User talk:Train of Knowledge/2019

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Train of Knowledge! Thank you for your contributions. I am HiLo48 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! HiLo48 (talk) 07:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Your report on User:Jwarburton99
You listed User:Jwarburton99 at WP:UAA. Please note that item 2 of the header to that noticeboard says: Such use is not considered promotional, even if the user creates an autobiography. Please bear this in mind in future. Thank you for patrolling Wikipedia. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Puzzled
Why don't you think Draft:Major General Dave Chalmers is eligible for G12?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

When I did Earwig's Copyvio detector (which is what I do to drafts submitted to AFC), I found that Draft:Major General Dave Chalmers was only a possible violation rather than a suspected violation. This is why I put a copyvio template rather than putting it up for speedy deletion as G12. Train of Knowledge (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

deletion of page for no reason

 * , you deleted my page for no reason. it makes no sense. OTFTYT (talk) 12:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, i read the G11 deletion reason. But i didnt spam, i resubmitted so i could get it rated. I didnt even spam it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OTFTYT (talk • contribs) 12:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Did same for my page when I actually had permission to use content. You came in here in two months and decided to upturn others efforts. Stevetosin (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

About now deleted draft Yangire
Hi Train of Knowledge, and thank you for your contributions.

In my opinion, it was not blatant vandalism. Please do remember to assume that people are editing the Wikipedia project to improve it.

That anime/manga fandom term was discussed here, and I have deleted the draft under the WP:G4 rationale.''

As always, please let me know if you disagree about this, and please let me know if I can assist you in any way whatsoever related to the English language Wikipedia.

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019
Hello, I'm Djm-leighpark. I wanted to let you know that your signature design might cause problems for some readers. This is because per WP:CUSTOMSIG falls outside guidelines and policies and therefore likely to cause annoyance If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines and policy on customising signatures. Particularly vexatious is its use who purposes such as informing people who may be WP:NEWBIES of speedy deletions such as at: User talk:ScreenWipe30. See also Signature tutorial. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅. Train of Knowledge (Talk|Contribs) 19:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Draft:NAS4lite
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:NAS4lite. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Review at Deletion review. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said in the DRV, don't let this slow down your review of pages. Just remember first that the reverse copyvio is a weird thing, second, don't tag anything that's recently had a community discussion (that was your minor mistake), and, third, if you make a mistake, the admin should usually explain it to you.  So don't worry.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm like to second what Robert said above. (Don't follow what I say, I'm a bad example).  Really impressed with your response and willingness to learn … If you think you make mistakes try mine, and the only way I've ever learned to do anything right was by doing it wrong first.  Best Regards, Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Page for Unjust reasons
Hi T! I think you deleted my page without undergoing due process. That's just too bad... You don't just come on here and feel you could do and undo without getting users to explain stuff. Stevetosin (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * When I nominated the page for speedy deletion, the second paragraph clearly stated that "If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — 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." - I am very sorry if I've caused any trouble with the nomination. I am very sorry for my past actions involving some speedy deletions. If you've owned the text from the website (your own Facebook page), please read this page for more information regarding donating copyrighted materials. If you want to the page back, please visit WP:REFUND. Thanks! Train of Knowledge (Talk|Contribs) 23:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

 * Moved to end of talk page though no I give no support to the allegations. Report was to User talk:JBW.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)  Having looked around a bit the version suggested by 50.24.210.141 possibly looks more correct and is certainly safer.  If there are reasons for the other content it can be suggested on the article talk page. . Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Sammy Davis Jr
You removed truthful facts regarding Sammy Davis Jr. Reason?
 * You did not provide a reliable source to back up your claims. Adding unsourced or poorly sourced content violates Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability. You are welcome to add the claim again, but only if you provide a reliable source to back up your claim about Sammy Davis Jr belonging to Satanism. Thanks! Train of Knowledge (Talk|Contribs) 23:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Article "Society of the Cincinnati"
Good evening, Like millions of people, I use and enjoy Wikipedia. I'm a professional historian, and served for several years on the faculty of the University of Virginia before becoming the executive director of the Society of the Cincinnati, the nation's oldest patriotic organization. I've long been frustrated by the poor quality of the Wikipedia article on the organization, which is badly written, poorly organized, full of inaccuracies, and badly documented. I decided to sign up as a Wikipedia editor to make it good. I began this evening by replacing the poorly composed introduction with an accurate one, but when I returned to continue the work this evening I found that it had all been undone and the original, and really very bad, old text had been restored and I had your message, indicating that my work is suspect because I must have a "conflict of interest." Actually, while I run the organization in question, I'm not a member of it. I do happen to be an expert on its history — to be candid probably the world's foremost expert. I have every intention of documenting each part of the article as I go through it. The opening introduces the topics, in summary fashion, and citations wouldn't be appropriate there. I think if you restore what I've done, and watch what I do going forward through the project, you will find it thorough and very effectively documented. I do know how to document my work. I edited George Washington's presidential papers for publication by the University of Virginia Press, and my scholarly work has appeared in many academic journals that engage in strict vetting and peer review. Give me a chance to make this entry a good one.

Marlan Drive (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@: Ultimately I would probably have reverted this myself had this been on my WP:Watchlist, though per WP:REVERT an edit summary should have been given in my view. I'll leave other specific advice on your talk page.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Because parts of your edit summary contained "I am the executive director of the Society of the Cincinnati, a position I have held since 2004. This page describes the organization of which I am the CEO", I genuinely believed that you had a conflict of interest with the article you just wrote. If you have a conflict of interest, you must declare it. Now that I know you don't have a conflict of interest, I will revert your changes (if they haven't been reverted back originally). Anyways, thank you for improving Wikipedia. Train of Knowledge (Talk|Contribs) 22:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that was the correct decision but accept my judgment may be flawed. I've raised the matter on the article talk page and invited comments from the Teahouse.  I'll likely go with consensus with any reasonable decision.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)