User talk:ToThAc

Hi ToThAc! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Farm to Market Road 677 has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Farm to Market Road 677 was changed by ToThAc (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.957678 on 2017-03-26T17:12:47+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please stop changing speedy deletion tags, because your edits are not helpful. All three of the tags you just changed had additional information in them, information that is valuable for the admins who delete the pages, but that you removed. Thank you. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Interstate 24 in Illinois, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. L3X1 (distant write) 02:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on Achilles Radial. The article was not overtly promotional, and made a credible assertion of notability as "one of the largest tire manufacturers in Indonesia." If you feel the article needs to be deleted, please take it to AFD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The default sort key is "US008", but you've been overriding that. The default is correct because sort keys sort alphabetically, not numerically. For example, if we just used "U.S. Route 8" as the sort key, it would come after "U.S. Route 61" because when you work alphabetically, the sorting algorithm see the "U.S. Route " part as the same, and when it looks at the next character to break the tie, the "6" comes before the "8". However, if we use "US008" and "US061" as sort keys, after looking at the "US0", the next character would be either a "0" or a "6", giving the tiebreaker to "US008" over "US061". Imzadi 1979 → 14:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this edit for a better way to do what you're doing. The DEFAULTSORT was set to "91" so that the "Interstate Highways in <state>" categories didn't have to have that sort key set, however, if you changed the DEFAULTSORT to "Interstate 91" and manually applied the "91" key to those three categories, you wouldn't have had to change so much, and any additional categories added will sort by "Interstate 91" in the future unless a key is specifically added. In short, it's better the way I did it over the way you're doing it. Imzadi 1979 → 00:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That really helps! ToThAc (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, people reply wherever the conversation is started, no need to split things up. Most editors watchlist talk pages where they've commented, so they'll see your reply here. Imzadi 1979 → 00:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hate sounding WP:OWNy with this article, but I'll feel better if I write it. I take a little pride in doing it right the first time, so I don't want to rush it to the article space. –Fredddie™ 01:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-editfilter4im, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Template-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 10:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you made this edit. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Route 70 in New Mexico, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Route 160 in Colorado, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ToThAc. I just wanted to point out to you that it is not required of you to close the discussion threads at WP:FFD. We have AnomieBOT, which will come do so about an hour or two after deletion has taken place. No need to give yourself an unnecessary workload! ℯxplicit 01:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks very much. ToThAc (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I declined the G4 speedy deletion of Ze'ev Kesley. Based on the article history, Ze'ev Kesley is a fictional character in The Lunar Chronicles, so the redirect is somewhat plausible. I've tagged it with {{R from character}} to make that clear. If you still think it's not a useful redirect, you can bring it to WP:RFD. Thanks. clpo13_(talk) 17:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you give me some pointers on how to improve this page? You mention that there is a single source but there are in fact more than 10 independent sources not affiliated with Greenwich Dance.

Also, you mention there's no proof of GNG, but Greenwich Dance is referred to on several other Wikipedia pages (see my other edits) and is a major dance company in London.

Any advice gratefully received. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verity.todd (talk • contribs) 18:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice - as a start, I have removed all non third-party sources and have definitely made sure it's not an orphan. Will keep editing to take in all of your points. Verity.todd (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assistance on the I'm Empire page. I was conflicted, but if the articles are the same, so be it. You have decided the issue. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Route 63 in Missouri, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

–Fredddie™ 23:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right in that it's lacking sources, but there are a lot of USRD articles in far worse shape. But on the note of finding sources, you should request newspaper database access at WP:TWL. –Fredddie™ 23:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ToThAc Heteropoda sumatrana, and I can't expand it If article it's short please add a stub and how you can see I can't find a photo, get example, this article was accepted and it's similar with my article Pardosa ludia Builder8360 (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you for understanding and accepting my article, be carefully next time with AFC submissions :) Builder8360 (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ToThAc - Thank you for looking at the AFC for Software Toolworks. You suggested that I edit the Mindscape article to insert this material. I have a COI in that I was the founder, a board member and employee of Software Toolworks. Is it proper for me to edit the Mindscape article myself? Bilofsky (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion to ask for help on Mindscape talk.

