User talk:Tomtomn00/Archives/14

Millennium (TV series)
Why? Regards, --Klemen Kocjancic (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Non-existant category. Create category then add back in. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 16:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please check and correct your mistake. Regards, --Klemen Kocjancic (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I did check and the Category was created 4 minutes after I reverted the edit. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 17:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment on my Request for Rollback
You commented on my Request for Rollback that some of my reversions seemed to be against good-faith edits. For my own education, could you point to a few of those? I certainly want to be better at recognizing the difference. &mdash;Al E. (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's one - you undid a Good Faith edit, which did not contain vandalism, maybe it contained errors, but please mark as AGF next time. Other than that, I support you getting Rollback. ~  &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 19:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That particular edit resulted in a significant re-write of the article and removed virtually all wikilinks and all of the category links. It seems to me that someone was pasting their school report into the article. It wasn't obvious vandalism, but it was pretty destructive. I should have said as much in the change log. Thanks. &mdash;Al E. (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks, ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 19:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi :Tomtomn00,

you seem to be asking for every kind of access and capability there is. So rather than doing your requests behind the scenes, use the appropriate page to request the capability. The latest thing you requested I do not even know what it is, so that is why it is best to use the right request page, then the experts on that thing can give it a consideration and explain aspects about it to you. There are plenty of things to do here without special privileges. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Please could you respond to my email. The right I had requested was a mistake - instead of -Page I put -User. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 22:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Cathedral article
I just deleted the picture that you added, and thought I ought perhaps give you a reason.
 * There are hundreds of cathedrals in the world and hundreds of pictures on Wiki Commons to choose from.
 * The pictures have been selected on a couple of criteria.
 * Format and appearance
 * Fitting the adjacent text.


 * In order to fit in a great number of representative examples, the pics are all "landscape". This creates a harmony in the overall appearance
 * Every picture has both appearance and a caption that relates to the text of the section.
 * e.g. the image of Pisa Cathedral is placed in the section on "tourism" and to serve that purpose, out f all the possible images, the one has been chose that is both of very high quality, is landscape, and has a tourist horse-drawn carriage in front of it.


 * The pictures are not about the greatness of the cathedral as a work of architecture, because that is not the subject of the article. The article is about how cathedrals function and what takes place there.
 * To illustrate that purpose, every cathedral, great or small, is equally valid.

Amandajm (talk) 05:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have tried to spread the illustrative material across the world, representing every continent. I think Africa might have missed out. However, England has weighed in rather heavily, as there are more pictures of English cathedrals available than any others.

