User talk:Timtrent/Archive 36

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Timtrent. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

→

Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research

Hi Timtrent. FYI, the linked redirect has been deleted, clearing the way for the AFC. Fire when ready. Best, Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tyrol5 Thank you. All done Fiddle Faddle 07:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

LCOE

Dear Tim, may page on LCOE is ready! What you think about it? regards adiepp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adiepp (talk • contribs) 11:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Adiepp, Since you said it was ready I have submitted it to the review queue. I do not feel competent to review it Fiddle Faddle 16:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Adiepp, Actually Levelized cost of energy exists, and you should be editing that. Fiddle Faddle 16:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear Timtrent, I have troubles with the user: Anthony Bradbury. I don't think that this user is able to follow the problem. The LCOE definition presented by Wikipedia is mistaken. Would you be so kind to tell me a name of Wikipedia user, who is able to follow mathematics problems. Unfortunately, from my point of view ( I'm sorry) the discussion with Anthony has no point. He does not understand the importance of the problem. regards Adiepp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adiepp (talk • contribs) 10:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Adiepp please raise whatever the issue under discussion is at Talk:Levelized cost of energy I have seen no evidence of a conversation with @Anthony Bradbury whom I have pinged as a courtesy. Please do not impugn the character of other editors nor make assumptions about their level of understanding. If you have had such a conversation then you must have failed to explain your issues well enough.

In order to make large changes to a live article you must show with accuracy and references why the change is required. Fiddle Faddle 10:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear Tim, I didn't have a conversation with Anthony because he referred to U5 and he fired my work without any discussion. He didn't give me the slightest chance. I understand that many people who do not have a mathematical background would send me to the Holy Inquisition's stake. Giordano Bruno also wanted to explain, but was not allowed. The same is the situation now. What is this Wikipedia institution that works like Anthony? I understand that publishing nonsense is allowed and accepted there. I gave a trivial example in my edition, but nobody is interested in that. regards adiepp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.173.132.78 (talk) 11:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Adiepp please never forget to sign in when you edit Wikipedia. I repeat my answer above. You either work within the system or this is not the place for oyu. Please read Wikipedia:Relationships with academic editors and you will start to understand how to work here.

Please do not use a new heading each time. It is sufficient to answer in the same thread. Fiddle Faddle 11:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Adiepp Finally I understand. Of course your user page was deleted. You tried to create an article there. That is not allowed, period.

Your work exists at Draft:Levelized cost of energy which is the correct place for it. BUT the correct article to work in is at Levelized cost of energy. Please do your work there. You owe @Anthony Bradbury an apology for impugning his character and knowledge. He got it 100% correct. He deleted what was not allowed to be present. Of course there was no discussion. You were told about this at User talk:Adiepp in the section "Speedy deletion nomination of User:Adiepp" Fiddle Faddle 12:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Message from User:Devprogrammer789

Hi Trent,

Thanks for the notes. As a Wikipedia newbie I missed a lot of the original ones and I am still trying to work through Wikimedia to get a cover page back up on the Electronic Design (ED) page. Now that I know a bit more I will make sure that new pages start out in my sandbox and let you take a look at them. I'll keep an eye out for any comments you have on the current page. I was not sure about the links I did have to articles on ED but they seem to be as valid as articles that would be found on other sites. I also included a significant number of new citations and cut out the rest of the details from the prior version.

I did change my user page to reflect that I work for Endeavor but I have a question about making changes to other pages related to companies I may have worked for/with. In particular I was going to add some details to the PCMag page about PC Labs which I thought was a significant effort as it drove the editorial and was one of the first sources of benchmarks for PCs. I was the first lab director and worked the Bill Machrone. So, do I need to make any annotations to my user page?

Again, thanks for the notes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devprogrammer789 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Devprogrammer789 I won't be the one to look at them, necessarily. There is a pool of submissions and a pool of reviewers. I try to steer clear of things I have reviewed once already or been near the periphery of. Other sets of eyes are far better than those who have seen material before

We trust you to judge whether you have a COI with places. However if you are in doubt, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard will give you a direct answer to a direct question. Transparency is very much appreciated. My view is "If in doubt, declare it". Where Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure is required is tighter. If you are at a distance from a prior occupation I view it as unlikely that you need to declare paid status, just COI status. You can make this distinction on your user page. As a mag editor you are probably way ahead of me here in terms of wording. Fiddle Faddle 19:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Liara Roux

Hello! Thank you very much indeed for your comments on this article in the draft. I tried to follow your advices. Now, the article is much shorter but I cleaned it from interviews etc. Do you think the article is good now? Regards--Citrustree (talk) 08:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Citrustree The referenicng has to get better. Cutting down was an excellent idea, but we need to find WP:THREE - three good references which pass WP:42. The book: Itcannto be a reference, but it CAN be an external link. Use the ISBN in the form ISBN 9780300233223 and add the book's name. The Google Author page cannot be a reference either.

Keep up the good work. You have taken on a difficult task, and will succeed if only you can find the right references Fiddle Faddle 08:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello again! Thank you for your help! I found 3 sources which hopefully can be seen as sufficent for wikipedia: The Standard, OZY and Washington Post. I know that this is little. But in my opinion sex worker are outside of society. About Roux it is interesting that she has much publicity not because of her work as an escort but as an activist. There are so many articles and interviews with her. But I know that interviews are not sufficent. What do you think about the wikipedia article now? Regards!--Citrustree (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Citrustree I think you have your answer. Now acceptance is just that, acceptance. If it gets nominated for any deletion process I almost never comment on the discussion and always remain neutral. The discussion is as much about my acceptance as the notability of the article itself. In the event it is proposed for deletion argue once, well, and with precision, and then hope that the community has the innate desire to keep the article.

I accepted because I believe it has, after your hard work, a better than 60% chance of surviving deletion process.

Now your role is to be the articles father, and let go of its hand, not its mother, wrapping it in soft warm towels. On with the next project!

Thank you for listening. I think, hope, that you have given it the best chance possible Fiddle Faddle 16:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this very interesting possibility to get to know how it works on wikipedia! That helped me a lot.--Citrustree (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Hey, thanks watching my back there and chasing that up - seing that email pop up really was a shock. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@KylieTastic that must have been horrible. Jim must feel awful, too. Fiddle Faddle 13:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Notability of amateur porn tuber: How?

Hello, may I have a question again: Beside youtube there excists several big players like xtube, xhamster, xvideos which are very large and which host amateur porn producer in their own right. Is it possible to see them somehow like youtubers or perhaps artists in the porn niche? How could they claim relevance on wikipedia. Perhaps if someone has more than 1.000.000 clicks? They work in their very own space and they are very different from industrial porn companies because they are independent. I believe in the 21st century it would be relevant to see them as well on wikipedia. They do not gain any prices and they are not listed on porn actor directories because the porn industry is fighting against them for the market. Until today the big industrial adult companies gain more attention on wikipedia than the independents which are the porn youtubers of today. And where is the right place to discuss this topic. Or is there a answer to it perhaps already? Thank you!--Citrustree (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Citrustree I'm honestly not sure how to measure true notability. The media outlets you mention seem to be user generated content, so getting a reading of true notability is hard. Equally, a minority fetish performer may get fewer hits than a chap with an enormous gentleman's area, yet still feel notable. It's a legitimate way of making a living, but one not talked about a great deal, especially in mainstream media. And when it is, it's generic, not worker based.

