happened across a quote like "it will contribute X number of jobs" in a population of say, 50,000. And even then it would be a solitary sentence reflecting local notability. I think that some basic information about it does belong in the La Mirada, California article in the history, economics sections or both. Grudgingly I admit that it belongs there... I don't feel too bad as long as the basic facts about the mall are not lost. I go on and on about La Mirada but have never been there. Grew up in Villa Park, Orange and Irvine, went to school in Westwood, lived in Hollywood. I am a pretty deep local history buff, 3rd generation Angeleno and (at some point in life) Bullock's employee and was amazed that until this year I had never heard of Hollywood as a major retail district in the 1920s, or AT ALL about the small but stunning Victorian downtown that existed where the Civic Center is and of which barely a trace remains. Sweet story about the bus, my how times have changed. Do you live near Downtown LA? Keizers (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Elmsleigh Centre deletion

• Hey I’ve seen that you have nominated my page for deletion is there anyway I can improve it to not be deleted thanks Takumi (talk) 11:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reply Taku20072019, definitely. Anyone is open to improving the article while it is being discussed (this is actually strongly encouraged). You can also place a note there that you are improving the references and this if needed, please move the article to your Drafts as an alternative, so you can continue to work on it. I will support moving it to drafts as an alternative to deletion. I'm very opening to changing my !vote to Keep (or Draft as stated earlier), and hope you're able to succeed.

I'd take a look at WP:GNG for the type of sources you need to establish notability. You need at least two sources, they need to be from publishers with a reputation for editorial oversight and fact-checking (eg: newspapers), and they have to be independent of the subject (no connection to the mall). It needs to be WP:SIGCOV significant coverage, meaning it addresses the subject (not events related to the subject) directly and in-depth. This means that WP:ROUTINE coverage will not meet this. I would check local papers for stories about the mall opening, stories related to any major event or expansion related to the mall, awards from the community, or anything substantial that the mall has done for the community. All these put together would definitely establish notability and probably expand the article a good deal.

I hope this helps and the article is not deleted; it will take some work, but it may be possible. I will help any way I can. I take pleasure in reversing my !vote and keeping an article I thought should be deleted.

Best wishes from Los Angeles,   // Timothy :: talk  17:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Stubs

I know a guy who has been creating stubs for over ten years. Is that OK? This isn't a trick question. I'm not sure there is an answer. Judging by what I've seen so far, yes it's OK, but it makes no sense to me.
Vmavanti (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Vmavanti. Sorry for the delayed response I just noticed this (I don't check here often enough). It's okay to create stubs for notable topics, too many though are not notable. Personally I think if you create a stub you should have the intention of developing it into at least a start level article. If you've done enough research to believe a subject is notable enough for a stub, you've found enough to take 15 minutes and add the info to an article to bring it to start level. Again personally I think simply mass creating stubs and hoping someone else will come along and improve them is not helpful to the encyclopedia, but that is an opinion. However, some individuals that mass create stubs are doing so just because they saw something mentioned somewhere, did no work to actually see if the subject was notable and are just hoping the article survives. This is pretty much spam in my opinion and doesn't do anything to improve the encyclopedia; it just creates work for other editors. Hope this finds you well.   // Timothy :: talk  17:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I spend my time in an extremely obscure subject: jazz. It hasn't been a popular genre since World War II. I found an article from 2015 placing jazz sales figures at 1.4% of music consumption, making it the least popular genre in America with classical. It's difficult to find reliable sources for popular subjects, let alone unpopular ones. No sources, no article. For five years I've been chipping away at the Wikiproject Jazz Cleanup Listing, which consists of the backlog of work to do on nearly 4000 articles out of about 27,000 articles in Wikiproject Jazz. There's only one other person working steadily on this. My first step was to remove from the project articles which weren't jazz, which I thought would be easy. It sure hasn't been. AfDs are something like a duel from the 1800s. Simply removing the Wikiproject Jazz template from articles has resulted in high offense and rage from certain contributors. Stubs are common on the backlog list going back 12 years. In light of all these facts, I thought I would get more cooperation, but I haven't. Mostly what I've seen is Daffy Duck behavior. A doctor described Daffy Duck to me as the id in Freud's trinity of id, ego, and superego. Pure desire. Mine! Mine! Mine! When one edits, one tries not merely to correct mistakes but to prevent them from happening again to avoid playing whack-a-mole. I can think of three people in particular who continue to create stubs, despite my attempts to reason with them. One said, "You will never get me to stop creating stubs." That was a Canadian. Then there's the German who created dozens of stubs about jazz festivals in Germany, a subject covered rarely in American sources—or German sources for that matter. Then there's the petulant, spoiled Brit who has created most of the stubs for ten years who often refuses to talk to me, who projects his own flaws, accusing me of all kinds of hidden motives. Most foreigners don't know what jazz is, and many Brits confuse it with progressive rock. The assumption seems to be: if it's weird, it's jazz, let's throw it onto the jazz project. This is the context in which I look at stubs. Occasionally I will try to find someone to comment on these matters, but most people are too afraid to stick their necks out or too consumed by doing their own thing. Your reply is an exception.
Vmavanti (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Deletion request for Donvale Christian College

Hello Timothy, Thanks for getting in contact about your concerns for the page titled 'Donvale Christian College'. As a student myself, I believe that information on schools is vital for people who have an interest in that area. As one of the only schools in the Eastern Region that does not have a Wikipedia page, I believe that it is only appropriate to create a Wikipedia page for this school. Whilst you may raise some concerns about the references, I can assure you that all on that page is correct. The lack of articles online regarding Donvale Christian College has driven me to use primary sources as my main outlet of information and referencing. I believe that this deletion request is invalid as it contains no opinions or promotions, rather, an attempt to inform students, teachers and parents of the school, its history, its layout, etc. Deleting this page will cause disappointment and anger, as I put a lot of effort into creating this page, and if it is deleted for minor reasons, that causes me grief. Please consider removing the deletion request... this deletion will remove a prominent Christian school in the eastern Melbourne region, one that deserves the right to have an informative Wikipedia page.

Please consider my frustration in this request, as I believe this page is totally valid.

Kind Regards, DaviSte02 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaviSte02 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reply: Hi DaviSte02, I think I have good news for you and this is absolutely nothing you should worry about, it's a problem that really should be easy to solve. All that it is lacking (from my view, but I don't decide anything) is at least two sources which are independent of the school that discuss the school itself (not an event at the school like a football game or student meeting, but about the actual school).

What this practically means is you need two newspaper articles about the school. It can't be the school paper, because this is not independent of the school. I am almost positive there was some newspaper article written about the school with it opened, which is one. The other could be about anything regarding the school itself, the appointment of a chancellor/president, an article about a building project, a new program or something significant the school has done for the community. Also you mentioned there were other Christian schools in the region with articles, check what newspaper sources they use and you may be able to find something about Donvale in those. Two sources are the minimum, but the more you can provide the better. Your school library almost certainly can assist you with this and the local public library probably has newspaper archives you can search. They don't need to be online, you just need to be able to reference them (newspaper name, date, the title of the article). Also, your local newspapers may be able to help you find an article. All I was able to find was routine coverage, but I think there might be articles in Herald Sun. If these are about the school, there should be more in the Herald Sun. You might check the Wangaratta Sun also.

You also reference a publication called "40th Year Celebration. Donvale: Donvale Christian College." which is 22 pp. long. There may be some sources in there. (Just a a side note not related to the deletion discussion, but there is might be a lot of good information that could improve the History section of the article).

A lot of articles go through this process (100-200 newer articles every day), so please don't feel this article is being singled out. It has a harsh name "Articles for Deletion", but this is actually the equivalent of writing an article for a magazine/newspaper and the editor returning your first draft with a request for a couple of changes and then it's published.

After you add any sources you find to the article, place a note on the article deletion discussion [4] that you have added sources and answer any questions the editors there have. Again from my view the issue is no independent sources, but others may raise issues. Also state that if the article needs more sources or improvement, please move the article to your Drafts as an alternative to deletion. This will give you all the time you need to add sources or make any requested changes. Once you do, just click the submit button and you should be done.

I actually don't decide anything about the article or deletion process. This is decided by a Wikipedia administrator with the advice of editors. So I can't guarantee anything but I think you should be able to find the needed sources and pass the review. Let me know if you have any questions. I will help you in any way I can (which is why I left the message) and I do hope this article is kept. Again this is a common occurrence, almost all new editors have an article reviewed at AfD, so please don't be discouraged or frustrated (one good point is once the article is reviewed and kept at AfD, its rarely ever deleted after that).

I hope you're planning another article, I think you would be a good contributor to Wikipedia. Greetings from Los Angeles and Best wishes, let me know if I can answer any other questions.   // Timothy :: talk  12:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

PS: I didn't mention it, but I have no doubt the information is accurate and the school sounds like a great place to learn.   // Timothy :: talk 

Reply regarding the Deletion Request of Donvale Christian College

Thanks for that response Timothy, Whilst I would like to be able to access my school library, currently my state (Victoria, Australia) are in Stage 4 Lockdown restrictions. This means that I am at home, doing online learning, and I cannot get into my school as I live more than 5km away from it! It also means that the librarian is mostly not in at school... when we are able to finally return to school (some time in October), I will consult my librarian about references for the school's Wikipedia page.

Of course, I will look for more sources, and I will make sure to add them to the appropriate places, so that the page is more credible, I was just shocked and upset that something I put effort into was requested for deletion!

I ask for an extension on the request, as I believe the current circumstances do not allow me to add much more.

Kind Regards, DaviSte02 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaviSte02 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reply DaviSte02, please add your above request to the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donvale Christian College. After you do this, I will add a comment supporting the request to move to drafts. Some others have added concerns there also, you'll want to respond to those and someone may want to discuss WP:COI, since you appear to go to the school. Just in case, make a copy of the article if you don't have one.

Don't be shocked and upset, this happens to literally everyone. It's a very normal part of working on Wikipedia, something you will go through repeatedly if you create more articles (unless you're very lucky). It's very important to remember that Wikipedia isn't like other websites, we all work together as a collective, not as individuals, so anything you add will be edited and scrutinized by other Wikipedia editors, sometimes in ways you don't like. Once you press "Publish" it belongs to the Wikipedia community, and you have no more control over it than any other editor. In the same way, you can edit and comment on any article here and your voice matters as much as anyone else. I've had articles I put a lot of work into edited and deleted for reasons I disagreed with and all editors that create articles have as well. Remember this is not a normal part of the web or social media site; its an encyclopedia written collectively by a community.

Wikipedia also has a very large body of policies, guidelines, procedures that control what and how we work, edit and create; the better you know these the more successful you will be here. Usually a good place to start is learning WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:BRD, WP:WWIN and WP:MOS; this is a starting point, there is much more.

This might seem like a lot but there is a huge upside. If you put in the effort to learn how Wikipedia works, you get to be a completely equal participant in building one of the most referred to websites in the world and you get to work with others from all different backgrounds, ages, and experiences. Your ability to write, think and debate will be strengthened. If you don't let yourself get frustrated, angry, or discouraged, and enjoy writing, thinking, learning, and debating, this is a wonderful experience and the skills you learn here will benefit you in every area of life.

Also once you've been here a while (6 months), you'll be able to apply for access to the Wikipedia Library, which is a college-level library collection of newspapers, academic journals, research databases and more, all to assist you in writing articles. You can read about it by clicking here.

One final thing, when you add a comment, end the comment with four tildes ~~~~ this will sign your name and add the date automatically. Best of luck.   // Timothy :: talk  12:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

My AfD reply

I just read over my reply to you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Wohlman and thought it looked slightly abrasive lol apologies if it came across that way, I was still in morning mode. Thank you for acknowledging my point of the significant coverage aspect, I was beginning to think I was being stupid and misinterpreting GNG lol – ².O.^Boxing 12:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Squared.Circle.Boxing, I didn't think it was abrasive, it is a boxing discussion :) Your point about presumption and significant coverage is one I often make, I definitely feel the "presumed" clause is too often misinterpreted as an excuse to keep an article that lacks notability based on reliable sources. I always appreciate a reasoned response, always try and show that by responding in kind and with a willingness to change my mind based on a discussion. Hope this finds you well, Greetings from Los Angeles,   // Timothy :: talk  14:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Do not comment on my talk page again.

