Welcome!

Hello, Tomdo08, andwelcome to Wikipedia! Thank you foryour contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being aWikipedian! Pleasesign your messages ondiscussion pages using fourtildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check outWikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place{{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Crossmr (talk)02:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How could anyone be anymore precise than putting a citation needed tag directly after the words they want citation for? I would understand this statement if you were removing sections tags which state the section needs citation, but you're removing tags that are directly attached to sentences. They couldn't be anymore precise.--Crossmr (talk)02:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was not preciseness of tag location, but preciseness regarding the fact which a citation is wanted for. Maybe "correct" would have been a better word? I wrote ashort text regarding that topic. The reason for all this is that as a reader I often find text which is unreadable because of to much of this tags, as an editor I often ended up removing or relocating wrong tags instead of making the text better, and now I am not even looking for this tags anymore. --Tomdo08 (talk)12:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at theTime article and see, if in your opinion, the lede is still too long. I did some editing (moved some paragraphs down). If it is still too long, you can let me know here. I doubt I will move any more material out of the lede, but your opinion will be taken into consideration. Thanks. ----Steve Quinn (talk)06:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your interest in my opinion. I placed acorrelating section in Talk:Time.Tomdo08 (talk)

Thanks for your response. That is a really good critique. It was more than I expected. I replaced the{{Lead too long}} template with a{{cleanup}} template, which directs interested parties (with a note) to your section on the talk page. If I can figure how to place a link to that section in the{{cleanup}} template, I will do that. ----Steve Quinn (talk)03:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can place links in template arguments, too. In this case this would be{{clean up|article|Please see talk page section [[Talk:Time#Lead in of article|Lead in of article]]}}.

Again I would have done that myself. But somehow the "Time" article is especially resistive with my internet connection. I wonder if someone will discover time travel by me editing it :) --Tomdo08 (talk)13:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Tomdo08, thank you for your contributions. I am abot, alerting you thatnon-free files arenot allowed in user or talk space. Iremoved some files I found onUser:Tomdo08/workshop/Susan B. Anthony: Abortion dispute. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to youruser-space drafts or yourtalk page.

• See a log of files removed todayhere.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errorshere.

Thank you, --DASHBot (talk)05:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote some notes here, now moved to my area forideas, bugs, design errors. --Tomdo08 (talk)10:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message fromCorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents ofFrancisco (name), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page:Francisco. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please seeHelp:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please seeWikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in anedit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article.CorenSearchBot (talk)12:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This bot is too fast: I am right in the middle of a transfer edit. --Tomdo08 (talk)12:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you toreview other users' edits on certain flagged pages.Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent atwo-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are notautoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to onlya 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 atSpecial:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, seeWikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be foundhere, and the general policy for the trial can be foundhere.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.Dabomb87 (talk)23:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you moved the page, did you change all the appropriate incoming links? They mostly look to be about Christianity, so intended for the old page not the new? As page mover it's your job to tidy up after the move.PamD (talk)00:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I checked all links (and changed, if appropriate). Most were referring to the general concept. Indeed, some original links toSpiritual death in Christianity had been utterly wrong due to the special interpretation(s) on that page. --Tomdo08 (talk)01:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed onVorlage:= requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done undersection A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please seeWikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be onnotable subjects and should provide references toreliable sources thatverify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding{{hang on}} tothe top ofthe page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note onthe talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged forspeedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contactone of these administrators to request that the administratoruserfy the page or email a copy to you.Jimmy Pitttalk16:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for the tag to askfor deletion, but cannot find it. --Tomdo08 (talk)16:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:proposed deletion|reason}} is the thing for such. --Tomdo08 (talk)16:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one withthis edit, bubba. You add another entry for the same thing immediately under the first entry?

