TimothyHorrigan

Welcome!

Hello, TimothyHorrigan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Second that welcome. Also, if you are interested in music, you might want to check out Portal:Music. TheJabberwock 01:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Rogerthat ^Talk 09:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

POV

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! --D-Day ^{What up? Am I cool, or what?} 19:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

July 4

Thank you for experimenting with the page Lee Harvey Oswald on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Mitt Romney

On a side note, you said, in your edit summary: the veto works the same way in Mass as it does elsewhere in the USA: the Governor can't amend passed bills. He either signs the bill as passed or vetoes it. I'm pretty sure that Governors of Massachusetts have the authority of the line-item veto, unlike Presidents of the United States. --AaronS 13:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Second Life

Wikipedia isn't a primary source, so all the content that goes into articles has to be verifiable per WP:V and WP:RS. WP:V is a founding policy for wikipedia and states that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability and not truth. So while something may be true, unless you can back it up with a source it can't be included in articles. There is a section on WP:OR which defines what original research is in the context of wikipedia. Anything that falls under that will need a citation. Anothing thing to keep in mind, especially when dealing with online subjects is that blogs and forum postings are not typically accepted as citations except in very limited fashions because of their self-published and unreliable nature.--Crossmr 04:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC) My point was that the campaign has an official Second Life site. I learned of it from a campaign worker, who put out press releases, etc., not from "original research." By your logic, the official web site should also not be mentioned on Wikipedia, either--- because at some point someone had to do "original research" to verify that it existed. The content available from the Second Life site duplicates what's on the web site, so it's not a huge loss having the Second Life site missing. User:TimothyHorrigan Timothy Horrigan 21:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

History of baseball in the United States

Hey, nice job snipping some of the unsourced melodrama from History of baseball in the United States. It's about time someone started getting that article into some form of encyclopedic tone. Keep it up! (You might want to include some edit summaries though or else whoever originally added it may get upset.) —Wknight94 (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Laura Branigan

The Laura Branigan article has a history of POV edits (not talking about yours) by a couple of factions with a strong sense of "ownership" of the article and who seem to consider themselves sacred guardians of Branigan's memory or whatever. Part of that is the whole melodrama about which web site is "official" and who owns the domain name. The names of the people involved, etc., are pretty much irrelevant and inappropriate for Wikipedia. Remember that Wikipedia must remain strictly neutral in reporting on the dispute, including citing only to reliable, trusted, third-party sources. So all the stuff that's on one of the web sites about what Branigan did or didn't say or other self-serving material is not an appropriate source. We need to stick to the verifiable facts, in this case that's the WIPO case decision. In terms of undue weight the whole web site controversy deserves a couple of sentences at most. Best, --MCB 22:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I saw this while checking RC. The last part doesn't make much sense unless you include Coulter's response. If you exclude it, then it doesn't state what Edwards replied to. Thanks, Mønobi 05:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Huckabee

I am letting you know that I am reverting your Huckabee edit because the information added about the nominations and the primary races is unsourced. Please find a source for the information. Jmegill (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jackson ...questionable claims

Hi Timothy, I am glad to see a like-minded editor who is concerned about the questionable and overblown claims in the Michael Jackson article. Here is a copy of the note I posted to the talk page of the MJ article. Like you, I have tried to edit or tone down the claims about how MJ "led MTV out of obscurity" and "revolutionized dance and music", etc, but my changes have been reverted.................................................................Here is my note to the article's talk pageNazamo (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC) ___________________________________-----------------------------------The lede states that MJ's videos on MTV had the effect of "leading the relatively young channel out of obscurity." The source, an ABC News article about the devotion of MJ's fans only mentions MJ and the early days of MTV in one sentence, when it states that MJ put MTV "on the map." I have changed the lede so that it accurately states what the source says (put MTV "on the map"), but an editor has changed it back to the "out of obscurity" wording. Paraphrasing content is a legitimate and good technique. If the source had several paragraphs discussing the relationship between MJ and MTV in the 1980s, you could try to paraphrase it. But since the source only mentions the issue once, I argue that it is misleading to claim that the source says MJ led MTV "out of obscurity" when the source has a different tone, of saying he put MTV "on the map." A subtle difference, perhaps, but an encyclopedia has to be reliable.Nazamo (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, here is the sentence from the ABCnews article: "They may fondly recall how Jackson moonwalked for the first time across the stage at Motown's 25th anniversary special in 1983 and put MTV on the map with pioneering videos such as "Thriller," "Billie Jean" and "Beat It."...................I argue that the editor is adding POV (point of view) by purporting that the article says MJ led MTV "out of obscurity." The article never states that MTV was in a position of obscurity. Instead, it states that MJ's pioneering videos "put MTV on the map."Nazamo (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Melody Maker

