User talk:Tomtomn00/Archives/16

Non-free rationale for File:American Energy Development Corporation Logo.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:American Energy Development Corporation Logo.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:American Energy Development Corporation Logo.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:American Energy Development Corporation Logo.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:American Energy Development Corporation Logo.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:American Energy Development Corporation Logo.gif. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

AEDC
references 1 3 and 6 don't lead anywhere with a link. (3 is a wikipedia article, but it looks like you need to be more specific as there could be any number of "reports". For your wikilinks like Oil don't capitalise the o just have oil. Size and newness OK, but you have too  many proposed hooks.  Just pick one good one.  Also the hooks are not that exciting, Isn't there a juicy scandal or something unexpected?  Also you might get knocked back for plagiarism of http://www.aed-corp.com/fileadmin/user_upload/Pdf/Factsheet.pdf Try to rewrite it more, I see too much is similar. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you suggest one? I'm 'bad with hooks'. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 12:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Be more careful with what you revert
When you reverted the edit I made to Chuck-a-luck yesterday, did you make the slightest effort to determine why this content was removed, or are you one of the all-too-many Wikipedians who jump to the conclusion that any edit by an anonymous IP editor "must be" a vandal edit? (Why has it never occurred to such that if there were any truth to this, anonymous editing would have been disabled long since?)

If you had bothered to read the talk page, you would have seen for yourself the reason why I deleted this content; because these variants are (as far as can be determined from a Google search I conducted) the non-notable inventions of the WP editor who added them to the page, and their existance outside WP is confined to his own website. This is in flagrant breach of at least two WP rules, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, and I suspect that these aren't the only rules broken. If you can find reliable references for the notability of this content, by all means add it back to the article along with the references proving it to be notable; until then, leave it alone.

In any event, don't just blindly "revert" without heeding exactly what you're doing to the article by doing so; your revert yesterday, along with restoring probably-undesirable content, also deleted a large section which I'd restored precisely because it is relevant (it was deleted on the grounds of being "poorly written", which is a reason to rewrite it, not to delete it). Hence it's your edit which looks like a vandal edit. — 188.29.7.229 (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * After checking, the note was left after I reverted it. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 17:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's it? No, "Sorry, seems I was wrong" or "Thanks for explaining your reasoning to me" or "Ah - I should've checked the material first"? Wow, that's the spirit of Wikipedia right there. 99.122.233.9 (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I put my explanation of my edit on the talk page at 20:58, 22 minutes after the edit itself (this can be explained partly by the fact that I'm very ill at the moment, and have been for weeks) but 18 minutes before the edit was reverted at 21:16. So the above lame attempt by the owner of this user talk page to brush off his action is factually wrong regarding alleged timing, regardless of what else is wrong with it.  And he still hasn't explained why he was undeleting content without evidence of the notability or suitability for the article of the deleted content. — 188.29.7.229 (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Competency is required
This effort to brush off an IP was pretty poor. You've been blocked once over your editing and at the time I defended you. I'm now questioning my judgement on that defence. Ease up. Seriously. Pedro : Chat  19:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 21:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

AED
No, this is not rewritten. It is closely paraphrased and remains unacceptable for use. Any notion of it being rewritten is a fairy tale. You need to use your own words, rather than changing a few from the company's own website (which isn't a third-party source, at any rate). Until you understand this concept, please stop writing articles because you're now disguising a mess that others must clean up, and WP:CCI is backed up for a good year, at least. 99.122.233.9 (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's under rewrite, please give me a short time. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 22:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't just change a few words to synonyms. Articles must be written entirely in your own words, not close paraphrases of other sources. If you have made paraphrases this exact or this close elsewhere, I encourage you to come forward voluntarily with them for repair or deletion&mdash;this may be an honest mistake, but paraphrases that close are copyright violations and cannot remain on Wikipedia. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with 99.122.233.9. This style of "writing", where you change around and put references into words copied from some other source, is really not the way to create an acceptable article without copyright violation. It's "fruit of the poison tree", so to speak. I appreciate that you put a lot of work into this article and I think that the topic is notable, but it needs to be written from scratch. Danger High voltage! 04:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I had rewrote it from scratch and then it was deleted. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 10:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