*POM, a brand of pomegranate juice marketed by POM Wonderful

*POM Wonderful, a brand of pomegranate juice

Are you a marketer for POM juice trying to take advantage of Wikipedia, or are you just an idiot? I'm inclined to think you are selling the stuff, but I can't really know that.98.82.193.135 (talk)02:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously in a bigger resorting and reformulating edit I forgot to delete a line I had reformulated. "Idiot"? See, who's talking. --Tomdo08 (talk)01:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that was obvious at all, but I accept your explanation. Sorry to have spoken to you in that manner.98.82.193.135 (talk)03:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I see that, while you are highly proficient in English, that it's not your first language. As such, let me inform you that the phrase "See, who's talking." should actually be rendered as, "Look who's talking". Similar verb, no comma. Happy editing!98.82.193.135 (talk)03:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you, like me, found the assertion on the articleGilgamesh that he suffered or experienced genetic mosaicism to be suspicious. I am writing to ask you if you had an opportunity in the intervening months since adding your comment toTalk:Gilgamesh to determine the credibility of that assertion. My own intuition is that the claim is junk science, as the use of the expression "revealed" carries a quasi-religious connotation, and there is certainly no significance to the fact that the parts of Gilgamesh's patrimony are "specific." I tried to enscapulate some of my findings on the Talk page, but in summary they are: * I cannot find the text or even an abstract of the cited article; * I cannot establish the degree of scientific rigor exercised by the editors of "Genetics in Medicine," the journal I believe to be represented by the abbreviation "Genet Med". Do you have any guidance or suggestions? I have promised on the Talk:Gilgamesh page to delete the offending passage if no defenders emerge within fifteen days of today.KASchmidt (talk)03:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tomdo08. Regarding the proposed deletion ofCurrant (disambiguation), which is a redirect toCurrant: if you check the first paragraph ofWikipedia:Proposed deletion, you'll see that the process cannot be used with redirects. As such, I have removed the deletion template from that page.

If you wish to moveCurrant toCurrant (disambiguation), the way to go about it is outlined atWikipedia:Requested moves, specificallythis section, which deals with requesting potentially controversial moves (an uncontroversial page move is one that no editor could reasonably disagree with, which is not the case here).

I hope this is of help.

Regards,88.104.47.107 (talk)18:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedApsaravis, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pagesSacral,Fossa andPubis (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 theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)12:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedTheseus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageAethra (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 theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)18:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding your merge proposal, I noticed you placed{{Merge}} tags on the two articles, but I have replaced them with{{Merge to}} and{{Merge from}}. The effect is that:

1) the suggested merge is in theAlp (folklore) ->Mare (folklore) direction, and

2) when people click on the "Discuss" link on the tags, they are directed toTalk:Mare (folklore) and not on two different talk pages. (Avoiding creation of two threads)

Hope this is ok by you. --Kiyoweap (talk)05:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see that you have editedTemplate:Popdens. Could you please take a look atTemplate talk:Popdens and comment re my questions there? Thanks.Wtmitchell(talk)(earlierBoracay Bill)05:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the currentArbitration Committee election. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipediaarbitration 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome toreview the candidates' statements and submit your choices onthe voting page. For the Election committee,MediaWiki message delivery (talk)13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tomdo08. Voting in the2016 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.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please reviewthe candidates' statements and submit your choices onthe voting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tomdo08. Voting in the2017 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.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Kudpung. Tomdo08, thanks for creatingNCI-60!

I've just tagged the page, using ourpage curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add categories and address the red links in the sourceds.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment onmy talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers atthe Teahouse.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)23:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed onBT-20 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done undersection G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is anorphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is aprimary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under thecriteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Pleasesee the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you maycontest the nomination byvisiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line withWikipedia's policies and guidelines.^{Babymissfortune}09:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing todisambiguation pages. Such links areusually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles.(Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.)

Jana Revedin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing toPrinceton

Periostin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing toA172

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)09:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I left it this way to lessen the risk of useless deletions of the disambiguation pages. But indeed it's dumb. I'll play the Russian roulette instead.Tomdo08 (talk)02:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, it's done already by somebody/someboty else.Tomdo08 (talk)02:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirectDouble Gate. Since you had some involvement with theDouble Gate redirect, you might want to participate inthe redirect discussion if you have not already done so.Arthistorian1977 (talk)19:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirectTriple Gate. Since you had some involvement with theTriple Gate redirect, you might want to participate inthe redirect discussion if you have not already done so.Arthistorian1977 (talk)19:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only usehigh-quality reliable sources as references. We typically usereview articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are severalkinds of sources that discuss health:here is how the community classifies them and uses them).WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be foundhere. Theedit box has a built-incitation tool to easily format references based on thePMID orISBN. We also providestyle advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. Thewelcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note.Doc James (talk ·contribs ·email)00:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creatingSolar flux, Tomdo08!

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

Unsourced stubs are considerably less welcome than redirects. Please don't remove redirects if you don't have sourced content to make an article.

To reply, leave a comment on Elmidae'stalk page.

Learn more aboutpage curation.

Elmidae(talk ·contribs)08:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tomdo08,

I wanted to let you know that I just taggedSpirit Dance Company for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say 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 cancontest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

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

Dom from Paris (talk)16:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tomdo08. Voting in the2018 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.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirectThe Breakfast Show (Triple J). The discussion will occur atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 9#The Breakfast Show (Triple J) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)08:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]