This message was sent by someone named Sunderland06. The edit I made was NOT racially motivated: I said: "The Melody Maker was strongly supportive of the glam rock and progressive rock movements of the early 1970s. However, when punk came along around 1976, Melody Maker lagged behind rivals Sounds and NME in embracing the upheaval; of MM's staff, only Caroline Coon was strongly positive towards the new music." I could maybe see Sunderland06's point if we were talking about hip-hop or disco, but punk, glam rock and prog rock were all largely the work of white musicians. (In fact, I can only think of one prominent black early punk rocker, Poly Styrene of X-Ray Spex, although ska bands such as The English Beat and The Specials were integrated.) FWIW, the MM was also strongly supportive of the reggae movement of the 1970s, as well as the R&B of the time. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the edit, i am extremely sorry, i must have got the wrong guy, i'm sorry again.  Sunderland06  16:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Please adhere to WP:NPOV when editing, and use and edit summary to explain your changes. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Criticism of Bill O'Reilly, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

Sorry if the warning gave the wrong impression. Although I agree with your points personally, I have to recognize the importance of presenting information neutrally -- it's not up to me (or wikipedia) to decide if a group is "liberal" or if O'Reilly's responses should be characterized as "claims" instead of "statements", it is up to the reader to conclude (or not) based upon the evidence presented. Regarding the wording of the warning, it is a standard warning template for persistent disruptive behavior. I have no doubt that this was just a misunderstanding and you need not worry. If you would like some help incorporating stuff into the article that complies with our core policies and guidelines, I'd be glad to help. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD procedure

Hi Timothy. I note that you did not place the appropriate AfD tag on Tony Rezko when you made your nomination. I understand that the procedures are complicated and I've certainly messed them up before. However it's important to follow the procedures at WP:AFD carefully, particularly for controversial articles like this one. Failing to follow procedure can be grounds for overturning an AfD decision so you might want to have a look for your next one. Cheers. Ronnotel (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Alan Kulwicki

Please use a very reliable source to cite the facts that you added to the article. It is near FA nomination. Royalbroil 01:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed that he was the second reigning NASCAR champion to die. I believe that you're right, but I can't find it stated by a reliable source. Since I'm planning to submit the article to WP:FA very soon, it needs to have no unsourced claims. Feel free to add it back if you can find it from a reliable source. Forums are definitely not reliable (by the way). Royalbroil 15:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Dale Earnhardt Jr.

Hey, just wondering, with the biographical data (son/grandson/brother/sister/etc.) you added on Dale Jr. - was that a restoration of material somebody removed? (I'm not criticizing, I'm just wondering, as I would have thought that it had been in the article before.) Anyway, just a good job and kudos for either restoring it if somebody removed it (I would assume as vandalism), or adding it in if for some reason it inexplicably wasn't there to start with. --Umrguy42 (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Would you please stop what you have been doing for the last few months. If you can't edit neutrally then dont. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 00:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Your pov edit's and inability to source anything

For the honest sake of clarity, your not a newbie at wikipedia so why do you still write in a pov manner without adding reliable sources? I don't understand your motivation, you do realize it is against wiki policy to edit in such a manner? Could you please reply to this on your talk page. — Realist² (Speak) 23:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Modern Lovers

Hi! I liked some of your edits to the Modern Lovers intro, but not others. Anyway, I've had a go at trying to combine the best of both efforts, but I don't suggest that my version is perfect. Hopefully we can work together to improve it without getting into edit warring stuff. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Citations

Hi, I see you've been asked before to provide citations for your edits. I've reverted you recent edit to Coldplay as you did not provide citations for the additions. I am sure you are aware that one of Wikipedia's core policies is verifiability, not truth. It is possible that if you continue to ignore Wikipedia's policies that you may be blocked from editing. --JD554 (talk) 08:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Boston (band)

Dude, I don't know what to make of your edits, you don't give rationale, and you didn't even sign your talkpage discussion. Don't be surprise if I rollback these edits. You need to provide reasoning for your edits, because this article is very popular and is edited often. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 03:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the addition of unsourced material on this date about Michael Jackson playing with Boston bordered on page vandalism. Please stop this silliness. --Whitelitr (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my edits. If you want to take out the info, go ahead: it is of minor importance. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 03:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Dude, stop vandalizing the BOSTON page!!!--Whitelitr (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)(talk)

