Jump to content

User talk:Timtrent/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30

Sir Goddard Oxenbridge

Thanks for approving the article on Oxenbridge. Online info is very sparse. A detailed search at a local archive or British Library would be needed to provide a detailed biography of info that is not available on the Net. The St Joseph's & its relation to the secondary school St Mary's has been incorporated into the appropriate existing page. The reference to the Verona Father's is fully referenced by the accusations at Mirfield College which resulted in the Catholic Church paying over £1 million in an out of court settlement. There is no suggestion of inappropriate behaviour during the Convent period which existed before 1911. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armourae (talk • contribs) 11:48, 1 April 2015‎

Draft:Charles Garland

Thanks for the guidance and reasons for rejection. I am new to this, having only edited friends and institutions where I have worked up to now. This is my first article and I tried to use references from respectable trade journals like Campaign, The Hollywood Reporter and Billboard to provide acceptable sources of information. You mentioned that the references were regurgitated press releases so keen to find a way to improve this. Please let me have other criteria for references - do you need other journals or other sources to validate facts, and I can hopefully comply. Best wishes and thanks for your help. Lee Roberts 1968 Lee Roberts 1968 (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Lee Roberts 1968: The best place to look for guidance is WP:42 which is rather brutal shorthand. The trick is to get coverage abut the topic, not by the topic. Fiddle Faddle 12:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - just so I am clear the articles are not acceptable because they draw upon a press release about the subject's departure or news which has been originated by them. You need an article which may be an interview or take quotes from them and which is originated independently, but which provides chronological proof of facts such as job role. On that basis, are all 4 of the references unacceptable or may some be left in the article? Please give guidance if any can remain. Lee Lee Roberts 1968 (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Close. Press Releases are always spin. They are to be distrusted. Interviews are, too. So an interview with Garland has his words, un commented upon. That is thus a primary source wherever it is published. We need what folk have written or said about Garland, and independently. If nothing exists then he is not Notable in our sense. Facts that are unlikely to be challenged do not need thorough verification. Does that help? Fiddle Faddle 12:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - I have found this - which is from Simon Cowell's biography and helps to validate facts - eg the subject's background and his professional record.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3qvLC8mHLQgC&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=charles+garland+beckham&source=bl&ots=YN1xHRxLZJ&sig=JZChHhqqqcqEeImvGwpcXM5rtpw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TewbVaa9B8HhaKnEgOgD&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=charles%20garland%20beckham&f=false

Is this sufficiently impartial? Do you recommend I remove all the other references and keep just this, or do any of the other references carry any value to retain?

Thanks for all your help. LeeLee Roberts 1968 (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Lee Roberts 1968: The Cowell book does no harm, and is better than the other sourcing I've looked at. The reason I think it is ok is that Garland's appointment to the position is unlikely to be susceptible to challenge. It happened. The book beats a press release hollow, though we must recognise that the book is, of itself, a promotional piece, designed either to sell itself because it is about Cowell or to sell Cowell
You're getting the trick to it. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL ought to help you somewhat. What I'm striving to spot and failing is whether Garland passes WP:BIO. If he passes, then great. I suspect he may well not. The 'newspapers' angle is your best bet here. Unfortunately the name is common so the search will be hard
Now, let's be fair, there are loads of biogs on non notable people on Wikipedia. Eventually they will face deletion. My objective as a reviewer is to help you get to a point where there is a 0.6 probability of your draft surviving a deletion discussion. The discussions we're having over the draft now are detailed. Imagine trying to defend against deletion. It gets 10 times harder. Fiddle Faddle 16:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help so far. I have deleted most of the Press Release originated references and used the strongest one I can find from the Simon Cowell biography as shown before. There are two other novels which have similar references - one is the Susan Boyle biography - the other a work by Richard Hytner about Consiglieri -eg Charles' role in working with high profile media figures like Simon Cowell. Susan Boyle, Professional Singer: The Fourth Six Months - CG ref p71 

By Lucyb Lightner

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FDRaAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=susan+boyle+the+fourth+six+months&source=bl&ots=8ndq1ggVIF&sig=dD65z5EPB01bQiy4FX0XhNChDHU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5v4bVb6vOIP0aoiegtAH&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=susan%20boyle%20the%20fourth%20six%20months&f=false 

Consiglieri: Leading from the Shadows by Richard Hytner- refs to CG on p. 56,88-89, 234-5, 242-3

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BDAlAwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=consiglieri+leading+from+the+shadows&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hvsbVcTlNY7haofKgvgH&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=consiglieri%20leading%20from%20the%20shadows&f=false

The problem is that in these cases the specific pages which feature Garland are not available within the online preview - could I use such a reference or do we need to have directly accessible text.

In its current form, is there any way that this biography could pass the test?

Lee Roberts 1968 (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you had the answer a couple of minutes ago. Do not despair. Have a chat to the reviewer who has pushed it back to you. This is an iterative process. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. Keep going and you will probably achieve it. Only submit it for re-revoew when you are ready. Time is something that we all have. Fiddle Faddle 18:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Page Patrolling

Thanks for your advice. How can I patrol a page, just reading or something else. Before, adding tag I have had chats in the chat room before committing benign crime. Any how I think I could not explain them my intention. Now I request you to favor me with some points for patrolling a page without referring me to NPP.Thanks. Nannadeem (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nannadeem: I am not sure what your objective is in patrolling pages. Please can you elaborate? Fiddle Faddle 17:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
While reading a page at Pending-AFC (draft pages) I noticed a small rectangular box at the right bottom of page "mark the page as patrolled". So After reading the page, I marked that page, as patrolled. Now please read my question-come-request at top of this section. Nannadeem (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
What do you understand patrolling pages to be about?
Do you wish to participate as a WP:AFC reviewer?
I have read your question. I am responding to it. Fiddle Faddle 17:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
by patrolling pages, my understanding suggests to read the page and report/note any serious issue
participation to WP:AFC pertains to future
Thanks for you attention. Nannadeem (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I think your aims are praiseworthy. The system does't quite work that way. WP:AFC consists of volunteers who not only read the drafts but assess them for suitability for approval. Most of us work at quite a speed, and check articles and approve them or push them back for further work reasonably quickly. I think what we would all appreciate is more committed volunteers within the system, rather than help from just outside it.
The question only you can answer, is whether you have the skills and knowledge to join in. I think you have already answered that.
One excellent way of preparing is to monitor and participate in the WP:AFD process, offering opinions in deletion discussions. This is the tough end of Wikipedia, and takes calmness, and the ability to recognise when one is in error. Fiddle Faddle 19:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Regrettably, I seek pardon for not considering your suggestion for WP:AFD. I think a writer is like a mother and mother loves her new born. Killing a baby of a writer(mother) is beyond my potency. Thanks and wish to close the topic at this end.Nannadeem (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nannadeem: Then you are unlikely to learn what makes an article survive. AFD discussions often keep articles rather than delete them. This will be your loss, and ours. Fiddle Faddle 18:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, your warning is very rational and sweet. Poison can be used for life saving. To be a good learner I can join AFD per teaching of my teacher. Thank you.Nannadeem (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@Nannadeem: Start by observing. Note what arguments lead to the article being kept and what arguments lead to it's being deleted. Remain silent while you are learning. Silence shows wisdom in the learning stages. Gradually, when you are certain, make definite arguments to keep or to delete, based only on policy. Have the wisdom to make a statement and wait and watch. Arguing a cause is doomed to failure for many complex reasons. Some articles are so poor that they must be deleted. It is the only way with some of them to remove the obstacles to recreation. WP:TNT applies. However, TNT is a losing argument in a deletion discussion, because it shows that the topic is notable after all. A paradox.
Once you understand why articles are deleted you are in an excellent position to understand whether a WP:AFC draft is suitable for acceptance or not. Our criteria for acceptance are simple. A draft must stand a better than 60% chance of surviving a deletion process in order to be accepted. We ask for a higher standard in the hope of achieving the 60%.
At the same time as you do this, continue to edit documents, to add references, to research new facts, and be a valuable contributor anyway to articles yourself. Above all, learn, and continue to learn. Fiddle Faddle 22:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Venezuela Assembly list

