User talk:Timfoley50

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Timfoley50! Thank you for your contributions. I am Owais Khursheed and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Night Fury (A good day to Die Hard) 16:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:John Mara (Seafarer and Author)

Hello, Timfoley50. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:John Mara (Seafarer and Author), 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) 01:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:John Mara (Seafarer and Author)

Hello, Timfoley50. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "John Mara".

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:John Mara (Seafarer and Author)

Hello, Timfoley50. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "John Mara".

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 deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Liz and I do intend to work on the article as soon as I get an opportunity so I would request it's undeletion. Timfoley50 (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion involving you

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Timfoley50 and the explorer Tom Crean. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Star Mississippi 15:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as I’m not yet banned, I just wanted to interject after reading the latest, pompous, prejudicial and patronising contribution of my arresting officer @BrownHairedGirl. was the final nail. You're clearly here to promote Crean, which you have admitted. Continued disinterest in following community norms, guidelines. You're welcome to promote Crean elsewhere and if someone independent thinks more of your book is worth adding, they'll do so. I'll note that indefinite is not necessarily forever, however at this time you're clearly not interested in editing productively. Star Mississippi 16:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Making explicitly clear what I said at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Timfoley50_and_the_explorer_Tom_Crean. While I stand by my block and am not sure about the goals of this editor, if a reviewing admin thinks my block is in error, or that Foley is able to edit productively, feel free. It was to stop immediate disruption, and as we all know - indefinite isn't forever. Star Mississippi 21:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask you, on what basis have you reached the conclusion that I am 'clearly here to promote Crean?' I have not admitted it and when I hastily replied to @BrownHairedGirl that I was not promoting a book and was promoting the man, I retracted this to state I wished to 'preserve his story' with improvements, corrections and additions that will enhance a Users experience when reading the article.

As for editing productively, please read my previous response on the ANI discussion in which I summarise the changes that I believe should be applied to the article. These are all based on sources of evidence which I'm more than happy to provide. Is this not evidence of editing productively?

This block you have administered to me is unfair and born entirely out of the opinion of a fellow editor who, from the outset acted with a lack of respect and took issue with me without foundation. Timfoley50 (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Timfoley50 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am here to enhance, improve and add to the article about Tom Crean (Explorer) and to add articles about other people of interest. I had an issue with the abrasive, disrespectful and offensive replies of an editor who judged that neither my own research or the publisher of a biography I wrote, were deemed worthy of using as sources of reference for the article. Neither of these assumptions are true. If the editor in question, @BrownHairedGirl ceases to interact with me on Wikipedia then, having declared a COI on the subject matter, I will help editor/s to improve the article, the subject matter of which I am an expert authority on. When that project is complete I will then proceed to add further article about other people who I believe should have a page dedicated to their lives. Timfoley50 (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I realise you have declared your CoI since long. Yet, I would like to please confirm that you have read WP:COI and WP:PAID and will follow all guidelines and policies that may be relevantly applicable to you. You have financial gains from this topic. You are encouraged to use our standard paid/coi templates to ensure editors realise your CoI clearly. More importantly, will you confirm that you will not edit articles related to this topic but will only contribute in discussions on talk pages? I reiterate, this is just to reinforce the community's confidence in something you have already followed to a large extent. Thank you, Lourdes 08:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I was not promoting a book and was promoting the man, I retracted this to state I wished to 'preserve his story' is still promotion. You have an open unblock request to which another administrator will respond and if they agree with your request, you might be unblocked. My block has nothing to do another editor's opinion of you, but rather your conduct, which you're continuing here. You might also find WP:EXPERTS worth reading, specifically: Wikipedia has no formal structure with which to determine whether an editor is a subject-matter expert, and does not grant users privileges based on expertise; what matters in Wikipedia is what you do, not who you are. Previously published reliable sources, not Wikipedia editors, have authority for the content of this encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Star Mississippi (talk • contribs) 18:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had an issue with the abrasive, disrespectful and offensive replies of an editor who judged that neither my own research or the publisher of a biography I wrote, were deemed worthy of using as sources of reference for the article.
That is demonstrably untrue.
Talk:Tom Crean (explorer) shows five years of Timfoley50 trying to persuade other editors to use his book as a source for changes that WP:Featured article. I was not involved.
Throughout that time, Timfoley50 was free to edit other articles, or to start new articles ... but apart from his abandoned Draft:John Mara (seafarer and author), he did neither. Throughout that time, I had no interactions with Timfoley50.
I became involved only on Saturday, at Timfoley50's own request.
Timfoley50 came to my talk to ask me to assist in his 5-year campaign. I declined and explained why, without in any way way being "abrasive"; see User _talk:BrownHairedGirl#Tom Crean Explorer, where I tried to be as friendly possible while saying "no" giving Tim an hour of my time to set out my reasons). Then I left a note about it at Talk:Tom Crean (explorer)#A_request_from_Tim_Foley. Timfoley50's responses in both venues confirmed and strengthened my WP:NOTHERE concerns, so I opened a discussion at WP:ANI#User:Timfoley50_and_the_explorer_Tom_Crean.
I wish Timfoley50 well, and I thank Tim again for writing a book on one of my heroes. All I have ever asked on him is that he should stop bludgeoning Talk:Tom Crean (explorer), and let other editors decide what if any use should be made of Tim's book in developing that article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I never requested your help specifically, note what I stated in my initial post to you 'I'd be most grateful for the help of 'an editor'. The context of this led you to accuse me of 'going behind the backs of other editors to approach you' Read what I said again, I was going behind nobody's back for god's sake, I was seeking the assistance of 'an editor' I'm an inexperienced newbie when it comes to Wikipedia editing and the protocols used here - what the hell is wrong with my asking for help from 'an editor'. Check the dialogue and show me on here where I specifically asked you for help.