Is it your judgment that the substance of the article is worthwhile?

(Should I be answering you on my talk page or here? Apologies for being a noob.) Bilofsky (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Henne3 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Berlin GAA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't quite understand why the draft was denied this time. You recommended finding more "major sources", but the sites in "References" are among the biggest sports websites in Ireland and for them to take an interest in a Gaelic club abroad is remarkable. The articles on the subject go way beyond simple mentions, but feature in-depth portrayal of the club and its members. Our features on German TV and radio unfortunately have no permanent links. There are similar articles on the wiki already with fewer and weaker references.

Henne3 (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll follow your advice and begin to add my citations to the existing article Arlene Gottfried.-- Mitzi.humphrey 18:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from U.S. Route 85 into Draft:U.S. Route 85 in Colorado). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question, did you copy the Kentucky junction list from Talk:U.S. Route 460 into the draft? I'm not mad or anything like that, I just want to make sure so we can properly follow the terms of the CC-BY-SA license, which requires attribution. –Fredddie™ 05:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 128.176.228.207 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Frank Jotzo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Our article has been rejected three times even though, from our point of view, we respected all criteria. The first rejection claimed a lack of independent sources so we added newspaper articles stating Frank Jotzo's position as an environmental economist. These articles are, e.g., from the Washington Post and NY times. Frank Jotzo's research and advisory work is proven by publications from well-known international institutions totally independent of Frank Jotzo (IPCC, Garnaut Review and so on). These sources also show his notable impact in research. Other comparable Wikipedia entries have by far less independent sources (e.g. Cameron Hepburn which was the role model for our entry). If you have concerns about certain paragraphs please let us know but the sources in general are not merely news outlets. They all proof Frank Jotzo's achievements from an independent point of view.

• Giznej (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Multi-objective linear programming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I agree that the article should be extended, for instance be sections like "Duality" and "Applications" (and I intend to contribute here later). However, I think that "Multi-objective linear programming" should not be just a subsection of "Multi-objective Optimization". For instance, there is an article about "Mathematical Optimization" but there are also very detailed articles about important subclasses like "Linear Programming" or "Quadratic Programming". The theory about the linear case is very rich and should be explained in a separate article.

Thanks for reviewing - we appear to be going around in circles with this one - and thought we were almost done when the feedback was that the references were in the wrong order - we have followed the major feedback and added many external references and sources. Could you take another look please? Thanks for your help Mfrancis49 (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Michael Francis[reply]

Thanks for reviewing Multicultural Music Fellowship. Could you take another look- I think I removed what is deemed as informal. More thoughts would be appreciated as I try to get this approved.

Thanks! 375mon (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 147.140.233.30 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ady Hershcovitch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you please clarify which areas of the article need to be edited to meet the minimum standard of references? Despite multiple resubmissions, the reviewers do not state specific examples, but rather keep posting the same generic message. It is difficult for the authors of this page to understand exactly why this article continues to get declined without further details provided. We would like to write this page to be in line with wiki's high standards but find it challenging with the lack of feedback on each review.

Can you please clarify which areas of the article need to be edited to meet the minimum standard of references? Despite multiple resubmissions, the reviewers do not state specific examples, but rather keep posting the same generic message. It is difficult for the authors of this page to understand exactly why this article continues to get declined without further details provided. We would like to write this page to be in line with wiki's high standards but find it challenging with the lack of feedback on each review.