I'm thinking aloud, really. I know a number of young folk are paying college fees with Onlyfans. If I were their age, thinking back to n the days when I was sleek and svelte, I think I might have given it a go, too.

Notability for Youtubers is really hard. Followers rather than clicks, I think. How about asking at the teahouse? Fiddle Faddle 18:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

You had been "sleek and svelte," ?! ;-) ;-) ;-) CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford I was, once. When I was 18 Fiddle Faddle 13:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh well, yeah... the golden fifties :-p :-p :-p CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford well, fifty years ago, but not the 1950s! Fiddle Faddle 21:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

AfC Helpdesk Issue/Pilotmichael

fyi: Lawrence is a OTRS Member. And I, too, see some strange pattern in the last reviewers behaviour. They did not respond to any complain at AfC nor to my ping. CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford I know now that L is an OTRS pen name, not the editor's real name. Thank you. It was confirmed to me by email via OTRS last evening. The reviewer's behaviour is unhelpful, I agree. I will AGF that they have not been online sufficiently to action the matter, I think. Fiddle Faddle 07:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

👍 CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

relocated message from 6SyXx6

Hey bro, is there any chance you can do a Zoom Call with me to help me with the Mike Moran Wikipedia Article that you declined? I am trying really hard here. His ex tag team partners who had lesser careers in wrestling have articles, but he does not. He has more references and citations on his articles than both of them. Can you please teach me on what I need to do to get this article accepted? - p.s Damn I am sorry, I have sent this wrong and its posted at the top of your page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 6SyXx6 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@6SyXx6 It will be a cold day in Hell before I use Zoom. I detest and despise it and will not pass my data via China, nor risk being zoom bombed by unpleasant images.

I can help you via my talk page or yours. The major element is the referencing, and I've given you an excellent definition of the references needed. Solve that and you are heading for success Fiddle Faddle 19:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm only new to this and I will do better and try to resubmit it, I just cant understand why the references I gave weren't good enough when they're good enough elsewhere. I'll fix this. -6SyXx6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 6SyXx6 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

How to reply to comments made on a draft

Thank you for your reply

Jeter1956 (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

My dreft article on Uday Phadke

I forgot to say that in response to your comments, this is not an autobiography. I am a business academic, and set up a lot of the entrepreneurship courses at the Said School in Oxford. I think the triple chasm approach has merit and deserves greater attention. In attempting to draft a page I have closely followed that of Sir Ronald Cohen whom I know and respect.Jeter1956 (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jeter1956 I'm glad it's not an autobiography. There is work to do finding references. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle Faddle 14:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Request on 14:28:38, 2 April 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by A Flaneur

A Flaneur (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Randall Lee Goodden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Timtrent. Sorry my original article on author Randall Lee Goodden was so lacking, but I've redrafted it. Part of the problem was that I could see no "save" button on the sandbox page so it apparently went out in very rough draft form.

A Flaneur (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@A Flaneur We will set the other draft to one side. I will not review the new version. I view myself as being now involved, thus recuse myself from making a review. Please read Wikipedia:NAUTHOR and consider whether your career as an author is congruent with the criteria required. As an author myself I know that I don't merit an article here. Fiddle Faddle 14:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@A Flaneur You also '''must''' read and comply with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure Fiddle Faddle 14:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Request on 14:42:48, 2 April 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by A Flaneur

A Flaneur (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Randall Lee Goodden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Sorry my article on author Randall Lee Goodden was so wanting, and I hope this revised one is more to the mark. Part of the problem was my mistaking the 'publish' button for a 'save' button. A Flaneur (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

A Flaneur (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@A Flaneur The issue is a technical one with licencing. There is no concept of private workspace on Wikipedia, including one's sandbox or any sub pages in one's user space one may create. This means that every single thing we 'save' is irrevocably released under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL. This message I am typing to you is, as was your message to me.

We are granted a courtesy on user sub pages. That courtesy is that they are generally considered pages we can play in untrammelled by interruption. There are exceptions, mostly where laws are 'bypassed'.

Now, there is a difference between "Publish Changes" and "Submit" or "Resubmit" for review. The latter pair of actions create a marker in the pool of submissions that a review is requested. I see that Draft:Randall Lee Goodden has not yet been submitted for review. To perform this when you are ready use the normal editor and type {{subst:Submit}}. Publishing changes creates the submission.

Having an article about yourself is not necessarily a great idea. You have no control over it, no ownership of it, and it may be edited to contain any indiscretions reported on in the media. None of us has led a blameless life, so the sword is a true double edged one. Fiddle Faddle 17:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Article on author Randall Lee Goodden

For the record I am not the above person nor am I a paid writer. As both seemed to be in question let me pass along that I once attended a business seminar chaired by Mr Goodden and was able to establish a professional relationship with him. I'm now retired but think creating a Wikipedia page would be fitting for someone fairly well known in his field.

And I do thank you for the helpful advice on how to get my freshly edited article on him reviewed. A Flaneur (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@A Flaneur Forgive me. I was 100% sure you stated previously that you are Mr Goodden. Please state the same message clearly on your own talk page and that will br the end of the enquiry Fiddle Faddle 18:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Mudiwa Hood Draft

Good day, i hope you are well, i noticed you declined Draft:Mudiwa Hood without going further, i understand your pointers but i also wish you could help making the draft better than just declining before you went further, if there are references that should be removed then we remove because if its about Mudiwa Hood being notable, he is indeed notable if you go on to research. Also note that i would like contributors to observe Zimbabwe media how it usually publishes and that most of our media are blogs that write about musical artists. Him being an actor it is a mention yes on Mirazvo Productions article because he was part of the cast for 3 seasons.

My wish is that you look more and research to see that Mudiwa Hood is a notable person and the most popular and awarded hip hop artist in the history of Zimbabwean hip hop with over 40 awards and several nominations, so i think lets improve the article than to decline it or put it aside.

What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zvandofarira2 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Zvandofarira2 I wish for many things in life. Right now I wish for an ice cream.

You got far more from me than a simple decline, yet you say i noticed you declined Draft:Mudiwa Hood without going further. That seems uncharitable.

I see you have submitted for review again, whcih is good. Another reviewer will look at this in due time. In the period while awaiting review please continue to refine the draft Fiddle Faddle 14:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok I will try to work on it again and will resubmit, thank you for your contribution. I will notify when I do some refinements.