Vandalism? My September 29 changes were all based on reliable sources. I don't get it. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

barrygoudreu.com is not a reliable source of information. Please stop spamming up the history and vandalizing the Boston page Whitelitr (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And why isn't it reliable at least as a source of what Goudreau's side of the story is? And who put you in charge of the page? Timothy Horrigan (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a well known fact that Goudreau has an axe to grind with Scholz and does not miss a beat to misrepresent the facts. Using his website as a source causes the page to be inaccurate. Please stop this back and forth editing and inclusion of inaccurate sources Whitelitr (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Technically you are violating the Wikipedia rules if you are working for "Mr. Scholz" Timothy Horrigan (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not say I was "working" for anyone. You are making unsourced assumptions here like you are doing on the Boston page.Whitelitr (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive and unsourced edits to Wikipedia, as you have been doing on the Boston band page. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Whitelitr (talk) 05:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

My additions came straight from Scholz's own web site. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

If you believe the lead needs changing, or shuffling around, please discuss it at the talk page. It's been stable for quite some time. Best. — R² 01:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Limbaugh

Dude, I don't know what your problem is, but you need to chill out. I corrected your mouthfoaming edit about Limbaugh. You may have been slightly correct, but you didn't even bother to check the facts. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 02:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

New message for you on Limbaugh discussion page, have a great day.Jarhed (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Dude, I also notice after visiting here that a lot of people revert your edits. Maybe you should take a hint?Jarhed (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Doris Haddock

I have had to remove most of your 4 recent edits to the article because the intro you added to the lead contradicts info already in the article. The info you added about her 99th birthday I've left for now so that you can add a reference, but ones not added soon I plan to remove this as well.

Note: From the comments on you talk page it seems clear you do not add references to support your edits. Just to make sure its clear to you every single unreferenced edit is subject to possible deletion. If you wish to productively add to Wikipedia include references, otherwise your work my well be identified as vandalism. Highground79 (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

At least one of your edits was highly questionable: you deleted two items as "unsourced" which were verified RIGHT THERE IN THE ARTICLE (in a table just below the text) and a third which had a bill number which could easily be verified. I did add a link to HB 35's Bill Docket page. The info in the Doris Haddock page was correct as well, DUDE! That's right I addressed you as DUDE! Timothy Horrigan (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually every edit is subject to deletion... sometimes referenced material can be taken out just because it is unnecessary (or even because the reference itself was to a source with incorrect or irrelevant info.) Timothy Horrigan (talk) 03:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

CBS Records

Your edits to the CBS Records article included incorrect information which have been removed. First of all, when Sony bought CBS Records including CBS's interest in CBS/Sony Records in Japan, the Japanese record company was renamed Sony Records. Secondly, Sony only bought the rights to the Columbia name and trade marks from EMI, not the EMI Columbia catalogue which EMI still owns and issues on the EMI label. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Blondie (band)

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Blondie (band)/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Danny Bonaduce

Your edits to this page were in blatant disregard of the Wikipedia POV policy. The idea that television and radio have bias against conservative opinion is a matter of perspective, and even if it were not, the page is not a forum for that discussion. Edited to remove unnecessary political content/bias. --Barrowlands (talk) 08:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. The Real Libs-speak politely 03:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the other editors in the edit war have an ax to grind: they are deleting reasonable and truthful edits just because they reflect well on an ex-member of the band Boston who has been locked in a conflict with the leader for about 30 years. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Debate over whether or not Bobby Jindal and Mark Sanford should be removed the 2012 Rep Primary Page

There seems to be yet another debate over Mark Sanford and now whether not Bobby Jindal should remain on this page. Since you are an editor on this page, I was hoping you would be interested in joining the discussion at the link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2012#This_article_is_not_about_who_will_be_running.3F

Please provide your feedback! Thanks so much!

--Diamond Dave (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello TimothyHorrigan! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 942 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Daniel Wattenberg - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery

Hello, TimothyHorrigan. I responded to your comment about this article on its talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Beck