Article tagging
Tomtomn00, I've brought up multiple issues with your article tagging previously and I still have concerns (despite you now having a mentor). Could you please explain why you tagged this article as having unreliable sources? It would certainly be helpful if you're going to throw up vague tags on articles if you could at least explain your concerns on the talk page or leave a detailed edit summary. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, if you keep being consumed about unimportant stats such as this as opposed to accuracy and the actual improvement of articles, I expect you will find your time here quite frustrating. Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia, not ratcheting up your edit count in the shortest possible time period. I understand that you are young, however there is a level of competence that is required in order to edit, and I'm concerned that although you have enthusiasm, you are not quite ready for the tasks you're taking on. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  17:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * They do not contain easily accessable information, and are just citations. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 17:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you point me to the part of Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policy where it states sources must be easily accessible? Do you realize this individual died in 1785? The second part of your explanation makes no sense - the citations are unreliable because they are "just citations"? Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I see your point now. Rolled back my edit. Sorry, ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 17:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks
You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this month! 66.87.0.115 (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there
Hi there Tomtomn00, how are you doing? I see you've had a little problem with article tagging recently - is there anything I can do to help you with this? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing much. You could look at my AWB request? Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage Thanks anyway. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 21:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can have a look at it but can't do much - I am not an admin so cannot act upon. Regardless, you have over 500 edits, so it should be granted to you soon. Might I ask, what do you plan to use AWB for? It seems that you have had trouble in the past with procedure and using automated tools (with STiki and with article tagging); I would strongly recommend that you read all of the relevant policy and guidelines before you start to use AWB. As I said, if there is anything I can do to help, let me know. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not that this is needed, but would you like me to put the archive bot (Misza Bot or ClueBot III) on your talk page? It will archive it to a talk subpage. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 21:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, look at this (it's random): Special:CentralAuth/Tomtomn00 - I think I put too many wiki's on there (288). ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 21:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No thanks - I like to archive my talk page myself. Have you had a look at the AWB guidelines yet? Also, could I ask what you've read so far about New Page Patrolling and vandalism? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * AWB is only 500 mainspace edits, and I have around 800. Requested. I will email you with other things which are more private. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 21:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that. I'm just wondering whether you've read the relevant guidelines and policy to do with AWB. If you do not, you'll end up with problems, as you have done before.
 * Also, I've removed some of the tags you have put on articles, remember: The unsourced tag should only be used if there really are no sources at all (if there are any, including primary sources, do not add the tag. Secondly, articles which are not yet very long do not require a sections tag - articles only need to be broken up into sections once they get long. Finally, if an article has no sections, it does not have a lead (in the conventional sense, at least). You do not need to use any lead tags on an article with no sections. I hope that helps. I'll have a look at your e-mail now (although I would encourage you to use on-wiki communication as much as possible, to maintain transparency). ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * One other thing. I'm taking part in the feedback thing (v5). ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 21:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you acknowledge that you have at least read my advice, please. I really want to help you, but I cannot do so if you ignore what I say. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to do what you say. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 22:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Sorry if the previous message sounded a little grumpy (I'm tired and should probably go to bed), it just helps if I know that you've read and taken on board what I've said. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Same here. I've been up since 5AM (now 20 hours). ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 22:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

TUSC token e282bdb6878940b6ed92b2b763b4b876
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Speedy deletion nomination of Tosters


A tag has been placed on Tosters requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 11:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Emogene Thompson
Do go through with the deletion of Emogene Thompson but retain Michael Harold Chapel as due to being a major media event as well as a topic for a Courtv movie.
 * Not currently in news. No need? ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 14:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Stuart B. Schwartz
Hi. Thanks for doing New Page Patrol, but this article contained more than enough claim of importance to pass the fairly low bar of WP:CSD: "the George Burton Adams Professor of History and the Chair of the Council on Latin American and Iberian Studies... All Can Be Saved won three prizes from the American Historical Association... The book also received the world’s largest nonfiction prize... as well as the American Academy of Religion Book Award for Historical Study and the Bolton-Johnson Prize of the Conference of Latin American History." It didn't have any refs, but they are not required to pass A7. If confirmed by refs, there is enough there to establish notability per WP:PROF.

Unfortunately, it had to go, as it was also a copyvio from http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/newsletter_spr10/latinamericascholarship.html.

Please keep doing NPP, an essential part of keeping WP going, but have a read of WP:A7M and WP:10CSD, two useful guides by an experienced admin. Also, when something seems suspiciously well-written or like a publisher's blurb, it's worth feeding a sentence or two into Google to see whether it is a copyvio. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 14:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Not in English" isn't a speedy reason either, though I have zapped Iristel iberica as db-corp. For what to do with articles in other languages, see WP:NPP. JohnCD (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. Also, could you delete and create-protect this: Oleg Anatolyevych Shevchenko - it's already been deleted and that user keeps recreating it. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 15:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Zapped. Only created twice - I'll salt it if he does it again. There's a useful template uw-auto for people who write about themselves, which I have given him, and another userfy which is useful if a newbie makes an article with the sort of stuff that might reasonably go on a user page.
 * One more point - if you have only a single speedy reason, don't use db-multiple, because, e.g. db-person generates a more specific, and so more useful, message for the author's talk page. JohnCD (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I normally tag with Twinkle, and that can make a few mistakes. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 15:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Borjgala
I have removed the prod tag from Borjgala, which you proposed for deletion, because the page you proposed for deletion was not an article. If you still think the page should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to it, as proposed deletion is only for articles. Instead, consider using WP:RFD for this page. In some cases, a speedy deletion criterion may apply. Thanks!

