User talk:Octoberwoodland/Archive 1

Hello
Thank you for posting the. I should have done that awhile ago, I just haven't been involved in COI issues in so long that I forgot about that. I don't know if you have someone specific in mind, but if you do and you have pretty good reason to believe that there is a COI, should something be posted on their user page.

I haven't seen edits for awhile from the people I thought that this might have applied to - and by the current voting, two of us would have voted differently four or so days ago - so I cannot tell that way. But, I'm guessing you have more experience on other DT pages. Oh, I just thought of someone - I am about to revert their edit.

Just thought I'd throw it out there. No move needs to take place right now - having the COI edit notice was good for now.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, based on how passionate some of the editors are on that page it seemed appropriate to make folks stop and think about the nature of their edits. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

LDS
Hi. Just seen that you're LDS. I wouldn't mind creating more article about the church if you're interested.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I stay away from editing articles about the church -- it would be COI for me to edit those type of articles . Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Carrie Fisher
I understand the LDS has some... not mainstream... opinions about underwear, but someone mentioning their bra is not "lewd." Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess it's based on the viewpoint of whomever is reading it. The way that quote was worded in its first few versions was weird, off the wall, and out of place.  It has since gotten corrected.  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

NPOV vote
I think your vote may have been inconsistent with what you wanted... by voting OPPOSE, you are saying that WP articles should be allowed to repeat the unverified allegations in the document without restriction. By voting SUPPORT, you would be saying that WP articles should be prohibited from repeating the unverified allegations. I could be wrong but that's how I'm reading it. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)  (talk)  (contribs) 18:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll fix that. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Sean Spicer
The first Official White House press conference is happening right now Jan 23, 2017. The briefing on Jan 21, 2017 was not the first official briefing. It was really a statement with no questions asked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cagura (talk • contribs) 19:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. Well what do we call the briefing on January 21, 2017?  Be careful with reverts  on that article, it's under 1RR.  Also you need to self revert and take your changes to the article talk page.  Challenged edits may NOT be placed back into the article without discussion.  Thanks.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The reference to the January 21, 2017 briefing even states that Spicer mentions that this is not the first official press conference. Possibly have it state, "Ahead of the first official White House press briefing on Monday January 23, 2017, Spicer had a press statement on January 21, 2017 in which no questions were taken from the press."

What do you think? (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds great. Feel free to update that article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

your challenging everything even stuff that has been widely reported. are you looking for a badge? Thwackings (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, just trying to make the article more neutral -- not having much luck at that. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Darweesh v. Trump
Darweesh v. Trump hasn't been decided. Don't want to undo someone's edit and get accused of getting in an edit war. GeekInParadise (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * go ahead and correct it if you want. :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

"company was previously somewhat notable 20 years ago"
In Articles for deletion/USWeb you wrote "company was previously somewhat notable 20 years ago". Per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." -- DanielPenfield (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What was notable 20 years ago is not necessarily what it notable today. Notability is relative to whomever is reading the article.  This company has no good secondary sources for that article, and what sources there are are advertisement for a dissolved defunct company. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent immigration lawsuits
Greetings Octoberwoodland! Thanks for creating articles on the various lawsuits related to the recent US immigration restrictions. However there is a lot of duplicate contents across those articles and they all share the same pattern: Executive Order was signed, some people were caught en route, detained, temporarily released, suing for relief. I believe it would be more informative for readers to see one page covering all such lawsuits, in the spirit of WP:PAGEDECIDE, with a general explanation of the context and mechanism, then a short paragraph for each lawsuit. Of course, current article titles such as Aziz v. Trump would redirect to the appropriate section on that page. What do you think? — JFG talk 06:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Suggested titles: Lawsuits against the immigration policy of Donald Trump or Lawsuits against the immigration restrictions by Donald Trump. And that would provide a good destination page for any further cases, which are sure to emerge. — JFG talk 06:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Be my guest, other editors have also expressed an interest in combining them. Jump in if you like. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like you've done it, great job! — JFG talk 10:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Having fun! Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is so much fun, you might want to jump into this discussion about List of lawsuits involving Donald Trump and Legal affairs of Donald Trump on my talk page. — JFG talk 02:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Marijuana policy of the Donald Trump administration copyright problem
Some of the material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from copyright web pages elsewhere online. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed and paraphrased. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought that quotes (i.e. "Quoted statements from the source") from the press were ok? All of that you removed were quotes from these folks.  I will be more careful in the future.  Thanks for fixing this. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Quoted statements in quotation marks were not removed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see, another editor came along and made some fixes as well. I am sorry about this, I will try to do better in the future. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Cannabis/collab invite
Saw your article on Trump marijuana policy; if you're not already familiar, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cannabis is a place to discuss cannabis articles with a body of editors, and we're having a 420 Collaboration in April this year if you're interested in using that to build or expand articles: WikiProject Cannabis/420 Collaboration. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds like fun. :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Executive Order 13780
Hello Octoberwoodland,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Executive Order 13780 for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Timothy Joseph Wood 18:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, you are very fast on the draw, I was in process of collecting the content. I removed the template since the article is destined for high notability. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