Secondly and more annoyingly, you judged me as someone who was making a tacky approach to you in order to 'promote my book' It's a charge that your fellow editors have picked up on and repeated since and it's totally untrue. Of course I want people to read the book, I want them to be as inspired as I was after reading about a man who put his own life at risk for others regardless of the possible dangers to himself, but in what world would I ever be thinking that Wikipedia is a great place to achieve that?

'I know, let me see if there's a dodgy editor who I can persuade to market my book in the article' - Really???

Once again, I repeat that the Wikipedia article became my concern because it did not and still doesn't, provide readers with a true or fair reflection of Tom Crean's life and career. It also repeatedly makes references to a book that contains a number of inaccuracies about Tom Crean but it's a publication that is deemed by WK editors to be a reliable source. How does that make for a good encyclopaedic entry if readers continue to digest falsehoods?

My wish was to add newly discovered information to the article, to improve and enrich it, to make necessary alterations and to remove inappropriate links. Yes, my book would become a source for some of that information but I was leaving that for editors to decide.

In no way was I there to promote my book - not five years ago when it was a self-published edition and not now when it has been published by a reputable, long established publisher whose portfolio of publications have long been considered a reliable source of information and which you have now attempted to discredit.

I'm left totally confused by your last paragraph here. Why would you thank me for writing a book about one of your heroes when all you have done thus far is to diminish its value as a source of reliable and trusted information?

For the record, I do wish you well but I also hope that the next person who posts a request to your page takes a look first, at a previous exchange that led to a summons, a host of chastising comments to the naughty boy from a bunch of patronising control freaks, followed by an unfairly administered block.

Good luck to that person Timfoley50 (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Life is too short to rebut all of that, so I will just take just one of Timfoley50's allegations: it has been published by a reputable, long established publisher whose portfolio of publications have long been considered a reliable source of information and which you have now attempted to discredit.

That is wholly untrue. I did not in any way whatsoever attempt to discredit or impugn that fine publisher.

What I actually wrote about the publisher, in this edit, was that the Irish Academic Press published Tim's book under its "general books imprint, Merrion Press, created to develop our publishing to include more popular and accessible titles distinct from the typical academic projection of the IAP format". In other words, Tim Foley's own publishers consider his book to be "popular and accessible" rather than scholarly.

Timfoley50's description of my comment as an attempt to discredit Irish Academic Press is a grotesque distortion of my words. I am disgusted at being so wildly misrepresented. @Star Mississippi: is it acceptable for a blocked user to use their talk page to publish clear falsehoods about another editor? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl it is my personal opinion that it shouldn't be, however there's some valid disagreement with my block so I'm not going to take further admin action. Star Mississippi 21:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Ignoring your laughably thin skin, out of interest BrownHairedGirl, which sources on the Tom Crean page do you consider "scholarly" and not "popular and accessible"? Because of course, if you were misrepresenting the quality of Tim Foley's source as lesser in quality than the ones currently extant on your oh-so-revered featured article, then he would be very justified in terming your comment an "attempt to discredit" the publishers. Right? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to discuss the article and its sources, please do so on its talk page.