Please don't misuse the notability template.Cptnono (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I marked the revert as vandalism. I didn't realize you had a long contribution history. Apologies if your intent was not malicious. Feel free to open up something on the discussion page if you believe the notability criteria are not met.Cptnono (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Please stop adding nonsense to this article otherwise I might conclude you are incapacitated and need to get some sleep. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 22:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• If we cannot use existing articles as reliable sources, we certainly cannot use deleted articles mirrored on other sites as such and I advise you not to add that again. If it matters, it will be sourced somewhere else. If not, it won't. Rodhullandemu 18:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The Two Seas Records incident did indeed happen. Jackson did sign a contract with them; they were financed by the Bahrani royal family; and nothing ever came of the deal. I have managed to source the announcement in Billboard. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Rush Limbaugh, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Please note that the blog you cited as a source made no mention of gay marriage or of any of Limbaugh's views about marriage or sexuality beyond the fact that he is expected to remarry in the near future, and thus does not qualify for a source to the primary theme of your addition claiming he is opposed to gay marriage. --Allen3 ^talk 16:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jackson 3

Please stop adding content which is incapable of substantiation to this article. Jackson's achievements are already well-documented without gilding the lily. Rodhullandemu 22:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

And on Danny Bonaduce, active verbs ("presented") are preferred over passive ("was presented by"). Rodhullandemu 22:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Reggie Bush

Thanks for your efforts to keep his article up to date, but I don't think we should be reporting what is still speculation (even if you and I think it's almost certain to happen). Especially with living people, it's better to hold off and get it absolutely right. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Yahoo! sports article appears to be a strategic leak by the Heisman people. If nothing else, the fact that they have been conducting their own investigation is newsworthy. (And is more than speculation.) Timothy Horrigan (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jahn Xavier

The article Jahn Xavier has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Epbr123 (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

History of the Jints

I answered your question here. Quadzilla99 (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Adi Da NPOV

I see you are developing quite a pattern of POV alerts. Might I join the chorus of those suggesting that you review the POV, and general editing, guidelines? Your edits to the Adi Da page are completely unacceptable, without any accepted sources, and reflect a strong bias.Tao2911 (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought I was correcting POV edits. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk Page Warning

Please restrict your comments on talk pages to suggestions and comments on improving the article. These comments [1] were deleted as more of forum-style comments, which don't help to build an encyclopedia. Dayewalker (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I ran afoul of the Talk Page Police, I see. I did not realize your anti-"FORUM style" ordinance was even in existence and I have been around for a few years: I thought anything related to the topic was allowable in the Talk page. My contribution was snarkily worded, but it raised a legitimate issue (i.e., that the Obama birthplace conspiracy theorists have to make some highly improbable assumptions which run counter to commonsense.) I have seen hundreds of more off-topic comments on Talk Pages... of course that may be because the Talk Page Police can't patrol every Talk Page. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 07:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I notice you seem to think you are somehow exempt from the rules (on a number of pages). To state the obvious, just because others break rules does not then give you license to. Why not aim a little higher?Tao2911 (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You just left a personally insulting comment on my talk page, so I am entitled to respond. My only response is: why did you even bother? Timothy Horrigan (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree your comment did run afoul with WP:Forum; talking about the subject and not the article is a constant problem for that particular article. Having said that, your comment was hilarious. --Weazie (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I found it confusing, as it seemed to support both POV. The "back to Kenya" comment made me think it was an anti-Obama rant, since he was never in Kenya. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

A summary of basic guidelines you may find useful

Since you didn't get the standard welcome template, and keep having problems with talk pages, sourcing, POV issues, here's some links and summaries to of most of the basic guidelines:

• Talk pages are for discussing how to improve articles, Wikipedia is not a social network nor a general discussion forum, so off topic posts may be removed at any time.
• Always cite a source for any new information, using <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
• "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
• A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
• Article content should be relevant. Just because a concept is mentioned in a book or movie does not mean the book or movie should be mentioned in that concept's article.
• Credentials are irrelevant, noone here cares about them, we will ignore them.
• Users should never make personal attacks on others. It's a good idea to avoid commenting on people, but on content, and then if necessary, actions.
• Noone owns any article here.
• Don't be afraid to make changes, be bold in your edits. Just be prepared to discuss the changes you make, and possibly have them reverted.
• Don't edit war. Except in cases of clear-cut vandalism, do not revert more than 3 times within a 24 hour period.
• Vandalism is defined as a deliberate attempt to mess up the site. It does not include real accidents (although competence is required), nor does it include someone trying to improve the encyclopedia in a way you disagree with.
• Assume good faith as much as reasonably possible, and then about half-way past the border for unreasonable possibility.