Just as a note (and yes, I'm a month late, but no one else seems to have commented on it), when you are reviewing drafts MOS or ELINK violations are not suitable reasons to decline a draft. 99% of the time the standard decline reasons will be acceptable. Primefac (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC) Oh, okay, thanks. ToThAc (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you rescued the list or just edited it but either way I wanted to say thanks for your input. ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 12:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ToThAc,

I can see you are new to Wikipedia and are still finding your feet (as confirmed by numerous posts on a on your talk page, not least those regarding AFC).

You rejected the AFC:International Board Game Studies Association because the "references do not adequately show the subject's notability".

However, if you look at the talk page for the International Board Game Studies Association AFC, you will see that a considerable number of sources been added since the submission was originally rejected on the grounds that "one source don't establish notability".

Further, the General Notability Guidelines acknowledge that sources will "vary in quality and depth of coverage [and] multiple sources are generally expected".

Moreover, on Depth of Coverage, the General Notability Guidelines state "if the depth of coverage is not substantial then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability"

The article is currently supported by ten references, ranging in time from 2007 to 2017.

If you could find the time to look at the article again, and also review the article's talk page, I would, indeed, be grateful.

Draft_talk:International_Board_Game_Studies_Association

Thanks.

82.30.20.170 (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like there is no good reason to eliminate it... so, why are you trying to? Famartin (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Primefac was:

We already have {{unblocked}} and {{unblock reviewed}}, the latter of which isn't a perfect way to reply but works. The other option would be simply commenting out the unblock request. In other words, I don't think we need this template.

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

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Template:Unblock procedural and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Primefac (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Axel90Lenny90 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Gancher & Ruin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I would like to know what exactly should I add to it to get approved. I think I've added all the sources. Could you please let me know what am I still wrong at?

Thank you

Actually it does extend into the county per https://www.google.com/maps/place/Roanoke,+VA/@37.2743013,-80.0275821,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x884d0c4d6aa966fd:0x249dbecbdbb0989b!8m2!3d37.2709704!4d-79.9414266 Famartin (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Template:Unblock procedural. Thanks! ToThAc (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Spsand reported by User:Jd22292 (Result: ). jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Route 85 in Colorado, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assessed the article at only Start-Class, not C-Class even though it has all of the Big Three. The history section is too incomplete to be counted for that assessment metric. At the very least, the date or year of creation needs to be added, but frankly some semblance of a historical narrative is needed. As for the junction list, whole segments are missing with "see also" type links directing readers to fill in the blanks elsewhere. That's not really a good practice to deal with concurrencies, and it should be totally avoided. Imzadi 1979 → 06:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that the route description is quite short of a highway of this length. I'd expect to see it much more developed before promotion to B-Class. Imzadi 1979 → 06:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Start class is totally fine with me. ToThAc (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I came across this article at WP:TH. You declined the submission, giving poor tone as the reason. It is difficult to know exactly what your issues are, so maybe you could leave a comment on the draft, explaining exactly what you would like to be done to improve the article. I am not telling you to do so, but it will help in guiding the article's creator in terms of what to do next. It may also be a good idea to spend five minutes on the article yourself, to see if you can fix some of the more obvious issues. This would be of great help to editors involved in the development of the piece. Thank you in advance. –Sb2001 02:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Crypto88mph (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Factom Protocol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

ToThAc,

I've made a number of edits to the "Factom (Protocol)" page, with an eye towards making it sounds less like an advertisement, which was the stated reason for the initial rejection.

I should note that everything in the article is 100% factually accurate; the only opinion in the piece (which is necessarily an opinion) is the sentence "Reception of the Factom Protocol has been widespread and generally positive." While this is not technically "fact," I am convinced that anyone researching the Factom Protocol's media reception would come to the same conclusion.

As a former journalist, I am sensitive to the needs for objectivity in content such as this. I hope you find these edits meet your requirements. If not, please let me know, and I'll make any additional changes needed.

Crypto88mph

• Crypto88mph (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Factom Protocol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I believe I've addressed the issue given for the previous rejection.