ReFill
(line #65). Please check diffs of automated editing tools as they are often not error free. They are sort of like helpers to get started but not set and forget... why they are not running as automatic bots. -- Green  C  15:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I noticed that in some cases it does produce some errors, but overall it works great. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Scaramucci nickname
I've declined you speedy deletion nomination of The Mooch. It is in fact a well-attested nickname (see e.g. this article), and I believe he uses it himself. Favonian (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If the press gave him a nickname of "The dickhead" or "Giant Prick" we would probably remove it as per BLP. Calling someone a mooch, even if it's sourced seems WP:UNDUE since it is a derogatory term in the english language. It is certainly not encyclopedic IMHO.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

August 2017
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edit to Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh does not have an edit summary.&#32;Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Diff:  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it does make some sense for each edit to have a summary so people reviewing the article can get an idea as to why some changes are made. Thanks. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Please clarify
Just what in [this] justifies the allegation of POV editing? I never met the man, and can't see any particular reason that I would have a POV at play. LeadSongDog come howl!  20:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Calling someone racist is POV and OR. Their are no sources, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, or Anti-Defamation League that classify the Hare Krishnas  as racists or a hate group.  You had better have sources for the statement He is a "racist" (using that exact word) otherwise it's just your opinion. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think phrasing along the lines of "his attitudes toward race" would be better for sure than saying "his racism", which presents as fact something that is an opinion (i.e. a POV). Side note in case anyone cares: the headings don't match MOS:HEAD. Should be "Sentence case", not "Title Case" and "negroes" is an out-of-date term. In the context of a quote, it's fine, but the section heading should probably be changed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Great suggestions. I will make certain that section complies with your guidance. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

United States Department of Justice during the Trump administration listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect United States Department of Justice during the Trump administration. Since you had some involvement with the United States Department of Justice during the Trump administration redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 17:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion/s would be welcome here
Reaper7 (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Marijuana policy of the Donald Trump administration for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marijuana policy of the Donald Trump administration 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/Marijuana policy of the Donald Trump administration until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Instaurare (talk) 04:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up concerning the article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Tag Removal
You appear to have removed a maintenance tag from Roy Moore w/o consensus that the issues raised have been resolved or do not rise to the level warranting the tag. This has already been attempted and reverted. As the article is under 1RR editing restrictions and there is no consensus supporting its removal, I request that you restore the tag until consensus is reached on the talk page. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It appears the removal has been reverted again. We need to be careful about 1RR issues here as well as respect for talk page consensus. I will post a note over there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am having a hard time determining what specific content is being called UNDUE. The current discussion is a canvassing session about Moore getting what he justly deserves, a detailed article on Wikipedia, but in all of the discussion, no one has put forward an outline identifying UNDUE content.  I remove tag bombs periodically, no problem, just let things take their own course. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