IosifDzhugashvilli (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• I will change my username. IosifDzhugashvilli (talk) 06:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Your actions at Andy Abrahams

I have created a discussion at Talk:Andy Abrahams#Improper redirect?. Please respond there. Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Twilight

There's no point in having separate sections for reception and reviews. The reviews are the reception. If they're not in reliable sources, then why include them? DS (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

AfD "primers"

I noticed you participated in a deletion discussion about Martin Archer. This is the first time I noticed the "primers" in the upper right corner. The first two links make sense. But why is the third link to an essay? An essay titled "Help my article got nominated for deletion." My article? Does every Afd have this bias in favor of "saving" articles? Do you know who put this link there or who I could talk to about this? Thanks.
Vmavanti (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Reply Hi ‎Vmavanti. I've found this area challenging and very interesting. I believe both Keeping and Deleting articles are important to maintaining/improving the quality of the encyclopedia. There is a process in AfD to help both the reviewers and creators. I don't believe there is a bias in the process, but editors do often have bias and the guidelines/policies/essays help mitigate this is discussion and help form a consensus. From the creator's standpoint, it's only natural to want to save the article and the essay gives some good advice to newer editors on how to understand and approach the AfD discussion and article creation. I have no idea who put this link there, I'd say the best place to discuss this would be the essay's talk page.

Barkeep49 has been helpful to me, I doubt they know anything about the link, but they may have things to add to my reply the above.

Please let me know if I can be of any help. I hope all is well.   // Timothy :: talk  04:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Vmavanti, yes that is a standard link. It is intended to do what it says: offer advice and information to people who have worked on articles now nominated for deletion. If you read the essay you will see it's not really pro keep at all. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Before and article creation

Wait, what, before is not a prerequiste for article creation? This is the underlying problem. We really, really, really, really ought to go to requiring every single new article goes through the Articles for Creation process. Considering how much legacy cruft we have predating 2006 it would not solve all our problems, but it would make things a lot better moving forward.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Reply to @Johnpacklambert:: I totally agree. // begin venting // The focus on quantity over quality, production over development is frustrating. The BEFORE principles are there, but it should be far more explicit. The standard is so low on what is notable and what a rs is, it makes those that want to produce quality articles (not mass produce non-notable stubs whose only function is to exist) want to scream. I shook my head in disgust at the countdown to 6,000,000 articles, it was like a plea for spam. The principles of "addresses the topic directly and in detail", "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful." are often interpreted so loosely that they're devoid of almost all meaning as a standard. And even with this low standard, NPP and AfD can't keep up. Perhaps there will be a breaking point and the community will start raising the standard instead of lowering it ("a fool in his heart hopes"). // end venting // Hope this finds you well.   // Timothy :: talk  16:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• We have raised that standard a little bit. We no longer accept all major party nominees for US congress as notable as we once did, but we have not applied that to all legacy articles, and we are far too willing to make someone a notable candidate on passing articles that say nothing of substance of their campaign. You would probably like my full of dread count down to 1 million biographies of living people. If I am right, at one point we moved backwards on it. I have to admit that back in the late 2000s and early 2010s I was responsible for huge amounts of pushing out quantity of quality. This is one of the reasons I have probably nominated at least 5 articles I created for deletion. There needs to be reforms. I really do not see why we do not require every single article to go through AfC. I also even less see why we continue to allow users to have as their first edit the creation of a new article, and wonder why people are not more serious against enforcing the policies against autobiographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Stubs

I know a guy who has been creating stubs for over ten years. Is that OK? This isn't a trick question. I'm not sure there is an answer. Judging by what I've seen so far, yes it's OK, but it makes no sense to me.
Vmavanti (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Vmavanti. Sorry for the delayed response I just noticed this (I don't check here often enough). It's okay to create stubs for notable topics, too many though are not notable. Personally I think if you create a stub you should have the intention of developing it into at least a start level article. If you've done enough research to believe a subject is notable enough for a stub, you've found enough to take 15 minutes and add the info to an article to bring it to start level. Again personally I think simply mass creating stubs and hoping someone else will come along and improve them is not helpful to the encyclopedia, but that is an opinion. However, some individuals that mass create stubs are doing so just because they saw something mentioned somewhere, did no work to actually see if the subject was notable and are just hoping the article survives. This is pretty much spam in my opinion and doesn't do anything to improve the encyclopedia; it just creates work for other editors. Hope this finds you well.   // Timothy :: talk  17:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I spend my time in an extremely obscure subject: jazz. It hasn't been a popular genre since World War II. I found an article from 2015 placing jazz sales figures at 1.4% of music consumption, making it the least popular genre in America with classical. It's difficult to find reliable sources for popular subjects, let alone unpopular ones. No sources, no article. For five years I've been chipping away at the Wikiproject Jazz Cleanup Listing, which consists of the backlog of work to do on nearly 4000 articles out of about 27,000 articles in Wikiproject Jazz. There's only one other person working steadily on this. My first step was to remove from the project articles which weren't jazz, which I thought would be easy. It sure hasn't been. AfDs are something like a duel from the 1800s. Simply removing the Wikiproject Jazz template from articles has resulted in high offense and rage from certain contributors. Stubs are common on the backlog list going back 12 years. In light of all these facts, I thought I would get more cooperation, but I haven't. Mostly what I've seen is Daffy Duck behavior. A doctor described Daffy Duck to me as the id in Freud's trinity of id, ego, and superego. Pure desire. Mine! Mine! Mine! When one edits, one tries not merely to correct mistakes but to prevent them from happening again to avoid playing whack-a-mole. I can think of three people in particular who continue to create stubs, despite my attempts to reason with them. One said, "You will never get me to stop creating stubs." That was a Canadian. Then there's the German who created dozens of stubs about jazz festivals in Germany, a subject covered rarely in American sources—or German sources for that matter. Then there's the petulant, spoiled Brit who has created most of the stubs for ten years who often refuses to talk to me, who projects his own flaws, accusing me of all kinds of hidden motives. Most foreigners don't know what jazz is, and many Brits confuse it with progressive rock. The assumption seems to be: if it's weird, it's jazz, let's throw it onto the jazz project. This is the context in which I look at stubs. Occasionally I will try to find someone to comment on these matters, but most people are too afraid to stick their necks out or too consumed by doing their own thing. Your reply is an exception.
Vmavanti (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Hilath Rasheed

Hi,Timothy This page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismail_Khilath_Rasheed, the name is spelled wrong. It should be "Islmail Hilath Rasheed"

Can we change it. Thanks Existance Leesaaisath 08:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Leesaaisath, Hi there, it can be proposed and discussed. What I would do is leave a message on the talk page with the sources for the proper spelling of his name. It appears for a Google search that the first name is usually indexed and searched for as Ismail, so this might be the reason it is used here. Best wishes, hope things are going well.   // Timothy :: talk  09:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I think I am doing Ok, I am slowly inserting more data to the pages you have mentioned; started on two pages. Have a check. How are you doing? Heard your sick.. & I will do that, about Hilath, he is close friend too. Name surely is not correct. I will do as you have advised. Existance Leesaaisath 09:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding my disruption on topics in the Russia, Chechnya, or Eastern Europe spaces

Hello Timothy,

I was having difficulty navigating through the topic page for your most recent response. We were talking about my perceived bias, and I was saying that I disagree that my edits were biased against a migrant group in Russian-occupied nations, given the way Wikipedia editors and authors have written about German settlement during WWII. You can read this page on Lebensraum, for an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum

In what way were my edits more biased than these authors or editors? Were they biased against the migrant group by describing Lebensraum as settler colonization?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atang1200 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Reply: Hi sorry for the delay in responding. Lebensraum and Russification are two very different processes and issues, with very different circumstances. This isn't to say that the wording on Lebensraum is appropriate; if you feel it isn't then the way to handle it is to proceed would be to propose a change on the talk page and if there is a WP:CONSENSUS for the change, it can proceed. The same thing is true for the changes on the pages you are editing. WP:BRD says that if changes are reverted, there should be a discussion on the talk page. The best way to convince editors for a wording change will be to demonstrate that there is a strong consensus among independent non-biased secondary sources that something is characterized in a certain way. It's not up to one person to decide, but the community. If there is a consensus that existing wording should be changed, then it will. WP:OTHERCONTENT comparisons are rarely convincing on Wikipedia.

My concern about bias is that you have quickly and almost solely focused in on this one area with a very clear point of view. The area exception being the changes you made to Watts riots, where these edits are very problematic [5], [6], [7]. The changes demonstrate a wider disturbing trend in using the terms colonization and settler.

Again the decision is not up to me, but I have objected. WP:BRD is the proper process and the article talk pages are the place for you to attempt to gain a clear consensus for the changes you propose based on presenting non-biased WP:RS demonstrating the preponderance of a particular usage.   // Timothy :: talk  08:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

You may want to sign

Your vote at [8]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

AfD

Greetings sir. Even though we had somewhat opposing views in an AfD we both recently contributed to, I thought I'd bring this afd to your attention. You seem to have a good grasp of GNG and appear to put in actual effort when making your vote. There isn't a large number of lengthy references to examine so it shouldn't be very time consuming at all. No worries if it doesn't interest you. Toodle-pip. – ².O.^Boxing 18:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

renaming

I have sent in a request to be renamed but it might take awhile for the request to be processed, so I will continue to edit under this name until the rename request is processed. IosifDzhugashvilli (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

IosifDzhugashvilli, Thank you. I genuinely hope you understand my concern wasn't to upset you, but done so that there are not problems for you in the future. I do hope you enjoy editing here and wish you well.   // Timothy :: talk  17:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

In my home country, the namesake of my username is still very popular because of World War 2 and how devastating it was for our country. However, I should have been more sensitive before choosing a username referencing such an incredibly controversial figure. My new username will reference a more appropriate and less controversial figure (Vladimir Ilyich). 73.8.14.158 (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

A much better choice. btw, on a side note, if you haven't read Stalin by Stephen Kotkin, it's very good (the first two volumes are published, the third volume soon to be).   // Timothy :: talk  23:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the recommendation. I just skimmed Kotkin's wiki page and noticed he's working on a history book focusing on the Ob River valley. My dad is actually from Novosibirsk and I've been there many times. We've even went hiking and rafting in the Altai Mountains. I was also lucky enough to witness a solar eclipse. My dad's side of the family still lives in Novosibirsk. IosifDzhugashvilli (talk) 05:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• My username has been changed! TovarishhUlyanov (talk) 04:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank You

Hi Thimothy, Hope you are doing well. It sad you have left for vacation. I was about to learn much from you. It not just about the article. I have been framed as a person who is a paid contributor and payer for voting. Its sad. I guess i cannot get to be a contributor and trusted level writer again. I am very disappointed.

Just came to say bye. (Existance Leesaaisath 12:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC))

• Reply Hi Leesaaisath, I'm still around, just was away for a bit. I know you can be a good contributor and wouldn't let this rough period make you leave. Almost all new editors have a rough period while they learn how things work on Wikipedia. I don't know what the issue was related to COI, but that's a common notice people who add links receive, it's sometimes a mistake and if this was the case here, don't worry about it. My feedback to you is basically summed up by saying you're experiencing what a lot of people experience when new and learning about how Wikipedia editing works. It can seem much harsher than it actually is. Sometimes it's easy for those that have been around a while and are used to these messages, forget how upsetting they can be to someone that hasn't experienced them before.

I think you could be a great asset for the encyclopedia since you are from a part of the world that is under-represented here and have local language skills that are uncommon on English Wikipedia. I've asked on the nomination page, that your article be made into a Draft so you can continue to work on it and find more sources. I think you should go to the nomiination page and also request this be sent to Draft.

Finally, there is a place on Wikipedia called the teahouse WP:TEAHOUSE where individuals can ask for mentors to ask questions and help them learn how to create articles. I'd go there, explain your situation and ask for someone to help mentor you. You have skills and experience that would be a great advantage to Wikipedia, all you need is some experience on the way things work here.