Given the confusion I've had with the reasons for the previous rejections, I would also like to clarify that I am not connected--formally or informally--with Factom. I went to the Live Chat to seek clarification for the previous rejection, and spoke with TheDragonFire, who asked me:

"Are you connected to Factom Inc?"

I responded:

"I'm an investor in their tokens, FCT. But I'm not formally or otherwise connected outside of that. I bought the tokens on an exchange, not from Factom."

TheDragonFire responded:

"Ah, okay, that's not a particularly significant conflict of interest."

The stated reason for the second rejection of this post was:

"Still relies heavily on primary sources.”

I have deleted and/or pared down some of the content associated with primary sources. I have tried to use primary sources exclusively to support claims pertaining to the technical details of the Protocol. The content derived from primary sources makes no claims to the Protocol's quality or notability. If I am mistaken, I would appreciate being directed to the particular passage.

The Wall Street Journal, MIT Technology Review, BBC.com, The Irish Times, Reuters, The Economist, and International Business Times--all of whom have covered the Protocol at length--don’t generally get into the technical details of the Protocol, because that would be inappropriate for their target audience.

However I believe this page needs to cover some of the more important details related to the Protocol. As much as possible, I have tried to rely on secondary sources, but have used the white paper a number of times when the technical details were not covered by the mainstream media.

I could, theoretically, take out more references to how the Protocol works, but I don’t see how this would improve upon the credabilty/notability of the above-mentioned sources, or be of service to Wikipedia’s readers.

I appreciate your effort to safeguard the objectivity of content on Wikipedia, and I hope that the above-mentioned sources provide the required evidence of notability of the Factom Protocol.

If not, there are plenty of more quotes I can add.

Crypto88mph (talk) 03:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you moved the page. Is it possible you can rename it to Lil Pump, as he is better known by that? BAPreme _{(T | C)} 20:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ammay531 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Social Media in Writing Centers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! Thanks for reviewing my article. I was just curious if there was a way I could check whether or not some of the sources I used are considered reliable? I have read the guidelines, but I've heard there are some gray areas and that some blogs might not be considered verifiable. I just want to make sure it doesn't get rejected again since it has a deadline.

Thanks!

Ammay531 (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)ammay531[reply]

Ammay531 (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please stop?? Try waiting ten minutes after people create articles. Twice you've tagged my article and there's been an edit conflict as I'm adding more information which would have been avoided if you'd had the courtesy to wait one minute.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep same comment. If an article is currently being edited (please check its history) you shouldn't be tagging it unless its something urgent (such as a BLP without references). Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 18:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Freeman1856 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:December 1917 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, this is meant to be a main article to December 1917. Please refer to all the other main articles by month as they relate to 1917. The purpose of the main article is to show an exact daily account of the month in a calendar format. If you have further questions, I'm willing to talk live. - Freeman1856 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeman1856 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freeman1856, I've gone ahead and accepted the draft. Thank you for your submission. Primefac (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

• Ammay531 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Social Media in Writing Centers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello and thanks for reviewing my page a second time. I'm a little confused about the "verifiable sources" thing again, partly because I'm dealing with a topic that is primarily discussed via blog posts. There is no research on this topic aside from a single article published in 2010. Furthermore, all of the blog posts I have included are from university writing center pages and/or people in the field. I'm not really sure if there is a workaround for this, but if I take all of that information out, the post will literally be three lines long and will exclude a lot of (what I consider) important information on the topic. Once again, I appreciate any advice/response you can give me. Thank you in advance.