Kind regards Zvandofarira2 (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Zvandofarira2 you have no need to tell me. A different reviewer will look at it next time. I try hard never to review the same draft twice Fiddle Faddle 12:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

K Health Draft

Hi, Tim! Thanks for reviewing the draft! I'd like to note that in comparison with the first version of the draft, when I picked it to improve, my version looks much better. Actually, I removed "Awards" and "Products" sections from the previous version as it look like a blatant advertisement.

Yet, I agree with you that this draft still requires some work and I accept that it has issues with the sources but I'm not that experienced with that part yet. I'm sorry to hear that the draft made an impression of advertising because of the sources in question. Can, you, please, detail on the sources that looked self-published or promotional in your opinion? Once I have some spare time, I'll try to revise it. Idunnox3 (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Idunnox3 Anything that starts with "K Health just/announced/raised" or similar stuff is a press release. Doesn't matter who carries it.

A great example is https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-19/health-care-startup-k-health-valued-at-over-1-4-billion?sref=hCPD9HrR which even says "Source, K Health"

I'm afraid the reference list is rammed full of them Fiddle Faddle 18:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

another message

With reference to your comment sir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#18%3A44%3A53%2C_4_April_2021_review_of_submission_by_Nikhil_Singh_Kotwal You said a needy student will not look a scholarship on Wikipedia, I don't believe this sir . Student will not trust anything else if he knows/read about this in Wikipedia. Even if a student will search scholarship for JK and sees this article on wiki he will get the awareness. You must be knowing better then me sir. You said i have created an advert but i have no intention to do that sir, is their any chance to make it look different or shall i leave my hopes regarding this issue .

You can tell me the changes to make it not look like an advert but if you(Wikipedia) are not going to publish after that also then sir i don't find any use to spend time on this sir.

Hope you understand sir i am not an employer, i am a student and just checking after every minutes the update on the article will not work sir Thank you Nikhil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhil Singh Kotwal (talk • contribs) 20:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nikhil Singh Kotwal You have created an advert. Wikipedia does not want adverts. Please use Twitter, or some other social media vehicle Fiddle Faddle 19:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nikhil Singh Kotwal, Hello, what do you mean by this: if you(Wikipedia) are not going to publish after that also then sir i don't find any use to spend time on this sir., are you saying you wouldn’t continue trying to improve the article, (which is unsalvageable imo) or do you mean you are going to leave Wikipedia? In any case, what Tim is telling you is the article reads like an advert or a sponsored publication to create awareness which is against our policy here. Celestina007 (talk)

Please remove the rejection

You rejected Draft:Starship SN11. I will work on it more. Please undo it. 64.121.103.144 (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

As you will see, I did not actually reject it. However, you chose to resubmit it with no changes. Fiddle Faddle 18:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

your comments re deletion Betsy Z. Cohen page

Dear Timtrent, I could not figure out how to reply to the discussion you started about deleting the page for Betsy Z. Cohen. Regarding the references: they are archived only because after spending a full day reviewing Wikipedia guidelines, it seemed like that was the proper procedure - to archive them first and then link to them. Regarding the second comment about whether this individual is worthy of a Wikipedia listing, all text that might have spoken to that were removed based on previous feedback by other editors. The content of the many media references (and board positions) support the fact that this is a woman who broke many glass ceilings and has been inspirational to five decades of business women, and who continues to innovate in the financial sector. Public comments (on online platforms) following many of her presentations for various organizations and institutions have cited her pioneering in finance, business acumen and inspiration, and equally inspired this page because people were seeking information about her. This is now a summary representing very sincere best efforts to work within Wikipedia's parameters. What started as a more robust page (more comparable to the Warren Buffet page) became more akin to the Sallie Krawcheck page to eliminate anything that might be construed as "peacocking." I hope this answers your questions and will resolve the discussion about potential deletion of the page. Thank you for your considerationPaula F Warren (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Paula F Warren you reply to the deletion discussion at the deletion discussion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betsy Z. Cohen. If you are unsure of the format of a reply I suggest you look at other deletion discussions for examples such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qatar-3. The best opinions are based 100% on policy and are brief and to the point, offered once.

I have no idea where you found the concept about archiving references, but it is most unusual and renders them to be opaque. We require the source of the citation tobe stated clearly. Please read Wikipedia:REFB and Wikipedia:Citing sources and you will start to understand. ''archive.ph'' is not a valid source for a reference

I remain concerned about your perception that you do not have a conflict of interest.I note that your user page now reads I have received no compensation to publish any article on Wikipedia. what you have not done is declared your manifest COI. Fiddle Faddle 20:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

made change to user statement at your request

Dear Timtrent, I made the change to the user statement that you requested. Thank you for your consideration. Best,Paula F Warren (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Paula F Warren It is not my request. It is WIkipedia's firm rule. But you have not made a correct declaration. Please read WP:COI.

You really do not need to thank me for my consideration.

You do need, however, to be aware that you may only now request edits on the article, and not make them yourself Fiddle Faddle 20:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

disclosed user source COI for Betsy Z. Cohen

Dear Timtrent, Thank you for the clarification and guidance regarding future edits. I have used the "usersourceCOI=Betsy Z. Cohen" template to correct my previous statement. I am truly trying very hard to create my first page correctly. Best,Paula F Warren (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Paula F Warren It can be difficult. I think you mean {{userbox coi|Betsy Z. Cohen}}

I can place it on your user page for you with your permission, or correct any syntax errors for you if it looks peculiar after you deploy it Fiddle Faddle 21:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

disclosed user source COI for Betsy Z. Cohen

Hi Timtrent, Yes, you have my permission to make any necessary changes to the disclosure item that will make this correct, thank you! Regarding the archiving references, I swear to you that I spent a whole day trying to learn the correct way to do this. I've been trying to find the Wiki article I read that said it was important to archive the referenced articles first to avoid having dead links. but I can't seem to locate it. But it was a Wiki article and had explicit instructions. So that's what I did, for 31 references. And then I used the drop down menu that was presented for each to create the citation. I followed the instructions exactly and it seemed to work beautifully, so I was not aware that there would be any later problem in viewing the references - they seemed to show up fine when I checked them. Very sorry to learn that this is not correct. Is there an easy way to make them visible without having to undo and rebuild the whole reference section? Thanks again for your guidance.Paula F Warren (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Paula F Warren

Let's look at {{Cite web|date=2021-03-28|title=https://libdigital.temple.edu/pdfa1/Oral%20Histories/TOHFCJZ201602001…|url=http://archive.ph/8zhEI|access-date=2021-03-29|website=archive.ph}} first.

It creates:

"https://libdigital.temple.edu/pdfa1/Oral%20Histories/TOHFCJZ201602001…". archive.ph. 2021-03-28. Retrieved 2021-03-29. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)

That fails. So I clicked the link and got to: http://archive.ph/8zhEI whcih is about is much use and a useless thing. WHat we need is https://libdigital.temple.edu/pdfa1/Oral%20Histories/TOHFCJZ2016020012Q01.pdf which is the link you archived.