Note that WP:PROD cannot be used with redirects. —  Rich wales 16:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletions
Hi Tomtomn00. Your speedy deletion tags look pretty good so far, I'm impressed. Just to let you know, I declined the tag you placed on Susan Nava because some notability is asserted. A7 is only for articles about people where there is no credible assertion of notability at all; in this case, the author claims that she is a TV-personality and well known socialite. It may be that the article is not notable enough for deletion; however, it that should be discussed at WP:AFD (feel free to nominate it for deletion if you wish). Aside from that, I've had a look at your other tags and they seem ok; keep up the good work. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Could I also nominate it for PROD? ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 19:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You could PROD the article, but be sure to check for reliable sources yourself before PRODing. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Doing so. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 20:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you have a look at my DYK nomination please? It's here. Thanks! ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 20:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not incredibly familiar with DYK, but I'll have a look. I might not reply until tomorrow. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure! (Note: If this page is laggy, the archive bot hasn't archived it - which it hasn't.) ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 20:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Some concerns
I raised concerns regarding your edits on ItsZippy's talk page as he has been providing some mentoring for you. I noticed that you saw my post and responded on ItsZippy's talk page as well. You said you "need to try harder to control" your editing. I have a response to that and felt I should contact you directly. (Actually, contact you directly again. I've left three messages on your talk page in the past.)  Unsolicited advice is rarely appreciated and even more rarely followed, but here goes:
 * (1) Try to focus on the quality of your edits rather than the quantity.  For your sake as an editor and for the advancement of WP, 10 high quality edits are far more useful than 50 edits that you race to get done and are populated with mistakes that others have to clean up.  While a high edit count will get you past some of the easier hurdles in getting more "privileges" on WP, administrators will eventually look at the quality of your edits.  While you do many, many things quite well, editors have had a variety of very legitimate complaints.
 * (2) Rather than adding maintenance tags to articles, correct the problem yourself.  If you truly believe an article needs sections or a lead paragraph, insert the sections or create the lead yourself.  This may take more time, and there's no requirement that you do so, but it will help you understand the meaning of the tag and help us all clear out the vast backlog of tags on articles.  If you choose not to do that, please stop adding tags that feedback has consistently indicated you're adding incorrectly.
 * (3) Don't blame the automated systems (Twinkle, etc.) for making mistakes.  I've used a couple of them for years and the only time I've seen an error with them is when I'm working too quickly (i.e., user error).  Again, it's not the quantity of your edits that matters, it's the quality.
 * (4) If someone leaves a message on your talk page, try to think about and respond thoroughly to what they've said.  Some of the people who have left messages are experienced editors.  That doesn't mean they're always right or that you have to agree with them, but it does mean they may have something useful to say.
 * (5) And please re-consider archiving your messages every 48 hours.  It makes it extremely difficult to follow a thread and necessitates searching through dozens of individual archive pages to find something.

Sorry if all of this too long and preachy, but they're things I feel strongly about. Good luck. JimVC3 (talk) 03:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * About the archiving, the bot does that after 48h of the thread not getting a reply. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 09:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would just like to second everything JimVC has said - that is all very good advice. As I've said before, your enthusiasm is great, but you do need to have a little more control over your edits. The conversations I've had with you on- and off-wiki suggest that you are willing to improve, which is great. As a side note, 48 hours can be too short even for threads which have not received a reply - I often have people replying to a post of mine days or even weeks later. I personally archive my whole talk page very month - that might be better for you. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Stuart B. Schwartz
Hello Tomtomn00. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Stuart B. Schwartz, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: text sufficiently rewritten to avoid copyio. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to the April Wikification Drive
You logged your edits in the wrong drive month (June 2011). You should log them at WikiProject Wikify/Drives/2012/April. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Codes
Can you please write me some code to autoarchive my userpage (after 7 days).--Epickindof (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Talk page? ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 17:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes talk page.--Epickindof (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 17:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much.--Epickindof (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