Greetings from Los Angeles,   // Timothy :: talk  14:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Leesaaisath, (by talk reader) Sounds like you've had a bit of a baptism of fire. what has happened to make you feel untrusted, please? Would an opinion from another person named Tim be any help? I may just leap in and give you an opinion anyway! 🌷 Fiddle Faddle 14:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Leesaaisath: Just wanted to say I really appreciate your contributions to Rozaina Adam. Have you heard of WikiProject Women in Red? I think you might find that a useful resource. I know it must be hard be accused of paid editing. Wikipedians can be a suspicious bunch of people, but as long as you use reliable sources and avoid using promotional language in the future, your fellow editors will assume good faith and you shouldn't have that issue in the future. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi,Timothy your around. :-) I am wondering actually how this thing has unfolded. It was nice to see your around. inspired by you, I even learned to comment on AFD's. I feel like going to swim now.. & Hei Thank you AleatoryPonderings. Yes, Im open for opinions, Guide me on which subjects to write in future. I will sit and research when I am not belle dancing. (Existance Leesaaisath 15:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC))

Arbitration and Resolution of Regular Vandalism

Hey TimothyBlue, just hoping you could help me resolve a dilemma involving another Wikipedia user, a certain 'Kiengir'. I have come to you as I am aware you have experience with the topic and some of the users involved. I require your help for two reasons the relevant user is prone to excessive and gross incivility including swearing: "Don't you ever dare to modify my personal page", "Which part of this simple logic do you not understand?", "see, your problem is with the English language. You do not understand what means CONTEMPORARY. Check a vocabulary or talk with an English teacher,maybe the third time you won't make yourself again ridicoulus!", "Your grammar lesson is what you had to learn, since then you would not make the edit that you made, the rest is a useless trash talk. If you do not answer anymore", "B****s..t, if I would have wanted to hide anything from the Hungarian fans I would have make disappear half of he content that is heavily citing everything about Hungarians", "you have to ashamed about your behavior". Likewise he has also been involved in edit warring more than 6 times, appeared on ANI more than 4 times, been accused of disruptive edits more than 3 times and of canvassing up to two. Hence, my attempts at diplomacy have so far been fruitless as his tenacity against citations, consensus or compromise is unstoppable. His nationalist inclinations express themselves in his harassment of Ukrainian related articles, I have counted over 6 articles related to Ukraine that 'Kiengir' regularly patrols. His contributions indicate that he is 'not here to build a wikipedia' rather he works to remove the word 'Ukrainian' from any of the 6 articles whilst simultaneously bolstering the Hungarian presence and cause across Wikipedia. Unforunately, Ukraine has not only been a target of this bullying. Croatian, Romanian, Austrian etc articles have all been targeted by 'Kiengir' as an expression of his personal politics. I would really appreciate any support in helping stem the vandalism and harassment of articles related to Ukraine by Kiengir. As I said previosuly, he exhibits 'disruptive' behaviour which includes 'vandalism' and 'harassment' of articles related to ethnic groups he opposes to, as well as expresses 'gross incivility', he is consistnely engaged in 'edit-warring' and is 'not here to build an encyclopedia', all of these are rationale for blocking. Once again, thankyou for taking the time to read this post and I would really appreciate your assistance in resolving this.DanielLerish (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)DanielLerish

It's never useful if a user who just escaped from a larger block is continuing casting aspersions and discruptive editing.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC))

DanielLerish, My best advice for you is to stop editing anything between the Urals and the Rhine. You've crossed over some lines regarding WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. You're edits here Russification of Ukraine seems very problematic. This area (especially Ukraine) is controversial and requires a lot of editing experience to constructively collaborate in and you do not have that experience. In areas like this where there are already many very involved editors working together, you need to become part of the team and learn to work with others already there. This means starting slow, with small edits and discussing things before making any substantial edits, especially any edits that change the meaning of something already in place.

I know there are some topics/articles I should generally stay away from due to various reasons. Some subjects I'm just to close to, others I'm just hopelessly out of step with the consensus. It doesn't matter how right I think I am, editing there is asking for problems. Regardless of the reason, I know its best for me to stay away from them because editing there will only create grief. Even if I win an argument, I know it won't end up a net positive. There are plenty of areas on Wikipedia I can edit without problems and grief. I would take this under consideration.

Regarding the above issue with KIENGIR I would drop the matter.

Finally I would immediately disclose all accounts and IPs you have edited under on your user page.

Best wishes from Los Angeles,   // Timothy :: talk  03:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Ponyo and El C, since you are involved in this overall situation, I wanted to make you aware of this conversation, not for action, just to make you aware of the whole picture in case it is needed.   // Timothy :: talk  03:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Timothy. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

My Octopus Teacher

Hello! You recently added references to the Synopsis section of My Octopus Teacher. A number of these references do not support the statements in the Synopsis; I do not understand why they were added. As well, I do not think references are needed for film synopses and plot summaries, as the film itself serves as the reference. I removed one of the references, and am inclined to remove more but wanted to get your thoughts (for instance, the greenqueen.com reference does not support any of the information given in the paragraph to which you added it). Please share your thoughts on this if you have a moment. Cheers! Doctormatt (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

UTV HD India redirect

Hi Timothy. The same user keeps reverting the redirect to the parent article for the TV channels. Just wondering if you have any suggestions of what to do about this please? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

1292simon, I was just thinking about this. I think you (or me) should start a discussion on the talk page about notability and the redirect. If this doesn't resolve the issue, it can go to AfD. AfD wouldn't be a bad result, because there are a lot of these non-notable rebroadcast station stubs. As you mentioned on the talk page, I think there is probably a COI issue here.   // Timothy :: talk  09:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, the discussion sounds like a good idea to me. If I could ask a favour, would you mind creating it? I think it would be helpful to show that it's not just me who has concerns about this. No worries if you're not keen to, I'm happy to do it myself.

The COI issue is quite frustrating. ARV are unwilling to do anything about it, despite two requests for the user to disclose a COI and a continuing edit pattern that suggests they have one. Anyway, sorry for ranting! And thanks for your help here. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

1292simon, Done :) Best wishes from Los Angeles.   // Timothy :: talk  10:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tim. Thanks heaps for doing this. You said it much more eloquently than I could have! Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

1292simon, You're very welcome :)   // Timothy :: talk  11:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Notification of new discussion concerning Marquita Bradshaw

You recently expressed an opinion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marquita_Bradshaw. (That AfD closed Sept 4 with consensus expressed as "The result was keep. A discussion on whether or not to merge or redirect can happen after this AfD.") A new proposal, to redirect searches for "Marquita Bradshaw" to 2020 United States Senate election in Tennessee is being discussed at Talk:2020 United States Senate election in Tennessee#Proposed merge of Marquita Bradshaw into 2020 United States Senate election in Tennessee. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Index of articles related to the Russian Revolution and Civil War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

A beer for you!

A beer for you! Cali Tuner (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of Ceddy_Muhoza

Hello Timothy,

Am documenting notable Rwandan people, I created a page for Ceddy_Muhoza, I apologies for not putting a lot of content on it as I am aware it raised concern for deleting it, some other Wikipedians opted to redirect it but there's more to write about this person than I wrote, am still documenting a few contents for the page, the reason I published it is because I wanted more people to contribute to it.

Should it be required we can remove the page for the moment and when am finished putting together solid context I can republish it so that other people can contribute to it.

Thank you Tuner

Cali Tuner (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Opinion required

Hello...I noticed at the Afd for Ghum Hain Kisi key Pyaar Mein that you are well versed on the Wiki guidelines. So would you care to provide your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Wealth 2020. Regards, Sunshine1191 (talk) 04:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Party of Communists USA Page

Greetings Timothy! I hope this message finds you well! I just edited the Party of Communists USA (PCUSA) page which you recommended be deleted. The article regards a party that is now in a major election in the state of Vermont and has received press from Seven Days, the Vermont Eagle, the Secretary of State of Vermont, as well as interviews across the internet. For example, the American Party of Labor has an active wiki but does not meet the requirements set forth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Party_of_Labor

The Party of Communists USA has received press as has their candidate, Christopher Helali who is polling at 1% according to a recent Vermont Public Radio/PBS poll. Hope this helps and thank you for your time! Order of Lenin (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Order of Lenin, Hi there, I am well and hope you are as well. It's late so I won't do it tonight, but I do promise I will take a look at the new edits and will also do another round of searching to try and find anything that may show the article passes WP:SIGCOV.   // Timothy :: talk  06:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Appreciation

Hello Timothy Blue! You left some “unsolicited advice” on my talk page a couple of weeks ago and I just wanted to thank you for it. It’s definitely helped me calm down and move onto other pages for editing. Once again, I appreciate the time you took to help out. Happy editing! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer, That is kind of you to say, I'm glad it helped. Many times I've started typing something that would have landed me in Wikijail only to click Cancel instead of Publish. Best wishes from Los Angeles.   // Timothy :: talk  20:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

It did, so thank you again. I envy that you live in LA, I’ve always wanted to go. Best wishes from the east coast! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Milhist!

Hello TimothyBlue and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
• If you would like to receive the project's monthly newsletter, The Bugle, please sign up here.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Deleting citation needed tags

Please do not delete citation needed tags that are placed against content that is unsourced. I have tried to find sources but have found none that are RS. Please read the relevant advice pages on Wikipedia. If you want to legitimately remove the tags, then find RS for the tagged content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.77.10 (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Set the Night on Fire: L.A. in the Sixties

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Set the Night on Fire: L.A. in the Sixties has been completed.

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

Before you submit this article for GAN I suggest you have a look at this page which details the consensus around how an article on a non-fiction book is constructed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Books/Non-fiction_article You'll find a list at the end of the page with entries for book article you can use as aa guide.

Best of luck moving forward.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Twofingered Typist, thank you for the copy edit and the above information. Best wishes from Los Angeles,   // Timothy :: talk  15:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Michel, Count of Évreux

I'm going to keep you to your word. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Reply: Not sure what you mean.   // Timothy :: talk  16:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Bearian, I apologize if I forgot to do something on the above AfD, I looked and thought and couldn't remember anything. Could you let me know? Thanks,   // Timothy :: talk  17:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Just to strictly apply the rules. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I do try my best, if I fall short, leave a message on the AfD, I'm always willing to reconsider if new sources or information comes to light.   // Timothy :: talk  17:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPP

Based on your AfDs, it looks like you're doing new page patrol, but don't have the permission. You may want to apply for it? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings, I had thought about it and have been working (slowly) on identifying copyvios and working towards applying to NPP school. Do you think I'd be accepted? Barkeep49 any input?   // Timothy :: talk  16:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I applied two-ish weeks ago and was accepted for a one-month trial period; I think that's how it usually works. So I expect you'd be either accepted for a trial period or accepted indefinitely. As you're a frequent AfD participant with obvious knowledge of WP policies, I'd be very surprised if you were rejected. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

TimothyBlue, once you tell me that you've read WP:NPP I would be happy, based on our previous interactions, to give it to you for a month. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I have just reread WP:NPP and I will study it more as I go. I'll go slow per previous advice. I know I will have questions, I will probably impose on AleatoryPonderings to ask those that don't fit into one of the NPP discussion pages. Thanks, I'm looking forward to starting; thanks for the opportunity.   // Timothy :: talk  04:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

TimothyBlue,  Done. I am also obviously someone you can ask questions of. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, Thanks and thank you both for your time. Don't hesitate to offer advice if you see something needs improvement   // Timothy :: talk  15:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Second Opinion

Hey...

I was browsing through a list of Malaysian television networks yesterday, one thing led to another and i stumbled upon this article. It is basically a summary of the series' telecast in India; the various networks it has aired on, titles of the various corresponding dubbed movies etc. Don't think that the article fails NTV or GNG because I doubt that they were ever established in the first place. I get it that the show is popular in the country but by that logic Game of Thrones is popular worldwide. The next thing you know articles are popping up left and right about GOT's broadcast history in each country it has aired in and articles like this one will end up becoming excellent OTHERSTUFFEXISTS weapons. I was contemplating putting it up for deletion but then reckoned that it would be better to get a second opinion first from someone who has established Afd experience and a good understanding of all the related content policies because the articles does have 10 solid refs and very strong traffic (which is why a redirect would be useless as one or the other fan of the show will end up removing it). According to me the article is plumbing new depths of banality, which is exactly why I would really appreciate your input on the matter as even if that's not the case and the article is truly notable, it is still a good case study/reference point for me for the future. Regards, TheRedDomitor (talk) 11:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

FDB Møbler

Hey there, I'm interested to understand why you chose to merge FBD Møbler into the Coop amba article instead of adding a blurb in the article and linking out the separate page? FDB Møbler is an independent company so it's a bit confusing that it lives under the Subsidiaries header of the Coop article.