To create a correct citation for it (Let's assume itls a valud reference for now) we wil create this:

{{cite web |last1=Feinberg |first1=Donna |title=INTERVIEW WITH BETSY COHEN |url=https://libdigital.temple.edu/pdfa1/Oral%20Histories/TOHFCJZ2016020012Q01.pdf |website=Oral Histories Repository |publisher=Temple University Libraries |access-date=6 April 2021}}

That produces

Feinberg, Donna. "INTERVIEW WITH BETSY COHEN" (PDF). Oral Histories Repository. Temple University Libraries. Retrieved 6 April 2021.

With me so far? It was a very much manual process. It was time consuming. But now I can save you a lot of time.

How?

Well, as a reference it is useless. We need this:

For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make any draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

As you can see, this is not about Cohen, it is her words, so is by Cohen. It's a Primary Source. We can use it to verify simple facts, but it cannot verify notability. It also lacks a date, a minor issue.

Your rather horrible job now is to run all your references against the tough criteria. Those that fail? Drop them like a hot brick, and consoder whether the fact they support adds value to the aticle.

The true proicess for article building is as follows:

Research referencing that meets (for shorthand we'll use WP:42) WI=ikipedia's needs
Choose the facts from the references tha you wish to assert and verify
Sort those facts into a storyboard (don't try to retrofit references to an existing narratve, its hard, hard, hard!)
Write the prose, incorporating citations
Note that a fact, once cited in a proper reference is cited. Two or three or more citations just gild the lily. Use the xtras for other facts

The key to success is reference quality, not quantity.

Completely at random I'm going to grab a reference I've not checked yet:

Let;s look at {{Cite web|date=2021-03-28|title=FTAC Parnassus Acquisition Corp. Announces Completion of $250,000,000…|url=http://archive.ph/sCHsc|access-date=2021-03-29|website=archive.ph}} or, in clear:

"FTAC Parnassus Acquisition Corp. Announces Completion of $250,000,000…". archive.ph. 2021-03-28. Retrieved 2021-03-29.

Where we end up is https://www.yahoo.com/now/ftac-parnassus-acquisition-corp-announces-203000120.html?guccounter=1 and this one is problematic. It's a Press Release, Apart for, being able to recognise them at 1,000 paces because I used to write them for a living it says so near the foot. So it;s a Priary Source, and potentially self published as well. Useless for verifying notability, and to be discarded

I could go though them all, but it's past midnight here. I htijnk, though, that I've given you a good steer, and that you probably understand, albeit with disappoitment after a lot of hard work, why I nominated it for a deletion discussion. Fiddle Faddle 23:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

sorry about the typos, but I'm half asleep. I expect you can figure them out, though Fiddle Faddle 23:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Your user page statement on WP:COI‬".

Hi Timtrent, I know it's past midnight where you are so I won't be looking for your immediate reply (thanks for your speed, btw). And sorry for the "new section" - I am completely stumped by how to reply to comments on talk pages (and in the discussion about possible deletion, which I hope we've resolved), but if you can tell me how to reply I promise to use it going forward. As for the Betsy Z. Cohen references, the far majority of them are major media such as Wall St Journal, Barron's, Bloomberg, etc., so deleting the ones that don't qualify will not be hard - you happened to pick the one primary source (which I now understand is taboo) and a press release (which I only used because I saw other Wikipedia sites with references that started with "Press Release" so it seemed OK). I'll work on rebuilding the References section over the weekend. I am not a coder, but hopefully I can follow your code template to make it right. Good night,Paula F Warren (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Paula F Warren Replying is easier than you think. Edit the segment, and place your reply beneath. The ":" character idents things one tab stop. IT is the same at a deletion discussion, but the opinions are left in a more stylised manner.

Even major media carries press releases. Bloomberg does. Let me pick another, again at random: http://archive.ph/QDGbf, which resolves to https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielwebber/2021/02/17/payoneer-and-the-spac-betsy-cohen-and-scott-galit-on-going-public-payments-and-the-future/?sh=17fc80ac7c20 which I have not even looked at yet.

This has a byline, often an indication that a real journalist has given it some attention, but finding "''announced''" in the first sentence shows me that this has been fed to the journalist. This is normal. I used to target releases to the right medium and in the right style for a journalist. Now the piece starts to quote Cohen's words. It isn;t a real interview, but it is still words she "speaks", thus is probably primary. Digging deeper, ignoring the pretty graphs, there are also words "by" Galit. So the release has been created jointly on Cohen and Galit's behalf by a good PR team. Then there is faux "conversation" swinging between Galit and Cohen. This confirms to me that this is a regurgitated, targeted PR piece. It was designed to fool the readers, but it's really a journalist saving time by regurgitating PR department material and hitting a deadline with ease.

Again it is not ''about Cohen''. It isn't even really about Cohen's business. Fiddle Faddle 05:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Paula F Warren But there is another problem. The draft was accepted (not final), you have a COI (unavoidable, because it is broadly construed) and cannot do more than request an edit in the published article, and it has been nominated for a deletion process. That process, once started, is out of the nominator's hands, iyt has a time limited course to run. So we need a solution.

I am going to withdraw my nomination summarising the conversation that you require time to edit and request that it be closed (It has to be closed by someone else) to return the article to Draft, where you can work on it at will

Reply to the discussion if it has not been closed. Use words similar to these:

Draftify in order that I may correct the issues that this discussion has brought to my attention. I cannto do those in the article except b requesting edits, but am allowed to in the Draft namespace. I believe this was accepted too soon.

Sign your message there. Fiddle Faddle 05:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Closed as draftified per the above. Cheers! BD2412 T 06:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@BD2412 I am very grateful. Thank you for your help on this one. I will now continue to seek to guide Paula F Warren in their quest for referencing. You are more than welcome to join in, but you knew that! There are no guarantees that this draft will make the cut, but I think that Cohen is likely notable. They need to start with references and work from there, probably with an almost complete rewrite Fiddle Faddle 06:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

File:REASON AS THE WORLD MASTERPIECE FULL BOOK COVER.jpg

Hello Trimtent, i have come to notice that you recently tagged a cropped copy of the Book cover for Reason as the Word Masterpiece for Deletion citing copyright violation as you took it for a scan of the original copy. In addition to the draft talk page declaration, here by further declare that File:REASON AS THE WORLD MASTERPIECE FULL BOOK COVER.jpg is my own file, designed and edited by myself, the deleted one was just a cropped front section of the entire cover as here uploaded. It is hence not in violation of any copyrights. You further tagged all pictures uploaded by myself for deletion, as suspicious potential copyright violations despite having the relevant necessary camera/raw details, suggesting expert investigations, which i totally accept. Ibitukirire (talk) 05:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

However, i hereby bring it to your attention that I'm not very old, but have actively been in Kampala (Uganda) for quite a couple of years, interacting and connecting with different politicians, socialites and prominent figures on different occasions and Projects. Given the Fact that i am into photography Videography, with my connections, i can i any way fail to get any original non copyrighted picture of any individual(Be it the President) or Property within or around Kampala as long as i need to use it for a justifiable cause. I just request that if i am doing it in a wrong way, kindly advise me to correct, but not deleting, i look forward to your guidance. Ibitukirire (talk) 05:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ibitukirire This is a matter for Commons, not for Wikipedia. Interact with the deletion discussions there please. Nothing you say here, nor on my talk page there, will influence the deletion or retention of files in any manner.