International Society for Krishna Consciousness
You wrote on my talkpage: ''Regarding the tag bombing of this page, can you point to some specific text or sections which you feel are undue, POV, or COI. I am happy to try to correct some of it. We have a Krishna Temple here in Utah and I occasionally attend their services (since they provide a free vegetarian banquet every Sunday after servies) but I am not a devotee or a member of their religion, just an observer. Please let me know which areas are not to standards and I will try to make it neutral.'' Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Firstly, having multiple issues with an article is not "tag bombing", but putting that mis-accusation aside you have demonstrated one of the major issues with the article in your comment: "Krishna Temple ... I ... attend their services". The article, as it presently stands, is very clearly created (and 'maintained', from what I can see in the history, contrary to WP policy) by supporters of that organisation - directly COI / "believer's POV". WP articles are created to inform and provide information to those who are not fully cognisant of the subject of that article, to provide a *neutral* background about a subject without proselytising and favouring one view of the subject over another. At present this article fails on every count. By your own admission I would suggest you should not edit it due to COI. --AlisonW (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with your characterization and lack of AGF. That being said, I will seek third party review of the article and since you have raised this as an issue, I will refrain from editing it .  I am strongly aware of the attitude of LGBT editors towards ISKCON since they teach that homosexuality is deviant and unspiritual, and on that basis, you as well should not be editing the article either since you are a self proclaimed lesbian on your talk page and IMHO and have stated COI and intense bias and hatred towards the subject matter.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You may have to self revert
This is a Voting for A vs B no need to create seperate sections like last time. I got edit conflicted and I have voted anyways, just wanted to let you know, regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  20:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Please remove the redundant section headings at Talk:Killing_of_Jamal_Khashoggi-- D Big X ray ᗙ  20:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing that. :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I just informed you here, did not change your comments, As you already know by now, primefac went ahead and fixed it. regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  20:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment deletion
This edit goes against talk page guidelines, namely WP:REDACT. Would you kindly self-revert? Cheers. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Then I will revert and also remove the noisy template you placed there. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Food for thought
I agree it's natural to see a majority of killers are Muslim in the Muslim world, but it's also normal to find none at all when zoning in on the Cleveland area. Good stuff happens in both places, too, if you know where to look. I'm not telling you to seek out a deeper understanding of demography, but it may be what you're missing here, since you asked. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:00, November 4, 2018 (UTC)
 * I spent a great deal of time in the Army overseas dealing with Muslims and the violence which seems to be rampant in their communities in these majority Muslim countries. I also have many Muslim friends here locally and overseas, some of which I made while in the Army that later came to live in the US, and not all Muslims are extremists -- but they all do take their religion a lot more seriously than lets say your run of the mill southern baptist.  We have nothing here in America that even compares to what I witnessed in Iraq and Afghanistan.  After a while of being there you start to get numb to all the violence, and hyper alert since anyone 12 or older may be carrying an IED or an assault rifle and kill you or their fellow Muslims. I do not know for certain why this is the case, but I have to accept it goes to their beliefs and the fact that these folks model their governments after their religions, but sadly from my own experience the number one killer of muslims in the world are other muslims.  Never in the history of the US has our government ever used chemical weapons of mass destruction on its own citizens, but the governments of both Syria and Iraq have both used nerve agents on their own populations.  Pretty scary stuff. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair point (and that's an understatement). But let's say the '80s and '90s in America was remembered less for what was on TV and the radio, and left more of a brutal foreign invasion aftertaste in the collective conscience of the 2000s. I'd bet the surviving southern baptists would also seem scary to outsiders, and it would have little to do with religion, just necessary local tribalism. You want constant immersion in good Muslims, go somewhere war isn't. I hear Kuwait, Algeria and Morocco are nice lately. Not trying to preach or sell you a travel package, just a suggestion. If you want to watch insanely dangerous Christians in unnaturally violent environments instead, maybe look into the Central African Republic, Nigeria or North East India. I don't think I have to tell you where the most seriously extreme Jews live in reasonable fear.
 * Anyway, thanks for your service and sorry for your sacrifice. I don't always agree with the horrors of war as I see them abstractly from the comfort of my online Canadian sugar shack, but I'm acutely aware it's people seeing the world the way you do that let millions of people like me afford toys and cheer at Christmas, sex and chocolate on Valentine's Day, beer and advertising on St. Patrick's Day and all of the above on All Hallow's Eve. No amount of seeing things from the other side is going to convince me turducken is worth even three bird lives, though, and if you're into that sort of freedom, I don't think anything anyone ever says is going to change that for you, either. Have a good one this year! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:17, November 4, 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, great points and I see you really do understand. Just so you know, muslims from Somalia and the Horn of Africa are the kindest, most gentle folks I have ever met.  In their country Christianity and Islam peacefully coexist and have for over a thousand years, so you are right that some places in the world the conflict is absent that is seen in other places.  :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