Ian.thomson (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Teleprompter

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Teleprompter. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Hairhorn (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Paul Revere

Please stop adding sarcastic crap to this article. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion Requested

Hello! You have had an edit history with Tao2911 who has has been roadblocking my attempts to edit an article. In a small amount of time, he/she erased all but one line and one reference in the entire article. I did not open an investigation, yet others unrelated to me did as seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

I believe in my edits and can back them up, yet nothing can be added without an uphill battle. I can only spend so much time online. Any suggestions? Tao2911 has already me cry, twice and this is Wikipedia. Thank you for any suggestions. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Due to mine and others concerted efforts, this user was shown to be the subject of the page in question (Marisol Deluna, now deleted as non-notable). This user and 6-8 proven socks and IP's were all blocked indefinitely for sock creation, evading blocks, canvassing, etc. This is likely the cause of the fictional tears for Deluna's fictional character, Elizabeth Brown, kindly grandmother from New York, canvassing for every last ally.Tao2911 (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Why did you care so much about the Marisol DeLuna thing? Some of the activity was questionable, but it didn't seem all that heinous to me. Deleting the extraneous references was OK, but deleting the article was overkill, and the personal attacks seemed way over the top. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't 'delete the article'. The umpteen editors who voted it non-notable led to its demise. If you actually read the sad tale of that page, you would see that I and others were simply led there in the first place by seeing the name "Marisol Deluna" absurdly inserted into lists of historical luminaries and cultural icons, and found a page clearly written by the subject as self-promotion. In defense against the many observations of that bald-faced reality, Deluna created sock after sock after sock (complete with elaborate back-stories she thought would somehow mask rather than point to the truth), evading one block after another. The more she said and did, the more editors she annoyed and brought attention to the page, sealing its (and her) fate. It's not that complicated.Tao2911 (talk) 03:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I pretty much had to give up and go away. He is not a very nice person, and he makes up fictitious Wikipedia rules as he goes along. Luckily, the article I was most concerned with— Adi Da Samraj— wasn't that terrible to begin with. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

rush limbaugh

please don't add unsourced original research and non-neutral opinions to the page. Paintedxbird (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:CBS Records

You had contributed to the article CBS Records, please come to Talk:CBS Records and help decide which version of the article should be the starting point for further edits. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jackie Fox, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Al Cowlings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Waiver wire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages

As you are no doubt aware, talk pages are for discussing improvements to their associated articles, not for making a political point.[2][3][4] Please knock it off. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing improvements to their associated articles, not for making a political point. Please consider this your final warning. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It has not ended. Please knock it off. [5]--ML (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know who you guys are, so forgive me for not yielding to whatever authority you think you have. I stand by my comments on Ted Cruz's talk page. I do think Rafael Bienvenido Cruz deserves his own article. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

You can stand by your comments all you want but the fact still remains that the talk pages are not a forum for you to spout off your incorrect and annoying personal political opinions. Please knock it off.--ML (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Olympia Cafe for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Olympia Cafe 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/Olympia Cafe until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. StewdioMACK ^{Talk page} 02:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:John Carter (film). SummerPhD^v2.0 15:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Ted Cruz

Wikipedia does not require or even prefer that info be directly from the horses mouth.Scott Illini (talk) 01:56, 30 September 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) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions - 1RR violation

You have reverted content at least twice, possibly three times in the past 24 hours in violation of the 1 revert rule imposed on the article. You also changed content contrary to a consensus from a recent RfC when you changed "many" to "some" here, contrary to consensus. Please self-revert.- MrX 22:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:TimothyHorrigan reported by User:MrX (Result: ). Thank you. - MrX 23:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for Edit-warring on Donald Trump, and specifically for violations of the 1RR restriction that is in place on that page (and is clearly visible in the edit-window). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Vanamonde (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, TimothyHorrigan. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

Hello, I'm LM2000. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Kayfabe have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. LM2000 (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Deb O'Nair

The article Deb O'Nair has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Domdeparis (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A Love Supreme, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John McLaughlin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Joke edits?

Were these edits at 'English passive voice' meant as something other than a self-referential joke? You changed several sentences to passive voice, but it doesn't seem to me that doing that improved the article at all. Cnilep (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Notability of Virtue signalling

Hi Timothy,

I removed the notability tag you added to the article on virtue signalling. The article has many independent references, so it appears to be notable under WP:GNG. If you think otherwise, you may want to start a discussion at Talk:Virtue signalling and describe why you think the topic is not notable.