 * Thanks! --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 13:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

CSD A7
Hi, you recently tagged a redirect page with CSD A7. It had a # and a link to another article thus it was clear that it was a redirect with the redirect tag missing. Please take care in such cases in the future. Congratulations on the partolling. Why don't you try WP:Kissle? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * At the time I tagged it, the page content was just #link --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 17:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So, what should you have done, instead of tagging it? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Created a redirect, however after the edit summary I believed it to be just a link. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 17:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A note to you as a patroller. If you see a 1 followed by a link, it is invariably a misplaced redirect. I've come across this when I used to patrol back in 2009. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Megitza
I reviewed your nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Megitza. The tick symbol I used means it is approved for DYK. Now it is waiting for someone to add it to the DYK queue to appear on the Wikipedia front page. That person will be another editor, not you, the person who wrote it, nor me, the person who reviewed it. Because you started it on the 1st April, it should not be long before it appears on the front page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

A1 and A3
Please wait for at least ten minutes before tagging A1 or A3. Doing that allows to avoid WP:BITE. this seems like an attempt to create a redirect, and when the user tried fixing it, xe encountered an edit conflict with you. Thank you for patrolling new pages. B music  ian  12:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Also, the discussion is above in the A7 section. (Title Error) --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 15:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Joe Rosentover
Hello! Your submission of Joe Rosentover 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! The Interior (Talk) 01:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK
Thanks for your review notifications. Would you consider the new alt hook at Template:Did you know nominations/Kony 2012.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg - Reviewed. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 15:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free if you want any other requests reviewed. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 16:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

omg
Tomtom....Make the goal be, "write a good article" not "get a DYK". This right now is kind of embarrassing. I can't tell if he's a baseball guy or a football guy. It says, "renamed to American Football league" but the link for American Association is to a baseball league. And, "... the year it was founded (1936) as a minor league. It was founded as a Minor league." Really? If this guy is important enough for you to make an article about him, make an article. Right now you're just throwing down a bunch of words to bulk up the character count for DYK. Slow down...if you make DYK, fine, if not, there'll be other opportunities.   Wikipelli Talk   17:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Now I see he was a basketball manager as well as a soccer/football league manager. Quite a guy! So, not so much on the slowing down, huh?   Wikipelli  Talk   17:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've slowed down a lot on that article. :) --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 17:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably a good idea. Trying to go fast to get in on the DYK just leads to mistakes. I know he wasn't involved in all of those sports! What works for me with articles is to develop them in subpages and then move them out when I think they're well-sourced and cleaned up. I have also found that, once I decide to make an article, I focus only on that - no huggle, no twinkle, no watchlist. It might just be the way my mind works. :) Don't worry about DYKs, edit counts, fame and glory :)  All of that will come once you just settle down to good solid editing. Anyway, I was watching the DYK nom and thought I'd put my 2 cents in on the article here.   Wikipelli  Talk   18:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, I found LOTS of references (NYT, Christian Science Monitor, Enquirer, etc) with articles on Rosentover. Unfortunately all pay-walled. Might need a trip to your local library or university for access.   Wikipelli Talk   18:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Suppose. I might keep browsing for a bit though. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Jacobus Deketh
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Articles Created
Tomtom... I think including articles such as Tom Zuber and Adrenna in your 'Articles Created' section of your user page, might give the impression to others that you actually wrote (my definition of 'created') the articles. Just sayin'   Wikipelli Talk   20:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have the WP:AFC after it, so I assumed it was okay. I'll stick a note at the top of the page saying what that means. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 20:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You can do whatever you think is best. I'm just giving my opinion. I don't want you to be in the position of people thinking that you're taking credit for creating/writing articles that you didn't. Me? I'd leave them off the list altogether. All it is is a move. But, like I said, my opinion.   Wikipelli Talk   21:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Much better. I don't think there's anything I can say that'll make you stop worrying about numbers and lists and DYKs and whatnot.... but that's better. At least you're not taking credit for anothers' work. I'm speaking as someone who had his very first article stolen out from under him just as I was about to move it to article space. People put time and effort into their articles. The author ... original author... should have those pages listed on their "articles created' lists. Thanks.   Wikipelli  Talk   21:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, I tried to combine too much into one page. :D --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 21:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
  Wikipelli Talk   22:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of BitFenix


