User talk:Jim Grisham

Introduction from the user
Please place any comments my edits or other Wikipedia activity under the public discussion header below. Thanks!

- Jim Grisham (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft articles
These articles are in Wikipedia ‘draftspace’ for one reason or another; feel free to add to them and promote to active articles once they are sufficiently referenced:


 * 1) Draft:Lenovo OneLink (talk)
 * 2) * Draft for: Lenovo OneLink (talk | redirect | disambiguation)
 * 3) * Related: OneLink (talk | redirect | disambiguation)
 * 4) * January 2022 deletion discussion: Articles for deletion/Lenovo OneLink
 * 5) * Wayback Machine: ( Earlist / All / Latest )
 * 6) Draft:Lenovo OneLink+ (talk)
 * 7) * Draft for: Lenovo OneLink+ (talk | redirect | disambiguation)
 * 8) * Related: OneLink+ (talk | redirect | disambiguation)
 * 9) * January 2022 deletion discussion: Articles for deletion/Lenovo OneLink+
 * 10) * Wayback Machine: ( Earlist / All / Latest )

Testing template to replace the manual wikicode above:

Policies and discussions regarding the Wikipedia ‘Draftspace’:

 * 1) Official Policies
 * 2) Help pages
 * 3) Wikipedia talk discussions
 * 4) Wikipedia talk:Drafts
 * 5) DRAFTIFY
 * 6) Other discussions
 * 7) My discussions
 * 8) How to create a ‘stub’-type article so that the community can develop a topic over time? (archived)
 * 9) * User comments later on this page - January 2022
 * 10) *# Chiming in about Drafts
 * 11) Proposed solutions (by me and others; both now and historically)
 * 12) Current
 * 13) Literature review (at Wikipedia)
 * 14) Literature review (non-Wikipedia analogues and moderation examples/research)
 * 15) Notes
 * 16) General
 * 17) Origin
 * 18) * Established in 2013
 * 19) Trade-offs with the current system
 * 20) Readers
 * 21) Advantages
 * 22) Disadvantages
 * 23) Content contributors / editors (new or experienced)
 * 24) Advantages
 * 25) Disadvantages
 * 26) Admins (i.e. editors modifying pages by deleting, moving, re-locating, etc.)
 * 27) Advantages
 * 28) Disadvantages
 * 29) Questions
 * 30) Why expire drafts?
 * 31) * If an article is obviously spam or a mistake, delete.
 * 32) * If not, what is the harm in keeping?
 * 33) ** Tools can be modified to ignore old drafts, while allowing the content to be discovered by future editors or readers
 * 34) User can request draftification be reversed?
 * 35) * I only discovered this after many hours of discussion and reading on the topic, when I came across 3.1 above.
 * 36) Why isn’t discussion required first, especially with the existence of the auto-deletion regime?
 * 37) * I didn’t realize this happened for weeks or more after article creation.
 * 38) Random thoughts
 * 39) Some things are so obvious contemporaneously that they are rarely documented in secondary sources
 * 40) e.g. ‘Spinning beachball of death’ was as obvious to a NeXT Cube user in 1997 as the ‘watch cursor’ was to a Windows 95 user in 1997.
 * 41) * When working on the article, it was nearly possible to find any published references to the fact that the cursor was clearly an animation of the rainbow-colored spinning [Magneto-optical] disk that the computer ran its operating system off of.
 * 42) * The visual styling slowly evolved over 20 years (and each revision was so very minor as to not warrant mention in most published books), but without that intermediate evidence you can’t fault people from thinking it must represent a beachball instead of a seeking disk drive.
 * 43) Imagine how little written evidence there might be describing, in detail, the user operation of a rotary-dial telephone.
 * 44) * It was obvious to nearly everyone born from 1895 to about 1995, and will likely be completely foreign to middle-aged Wikipedia editors in the year 2050.
 * 45) The dearth of extant photographs of segregation signs in the southern United States from the mid-20th century.
 * 46) * They were so ubiquitous that most people would never even consider wasting limited film exposures documenting one as the primary subject of a photograph
 * 47) I once came across an obscure (but notable) article that would likely have otherwise been deleted due inactivity if it had been reverted to a draft or merged out of existence.
 * 48) Other notes
 * 49) Glossary (and other Wikipedia docs)
 * 50) Page moves
 * 51) AfD Articles for Deletion
 * 52) NPP New pages patrol
 * 53) RfD
 * 54) References and notability
 * 55) Likely to be challenged
 * 56) Wikipedia is not…
 * 57) … a bureaucracy
 * 58) Miscellaneous
 * 59) ATI-D wp:ATI-D
 * 60) Articles
 * 61) 2008 - The Economist
 * 62) * https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2008/03/08/the-battle-for-wikipedias-soul