But I am saddened to see that you laugh at an attempt to poison dialogue with blatant falsehoods. How on earth can we build an encyclopedia on the basis of such disregard for fabrication and muck-slinging? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What dialogue? The only dialogue here are your wretched, pitiable soliloquies. I'll be noticing that article for WP:FAR soon—I wonder if you'll sling some mud at me at ANI for "wasting other editors' time" on a talk page. If only you had a "disregard for fabrication"—then an editor wouldn't be blocked, and we might have been able to keep an FA from being delisted. Not that you care, of course. I think you'd better get back to whatever it is you do here—there's a 3,000,000 target to hit, after all! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. So AirshipJungleman29 not only disregards the blatant fabrication by Timfoley50, but makes an unspecific, uncheckable smear against me, and adds two assumptions of bad faith.

What thoroughly horrible, vicious, smeary conduct. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what were you desysopped for again? Are you sure you don't want to start any lengthy diatribes where you call others "sneaky", "nasty", or "horrible", and assume bad-oh no wait you have done. Seems rather par for the course with you. But go ahead, take me to ANI, and let's continue this farce. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"In other words, Tim Foley's own publishers consider his book to be "popular and accessible" rather than scholarly."

Let me qualify my 'attempt to discredit' comment. It is you, not I, that now correlates that phrase to mean Irish Academic Press.

In our exchange you were referring to an imprint of theirs, Merrion Press, the publishers of my biography. You then state that the publisher considers my book as one that's 'popular and accessible' rather than 'scholarly'. Not that labels matter much to me but wouldn't it be wiser to ask them as opposed to presuming how they consider my work? I'd personally describe it as all of the above but nevertheless, what you state was a means of diminishing it's value as a credible source for the article.

Oh and while we're still on it and I'm still a part of the discussions about me, I've read that I require my book to override other publications and become the primary source of reference in the article - that is totally untrue and is a fabrication designed to strengthen a pathetic case against me. Timfoley50 (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't need ask them. I took what they had already written publicly.

I quoted verbatim from the publisher's own website, at https://www.irishacademicpress.ie/about/: "2012 also saw the establishment of a general books imprint, Merrion Press, created to develop our publishing to include more popular and accessible titles distinct from the typical academic projection of the IAP format".

Your book was published by Merrion Press.

The full quote and the link were included in my original post, and the diff was posted above: [1].

If you dislike what IAP says about Merrion Press, then take your complaint to them.

Not being scholarly does reduce the weight attached to a source. That's not just my personal view; it's a longstanding part of Wikipedia's guidelines. As I told you before, see WP:SOURCETYPES.

How on earth is anyone supposed to take your book seriously when you repeatedly and clearly make utterly false claims in these discussions,? And when you think that words in quote marks with a visible hyperlink are my own words? You are doing yourself absolutely no favours at all. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so we're allowed to discuss the sourcing on this user talk page are we? Or maybe you feel that you can because Timfoley50 can't respond anywhere else. Tim, can you do me a favour? Would you please repeat the question I had above, about the sourcing, that they failed to respond to? Thanks in advance. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. My comment was clearly about about how Tim's conduct reflects on his credibility as an author. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clear as mud, of which there seems to be quite a lot hurled around. Anyway, please check the article talk page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"My conduct reflects on my credibility as an author" what kind of nonsense is that? My conduct has been reasonable given the circumstances. I could reel you off a long list of wonderful authors whose conduct would make my responses to your unfounded accusations sound positively angelic.

As for WP:SOURCETYPES, just how many snippets from it would you like me to produce that provide every good reason why my biography of Crean can be classed a reliable source?

What's with this 'not being scholarly does reduce the weight attached to a source' BS?

So, just humour me on this example then, a student, we'll call her Rebecca, who failed every exam she ever sat, decided one day to sit down and write a book about her passion, let's say it's the life and times of Joe Bloggs, a chimney sweep of the late-19th century who revolutionised chimney design to make them easier to clean and less hazardous to him and his fellow chimney sweeps. Joe then heads off to the Boer War, where he serves with distinction yet later perishes on the field of battle. Up until his death, he had led a very interesting life with a host of other events I shan't go into here.