Timtrent, could you please go into more detail about why my submission was rejected? Seriously, your message was not clear at all. Sorry if I sound too rude.Mcleod Allen Mueller Hill, aka Ohyeahstormtroopers6, Imperator Universi 14:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk • contribs)

It is a list devoid of content. Fiddle Faddle 18:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Craft Distilling

Hi, Thanks for looking my article about Craft Distilling over. I case you did not notice I am the original author of the article and wished to contribute it to Wikipedia. I did not steal it from someone else. Do you have any suggestions ( before it gets deleted) for improvement so it can be used? This is my first real attempt to add to the Wikpedia so please pardon my clumsiness and lack of knowledge when it comes to using the editing functions or understanding the rules here. Thanks and Cheers, Chris Dangermonkey (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dangermonkey: Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials which will explain how to do this. However, items from external sites are not usually written in the right tone. It is far better to rewrite in new words.
This is the internet. Whoever you happen to be, we cannot believe your assertion. You have to go through the process of proving it beyond doubt. We will protect your copyright fiercely until that time, even if you are the copyright owner. Fiddle Faddle 22:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

OK Thanks for thee information, It is Way over my head I'm afraid ... I'll just stick to writing my articles on Spirits Review.com and give up now on contributing to Wikipedia much as I like it. Sorry, Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dangermonkey (talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dangermonkey: All you need to know is that we are diligent in protecting your copyright. To contribute to Wikipedia simply make sure that your writing is original. Please do contribute original material with pleasure. We do have people who can help you to donate copyright material, but I do advise against it. The process is arcane, but necessary so. Fiddle Faddle 07:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

10:24:29, 26 March 2015 review of submission by SisRob

Hey, I wanted to ask if you've seen my post on the help desk about my draft you had reopened. Could I have some reaction to it? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SisRob (talk • contribs) 13:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Satwant_Singh_Dhaliwal

I've made it dull. I've moved quotes from body to notes. What else is there to do?

I have left a full comment on your draft. Fiddle Faddle 06:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Kezia Noble

hello timtrent, I would like to discuss: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kezia12121/sandbox/Kezia_Noble , On the draft you are reverting to, there is nothing about the books that kezia has written, i am sure author is notable for wikipedia, also there are no links and references that state notability as there are on the page i created about kezia Noble, this is the reason she was denied entry to wikipedia before because the person used no notability referencing and as u can see on the page in question has many news links kezia news kezia author etc..... Even a link that shows SKY news have approached her on 'a massive media story 'Julian Blanc' for answers on WHY WHAT & HOW I am sure this shows some notability as do all the other massive news channels and sites i have used, ie.... All top UK news rooms and papers.

Thank you for your time, I await your response

Jimmy Sandhu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kezia12121 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kezia12121: Improve the draft I am referring to and submit that if you wish. I very much doubt anyone will consider your sandbox offering with the other one waiting in the wings. But Ms Noble has, so far, been deemed insufficiently notable for Wikipedia. Your usr name suggests that you may not be the best judge. Fiddle Faddle 11:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

'IXP' online service page

Thank you for your feedback, the differentiation between IXP online service and IXP Internet eXchange Point was added to the page. Please let me know if you have additional suggestions. Javaflug (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

IXP ref

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to get better references. Javaflug (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You are more than welcome. It ought to save you time doing it this way :) Fiddle Faddle 12:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

IXP

I have changed the name from IXP to IXP visual programming lanuage and online service Therefore I like to remove the second part of the first sentence " ...and differs from a physical installation of an Internet exchange point (IXP)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javaflug (talk • contribs) 15:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense. It is important to spoon feed your audience. Fiddle Faddle 15:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

New "Brailsford & Dunlavey" Page

Hey Timtrent, appreciate your time looking at this new page. Its acceptance/rejection is in your hands, and I fully embrace that. Looking forward to any feedback you might offer, positive or tough-constructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjrudell (talk • contribs) 19:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bjrudell: Not in mine. Always in yours . I try very hard never to re-review a draft because it makes a far better draft and then article if other eyes review it. Do keep working on it while waiting for a review Fiddle Faddle 19:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Anne Seisen Saunders

Just asking that you notify Annew43, not me, for any comments you have (whether reviewing or otherwise) on Draft:Anne Seisen Saunders. I only submitted it because the creator's having trouble submitting it (see WP:HD#From sandbox to create an article) and I didn't look it over or otherwise attempt to clean it up or to make some statement that it didn't need cleaning. Nyttend (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for resolving the situation. Not sure what happened, but your Teahouse invitation on Annew43's talk page says "Hello! Teahouse, I noticed your article was..." Is that a template coding error (shouldn't it say "Hello! Annew43, I noticed..."?) or just a mistake when you left the message? Your message at my talk page said the same thing, for what it's worth. Nyttend (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm guessing a template error. I just use the AFC helper script. Since it;s worked (maybe!) every other time I'm sure you can see why checking is not high on my list. I was about to solve the initial problem when you pinged me :). I somehow didn't associate your name with AFC submissions! Fiddle Faddle 21:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 31 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Bob Halloran

Hi, This article needs to be titled Bob Halloran, Sportscaster to avoid disambiguation with the other Bob Hallorans who are not the same person. Nmwalsh (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

For the approval for the article

Dear Tintrent,

Greeting of the day !!!

I am eagerly waiting for your kind approval and nascent appearance in your Wikipedia.

The article is the realty of the previous imagination for pain less blood less non infective surgery, which is certainly going to health to the suffering of the mankind setting a side the Panic of the surgery.

If there is any query kindly let me know for its removal so that the matter may be expedited at the earliest.

Best regards. Mohd Imran Ansari — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imranansarimail (talk • contribs) 10:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I will not re-review this piece. I do not believe that it is suitable for the reasons I have stated. Fiddle Faddle 10:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

12:46:43, 1 April 2015 review of submission by Vizzerdrix55


This article is a translation of the article of the German wikipedia article. As you can see in the discussion of the article, I am not that familiar with Wikipedia to correctly mark the translation mark. The history of the article is as following: The UKBB wrote the german text on their homepage. They decided to publish the informations on the German wikipedia. The translated the text in English and wanted the translation to be published on the English wikipedia (my part) and on their homepage. Vizzerdrix55 (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the referencing is not good. Solve that and it is like to move forward. Fiddle Faddle 12:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anne_Seisen_Saunders

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anne_Seisen_Saunders

She's normally referred to by her Buddhist name, Seisen, which is why I've used that rather than the more common last name.