To do list (public)
(reserved for future use)

TeaHouse Threads
(significant threads that I’ve started or replied to at Teahouse):


 * 2022
 * January
 * How to create a ‘stub’-type article so that the community can develop a topic over time? (archived)
 * Related discussion below 👇
 * Related discussion below 👇

Other conversations
(reserved for future use)

Bookmarked articles or ‘Talk’ pages
(reserved for future use)

Derailment diagram
Nice work on the diagram. I would suggest removing the background and replacing it with a simple image so that it can be used freely at full resolution.  Sounder Bruce  22:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you! (I may in the future, but I'm currently exhausted from spending 2 hours researching how to properly document the licensing clearance -- I'd likely create it as a vector image, instead of just | drawing on an iPad at 4am.)
 * I did release the annotations as CC-BY so anyone else could also re-create it ... details such as signal towers, the grade crossing, and other roadside features would also have to be drawn to give full context (so that the accuracy of the car layout is verifyable). Jim Grisham (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Optical signal connectors has been nominated for discussion
Category:Optical signal connectors has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Srleffler (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Category:Optical connectors has been nominated for discussion
Category:Optical connectors has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Srleffler (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Category:Optical wireless communication has been nominated for discussion
Category:Optical wireless communication has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Srleffler (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Lenovo OneLink moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Lenovo OneLink, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Lenovo OneLink+ moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Lenovo OneLink+, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of MagSafe (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on MagSafe (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
 * disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
 * is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Important Notice
–– FormalDude  talk 05:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lenovo OneLink (December 31)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Theroadislong were:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lenovo OneLink and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Lenovo OneLink, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Lenovo_OneLink Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theroadislong&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Lenovo_OneLink reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lenovo OneLink+ (December 31)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Theroadislong were:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lenovo OneLink+ and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Lenovo OneLink+, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Lenovo_OneLink%2B Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theroadislong&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Lenovo_OneLink%2B reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 09:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Chiming in about Drafts
(re: How to create a ‘stub’-type article so that the community can develop a topic over time?)

If an article doesn't have three secondary/independent links, it's likely too WP:TOOSOON for an article, and if it does, any editor can simply link to them/create a short/stub article and publish it, without worrying too much about it, heck even skip adding the three links but note them so that in case it's marked for deletion, someone else can easily raise those three links. I don't have a strong opinion on whether 6 months of inactivity is too short or not, but the requirement of 3 links before even starting an article seems reasonable, even for one person. Not necessarily an issue, but another task then, is for people to go through the thousands of neglected drafts, because they're poorly linked/named/hard to find. Tagging it with the appropriate WikiProjects WP:CATEGORY and or wikilinks is one remedy against that. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thoughts - and you’re right.


 * Edit: while it may be WP:TOOSOON for some popular topics or events, it could also be quickly become WP:TOOLATE for others, as reference links rot and people with domain knowledge pass away, retire, or change careers or interests. I suspect there is countless knowledge that would be otherwise notable to history if it hadn’t been forgotten or misplaced.
 * Much has changed as Wikipedia has grown and become mainstream - the shift to more ‘professional’ volunteer editors is a good thing for both data quality and consistency, but I do worry that the barriers to entry for ‘regular folks’ to contribute more than simple copyedits has grown substantially since I first opened my account *checks notes* 15(!!) years ago. (I’ve probably spent at least several hundred hours on the fewer than 400 contributions submitted over that time period.)
 * (Years ago it seemed people were more likely to flag, or even search out references themselves, for un-sourced info that was added in good faith. Only as a last resort might the content be deleted, but even then it was good manners to move that content to the `Talk` page. With thousand-entry edit histories, it would seem the odds of discovering deleted article content would be _much_ worse today. A #TragedyoftheCommons, I guess. If a poor-quality page bothered someone, the beauty of Wikipedia was that they could improve it themselves. If an obscure and un-noticed ‘stub’ article with zero references sat there for years with nary a visitor, little harm was likely to result.)
 * Much has changed as Wikipedia has grown and become mainstream - the shift to more ‘professional’ volunteer editors is a good thing for both data quality and consistency, but I do worry that the barriers to entry for ‘regular folks’ to contribute more than simple copyedits has grown substantially since I first opened my account *checks notes* 15(!!) years ago. (I’ve probably spent at least several hundred hours on the fewer than 400 contributions submitted over that time period.)
 * (Years ago it seemed people were more likely to flag, or even search out references themselves, for un-sourced info that was added in good faith. Only as a last resort might the content be deleted, but even then it was good manners to move that content to the `Talk` page. With thousand-entry edit histories, it would seem the odds of discovering deleted article content would be _much_ worse today. A #TragedyoftheCommons, I guess. If a poor-quality page bothered someone, the beauty of Wikipedia was that they could improve it themselves. If an obscure and un-noticed ‘stub’ article with zero references sat there for years with nary a visitor, little harm was likely to result.)
 * (Years ago it seemed people were more likely to flag, or even search out references themselves, for un-sourced info that was added in good faith. Only as a last resort might the content be deleted, but even then it was good manners to move that content to the `Talk` page. With thousand-entry edit histories, it would seem the odds of discovering deleted article content would be _much_ worse today. A #TragedyoftheCommons, I guess. If a poor-quality page bothered someone, the beauty of Wikipedia was that they could improve it themselves. If an obscure and un-noticed ‘stub’ article with zero references sat there for years with nary a visitor, little harm was likely to result.)


