User talk:TimeToFixThis

Copying within WP

I saw that you created an article for the Prosecution of Letitia James. It looks like some of the content was copied from the Indictment section of the Letitia James article. Just a heads up re: the guideline for copying within WP: WP:CWW. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I did use some of the content over there to help build the page. I will be more careful next time with that in mind. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 08:38, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a problem to copy. You just want to note it in the edit summary and/or on the talk page, for attribution. You can still add the copied from / copied to templates to the talk pages. FactOrOpinion (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please engage with the talk page on Dallas Brodie

My reversion reversion of that sentence is not vandalism. Providing cherry picked information like that supports a narrative of residential school denial. It's a complex topic and it's problematic to sum up the issue with one line.
Please engage with the talk page. This is the appropriate place to hash out this issue. Surely, you have a reason for why you disagree with me. Please put in the talk page.
Wannabee isn't actually a sock puppet. I know you probably won't believe that but lots of people are concerned about residential school denialism. I think their post was a good compromise.

RedactedSagan (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sébastien Lecornu caretaker term

Hello. I don't want to engage in edit warring and would rather sort this out here. You believe it's necessary to include that Lecornu was caretaker prime minister for four days in the infobox, while this little detail is (with exception of examples you provided?) left out. And while WP:ONUS is technically on your side, I'd like to tell you why it shouldn't be added anyway...

First, MOS:IBP says “The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Is the fact that he was caretaker PM for just four days really that important for understanding the article, or does it just clutter an already long infobox?

Second, MOS:STYLEVAR notes that When either of two styles is acceptable it is generally considered inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. I haven't seen any other articles on French prime ministers or ministers use such a label. Technically, all ministers around the world act as caretakers during cabinet transitions sometimes much longer than four days, so adding it here goes against established practice.

Lastly, MOS:SMALL discourages using small text formatting, which I think applies here as well...

Happy to hear your thoughts. Cheers! Tahōmaru 多宝丸 ^talk 22:38, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - though I am right on this. If a caretaker was in the position longer, it would make more sense to have the underlining. I will compromise and we can just leave a note in the user box as per example Yoon Suk Yeol. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 03:29, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yoon Suk Yeol's powers were suspended because he attempted a self-coup... I really don't know how these two cases are related.

The main concern is consistency in France related articles and relevance. Tahōmaru 多宝丸 ^talk 13:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yoon Suk Yeol’s infobox is actually relevant here as one example - that’s how they handled the “suspended between these dates” situation when he was still president-in-name-only. After he was officially removed from office, they removed the underlining and added a note to simplify it while still providing context.

I’ve been working on officeholder biographies for about two years now, so I do know what I’m talking about. You might want to get a bit more experience with these types of articles before reverting edits and offering advice. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 18:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seniority isn't really the deciding factor here. Consistency and policy are. Tahōmaru 多宝丸 ^talk 04:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is if you only have 300 edits. Experience is a huge thing around here, especially with unobvious things like this. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 19:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Hi, your signature, as used in edits like this, contains an unescaped pipe character in contravention of WP:CUSTOMSIG. I have fixed some recent instances (examples): please ensure that it does not happen again. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, I do not know why that might have happened. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 22:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're still doing it. It's right there between '''[[User:TimeToFixThis|<span style="color:black;">TimeToFixThis</span>]]''' and [[User talk:TimeToFixThis|🕒]]. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this better? TimeToFixThis | 🕒 23:36, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox dispute at Sébastien Lecornu

Hi, TimeToFixThis. I noticed a minor Infobox dispute involving some edit-warring recently at Sébastien Lecornu. This was followed by your creation of this Rfc at Talk page. First of all, I wanted to commend you on a really interesting way of demonstrating different Infobox options; I may have to steal that idea some day. Was that original with you, or did you see that used somewhere? Anyway, I removed the Rfc header from that discussion, for reasons already explained there. Thanks for raising that discussion, and for formatting it in a way that makes it pretty clear where the locus of the dispute lies.

One minor, niggly point: when I first looked at the explanatory notes attached to Options B and C, I thought the whole dispute was about whether you should say, "four days later", as in Note [a], or "4 days later", as in Note [b], and I was all ready to vote for Option B per MOS:NUMERAL, until I realized that the wording difference in the number of days was not your point at all. I would recommend you change the notes so they both say "four days later", lest you have other editors getting side-tracked or misunderstanding what the central point is. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mathglot, yes that was my idea - thanks. How would you go about getting other editors to comment on this dispute? It seems as though there is not much comment so far, and I'd like for someone to close this Rfc. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 02:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Abby Palmer Cox (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 Drmies was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Abby Palmer Cox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

Drmies (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TimeToFixThis! 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! Drmies (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]