User talk:Thomas Dineen III

Welcome!

Hello, Thomas Dineen III, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Outriggr (talk) 05:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

quotation marks

Hi. You've been editing an article to move periods inside quotations. On Wikipedia there is actually a guideline called "logical quotation". Most of the time, punctuation goes after the ending quote mark, as it was before you changed it. See MOS:LQ for info. Outriggr (talk) 05:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Your copy editing looks very good, so I hope you will continue to edit and improve articles. Outriggr (talk) 05:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

Please help me with...

Hi Outriggr, and thanks very much for your critique of my edits. I am completely new to editing Wikipedia and appreciate all suggestions. I've been reading Wikipedia for eons and have the goal (no rush) of creating a page for an organization to which I belong. I read in various sources that editing existing pages is an excellent way of wading into more creative endeavors on this site.

As for all the changes I made to move periods inside terminal quotation marks, thereby violating standard Wikipedia form, do you recommend I change them all back (especially in the Nietzsche entry)? Imagine I'm not the first person to have made such changes, given that period inside quotations is usually preferred to outside, at least in most reputable U.S. publications (U.K. can prefer outside); but I'll happily familiarize myself with and abide by all established Wikipedia standards from here on in.

Again, I most appreciate your feedback. Is there anything else I ought to do at this stage to improve my skills and increase my chances of posting successful new entry?

Thanks again,

Thomas Dineen III (is this signature okay since I included the Thomas Dineen III (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)?) Thomas Dineen III (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh...now I see how the signature works! No need to explain further. Thomas Dineen III (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thomas. Glad that you were able to reply. I took a stab at reverting the quotation changes without reverting your other changes. (I thought it wouldn't take long, but there are a surprisingly number of full-sentence quotations in the article! It's no wonder anyone would be confused about style matters.) These were the changes: this is called a 'diff', or difference. I don't suggest every change I made was "right"; one has to leave it be after a point.

I don't have other advice other than to edit what interests you, and visit the WP:Teahouse or ask me if you have any questions! Outriggr (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here is a Help:Cheatsheet regarding wiki formatting. Outriggr (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I hope you don't feel "discouraged" by me or this topic. New Wikipedians often tend to not respond to messages of the "welcome, however there's a little problem" variety, like my first post; and sometimes they appear to stop editing altogether. That's the opposite of my intent. Please continue! Outriggr (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for all this! I fully intend to continue editing, and will actually be doing some tonight. Most appreciate your trying to correct my Nietzsche missteps, and I'll look back to see if I can refine that article further.

Aside from all this, there is an additional issue I wanted to bring up to you, as you've been so helpful. I'm planning to post an entry for the American Jujitsu Association, and want to be as sure as possible that it will be well-received by you and other Wikipedians (and thus survive rather than be deleted!). Is it too early for me to do so? In other words, would I have more credibility in the Wikipedia community if I continued editing existing pieces for awhile, or would it be okay to begin drafting a new entry in the next several days?

One term I've heard is that of "auto-confirmed users," who have gained credibility and have certain privileges that complete newbies don't. Should I wait to gain auto-confirmed user status before drafting my own material? I'm well aware of the need to cite third-party sources when posting new entries. But do shorter pieces stand a better chance of acceptance than longer ones? Is it best to include photos or logos, or perhaps more desirable to go without? Thanks very much again for your time and consideration, Thomas Dineen III (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you already have auto-confirmed status (made ten edits, and made the account more than 4 days ago).

You're welcome to create an article any time now. I would only discourage you from doing so if you believe you are too close to the topic (in a conflict of interest sense), or if there is a lack of independent coverage of the topic. You've already mentioned third-party sources, so that's good. The next question is, are those sources broadly reliable and actually independent of the topic, or more like "someone wrote about the topic on a blog". No, you have nothing to lose by trying, anyway! You can write well, which puts you well ahead of many other "new article" creators.

I would suggest using the Article wizard, which will post the article in a Draft space. Then another experienced editor comes along to evaluate the draft (does it have reliable sources, etc.). I might be willing to evaluate it, though I am not really experienced in evaluating "borderline" cases, which are, in my opinion, what the large majority of new articles are these days.