The article BitFenix has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No evidence of notability for this firm.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AllyD (talk) 08:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Matthew Grant Norman
I saw that you added A11 there, I fear that there is no such criteria. So I G3ed it using multiple as it is a pure vandal (misleading) Thanks  Yash  t  101   11:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong page again, on the talk page it's promotional. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 11:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What Yasht101 is saying is that there is no A11 criterion. You're looking for WP:G11. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. But Peridon sir deleted it under A11 so we have a new CSD ;)  Yash  t  101   14:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * New CSD should be called: Tomtomn00's G11 mistake - aka A11. :D --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 17:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Stories Project
Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Wikipedia have so much to share.

I'm curious why you feel the need to add sources to articles

I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project.

Thank you for your time,

Victor Grigas user:Victorgrigas vgrigas@wikimedia.org Victor Grigas (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Right, umm, hi Tom :). In between all my ranting about who can ask/tell you to email them, etc., I have confirmed with a different WMF employee that Victor is indeed a/the Wikimedia Foundation storyteller, and is also (excitingly) the "primary photographer". So you might want to email him and swap ideas on photography and how he got the job and the best ways to get jobs in photography (if you're still interested in that) and and and...


 * When he says "interview" he probably does not mean in person, he might mean on Skype or via email. Parents or school might both support you in doing this, it's a good opportunity to get your voice heard about why you contribute to Wikipedia and what you think the WMF should be doing.


 * You should discuss it with parents first, and if they are a bit "huh? what?" then Victor (or possibly me) might be able to explain more to them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, also. The yearly fundraiser is in December each year. So, although things need to be planned well in advance, there's plenty of time to think this through :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Like my parents will come on... I've emailed you (Demiurge1000) what I say... --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 20:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Road articles
Rather than creating very short stub article on Louisiana roads can you create some sort of overview article? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll have a go with the next ones. I've got 1855 of 'em lined up in Notepad so far, so I'll edit them slowly. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 20:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You might want to slow down and expand these articles on Louisiana highways. Last year, WP:USRD, the U.S. Roads WikiProject concluded a successful drive to reduce our stub count by a net 2011 articles over the course of the year. We did this through expansions, mergers, and in some cases, deletions. While we appreciate assistance in creating missing articles, these stubs are one or two sentences at best cited to self-published sources and a non-specific link to Google Earth. They're increasing our counts at a time we would like to plateau the numbers by keeping them relatively stable. Each two-sentence stub created in Louisiana means we have another article to expand someplace to keep the numbers roughly even.
 * Can you slow down a bit, and help expand them with the missing information needed to make a proper route description and maybe even a junction list? (Also, we Americans don't use the definitive article in front of highway names. "The Louisiana Highway X" just sounds wrong to American ears, and once the abbreviation convention is used, we tend to abbreviate all instances of other highways in that "class". So if the first sentence starts out "Louisiana Highway 91 (LA 91)..." then we'd abbreviate LA 13.  Imzadi 1979  →   12:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Highways
Mighty fine work! Perhaps if you could easily include a link to the routes highlighted on google maps this would be great but if it makes creating less efficient don't worry. You say you have 7000 articles to create? Are you running a script? Because if its automated I think you'll need approval from WP:BAG. Shouldn't be a problem though as your new articles are nutritious!♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm doing it manually! :D I'm trying for 100~ articles a day for around 70 days. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 11:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If you could state the towns the highways connect this would be great, otherwise readers won't know where in the state it is! E.g The highway begins at xxx, xxx county and ends at xxxx, xxxx county. Happy editing!♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I might ask someone to write me a bot for it, then I'll get BAG approval (hopefully). --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 11:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Megitza
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 04:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Account activation codes have been emailed.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