--Ew3234 (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Reply: Hello :) In the original article, it stated FDB Møbler is a Danish subsidiary of FDB (Coop amba). When looking at the article it didn't appear to meet WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. It does have routine, normal, run of the mill coverage, so a merge into the parent org under Subsidiaries was an appropriate alternative to deletion. For shorter articles, it's often best to incorporate them into larger articles (such as a parent organization) when possible per WP:MERGE, with a redirect left behind so readers are directed to the correct spot for the information. If the section in the article grows and is sourced for a stand alone article, it can be split. You do have the option to dispute the merge if you would like community discussion about the merge. Best wishes from Los Angeles.   // Timothy :: talk  01:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Follow-up: FDB Møbler was a subsidiary. It's a now a separate indepedant company as of 2019 and not a subsidiary anymore. I was planning to add additional content to the article to increase the depth and I still plan to do so but it might be somewhat unwieldy to add so much detail and headers under current placement. --Ew3234 (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Reply: Thanks for the follow up. I self reverted the merge, so you should be able to see the original article as it was before the merge and add the content. I noticed you added former to the infobox on the merged version, I added this into the unmerged version. I didn't see any other post merge changes that were not in the original. When you are adding more information about the company history, I would add citations for products referencing their notability.   // Timothy :: talk  04:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babilon be salon

Hi Timothy, might be worth keeping a close eye on this one as the article creator has already tried to remove the AfD and to blank the discussion itself as well. I would appreciate your opinion on whether you think Nekash is notable as well. Spiderone 14:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Reply: Hi Spiderone. Nekash is a hard one. One good solid BBC reference. Creators and cast don't have articles. It might have non-English sources I couldn't find. The article needs significant editing before it would be ready for mainspace. I'd say you could send to Draft and give others time to find more sources and copy edit the article. If not it can be deleted. It probably wouldn't survive at AfD. Thank you for the heads up :) Hope you are well, best wishes from Los Angeles.   // Timothy :: talk  08:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I've gone with just placing a GNG tag on the article now. If one or two good sources can be found on top of what's already there, then there's a strong case for the article. All the best from sunny England Spiderone 08:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• Reply

Dear User:Spiderone, I think the thing you're talking over here directly concerns me, but I don't know why you chose it going in this way. NY, thank you for everything. User:Yitbe 12:45 PM, 4 November 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 09:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Yitbe, Everyone in good standing is welcome to discuss anything with anyone. Do you think you can add more sources toward notability to the article? Hope you are well, best wishes from Los Angeles.   // Timothy :: talk  09:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Request for comment on WP:SOLDIER #2 has an RFC

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Request for comment on WP:SOLDIER #2 has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.​ Mztourist (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Mztourist, Thank you for the note. I will certainly make a comment (It might take a few days, dealing with a health issue). I'm not sure if you saw this AfD [9] but it had similar issues. RoySmith was the closer and had some thoughtful comments on this at close, perhaps they have input on the RfC. Best wishes from Los Angeles.   // Timothy :: talk  14:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Timothy. I hope your wikibreak is going well. Just wanted to note that I have been noticing your work (even when it's not a question on my talk page). Noticing in a good way. Thanks for the work you're doing here. Hope to see you around soon, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, thank you that makes me feel good. I will be around. Docs are just adjusting my pain meds, so my mind is a bit foggy :) for a few days until I adjust. Probably not the best time to be editing lol. Best wishes.   // Timothy :: talk  02:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Very much hope you feel better soon! AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia

If material is copied within Wikipedia, but not correctly attributed, just make a dummy edit and including the author information in the comment, like this. WilyD 12:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babilon be salon

Do not delete

Hi Timothy, might be worth keeping a close eye on this one as the article creator has already tried to remove the AfD and to blank the discussion itself as well. I would appreciate your opinion on whether you think Nekash is notable as well. Spiderone 14:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Reply: Hi Spiderone. Nekash is a hard one. One good solid BBC reference. Creators and cast don't have articles. It might have non-English sources I couldn't find. The article needs significant editing before it would be ready for mainspace. I'd say you could send to Draft and give others time to find more sources and copy edit the article. If not it can be deleted. It probably wouldn't survive at AfD. Thank you for the heads up :) Hope you are well, best wishes from Los Angeles.   // Timothy :: talk  08:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I've gone with just placing a GNG tag on the article now. If one or two good sources can be found on top of what's already there, then there's a strong case for the article. All the best from sunny England Spiderone 08:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• Reply

Dear User:Spiderone, I think the thing you're talking over here directly concerns me, but I don't know why you chose it going in this way. NY, thank you for everything. User:Yitbe 12:45 PM, 4 November 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 09:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• Question Yitbe I archived this thread [10]. You have placed it back on my talk page (without my final reply to Spiderone) [11]. Why have you done this?   // Timothy :: talk  07:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Answer Dear Timothy, I took it back for I believe it should not be be removed until the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babilon be salon is closed. You can check back your archive, you've no more conversation with Spiderone except that you could read under this thread. Yitbe- 08:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Reply:Yitbe I can manage my own talk page without assistance; it is not your perogative to restore material I have archived. See WP:OWNTALK: "Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages."   // Timothy :: talk  08:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

Administrator changes

Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

Izno

Guideline and policy news

• There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.

Technical news

• Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Manipur State Constitution Act 1947

What made you think there are no reliable secondary sources in the article.journal,news,books cited what more is needed?ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 13:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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.

---

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2020 (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.

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, November 2020

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.

---

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D & Hawkeye7 look at two aspects of 20th Century warfare Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Unknown Soldiers

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2020 (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.

December 2020

Hello, I'm RexxS. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Recreational diver training have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. RexxS (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Reply: Hi RexxS, I had just created the article and adding wikilinks from related articles is part of that process. It is currently the deepest recreational dive training facility in the world, why would this not be a relevant wikilink from Recreational diver training?   // Timothy :: talk  01:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, I saw that you had just created the article, but there are literally thousands of recreational diving facilities in the world, all of which are commercial concerns. It is an interesting factoid that Deepspot is the deepest facility located in a building, but there are many other recreational providers that make use of deeper lakes and offshore sites that are considerably deeper, so it's nothing fundamentally different from any other facility. If we allow one facility a link in Recreational diver training, why wouldn't we allow a link to every other? The Recreational diver training article is a high-level overview article, and links to individual facilities are quite WP:UNDUE. It would be reasonable to have a link to an article such as List of diver training facilities if it existed, but not to individual facilities from such a high-level article.

  The Deepspot article itself has established a marginal notability, and I agree that it should be linked from other articles, but the best way to do that is to find articles that would benefit from incorporating information about Deepspot in their text. Editors are always encouraged to write content, rather than simply adding to See also sections, and the hatnote was completely unjustifiable. --RexxS (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Breath easy

Enjoy your break, my friend! Hope you get to breath easy soon. I am deeply concerned with the calamity currently facing your state — and entire national coastal region, for that matter. El_C 03:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

El C, Thank you my friend :) Couple more days I should feel better. The smoke and heat is not as bad right now where I am which helps. It hit an unbelievable 121°F [12] just north of here last Sunday and was 114 where I was. The homeless are suffering even more terribly than normal, heat, smoke, COVID. Makes me remember how fortunate I am.   // Timothy :: talk  04:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Pronouns

Howdy hello! I was just reminded of your idea for pronouns in infoboxes, as I received an OTRS ticket requesting the very same feature! The ticketer asked that I mention this on-wiki, so it seems like there is momentum out there for pronouns in infoboxes! BTW, could you link me to the RfC again...seemed to have misplaced the link? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi there :) Here is the link [13]. I've been lurking in BLP articles and have gained a general impression there is a lot of room for improvement on how WP covers people, mostly around sourcing and neutrality, but other issues as well and I think this will contribute to improving the overall situation. Hope everything is well with you.   // Timothy :: talk  18:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, just realized I forgot to ping you back.   // Timothy :: talk    // Timothy :: talk  13:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --BunnyyHop (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

You are an excellent contributor

I just wanted to state you are an excellent and long time editor on pages on the Soviet Union, you have helped enormously in editing and being a neutral voice on this topic and have helped Wikipedia grow on this topic, I just wanted to say thank you and if you decide to stop editing articles it is up to you, however you have been a major source of valuable information to Wikipedia and it is a shame to see you go. Thanks. Vallee01 (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll follow that up by saying I am quite sad to see you go, I have quite enjoyed seeing you around and you are quite helpful and competent. I know Wikipedia can be aggravating at times, and its hard when you are a newer contributor, but folks mean the best around here. I hope you take a break, and come back refreshed :) If not, your presence will be missed. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree you are an excellent contributor. Wikipedia needs smart folks who are good writers and you are one of the few. I've been here 10+ years and I too have had my moments of being fed up with the atmosphere here. I tried Citizendium for about a year but the infighting and behind-the-scenes grumbling are worse, plus nobody reads it. So I came back to Wikipedia (it is where the action is) and what I learned, over time, is this -- that I shouldn't get too attached to anything I write here. Some things stick; some things don't. It's not such a big deal. I shrug my shoulders and move on. I've learned not to become incensed, to be patient, and when I really care about something, I'll make a note of it, and revisit the wikipage three months later, six months later, and see if I can still prevail, and I usually do.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Cite Unseen update

Hello! Thank you for using Cite Unseen. The script recently received a significant update, detailed below.

• You can now toggle which icons you do or don't want to see. See the configuration section for details. All icons are enabled by default except for the new generally reliable icon (described below).
• New categorizations/icons:
  • Advocacy: Organizations that are engaged in advocacy (anything from political to civil rights to lobbying). Note that an advocacy group can be reliable; this indicator simply serves to note when a source's primary purpose is to advocate for certain positions or policies, which is important to keep in mind when consuming a source.
  • Editable: Sites that are editable by the public, such as wikis (Wikipedia, Fandom) or some databases (IMDb, Discogs).
  • Predatory journals: These sites charge publication fees to authors without checking articles for quality and legitimacy.
  • Perennial source categories: Cite Unseen will mark sources as generally reliable, marginally reliable, generally unreliable, deprecated, and blacklisted. This is based on Wikipedia's perennial sources list, which reflects community consensus on frequently discussed sources. Sources that have multiple categorizations are marked as varied reliability. Note that generally reliable icons are disabled by default to reduce clutter, but you can enable them through your custom config. A special thanks to Newslinger, whose new Sourceror API provides the perennial sources list in a clean, structured format.
• With the addition of the new categorizations, the biased source icon has been removed. This category was very broad, and repetitive to the new advocacy and perennial sources categorizations that are more informative.

If you have any feedback, requested features, or domains to add/remove, don't hesitate to bring it up on the script's talk page. Thank you! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

You are receiving this message as a user of Cite Unseen. If you no longer wish to receive very occasional updates, you may remove yourself from the mailing list.

Voting for "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" closing

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, December 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the war in Ukraine

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, well

In addition to removing the suggestion, you removed your signature from User:Fram's talk page. But I am really a little confused. Is there a suggestion that I be asked to facilitate an RFC or set of RFCs about retaining or deleting articles on order of battle? I am willing to facilitate RFCs in that area or other areas. What are the details? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Block

I am not going to revisit the block: I think it's proper. What you can do is coach them in writing an unblock request, and one thing to tell them is to use fewer words. Talk less, smile more, as Aaron Burr said to Alexander Hamilton, if my children are to be believed. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding page deletion of Shivang Vaishnav

All the information i've provided in that page (Shivang Vaishnav) is full of reliable sources from various sites and please check them which are according to the wikipidea's policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishiyendra (talk • contribs) 07:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject Newcomer and Historian of the Year awards now open

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: Just came to say "Hi" .... :-) Existance Leesaaisath 17:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello TimothyBlue,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Administrator changes

Hammersoft

Andres • Brion VIBBER • Rkitko • Thatcher

CheckUser changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek • Primefac

Oversight changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek

Joe Roe

Guideline and policy news

• Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.

Technical news

• You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.

Arbitration

• By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
• Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Why did you put stop and revert an edit on ANI?