Hope that helps! Outriggr (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most appreciate you help...I hope to start drafting it tomorrow! Thomas Dineen III (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Outriggr: At long last, I'm ready to submit my new entry for the American Jujitsu Association for review. Is there a way you could have a quick look at it or actually do the review, in light of all the help you've given me in the past weeks? I'd be grateful for any advice you have at this important stage. The only potential problem I'm seeing is that some of my links are red rather than blue, but they all lead to working, verifiable sources. Any explanation? Most appreciated! Thomas Dineen III (talk) 15:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thomas Dineen III. (I moved your most recent message to the bottom of the page. It was in the middle.) I can help you with some formatting issues in the article (there is a simpler way to make links within the encyclopedia - use two square brackets on each side, like Jujitsu). I am looking at the sources and I don't feel that they prove "notability" of the association, by Wikipedia's standards. Any source that is similar to a blog, or a person's private web site, is generally a poor source to determine notability. It's fine to use the subject of the article's web site to support basic facts about the subject, but of course it doesn't make the subject "notable". (I could make myself a web site, but I'm not going to get a wiki article by referencing it.)

The Black Belt magazine article does not mention the AJA. Surely there are trade publications that refer to the AJA, not just sites like "danzanryuohana.wixsite.com" and "abbreviations.com" and "apollo.io" (apparently similar to LinkedIn, I can't tell). If not, it probably doesn't meet the WP:NOTABILITY guidelines.

Now that's just my opinion. You can try submitting it using the submit button. I will leave it for another party to review in that case. I'll make some example edits to the sandbox to show formatting. Outriggr (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the fast response! I'll start looking for third-party sources, and I appreciate your suggestions about formatting. It's very helpful to have you to express ideas to before the "moment of truth" when submitting. Thomas Dineen III (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again: I've done a good deal of searching and was hoping to get your opinion on the third-party sources I came up with. I have Black Belt magazine references to the American Jujitsu Association dating back to 1983, as well as more recent stories in the Santa Clarita Signal newspaper, the Greensboro News & Record newspaper (1990), and a book called "Before Conflict" (2002). Can you tell me which of these and how many citations of them (one, a few, all?) would be appropriate? Many thanks again, Outriggr! Thomas Dineen III (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it may help to know that I've been using a martial arts organization similar to the AJA as something of an "acceptable Wikipedia template," the All Japan Kendo Federation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Japan_Kendo_Federation). Their third-party references include websites and a couple books, so I've been basing the AJA citations on this. Is there anything else they're doing that made them acceptable while you think my AJA draft may be only borderline acceptable? Most appreciated! Thomas Dineen III (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One last quick issue and I'll stop bugging you today! Here is a link to a page that the founder of the AJA created to highlight being honored by Black Belt magazine as its 2007 Instructor of the Year: http://budoshin.net/BBInstrYr2007.htm

Please note that this page includes the official Black Belt letterhead on the top left as evidence of authenticity. The link to the magazine's archive does not work, however (the publication likely charges a fee to access its past issues), so is the link itself acceptable as a reference? Thank you profusely and sorry I've needed lots of hand-holding lately. Thomas Dineen III (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Black Belt article (copy) is the best thing I've seen so far. The article you linked to as a reference has the same problem, in my opinion. The article has been around for 15 years and barely has independent sources. The couple of book references are better than nothing.

(There is a name and essay for this idea on Wikipedia, "well something else exists on Wikipedia like this, so I must be doing it right: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.)

Here's a new approach. I'm not sure how you're searching for material. Google Books seems to have some snippets that refer to the AJA. (It's worth noting that some of them are written by Kirby, which again presents the problem that they're still not "independent".) There is a template here on Wikipedia for finding sources:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I can't help with this article any more than that. Go ahead and "submit" the article draft when you feel ready. It can take quite a while for someone to review. Outriggr (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sir!

I tend to read that as sarcastic. I've spent a lot of time on this, hoping to help a presumably new editor. If I come off as giving orders, I'll apologize. Don't know what else to tell you. Outriggr (talk) 07:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It might help to let you know the background to which I'm comparing this somewhat frustrating process. I work as a securities regulator, and my organization is expected to hold all financial firms to the same standards. So when one firm puts a piece of advertising into the public realm that passes muster with us last month, then another firm attempts the next month to publish similar material, but is criticized by us for doing so, it's our duty to give the latter firm a plausible explanation for the discrepancy.

So when I cite examples to you of material that Wikipedia judges acceptable, such as the All Japan Kendo Federation or Small Circle Jujitsu, and ask how my material compares, forgive me if I sense your own sarcasm in such feedback as: "Surely there are trade publications that refer to the AJA, not just sites like "danzanryuohana.wixsite.com" and "abbreviations.com" and "apollo.io" (apparently similar to LinkedIn, I can't tell)" or "The article has been around for 15 years and barely has independent sources. The couple of book references are better than nothing."