To upload pictures you must follow the instructions correctly Fiddle Faddle 07:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Samuray Kuba page translation

Hello there Tim, regarding: Samuray Kuba I'm just trying to translate the already present and live page on Wikipedia DE, into English. I've been asked previously to cite every song he made, and unfortunately when you mention "PR puffery", it wasn't my intention some websites are just music streaming provider where I can find a citation of a certain song published. Instead, when you mention: " self published sources " can't really see which.

If I input the same amount of references and citations as in the German version, will it be accepted or not, as I'm just trying to translate the current existing page? here as follows you can find the German page: Samuray Kuba DE

At last, please I'd like to double check with you whether I have to find a reference for every song and every album as well, or those don't need to be added, as in the German version?

Thanks a lot for clarifying my doubts in advance 2A02:8084:20E2:AD80:9C27:2E9B:FA31:39FD (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

What is required is quality of referencing, not quantity. The German Language Wikipedia has different criteria forth English Language one. You need to show that the artist passes Wikipedia:Notability (music). My message was generic, and relies on your skill to see what is what.

Music streaming (etc) providers are sources where people pay money to download, or download at zero fee. Using those is tantamount to saying "Buy my music" and is not allowed Fiddle Faddle 11:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your answer and clarifying that! Highly appreciated. Hope you have a nice day 2A02:8084:20E2:AD80:494A:7BDC:3020:A8D8 (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC) Just to get this right, I don't need to add a reference for each song/album then, right? 2A02:8084:20E2:AD80:494A:7BDC:3020:A8D8 (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a music specialist, however, I think a reference for the chart position of significant songs is appropriate. I do know it can do no harm Fiddle Faddle 11:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Request on 11:22:56, 10 April 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Leagueheritage

Leagueheritage (talk · contribs)
- User:Leagueheritage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Copyright material is myself who has penned this article and maintain as one of the trustees of the League heritage group. What do I need to do to correct this ?

Leagueheritage (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Leagueheritage please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and consider whether you are the correct person to re-write this draft. Rather than plough ahead using the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team to prove that you have licenced the text correctly, you could use a licence such as the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL on your web site, thus use the text directly.

Far better is to write new, fresh text that is in the third person (yours was first person plural), that is neutral (dull-but-worthy), and well referenced.

We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow any draft to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

Note that you must make a correct declaration of COI Fiddle Faddle 11:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Request on 16:44:50, 10 April 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by BoommBoomm87

Amnot Areso (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

BoommBoomm87 (talk · contribs)
- User:Ophthalmic Technician (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I created the page on Ophthalmic Technician. I was trying to submit it for review but accidentally duplicated it and "moved" it to a new User:Ophthalmic Technician. This is why one got deleted. I need to view my work. How can I view it? I can't get to my article.

BoommBoomm87 (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I'd like to second that request for undeletion. This contributor is working on this page for a class I'm teaching, and I'd like to be able to access her content to evaluate it. --Amnot Areso (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Amnot Areso @BoommBoomm87 if you navigate to User:Ophthalmic Technician you will see that it was deleted by @ Fastily who is an administrator on this project. They or any other admin should be able to accede to your request. Alternatively you may request this at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.

@Amnot Areso are you correctly registered with Wikipedia:Education program? If so, great. If not. please do. You get extra assistance with courses. Fiddle Faddle 17:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Request on 11:06:35, 8 April 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Sam445445

Sam445445 (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sam445445 It is customary to ask a question at a help desk. Perhaps you would like to ask yours? Please see Telepathy Fiddle Faddle 11:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC) @Timtrent :-) :-) Have a look at his contribs regarding my UTP... CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC) @CommanderWaterford ah yes. Indeed. See, my Telepathy interface needs an upgrade. Fiddle Faddle 21:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC) @Sam445445 I decided to do this for you. It was quicker than explaining. Fiddle Faddle 21:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent: I have added reference links as per requirement.is it a good link from news articles?could you help me with this https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22Mohammad+Ibraheem+Khan%22+-wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam445445 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sam445445 I still have no idea what your question is Fiddle Faddle 07:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Hello,

It is interchangeably used by the locals and government bodies. The native name of this river is येरळा (In Marathi)(some time it spelled as Yerla and some time Yerala) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunaoap07 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Arunaoap07 Thank you. With that information I have been able to accept it, and also find a corresponding entry in Cebuano, from where you will be able to extract map, infobox etc. This assumes it to be the same river! Fiddle [[User talk:Timtrent|Faddle</

Latest Edits to Randall Lee Goodden

Hello Tim Trent, Related to the question of whether I am "Goodden" or not, my brother has also been helping me with the article, so I speculate he said "I am not Goodden", whereas I said "I am Goodden". That is why we selected going under an anonymous name.

Secondly, when we did submit a revised version to be looked at, Wikipedia sent it to 2 Editors at the exact same time, which they messaged us and told us was an accident that sometimes happens, and the other Editor was CommanderWaterford, who then began a dialog with us.

Third, I either took the pictures, or had someone use my camera to take them, which means I own the rights to the pictures.

As for the Oxford brochure, here is an email from them verifying it's authenticity -

On Thursday, April 8, 2021, 04:58:22 AM CDT, Technology <technology@conted.ox.ac.uk> wrote: Dear Randall, Thank you for your email.

As this course is no longer offered by the Department, we cannot host materials relating to it on our web servers. We would be happy to verify that the attached document was issued by this Department and that the course ran on the listed dates. You would be welcome to list this email address for doing so.

Kind regards, Jack

The current displayed revised rough draft article is the latest. You had seen the very short version which CommanderWaterford had criticized for being too short and not having larger explanations and more material, so everything was added.

Now we apparently have a problem as we're now dealing with you and him on the content, so I'm not sure what to do.

I should also mention that the current version is a Sandbox draft, and wasn't being submitted for Editor review yet as we're not done with it. But I hit "Publish" because the system says that is the only way of saving the newly edited material, as I lost the new material numerous times and had to re-add it.