So, won't I get an award too (for 10 wikifications).--Epickindof (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Reward yourself. :D ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 18:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of University Church - Central Philippine University


A tag has been placed on University Church - Central Philippine University requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 14:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

File Moving Requests
Hey Tomtomm00, need to inform you that the 2 file moving requests that you gave for these files and  were right but one word in both the files was spelled incorrectly. Although the file mover's and administrator's do look at the requested name and then take appropriate action accordingly, but you also need to take care when sending files for rename requests and always check their spellings and other things by previewing the edit before saving. I wanted to tell you this so that you can learn from mistakes (which almost everyone makes at some point of time, nothing to feel bad about it), become an experienced editor and always keep improving Wikipedia :). And you are doing a good job of anti-vandalism my friend ;) Thanks and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notifying me. :) ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 20:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikifying
Hi there Tomtomn00. I see you are participating the wikifying backlog elimination drive - that's great. You're doing great, but it might be worth re-reading the instructions. Do remember to check each one of those points before saving a page this edit, for example, needs additional wikilinks and the layout of this needs a lot of work. You're doing well, but make sure you check all of the criteria before removing the tag. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Your contributed article, People's Theater


Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, People's Theater. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - People's Theatre, Newcastle upon Tyne. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at People's Theatre, Newcastle upon Tyne - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. TheLongTone (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I noticed your question on the talk page of People's Theater just before it was deleted by someone else. I can restore the page to your userspace if you'd like to merge any of the content into the existing article.  Please contact me on my talk page if you'd like any help.  Thanks. &mdash;SW&mdash; gossip 22:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Jacobus Deketh
Hello! Your submission of Jacobus Deketh at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Soman (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Yngvadottir
FYI, you have both commented with Oppose and Strong Support at Requests_for_adminship/Yngvadottir. Amalthea 12:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I noticed that. Removed the strong support. My error, sorry. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 12:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

GAN nominations
Hi Tomtom00. I have tagged Talk:Andrei Sannikov/GA1 for speedy deletion. By creating that page you have been designated as the reviewer, and you can't review an article you nominated. Looking at that article it looks a long way off Good standard. You haven't made any edits to the article and unless you are willing to put in a lot of work and have some familiarity with the subject I would suggest removing the nomination. AIR corn (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool updates
Hey all. My regular(ish) update on what's been happening with the new Article Feedback Tool.

Hand-coding

As previously mentioned, we're doing a big round of hand-coding to finalise testing :). I've been completedly bowled over by the response: we have 20 editors participating, some old and some new, which is a new record for this activity. Many thanks to everyone who has volunteered so far!

Coding should actively start on Saturday, when I'll be distributing individualised usernames and passwords to everyone. If you haven't spoken to me but would be interested in participating, either drop me a note on my talkpage or email. If you have spoken to me, I'm very sorry for the delay :(. There were some toolserver database issues beyond our control (which I think the Signpost discussed) that messed with the tool.

New designs and office hours

Our awesome designers have been making some new logos for the feedback page :) Check out the oversighter view and the monitor view to get complete coverage; all opinions, comments and suggestions are welcome on the talkpage :).

We've also been working on the Abuse Filter plugin for the tool; this will basically be the same as the existing system, only applied to comments. Because of that, we're obviously going to need slightly different filters, because different things will need to be blocked :). We're holding a special office hours session tomorrow at 22:00 UTC to discuss it. If you're a regex nut, existing abuse filter writer, or simply interested in the feedback tool and have suggestions, please do come along :).