 * (I guess that somewhat tracks with the demise of amateur blogging over the past decade and the increase of people becoming passive consumers of information, outside of transitory social media posts.) #OldManYellsAtCloud


 * I do have intentions of suggesting to someone in the future that deleted drafts might be automatically listed somewhere (such as on the ‘This article does not exist / New article’ page, the associated talk page, or when a site-wide search doesn’t return any other results for a query).
 * - These pages would be similar to a ‘clipping file’ at a physical library; a file folder of random notes sharing only a common name. ‘Research notes’, for an unknown future person who decides to assemble an actual article at some future date.
 * That’s the rub, I guess… if someone has a unsourced fact or potentially useful reference on an existing article, but not the time or technical confidence to edit the article itself (even remembering how to manually create ‘cite’ templates on an iPad in raw wikitext is a pain when one only does it every few months!), they can at least add it to the article’s Talk page with minimal trouble.
 * - There’s no obvious (to the passing well-meaning and knowledge-possessing, but busy, netizen) analogue to such Talk pages for topics that don’t yet have a corresponding article. How much knowledge are we missing? Perhaps that’s just the price of fame and success…
 * Jim Grisham (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s the rub, I guess… if someone has a unsourced fact or potentially useful reference on an existing article, but not the time or technical confidence to edit the article itself (even remembering how to manually create ‘cite’ templates on an iPad in raw wikitext is a pain when one only does it every few months!), they can at least add it to the article’s Talk page with minimal trouble.
 * - There’s no obvious (to the passing well-meaning and knowledge-possessing, but busy, netizen) analogue to such Talk pages for topics that don’t yet have a corresponding article. How much knowledge are we missing? Perhaps that’s just the price of fame and success…
 * Jim Grisham (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Jim Grisham (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Jim Grisham (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

PROD objection
Any reason why you objected to this PROD ? JBchrch  talk  14:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, Jim Grisham,
 * You've de-PROD'd so many articles now, I can only assume you will spend some time improving them all? Liz Read! Talk! 14:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I found / added citations to (or otherwise cleaned up) a few.
 * (for context, I probably reviewed many dozens of ‘PROD’ articles and only thought a small fraction might deserve more eyeballs)
 * Additionally, I think at least one or two others were ultimately saved by others due to the increased attention afforded by the AfD time period.
 * I meant no disrespect, apologies if it came across that way. Jim Grisham (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason you're objecting to uncontroversial PRODs? -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  00:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I clearly misunderstood the guidance… I thought several (out of the perhaps a hundred or so) that I read deserved wider visibility, especially for articles (but not in your specific one) that have existing for a long time (since few regular / non-admin users may have had opportunity to see the proposed deletion template on low-traffic pages). Jim Grisham (talk) 08:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * While you're not required to provide a reason for challenging a PROD, communication is required. If you don't begin to respond, this may need to be a larger conversation. Further, I question whether Come at me, bro. is appropriate for a collegial environment. Star   Mississippi  14:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I must have misread the guidance and didn’t realize that explanation was necessary.
 * (Also, regarding your objection; you’re probably right… I meant that as a playful / disarming thing, not expecting anyone to ever actually use this ‘Talk’ page, as it hadn’t existed for … maybe a decade?) Jim Grisham (talk) 08:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I don’t remember the exact reason, but my shaky recollection (very late at night now) is that I thought someone who saw it in a subsequent AfD discussion may know of somewhere else that content could be ‘merged’ into another article.
 * In other words, I wasn’t objecting to deletion per se, just to ‘speedy deletion’, and I surely did not mean to pass any judgment upon you for nominating it.
 * (Then again, I’m a dinosaur from an era where only offensive / spam / off-topic content was deleted without discussion and everything else was presumed to have purpose, or at least promise—left for a bit to incubate or moved / merged to another article … or at the very least to the ‘Talk’ page of another related article.)
 * P.S. Apologies for the delayed response; I’ve been mostly offline recovering from C19 for the past two weeks.
 * Jim Grisham (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Smartnet
It looks like the nomination template broke the ping, so just making sure you're aware that this is now at AfD. Have a great day Star   Mississippi  14:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the note! (Just saw it today, sadly too late anyway; c’est la vie) Jim Grisham (talk) 08:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Lenovo OneLink for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lenovo OneLink 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 Articles for deletion/Lenovo OneLink 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. Rockstone Send me a message!  22:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Lenovo OneLink+ for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lenovo OneLink+ 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 Articles for deletion/Lenovo OneLink+ 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. Rockstone Send me a message!  00:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Warning
Per the history of the above two articles (courtesy @Rockstone35) as well as the PROD removals discussed above, it is clear that you do not yet understand the notability required for Wikipedia content. Please edit with a little more caution and suggest you not revert AFC reviewers (courtesy @Theroadislong @Usedtobecool) until you gain more experience, lest this conversation have to progress further. Thank you Star   Mississippi  00:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I have read and re-read the notability article several times (and again just now, so I’ll circle back around in a few months and try to understand it again).
 * FWIW, I only discovered those two ‘AfD’ discussions today, after they were closed.
 * In this particular case, I wasn’t sure two separate articles (and perhaps not even one) would ultimately be necessary, but I figured it would be easier to combine two articles into sections of one than trying to break up one into two.
 * I attempted to format the information (and references) that I had collected in a way (including spending, probably way too much, time figuring out how to format the tables and infoboxes, as well as reading policies and other Wikipedia documentation) that might be useful to someone else who might find a more appropriate article into which to merge them (and that might be a good start for redirect pages if/when the content was moved).
 * (Actually, I quite possibly would have done that myself if I hadn’t been down with C19 most of January - also, I’m not sure I fully realized that the modern Wikipedia moved so much more quickly than in the past.)
 * To everyone else who commented above, apologies if I offended anyone… I will attempt to read (and respond, if appropriate) everything in a month or two, when I can do so from an actual computer and not just a phone/iPad. Jim Grisham (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