Ammay531 (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You may want to read WP:DTTR - Templating an editor who's been here since 2012 isn't a very good idea, personal messages are more preferred, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ToThAc. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like your enthusiasm to delete unwanted articles, but I was in middle of writing Sarmad Sehbai when you put your tag. I do not have issue with it, because I understand your reason. But you have to give article some time before you start putting tags. I was in middle of writing this article and consequence of your tagging was that I lost my edits. --Spasage (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can add Golduck is my homie to your list. Just had it blocked ten minutes ago. Home Lander (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Template:Unblock procedural, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Template:Unblock procedural and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Template:Unblock procedural during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

==Deprodding of Fórsa== 

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Fórsa, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Berrocca Addict (talk)

Hello, ToThAc. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

with respect to speedy deletion, nocontext means that one cannot tell what the article is about-- that is not the case with Murga Mahadev First check for sources; then, only if not found, nominate for deletion at AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 22:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the Ayurveda article. A few hours isn't long at all! I looked at the history, and it was broken for 11 months. 2001:BB6:4703:4A58:30CB:24C8:7EDA:E73 (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly asking that the request for speedy deletion you added be removed from Weston Ski Track, not sure why you flagged it as such as it doesn't fit into a deletion criteria.

--GLaDOS (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered that you didn't just start the DRV on this, but you also closed a second AfD on the subject. There's multiple issues here.

1. As I pointed out when I closed the DRV, WP:NAC is only for obvious closes. This clearly was not an open-and-shut issue, so WP:NAC did not apply.
2. When you close an AfD, NAC or not, you're acting in an administrative capacity. One of the prime rules is that administrative actions must be unbiased. If you have an opinion on a discussion, you should not be performing administrative actions related to that discussion. Your procedural close was totally inappropriate. It would have been equally inappropriate even if you were an admin.
3. All administrative actions should be 100% transparent. When you started the DRV, you should have recapped any previous involvement you had with the issue (i.e. your procedural close of the 2nd AfD). To hide that information is just plain wrong.
4. Oh, wait, I just this very moment, after writing all of the above, noticed that you started the 2nd AfD. Again, you need to be striving for transparency. If you wanted to withdraw your AfD, that's fine, but make it obvious that it's your own nomination that you're withdrawing. None of this mysterious procedural NAC stuff. And, given that you started the 2nd AfD, why not just let it run its course? Why confuse things by letting it run for a couple of days then change your mind what forum you want to pursue this in? And, again, at the very least, you should have been upfront about all of your previous actions in the DRV nomination.

At this point, the least confusing and disruptive thing to do would be to just let Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postal codes in Canada continue to its conclusion, so that's what I'm going to do. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ToThAc, good communication skills is an integral part of AFC project.I may be horribly mistaken but your t/p seem to be full of queries by submitters of declined drafts, who haven't received any detailed talk-back/help from your end, barring one-liners and/or decline-templates in some cases.Remember that, for most of these editors, AFC and its bunch of reviewers will the only side of Wikipedia that would visible to them for a long time.Hence, it may be prudential to help the good-faith-newbies feel more welcomed to our environment.A good-start would be to use more-detailed personalized messages, while replying to your t/p queries.Thank you!Winged Blades^Godric 05:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being a second relist it should have explanation; there's absolutely no need for it - do you really think there hasn't been enough discussion there that it needs more????? I'd suggest reverting it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, paine ellsworth has relisted it, apparently hoping for a consensus by notifying wikiprojects.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I noticed that you relisted the move request here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jingpo_people#Requested_move_27_December_2017

However it appears that the original requester has go ahead an made the move themselves. As someone with an interest in kachin culture and who has written a few articles on the culture, I am absolutely shocked that this has happened, as it without a doubt completly wrong. There is little evidence (in fact there is no sources presented in the request) that Kachin should be redirected to Jinghpaw. So I think that the user in question has made a unilateral decision, while bold, is incorrect and is not back up by any facts. In fact if you look at the page which is now Kachin peoples you can see sourced refs stating that Jinghpaw is a sub category of Kachin.

This change has moved Kachin people to Kachin peoples, but I can't revert that back because the old kachin people page is now a new redirect page to Jingpo.