NAC
Yo Octoberwoodland, its hardly been a couple of hours and you have closed Talk:Killing_of_Jamal_Khashoggi. Kindly revert your closure, you are anyway involved in the thread and this is way way too soon. see WP:BADNAC -- D Big X ray ᗙ  03:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you disagree please feel free to revert. As near as I can tell, there not a WP:SNOWball's chance in hell anyone will agree with that cartoon unless it's toned down. I agree with you that satire and parody are an important part of modern literature and both satire and parody are protected free speech and are immune from claims of defamation, however, Wikipedia is not a court of law, it's an online encyclopedia, and has different standards, and going any further with that discussion may constitute disruptive editing.  I personally have no problem with the cartoon so long as it is properly labeled as satire but as near as I can tell, it may violate WP:BLP.  All my love brother.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You will be surprised at how different peoples opinion differ. I posted here so that you can have a chance to self revert, anyway, I am going to revert citing WP:NACINV and WP:BADNAC, have a good day. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  03:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just trying to help my friend. There is a discussion on WP:ANI about this cartoon and our recent edits.  You may want to go read it before editing any further on that cartoon issue.  It looks like our work product is under review. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand and really appreciate your kind gesture Octoberwoodland, But IMHO an ongoing ANI, isn't a reason enough to short circuit a talk page thread. I have read the pile up of allegations and I have already replied there, I feel have nothing to worry and I would say the same thing to you. Hope to collaborate with you again on that article, (assuming I am not indeffed by then ;-) ) cheers. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  03:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope you are not sent on your way, I have very much enjoyed working with you. You are very intelligent, creative, and bold.  I like people who are bold and just just tell it like it is.  I have noticed that on Wikipedia it's easier to get forgiveness than permission.  Just ask for forgiveness. LOL.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The feeling is mutual my friend. I have faith in the community, in whatever way they decide. You can do your part in adding your nail in my coffin. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Greetings.
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Octoberwoodland: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers,  D Big X ray ᗙ  00:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message Hope the new year will bring more friendly debates and collaboration for us. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  00:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks dude, you are awesome. Merry Christmas to you as well and all my love. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Just saw your comment on the never ending RM discussion which is now repeated an unbelievable third time. And I can understand the frustration of users, Sometimes I feel That I should copy my detailed reply from the earlier RM discussion and post there, do you think it will be useful ? -- D Big X ray ᗙ  21:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It might be a good idea to collect all the sources with the term "assassination" and post them to that discussion. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree and done, should have done it in the beginning itself. Oh and the harassment continues. Do you believe the RM thread is connected to it ? -- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Blue corn, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Zefr (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Please use inline sources per WP:CIT and put your sources in the correct full template; dowwnload sources are not useful to the online user. --Zefr (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Zefr. I am a little confused by your posting.  I thought it was allowed to use PDF files.  Refill and several other online tools don't do much with PDF's.  Please show me an example of what you are referring to.  You removed the PDF's from the article in question without adding the templates you were referring to.  Please place them back into the article with the cite template format you are requiring so I can see what you are talking about and do better in the future. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This ref format requires a download, and is not in the right template for online users, as described by WP:INCITE. Here's a citation tool that you can use to place a reference into a completed format. --Zefr (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tool, however, you have not shown me how this would work with the PDF links. I have read the materials you posted but need you to explain why you did not use the tool to insert the PDF's back into the article.  Please show me how this would be done by creating the cite so I can see what you are talking about. Thanks. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The example PDF above downloads only to one's PC, not as a visible online PDF like this. PC-only downloads often carry viruses, so are discouraged from being included as sources, and cannot be used anyway unless the publisher specifically enables them as online downloadable. This example is ok online, placed in a template like this from the article on Blue corn, whereas this is invalid. --Zefr (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * OK. Now I understand and I see what you mean -- their website for the proposed PDF is not a link to it at all since it apparently dynamically forwards someone to the PDF download without giving them the option as to whether or not to download it, which is not the way this is supposed to work.  Thanks, :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for consensus on 1993 child sexual abuse accusations page
Could I ask for you to submit a vote on the Talk page please? There are some issues today. Regards, Hammelsmith (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Patrick Crusius Video Surveillance Shooting.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Patrick Crusius Video Surveillance Shooting.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. WWGB (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Thanks for creating Baseball steak.