What, why? I made a think on my talk and pinged you. What diff do have to show "disruptive behavior" and why did you revert that? Des Vallee (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you and my Sincere apologies

I would like to thank you for your time and help on my AN/I thread. I also apologise for all the profanity that came up because off it, although i just logged in and didn't see most of it, people can truly be horrible sometimes. - Kevo327 (talk) 07:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reply: That surprising end shows your report was more important than anyone expected. Best wishes from Los Angeles.   // Timothy :: talk  08:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Please review my draft page

Hi. My request on the article Draft:Asif Tariq was declined because of lack of sources. Unfortunately this is a very small town and it is difficult to find many sources. I did my best, Hope in your help. Majid Saleem78 (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reply: Hi Majid Saleem78, Please let me know if this article is about you? or about someone you know? I'm not actually a part of AfC, it looks like @Hatchens and Robert McClenon: looked at this draft today.   // Timothy :: talk  19:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Majid Saleem78 - If it is difficult to find sources, the subject may not be notable. User:Hatchens said that the article was not ready for article space. Are you working with User:HamidAzhar? Are you associated with the subject of the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I am creating an Article about a person i know

Talking about Draft:-Asif Tariq Majid Saleem78 (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft Asif Tariq

The subject is renowned Kashmiri poet. I am associated with the subject. He has contributed a lot to Poetry of Kashmir. Majid Saleem78 (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The Ready Set I’m Alive I’m Dreaming

Hello I’m here to ask why was there a reason you’ve removed the “I’m Alive, I’m Dreaming” page? Because it seems like you might have removed it. If I’m wrong let me know but if you did I just want to know why because I feel like it shouldn’t have been deleted. Thank you Bcbryar643 (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reply: Hi Bcbryar643, no worries, I didn't delete the page, the content is still there, but I did create a redirect to the main article's discography. The article did not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM, for a stand alone article. A redirect can be quickly undone (a couple of clicks), which I just did since you asked that it be discussed. I enjoyed listening to the album and hope you can provide some sources, WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Let me know about any sources you think should be added (or feel free to add them). Hope things are well,   // Timothy :: talk  14:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Reply: Thank you for getting back. Sorry for that misunderstanding and if I do find any sources, I will try and add it. You have a great rest of your day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcbryar643 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Communist-related articles

As I extensively wrote here, here, here and here, there are several problems about Communist-related articles. Perhaps that is just my opinion and I may well be wrong, but I would like to hear your thoughts. I decided to write this because you greatly contributed to Everyday Stalinism and Stalin's Peasants, yet those two books are only See also at Stalinism, which gets me to the crux of the matter. Communist-related article egregiously violates NPOV by presenting only one view of the event (Conquest, Pipes, Pons, Rummel, Service, Valentino et al.), yet legitimate and mainstream scholars such as Fitzpatrick, just to name one, are almost never relied on and are at best as See also or Further reading.

Considering that the Communist and Soviet field is not like climate change or the Holocaust, it is a politicised, conflictual field, yet we present usually or mostly only one historiographical view (usually the "anti-communist" and "orthodox" one but I would be saying the same thing if the reverse was true) and give too much weight to Marxism–Leninism and Communist states and not any at all to left or libertarian communisms, for which there is no discussion or mention at History of communism and are actually discussed more (i.e. are at least mentioned) at History of socialism. So is it just my impression or there is some part of truth? Davide King (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Reply to Davide King: Undoubtedly there are problems with weight, sources, and viewpoints. The reasons for the problem and its entrenchment are many and the solutions are imperfect. I think following the path that provides the most benefit for the least wasted time is the way forward to improving coverage of subjects.

I've taken a bottom-up approach to the problem. As you noted, I have taken to writing articles about books and bibliographies and improving articles about scholars. I think this is a good way to open doors for others to walk through to learn more about a perspective on a subject. Up one level from this, I think improving the historiographical/memory articles related to a subject will help. Ultimately this will work its way into the top, hopefully sooner rather than later, but ultimately.

I appreciate your frustration and wish I had a better answer. I hope you are well and best wishes,   // Timothy :: talk  18:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your good work and comment. I believe your approach is the right one. I did open a discussion at Mass killings under communist regimes. It is a long discussion, but I hope you can read it all, weight all the arguments and express your analysis with a comment there. It would be really helpful if you could give an analysis of the main topic (is there a main topic? If so, is it a minority or fringe view or is it notable and mainstream within scholarship?), especially whether sources actually support the main topic, which has been the issue between the two sides. I am open to being proved wrong but my view is that the topic does not actually exist, that even 'anti-communist' or 'orthodox' sources have been misread or misrepresented, and that the content should be merged and the article deleted, or restructured to make the main topic be a scholarly analysis of Communist regimes, including background, context, the rising of living standards, modernisation, lives saved (as discussed by Ellman) and mass killings and famines with context and relevant, expert scholarly views highlighted rather than having so many Communist-related coattracked articles.

I believe Paul Siebert's reading is largely correct but maybe it is not (hence why I would hope more uninvolved users could weight in on whose reading of sources is correct; do they support the main topic and what is the main topic? Is it notable or just pushed by one side? Is it a mainstream and widely accepted concept in academia and Communist and Soviet studies scholarship? Or is it pushed only by a few authors and scholars who are non-experts as highlighted by Paul Siebert?) and there seems to be no consensus on whose side's reading is correct and there does not seem to be consensus even on the main topic (several topics are lumped together in ine and other users' view), which ironically would result in delete/merge since the article is supposed to have a clear, notable main topic, which does not seem to be supported in this case. The article is or was supposed to be a scholarly analysis but it is turned into "various mass-media and popular literature" which reflects only one POV.

I would sumarise my view that the article "essentially and more or less lumps all the above topics together, taking the Communist genocide/mass killing concept from Strauss and Valentino, even though the first one is a book about genocide and the second is a chapter about genocides and mass killings in the 20th century (with Communism simply being one type); then listing all mass killings under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pol, adding all excess deaths under all Communist regimes, even as only few scholars and from one side list all non-combatant victims (famines, wars, etc.), to suggest all those are victims of Communism, its more accurate title that, however, does not really solve all those issues (undue weight, original research, synthesis, more than one topic, NPOV, etc.) I have highlighted." Davide King (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Bundled noms at AfD

Per your note on recent AfD noms, standard operating procedure is to nom first for test cases and then bundle based on slow consensus. I imagine you had some instance of group nominating a bunch that you thought were similar only to find out that others disagreed. Even if it's less efficient, the standard is to nominate one or two at a time (not five) so as to read the room after each set finishes to best evaluate how to proceed, even if it means never bundling noms. czar 06:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 in Mongolia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mongolian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft Asif Tariq

Why you mentioned my draft Draft:Asif Tariq for deletion i request you please remove the deletion tag. I worked hard for this article. Please help me Majid Saleem78 (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reply: Majid Saleem78 I've been trying to help you, but you need to be honest with me, what are the other usernames you have on Wikipedia? You need to declare these names now below to help resolve this and before I will answer your request above. Again I've been trying to help you, but I need an answer to this question.   // Timothy :: talk  16:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I saw this Article Asif Tariq Bhat on google search i tried to recreate the said article. But i don't know why it got deleted and the second this i don't know the subject really i just created the article as it was in the search result. But it got deleted repeatedly. I can add more references if you can restore the old version of the said article Asif Tariq Bhat. My surname is Majid Saleem Rather. Majid Saleem78 (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Majid Saleem78

But what usernames were you editing with when you tried to recreate Asif Tariq Bhat?

Is the image in the current draft a photo you took or did someone else take the photo? Before you stated you knew the subject, now you state you discovered them in a Google search? If you don't know the subject how did you take the photo? We have to have proper credits and attribute for images.   // Timothy :: talk  17:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not i don't know the subject but i am saying i don't know him personally. I saw the picture in one of his references and also on social media. Majid Saleem78 (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

That helps, you found the image on the internet, and did not take it. How about other Wikipedia accounts you have used?   // Timothy :: talk  18:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

"Majid Saleem Rather", fine, do you know Raja Syed Rather? ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 18:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Atom Bond Deletion

I myself am a very naive wiki editor but as far as I can see there should be no reason for the aforementioned page to be deleted. As the page does use reliable sources as far as I can't tell such as the use of the British Universities Film & Video Council as a source and the Australian Broadcasting Corporations own website and info as sources and further other sources (totalling 5 sources) the show does have relevance as when you pope it into the google search bar it will recommend a search for Atom Bond TV Show another thing that when you just search atom bond the television show appears first with the chemical reaction listed under four other links to the tv show. Furthermore, there is a video of the original show up on youtube. Please explain to me what this article lacks so I don't do the same mistake again and so Atom Bond might no need to be deleted. Thank you. - I apologise for any inconvenience I caused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BAABNRRBBORB1 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reply: Hi BAABNRRBBORB1, nice to talk to you, its never a problem to ask me questions, I'm happy to answer them. There are a couple of factors here on determining notability from sources. One is the sources must be independent, have no connection with the subject; eg: a television network which airs a show is not independent of the subject. Second, the sources must have significant coverage addressing the subject directly and indepth; so an abstract, mention, or short commentary on a subject will not qualify as significant coverage. I would recommend reading the following (in order): WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, WP:IS, WP:N. Again I'm happy to answer any questions, or there are always people at the Wikipedia Teahouse which can also answer questions. Best wishes from Los Angeles,   // Timothy :: talk  05:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Re: Atom Bond Deletion

Right, I see what you meant now all the sources I used are too closely related to the same topic. I have added another source from YouTube but I am unsure if that's to close to the topic or not. I am also awaiting another source but I don't know when that will arrive. Please reply on my talk page as that's easier for unless you want to stick here. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BAABNRRBBORB1 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The best place to continue discussing specifics about the article is on the AfD page, that way others will see your reasoning and sources and can use that to help their evaluation. For other questions, either place you wish is fine, just preface the question with a ping {{u|TimothyBlue}} and sign the posts with four tildes ~~~~ (or the ping wont go through).

btw, kudos on trying writing an article and don't let this discourage you, everyone who wants to write articles experiences AfD (I had about 20 failed ideas before my first successful article, but now have 44 articles in the last year). It seems like once you actually get started, things get easier, and the good ideas flow and becomes very enjoyable and addicting.   // Timothy :: talk  06:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Citation manager

Totally unrelated but I happened to peek at Davide's links because I also work in the book/historiography/bibliography space (and am chipping away at an article related to Soviet history) and wanted to ask: Are you making citations by hand? And if so, have you considered using a citation manager instead? czar 06:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Czar, yes I write them out with help from a lot of snippets and shortcuts (right now I use Sublime Text for list building and Libre Office for writing) and use CitationBot (I have a real love hate relationship with CitationBot). But I was thinking about Zotero a while back, and I'm always interested in things/suggestions to make things easier and more efficient. Hope things are well, best wishes from Los Angeles,   // Timothy :: talk  13:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Zotero can change your life! It imports citation details from WorldCat, CrossRef, major journals/sources using user-submitted metadata "translators", which you'll end up tweaking/maintaining if you use them often. Like your Sublime text file, you can reformat the citation metadata to your heart's content. But the real power is searching for a tag or a group, selecting it, and quick exporting into your desired citation format. Cannot give it a higher recommendation, especially for the work you're doing! If you check it out, let me know if you need a hand with anything. I've made lots of tweaks to it over the years but haven't pushed all of them to Zotero, i.e., it comes with a default Wikipedia citation style export but I've customized my local version. czar 18:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ozan Boz (2nd nomination)

Hello Tim,

I had prepared a rebutal for the redirect votes on "Articles for deletion/Ozan Boz (2nd nomination)" and I was going to add them to the discussionpage. Only to find out it was redirected by you, and the discussion was closed. I am a little surprised. Here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating:_checks_and_alternatives) WP:AFD it says "Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus." I thought I had until 17:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC), since first redirection vote was made on 17:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC).

Could you undo/reverse the redirection so that I can add my comments for keeping the article. I went into great details as to why nominator and others are mistaken. Looked up at the policies and guidelines and did my research and all.

Thank you.