Do you know what the procedure is for these requested moves, if the request hasn't been closed by an admin yet. Is it possible to do a revert?Egaoblai (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Egaoblai: Unfortunately, I don't have expertise in the subject and simply relisted it because it was malformed for about a week, therefore there was no participation in general. However, this section might be helpful, as it details the discussion regarding the subject. Cheers. ToThAc (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I've seen that discussion and the only person who suggests the move is one person ten years ago and person who made the current move today. as I can't revert this, I think my best option is to request an admin close on the current discussion, which in my mind does not approach a quorum or a consensus needed to move.Egaoblai (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Philacevedo (talk · contribs)
  • User:Philacevedo/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi - I don't understand your comment re the One With Life Organic Tequila article. "The lead is 'very promotional". It seems to be substantially similar to many of the the other tequila's on the list page except that this article has numerous independent sources cited to verify the info. Many more than a significant number of the other articles. Can you explain how the rules are so discriminately applied. Also, some advice on how it should be changed. Philacevedo (talk) 05:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC) philacevedo[reply]

Philacevedo (talk) 05:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Philacevedo (talk · contribs)
  • User:Philacevedo/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

follow up on question re review of One With Life Organic Tequila article. pls 4Copas article on list page as an example (also Arette and Avion) Philacevedo (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC) philacevedo Philacevedo (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I cannot make sense of your close of Talk:Winesburg, Ohio (town)#Requested move 10 January 2018, and I think it goes contrary to WP:RMCI#Determining consensus on a number of levels. Everyone in the discussion knew that Winesburg, Ohio is a book, not a town. The disagreement lied whether that should cause the populated place of Winesburg not to follow the WP:USPLACE conventions, where four posters (counting the nominator) thought it should not, and two thought it should, and everyone based their opinion on policy and precedent. I don't think that your close sufficiently addressed the issue to keep the article at the present location. Please consider reopening the discussion. No such user (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to make the same points the above editor did, and discovered them already well-made. The issue under discussion was the fact that the current title of the article misleadingly refers to the unincorporated community as a "town", and presented a way to fix it. The fact that the book is the primary name is accepted by everyone and is not really relevant to the current issue. I agree that it would be best if the discussion were reopened. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also suggest vacating your close Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Gallager, while I appreciate your concern, did you see the previous RM close before you contacted me? ToThAc (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, but it doesn't change my argument. I don't believe that editor knew that there was a problem with the word "town" in the title. I've tried to address that in my proposal. --Ken Gallager (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder that there is no quorum required to make a move - that is, if there is one support and no oppose then you can usually do the move unless you think it would be controversial/the rationale isn't good. Also, shouldn't relist discussions with a lot of participation as those should usually be closed one way or the other/or no consensus. I'd recommend slowing down on the relists and focusing more on closing the discussions. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also recommend re-reading WP:RMCLOSE, especially the portion about determining consensus/when to relist. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also "In general, discussions should not be relisted more than once before properly closing." So don't relist twice unless you really can explain why. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also for example Talk:Vikings_(TV_series)#Requested_move_13_January_2018 didn't need relisting since there was already lots of discussion, and the consensus or lack thereof should be determined instead. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Galobtter: That isn't a good example, as the mentioned RM was actually heavily controversial and no one can agree on what to do. (Additionally, it's only been relisted once.) ToThAc (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting once is the usual max; if no one can agree on what to do, then it is no consensus closure then? Isn't it. (suggest leaving more complicated ones alone until you get some more experience with closures) Relisting more didn't invite more comments, so it is utterly pointless. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

follow up on the following comment re the proposed One With Life Organic Tequila article - Comment: By that I mean that you have to remove terms like "certified organic", "certified kosher", and "100%". With all due respect, I still am not sure I understand. The terms you suggest to be removed are all factual and can be independently sourced. Furthermore, the very same terms are currently utilized in the lead invnumerous other articles of brands in the article "List of Tequilas"

a quick review of these articles (and I only went through the beginning of the letter H reveals the following articles using similar terms. In light of this, please explain why these terms should be removed from the article in question and not from numerous other similar articles?