(untitled posting)
Hello Jim Grisham! I noticed that one of the articles I had draftified a while ago was deleted, and the other is about to be. And I looked at the Teahouse discussion you had initiated. So, I thought I would leave you my thoughts. I hope it helps.At least as of now, you can absolutely contribute a tiny bit when starting an article and leave it for others to add in 2 days or 20 years. The issue is that Wikipedia is explicitly NOT FOR EVERYTHING. One of the ways Wikipedia is selective is it chooses to have standalone articles on only those topics which meet the criteria at WP:GNG. So, you could write a very short stub but add three references meeting the criteria there and the article would be approved and left for further improvement however long that takes. But when new articles are created without providing enough sources to meet WP:GNG, the burden gets shifted onto the reviewers to make sure the topic is notable enough for a standalone article. And there is no guarantee that reviewers will always get it right. As the original author, the responsibility is increasingly on you to demonstrate at the outset that any new article that you add to the encyclopaedia is on a notable topic. I would recommend that you start an article only once you have found enough sources to meet WP:GNG or to demonstrate one of the WP:SNGs. Then, you can create a short article including those sources. You could optionally leave a note on the talk page explaining which of the sources demonstrate notability based on which criteria.Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Apologies; I thought I had provided several references initially (and realize now that in my attempt to write professional copy it may have sounded like I was a corporate shill); added more secondary sources later, and I also don’t think I realized how much the burdens had shifted (and timelines shrunk) over the past decade and a half.
 * (I was even surprised to discover that there were now such a thing as official ‘reviewers’!)
 * (Not blaming you at all here, btw, but the hours I might have been able to spend improving those articles were instead trying to read policy and process documents - it’s quite frustrating for a casual contributor!)
 * FWIW, I don’t personally care* if that article exists (alone, or as part of a larger article), I was just trying to let others benefit from the information I had gathered.
 * (The article topic, after all, describes a physical thing, just like a Lightning port; this one is likely used by thousands?/millions? of people each day - I didn’t know it had a name either, until I needed to.)
 * (* I mean, of course it sucks to have your hard work deleted, but I’ll get over that by tomorrow. 🙂)
 * Thank you for taking the time to comment!
 * Jim Grisham (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lightweight markup language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CMS. 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) 09:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Fixed! Thank you, @DPL bot. Jim Grisham (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

thanks
I often retitle problematic talk page section headings, and never knew about those templates. Thanks to your edit it popped on my watchlist, and I learned something I want to know. Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Annotated view of 2021-09-24 Amtrak train derailment&#59; revision 1.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Annotated view of 2021-09-24 Amtrak train derailment&. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)