User talk:TimeToFixThis

November 2023

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Bella Coola, British Columbia, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Din oz1 (chat?) (he/him) 22:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Andy Beshear. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Materialscientist (talk) 02:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you blank out or remove content from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Michael Adams (Kentucky politician). Materialscientist (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Sheila Jackson Lee

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Sheila Jackson Lee, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you revert or remove content from Wikipedia without sufficient and correct reason, as you did with this edit to Steve Garvey. Before reverting another editor’s edit, as you did to User:NathanBru, you should check the information thoroughly. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jayme Kennedy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jayme Kennedy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayme Kennedy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She is a prominent figure in the Central Coast Region as well as the surrounding regions of Bella Coola. This article is relevant to the public arena, though more context and content need to be added to fill out her importance and history. Currently there is scandal and political infighting in the region and this article will prove to be an important space to record that history. TimeToFixThis (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, TimeToFixThis!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Falcon

The issue of the opposition leader's term has been discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Leader of the Opposition - beginning and end of term. Please argue your case there. Wellington Bay (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Justin Trudeau. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Please stop changing all job titles to lowercase. This is an incorrect interpretation of MOS:JOBTITLES. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 13:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominees

Nominations for cabinet posts, ambassadors, and the like are submitted to Congress by POTUS. Until January 20, POTUS is Biden. Nominations for Noem, Hegseth, etc. will not be submitted before January 20. And for all we know, they won't be submitted at all. Please stop changing infoboxes to suggest nominations have been sent. Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics alert for post-1992 American politics

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 09:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Ratcliffe - Presumptive Nominee

Hi @TimeToFixThis

Just a quick one, please be aware I have reversed your edit on John Ratcliffe (American politician) where you removed "Presumptive" from "Presumptive Nominee". Mr Ratcliffe is currently the presumptive nominee as announced by President-Elect Trump, he will only become Nominee when and if President-Elect Trump formally nominates him following his inauguration as President, this is typically done on ingurgitation day shortly following the main ceremony, in the President's Room in the US Capitol, Until such time please don't remove presumptive from Mr Ratcliffe's page or any of the other pages of the Trump Transition Teams choices requiring senate advice and consent. If you have any questions feel free to ask! Knowledgework69 (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dallas Brodie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBC TV. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tamara Jansen, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Medical assistance in dying and Trudeau government.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Job titles and capitalization

You say you've looked into this, but perhaps you need a refresher. Just because Wikipedia's MOS doesn't call for "president", "prime minister", etc on every instance doesn't mean it doesn't capitalize them ever. See MOS:JOBTITLES, the actual policy, how it clarifies that capitalization is still required when used as a title, and gives several examples of what that looks like in practice. Just pointing to how a page like Justin Trudeau has Justin Trudeau is the 23rd prime minister of Canada (paraphrasing, and bolded for emphasis) isn't the full story; lowercase is correct in that context but not in all others. On 2021 Canadian federal election, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is correct (used as a title), as is the Governor General (referring to Mary Simon specifically, not the office itself).

I see another editor pointed this out to you last month. Please actually familiarize yourself with this policy if you're going to continue correcting capitalization. — Kawnhr (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts

Please stop creating articles that have drafts, as you have done at Edward Sharp Walsh, Peter Lamelas, and Kevin Marino Cabrera. If you continue to do this, I will have to request administrator intervention. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what the problem is. Am I not allowed to contribute to Wikipedia by creating pages for notable people when they do not exist? If there is some problem with the article please feel free to edit them. All I'm trying to do is help. TimeToFixThis (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The articles you created had drafts at Draft:Edward Sharp Walsh, Draft:Peter Lamelas, and Draft:Kevin Marino Cabrera. You should not be creating articles if they have drafts attached to them. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The creations are fine. By all indications, ElijahPepe was likely not going to further work on the one-sentence 'drafts' he started; see here for a similar discussion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. It takes time for sources to be written about individuals, and I will not insert self-published citations in an effort to get those drafts published. If that means a draft goes dormant until more sources are published, fine by me. Encouraging editors not to discredit others' work is vital. I will take this behavior to ANI if I have to. Dealing with drafts that are articles after the fact, created despite a large notice in red stating that there is a draft, is a waste of my time. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It takes time for sources to be written about individuals, and I will not insert self-published citations in an effort to get those drafts published. If that means a draft goes dormant until more sources are published, fine by me – so, you're saying that you're mass creating one-sentence drafts for people who you admit are currently non-notable? "Encouraging editors not to discredit others' work..." – really? I could have written e.g. this in about nine seconds. The amount of time "wasted" by going to a draft, hitting 'select all', 'cut', and adding '#REDIRECT [[ARTICLE]]', is much less than the time you've wasted by complaining to a number of users solely because they didn't expand the one sentence you weren't going to return to and instead created their own article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draftspace is appropriate for creating articles that are not currently notable. Regardless, Draft:Kevin Marino Cabrera could not have been written in nine seconds, and was in fact a draft that had existed since 2015 and had the involvement of over a dozen editors. I will return to the drafts at a later date once I find references. For example, the only references I can find on Tony Salisbury effectively restate Trump's announcement. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cherry-picked the one entry that was not a ~one-line draft (which, in this case, was a promotional mess). You have dozens and dozens of drafts, some of which have sat for months with no improvement. Just because you add e.g. "Brandon Judd is an American law enforcement officer" and abandon it does not give you the sole right to be the eventual creator of that subject's article. This is at least the fourth different user you've complained to about this (1 2 3 4) when there is no requirement for others to expand the one-sentence drafts. Not only that, but proposing the new articles for deletion for this, is quite WP:POINTY and arguably disruptive. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How petty are you going to take this. I had no knowledge of your one sentence "drafts" that had created ahead of time for these pages. Are you seriously going to start flagging all my work with "hallucinated information or fictitious references. Copyright violations or claims lacking verification". All the information i put into the article has been sourced. If you see something specific that you have an issue with let me know or edit it yourself. Vaguely flagging every single Ambassador page i created with this nonsense doesn't help anyone. All it shows is that you're being petty I actually did the work before you. TimeToFixThis (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm telling you that you should look and see if there are drafts because creating articles. The notices are a separate issue, because I was acting on a suspicion that you are using AI given hallmarks I have seen elsewhere. Looking at the initial edit for Kevin Marino Cabrera, I saw improper synthesis—for instance, the "Legacy" and "Personal Life" sections, facts that are not present in the original articles or anywhere on the Internet for that matter—Cabrera's birth year, birthplace, and education, for example, strange links—the entirety of "Advocacy for the Panama Canal" is not linked, a close restating of the sources provided which largely use Trump's announcement—the initial paragraph of "Miami-Dade County Commissioner", for one, wording that would suggest Cabrera is already is expected to become ambassador—"Cabrera is expected to play a key role in addressing these issues as ambassador", and a use of capitalized titles—itself not a sign that an editor is using AI, but when combined with the rest of my analysis, does not look good. I am asking that you be mindful of the drafts you are creating, not just of my own articles, but of others'. Draft:Kevin Marino Cabrera, as I said, was almost ten years old and involved multiple editors. I have reason to suspect that draft was also written by AI, but it could have certainly been cleaned up. I am also asking that if you are using AI, that is grounds for a block. WP:AGF asks me to assume that this is not with ill-intent; I will abide by that here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TimeToFixThis - There's no rule that I know of that says you can't work on someone else's draft. I've turned multiple drafts from others into articles. I'm sure some people don't like it they are working on something and someone else publishes it first, but that's life. KatoKungLee (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]