1800 Tequila - 100% blue agave

1519 Tequila - Certified Organic Tequila by both USDA[1] and "European Union". that also certified KosherPareve[2] by Orthodox Union.

4 Copas - which uses sustainable organic methods. The company also participates in the supporting of Sea Turtle Restoration Project an Organization dedicated to research and support of conservation of Sea Turtles,[2][3]

Arette Tequila is only made from 100% Estate Agave.

Avion - from the Agave grown in the highest elevations.[1] Tequila Avión has won multiple awards in 2011 and 2012 San Francisco World Spirits Competition.

Casa Dragonesis a handcrafted, small batch, luxury tequila producer

casa noble - It is a CCOF certified organic tequila.

Chaya - from 100% Blue Agave

DeLeón Tequila is certified as 100% blue weber agave tequila.

Herradura 100% agave. Philacevedo (talk) 11:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Philacevedo: Seriously, "100%" is promotional and flowery. It makes it sound like it's actually "100%" even though there's some imperfections. I suggest you read WP:PEACOCK before messaging me again. ToThAc (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the seriousness with which you have undertaken your editing responsibilities, but if you would kindly indulge me by reviewing the following material related to the certification process of Tequila:

Tequila's are subject to a rigorous certification process. The Mexican government has accredited the Tequila Regulatory Council (CRT) with the authority to verify and police the standards and certifications of tequila. The Mexican Official Standard for Tequila is NOM-006-SCFI-1994, Bebidas alcohólicas- Tequila-Especificaciones (NOM).

One of the main provisions of NOM-006-SFI-1994, provides the classifications of tequila's. There are those classified as "100% Agave Tequilas" and those classified as "Tequila".

Those Tequila's meeting the rigorous certifications receive a NOM and are labeled as 100% Agave or 100% Agave Azure. Such classification or labeling is not promotional or flowery, but the result of observance with strict requirements to ensure the integrity of the product. Specifically:

The classification between Tequila 100% Agave, made from 100% agave sap, and Tequila, a category produced with 51% of agave sap and up to 49% other sugars.

see pg 4 of the following for an overview Philacevedo (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC) Philacevedo (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.tequilaspecialist.com/teqconc.pdf

also see

https://www.crt.org.mx/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=65&Itemid=370&lang=en

https://www.crt.org.mx/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=140:paso-2&catid=11:crt

https://www.diffordsguide.com/es-mx/beer-wine-spirits/category/509/blanco-tequila-100-agave Philacevedo (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Charlie F. Brown (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Professor Aidan Halligan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I have developed an article on Professor Aidan Halligan which has been rejected twice. It is my first article and I don't understand what I need to do to bring the article in line with your standards, particularly around the references. Could you provide more advice? Thanks Charlie Charlie F. Brown (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comment about my new page submission. It is my goal to remain neutral and be a good wikipedian ;-). Johnnyeallee (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ToThAc, thank you for your interest in the GAN process. For future reference, when you are thinking about nominating an article for GA that you haven't made a significant contribution to, as in DuckTales: Remastered, the GAN instructions say that you need to consult on the article's talk page to see whether people think that it needs more work (or conversely, that it's ready to be nominated).

As you can see by what happened today, the reaction may be that it is not ready, and it is not uncommon in such a situation, if the nomination has been made without consultation by an editor not significantly involved in the article, that it is reverted on the spot. You may wish to review the GA criteria to see what is expected of nominated articles, whether your own or the product of other editors, and why in this case the article fell short. Best of luck with any future GA nominations, and remember that if you do make a nomination, you are effectively making a commitment to address any issues that may arise in the course of the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note that you posted on my talk page. Admin looks like a huge responsibility, so if there's some intermediate step with privileges that would help the RFD team, I could ease into that role first? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide evidence that the codename for the new lands is called "Marvel Superhero Universe"Marth The Hero King (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Marth The Hero King[reply]