Yaris678 (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Please take the time to read edits

...before reverting to this [6]. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

You know what might also help? WP:BENEFITS is worth a read: if a bot can mistake a good-faith edit for vandalism, so can a human. If there's a lot of anonymous users vandalizing an article, it's easy to mistake yet another anonymous user for contributing to it. There are a lot of other benefits to creating an account that are worth considering. Just a humble suggestion. Bmf 051 (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a salient point if one belongs to the 'all IPs look alike' school. We all make mistakes, and when I make them I try to acknowledge them. I don't buy it when a registered account has erred, then attempts to school the IP and rationalize the error. Drmies, this isn't your issue, but you usually have something good to say about this. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I admitted to my error. It is/was on your talk page. I think you're making my encouragement to create an account (something I do regularly) to be something more than it is. No one is schooling anyone. Bmf 051 (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Bmf 051, the only way someone could have mistaken that for vandalism is if they haven't looked, and if you haven't looked you shouldn't revert. I remember when I got rollback and I thought, for a second, I could just go through Recent changes and hit the button, roll back on sight. That was a bad idea. That's all. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Drmies, it really is an easier mistake to make than you're making it out to be. I was looking, and it's an easy mistake to make whether a person is looking or not. Even to the trained eye, [7] and [8] are not that different: the difference is subtle enough that if someone is expecting to find vandalism, their brain will transpose the left column with the right for them. But what's done is done. I didn't intend to hijack another user's talk page when that person obviously doesn't want any part of this conversation. I really think WP:BENEFITS is good advice, and that this is a good example. Bmf 051 (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but it says "Guzan watch out" in a parameter in the infobox. Drmies (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

While intervening in an edit war, I mistakenly concluded that the vandalism was being done by the anonymous user, and the corrections by the established user with a username. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions on Donald Trump

Hi TimothyHorrigan. I see that you have re-added your material here, after I had removed it here, due to the POV, UNDUE, and speculative nature of the material. Please note Donald Trump is subject to discretionary sanctions: "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." Kindly self-revert your material and obtain consensus on the talk page before attempting to re-add it. :Thank you. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC) I peeked at some of your other edits. Trying to reach consensus with you on a talk page seems like a waste of time, even though I doubt you have any special power to impose a "discretionary sanction" if I don't play along. Thats said, no need to get into an edit war. I will try making an edit with a less undue emphasis. I was surprised my edit lasted as long as it did. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, although I didn't impose any sanctions. The sanctions were imposed by administrators. Please read the notice at the top of the talk page. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Trying to reach consensus with you on a talk page seems like a waste of time - It's not a consensus with any particular editor, but with all interested editors at the article. Sometimes one or even both of the initial two parties don't even participate in that consensus. So your comment misses the point, even if true. Bottom line: At that article, don't re-revert after your edit is challenged. Either take the issue to talk, or don't. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hidden Tempo: - The sanctions were imposed by administrators. Actually the restrictions were imposed by an admin on behalf of ArbCom. Under the discretionary sanctions provision, an admin may impose a sanction unilaterally whenever they see a violation of the restrictions. It helps to get the vocabulary right, especially when communicating things to newer editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Mandruss, you're right - I mixed up the terms and that was sloppy. Although I will point out that TimothyHorrigan has been editing since 2006, whereas I just started in 2014 or so. He has previously been blocked for edit warring and already DS templated so there's really no excuse. My fault for being imprecise, though. Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Neymar, you may be blocked from editing. In addition, look up Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing_sources to avoid lazy referencing. The first link was a deadlink, and the title indicated it was unrelated to the content you placed it after. Look at how other references are performed in the same article. What you did by adding "hard fought" and "high note" comprises WP:SYNTH, along with the rest of the content for which there was no verifiability (WP:NOTTRUTH). Most importantly, I understand you feel this was significant because it was his last game for Barcelona, but try to remember that preseason friendlies are almost never mentioned in articles because they are not notable. — Anakimi_lambaste   01:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no rule which says that pre-season friendlies can't be notable. Neymar's performance in the 2017 ICC, which was his last hurrah with Barca, was more interesting than some of the other stuff in his article; e.g., the article made sure we know about his fondness for Música sertaneja, which brand of headphones (Beats) he is paid to wear, and the birthweight of his son. You're making a big fuss over nothing, in my opinion; but, on the other hand, thanks for not implying that you have some sort of special authority to impose sanctions on me.Timothy Horrigan (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Timothy - Neymar isn't subject to discretionary sanctions the way highly contentious pages are (such as Donald Trump) are. Non-admins do not have any power to impose the sanctions, rather that is the job of admins. You will see a template at the top of an article's talk page which warns editors that the page is subject to an ArbCom decision that allow admins to unilaterally impose sanctions on editors who violate editing policies such as 3RR, 1RR, and reinstating contentious material after it had been removed). I highly recommend you read the links from the warning just for your own knowledge and preventing yourself from landing in trouble (as I have in the past from not being aware of the warning). The decision, and [9]. Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Geoff Diehl, you may be blocked from editing. Hirolovesswords (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, TimothyHorrigan. 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)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1967 NHL expansion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cleveland Barons (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Original Six, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Aiken (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Scott Weiland and the Wildabouts does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