Neckhumbucker (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Reply: Hi Neckhumbucker, I was not the closer on the AfD and did not perform the redirect. Drmies is the person you should speak with (check the top of the nomination page for the closing information).   // Timothy :: talk  14:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Neckhumbucker, the consensus was overwhelming towards a redirect (see WP:SNOW). Frankly, I doubt that all those people were "mistaken". What you can do is present your case on Talk:Minor Empire and we can look at it. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the speedy deletion of Morning Star High School

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

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

Hello Timothy, just wanted to reach out and kindly ask you to review your vote. Discussion is re-opened [[14]], and I’ve added a few objections to the Nominator’s arguments. Please consider whether the article satisfies the guideline WP:MUSICBIO. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neckhumbucker (talk • contribs) 20:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Reply Thank you Timothy.

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

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

Thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks so much for your time. (and yes, the water is still running here) [[15]]

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

I don't think Timothy is concerned about the views because of notability concerns, but in light of your comment about offering exposure to this person. An article with significant discussion on the person on CJRT-FM would carry weight, but what you cited is a summary of a documentary, which is not the same thing, and the documentary has a section on the band, not necessarily the person. The CDC article is good (but short), but again, it's about the band. I don't understand why you would be confused by the fact that non-English sources are allowed. Non-English sources are allowed: it's simple. And you said that too much focus on media coverage is not helpful--what? What else would you want? Facebook posts? Of course media coverage, just like all other coverage, is guided in part by what is popular; there is nothing surprising about that. Finally, the awards--I think again you're clouding the issue. Thousands, millions of people get nominated for things; fewer than that win. There is more attention for the winners: that's how winning goes. If someone is nominated for something and that nomination attracts attention for reliable sources, editors can go and say "hey that's important". A mere listing of nominees cannot do that. The guidelines also ask for significant coverage. Without that, there is just little to say. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies for the insight. (we can move this to your talk page if you’d like)

I wasn’t confused about non-English sources. I was simply asking because I read it somewhere outside Wiki, and wanted to double-check with someone experienced.

MUSICBIO says “Has won or been nominated for a major music award”. It does not make a distinction between nomination and win. And nowhere in the guideline it says a nomination or win needs to attract reliable coverage. Awards and reliable sources are two different sections. So, awards website should be reliable enough to “”verify”” the nomination and in return to satisfy the guideline, no additional media coverage is needed (in this context, I said “too much emphasis on the media”)

If the awards are major, then the guideline is clear. We can discuss whether Canadian Folks Music Awards (CFMA) is a major award or not. Assuming CFMA is major, and you still need to see significant media coverage of that nomination, that’d be your interpretation of the guideline. You'd be setting a bar higher than the guidelines. And if this interpretation is a common application of the guideline, and if so many editors go by this interpretation, why is it not already in the guideline? How can two or more poeple come to an agreement if written criteria are not followed.

I’ll try to get some non-English sources added...

Thank you. Neckhumbucker (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you are deliberately skipping over the fact that your man didn't win; he was nominated. But I am done here, having taken up enough of Timothy's talk page. You can make your case at the AfD. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding my article Morning Star High School which you proposed for deletion

Hey mate I have created that article and worked very hard for that. Just don't delete. If you think that it doesn't meet the eligibility criteria of Wikipedia then feel free to improve it and you own self can edit it and improve it but don't just delete it. Thank you I hope you will understand my concern Jogesh 69 (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

He (or most people on Wikipedia), doesn't care how hard you've worked on an article. He is just here to throw his weight around and get articles deleted. I really wouldn't hold your breath, you're article is gone. I'd spend my time doing something worthwhile, not waste it trying to edit this project ran by little dictators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.252.209 (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding my article Morning Star High School which you proposed for deletion

Hey mate I have created that article and worked very hard for that. Just don't delete. If you think that it doesn't meet the eligibility criteria of Wikipedia then feel free to improve it and you own self can edit it and improve it but don't just delete it. Thank you I hope you will understand my concern Jogesh 69 (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

He (or most people on Wikipedia), doesn't care how hard you've worked on an article. He is just here to throw his weight around and get articles deleted. I really wouldn't hold your breath, you're article is gone. I'd spend my time doing something worthwhile, not waste it trying to edit this project ran by little dictators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.252.209 (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding Copyrighted Symbol

I thought about adding the symbol that the group uses to their article at Columbine Genealogical And Historical Society. But it's copyrighted. Is it still OK to use? Gale Peterson (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The symbol is at https://i1.wp.com/columbinegenealogy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Columbine-Logo-B-W.jpg Gale Peterson (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reply Gale Peterson, I believe adding the logo is allowable under WP:NFC, if it is only used once in an infobox. Posting this at the WP:TEAHOUSE would produce a difinitive answer.

One thing we do need to do is add two independent secondary sources about the organization. This will satisfy the notability requirement (see WP:SIGCOV, WP:ORGCRIT, WP:GNG). A local newspaper or other societies should have run stories about them, I've been meaning to do a Newspaper.com search, but haven't yet. I you have any news stories about them, please add them. They do not need to be online, just need the citation.

Best wishes from Los Angeles,  // Timothy :: t | c | a   22:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I did add two sources, one Family Search and one the LDS Genealogy. I guess I'll add the logo later. Gale Peterson (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, January 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks Australian artillery in World War I Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on no-win scenarios

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Reverts on Re-education camp (Vietnam)

Hi there TimothyBlue. I suggest taking a closer look at at least some of the reverts you did on Re-education camp (Vietnam). Perhaps the removal of the reference warrants more discussion, but several were pretty clear improvements, I think. I would appreciate a slightly more careful revert (rather than the full one) if you wouldn't mind prior to bringing up some of the more relevant points for discussion. Thanks!Freelance-frank (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Freelance-frank, I went back and restored the constructive edits after the revert. The process to follow is WP:BRD, if you make changes, they can be reverted and then the onus is on the changing editor to establish consensus on the article talk page.

You seem very familiar and seem to have more knowledge about Wikipedia than a new editor normally has, have you edited under a different account?  // Timothy :: talk  18:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Yep! I have an older account with a couple thousand edits. I intend to use this account to edit on topics that I don't want my workplace to be aware of (they're unfortunately aware of that account and I live in a right-to-work state). From my reading of SOCK, this kind of privacy and separation seems okay as long as I use the same style of editing on both accounts (no good/bad hand) and absolutely maintain separation between accounts. Freelance-frank (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi TimothyBlue, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! – Joe (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Joe Roe, Thank you Joe, hope your weekend is enjoyable. Best wishes from Los Angeles,  // Timothy :: talk  15:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Requesting Your Input!

Hi Timothy, Could you please take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Mary_Francine_Whittle which has been suggested for deletion? I would appreciate your input. thanks! T. E. Meeks (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi T. E. Meeks, I will look at the article. You need to strike out the last sentence of your comment on the AfD page, it is inappropriate to cast aspersions on the nominator.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   12:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Gelato

Do you want Fidel Castro to come to the United States and ban cannabis in ALL 50 STATES? Of course, not. The gelato (cannabis) article was just approved but it is ONLY A STUB. Please make it good article or Fidel may come knocking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LotteryGeek (talk • contribs) 03:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

LotteryGeek, the above message is inappropriate. Posting it multiple times is spam. You've been asked to stop, been blocked, but have returned and continued.

Kinu, since you're familar with this, could you review the above+history. Thanks, best wishes from Los Angeles,  // Timothy :: talk  04:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Trouted: Liberation Road

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: You say Liberation Road does not have "SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth," but your nomination is (a) the product of a subjective opinion, and (b) contrary to Wikipedia's purpose. The Wikipedia forum can generate "significant coverage" of verifiable subjects, because researchers use Wiki as a starting point. If you erase the starting point, you erase or obscure a valuable resource for researchers. It would be unreasonable to delete "Liberation Road" by arguing that it is already mentioned in another page discussing a historical entity (Freedom Road Socialist Organization). The historical entity (FRSO) no longer exists, where as Liberation Road clearly does and even has its own webpage (https://roadtoliberation.org). Furthermore, the Liberation Road page is adequately sourced. It deserves a Wiki page of its own. Thank you.

Freedom Road Socialist Organization

It can't help but be noticed that you have flagged two pages I have edited for deletion - within minutes after I edited them to include relevant and well-sourced information. Please excuse the bluntness of the observation, but these nominations for deletion of yours naturally raise suspicions as to (a) your identity and (b) your motives. Surely you wouldn't really want to delete a page as long, detailed and substantive as that pertaining to the Freedom Road Socialist Organization! Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldstein2021 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The in use tag

Please notice the page for {{In use}} says

"Please do not leave it in place for more than the few hours at most that should be necessary, as doing so may unnecessarily discourage others from contributing to the article. If it has been up for more than two hours since the last edit, it should be removed. Specifying periods of several days or longer for this template goes against the spirit of simply avoiding edit conflicts; please only use it for sessions where you are actively editing the article.

Holding the page for a literal day goes against this. Also you haven't justified the last removal of the text from the "Misuse of graphical materials" section. Stix1776 (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I have swapped the in use tag for the under construction tag. Editors that frequently use the In use tag may forget to swap it out for under construction. When you are aware an editor is working on an article, the polite collegial thing to do is to swap it out for them or just leave it alone, not remove it and resume removing content they are working on.  // Timothy :: talk  15:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Administrator changes

Hog Farm

Mattflaschen • Nandesuka • Savidan • Wangi

CheckUser changes

Berean Hunter • Xeno

Oversight changes

Someguy1221 • Xeno

Arbitration

• The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I unintentionally made an IP edit again

I wasn't logged in on this computer. I'm still a n00b with Wikipedia Stix1776 (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is the edit you are talking about [16]. In your edit summary you state this is a copy/paste. I can find nowhere in the source this is a copy/paste. Please provide the page number from where you found the copy/paste material and I will look again. It is very hard to believe that paragraph is a copy/paste.

I understand about accidentally editing as an IP, it happens to lots of editors, while some do this intentionally, I know you're not doing this intentionally. One frequent way editors "fix" an accidental ip edit is to make what is called a "dummy" edit (see Help:Dummy edit) and use the edit summary in that edit to credit your former ip edit. Essentially what this means is add or remove an extra space at the end of a line (nothing that changes the text, just add an extra space), and in the edit summary enter something like "Revision as of 17:17, 2 February 2021 is an accidental ip edit by myself".  // Timothy :: talk  06:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

As I posted in the edit, the URL is this: [[17]]. It's almost word for word what you wrote.

Please don't revert edits without fixing the problem or writing in the talk page. This is edit warring, and it merits escalation to the admin talk page. How do you write "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" yet insist on your own new content? It's like there's a different rule for you and everyone else.

Can you please fix that paragraph without doing a revert. And can you please use the talk page instead of doing multiple reverts on another's edits. It's very uncollaborative.

Notice that there are TWO locations of the text about the Ukrainian World Congress. You reverted one edit before I was done fixing the section.

Don't forget WP:NPOV. We're not here to take sides on a particular idea.Stix1776 (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Stix1776 I will ask you again: what page from the source is this a copy/paste from? It does not appear to be a copy/paste. Don't ignore this question.  // Timothy :: talk  08:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

3 Revert Rule

I would like to make you aware that you're breaking WP:3RR. The changes that you are keeping are your own additions from edits on edit 18:08-18:12 on 31 January. These is new content, and you should aim to propose new content through discussion on WP:ONUS

I'm referencing content you are removing. You have ignored repeated requests to stop as the article is being improved. What you are doing is DE, 3rr does not apply.  // Timothy :: talk  05:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Assistance

@Cullen328, El C, CaptainEek, and Mzajac:, I need assistance regarding false accusations of plagiarism here: [18], [19]. This isn't just any false accusation, this is one that could impact a individual's real life. Mzajac I know you're involved in editing the article, not sure if you can help with this.  // Timothy :: talk  10:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Timothy, while I'm not at all familiar with this ANI report, from what I've gleaned, it involves a chapter of Soviet history which I prefer not to comment on or involve myself with. Best, El_C 10:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks El C, I hestitated to ask because I know you stay away from the topic, I thought you might feel comfortable looking into the copyright accusation; I'm sure it will get taken care of. I am sorry for any awkwardness the recent ANIs may have created between us; as you said of me earlier, I am also very fond of you. Best wishes, hope you're well.  // Timothy :: talk  10:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter, MER-C, and Moneytrees:, I saw you are active at the copyright board, any help you can provide on the above would be welcome.  // Timothy :: talk  10:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I see that CaptainEek has commented at ANI and I hope that the matter is resolved. Let me know if problems continue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328 and CaptainEek, the plagiarism accusation raised my blood presure, hopefully that matter is closed. Hope your both well,  // Timothy :: talk  17:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Added a topic about you to NPOV Noticeboard

[[20]]

Sorry, I'm not yet strong with Wikipedia syntax.Stix1776 (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

FRIGB

Hi Intforce, I'm sure you will remember the discussion at Talk:China with FRIGB ("fertile is not a neutral word"). They have been site banned for socking. I do not believe the conversation had any value, so I have closed and archived it without discussion. Please let me know if you think I should reverse this. Hope all is well.  // Timothy :: talk  11:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I just realized I posted this on my talk, not yours; sorry, it's getting late. 11:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Timothy, thanks for the notice. Cheers, intforce (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that the List of media portrayals of bisexuality should be kept

While I said there should a merge (and redirect) and it seems that the page will sadly be deleted, I'm hopeful that at least some of the page can be kept. I quickly moved some of the info to Media portrayals of bisexuality page today and some to other pages... along with moving all the entries to a sandbox for now. So thanks. --Historyday01 (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Add a signature?