I'm pretty sure that's it; if I've missed anything or you have any additional queries, don't hesitate to contact me! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've emailed you. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 14:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Evidence Knowledge Exchange (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Norwegian


 * Susan Nava (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to NTV

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Non-admin closures
Hi there, Tomtomn00. I see you've made a few non-admin closures to deletion discussions recently. While that can be helpful, you do need to exercise extreme caution. The reason that administrators are allowed to close deletion discussions is that they have been given the mandate to do so by the community; that is not the case with non-admins. For that reason, only very very clear cases of consensus should be closed as non-admin closures. Best practice is only to close discussions with a strong, unanimous (or near unanimous) consensus, and only after 7 days (unless it is a valid speedy keep. I have had a look at your closures and have the following comments:
 * Articles for deletion/Sarah's Choice (2nd nomination): This closure looks mostly good - it has had the full time and unanimous support to keep it. You closed it as a speedy keep, which is not quite right as it should just be a normal keep. A speedy keep must fall into one of the speedy keep applicability categories.
 * Articles for deletion/Ana Kasparian: Again, the closure is good enough, but it should not have been labelled speedy.
 * Articles for deletion/Anthony Christmas: You closed this as a redirect; this discussion was inappropriate for a non-admin closure, so I have undone your closure. The consensus here was not obvious - there were only three votes, and one was to keep (with a non-trivial rationale). It's a crude measure, but 66% support is not clear consensus. When I non-admin close discussions with few comments, I will only do so if it is unanimous and at least one person has provided a strong reason for the position.
 * Articles for deletion/Ridpath Hotel: This one is probably ok. It's perhaps on the edge, but should be alright.
 * Articles for deletion/Johannes Grenzfurthner (2nd nomination): I have also reverted this closure. This one is a little odd as, in terms of votes, the position seems to be unanimous. However, consensus is not just about counting votes, it is also about the quality of arguments. In this discussion, there was considerable debate about the quality of some of the keep votes, questioning how strong they are. Because of this, consensus is not clear enough for a non-admin closure.

Hopefully, my comments on those closures should give you some ideas of when to close discussions and when to leave them. Here are some final pieces of advice:
 * Read Consensus very carefully and make sure you really understand what consensus is and what a clear consensus would look like.
 * Participate if AfD debates first. I would suggest that no user should be closing discussions until they have spent at least a month joining in discussions. Joining in will be the best way to understand how consensus works, and when would be an appropriate time to close.
 * Go very very slowly. Read each AfD very carefully and only close it if you are absolutely certain that the consensus is clear.
 * Be overcautious. If you have any doubts about what you do, it is likely that consensus is not strong enough. Leave it, and allow an administrator to close the article.
 * Make sure you note in your closure and your summary that you are not an admin (you did this in some closures, but not all of them).
 * When you close a discussion there are two more things you need to do. Firstly, go to the article and remove the AfD notice. Secondly, add the following template to the talk page:
 * Operate a transparent policy. For non-administrator closures, I have found the best practice to be almost always accepting it when people undo your closures, even if you are sure that you acted right (this is not a problem with you, just sound advice).

I hope that all makes sense. I'm sorry it's quite long, but it's important. It's great to see you're eager to help out, you just need to exercise a little caution. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure! (I say that a lot) . Every time I look for at least 80% of oppinions to be the same. Thanks anyway, I've saved this to my long list of notes on my Dock (Mac). ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 21:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As ItsZippy's says: please also don't forget that closing entails more than editing the AfD debate. You also have to remove the AfD tags from the articles and put "oldafd" tags on the article's talk page (see Eliza (magazine)). And I have to say that I find your statement about 80% of opinions rather disquieting. As ItsZippy already said, AfD is not a vote, and I have seen cases where the closing admin (for good reasons) went with the 20%... Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I do assess the article though. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 11:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Main/page