Randall Goodden A Flaneur (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@A Flaneur you may not share an account between you and your brother. One of you must stop immediately, which should come as no surprise to you you accepted the terms and conditions when you joined. Continuing to share an account will result in the account being blocked. See Wikipedia:SHAREDACCOUNT. It is a form of sock puppetry and is a blocking offence.

You are not dealing with me, nor with @CommanderWaterford except insofar as I am considering your edits very carefully and have come to the conclusion that you have been economical with the truth over who "you" are. You are dealing with Wikipedia, a community of volunteers. Any time you publish text, including when you published this message to me, that text becomes Wiipedia's, and you agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL.

Any proof of licencing and/or authority to post the material must be sent to whichever is relevant of COM:OTRS or WP:OTRS. This depends on where you have posted these pieces of self aggrandisement. I have neither the interest in it nor the ability to deal with it, but I will always chase down improperly licenced material.

You obviously hit Review at some point, which is why it was reviewed. Creating a further sandbox version tends to be seen as attempting to game the system. Edit the existing draft that has been reviewed, please.

In general messages such as my formal enquiry about your rather bifurcated identity shoudl be answered there. Since oyu have replied here I will put a link beneath it. Please note that Wikipedians are used to hearing a variety of "My brother did it" excuses. They do not wash with us. This is a serious project on a serious web site, as serious as any project you have encountered in your life. Do us the courtesy of treating it that way please. IT may be administered and edited by amateurs, but the sole difference between an amateur and a professional is that the professional receives payment Fiddle Faddle 15:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

A Flaneur - Can you please clarify? Are you saying that you are sharing your user account with your brother? Or is he only editing anonymously using an IP address? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Tim In answer to your last question my brother was only trying to help edit certain paragraphs in the article while it is in the Sandbox, and then he would ask me if I wanted to go with his edit. I didn't think this would be a problem especially being that I was the only one pushing "Publish" in order to save what we did, but I can handle it myself from this point on if it's a problem.

Randall Goodden A Flaneur (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@A Flaneur We wil take @Oshwah's opinion since it was their question, not mine, on whether it matters. However, I would make the very strong point that your statement I was the only one pushing "Publish" in order to save what we did is at variance with the statement made by your account that you are not Goodden. Indeed it is evidence that this cannot have been so. That leads me to consider that not only does it matter, it matters a very great deal. But I am not an administrator of this project. Fiddle Faddle 18:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

A Flaneur - The important question is: Does your brother have access to your account? Does he have the password to it? You admitted to letting him use your account to enter content into pages (albeit the sandbox) before you publish them; you're wholly responsible for all actions pertaining to your account. If your brother wants to help with editing content, he needs to create his own account and declare that you two share the same IP. Then, you two can work together on separate accounts by working in one of your account's sandboxes. Your brother, in no circumstances, should be using your account to do things or have access to your account in any way. This is prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on user accounts. Please have him create a new account for himself so that you two are in compliance with Wikipedia's policies and Terms of Use. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Tim I should clarify that when I said he was editing my Sandbox version and offering me recommendations, it meant that when I had made changes to my rough draft in Sandbox, I then hit "Preview" copied the content and emailed it to him in a Word.doc and he would tell me what he thinks. Sometimes, for the sake of discussing the html, I would send him the "Edit" version pasted on a Word.doc. So he wasn't in the site itself as he was working with me.

He's a retired English teacher, in his 70s, and was a professional writer after he taught. And he was a Wikipedia member in 2010 which is why I was asking him for some help, but doesn't know if his membership is still valid.

And to add to that, as it refers to your comments, I am 69 and retired as well, and am no longer involved in anything mentioned in the article, so this article ISN'T promotional or an advertisement for business, because I retired from the business, or any business. It is just a FACTUAL 3rd party review of what I did.

So I would like to get back on track and find out what needs to be changed. A Flaneur (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC) A Flaneur (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@A Flaneur: So, to paraphrase your answer to Oshwah's question with precision, you say that your brother has not had physical access to your account, not been logged in as you.

That does not explain your statement here For the record I am not the above person. This is a firm, assertive, definite statement, one that elicited an aoplogy from me for considering that you were Goodden until I checked historical conversations, wholly suggestive of one of two options:

That the person making that statement had control of your account, and was you, the real Randall Lee Goodden
That the person making that statement had control of your account and was not the real Randall Lee Goodden

Neither of those two options is particuarly appetising.

I wonder if you would care to offer commentray upon that? Fiddle Faddle 07:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

When I opened the account I wanted to remain anonymous and submit everything from a 3rd person perspective, as required, and just as I did. When certain Editors see you wrote about yourself, they tend to instantly say "it's all promotional and a big advertisement for you" and don't accept it. Then when you submit it under a different name, they think you're paying someone to write it for you, and take off from another perspective because they're against that too. It appears to be a no-win situation either way. Yet Wikipedia encourages authors to write the articles themselves.

So I did not expect an Editor to ask me if it was really me. Why did that even need to be known? Discussion should just be about content regardless of who the author is. So I said it wasn't me in order to maintain my anonymity, as I felt it really didn't matter and the fact there was even a question being asked was for negative reasons. And then I gave in and said it is me, because we were beating it to death.

There's no reason for my brother to have to log-in to the account, because I email him drafts of what I wrote when I want his opinion. And he does not have my log-in information anyway and he's not even interested in Wikipedia and tried to discourage me from even pursuing this.

So can we move on now and continue to review what was submitted, from a non-bias 3rd person perspective? Or would you recommend that I ask Wikipedia to assign me a different Editor because it is becoming apparent you don't want to work with me?

Randall A Flaneur (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC) A Flaneur (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

A Flaneur Wikipedia has assigned no-one to you. You requested a review. Two of us reviewed the original draft at once and viewed it as not suitable. We are each independent of each other and of WIkipedia. We are not directed in any manner by anyone at all. To be fair, no-one will miss me or them if we go away for a few years.

An experienced reviewer can spot unusual circumstances a long way off.

One thing that you seem not to have understood is that Wikipedia is a volunteer project, a hobby. Those of us who love it protect it from WP:COI. It was immediately obvious that you had one. The thing was to determne what that was. It is apparent that you are not a paid editor and are simply choosing the rather difficult thing of writing about yourself, albeit with some inconsistent statements allmg the way. ALmost all autobiographers learn very quickly that they are notable to those who love them, respect them for their many attributes, but not necessarily to Wikipedia's standards for inclusion

I will let Oshwah determine whether you are editing within the rules. They have a wide experience here, and have chosen the difficult route of selection by the community to become a project administrator. The only privilege that confers on them is to be a janitor here.

Now, with regard to the draft, when you submit it a reviewer will review it, wholly on its merits. I almost never review drafts a second time, that will not be me. Indeed, I recuse myself formally from reviewing it, though I have no need to do so.