Suspect I'm only partway there on the references... any help appreciated.

Mulling over fair continuous prose - you used it referring to my list-like article... you're right and I'm not yet sure how to fix that without simply co-joining paragraphs of different topics... sigh.

Thanks for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annew43 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

IXP online service, visual programming

I have added two references from different continents, both are print media.Javaflug (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Knights and Ulphans...

and... User:Babyjanus361 as well. Sigh.Naraht (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

and after looking for one of the strings, User talk:Knight Archie as well.Naraht (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC
Ah well. Fiddle Faddle 18:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
And User talk:Sigma Upsilon - Upsilon Lambda Naraht (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22the+sad+experiences+of+the+boys+all+%22&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go Naraht (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@Naraht: Zapped them all at CSD and set up an SPI for this lot. Keep 'em coming as you find more. Fiddle Faddle 18:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Having said that, I've seen *considerably* more underhanded Sockpuppeting. He *might* not know all the rules rather than knowing them and trying to break them.Naraht (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
And the Pope might not be catholic Fiddle Faddle 20:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, from the way he was trying to build the articles on top of the copyvio, I don't think he had much experience at all (at the "Your Wiki-foo is weak!" level).Naraht (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 17:43:02, 2 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Bjrudell


Copyrighted Images - Brailsford & Dunlavey

Hi Timtrent, thanks for your message. Chris Spielmann did take the photos of Paul Brailsford and Chris Dunlavey, which is why they're showing up as his. But he sold the rights to those images in 2010 (when they were taken) to the company Brailsford & Dunlavey. Should they still be deleted? Or does this fact ensure that they can be included in the Brailsford & Dunlavey Wikipedia page?


Bjrudell (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bjrudell: First, there is no need to rush. I know it seems that way, but take it slowly. That which is deleted is never lost. There are two options I see:
  1. Forget the pictures. In the article they are decorative rather than useful. In an article on the individuals they would be useful. IN this article, eventually, someone is likely to delete them as non needed decoration.
  2. Allow them to be deleted and, simultaneously, go through the process of proving that the copyright was sold to whoever claims it today. Once the claim is validated you will be able to add them to the articles you specify when gong through the process.
Remember, there is genuinely no rush to establish ownership of copyright and donation of material. It just feels as if there is.
However, this brings me to another point, a point that in a Draft article hardly matters. Effectively you have stated that you are associated with B&D. That means that you need to read WP:COI which will be 'effective' once the draft is accepted. At WP:AFC we give a lot of leeway because reviewers will ensure yo strip any COI out. Fiddle Faddle 17:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

kezia noble vs richard la ruina

hello there i have looked in to a few other's who are on wikipedia with no problems and similar referencing to kezia and there does not seem to be much difference in the links that are provided by whom ever made the pages. here are a few examples (there are many on wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_La_Ruina , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marwa_Rakha , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Spira. I would just like to know whats the difference between these guys and 'kezia noble'?

Thanks for reading this

Jiimy Sandhu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.145.84 (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I am not interested in the other articles. 22:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

02:19:48, 3 April 2015 review of submission by Folkrelic


The resubmission of Joe Stevens (photographer) that you rejected is not a duplicate. I had time to do a better job. Please delete the first resubmission.

D2 02:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by editing things, not by creating new versions. I suggest you just do what is asked of you. Fiddle Faddle 06:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Lon Safko Page

Hello. I had submitted an article on 'Lon Safko' for re-review after improving the references, however it was again rejected by you due to unreliable and non-verifiable sources. Actually Lon Safko is my client and I have had detailed discussions with him on this topic. His contention is that I should request you to accept this article along with the information that's present unless and until anyone comes up with proofs to the contrary. Let me know how can you help to resolve this situation. I will really appreciate your assistance in this regard. This is my first venture at Wikipedia and i am really interested to become part of this system on regular basis. I await your response. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayazf (talk • contribs) 07:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

No. See WP:COI. Use proper references. This is not Mr Safko's personal brochure. Fiddle Faddle 07:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

05:48:41, 3 April 2015 review of submission by HihiPete


Thanks for your comment about more citations, but doubt I can do this - the album is from a group that already has a page on wiki and this provides the details of their third studio album, which is listed on that page? I see this as only adding a link from that page to this page, and, thereby, add the details of the album.

Also, can you tell me how I can download the album's artwork (cover), assuming this page is approved, at some stage?

HihiPete (talk) 05:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I fear that references are non negotiable.
With regard to downloading cover artwork, you may download anything, but you may only upload material which is licenced correctly for Wikipedia. WP:COPYRIGHTS is a lengthy read, but the lace to study. Fiddle Faddle 07:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 02:14:17, 3 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Lizseach


Thank you for your prompt feedback! :) I am wondering if you have any suggestions for which sections of this entry should have been cited. I have a couple of ideas, but I am wondering if there is anything specific. In attempting to teach myself how to write an entry, I looked at other examples of academics to see how inline citations had been used with them. The two I took as my models were Nelson Lichtenstein (another faculty member at the same institution) and James T. Richardson (another sociologist). Given the way inline citations were used in those two entries, I actually thought I might be overdoing it, and did not include even more citations so as not to appear amateurish. Apparently, I erred in the wrong direction. :( Any suggestions for where to add more would be appreciated. Thank you so much for your help.

Lizseach (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Lizseach

Lizseach (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

From what I can see, I had brain failure! I shall return it to the unreviewed state. My apologies. Fiddle Faddle 07:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

13:09:23, 3 April 2015 review of submission by JeromySolo


Good morning,

Thank you for taking the time to review my entry submission. I saw that the reason for rejection of the entry was the lack of notability as well as incorrect referencing.

For my article, I reference Columbus Business First (A major publication in Columbus -- itself an off-shoot of the national Business Journals publication group) and This Week Community News (a major news source in the Hilliard area, where Ares is headquartered). Could you please guide me in the direction of sources which would better serve as references for my article?

In terms of the notability of the subject, Ares Sportswear is in the top 5 of the customized athletic apparel industry. Could you please provide insight on how I can better prove it's notability?

Thank you!


JeromySolo (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I did, on the draft. Lose the lousy references, keep the good ones, find more. Fiddle Faddle 21:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Doing as I am told.

Tokyogirl79, here is a revision of the Joe Stevens (photographer) entry. I tried to resolve the issues you raised. I would appreciate your suggestions for improvement.

Pasted material, unreviewed

Joe Stevens (photographer)

Joe Stevens is a rock photographer who photographed David Bowie 12 to 15 times in his career[1]. Several of his photographs are included in Paolo Hewitt's 2013 book on Bowie, "Album by Album."