Someone ban this old coot. I found him because of his absolute inane ramblings on other pages, and it's pretty clear from this talk page that he's not contributing anything useful to Wikipedia. 2605:A601:4025:2200:596B:E8E2:CF3C:9B2F (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Journey and Santana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Max McGee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

(two years since your last alert) Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, TimothyHorrigan. 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)

November 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Turning Point USA, you may be blocked from editing. It seems you have had a recurring problem with this over the years. Your burning need to indicate who has or has not served in the military is never impeded by a lack of sources. If you continue, I will not ask for a block, I will ask for a block with a broadly worded topic ban. SummerPhD^v2.0 23:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I think you are over-reacting. I do see now that my edit to the Turning Point USA article may have been worth reversing, at least in part. I actually did verify that Harper College lacks a ROTC program but yes, I see now that have no way of knowing for sure whether or not Charlie Kirk ever volunteered for the military. He could possibly be serving in the National Guard right now, for all I know, while pursuing his career as a rightwing agitator. All I know is that he has never bragged about his service, if any. You might want to tone down your rhetoric with other fellow Wikipedians during future disputes of this nature. Just like you, I too have the power to link to the "blocked from editing" page and the "no original research" page. I too have the power to ask for other users to be blocked. However, I have never actually been blocked from editing. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

You have had pretty much this exact problem repeatedly over the years, including a period where you felt it necessary to discuss various individuals lack of military service without sources. If independent reliable sources do not discuss a person not doing something, there is no reason to discuss it on the talk page or in the article. Whether or not the individual's school had an ROTC program, co-ed dorms, a marching band or anything else is completely immaterial to the article unless reliable sources about the subject of the article discuss the ROTC program, co-ed dorms or marching band. Your desire to discuss/include it anyway is WP:OR/WP:SYN for which you have been warned repeatedly. It's time to figure that out.

You seem to have forgotten that you were blocked in the past.

If you are right and I am over-reacting, you have nothing to worry about. IMO, you are mistaken. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

First of all, I don't know who the f*** you are, or why you insist on taking such an adversarial tone. Secondly, I do not recall ever being blocked. That said, I think Kirk's lack of military service is a relevant detail insofar as being quote-unquote "pro-military" is one of the main planks of his organization's platform— and because he insists on retelling an unverifiable (and implicitly racist) story about why he didn't get into West Point. But maybe it's not relevant enough to include in the Turning Point USA article. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

You were previously blocked for edit warring.[10]

Whether or not you think something you have determined about a living person is relevant or not is immaterial. If independent reliable sources provided substantial coverage of a subject having chocolate pudding with lunch one day and completely ignored that they had single-handedly won World War II for the allies, Wikipedia would discuss the chocolate pudding and ignore WWII.

In this case, there is absolutely no coverage in reliable sources regarding the subject, whether or not they served in the military and/or whether or not the school they went to had an ROTC program at the time. There is nothing to add here. Whether you understand that or not is only relevant in terms of how we get your behavior to stop. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The analogy about chocolate pudding vs. single-handedly winning World War II went totally over my head. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Simple version: If you do not have an independent reliable source directly stating something about the subject of the article, do not add it to the article, no matter how important you feel it is to "get the word out". - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

New Hampshire

Apologies, I was operating on outdated information Nevermore27 (talk) 07:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Frankie Vinci

Hello TimothyHorrigan,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Frankie Vinci for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

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

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

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

TheLongTone (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Frankie Vinci moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Frankie Vinci, 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 click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

That's fine, but I wonder why people don't wait a few days before deleting these new articles and/or take a a few minutes to go look for some sources. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#TimothyHorrigan