In the second discussion section you added to the Far-Left Politics article ("Question for consensus about controversial section added to lead"), it's not apparent that you started the section. Would you mind signing the first message there? (If it's there and I missed it, sorry!) Cheers! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 18:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

BunnyyHop and Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union case request declined

The case request you filed, BunnyyHop and Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, has been declined after a majority of arbitrators voted to decline the case request. You can view a permalink of the case request here. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Slavery

Still seeking a resolution on the lede. I've gathered some evidence for review. Appreciate your thoughts. Lfstevens (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Works on the Gallipoli Campaign, Battle of Perryville and US 1st Infantry Division

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Works on the Gallipoli Campaign, Battle of Perryville and US 1st Infantry Division

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Conditional ask

Hi,

see this. If I will not get a satisfying answer to this ([21]), I am thinking to ask you as an uninvolved editor outlined (though I don't wish to take your time - the admin is having some medical issues and lack of time, and willing to intervene only if formal closure of no consensus is reinforced -, though as the discussion is long, the math is conversely easy, along with the policy interpretations). You may listen the events or even I am open with any preliminary discussion or welcome your comments here, and if you'd take the assignment, I would tell exactly when I would ask for it (I reinforce, dependent of the editor's answer right now). Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC))

• • Reply: Happy to help if I can; I can definitely be neutral, the last dog I had an opinion about was in black & whie and named Lassie :) I didn't dive into it, but I saw Ymblanter mentioned considering an RfC; if some neutral moderation doesn't establish that there is a consensus, a simple neutral binary question might be the way to proceed as a way to clarify any disagrement/agreement about the dicussion outcome. This wouldn't replace the discussion, but viewed alongside it might provide clarity, without rehashing the dispute.  // Timothy :: talk  17:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I as expressed to Ymblanter as well, the possible solution to the issue may be semantical and technical touching template issues, is not something to be arranged necessarily by an RFC, or community vote, but in an expertise manner. At this point the issue is overdiscussed, and per the above mentioned reasons, someone should conclude the discussion reached no consensus. As you see, in my last entry, I asked a binary question, which is ignored...I'll wait a bit more, if I get no answer, will write to you. Cheers!(KIENGIR (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC))

I think enough time passed, my question has been ignored, so I kindly ask you to carefully dig on what I epxlained to Ymblanter, as well the evidence in the talk page, and act accordingly as requested, so the admin may catch-up and go forward. Thank you!(KIENGIR (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC))

Thoughts on AfD

I've got quite a few thoughts on AfD, the main one being "what would a complete outsider to WP make of all this?" I don't want to derail the ANI thread about JPL (as I've said there, he might be annoying but that's it) and if you want to sound off, you can always drop me an email. I'm quite amenable to criticising admins myself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

Administrator changes

TJMSmith

Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
• A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.
• A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
• There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.

Technical news

• When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
• When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
• There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

• By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
• The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

"Sixty-nine states"

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.

---

Can we please finish the discussion on the talk page before adding this to the article. Am I wrong that this term has no consensus? Stix1776 (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

This conversation belongs on the talk page of the article. Other editors need to be able to see the full conversation and if this has to go to ANI, it will be easier to see your pattern if the entire converstation is there.  // Timothy :: talk  03:35, 7 March 2021 (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.

User:Stix1776 is wearing me down (again)

I note that you took action recently re User:Stix1776's edits to Holodomor in modern politics. Can I ask you to take a quick look at the struggle I am having with them on Knepp Wildlandand related article. This user seems to thrive on conflict and it is wearing me down. If you think it is appropriate can you raise a suitable incident for discussion. Many thanks.13:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Reply: Hi PeterEastern, "thrive on conflict and it is wearing me down" describes my impression of this individual's MO. I'm fairly certain another ANI is coming because they will not stop, if not from me from another editor; when it does I would join with your experience. I think the last one was archived without comment to give them a chance to reform (they obviously haven't), but for the immediate future I think patience and perseverance is all that can be done. Since I wasn't aware of the dispute at Knepp Wildland, I can't join in, but if it goes to ANI I certainly will with information from Holodomor in modern politics. Don't give up, you are definitely improving the article. Best wishes from Los Angeles,  // Timothy :: talk  12:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks Timothy. Good advise. I'm simply going to monitor the articles on my watchlist and leave them to either try to provoke me some more or find someone else to provoke (or of course suddenly become a highly productive contributor!). I do monitor their user page so will be aware if there is another incident reported. Thanks for taking the time to respond to my plea for help! PeterEastern (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Uyghur genocide

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. PailSimon (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

PailSimon revert me if you dare. Your false edit warring notice probably earned you a NOTHERE block.  // Timothy :: talk  21:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Question regarding re-adding deleted article

Hey there!

I hope I'm doing this the right way, as I've never ever messaged anyone on wikipedia!

You were involved in the discussion regarding the deletion of an article of mine, so I'm searching you hoping you have much more experience than me about whether a musician can be considered notable or not. This one was the article, and the discussion took place about half a year ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BlackWeald

Since then, I've collected more resources, including ones that hopefully qualify as independent. I want to avoid the situation that I'm re-creating the article and violating the rules again, so I'm kindly asking you to take a look and give your two cents whether you think it can be re-added now or not. I've collected the links in the following document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PBrUMJOJWi0DarV8ZEKE_alWoOixifs89f6_yNQma9A/edit?usp=sharing

Looking forward to hearing from you, but of course, no obligations!

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dukey42 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Reply: Hi Dukey42, I hope you are doing well. First your comment about violating "rules" is incorrect, you have been an excellent contributor, your message here shows what a positive contributor you are for Wikipedia. Since I've been involved in this previously (plus have become a fan) so I would be inappropriate for me to work on this. I did take a brief look at the document and think its worth considering some towards notability. I will ping @Robert McClenon and Timtrent: which work at "Articles for Creation", I think they will be able to give you honest and correct feedback.

Robert and Tim: this editor has been very upfront, positive, and pleaant to work with; I hope you're able to give them feedback and assistance. It's not a mainstream group, but have attracted attention within their community and I think the sources they provide should be considered.

Best wishes to all,  // Timothy :: talk  18:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the ping, TimothyBlue. The best answer I can give is that any new article on BlackWeald ought to be started as Draft:BlackWeald, which will overcome the immediate nomination for speedy deletion as an article created after a closure of an AfD to Delete.

My advice then suggests that, as well as references of impeccable quality (not quantity, but quality) to show that the band passes WP:NMUSIC. Dukey42 please read the pre2cis of the requirements for referencing at WP:42.

I cannot see the deleted article because I am not an admin. To be fair, a brand new draft without reference to the deleted version is likely to bear better fruit. The new draft must be substantially different from the deleted article in order to succeed.

As we know, bands that continue to perform and issue music often become notable over time. It may have been simply too soon in their career or the prior article to survive.

Finally, I counsel that it only be submitted for review at AFC when one is certain that it is in the very best state possible, as well as being substantially different. I want it to have the very best chance of success

I do not guarantee that Robert McClenon's opinion and mine will be identical in thinking. That is neither a good nor a bad thing. It will illustrate the fact that Wikipedia is a consensus based 'place'. The trick is to distill the ares of commonality between those who offer opinions. Fiddle Faddle 18:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I've looked at the list of potential references. one says "blog" so I might avoid that unless it verifies a simple fact, not one susceptible to potential challenge.

I find music drafts very hard to review and usually avoid them as outside my skillset, so please forgive me if I only offer generalist advice. Fiddle Faddle 18:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit to ping @Dukey42:. Apologies.I miss-keyed earlier

I agree with the advice given by User:Timtrent to create Draft:BlackWeald, and to submit it when it is ready. If I am the reviewer, I will look at the numbered list of musical notability criteria. When there is a numbered list of notability criteria, I will take a brief look at the references, but will not look at them in depth, so do not spend an excessive amount of time on the references. (In fact, if you have too many references, it looks like you are reference-bombing the article with low-quality sources.) But I will check whether it satisfies one of the musical notability criteria. If it clearly does, I will almost always accept it. If it doesn't appear to be addressing at least one criterion, I will decline it. If it doesn't fall into either of those categories, I probably will say something to myself and leave it alone. So look at the musical notability criteria. They are what you should be looking at. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I am more likely to review your draft than User:Timtrent, because I have no special expertise in musical drafts or sports drafts either, but I just use the criteria as a check list. So be sure that a reviewer can tell what criterion your band qualifies under. (Bands are a little harder than albums. Albums are just a matter of charting. But with bands, if their albums have charted, that makes a difference.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

One more thing. I cannot see the deleted article either, but it is a good idea to have it handy and compare your draft to it, because an admin may compare the new article with the old article, or a reviewer may request an email copy of the deleted article. So be sure that the draft has better stuff than the deleted article. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you TimothyBlue, Timtrent, Robert McClenon !

I've created the draft page, and submitted it for review. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BlackWeald

I hope the added sources and the notability are inline the guideline. Many thanks for your help! Cheers! Dukey42 (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Dukey42, I think we all wish the draft the very best of luck. Please remember that submission is not an event that prevents your continued enhancement of the draft. I have not yet looked at it (out of curiosity because I am not going to review it), and your references may be excellent, and it may pass WP:NMUSIC - something that always defeats me unless crystal clear, a blind spot - but you may continue to edit happily while awaiting review Fiddle Faddle 11:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Far left politics

@AxderWraith Crimson, KIENGIR, FreedomGonzo, UncleBubba, The Four Deuces, JGabbard, Suppcuzz, and Davide King::

Re: Talk:Far-left politics:

I have three questions about the two discussions I have opened to form an explicit consensus on an open issue, and one I think will be an issue.

1. I BOLDly closed (prematurely) related discussions to focus on the explicit questions I asked about the issues. If anyone wishes me to reopen them I will, just state so.
2. Did I word the proposal/question in a neutral and clear fashion so that there will be no doubt about what the consensus affirms? Since the questions appeared straightforward I went ahead withoutt a quesion review or a formal RfC.
3. I will remain neutral to facilitate, but I think the discussion will end in both being appropriately removed. When the discussions are ready to close is Robert McClenon from DR an acceptable editor to ask to close? This isn't an RfC, but it should have a non-involved close.

 // Timothy :: talk  21:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

1. Noted

2. Yes

3. Yes(KIENGIR (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC))

1. Alright

2. Yes

3. DittoAxderWraith Crimson (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

1) OK. 2) Yes. 3) Yes. Nice work, BTW. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 18:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Just a note...

...to make sure you know that I'm not an admin. I stick my nose into a lot of things, and maybe some people think of me as a wannabe, but I'm not an admin, and never want to be one (never did). Anyway, just wanted to make that clear, just in case. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken didn't think so, I simply respect your opinion and experience, so when you are involved its a good check on my inexperience; you also express yourself more candidly than an admin normally will, which is appriciated.  // Timothy :: talk  04:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• OK, great. It's nice to be appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

False Consciousness

The article is making a statement of fact, claiming that sociologists use the term "false consciousness" to describe certain members of the "proletariat". There is no supporting evidence to suggest the science of sociology has adopted this language, and have begun applying it in practice.