Career

Stevens sees himself as a chronicler of history[2]. He is a contemporary of rock photographers Jim Marshall (1936-2010)and Bob Gruen (1945- ). He lives near Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

Accolades

"Stevens isn't a rock & roll photographer. He is rock & roll" (Adam Coughlin, "Pictures: A look at the images, not just the rockers," The Hippo, Nov. 3, 2011)

"Hot Shots: Joe Stevens reflects on his time photographing David Bowie," Christopher Hislop, Seacoast Sunday, Jan. 20, 2013 "Pictures: A look at the images, not just the rockers," Adam Coughlin, The (Manchester, NH) Hippo, Nov. 3, 2011

Thank you. D2 03:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Folkrelic

D2 00:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Folkrelic: I am not Tokyogirl79. I'm not about to re-review this material. As long as you are submitting the correct version then someone else will review it. There is never any need to paste material onto my talk page form drafts. I do not read it here, nor do I make suggestions here. Fiddle Faddle 17:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 05:39:29, 4 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by AkshataKini


HI, I'm new to Wikipedia and would like to ask if the references can be from the official website. The reason being, there is not much data available other than the ones mentioned in the references.

Kindly guide me on the same.

AkshataKini (talk) 05:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:PRIMARY which explains when primary sources may be used. As you can see they are allowed, but in very specific situations. Fiddle Faddle 17:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Please disregard duplicate submissiong User:Inajane/sandbox/Maris Racal

Hi Timtrent!

Thank you for reviewing my article. Please discard my duplicate work in my sandbox and consider this one Draft:Mariestella Racal Just let me know how can I improve my article and if it already pass the criterias.

Thank you so much for your assistance!--Inajane (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

08:59:05, 6 April 2015 review of submission by Try1234


Hello im a musician and i really need a wiki page badly please help me out Try1234 (talk) 08:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Why do you believe you need a page on Wikipedia? Fiddle Faddle 15:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Prakash Panangaden

Hi,

I have updated the Draft: Prakash Panangaden to fix the issues you raised. I also discussed with some editors on the on-line wikipedia help last night to get further advice. I am really hoping it is ok now.

Thanks, Laurie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljhendren (talk • contribs) 16:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the task on so well. I re-review drafts very rarely, believing that other eyes provide a better result. Do not be disheartened if it happens to be pushed back to you again. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. Fiddle Faddle 19:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

09:50:07, 7 April 2015 review of submission by Kdakin


I cannot understand why I have had my article deleted as I have produced numerous notable and widely used IBM software since 1970. The internet did not exist during the time I wrote most of this software - so there are few references on-line to this software - but it is still extant in some form or another as can be seen from the references in the article. I actually also programmed the first ever fully interactive spreadsheet SIX years before Visicalc. See -Works Records System. ken (talk) 09:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kdakin: You have had the draft declined, not deleted. References may be from printed media, but must meet WP:42. Are you important? You write as though you think you are? We discourage autobiographies for just this reason. You may be notable, and, if so, you will merit an article here. I did a fair bit in the IT industry, too. I am not notable. I do not merit an article here. Fiddle Faddle 09:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Frank Gray

Hello TimTrent... I have just noted your rejection of my significant modification to The Gray Matrix. It appears you still consider it a 'Test' article - because I considered it to be for real this time especially. I really need help in this as I fail to understand what significant changes to make to make it acceptable. I had contacted the Tea Room chat but was told to contact the reviewer, which is you. My main purposes are two-fold: (1) To provide a meaningful definition for people who read about Gray Matrix on the Engel Scale page and (2) to correct the many bits of misinformation put out there who trace it back to 2005 (e.g.) and describe it as the modification of others - when in fact it was the pre-cursor. I need to set the record straight. Any help you can give in terms of practical suggestions would be much appreciated... Thank you!

--Frank Gray (talk) 10:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Frankgray: The draft I declined was sparse in the extreme. I suspect you have not submitted what you believe you have submitted. Tell me with precision what you want submitted and I will do that for you.

14:42:25, 7 April 2015 review of submission by Rodevel


Hello, please let me know in few words why my page is not ok for wikipedia. it is the presentation of the aventura park and has now link to the website www.edenland.ro

thanks a lot

Rodevel (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I did. It is an advert Fiddle Faddle 14:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

19:36:29, 1 April 2015 review of submission by Rob19801980


Thanks for looking at the draft edit of this. I'm a bit confused about the request for better referencing as the references are from some of the most reliable sources available including the BBC, Guardian and Daily Telegraph. They are more reliable in fact then the references for another website blocker on wikipedia and also the entry that I wrote has more information than this one that has been approved. If you could explain why this one here has been approved when the one I wrote has been rejected would help me in improving the entry, thanks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_(software) Rob19801980 (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Rob19801980 (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

My view is that many of these are passing mentions, not significant coverage. Fiddle Faddle 20:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I appreciate it. However I still really confused about your comment that they are passing references. For instance references 3, 4, 5 are articles completely about the app itself showing that it has thousands and thousands of downloads. That's more than 5000 words about the software itself. While reference 7 is a BBC online article all about the app and how it helps children do their homework - this is not a passing reference. The whole article is about Stop Procrastinating and the research it has produced. References 2 and 9 are passing mentions I agree although they are in the BBC and Huffington Post. References 10, 11 and 12 are stories solely about Stop Procrastinating and the research it has produced, so the whole story is about the software, so not a passing mention. I'm also a bit confused as to why when the references here very reputable you have declined this but approved this one which references aren't as good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_(software). Thanks.
Rob19801980 (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
@Rob19801980: I'm sorry. I ought to have been clearer. What I mean is that those that are passing mentions need to go. Full reviews need to stay. The source of a passing mention may be authoritative, but they are not significant coverage. Your role is to make sure that you only use excellent references. That way the process also helps you in the future.
All new folk here can see that we have some crap. That is the reason that we never use any article as a precedent for any other. if we did then we would escalate mediocrity. We often nominate crap for deletion. It is then either improved or deleted. Either is valid. Fiddle Faddle 11:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I've followed your advice and removed the sourcing with only a passing mentioned, but left the full reviews and the major mentions in the BBC. Ie the BBC article that is left is fully about the app and it's research. Thanks again.