I have filed a complaint against you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#TimothyHorrigan regarding your edit [11] at Donald Trump. You may make a statement to defend yourself. starship.paint (talk) 08:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Vandalizing a high-profile BLP is not cool. If the diff weren't 3 days stale I'd have blocked your account. ~Awilley (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The edit in question lasted several days before being reversed and was even revised before it was reversed. I have no intention of reversing the reversal or of starting an edit war. I plan to respect the consensus of the other contributors. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Instead of acknowledging your mistake, you defend it, by pointing out the edit existed for some time. That means you have succeeded in causing days-worth of damage to Wikipedia. There’s no consensus to respect when you add vandalism. That your vandalism was sneaky enough that it wasn’t immediately detected and reverted, is really a badge of shame. Are you here to build an encyclopaedia? That means agreeing not to vandalise it, you know? Either admit the deliberate error in judgement, or explain how your bogus information came to be added without any extra sources. starship.paint (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Awilley: - see this user’s response above. starship.paint (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent vandalism, as you did at Donald Trump. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   Sandstein 08:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I am imposing this block because it appears from your statement above that you do not understand that vandalism is unacceptable, especially on BLP articles. The block is therefore needed to prevent and dissuade you from further vandalism. Sandstein 08:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Frankie Vinci concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Frankie Vinci, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Frankie Vinci

Hello, TimothyHorrigan. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Frankie Vinci".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Bkissin (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tom Zbikowski, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cruiserweight (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 13:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for adding original research, as you did at Michael Jordan. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  —Bagumba (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TimothyHorrigan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My edits were factual and based on standard sources. No "original" research was necessary. I would be happy to go back and add references.Timothy Horrigan (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

"Jordan showed a remarkable degree of patience as a manager during the season, making only three personnel changes all year" Please provide a citation that specifically demonstrates that Jordan displayed a remarkable degree of patience. I accept that you would be able to provide a citation showing he made only three personnel changes, but please provide a reliable citation showing this means he displayed a remarkable degree of patience. If you are unable to do so, I'm afraid we cannot consider lifting your block. Yamla (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The source for that claim is the Basketball-Reference.com web site: https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHA/2012_transactions.html which shows the team made just 3 roster changes. It also made no coaching changes, although everyone on the staff was replaced before the next season. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I indicated that I already knew you'd be able to find a citation for that part. I want you to find a citation for the other part, "Jordan showed a remarkable degree of patience as a manager during the season". Otherwise, you have performed WP:NOR and the block is appropriate. --Yamla (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

There is this article: https://www.al.com/sports/2012/04/michael_jordans_charlotte_bobc.html ... where he says near the end of the season: "Ever since I've owned the team I think we've made some very positive moves on the business side. We had to make a difficult decision to turn over the talent. This year the talent we had didn't respond, but that doesn't cause me to turn my back on the plan." Timothy Horrigan (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Nope, not sufficient. This is a clear case of you applying original research, I'm afraid. Please refrain from uncited original research like that once your block expires. --Yamla (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a massive overreaction on someone'e part. Reverting the half-sentence where I spoke about Jordan's (apparent) state of mind should have sufficed. And frankly, that reference you said was "not sufficient" does demonstrate that he was not terribly concerned about the situation, or at least he didn't want to say he was overly concerned. Is it OK to point out that his team made very few personnel moves during a terrible season? Timothy Horrigan (talk) 04:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 11:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Virtue signalling

I'm not sure about your edits there. I haven't reverted, just taken it to WP:BLPN. Doug Weller talk 11:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Although there was no consensus to keep the material in question, you reinserted it after it was removed. As this is can be seen as a violation of both WP:BLP and American politics sanctions, I strongly suggest you don't reinsert it without consensus at BLPN. Doug Weller talk 18:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

After reading your talk page, I won't hesitate to topic ban you if this continues. Doug Weller talk 18:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 18:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vespasian Warner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Interior (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Max Tuerk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Center (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Deacon Frey (July 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was: 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:Deacon Frey 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:Deacon Frey, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, TimothyHorrigan! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Frankie Vinci

Hello, TimothyHorrigan. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Frankie Vinci".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Celestina007 (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of second-generation Major League Baseball players, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Bell.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of American and Canadian cities by number of major professional sports franchises, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indianapolis Hoosiers.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Aubrey Huff Good Article Reassessment

Aubrey Huff, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eddie Robinson (baseball), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tommy Brown.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jerry Hurley (1900s catcher), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syracuse Stars.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Doc Marshall (catcher), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American Association.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oldest football clubs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phoenix club.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ross the Boss, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shakin' Street.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Shakin' Street (band) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Shakin' Street (band). Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability and Discogs are non-rs. They are not reliable sources.. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. scope_creep^Talk 09:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Major League Baseball players who played in four decades, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages National Association and National League.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician), 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) 19:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Tom Barlow (baseball)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Tom Barlow (baseball), 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) 01:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Barry Goudreau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Boylan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of The Heart Beats for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Heart Beats 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/The Heart Beats 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.

Boleyn (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Shakin' Street (band)

Hello, TimothyHorrigan. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Shakin' Street (band), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)