Ok I improved the The_Masses_(Collective) article with references, will keep improving. Jon Phillips (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've noticed that you are an AfC reviewer but don't yet have the New Page Reviewer flag. Can you please head over to PERM and request it? Please mention that you are an active AfC reviewer in your application.
As part of a larger plan to increase cooperation between New Page Patrol and Articles for creation, we are trying to get as many of the active AfC reviewers as possible under the NPR user flag (per this discussion). Unlike the AfC request list, the NPR flag carries no obligation to review new articles, so I'm not asking you to help out at New Page Patrol if you don't want to, just to request the flag.
Of course, if NPP is something you would be interested in, you can have a look at the NPP tutorial.

Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 06:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ToThAc. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia; if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Thanks. Please feel free to contact me should any noteworthy concerns arise. ToThAc (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ToThAc,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged AbcTestWarrior for deletion, because it's too short to identify the subject of the article.

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

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

Edaham (talk) 07:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Mks1 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Tiananmen’s 21 Most Wanted List (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi I was just wondering what in particular in the submission that made it sound like an essay and what you think I can fix? Mks1 (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just letting you know I changed your speedy deletion of Cal Baptist Lancers men's basketball (and the corresponding women's basketball article) to redirect to the existing California Baptist Lancers article. The A7 seemed reasonable though I'm not sure quite why you put an A1 template – there was definitely enough context to identify that it was an article about a university sports team. Thanks, Appable (talk | contributions) 18:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Jsaradadevi (talk · contribs)
  • User:Jsaradadevi/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could you please let me know, what is looking like promotional content in the article. Trying to understand Jsaradadevi (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing OpenRiichi, ToThAc.

Unfortunately LynxTufts has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Resetting review status as CSD template was removed.

To reply, leave a comment on LynxTufts's talk page.

LynxTufts (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ToThAc. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of U.S. Route 85B, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There has been considerable dispute, as to the title, per the history of the redirect-page.So, please initiate a request for move. Thank you. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hillato (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Dr. Barr. Umar Mantu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My article was rejected and the reviewer did not give any reason why. I find it confusing that I am not accorded the dignity of knowing why my article was rejected. Thanks

Hillato (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hillato (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Dr. Barr. Umar Mantu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please can fairly tell me why you consider the publication of an individual profile dedicated to serving humanity a praise singing. All information provided is verifiable fact. I am miffed by your position. If my assumptions are not accurate. Kindly assist in editing article in line with your understanding of a neutral position. Thank you. Hillato (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hillato (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Dr. Barr. Umar Mantu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please I need help renaming the article title from "Dr. Barr. Umar Mantu" to "Umar Mantu" I read through the article you cited and I believe I breached the rules by adding all the subject's professional titles to his name on the page title. Thank you.

Hillato (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Chuckage (talk · contribs)
  • User:Chuckage/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Because it is abundantly evident that no one looked at my reference. Chuckage (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Mariormendoza (talk · contribs)
  • User:Mariormendoza/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for the review and suggestions. I edited the material as you suggested. Please let me know if the changes are satisfactory.

Thank you Mariormendoza (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you made a mistake at WP:AFC/R. The HTML entity reference gets converted into a single character that doesn't include #. If &#82​88; actually included the # character, it wouldn't be possible to make a link to the word joiner character; word joiner would take you to the 8288; section of the & article. &#8288 is a blue link, even though there is no 8288 section on that page; because word joiner is a red link, you can tell that it won't take you to the ⁠ section of &. 208.95.51.38 (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., please see this link. It goes to the same place as this link, even though the code is completely different. They're just two different ways of expressing the same piece of code. 208.95.51.38 (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I saw your decline of Draft:Jagsara. Are you really saying that it is too difficult to understand what the article is about? It seems plain enough to me. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]