Rob19801980 (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Rob19801980: Excellent, Rob. Now you stand a chance. Good luck. Continue to improve it while you await a review. It will not be from me. I almost never re-review drafts. I see it as important not to. Fiddle Faddle 15:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Lutz Michael Wegner

Dear Timtrent, I appreciate your effort to keep BLP pages free from subjective nonsense. I'm out of the academic game and don't need an ego booster. What "this gentleman" (quote page history) would like to create is an anchor which is sufficiently persistent, e.g. to disambiguate the name against the better known Prof. Peter Wegner from Brown Univ. To make it worth enough to appear in the Wikipedia, there must be notable achievements which must be substantiated, I fully agree. I thought I added three modest achievements in the article and provided references from independent sources. In the old days of CS, by the way, achievement meant that you were listed in Donald Knuth's TAoCP books. See Vol. III. Maybe we could settle the issue if you gave me direct hints on what to drop. Thanks Gelegenheitsleser (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Gelegenheitsleser: I am just the chap you met . We all strive to keep BLP on track, if you look above this thread you will see bombast used to thrust a chap forward, and failing. Thank you for being civilised.
The trick with this draft is to pare it to the bone, only citing things about the gentleman (yes, I know it is you, but I strive to keep to third party). So, for example, http://www.wu.ac.at/infobiz/team/janko/ is about Janko, not Wegner. We should only cite it if it links Janko to Wegner. Then http://scholarwiki.indiana.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Remarks_on_the_algebra_of_non_first_normal_form_relations is inadmissible because it is a user edited source. I can't read the offline reference. The other refs are about Wegner.
Ok, so far so good. I am unsure that what remains passes WP:PROF, something you and reviewers must judge separately. I am far more capable of judging simple WP:BLP matters. I do know DGG has an expertise here, so I am pinging them to ask for an opinion and assistance for the draft. My view is simple. If it is citable and about Wegner, and passes WP:42 cite it. It it is not citable, certainly for now, omit it. The objective is to provide the sensible minimum to allow acceptance such that there is a better than 60% chance that it will not face immediate deletion. I don;t mind whether you have a technical conflict of interest as long as you are able to construct WP:NPOV copy. Most folk cannot do that for their autobiography. You seem to be able to. More power to your metaphorical elbow.
I don't re-review drafts where I can help it. Further pairs of eyes always produce a better result, much like peer reviews.
You may find WP:ACADEME of interest. Fiddle Faddle 17:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent Thanks, this is a good start. I removed the NF2 and the Janko link. I will look into the other hints, e.g. WP:PROF. I like to keep the other references, e.g. the one to Traudl Herrhausen, because they create noteworthy historical cross-references. TH is the widow of Alfred Herrhausen, former Deutsche Bank CEO who was killed by the red army brigade. Instead of sitting back, she went into politics, getting many good things started, among them CS at my university. I mention it because WP creates these interesting cross-links. In reading the Peter Wegner page, I learned that he was hit by a bus in London and suffered severe brain damage. Jesus! Then in looking for WP pages about non-first normal-form, I came across the Patrick C. Fischer page, a fellow I cited frequently. I learned he was the target of the Unabomber in 1982. Holy cow! So yes, keep it short and precise, but not necessarily dry. I give my best ... Gelegenheitsleser (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Gelegenheitsleser: You have the trick to it. I hope you pass the test of notability. Fiddle Faddle 19:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Borderline notability. The possible notability is either as an authority in his subject, or an academic administrator. Authority in one's subject is normally judged for scientists by the citations to their works, and none of his published papers or conference proceedings listed in Google Scholar show more than 22 reference--this is rather low for the subject. Academic administrator means president of the college or the like--her was a department chairman. The evidence that he started his department seem to derive from a university press release and an article in a regional paper that is clearly based on the press release. Whether this is a notable accomplishment would depend on WP:GNG, which would probably require additional sources. A professional magazine article on him would probably be the most likely. However, he has an article in the deWP, and I cannot remember that we have ever deleted an article on a German academic who has an accepted article there--their standards for such things seem higher than ours. But this article was only added there very recently.
The criterion for accepting a draft is not that it will certainly be notable, but that it have a decent chance of passing afd. It's hard to predict Afds, but this does have a reasonable chance. I'm adding this as a comment, and then accepting it. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


and I did the same at Satwant Singh Dhaliwal for the same reason: I want to let the community decide in the usual open manner where anyone interested can find it. There are a number of others who comment on these academic articles, and if it's nominated for afd, they'll see it there. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

Timtrent, How do I create an infobox with photo, caption, birthdate/place, occupation, etc. and website of the person I am writing about? Thank You, Akligman1 Akligman1 (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Deploy {{infobox person}} at the head of the article. Leave all the blank parameters present, and fill out the ones you need. Fiddle Faddle 08:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Timtrent. Please describe how I "deploy." Akligman1 (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Copy and paste it, in with its parameters. Then fill in the parameters you have data for and leave the others alone. Fiddle Faddle 15:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
There are full instructions on the template page. click the link. Fiddle Faddle 15:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!

Hi, I very much appreciate the barnstar. I'm new to the community so I'm starting with the easy AfCs, but I hope to help put a dent in that backlog! Your comments and reviews have been really informative as I've started to get involved. Here's to working together! Cheers, wia (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Wikiisawesome: We all start at the easy ones! I keep a list of updated boilerplate comment at User:Timtrent/Reviewing which you are welcome to adopt, adapt and improve for your own use. Fiddle Faddle 13:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
That's really useful; I'll bookmark the page. Thanks! wia (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
@Wikiisawesome: You might also find participating at the AFC help Desk a useful place to learn more. Sometimes we old hands can get sharper than one might wish with some of the questions. We forget that the 20th time we hear the question is irrelevant, for it is the first time the "current idiot" has asked it. Pick up some easy ones and progress to the harder ones over time. The only 'rule' is always to click the TB link after you have answered to make sure they know they have an answer. Fiddle Faddle 17:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding my Draft

Hello, the last few weeks in my spare time, I have been developing this draft, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Xasma), which is mostly a translation of the Greek article (http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%A7%CE%AC%CF%83%CE%BC%CE%B1) about the band. Unfortunately, it has been rejected twice for improper citation. I guess it is my fault because I didn't specify that it is a translation of an article that already exists. What more can I do in order to make this article available on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SOADNICK (talk • contribs) 22:10, 9 April 2015‎

The challenge is that different language Wikipedias have different standards, so the fact that Χάσμα exists on the Greek language version does not mean it will be accepted automatically in the English version. All you can do is to look at WP:GNG and cite, even if you cite Greek material. Fiddle Faddle 21:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Austin Rice

I'd like a look at my Austin Rice article, but would prefer not to have a number of error messages placed on it at this time. I'm pretty good at fixing issues myself so far.


THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dcw2003 (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Accepted Fiddle Faddle 21:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

random heading name

Fiddle Faddle............

I have submitted three articles and had quite a bit of trouble uploading photos. It simply makes it easier to say they are your original work. I also don't quite know how to create a draft and assign a name to it. I'm having some trouble with the problem of file and file naming process ocasionally.

I have another draft I'm working on entitled Austin Rice, which is better researched than the Palitz article you created. Please feel free to look at this one if you like and give me feedback. It is a little better than the Dave Palitz article. If you have any suggestions, I certainly take them to heart.

I wasn't aware we could move drafts to wiki as full fledged articles. Is it correct that any user can do this?

THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP AND TAKING THE TIME TO GIVE ME A HAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcw2003 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dcw2003: These are easy matters except pictures and any copyright. I am not an expert in that matter. All I can say is never claim something as your own if it is not; it will bite you in the bottom eventually. The era you are working in looks as if the pictures are out of copyright. I have never enjoyed uploading pictures, especially ones that need attributing to others, so I take and upload my own. I suggest asking at the Teahouse for someone who is a pictures and licencing expert to give you advice. Be wise and ask for general advice.
You are on all the right lines with Austin Rice (and thus your work for the future). Research well, cite as well as you are able, and all will always be well
Every user (after a set period has elapsed) has the right to move any article to any location. We expect wisdom in moving, and we also expect mistakes. Sometimes we need an admin to correct our mistakes. Life was ever thus. So yes, you can prepare an article in (eg) your user space, or in Draft: space, and, when ready, move it to main namespace. I do this whenever i Create a new article. Look at the history of NCI Froward Point for example. I created this in my own user: space and moved it to main space when I was ready. I even fought off a deletion discussion! Note: NO AFC banners, nothing. I started plain and simple.
To create (eg) a new draft in your own user area, first choose the name. Let us imagine a boxer, Jake Everyman. What I do is to put my username slash the intended article name in the search box and follow the creation prompts. So, for you, this would be for User:Dcw2003/Jake Everyman. The other way is to do what I have done here, and to create a redline, then click it and make the new draft article.
Sorry I can't help on the picture element. Fiddle Faddle 21:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Another decent example is Edward Upcott, starting in my own space. Fiddle Faddle 22:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 19:45:30, 9 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Sabrinap2015


I need help with fixing the problems outlined. I have had a hard time going through the process and would like some assistance in getting the issues resolved.


Sabrinap2015 (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I need some help understanding what I need to do in making the corrections required. I wrote the page "Profiles in History." Being told I haven't met some of the guidelines and links. I could really use help in getting those fixed? Could you please help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabrinap2015 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Sabrinap2015: I am pinging Jbhunley who placed the tags for improvement on the page Profiles In History because it is, generally, far better for that persons to explain what was in their mind. The Orphan one is the easiest to solve. All you need to do is to Wikilink from other articles to this one, making sure the links are relevant. The others need solid work.
But this is important: You need not be the editor to do that work. You may do it if you wish, you may choose not to if you wish. That is what the community is about. Fiddle Faddle 21:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
@Timtrent:, @Sabrinap2015: - I placed the layout tag when I first reviewed the article, it was not using section headers etc. I just forgot to remove it when I put them in and have removed it. The intricate detail tag is because we need to know more about the company than just a list of what they sold. In particular the sale price of each item was excessive, since a reader can click through to the reference for more information on a piece. I removed all of the sale prices except where there was some notable fact ie record setting sale. I will not object if some other editor wants to remove the tag but I still think what they have sold should be paired down a lot. See Christie's for an auction house that sells lots of notable items as an example. Jbh (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

03:10:58, 10 April 2015 review of submission by 122.148.34.162


How is the origin of policy not an adequate reference? It is a primary source it is a reference to the organization's actual policy and stances. A new organization can't possibly have references external to itself on its policies. A university would insist on a reference to the actual organizations policy page. Other external references can be added as they become available but this is a more than adequate reference. What do you require to verify the organization exists the Australian Business Number (ABN) reference? 122.148.34.162 (talk) 03:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

You have said it yourself. It is a primary source. This is an encyclopaedia not a new sheet. Fiddle Faddle 07:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

10:28:42, 10 April 2015 review of submission by Abhyud


Hi.

Sorry to bother you again :(
As per your feedback I have removed all patent references and Press Releases and added {{Patent}} template. Also,I have removed some of the references that fall under WP:CITEKILL.Along with that I have also added two more references to justify my article.

Please review my article again and let me know.

AB (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Much better. I do not re-review drafts, so do two things. Continue to improve it and resubmit it. Good luck. Fiddle Faddle 10:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

K Dakin / Ken Dakin

I have re-edited my article with additional bio.

Please look at notability of the articles (especially Works Records System - first electronic spreadsheet (mainframe) and IBM OLIVER (CICS interactive test/debug) - probably the first fully interactive test/debug system - similar to Visual Studio on PC's - but for mainframes - in 1974) ken (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kdakin: It is important that more eyes than mine look at drafts, thus I try very hard not to review a second time. My impression, though, is that the subject;s own notability is neither asserted nor verified. Instead you have fallen into the trap of believing that your work is notable, and so you must be. The draft is about you, and the wording and the references must be about you. Looking at your contributions record I know that you have been here long enough to understand that, and would were the article not an autobiography Fiddle Faddle 10:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


It appears that programming what almost certainly qualifies as, the first ever on-line electronic spreadsheet for a mainframe, does not, even itself, signify a notable achievement. It was achieved long before Visicalc was thought of or written and also before IBM PC's had been created (and furthermore ran bug-free for 27 years at ICI, a major international chemical company).
Also, it appears that solving a really major reliability problem with the most successful transaction server for a period of at least 20 years (namely providing storage protection between multiple CICS applications) is not noteworthy! In addition, IBM OLIVER (CICS interactive test/debug) may easily have been the first ever fully interactive test/debug system - long before PC's and Visual Studio were even thought of.
It also appears to be 'not notable' that I solved yet another multi-million dollar worldwide IBM problem with Command CICS, at a time when IBM just stopped supporting Macro level CICS applications in the 1990's, leaving thousands of major customers with the job of rewriting or converting tens of thousands of perfectly sound legacy application programs.


As a programmer of 40 years standing with many successful software projects completed, just what then does one have to do to be considered notable?
It seems also, that the article I produced recently about Alec Naylor Dakin, who worked alongside Alan Turing in hut 4 at Bletchley park, was also not notable. It has been re-worked by me from the original Times & Telegraph article - so is not copyrighted material. Only a short quote from his obituary remains intact (as a quote) . It also now has some added biographical material about his inventor father that doesn't appear in either Obituary. This man deserves recognition, and the relevant Wikipedia editor is denying him that.ken (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
@Kdakin: Please curb your indignation. Read WP:BLP. Do not hector me, it is counter-productive. I have never, not ever, toadied to the "Do you know who I am?" brigade, and I am not about to start now. Are you notable? I have no idea. I also have no interest. The article neither asserts nor verifies your notability. This an encyclopaedia. not a "Who's Who in IBM"
The only thing being denied here is a piss poor article being approved. Do the work, and stop complaining to me when you cannot do it right yet. I doubt your first effort at software was bug-free.
It was not me who stated this fact - but I was told by Dr. Robert Mais (some 30+ years later). The article you describe (in such educated terms) as "piss poor" is a stub.
I cannot really improve it by researching as that would be an infringement of Wikipedia's rules.86.133.155.234 (talk) 12:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I am losing interest. That is principally because of the hectoring. Fiddle Faddle 14:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I looked at the edit history of Alec Naylor Dakin, where your work was revision deleted as a copyright infringement. I imagine IBM also protected its copyrights assiduously. You need to learn your trade here. Wikipedia will not change, so you must. Fiddle Faddle 15:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I did not infringe copyright - it was originally mostly a long and direct quote from his obituary)fully acknowledging the original publication).86.133.155.234 (talk) 12:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The admin who revision deleted the material is of a different view. Take it up with them. A stub, now, is it? No. It is a badly referenced vanity piece. I suggest LinkedIn. Fiddle Faddle 19:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

12:11:49, 10 April 2015 review of submission by Icpnaveed


or Please guide for next step of scucessful publish my https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:International_Cities_of_Peace page

Icpnaveed (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I have left a comment on your draft Fiddle Faddle 19:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Trideal

required references from leading newspapers of India added to Trideal — Preceding unsigned comment added by VikasPaul09 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 11 April 2015‎

Good. I anticipate that someone else will review it. I try not to offer second reviews. Fiddle Faddle 12:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Neue Gestaltung / User:Mehrinhalt

Thanks for taking the time reviewing my article Draft:Neue Gestaltung. Appreciate if you can elaborate on reliable sources as current sources used for referencing include The Telegraph, German newspaper Zeit, and notable German design magazines like Page and form among others. I’m thankful for your advise on how to improve references. Mehrinhalt (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mehrinhalt: it is not the quality of the source, but that the reference must always be about the org, and in more than a passing manner. Fiddle Faddle 18:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 12:20:42, 13 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Shiffa ul ain



Shiffa ul ain (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Shiffa ul ain: You have no draft and no question. Why are you posting in my talk page? Fiddle Faddle 13:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Stephen Viscusi Article

I am an avid reader and follow Stephen Viscusi all the time on CNN, ABC news, etc. I edited his article because his previous one was one paragraph and did not find it fitting for Wikipedia standards. Would you please be a dear and check it for me? Thank you for your time and efforts.