My objective is to keep Wikipedia's standards high. That ranges from reviewing drafts, to editing poor articles, to proposing items for deletion, to reviewing uploads for licencing compliance and more. I also write new articles from time to time. I am sure, if I can show myself that you pass WP:GNG I could, should I choose, write an article about you includkng relevant segments of your professional life. It's pretty easy to do if someone passes. Some time ago I wrote One of many essays about article creation. That is my method.

Please do not keep starting new sections here. Please reply in the same thread. This keeps conversations together Fiddle Faddle 15:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Tim "I also write new articles from time to time. I am sure, if I can show myself that you pass WP:GNG I could, should I choose, write an article about you includkng relevant segments of your professional life. It's pretty easy to do if someone passes".

So are you offering to write the article?

Randy — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Flaneur (talk • contribs) 17:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@A Flaneur I teach fishing rather than donating fish. Fiddle Faddle 18:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This is the only article I'll ever do, so there's no future benefit for me in learning, except if it can help get this one accepted. Then I'll be done.

Randy A Flaneur (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@A Flaneur I wish you well with that endeavour. Fiddle Faddle 21:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Tim

Could you do me a favor and reinsert the REVIEW button?

Randy A Flaneur (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@A Flaneur I have done so Fiddle Faddle 15:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi...

Hi, hope you are doing well - please have also a look at this somewhat "strange" AfC Approval Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prashanth Chandrasekar ...CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford it is very poor. I have not seen this reviewer before. Have you spoken to {{U|Primefac}}? They have an interest in unusual reviews Fiddle^{Tim Trent} Faddle^{Talk to me} 19:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

DRAFT:Germane Barnes

Hello! I noticed you moved this article to draft. I'm really scratching my head to see which part of WP:DRAFTIFY it meets. The subject has fairly weak notability, but I am pretty sure it would survive AfD. Thanks for your thoughts on this.--- Possibly (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Possibly I disagree, and reviewed it after I moved it to Draft. The review is on the draft. I imagine you have read that already? If not please do and come back to me with any other questions Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 14:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I've read it. There is coverage in the NYTimes, LA Times and a magazine. He was part of what looks like a fairly significant show at MoMA. I'm still curious to know which part of WP:DRAFTIFY is met to allow it to be moved to draft? I think the odds of this surviving AfD are high, given the coverage.--- Possibly (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Possibly: Unlike you I feel that it would not survive an immediate AfD. So that is 2a-ii. or it would have very little chance of survival at AfD. I said so in my review. I have no idea why you insist upon chapter and verse, but insist you have. Seems pretty pushy to me.

It's fine to disagree, you know.

You are welcome to accept it. I will recuse myself from any further interaction with it. If you decide to move it to main space please tidy up the AFC artefacts Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 14:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I was simply asking which point of WP:DRAFTIFY justified the move, which you have now answered. --- Possibly (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Possibly it was not hard to determine, though. The review states it, albeit not with the exact section number. Was this some kind of a test? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 14:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I was honestly perplexed by the rationale, but you have clarified it here. I've found more sourcing (this Curbed article and this Miami New Times article) and will move it back to article space after some more research. Thank you for everything you do here.--- Possibly (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Possibly just make sure it has a sterling chance of survival. This is a person whose bio ought to be here, See if you can get a DYK out of it Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 15:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I have found several other sources. There was quite a bit of coverage buried out there about his Opa Locka project. Just waiting for the mainspace redirect to be deleted.--- Possibly (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Possibly you have discovered the precise reason, though not the rationale, a different yet similar matter, for draftifying this. The creating editor was over enthusiastic, so ot went back to Draft in order to protect it Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 16:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

What can I say... I don't agree, but I still like you and appreciate your efforts here! Have a good day.--- Possibly (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Deelee_Dube/Temp

Thank you for your comment and corrections.

Some adjustments have been made, and I would be grateful if you could review the article based on Deelee Dube for submission.

Please advise, many thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Deelee_Dube/Temp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dangelvoice (talk • contribs) 22:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dangelvoice I am afraid I never feel competent to review drafts on music and musicians. What I can say os that the early life section is missing citations. May I suggest you wait until the copyvio issue is cleared completely rom the original draft and then submit for review in the normal manner? I have placed a blue button to allow you to do that on the draft Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 22:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Anushka Sen Review

I know you have been watching this draft. Now I feel I have added enough information, so you may like to review and accept it. Also please tag relevant wikiprojects to the draft as I don't know how to do it. -- Parnaval (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Parnaval I am sticking to what I said on the draft Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 14:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I thought, as you are watching the page, you will be interested in reviewing. But as you don't want to, Please tell whom should I request. Also, I have an idea. Can I just move it myself to Article space as I am autoconfirmed ? One more thing, How to add wikiprojects in that draft ?? -- Parnaval (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Parnaval There is no need to ask anyone. It is in the review pool. A reviewer will add relevant Wikiprojects it if they accept it. Any auto confirmed editor may move a draft to main space if they believe it is right do so. If you choose to make that move you should look at similar articles and copy what is on their talk pages. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 16:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Gilbert Academy 2

Thank you for your note on my new draft article Draft:Gilbert Academy 2. I can't figure out how to get in touch with the author of Draft:Gilbert Academy so we can combine our articles. When I click on Talk all I get is my own Queen Kitty Cat name even if I am in Draft:Gilbert Academy (the article that isn't mine). Please, how do I Talk with the author of Draft:Gilbert Academy. Thank you very much. --Queen Kitty Cat (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC) Queen Kitty Cat

@Queen Kitty Cat I went to the other draft, looked at its hostory tabe and found it was created by FloridaArmy who is a prolific creator or new drafts, most of which are accepted. If you feel the need to talk to them you may reach them at User talk:FloridaArmy. Generally any draft or article is better for more than one person's input, and conversations are useful. I forget which draft is the longer, but t appears to me that the longer and better referenced one is the one that ought to move towards acceptance.

While collegial editing is ideal it is not a requirement. But it can be a lot more fun, and Wikipedia is meant to be fun, a hobby, and also educational Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 06:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Change the title of this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yevgeniya_Kanayeva

Hi, may I ask your help, this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yevgeniya_Kanayeva the athlete herself, she asked to correct her name, she sent message to me she said her should be Evgeniya and her last name from should be Kanaeva, not Kanayeva. Kanaeva is the only correct spelling of her last name.

I have edited her name in the article, but I don't know how to change the tile of her page. Can you help me? I read I should use move function, but it will become a new page, and I have no to delete the old page. Anyway, please help me. thank you!