Our student Rebecca works diligently and works long hours in research to discover sources and write her book. She carefully checks and double checks her sources to ensure they are spot on. She sends the manuscript to a reputable publisher who thinks it's a fantastic piece of work that readers will love it. The publisher makes an easy decision to include the book in their portfolio and they break the good news to Rebecca. Her grandfather was also a chimney sweep and he often told her stories of the great Joe Bloggs, a man he knew well - it's what sparked her passion to write about him.

Poor Rebecca discovers that because of her past educational failures she is not deemed scholarly enough to have her book referenced on a Wikipedia article about Joe, that someone else has created. The Wiki article creator used various sources that made references to Joe and were written by 'scholars'.

She couldn't write the article up herself as clearly that would be considered a COI but after reading it she recognises there are so many inaccuracies and missing events.

Plead as she might, with the wise people at Wiki who say what does and doesn't go into a Wiki article, she fails at every attempt and all because she was not considered a scholar.

Sounds like a typical story plucked right out of the 19th century when your class defined your importance.

I wonder just how many Rebecca's are out there suffering the same frustrations?

If those guidelines state what you say, then they need changing. What's even more astonishing is that there's no rush of people eager to do that. That you agree with it doesn't surprise me but that no-one else appears to disagree with it in the 21st century, shocks the hell out of me.

On another note, you keep repeating that I asked you for help - do you now agree that I had a conversation on your page that requested the help of 'an editor' and not you specifically? Timfoley50 (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl You wrote the following on the Tom Crean article Talk page and I want you to retract the damaging lies you have left in print about myself and the publisher of my biography on a page that everybody has access to.

'My only interest here has been the disruption caused by the 5-year campaign of promotional efforts by one author, after he asked me on Saturday to assist his campaign.'

This is a downright and blatant lie and you really do need to retract it. Regardless of the fact that my sporadic efforts over 5 years are not, as you term it, 'a 5-year campaign', you go on to state that I asked you to assist 'my campaign', one you also falsely define as being 'promotional' This is totally unacceptable.

'Along the way I have noted how that book does not appear to be regarded by its publishers as a scholarly work ... but that does not mean that I want wider involvement in the article.'

In writing this, you are besmirching the standing of a highly-regarded publisher whose name you brought into the discussions when it was totally unnecessary to do so. In addition you are stating that they place little value on a biography they chose to bring into their portfolio precisely because it was a reliable new source of information about Tom Crean.

I don't know how or if I can achieve some justice here, (perhaps someone could tell me), but hiding behind a username and spitting out a host of untruths and damaging lies surely cannot be tolerated by decent minded people who act as your administrators.

I challenge you to repeat these falsehoods outside of your protective space where you won't have licence to say just about anything you wish without some form of legal consequence.

Now, I am asking that you retract both of these statements on the page on which they were posted or are you so comfortable in the knowledge that you can say whatever you please on here and still remain in post because there's no accountability? Timfoley50 (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by both statements for reasons which I have already explained to you several times at length. I urge you to strike that allegation that my comment is a lie.

I remain saddened that you are unable and/or unwilling to accept that your publisher chose to publish the book under its non-academic imprint Merrion Press, and that at https://www.irishacademicpress.ie/about/ they say: "2012 also saw the establishment of a general books imprint, Merrion Press, created to develop our publishing to include more popular and accessible titles distinct from the typical academic projection of the IAP format".

You repeated allegations that I am trying besmirching the standing of a highly-regarded publisher is utterly false. I hold IAP in high regard.

I have lost count of the number of times in the last few days where you have repeatedly denied verifiable facts. I repeat that this denialism does not encourage me to assume that your book is reliable.

Our exchanges are now highly repetitive, so this will probably be my last reply to you. And no, I will not breach my privacy. I would be quite happy to same the same comments in any situation, but here on Wikipedia I will not breach the privacy which I have protected for over 17 years. Please take careful note of WP:OUTING.

Goodbye ... and good luck. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know how to AirshipJungleman29 and I'm restricted to the number of words I can write here unless I'm replying to someone on my own Talkpage.