Thank you

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Viscusi GlobalWikiCitizen (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@GlobalWikiCitizen: The major benefit of Wikipedia is that those who watch the article will check it. I have no knowledge of the gentleman and am not a useful resource here. Fiddle Faddle 21:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

MOGAS

Hello Timtrent,

I recently found that you declined the article submission for Draft:MOGAS Group with the reason "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources". You also added that the links to the organisation's website should be minimised. I have been able to remove some information and references that had been obtained from the company's website. However, I am required to leave some references to the company website because I fear that the information would be deemed as G12. I was hoping that you could take a quick look at the article and advise me on any additional changes necessary for the article to be accepted. Thank you

User:RayGNRayGN (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@RayGN: It is very rare that I re-review a draft. Further pairs of eyes give you a better outcome. I do not feel that avoiding copyright violation is a good rationale for leaving multiple links to the org;s own site in place. WP:PRIMARY may be a useful; printer here.. Copyright violations can be avoided by using 100% of your own words. However, the point is immaterial. Your links to the MOGAS site's subsidiary operations are not working. Fiddle Faddle 13:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
@Timtrent: Thank you for your assistance. I have edited the links to the MOGAS site's subsidiary operations and they are now working. User:RayGNRayGN (talk) 05:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

12:15:15, 14 April 2015 review of submission by Abhyud


Thanks for giving a comprehensive details. I thought that these referred articles are good notable news resources that cover company details such as number of employees, about CEO, establishment date etc. but you consider them as press releases. It would be great if you could share me one or two sample resource that actually be a good resource to add in my article. It would be great help for me.

AB (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@Abhyud: I am afraid I have no interest in the topic. By contrast you do. Please see WP:BURDEN. If you are at all unsure please post a direct question about a proposed reference linking to the article at the same time, and use WP:RSN. I am simply a volunteer who reviews articles. Fiddle Faddle 16:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Speedy Deletion - Ashish Kashyap

Hi,

I am working on this article and added more content with reliable third party resources. Please review this article again and remove the deletion template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhyud (talk • contribs) 08:50, 14 April 2015‎

@Abhyud: I see it as suffering the same problem that all your drafts and articles I have seen have, so far. I have taken the sensible step of recommending it for WP:AFD which will seal it as a keep or a delete. Do continue to work on it during this process. Fiddle Faddle 16:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:International Cities of Peace page

Thank you Faddle for helping me to create International Cities of Peace page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icpnaveed (talk • contribs) 10:08, 14 April 2015‎

@Icpnaveed: I have done very little, but I have given you some hints. The draft will be pushed back to you again unless you do some more work. Fiddle Faddle 16:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Abour Draft:Gender Mainstreaming in Mine Action

Hi, the creator of the page Draft:Gender Mainstreaming in Mine Action has came onto IRC and asked about his/her page. Since you reviewed the page twice, he/she wants you to check if the page is ok now. Thanks! Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 08:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@Darylgolden: Thank you for helping Linda MR. I'd really rather not come back to the well for a third time. Reviewing it twice was one more than my usual practice. I feel that different eyes on the draft will be wholly beneficial. I find it hard at present to see it differently from my previous view, and am thus irrationally prejudiced against it. That is not a state to review a draft in. I'm grateful for the opportunity and for both of your trust in me, but I think I need to decline because I cannot give it a fair review. Fiddle Faddle 16:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

05:48:27, 14 April 2015 review of submission by Brandongjy93


Hi Tim,

I was just wondering how I may improve on my article. Can it be done by leaving out the functionality aspect of the Carousell? Also, you mentioned "Many of the references are regurgitated press releases and PR material. These must be replaced or removed, please. They provide an aura of faux notability which is not required and adds no value. Indeed it diminishes Wikipedia's value." What may I substitute it with if all I can get is online articles and write ups about this?

Brandongjy93 (talk) 05:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@Brandongjy93: You need to assess each current reference agains the hard standard of WP:42, and each putative replacement or additional reference. That the references are online or print or other material makes no difference. They have to be independent, written about the org, an din reliable sources. Removing the functionality and 'how to' material will help, but the key element is referencing. Fiddle Faddle 05:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@TimTrent: Thanks! I have removed the functionality aspect of the article and used words which provided a more neutral perspective to readers(if my article gets successfully reviewed). Also, I have removed the articles which are from within the organisation. I have resubmitted my draft to wikipedia. Hope all goes well! Brandongjy93 (talk) 09:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@Brandongjy93: Please remember that you can continue to improve it even while awaiting a review. Major on excellence of referencing. Good luck. Fiddle Faddle 10:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 19:14:04, 15 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by 96.61.212.146


{{unblock-un|Pklk5945}}

96.61.212.146 (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I've deactivated the above request as it's not in the right place, wherever that might be... Peridon (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Brad Mattson

Timtrent,

Thanks for your feedback on my article for Brad Mattson. I have reduced the referencing and placed them in text where appropriate rather than clustered at the end. Appreciate your time. Slainte12 (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Systools

Hello Timtrent,

I totally respect and appreciate the remarks you have left regarding the declination of SysTools article. I pretty much understand your point of view on the mention made by this line pointing out mistakes in the article - 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. However, I would be highly obliged if you could enlighten the details of the same or share a few examples of what exactly should be mentioned if not the production done by the creator of the subject.

Looking forward to your response.

Thanks and Regards, Anuraag Singh— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anuraag Singh (talk • contribs) 13:49, 16 April 2015‎

In very many ways I have already. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. You are the editor to provide those. Please see WP:BURDEN Fiddle Faddle 16:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

21:18:33, 16 April 2015 review of submission by Theullarn


Theullarn (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

i dont understand the swedish page for pite havsbad is almost identical and the references are almost the same, the only different is that my references are on english and the swedish refernces are on swedish. so why is mine not accepted but the swedish got accepted? and the dutch and portugese submissions got accepted and one of them doesnt even have any references.

@Theullarn: The English Language Wikipedia probably has far tougher rules than the Swedish, Dutch or Portuguese Language Wikipedia versions. Please strengthen your referencing for the draft to be accepted. It would be wise to strengthen it in the other versions too.
Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. Fiddle Faddle 21:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

well how do you mean by strenghten them? i have looked and looked for more references but i cant find more references that tells me about the things i have written.