My boss wikia
This is probably not the site you are looking for! ''You attempted to reach bose.wikia.com, but instead you actually reached a server identifying itself as *.a.ssl.fastly.net. This may be caused by a misconfiguration on the server or by something more serious. An attacker on your network could be trying to get you to visit a fake (and potentially harmful) version of bose.wikia.com. You should not proceed, especially if you have never seen this warning before for this site.''


 * This is what I get (a warning from my antivirus) So is the website in your userpage, safe?  Yash  t  101   16:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Minor. It's just because it's a https (secure) redirecting to a http (less-secure)! Removed it. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 16:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
  Wikipelli Talk   16:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Red sky truth
Hi Tomtomn00! About Red sky truth - I didn't think it was a valid redirect, as it doesn't really mean much by itself. Maybe I'm not seeing something obvious, though. Do you think people might find it useful? Best —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * After a browse, feel free to CSD it. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Louisiana Highways
Please stop creating articles on these highways. You've been asked to slow your creation rate down. You're writing them in British English, which isn't appropriate for a subject that's located in the United States. We don't hyphenate "southeast", and it wouldn't be appropriate to change the title of a website from the American to British spelling anyway. Second, you've been told that we don't place the definitive article ("the") before highway designations, but it isn't appropriate to italicize a highway name either. Please stop your article creation and discuss these issues because your actions are getting disruptive. Wikipedia has no deadline, so there is no rush to create all of these articles.  Imzadi 1979  →   18:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Tom, please stop creating new articles now - Imzadi has given you advice about your mass-creation project above, quite a few days ago, and you've (apparently) ignored it. Pushing material into a project area when the people running the project strongly object to it, like you are doing, will be likely to get you taken to ANI and then blocked. Stop with the new articles for now, let's take a step back and see where we go next. Maybe start by replying to me at your mentoring page as well? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Mentoring: I didn't notice that on the watchlist, I'll answer some later or tomorrow. I haven't created any since the notice, however I was told by someone that it is okay, and a stub is the 'birth' of a new article. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 19:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It would also help if you took enough time to base your creations on an acceptable source. The various parts of the AARoads website, which includes the Southeast Roads subpage that you're using are all self-published sources, and they're not appropriate upon which to base the creation of an article. Your new articles don't even specific which parish(es) (Louisiana's equivalent to a county) where the roads lie. That's a huge amount of context missing from these articles. I just had to tag 25 new articles for the project, all of which need to be cleaned up to meet minimum expectations for a highway article for the US. These aren't stubs... they're sub-stubs because of the missing information, and sometimes a redlink is more informative than a sub-stub.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Mail
-- SKATER  Is Back 15:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied under specific terms. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 15:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Question
Could I nominate you for adminship? You seem a good editor. :D --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 09:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved from User talk:とある白い猫
 * Hi! Any reason why you want to nominate me all of a sudden? -- A Certain White Cat chi? 10:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw you come up in Recent Changes and reviewed your edits, and thought that you were ready. :) --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 10:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As you wish. I am not confident that it would pass though. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 12:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tom, if you are going ahead with this (I am neutral on whether it's a good idea or not), I strongly suggest that you also review the proposed candidate's past enwiki RfAs, and prepare a rationale as to how exactly - in detail - the proposed candidate's recent edits prove that they have addressed whatever the concerns were in the previous RfAs. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I share the concern. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 14:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I could not find the RfA links. Are there any? --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 17:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really sure I'm neutral, I think it's not a great idea (no offense whatsoever to A Certain White Cat).