I am though still able to read comments in the ANI complaints and one editor, who I have corresponded with on Twitter for some time, has weighed in and has linked to a couple of tweets I recently sent to her.

As I don't have the right of reply due to the block, I would like it known that I have all copies of the correspondence myself and Smirkybec have shared over the years and I would be happy to provide this in response so that readers of her comment are fully versed in the bigger picture of 'he said, she said'. Far from declining to assist me she did offer to help but over time it amounted to nothing. Timfoley50 (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing canvassing by Timfoley50

@Smirkybec has reported[2] at WP:ANI that Timfoley50 has been WP:canvassing both on- and off-wiki in ways which had not been previously reported. Smirkybec linked to two tweets:

Jun 29, 2023: https://twitter.com/HonourTomCrean/status/1674440919712505856
Jun 30, 2023: https://twitter.com/HonourTomCrean/status/1674827537279598609

I stand by my description of this as a "promotional campaign". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's shameful how you behave and even more shameful are those administrators who've unfairly blocked me yet have allowed you to get away with your anti-social skills for so long and are maybe afraid to bring you to book.

If any person reading this wants to get a better take on what I've been dealing with after my exchanges with BrownHairedGirl, go check out the previous 5 interactions that she had with others on her talk page before I posted there - I so wish I'd checked them out first. She has the social skills of a Tyrannosaurus Rex as other poor souls can testify to.

On the subject of your friend Smirkybec and her 'astounding new revelations' that I canvassed her on Twitter, I first contacted Wikimedia Community Ireland by e-mail in May 2020 and it was she who replied. Since that time we've exchanged correspondence on Twitter, the latest being the unanswered tweets she highlights on the ANI page.

Initially she was very receptive to my continuing frustration that people were digesting falsehoods about Tom Crean and she was extremely helpful in pointing me to the Dictionary of Irish Biography as a means by which some of those changes could be applied given that the biography I released was self-published and as such considered non worthy of a place in the references.

I was delighted when the DIB validated my research up to that time and a number of changes were applied to the article.

Since that time though I've discovered much more information and given that my biography has now been released by a reputable publisher, I was on the case for change once more. I'm more than happy for others to read the full chain of correspondence I swapped with Smirkybec so let me know if she is too and although it makes for a long read, I'll post it here.

Why, after 3 years of swapping respectful correspondence, she chose now to add her accusations of canvassing is anybody's guess but I figure it has a lot to do with having the back of her Wiki buddy i.e. you. Timfoley50 (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that I am a Wiki buddy of Smirkybec is false, and provably false.

I have no recollection of encounttering Smirkybec before their post today at ANI let alone having a working relationship.

But memory can be faulty, so I used the User Interaction tool to check. https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=BrownHairedGirl&users=Smirkybec&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki confirms that my memory is correct.

So yet again Timfoley50 has posted a unevidenced slur against me, which can be easily proven to be wholly false.

This torrent of provably false assertions by Timfoley50 does not encourage me to assume that Timfoley50's book is reliable. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters much, and it obviously went straight over your head, but the use of Wiki buddy was a turn of phrase. Whether she actually is a friend or not matters not one jot to me. Now go away because you've wasted my time for long enough. Timfoley50 (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My sympathies, Tim

It boggles the mind how a simple bronze star on an article can get otherwise rational editors to bend over backwards and lose all sense of reason. It relies predominantly on two memoirs published a century ago, a bunch of random webpages and a book published by a company that describes its central promise as a "passion for the commercial", and yet it is your efforts that get torn apart by your "patronising control freaks" who know nothing about writing content (yes I can say that: I have two more FA's/FL's—soon to be three—than everyone else in that discussion combined). If only they had devoted a fraction of the time they themselves wasted accusing you of various things—none of which, Star Mississippi, were worthy of your indefinite (????????) block—perhaps they could have recognised the faults in the article. But no, much easier to bite, sealion and bring out the mop. I can only offer you my sympathies, Tim, and my apologies for not being able to stop this lunacy. Best wishes, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to disagree with my block. If you have an issue with my editing and think, however, that I know nothing about writing content, you're welcome to start nominating it all for deletion. You don't even need to go looking for it: User:Star_Mississippi/Articles. Star Mississippi 21:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need Star Mississippi, I think 172 stubs and 75 start-class articles says it all, really. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK that tool is fun, but also reminds me I need to be better about assessing. And projects, which I know. So thanks for that (zero snark, honest thanks). Star Mississippi 21:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems you have a few stubs you've yet to assess: Con Edison Energy Museum, Bronx Beer Hall, House of Cannabis, Village AIDS Memorial, etc. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and it means a lot to read your kind words - they appear to all too rare on here.