@Theullarn: Then I am afraid the topic fails WP:GNG and can have no place here. To have a place here we require strong referencing. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Some things are just not notable. This may be one of those things. Fiddle Faddle 21:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Deleted page

Dear Fiddle Faddle: I appreciate your help. I did see a previous message you sent. I have been trying very hard to understand how to keep my story on Jose Luis Gonzalez up, but it seems I have failed. Everywhere I turn and get a message about no links, or problems with pictures, etc, I take so much time reading the how to's, along with my full time job and family that I have not been able to get this done right. I am so honored to know this man in our midst that I felt I had to tell others about him. I was born and raised in East Los Angeles and have seen his art and what his studio has produced over my lifetime and yet did not know about him until now. He'll be 76 this August and still doing what he loves! Is there any way I can get help to get the story back up?

I wrote the entire story based on Mr. Gonzalez' records, interviews with him, his family and friends. The pictures are all his except the one I took of him.

I wish the Wikipedia instructions were easier to understand. Thank you. I'm not even sure if I am signing correctly (exasperated!) Ellen ehonza5Ehonza5 (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ehonza5: This is why I asked that it be moved to the Draft: namespace, where you may work on it in peace and quiet. Had this not happened it would have been deleted.
Now, take your time and work, one by one, though your references. Take the following steps:
  1. Check the reference against WP:42. Does it pass? If it does, move to the next step, if it fails discard it and move to the next reference
  2. Read with care what the reference says. This is a fact, perhaps more than one, that you can use in the draft.
  3. Write that fact, and use the reference to cite it. WP:REFB and WP:CITE are sometimes hard reads, but are your friends here.Ideally, but not compulsorily, you will have online links to your references. Some of your references will not be inline and that is fine, but those that are need links
  4. Move to the next reference and do the same
When you have exhausted all the references, check that you have written fair and continuous prose, rather than a list of facts, make sure you have written it in a 'dull-but-worthy' style, and then resubmit it. If you need help I will point you at sources of help. Do not be afraid to ask. Do not be afraid to ask anyone for help and advice. Everyone wants more article on Wikipedia. We just want them be good enough. Now, if you trust the draft> submit> review>edit> resubmit process, now you stand a god chance.
Please do not try to shortcut the system by moving it into main namespace before it is ready. I guarantee that will fail because of the deletion discussion held previously.
You can do this. Fiddle Faddle 08:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

afds etc

I see, and apreciate, that we look at some things from a very similar perspective. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@DGG: I also like and appreciate, that we can disagree mightily over other things and do it in a civilised manner without falling out. Fiddle Faddle 08:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

SATMAP Inc.

Hi, I am a student, and part of a group of 3 people responsible for creating the aforementioned article, SATMAP Inc. Another editor has earlier commented on a draft that certain portions of our article seem to be like advertising. However, our group has edited off these portions. As such, I have contested the request for speedy deletion as we do not seek to advertise for SATMAP Inc., and have created this article for a school assignment, and we would like to enquire which other part of the article sounds like an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABonheur (talk • contribs) 12:42, 17 April 2015‎

@ABonheur: I wonder why you chose to move it into main namespace before it was ready? To me this says you are uninterested in a review process. I see the article itself as an advert. What I suggest you do is to move it back to the Draft: namespace, and submit it properly to the review process. Fiddle Faddle 11:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@Timtrent: Given that our school assignment is due in less than a week, I have done so as I have little choice. I have also done so because we have seen a number of articles being published without being reviewed, and we thought it wouldn't be an issue. ABonheur (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@ABonheur: One of the merits of school assignments is doing the work well enough and in sufficient enough time that contingency periods are built in. Wikipedia does not benefit from poorly executed school assignments, nor do the students executing them poorly. Much as I sympathise with your predicament, I care only about Wikipedia's quality of articles. Your move to main namespace was not even competent enough to remove the banners denoting that it had not finished its passage, and does not show the care which I, were I to be marking your work, would consider to be essential in a task such as this. Fiddle Faddle 12:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@Timtrent: Much as I wish to agree with you, the banner is left there for all articles submitted for the assignment as they are not yet graded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABonheur (talk • contribs) 15:32, 17 April 2015‎
@ABonheur: Again. low marks. You haven't even worked out that you are not talking about the incorrect banners you left on the article itself. Comprehension is part of study. Fiddle Faddle 19:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@Timtrent: Hi, my apologies as our group has genuinely thought that the banner can only be removed by a reviewer or administrator. ABonheur (talk) 01:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

File:Teahouse Barnstar Hires.png CC BY-SA 3.0 Heather Walls Teahouse Barnstar
Thank you so much for providing intelligent answers. Your work is appreciated. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

RethinkDB

Hey Timtrent,

I noticed your message regarding RethinkDB (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RethinkDB). I'm happy to improve the article (I've made some adjustments already). Please let me know how I can improve it further.

Regarding notability and whether it warrants inclusion, I guess it may be useful note that Riak, Redis, MongoDB, CouchDB (other comparable databases) all have wikipedia articles. Although Github isn't a newspaper, it's the worlds largest collection of open source software, so being the 2nd most popular NoSQL on their site should give some indication.

Also, I'd like to understand if the main issue was that RethinkDB is non-notable, or that there weren't enough references to verify/prove notability?

I'm new to wikipedia, so please have patience if I'm doing things incorrectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grocko1 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 18 April 2015‎

@Grocko1: One leads to the other. Look at WP:42, and you will see with precision the referencing you need. Something can be notable without having references, but may not have an article without them, because the notability must be verified. You may find the WP:AFC process guides your hand best while you get used to the place.
Other articles are never a precedent, by the way. Fiddle Faddle 14:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Gifts

Can you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gifts_of_the_Spirit_in_Mormonism again? You rejected it. I took out some parts. But I am confused because I thought I was following the tone and format of similar articles. I am not giving any opinions. I am offering no original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akibah (talk • contribs) 15:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Akibah: Another reviewer will look at it. I rarely re-review a draft. The question you need to ask is whether the topic is notable. Other articles are not a good guide. Fiddle Faddle 16:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Articles for Creation barnstar
For your awesome work at AfC and the Help Desk, and for cordially welcoming me to the project! wia (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

00:55:01, 19 April 2015 review of submission by Sibyllenoras


sibyllenoras 00:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Snow Leopard Network article

Hi I have added references as you requested, which are an improvement. However I am having trouble with the reference list formatting and location as you will see. Can you please help? Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sibyllenoras (talk • contribs) 00:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Sibyllenoras: I have formatted the references, but one comes i=up "not found", and I suspect I have made a typo in it. I thought this was going be simple but ran out of time. Normally I'd not leave it in that state
The easiest way to reference is to put in the <ref></ref> pair with a bare url in between and then use the reFill tool under tools in the left hand margin to fill in the details. Any it misses you can do yourself manually. Fiddle Faddle 06:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, it was you, not me. The world bank reference fails. But try this search Fiddle Faddle 06:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timtrent/Archive_24&oldid=659400651"