Tom, one of the first interactions we had was you leaving me a message on my talk page asking if I wanted you to nominate me for admin. It struck me as very odd because I really didn't know you and was pretty confident you really didn't know about me (as an editor). Since that time I've seen you ask a couple dozen different people if they wanted you to nominate them. I believe that each has said no. One of the big reasons, and I could be off base - perhaps it's just me, is that when and if I'm ever nominated, I want it to be because someone with experience in Wikipedia has seen things that I've done, noticed my interactions with others, seen my participation in AfD, NPP, CSD, AN, etc. and come to the conclusion that I'd be a good admin. I believe that would make the nomination much more meaningful for me, and for those that are going to evaluate me. To be blunt, I want to be nominated eventually by someone whose opinion I respect, and who has the respect of the community.

I don't know A Certain White Cat from adam, and I'm sure they are terrific as an editor, but please take the advice given above and know the person you are nominating. I would hate to see an RfA go badly by a poorly conceived nomination just because an RfA nomination is on your 'to do' list. As always, just my 2 cents.   Wikipelli Talk   18:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn my idea of the RFA per finding the past RfA's and old user accounts. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 19:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Stub templates
Hi, not a big deal, but please don't move stub templates above references like you did here. Per MOS:APPENDIX stub templates should be below categories. Also, I've removed your PROD on that article – the guy is clearly notable. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

archive templates
Hello, Tomtomn00! Just a head's up, when using, it goes under the heading instead of over it (see the documentation on the template). Otherwise, the bot will archive the top part of the template with the previous section and the bottom part of the template with the correct section, which will mess up the archive a bit. NBD. I fixed 'em. Rgrds. --64.85.215.138 (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Hatia Station
Hello! Your submission of Hatia Station 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!  Schwede 66  20:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

New Pages update
Hey :). A quick update on how things are going with the New Page Triage/New Pages Feed project. As the enwiki page notes, the project is divided into two chunks: the "list view" (essentially an updated version of Special:NewPages) and the "article view", a view you'll be presented with when you open up individual articles that contains a toolbar with lots of options to interact with the page - patrolling it, adding maintenance tags, nominating it for deletion, so on.

On the list view front, we're pretty much done! We tried deploying it to enwiki, in line with our Engagement Strategy on Wednesday, but ran into bugs and had to reschedule - the same happened on Thursday :(. We've queued a new deployment for Monday PST, and hopefully that one will go better. If it does, the software will be ready to play around with and test by the following week! :).

On the article view front, the developers are doing some fantastic work designing the toolbar, which we're calling the "curation bar"; you can see a mockup here. A stripped-down version of this should be ready to deploy fairly soon after the list view is; I'm afraid I don't have precise dates yet. When I have more info, or can unleash everyone to test the list view, I'll let you know :). As always, any questions to the talkpage for the project or mine. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

AFC review


I reverted your review: This submission has inline citations (only wrongly formatted and thus not displayed, check the old submission status with the red noticeS at the bottom!) and thus your decline reason is invalid! I cleaned the submission up. Please do the review again! mabdul 11:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I won't, unless accepting. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 11:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

April 2012 Admin Review Comment
Hey Tomtomn00, thanks for what you said here about me. ;) Best. Acalamari 09:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. :D --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 15:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and sorry for calling this header "April 2012"...it should have been "Admin review comment" (Firefox auto-fill, argh!). :( Acalamari 15:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's May. :) No problems. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 15:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The wrong month makes it even worse. :D Acalamari 16:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * At least you didn't say the year. :D --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 16:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

re: Kim Brownn
well done. — Ched : ?  17:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I should've noted, I recieved 2 emails, 5 mins apart. :D Also, I saw the CheckUser request, it came up on watchlist. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 17:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * protected your talk for a week ... user page is also protected (indef). — Ched : ?  17:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