If I took that tone with any of the firms with which I work, they'd just complain and ask to deal with someone else who can offer a clear explanation of how standards are being equitably applied (or maybe not applied); for instance, by taking a few moments to assess the two other entries I sent and showing why they meet notability standards despite having minimal, mostly web-based references (and yet my entry doesn't, in your opinion).

Competent service in my organization involves more than dismissing concerns with the sort of "I'm busy...go figure it out yourself from this lengthy, nebulous material" vibe I'm getting from remarks such as "There is a name and essay for this idea on Wikipedia, "well something else exists on Wikipedia like this, so I must be doing it right: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.)". And then following this up with borderline snide asides such as "I can't help with this article any more than that" and "I've spent a lot of time on this, hoping to help a presumably new editor...don't know what else to tell you."

Somehow, I thought spending time helping those who are trying to satisfy the often confusing, arbitrary standards of Wikipedia was part of your job as an experienced editor, not getting into some "look at all I've done for you...look at the time I've spent..."

This isn't to say that you haven't offered some excellent ideas, for which I've been extravagantly grateful (making your dismissiveness even more perplexing). So if I've exhausted your patience, maybe it would make sense for me to seek out another editor, or do you have an interest in addressing my questions with more of an "I'll help you get this done, given how committed you are to getting this right" attitude rather than, "Poor you...I've done all I can...go take your chances by submitting your sad little entry, then face likely rejection after months of waiting to hear back from us..."

Yes, I realize that the Wikipedia vetting process is different from securities regulation; I'm merely explaining my view of outstanding service and willingness to help those who are working hard to comply with confusing standards in an unfamiliar context.

If what I've written offends you, please accept my sincere thanks for what constructive help you have offered! With a slight change in tone and mutual understanding of expectations, however, I hope our collaboration can still work out. Thomas Dineen III (talk) 10:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not your employee or your servant. I am an occasional volunteer (even that term is much too formal) on the nebulous wiki that is Wikipedia. I am a "user". Imagine if you interacted with a stranger on a social network and they responded to your questions in a way that helped, but then didn't help. You'd shrug and take the good part of it. It wasn't customer service. I am taken aback by your lecture about customer service in big-money bureaucracy; that analogy is really upsetting. It is not often that I come across a new user, leave them a "tip" about a minor Wikipedia issue, and then that person actually replies (rare!), and asks for more information. It's happened maybe five times in years. Thus, one has no idea how much background, how many reams of paragraphs, ought to be dispensed for any new user, who in many cases disappears midstream. One is constantly trying to keep the endless bureaucracy of Wikipedia away from new users, while they're new, so as not to intimidate them. This balance is extremely difficult.

On another point: Wikipedia is full of stuff that probably shouldn't be here. (Try managing 6 million articles.) I regret that attempts to keep it somewhat brief, when it comes to how this weird place works, have been misinterpreted. I never intended sarcasm (etc).

95% of the time you'd have been met with nothing but canned text responses, or even less contextualized pointers to WP:POLICIES, and walked away frustrated. Even in the least formal sense imaginable, I didn't owe you anything. Please realize that I was trying to help, as I would a person struggling with groceries or something—and I failed. That is the nature of any help dispensed here. Goodbye. Outriggr (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...that seems like some unnecessary melodrama. However, if you're no longer interested in helping me, can you kindly explain how I can go about finding another editor? Most appreciated. Thomas Dineen III (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:American Jujitsu Association, from its old location at User:Thomas Dineen III/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 17:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:American Jujitsu Association has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:American Jujitsu Association. Thanks! -- RoySmith (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, Roy; I got rid of the bold section titles.

Your submission at Articles for creation: American Jujitsu Association

American Jujitsu Association, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

1292simon (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Budoshin Ju-Jitsu (September 25)

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

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please remove all external links from the article, and make sure that the content is instead supported by references to reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

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:Budoshin Ju-Jitsu 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:Budoshin Ju-Jitsu, 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.

– bradv🍁 22:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thomas Dineen III! 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! – bradv🍁 22:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Budoshin Ju-Jitsu (October 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Curbon7 was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please remove external links, per WP:EL.

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:Budoshin Ju-Jitsu 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:Budoshin Ju-Jitsu, 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, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Curbon7 (talk) 06:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Budoshin Ju-Jitsu has been accepted

Budoshin Ju-Jitsu, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Tol | talk | contribs 22:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]