Zoe Wan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanwan0402 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wanwan0402

Done Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 06:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Veerapandi, Tiruppur

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

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!} 03:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

not one of mine. MW software foible Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 06:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much, but the last name should be changed too

Hi Timtrent, thank you very much for your help to edit this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evgeniya_Kanayeva but her last name should be changed too, her last name is "Kanaeva" not Kanayeva. Thank you for advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanwan0402 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Have I solve this?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Aman_Firoz_Khan Wikiinfobuddy (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wikiinfobuddy Partly. Times of India references all fail. I will not review a second time Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 10:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

What will need to be done ? Wikiinfobuddy (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wikiinfobuddy For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 11:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you solve it for me ? Wikiinfobuddy (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wikiinfobuddy as the editor who wants the draft to be accepted it is entirely up to you. We teach you to fish, we do not give you a fish. It is not a topic that interests me, or I might consider it. Please read this essay, which will help you. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 11:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay Wikiinfobuddy (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Bovhyaluronidase azoximer

Hello. I edited this article. Is this article ready to be created in the space of Wikipedia? Валерий Пасько (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Валерий Пасько Thank you for solving the issues. I do not feel competent to make a review of this draft, but I see you have submitted it for review., whcih is good. You are able to continue to wok on it while awaiting review Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 19:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Тhank you Валерий Пасько (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Help

Hi sir; Firstly, I want to thank you for editing my draft. Secondly, I want to ask you if you can re-review and accept my draft if possible, cause it is needed for me. Thanks; Atena ak2 (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Atena ak2 I have looked at it with a view to reviewing it, but do not feel competent to Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 19:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

So what it your suggestion to improve it or what is the problem? Can you help me with it, so I can do it till tomorrow to make it accepted🙏🏽 Atena ak2 (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Atena ak2 If I felt competent to do that I would feel competent to review it. There are many reviewers Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 20:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Note regarding AIV

Hi Timtrent, thanks for reporting the user Abdul.hoddle to WP:AIV. I noticed that on User talk:Abdul.hoddle you gave that user all four warning levels in quick succession, then reported to AIV. (You can see that their last edit was at 17:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC), but all of your warnings were after this time.) Just as tip for the future, I recommend either reporting to AIV or simply leaving the user one warning. There's no need to go through all four warning levels before reporting to AIV; if you think the user should be blocked, you can simply report them to AIV immediately. Thanks again, Mz7 (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mz7 good point well made. I was half way through and, well, you know.... Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 20:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Haha, no worries. Just trying to make your life easier! Mz7 (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Seen this?

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sulshanamoodhi and User talk:Kashmorwiki#Blocked as a sockpuppet

663 AfC Reviews.... CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford not entirely surprised, but I had not seen it. Thank you Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 17:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford I've left a comment below their unblock request. While not surprised, as I said above, that is because of their 'greater than time served' experience, not that their behaviour has been bad, except in this rather annoying area. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 18:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

You should read also the ANI Thread especially what comes from the CU which does not sound very promising, I came lately across them because of them closing dozens of AfDs as a non admin in only a week and i took some of them for deletion review. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford link, please. My current opinion is based upon emotion, but my mind can always be changed Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 18:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Kashmorwiki's sockpuppet block CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford Thank you. I have read it now and will think further. My initial reaction stays with 'foolishness" rather than 'malicious', but I do not guarantee to stick to that view. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 18:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Živan Vulić, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Serbian. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

reference issues in Draft:ETOPIA

Hi Timtrent, could you please have a look atDraft:ETOPIA ? I have tried to remove some irrelevant references and write content according to the reference. Before the submission, your comments can really help me reduce the risk of rejection and make the article follow all the rules of Wikipedia. I really appreciate your kind help in helping with my editing work. Lu Wan (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Lu Wan forgive me that I choose not to go to drafts twice unless circumstances are extraordinary. I always feel that new eyes are better than those which have seen a draft before. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 11:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent I really agree with you Timtrent, I will try to submit, and let the new editors to review it. Thanks anyway for your really kind help.Lu Wan (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

One year... 3139 AfC Reviews and rock n roll

Hi Tim, some user noticed on my first Wiki Anniversary today that I not only made 85,000 Edits in this year but also reviewed more than 3,139 AfCs and put 300 articles into mainspace and I wanted to thank you for the help I received from you and @KylieTastic and @Theroadislong (and many others). CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford It is what we do, my friend. All anyone ever asks is that folk pay it forward Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 11:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Happy to help CommanderWaterford, how can I find out how many afc reviews I've done too? Theroadislong (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Theroadislong Well, you had 6,086 Reviews as far as I see at https://apersonbot.toolforge.org/afchistory/#user= CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I'd never seen that tool before. Theroadislong (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford that's a lot of work... something to feel good about :) Things are better when people work together! It's just a pity we can't seem to attract more active reviewers... It sure would feel good to see the backlog shrink massively. Maybe one day... KylieTastic (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I am kinda surprised each day why the backlog rises and rises.... we have good reviewers, also good new reviewers but indeed to evaluate notability correctly you need a lot of experience (and NPP School for example) and those have only a hand full of reviewers. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Aviasales.ru

Hello. Please see this project. Translation of an article from the Russian Wikipedia - https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviasales.ru 2A00:1FA1:169:B777:583E:227A:BE05:AFF8 (talk) 06:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Why are you bringing thi to my attention, please? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 06:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I turned to you because I consider you an expert. I've seen how you work on projects. And just ask for help to move it to the main space. 2A00:1FA1:169:B777:583E:227A:BE05:AFF8 (talk) 06:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully, after seeing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Antonina Seryakova I decline to review it Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 10:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at my Evalueserve draft

Hello Timtrent,

Thank you for taking a look at my article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Evalueserve)

To be honest, I have been having trouble writing the article, but your guidance has been helpful.

I have removed the press releases and have kept citations from individual sources up. Before I re-submit, do you have any other suggestions?

Best, Kristina Shuey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shueykristina97 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Shueykristina97 You must answer the notice on your talk page before making further edits. Those are my sole suggestions Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 12:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

2021 Nepali K2 Winter Summit

Hello,

Please can you kindly consider approving : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:2021_Nepali_K2_winter_summit

There is not currently an article dedicated exclusively to the 2021 K2 Winter summit, this was the first time in human history that K2 was summitted in winter.

There is already an article about the first ascent in 1954 by the Italian expedition.

Perhaps it is possible for clear cut articles or those of importance to be approved quicker, the article is still a work in progress but I am happy to do the extra work to help get it live on mainspace.

Thank you in advance. ATCHio (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@ATCHio but it is not anywhere near complete. There are empty headings. I have not looked past those Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 18:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply, to get this approved quicker would you suggest I make it a stub and expand it on an ongoing basis from there?

I appreciate any guidance, thank you ATCHio (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@ATCHio There is no deadline. Just make it a worthwhile finished product in whatever way you feel is best Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 19:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Dear User:Timtrent Fiddle Faddle

Permit me to say, that I'm not on Wikipedia to make money on any edit(s) nor to promote a single topic. I only edit what I believed is an error or lack additional and relevant knowledge. I've never being paid on anything I do online let alone Wikipedia. I'm just a self-made volunteer editing articles for basic facts to thrive in Wikipedia and not some fictionated written english posed as true information. And that's why I ensure they're well-referenced. Thank you for the critique. Your message'll make me improve. Yours in Wikipedia, Brainbox (talk) 09:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)