CSD on JaackMaate
Hey Tomomn00, I don't really know what I'm doing on wikipedia, but thanks for 'objecting speedy deletion' on my 'JaackMaate' page! Why do they want to delete it? And is this where I am supposed to write to you?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackfreestone (talk • contribs) 18:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are at the correct place. I requested deletion as we do not want articles about YouTube accounts - unless is than account of a successful company. I have over 1 million views (8 accounts - 90-150k views each) on YouTube, and I do not have an article about myself, and do not wish to have one. Also, please read WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:N. Thanks! --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 19:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Cluebot
Because admins make mistakes too. Hang me in the Village stocks if you must, but I think you will find MUCH bigger "oops" moments there. - Running On Brains (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit
Hey, I changed a couple things on the DYK nom per your talk page comment. Good luck. :) Keilana | Parlez ici 02:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Stubs
Hi! Please see Stub - "It is usually desirable to leave two blank lines between the first stub template and whatever precedes it" Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "... desirable ..." - implying the fact it doesn't look bad, and in my oppinion, it does. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 15:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Bat'leth DYK
Regarding the Bat'leth DYK, I've done the citations. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Ticked it. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 17:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012
Hello Tomtomn00. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know however,  that tagging articles for speedy deletion moments after creation as lacking context (CSD A1), content (CSD A3) and articles created through the Article Wizard, is too fast. It's best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), pure vandalism (G3), and copyright violations (G12) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. '' Could you possibly slow down on the speedy tagging of articles? This one was tagged within 1 minute. Hardly time to put in more information. This is a new editor and could maybe use help and guidance rather than get swatted down trying to make an article.    Wikipelli ''Talk   13:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure! New target: do not tag an article for CSD unless it is Copyvio, or a seriously non-notable person (ex. autobio). --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 17:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point, Tomtom.... I don't care what articles you tag for speedy deletion. I care when you tag them. Why not give them 30 minutes or so?  You have tagged several in the past few days that are perfectly viable articles, and you have done so very quickly (often within one or two minutes!). I'm not completely sure you have the necessary experience or skill to recognize notable vs non-notable that fast. Read them! Maybe take a couple seconds to leave the editor an encouraging note about what the article needs or why it might be deleted.  The encyclopedia is not going to suffer very much if a non-notable article is left up for an extra 1/2 hour. It's about encouraging editors, not building up your CSD Log.   Wikipelli  Talk   19:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay! I will give it around 20 mins, unless it's one of the 4 stated above. For A7 I will Google Search everything first. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 19:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Compton-Belkovich
Sorry I had other things to do and now I have to go to bed. I hope I can find some day tomorrow. Keep up your good work! --Stone (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry! It's going up as a DYK on the main page at 9am BST. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 21:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Compton-Belkovich Thorium Anomaly
The article Compton-Belkovich Thorium Anomaly you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Compton-Belkovich Thorium Anomaly for things which need to be addressed. GRAPPLE  X  22:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage prototype released
Hey Tomtomn00! We've finally finished the NPT prototype and deployed it on enwiki. We'll be holding an office hours session on the 16th at 21:00 in #wikimedia-office to show it off, get feedback and plot future developments - hope to see you there! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Compton-Belkovich Thorium Anomaly
Orlady (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Moon quadrangle
Hi, I don't understand how the parsing works inside Template:Infobox moon hot spot data, but at present it is using Template:Mars quadrangle and therefore giving a Martian quadrangle rather than a lunar one. Perhaps you are simply still working on it? If you're taking a break from it, may I suggest you comment-out the code that gives the Martian result? – Fayenatic L ondon (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; error. Thanks for telling me! --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 17:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Point to note for RfA
Hello Tomtomn00, in case you didn't know that there are some things to be kept in mind while commenting in RfA's. For example, like you commented on User:Dannyboy1209 RfA Requests for adminship/Dannyboy1209 and voting "as per another user". Although this RfA is quite likely not to get pass, but still please make sure to comment with proper reasoning and points rather than just saying "yes" on "yes" or "no" on "no". I suggest you read Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions and familiarize yourself with it. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ - expanded comment.