User talk:NowIsntItTime/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:NowIsntItTime. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello, NowIsntItTime. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Richard Ramchurn, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

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

Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Petropavlovka, Siberia, Russia. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Robert! NowIsntItTime (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Teach Grant, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the confirms on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. The editor whose username is Z0 16:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I'm Z0. I noticed that you added content to an article but didn't provide a reliable source. You should cite a reliable source for all of your edits so that they can be verified. In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Adding unsourced content contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial.

Wikipedia does not publish original research, which refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space. Articles should be based on reliable and published sources (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) and if no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. The editor whose username is Z0 16:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

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

This is a WP:COATRACK article that doesn't appear to satisfy WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognized populated place from the available sources. It will be presumptively notable if demonstrated it was once a populated place, but there's relatively little in the article itself about the settlement other than that it was founded by a cult - which may or may not make it notable.

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:Petropavlovka, Siberia, Russia and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Petropavlovka, Siberia, Russia, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• 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.

SportingFlyer talk 11:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating The Impossible Elephant, NowIsntItTime!

Wikipedia editor Doomsdayer520 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for your new article on "The Impossible Elephant".

To reply, leave a comment on Doomsdayer520's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this, the story you cited is titled "Trump on Mollie Tibbetts: We need the wall", so it shouldn't be surprising to see a mention of the wall. I get that you want to talk about the strictly pathethic laws that are worse than anywhere on Earth, but you'll need a source that supports this as something notable he said, rather than just an arbitrary selection by some guy on the Internet (you). That's original research and it's fun, but illegal. For now, I went with the second option. It still mentions the wall, but also her death, so maybe it works for you, too? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:26, August 31, 2018 (UTC)

I can assure you I was only quoting the comments that I saw Trump had made regarding what caused her death. To me, the part about the wall sounded out of order regarding the incident, while his quote about his view that US law let the perpetrator slip through had more context when followed up with the responses he received. I don't really see how that's original research, just an oversight on my part if this is not acceptable. Nothing was intended to sound biased. NowIsntItTime 22:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Hogan's Heroes into Draft:List of Hogan's Heroes characters. 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 copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

List of Hogan's Heroes characters, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting 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!

Legacypac (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

When content is cited in the lead, but it's not cited elsewhere in the article, please don't remove those citations. This is often the case with genres, which are contentious and often need an explicit citation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I thought the citations were placed in the infobox and would have been counterproductive for the opening paragraph. Sorry, that was my mistake. --NowIsntItTime 04:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not a big deal, but someone will sometimes say that a film is a horror film. Then someone will come by and say it's a thriller film. A third person will change it to say "psychological horror thriller action film", and it just continues to get worse from there. I have seen films with five or more genres in the lead. Usually what happens is someone eventually cites a source for the genre. This isn't cited anywhere else in the article, so removing it from the lead makes the genre completely unsourced again. The genre warring then starts up again. So, sometimes the lead will need citations. Other times, it's not necessary. If something is cited in the body, it generally doesn't need to be cited in the lead, for example. Some people do like to include citations in the lead for contentious statements, regardless of whether they're sourced elsewhere. This can sometimes decrease the amount of edit warring in the article. I agree with you that citations in the lead sometimes are pointless, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I can see how that would become over the top and overall confusing. I looked at the AFI reference and thought it was put there to show that the film exists. If you didn't tell me that they were for genres I wouldn't have known. --NowIsntItTime 04:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that's a good pont. I'm not sure how that could be fixed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

A WP:COMMENT can help -- sometimes for the genre warring too, a little. MPS1992 (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Your signature is not "clickable" this is very disturbing, please review WP:SIGLINK. - FlightTime Public (open channel) 22:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixed! Thanks for telling me. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 18:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, NowIsntItTime. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Replied to your comment with a question. Talk:Soultaker (film) GamerPro64 03:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)