I absolutely love the story of Temüjin and remember watching the film Mongol which, like many screen adaptations, probably doesn't align with the actual script of his life. Did it contain any reference to the Baljuna Covenant or was it history wiped? Fascinating stuff AirshipJungleman29 and I'll certainly be checking out your other articles. Best wishes to you and good to find a friend on here.

Star Mississippi as you've had the luxury of blocking me sitewide could you assist a newbie in discovering how I block you? I'd rather you didn't post on my page as I now consider you a hostile. Timfoley50 (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are not an admin and cannot block me, but I'm happy to honor your request and will no longer post here unless required in the future (some actions do require notification). @AirshipJungleman29 if you want to continue the above, my Talk or yours is fine. Star Mississippi 21:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No films on Temüjin's life are very accurate, sadly. I hope that through my reworking of his article, we might get a more faithful retelling in the popular consciousness. I doubt you'll be unblocked, so best wishes to you outside this site (sometimes so excellent, sometimes, like today, so appalling). If the improbable does happen, post to my talk page, and I'd be willing to help/mentor you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated AirshipJungleman29 Ironically, Crean's story was already airbrushed out of history for over a century.

My life outside of here sees me a busy administrator of a page dedicated to Crean and a full time employee of 'the wonderful everyday' (just in case naming them gets me sent to the headmaster again).

His story is gaining in popularity and the page is followed by over 33,000 fans across the world. I'm drawn to the stories of underdogs or those who never sought notoriety yet deserved recognition for what they achieved.

My daft on John Mara, which is now unlikely to make the cut here and another article on a person who rallied a county to his cause yet slid into obscurity, were to be my next projects and still will be, just not on here :-) Hope smilies are allowed on a site so devoid of them - best of luck and thanks again. Timfoley50 (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have a real chance at getting unblocked. Several editors have weighed in at the ANI discussion to express their disagreement with the block and Star Mississippi has said more than once that they'd have no problem with getting reversed. You're not helping your cause much although I can't tell if you actually want to be able to edit again. (On another note. You can't get/stay in trouble because of another editor's behavior but if you could, AirshipJungleman29 would absolutely be the reason you'd stay blocked. This person is more than experienced and knowledgeable enough to help you so I genuinely wonder why they're doing this to you instead.) CityOfSilver 22:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather interesting (and unexpected!) viewpoint, CityOfSilver; care to explain further? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Not particularly. Re-read your messages, here and at ANI, and if you genuinely, truly can't tell how you've done more harm than good, me trying to walk you through it won't get you to understand either. CityOfSilver 01:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Lourdes 04:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim, Your statement "I challenge you to repeat these falsehoods outside of your protective space where you won't have licence to say just about anything you wish without some form of legal consequence." is a Legal threat. I am revoking your talk page access here to ensure you don't repeat it, as per procedure. Thank you, Lourdes 04:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potential unblock

Hello. Last month the community became aware that the administrator, User:Lourdes, who blocked your access to your user talk page, had been editing in violation of a ban on a previous account. Several administrators (including myself) have looked through some of Lourdes more consequential blocks to determine if they were blocks that a reasonable administrator would have made. We determined that Lourdes's imposition of the "no legal threat" block shortcircuited the discussion around the initial block. We wonder if we can reconcile the differences in opinion and move past this issue for you to possibly regain your editing privilege on Wikipedia. I have lifted the restriction around your ability to edit your talk page so that you can participate in this conversation. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for alerting me to this change @OhanaUnited. I appealed against what I and others considered an unfair decision made by @Lourdes yet to no avail.