User:Willsome429 while reviewing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

 Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 06:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Your premature closure of a talk page discussion
Please don't close discussions that have only ran for a few hours (when typically such discussions run for a month) that you were involved with again. I've undone your closure. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not per WP:SNOW. Your editing on this issue is disruption.  Please respect the views of other editors.  Consensus is to include the perps name.  Accept it and move on.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:INVOLVED. And again, these discussions typically last far longer than a day. Please stop trying to stifle discussion just because you disagree with me. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's unlikely that waiting a month will result in a different outcome. Since you have raised this as an issue I will refrain from editing further on this article until an un-involved party addresses the issues which includes closure.   I note that you have a long long history of being blocked for contentious editing.  All of us, including me, at times need to work on improving our social skills.  I think you need to do the same and try harder to work together with others. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Seth Aaron Ator.png
Thanks for uploading File:Seth Aaron Ator.png. 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) 03:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This image was rejected by editor consensus and will not be included in the article so deletion is in order. Based on this notice the image will be deleted in seven days which is the right course of action. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Refs at Midland–Odessa shooting
Thanks for mentioning the bulletized source list at Midland–Odessa shooting at the AN discussion. There was no reason for those refs to be bundled, and I've separated them into standard, standalone refs. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

rv Midland-Odessa shooting
Not sure why you reverted my edit. I wanted the lede to include the 'who, what, where, when, and why'. The lede as it is now does not do that. Thanks, —the unrelated kinsman The unrelated kinsman (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * How about this— “A spree shooting occurred in the West Texas cities of Midland and Odessa on August 31, 2019, when multiple people were shot from a vehicle driven by a recently fired unemployed oilfield worker.” Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edit because calling the perp "mentally deranged" in the lede is an opinion and WP:OR. Since the perp is deceased there can be no diagnosis from a doctor or medical professional to support calling the perp "deranged" and it is a medical opinion and is WP:OR. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I'll use your changes if you don’t mind. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Appreciation
Hello! This is to say that I very much appreciate your work on the Brexit article. I am totally in alignment with your comment on WP:AN, in the thread I started, regarding, well, more or less everything. More power to your elbow, my friend! Boscaswell  talk  00:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I would hope that all of us could come out of this working together to make the Brexit article better. Thanks for the encouragement.  :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Saugus High School Shooting Location.png
Thanks for uploading File:Saugus High School Shooting Location.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text  below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Saugus High School Shooting Location.png
Thanks for uploading File:Saugus High School Shooting Location.png. 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) 19:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

"Media coverage of Bernie Sanders" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Media coverage of Bernie Sanders. Since you had some involvement with the Media coverage of Bernie Sanders redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Oxon Alex   - talk  12:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:BigJimChiliPepper.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:BigJimChiliPepper.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Whpq (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Image removed from article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Sandia Chili Ristras.png


A tag has been placed on File:Sandia Chili Ristras.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Whpq (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Image removed from article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Wild Pig Sus scrofa (feral type) Current Distribution Map.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Wild Pig Sus scrofa (feral type) Current Distribution Map.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Whpq (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Image removed from article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Stevin John (Blippi).png
Thanks for uploading File:Stevin John (Blippi).png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text  below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Image removed from article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Salah Mohammed Al-Tubaigy at Istanbul Airport.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Salah Mohammed Al-Tubaigy at Istanbul Airport.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Whpq (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The editor that cited that image in the articles it appears in needs to remove it. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Hydnum repandum does not occur in North America
Hi! After the articles you referenced regarding the distribution of Hydnum repandum were written, an epitype of Hydnum repandum has been designated, so it is now clear where it occurs. Please see the comment on the Hydnum repandum talk page.

Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 06:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Stevin John (Blippi).png
Thanks for uploading File:Stevin John (Blippi).png. 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) 03:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Higher-Order Perl for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Higher-Order Perl 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/Higher-Order Perl 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. HMman (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Please get accurate with sources
Hi. I've noticed you've included content in mainspace or article space in George Floyd articles that did not match the sourcing you provided. In the recent edits you made that I reverted, you changed four years in prison to five, when the sources are very clear that it was four years (2009 to 2013) and not five. You also are confusing jail/prison sentences with incarceration lengths. This has all been discussed at length on the article talk page, in threads in which you've participated. You've also been advised that this is a discretionary sanctions area. WP:BLP, especially WP:BLPCRIME, are very important policies. We must be sure that we are being 100% faithful to sources. Please be more careful in the future with your edits. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 06:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the corrections. This article is extremely contentious, so at this point, I think I will avoid editing it.  Despite what you have written above, he was incarcerated for these crimes.  One of the sources even lists a table of his offenses.  He was sentenced to five years, but incarcerated for four years total because he had previously been locked up for pre-trial confinement, and that extra jail time tolls against his total sentence and counts as time served.  I know this because I called the district court in Texas and asked the court clerk about his history last week.  This guy has a rap sheet as long as your arm, he was a career criminal.  So much for arguing about sources.  Court documents are reliable sources.  At any rate, this article is extremely contentious which is a good reason to avoid editing it. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * +1 —valereee (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * +1 Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 16:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys. You are all awesome.  :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Patrick Crusius Video Surveillance Shooting.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Patrick Crusius Video Surveillance Shooting.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Mysticair667537 (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Focus on content
I understand you disagree with me and you apparently believe that consensus exists on the Bannon page. You may be right but as an involved editor neither you nor I should be claiming one way or the other unless we agree. Until there is a consensus NOCON is clear. As for your accusations against me, please review wp:FOC. Springee (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * None of those excuses justify your continued reverts and violation of 1RR. It's time for someone to take this mess to AE to get it sorted out.   are you prepared to submit a request to the AE noticeboard along with me to ask that User:Springee's conduct be reviewed and sanctioned?  This perpetual gaming of the system needs to come to a close. Be advised that boomerang will apply as ALL of the editors involved in this dispute and all of us will be subject to review and sanctions if we go this route.  I am stunned that an innocent editor User:Citing who was trying to improve the article was immediately pounced on, had his talk page littered with AE warnings and threats, along with User:Springee claiming User:Citing was violating 1RR (when Springee is the only editor actively violating 1RR).  My goodness -- enough! Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not yet, but I think it's getting close. It's probably best not to discuss this on an article talk page. Feel free to ping me if you want to discuss it on your talk page, or mine. - MrX 🖋 22:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I moved the discussion to this talk page. I will start compiling the diffs for submittal to WP:AE.  We have a lot of work to cover.  Feel free to use my talk page to refine the complaint.  I will create the first draft in my Sandbox.  Feel free to edit it and add whatever content you feel is relevant. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping that it won't be necessary to go to AE, but if you feel that it's necessary now, I certainly won't try to dissuade you. I'll try to provide whatever guidance I can. - MrX 🖋 00:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's a sad state of affairs when folks have to go to WP:AE to get people to work together. I won't submit the AE request without your consensus and that of any other editors effected by this dispute.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's probably prudent. Cases where there are no bright line violations have to be meticulously documented to show a pattern of misconduct. Hopefully the situation will turn around soon. - MrX 🖋 00:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have for months shared your concern about this matter, and another editor also expressed concerns on the Carlson Talk page. soibangla (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)