A tag has been placed on Main/page requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 10:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The is a tick box in Twinkle saying "Notify page creator if possible". Untick it to save telling yourself! &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I forgot about that. I moved the page to the correct title, then requested deletion. :o ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 10:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Gimingham Church
Hi. I just wanted to let you know that I closed your nomination, Featured picture candidates/Gimingham Church, as "Not promoted". We welcome your contributions to featured picture candidates and I encourage you to nominate more images. Before you do so, you may want to review the featured picture criteria. If you're unsure if a picture meets the criteria, feel free to add the image to picture peer review where experienced users will comment on it. Thanks. I hope to see you at FPC again. Makeemlighter (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Rollback
TomTomn00, I've removed the rollback from your account. You've been rolling back non-vandalism edits, like here, here, and here, and that indicates that you don't have a good handle on how to use rollback yet. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please could you restore it, and I promise I will not do it again. Please not that on Huggle, the summary sometimes doesn't work. I typed that they were good faith edits, but removal of content, which they were. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 16:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * None of these were removals of content. — foxj 16:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is that I want my Rollback re-added to my account, and I will not use huggle for a long time. (Half a year) ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 16:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry Tomtomn, but no. Your edits are your responsibility - if you don't know how to get Huggle to do what you need it to do, you shouldn't be using it until you figure that out. You're going to have to go back to doing things the old-fashioned way for a while until you can demonstrate that you have a strong understanding of what's vandalism and what's not, and how to use the more advanced tools you've been having problems with. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Making requests now don't have much weight. Misuse of the feature, even if unintentional or in good faith may give cause for it to be removed. (Written in top of the Permission request page). Once you have a good demonstration by reverting vandalism, ask for it again. Dipankan says..  ( "Be bold and edit!" ) 16:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

How about this one thing. I use Rollback to undo MY edits for at least 3 months. Anyone could check my contribs, and see that I only undo my edits with it. )It took me since Nov. 2011 to get it, and I don't want to lose it.) ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 16:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, this is not a negotiation. You misused rollback in a way that indicates you do not understand how to use it, and for that reason you will not be getting it back today, especially since you seem to desperately attached to it as a symbol of status rather than a tool. Go back to manual vandal-fighting and build up some evidence to show that you know what you're doing, and then reapply for rollback in a few months. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, you don't need to leave me a talkback every time you reply here. I'm watching this page, and I can see when you reply; all the orange bar does is bug me to tell me something I already know. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. Also, I wouldn't call it a "negotiation", I would call it, restoring the past, under different restrictions. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 16:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say this thread is enough to make sure no admin gives you rollback again in a hurry. — foxj 16:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review
This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 8 April 2012 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Moving forwards
Hi there, Tomtomn00. I saw you got your rollback rights removed - I'm sorry to hear that, but Fluffernutter was right to do so. As Sven said, don't get discouraged - there's still plenty you can do around here. I would suggest that we come up with something that you can spend your time doing, that you can get to know really well, and that you will enjoy. What would you most like to do now? If we can decide on something, I can help you understand what to do and make a strong start; hopefully we can avoid the pitfalls you've fallen into before. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)`
 * Other than get rollback back, Create some good articles (hopefully to be A-Class/FA/GA). I would also make a list, which would be easier. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 18:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Forget about rollback. I really mean that. If you are passionate about reverting vandalism, then do that. Do it because it needs to be done, not because you want rollback. Is that ok? Creating articles sounds like a really good idea. It's useful to know what you are interested in and what you might like to improve - what sounds interesting to you? What are you interested in (be specific: when you're not on Wikipedia, what do you spend your time doing, reading, thinking about, talking about, etc?). Also, don't worry about using TB on my talk page; I watch yours, so I'll get your replies. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm mostly doing Badminton and Tennis, so I could write about specific things in them sports if not already there. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 19:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, that sounds good. Are there specific professional players or tournaments you are interested in? Or perhaps specific ideas/rules/concepts in those sports? Pick something to do with that that, then we can check if it is notable and then have a look at creating the article. Alternatively, if the article exists, you can consider improving it. What topic will you go for? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I might re-write Drop shot, a shot which is used in badminton and other raquet sports. :/ ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 19:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a very good idea. Why don't you begin by having a look for some reliable sources (start by searching Google & Google Books, as well as looking at whatever books you own personally) - post what you find here. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