I do still wish to see changes implemented to the Tom Crean article and that will remain a goal of mine if the block is lifted. (~~~~) Timfoley50 (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to note, on record, that the individual (BrownHairGirl) who started the initial conversation on ANI which kickstarted the indefinite block on your account was also banned by the Arbitration committee a month later for incivility and unable to work collaboratively with others. Then Lourdes upped your block by taking about your talkpage access. This really made the whole discussion problematic because there are no "clean hands" and there's quite a lot of "cloud" under this situation. Here's what I will do. When I lift your block, can you seek consensus in the talk page first before implementing the change? It's good that you declare your COI on the topic. However, discussions around suggested changes should take place on-wiki and not via back channels like emails. And you need to learn when to take a "no" if the discussion doesn't go your way. You may also wish to work on other topics beyond Tom Crean so that other community members do not perceive you as a "single purpose account" while you gain better understanding of community expectation around reliable sources and how to handle different "facts" reported by different sources. I see that you have a previous draft on John Mara and that can be a good starting point among other edits like correcting typos and grammar on non-seafarer topics. Not a lot of accounts get a second chance like this, and you need to understand that there are others out there who do think that you should remain blocked. It's your job to demonstrate that you are an editor in good standing after being unblocked. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if you have seen this message. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and I have indeed read your reply @OhanaUnited. I will, work on putting together a summary of the changes for consideration on the Tom Crean article so that a discussion can take place around it.

On the subject of John Mara, I am a little green on how to formulate the article in accordance with Wikipedia procedure/guidelines and would welcome some assistance on this from a more experienced editor if that's possible?

Last time I asked for assistance I was unfairly accused of canvassing, the excuse being that I'm the author of a biography about Tom Crean, but I have no COI to declare on Mara, and I have no current plan to write or publish his story to a book. Thanks for updating me on the actions taken against my accuser and the person who blocked me. It doesn't surprise me that 'incivility' and an 'inability to work collaboratively with others' are cited as the reasons for this.

Ironically both were characteristics I identified early on, after my initial conversations with @BrownHairedGirl.

If I were inclined to drag this on, which I'm not, (I'd sooner focus on the articles in question), I would have pointed out the actions of another editor, @Smirkybec, who jumped on the bandwagon and accused me of canvassing her on Twitter shortly before my ban was imposed. I did offer to post the full correspondence we swapped via Twitter so that I could be vindicated but my ban came into play soon after.

@OhanaUnited, if you could confirm that I do now have access to the Tom Crean Talk page in order that I can post a summary for discussion, I'd be most grateful(Timfoley50 (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC))[reply]

I have lifted your block and you should have access to Tom Crean's talk page. Just an FYI, forumshopping is different from canvassing. Canvassing means you're actively soliciting other editors (through emails or messages within Wikipedia). Forumshopping means you went to different discussion pages within a short timespan in hopes that one of those pages will reach a decision in your favour (in other words, "throw enough mud on the wall and see what sticks"). You should be careful around using emails, Twitter or talk page messages to contact others and advocate for your position because people see that as canvassing. A few suggested that you were forumshopping. As I have stated in my last comment, BrownHairGirl who unfairly accused you of forumshopping is now indefinitely blocked from editing on Wikipedia because of her user conduct. Everyone else agreed and determined that a discussion spanning over 5 years is not forumshopping. While I cannot guarantee that a new discussion may lean towards your side, I think there's a better chance that good faith debates can be conducted on that page without someone replying back with a wall of text or filibustering. As for John Mara, the instruction box has expandable sections to give you tips on how to improve your draft. I'll offer something more specific. Most of your references were simply tagged as ^[1] or ^[2]. You need to link the text to the source using the built-in referencing tool. If you can't figure it out, give me a shout and I'll help you out on that draft. I also took liberty of improving the draft a bit. Hope you don't mind. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @OhanaUnited for the explanation and for your tips/advice on the John Mara article. Thanks also for improving the draft, of course I don't mind - I'm really grateful. (talk) Timfoley50 (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@OhanaUnited Hi, February is a busy month in the storyboard of Tom Crean and it's kept me extremely busy on social media. However, I now have some time to dedicate to getting the John Mara article ready for publishing and I'm reaching out for some assistance with preparing the article as I remain pretty green of the tools available to me. kind regards Timfoley50 (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I will be busy at work between now and April. Please consider reading this help page on using the reference tool. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Mara (seafarer and author) (April 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

This submission appears to be taken from https://tomcreanbook.com/john-mara-irelands-first-antarctic-explorer/. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

Draft:John Mara (seafarer and author) may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page. or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 16:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Timfoley50! Having an article draft 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! Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 16:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:John Mara (seafarer and author)

Hello, Timfoley50. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "John Mara".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]