Tommyjb

Hi

Hi Tommyjb,

Since I am new to this section, I just want to know what went wrong that the page I submitted has been removed.

Thanks for your remarks and guidance.

Sirohib (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the article you created was written like an advertisement, and Wikipedia has strict guidelines against this. Articles must be written in an encyclopedic, neutral-point-of-view manner, and an article must establish, with references to reliable third-party sources, that its subject is notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia entry (see Wikipedia:Notability (web) for the inclusion criteria for websites).

If you would like to create the article again without the risk of deletion, you can create a draft in your user space first, as detailed here. But if this draft were moved to the main space and the above criteria were not met, the article would probably end up being deleted again. —Tommyjb (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Then Tommyjb probably the articles like "Transweb" on wikipedia are alike. They must also be removed because those are also for promotions and nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.121.251 (talk) 07:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

That article appears to be written from a neutral point of view, and it provides references which demonstrate its notability. If Tutors Kingdom were to be created again and these two criteria were met, it would not be deleted. But I'm having a hard time finding notability references for Tutors Kingdom in Google. I'm seeing a lot of mentions, but no secondary, reliable sources, such as The Guardian. —Tommyjb (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

New section

So would it be better if I didn't use the summary box at all? 67.80.27.38 (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I left a message on your talk page because some of your edit summaries — such as 1, 2, 3, and 4 — are inappropriate. The last one, in particular, appears to be a clear violation of Wikipedia:Civility. You can read more about using edit summaries here. —Tommyjb (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Betty Liste

Just for the record, AWB applied the reflist template automatically, and I had no way of knowing that it would cause breakage — in reality, the real problem is that some of the "reference" tags inside the existing template are improperly formatted.

As for the uncategorized template, while it's true that {{uncategorized stub}} is preferred over {{uncategorized}} if the article has a stub template on it, it's not strictly wrong to use the latter. At any rate, AWB doesn't actually offer a way to switch back and forth between different tags, so it's impossible to apply "uncategorized" to some articles and "uncategorized stub" to others within a single batch of articles. For the tags that AWB can't automatically apply by itself, like uncat templates, I have to add it as a manual text insertion rather than an autotag — so the only thing it can do is to apply the same template to the whole batch. Bearcat (talk) 06:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Regards; What is the criteria needed to put the article on wikipedia about Cirex . (Is a registered name in Puerto rico, also registered by Companies as Itunes) Thanks in advance MrOxidizer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mroxidizer1 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello. The criteria for bands are listed here. Note that it was somebody other than me who tagged Cirex for speedy deletion. Regards, —Tommyjb (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

File:AnnaFedorova.jpg

Hallo Tommyjb, regarding File:AnnaFedorova.jpg: Was it you who was in Commons IRC some hours ago? Wanted to answer yoU:

"Use this file" shows "Anna Fedorova" since this was and is written in the Attribution field in the license tag. Could be easily changed if the other attribution wasn't specified in the mail to Wikipedia (OTRS). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Tommyjb! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Chesstempo

Hi,

I noticed that wikipedia had no page about the site chesstempo.com, which I found surprising. I was about to create a stub when I noticed that you made a draft yourself but it is not published. Why? I think this website is a major actor of the chess world over the internet, especially in tactics (I'm a user). — Preceding unsigned comment added by David le hamster (talk • contribs) 19:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Tommyjb,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)