- is one. Most are just, wiki(answers). Which is blacklisted... ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 20:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I started it (User:/Drop Shot/2). ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 20:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That source looks good. Might I suggest you try editing straight onto the article page? That will allow you to incorporate the good bits of the article and improve what needs to be improved. I find it easier to work in sections - perhaps you could add a section, Badminton, to the page, and begin editing about drop shots in badminton from there. You could then create a section for other sports later. Once you've done that, you can take another look at the lead. Does that sound alright? I'll watch the article and try to give you advice as you go. I'll also have a look for some sources you might be able to use. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Type "badminton drop shot" into Google Books - there's quite a lot of free stuff available there, including this and this. Do you know how to reference well? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Both good. Anyway, good luck with that RfA! ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 20:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You've made a good start on on drop shot, well done. See if you can expand the sections on badminton - use the sources to find out how easy/hard the shot is, when they are used, which badminton players have been known for drop shots, how a drop shot can be returned, etc. Try to avoid using "you" in articles, go for "the player" or something similar instead. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

BLP unsourced tagging
Hi there, yesterday you tagged three articles with BLP unsourced, James Stewart (archaeologist), Jean Price-Mars and Wang Xifeng. Two of these articles are about deceased people, the other is a fictional character. Please ensure that you use the correct tag for the article. BLP tags are only to be used on biographies of living people. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice?
Mind if I remove |this? I think it was put here in error. :)   Wikipelli Talk   12:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. I warned that user with Twinkle, and you may have been the last contrib. on their talk? ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 12:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I created the IP's talk page when I put the first warning on it. As near as I can tell you didn't warn the user, you just put the speedy tag on their page. That's what got me the notification. No worries. :)   Wikipelli Talk   13:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Courcelles 16:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Please be cautious
Tomtomn, I realise that you think I've treated you unfairly, but it's unacceptable for you to misrepresent my words and actions as you've done here. As I explained to you, and as you can see from your own edit history, none of the three rollbacks I cited in my note to you had anything but the default rollback edit summary. You did not roll them back as a removal of content, as your subpage claims. You rolled them back as vandalism. In any case, none of the three errors I cited had anything to do with removing uncited content, as your subpage claims - in all three cases, your revert actually removed content that had been added, all of which appeared to be good-faith additions. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought that I had set the edit summary to default, sorry. I also felt angry when I wrote that.~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 17:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Email
Hi Tomtomn00 - I've replied to your email. Pedro : Chat  19:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied again. Pedro : Chat  20:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Unwatched
Hi Tomtom00 are you interested in the Special:UnwatchedPages? There is a list of pages that you can add to your watchlist so that they are watched. THen if they are vandalised they will who up on your watchlist, and you can fix the problem. Are you interested in the first 1000 pages to add to your watchlist? If you are I will email the titles to you. And thereafter I can email you another 1000 every week or so. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose. I haven't got rollback anymore, so I'll be quite slow on reverting! ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 17:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, Graeme, why would the list of unwatched pages only be visible to admins? I might be interested in putting some on my watchlist. Again, just curious.   Wikipelli  Talk   21:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason it is hidden is to keep it from the eyes of vandals. If vandals alter things on it, no one will observe on their watchlist to fix it.  The unwatched does not work very well so it only produces a list of 1000 articles at the beginning of the collating sequence.  Undo still works without rollback! So Wikipelli you cn get a batch on your watchlist too if you like. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * reading your response gave me a 'duh, of course' moment. :)  Of course you wouldn't want a list of pages that no-one is watching to be public!  Thanks.... Yeah, I'll take a batch and keep an eye on them.  My email is active. Tomtom, let's take a crack at them! Thanks!   Wikipelli  Talk   22:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Email me with them, then. I'll start in the morning. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 22:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * First batch mailed to Tomtom00. Of course you are also welcome to improve these articles by editing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I feel up to the challenge, send 4 more please. :-) ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 23:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)