The terms "false consciousness" originates from Karl Marx, and is cited by various marxists. Not sociologists. To claim this is a term used by sociologists in general is absolutely a blatant lie, and you will need to provide sources to prove this fact.

However, anyone can search the term "false conciousness" on google and plainly see its deep rooted connection with marxism, and its frequent use amongst marxists. It is absolutely fair to attribute the use of this term to marxists. You will not find this term paired with articles about sociology. It is almost exclusively in the domain of marxism and socialism.

The article itself is "part of a series on marxism". How is it taboo or questionable to suggest marxists are using this term? This term originates from Karl Marx himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.72.201.225 (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Doubt

Good morning.. Sir, are we able to remove or delete a discussion from our user talk page? Wikiaddictcommo (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Uyghur Genocide article

Please refrain from reverting any of my changes on the Uyghur Genocide article. If you disagree with any edits, please open a discussion and explain your reasoning on the article's talk page.AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

TimothyBlue's censorship to me publishing the truth and correcting some anti-communisti, anti-Russian and lies and half-truths about real historical events

      This guy must be a real fascist. He immediately denied my correcting the article in here about 1918 "Wars of freedom" of Lithuania. It was just one little thing that I edited which was a profound lie and produced hatred towards USSR and support for Nazis in WWII and Germany in WWI. The sheer time, literally in seconds that I was censored and the non-explanation that I received from his censorship of the truth, tells a tone of how fascists are hiding behind the "rainbow flag" and other mind-obstructing "color revolutions". A shame such people don't let free and open minds with love towards people tell the truth  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AchAttack (talk • contribs) 21:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC) 

AchAttack, The proper place to discuss the above is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, otherwise please don't bother me with this.  // Timothy :: talk  22:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

You forgot to sign...

your post here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

Let's try this

Timothy, I do not really understand why you have gotten so upset with me. I do not want you to retire from Wikipedia. I was not being antagonistic with you. I was not trying to be dismissive or anything of the sort with you. I honestly, very honestly, welcome your participation at that talk page and in the topic area. I have no problem with you whatsoever. But you have to realize that just because you are involved in a discussion that this does not mean that your favored path forward has to be adopted. I felt, and feel, a month of retaining potentially incorrect material in an encyclopedia article is too much. I honestly feel a day is too much. But I compromised and said I'll wait a week. And here's the thing. I am also looking for sources that support the material. I am not simply trying to remove things I dislike. But in a heated topic area our standards for content have to be more stringent, not less. We should have better sources, we should have rock solid support from those sources. There should not be any dispute that the cited source supports the material in question. And when it does not that material should be removed. It should never have been added to begin with. I also do not understand why you feel that my continuing to go through an article to identify deficiencies in the sourcing to be a bad thing. That isnt just there as a placecholder for things to remove later, it a. alerts a reader that what they are reading may not be accurate, and b. prompts any editor to try to find a source for it. And yes, I open a section for each topic. Asking me not to do that is basically telling me I should stop trying to improve an article. I hope you will reconsider leaving, and I will try to redouble my efforts to be more collaborative. But that does not mean that I just accept your views on substance or process. nableezy - 02:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Another way of looking at things

Thanks for your note, and no need to apologize. Now that you recognize the problems in the PIA area, I would actually encourage you to remain. We need level-headed editors like yourself. The only way someone who's being disruptive "wins" is when you walk away. I hope you'll reconsider. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Good luck

Sincerely. You are probably best off out of it, tbh.Selfstudier (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Probationary Mentorship

Hello, I know you may be busy however I am wondering when you'd like to begin the Probationary Mentorship? SoyokoAnis - talk 18:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

El C, what do you think about proceeding? Thanks,  // Timothy :: talk  19:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

FYI

Here and here Selfstudier (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Closing discussions

Hey! I just wanted to pop by and let you know that you don't have to manually close and archive informal discussions (like this one), such as when the discussion stopped, and editors have already assessed the consensus and moved on with their work (WP:CLOSE).

At Talk:Uyghur genocide, for instance, there is auto-archiving by a bot for discussions once they are inactive for 60 days :) If the talk sections start to build up for a heavily-edited topic like that one, we could just tweak the auto-archiving settings to be more frequent (e.g. 30 days). — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

MarkH21, Thank you for pointing that out. I assumed it wasn't because I assumed it would be set for 30days. I was even going to try and setup archiving (never done it but I know there is a template to set it up). I am glad things appear to have calmed down in the discussion. Hope you're well,  // Timothy :: talk  04:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

If you want to add auto-archiving to a talk page, you can directly copy the code listed at WP:ARCHIVING#Sequentially numbered archives (there are two bots that both do the job, with very slight differences mentioned on the page). Thanks for your help in clearing clutter and I hope you are well too! — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Predictable

Well, that was an afterthought and hypothetical. Everything there rides on that even (which, as I hope you recognize, suggests a nuance of defeated expectations). On the several occasions I have seen you, I've noticed an admirable equilibrium and fairness. A trait several admins I admire excel in, and yet they often allow their striving for judicial impartiality to get the better of the evidence, and I, admittedly subjectively, transferred this impression to the tone of your assessment. I've not seen you round that topic area (that itself is a sign of concern for maintaining one's sanity) and therefore I was referring to you directly in remarking that some judgments there were made by people unfamiliar either with the I/P wiki area or the extremely intricate and complex history of that area itself. Admins themselves generally decide the way you do - in a conflict of reports, the tendency is to assign blame, with varying proportion (apart from cases of egregious abuse) to both parties precisely because judging anything in this area one way or another stirs ripples of outrage or distress, on or offwiki. So your 'on the one hand, on the other' approach rang in my ear as 'predictable' for the kind of editor you (on scant familiarity as I admit) appear to be - deliberative and fair (why haven't you applied for adminship?) to the point of, at critical moments, not coming down bluntly which, in this case, I think is required. Editing with WE is a nightmare because, whether intended or not, that editor does not appear to grasp (this has been repeatedly shown across numerous pages) what specific policies entail, and of course, knows nothing of the topic area. Sorry if my remark looked unfair. I am answering here because I try to avoid joining in the creation of talkpage longueurs on a disciplinary page. In my view that often works out to be part of a meta-strategy to make clear assessment of the situation unreadable.Nishidani (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Nishidani, Thank you. Don't worry about Nableezy, they will emerge from this. Wikieditor however is close to a site ban (which they overwhelmingly deserve).  // Timothy :: talk  19:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Whatever the result, best regards. Nishidani (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I was really sad to see you leave, and I have a lot of respect for Nableezy's contributions. If they had not WP:BLUDGEON the thread themselves as well, and engaged in very heated discussions, then the meta-strategy of making ANI unreadable would hold more merit. Shushugah (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Shushugah, Don't get me wrong, Nableezy was way out of line and I intend to write to them about it; I know they were battlegrounding, have a problem with NPOV, and the PAs speak for themselves. But after seeing the discussion unfold and reading through the dispute a few times, I believe Wikieditor is actually at the root of the problem.  // Timothy :: talk  23:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear Timothy, I woke up and read the fallout, and came away with a feeling of regret, for perhaps spurring you to help out in an area that by its nature tends to wear out nerves (Clinically I've been told that I have a dangerously high pain threshold, which perhaps explains why I've lasted 15 years in that cesspit). This on reading also that you'd had a few health problems some years ago, and that in a sense wiki was therapeutic. So, I feel some responsibility for what has proven a very disagreeable experience for you, after the tremendous work on things that are really important (Russian history etc). Keep well, indeed, may you live a долгой и счастливой жизнью, such that even wiki may continue to benefit from your contributions. Best regards. Nishidani (talk) 08:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello and good faith

Hello fellow Californian. I just want to say that, as I read on your page, I am assuming good faith. I realize that you feel strongly about deletion of pages, so I am not taking it personally or anything. I just wanted to say two thing: 1) please also assume good faith. I have dedicated a lot of time and long research to build those pages, and while I understand that it is part of your job as an editor to scrutinize me, please understand that I also come from a place of good faith. I wish to see my hard work validated and not annulled, hence why I might come off strongly 2) I would never canvass, and that is not something I did. I simply care a lot about the work I did, so I reach out to people that I know can help me improve the sourcing of the pages in order to make sure all editors can see it passes GNG. Again, this comes from a place of passion. As you yourself state on your own page, you feel strongly about certain topics, and so do I. I hope there is common understanding. Eccekevin (talk) 10:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Reply: Eccekevin, what you are doing is canvasing. The reason I did not go immediately to ANI is that I was assuming you made an unfortunate mistake. I feel you should ask the individuals you have canvassed to ignore you message. Per WP:VOTESTACK, "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion.". This is the same as if I was posting to members that had an interest in USC because they might have an interest in Notre Dame. Again I do not wish to go to ANI and am taking steps to avoid having to, but this cannot continue.  // Timothy :: talk  10:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

  But this is not the case. Since the articles are accused of not being sourced well enough, I am trying to remedy that. Never did I tell them to vote or anything, or even discuss. There are editors that have worked on these or related pages before, hence I reached out for help improving the page. I am assuming good faith, and I understand your point of view, but you should assume good faith too. Eccekevin (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

those are detailed reviews!

Wanted to say that your review on the AFDs are detailed! I'm going to link to them once the AFD is done as an example of how a review of sources should be :-) Thanks! Vikram Vincent 13:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

You're very welcome :) Nice to be on the same page for a change and hopefully a new chapter. Those were all good noms; schools and buildings have been an area I've tried to focus on at AfD. You can create those source tables with any spreadsheet and then convert them to a wikipedia table with this tool (says Excel2wiki, but works with any spreadsheet, I use Libre Office). I think the closers like them and helps them and others ignore nonsense votes. Best wishes from Los Angeles,  // Timothy :: talk  15:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

very cool! Haha that was a heated engagement best left on the field. Now we sip on tea :-) A while ago I ran a series of courses for pre-service teachers on how to create content on the wiki. The idea was to work on their thinking skills, writing skills and collaboration. Here is one outcome. Your approach for wiki purpose is simple and replicable. Thanks again :-) Vikram Vincent 16:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Transylvanian Hound

Hi,

maybe you forgot, could you please care about the issue, Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC))

Timothy,

you I don't see an e-mail option or other way to reach, what will, happen, will you return to finish what you started? Would be good...Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC))

Thank-you for your attempt to sort this out, however the Wikipedia Community has spoken and this is now off your to-do-list. Regards, William Harris (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

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

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

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

Happy New Year!

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

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

Precious

blue bibliographies

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

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

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

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

A cheeseburger for you!

Thanks for keeping an eye on List of districts and neighborhoods in Los Angeles! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you :) I wish I could go for a late night visit to InNOut or Tommy's :) Never thought I would pine for standing in line at Pinks Hot Dogs for an hour after a show. Anything normal.

I found some small neighborhoods with councils that are recognized by the city to work on articles for. They are small but legally recognized.

Best wishes, hope you are well.  // Timothy :: talk  10:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy St Patrick's Day 🍻

Regards from Berlin, and wish you a relaxing and healthy day! Thank you for your insightful comments all around! Shushugah (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

A Barn star of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Hey you have helped so much on Wikipedia, creating great articles and helping around immensely, writing well, you are great contributor in all things and you put a lot of effort into things. I just wanted to say thanks and say your work here is invaluable. Des Vallee (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Los Angeles is a wonderful place

Peacemukami (talk) 08:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Administrator changes

Firefly • Sdrqaz

Ad Orientem

Geschichte • Ryan Postlethwaite • Sabine's Sunbird • Wassupwestcoast

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open proposing a change to the minimum activity requirements for administrators.

Technical news

• Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
• When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Opening of proceedings has been updated to reflect current practice following a motion.
• A arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has been closed.
• A arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been opened.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines has closed, and the results were that 56.98% of voters supported the guidelines. The results of this vote mean the Wikimedia Foundation Board will now review the guidelines.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, April 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on military logistics and rebuilding Nagasaki

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

Administrator changes

Colin M

David.Monniaux • Fribbler • Grue • Kpjas • West.andrew.g

CheckUser changes

Ks0stm

Oversighter changes

Ks0stm

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
• Following a discussion on the bureaucrat's noticeboard, a change has been made to the bureaucrats inactivity policy.

Technical news

• The ability to undelete the associated talk page when undeleting a page has been added. This was the 11th wish of the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey.
• A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.

Arbitration

• Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)