User talk:Timtrent/Archive 37

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 35

Timtrent

Hello Timtrent, with regards to your reply to my discuss on Celestina007's talkpage, you seems to get me very wrong. I really know Wikipedia's not a place for political campaigning or personal promotions whatsoever. And it may interest you that I never put nor collect a single dime at creating WP:Article Mohammed Aminu Baka. In fact, the person subjected in the article is in no way related to me to have seen that as a key to promoting him. I love Wikipedia and I fancy contributing worthy articles with notable subjects to it. The article has excellently complied with Wikipedia rules and policies and well-sourced. Please don't discourage me in my bid to be a contributor as you and everyone else. Please, just kindly help to improve it. I even added it as a {{Nigeria-bio-stub}}. Brainbox (talk) 09:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Zakari Brainbox Where did Please don't discourage me in my bid to be a contributor as you and everyone else. come from? All editors are equal, whether it is day one or their 20th year. Please read WP:YFA. If, as you say The article has excellently complied with Wikipedia rules and policies and well-sourced. then I would not have opined that it should be deleted, because that would have been foolish of me.

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, in multiple secondary sources which are 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 article 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.

To learn how to create a useful article please read one of many essays on article creation where process of research is described.

You ask Please, just kindly help to improve it, but I have no interest in the subject. I suggest that you learn your trade and refine your research and editing skills. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 11:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

AfC Reviews

Hi, regarding latest actions taken by a somewhat overzealous admin here I will until further notice no further review AfC Drafts. Obviously this admin thinks that I do not have sufficient knowledge to do so. Just to let you know. CommanderWaterford (talk) 06:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford I understand your emotions here. When we are accused of things our fight or flight response is engaged automatically. I hope my advice on your own talk page is helpful and that we see you back reviewing at full power soon Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 07:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent As you hopefully understand I will for sure not review any draft nor spent any minute here any more if such outrageous actions will be accepted by the community. I love this project, I love reviewing, I love creating but my love goes not so far that I am wasting my life time in order to get punched in the face every couple of days and later wasting even more inconceivably valuable life time convincing people of my work. CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford I understand completely. All I am doing is advising you to gather your weapons in peace and quiet and not to react when you feel the need to react. When ready, fire all the weapons you need to, but wait until you are ready Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 07:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been banned by the community.

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Revocation of CommanderWaterford's permissions. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon regrettable, but sadly inevitable once they antagonised all possible folk who might have supported them. I can't quite work out whether CW qualifies for WP:SO at some point in the future. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 15:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:UNBAN, if the community imposes a ban then the community (not just an admin) must decide whether to lift it. Normally to have any hope of being unblocked CW would have to make a convincing case that they now understand what they did wrong and a plan as to how they will avoid repeating the behavior, but CW already had a block lifted after promising to do better and then went right back to the bad behavior. A second second chance is unlikely. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon I have a sad but strong feeling that your prediction is correct. I have often had to swallow a retort when imteracting with them. I suspect English is not their native tongue, and nuances of behaviour in English may be lost on them for that or other unguessable reasons. It annoys me when an otherwise useful editor insists on Wikisuicide by ANI. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 17:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Reviewed draft

Hello Fiddle/Tim: you reviewed Draft:Mercedes-Benz MB800 back in February, a draft not made by me and of a not very high standard. I created a new, amply sourced article for the Mercedes-Benz MB700 which includes the MB800 (a facelifted MB700). I would like Mercedes-Benz MB800 to become a redirect but I am unsure as to whether I need to somehow close and remove the draft first? Thanks, Mr.choppers | ✎ 12:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mr.choppers thanks for asking,though you had no need to. Simply be bold and turn it into a redirect Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 15:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Mr.choppers | ✎ 15:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mr.choppers I just thought to look. I think you failed to create the redirect, so I have done it on your behalf. Compare your edit there and mine. 🌷 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 11:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thanks - I didn't realize that the draft page became a redirect, I thought they were just deleted after their fate had been decided. Mr.choppers | ✎ 16:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mr.choppers as time passes we gain huge additional expertise and experience. Be unconcerned. Together we have it correct now. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 17:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

ANI discussion involving you

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:DeNoel's sig. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl I am wholly displeased with your terminology of "Enabler" pointed in my direction in this discussion. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 21:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Incident 24 May 2021

Based on your comment, I would not consider you an active participant of the discussion. Nevertheless, I feel obligated to append this notice so that you are aware of the discussion, and I sincerely apologize for bringing you into it, as it appears you had no wish to be involved. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@DeNoel I have been dragged into it as an alleged Enabler, which is not pleasing me at all. Obviously you did not drag me into it. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 21:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar
		Re-reading your initial comment here, it struck me just how long you've been doing this. Anyone who works at AfC for more than three years without burning out deserves a hundred of these stars, let alone someone going as long as you have. Thanks for everything you've done, past and present. — Bilorv (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv thank you indeed. I did burn out for a period, by the addiction returned! Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 19:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Ernest William Latchford

Thanks for helping get my first Wikipedia article up. It has been an educational process but now am motivated to contribute more Take care Mark Latchford Sydney — Preceding unsigned comment added by LatchfordOz (talk • contribs) 07:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@LatchfordOz It's a pleasure. Now, a technical thing. Noting the similarity of your surnames and the fact that you have stated that he is an ancestor yours it is wise though not mandatory for you to avoid edits to it now it is an article. COI is construed broadly. That this chap died when you were a year old probably means there is no COI, but I would hate you to be accused when there is no reason.

So be the article's father, not its mother. Let it graze its knees and play with rough children, simply being proud that you fathered it. Don't bandage the grazes or limit its playmates!

On with the next! Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 08:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

New message from Whpq

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 June 2 § File:Kupa people.jpg. Whpq (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

Hello, I'm Elizium23. I noticed that you recently removed content from List of seaplane bases in the United Kingdom without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Elizium23 (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Question about submission

Hi Timtrent. Thanks for reviewing my submission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alishka93/FlippingBook. I’d be very glad if you can help me to clarify what is wrong, and I can edit the article. While creating this page, I was looking at these articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issuu and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_Issue because they are also about digital publishing software. Can you please give me examples of what exactly is incorrect in my text? Also, you've mentioned that the text should refer to independent reliable sources. I've added links to articles on Forbes, Inc, and MarTech Series. Are they not reliable sources? Please assist me with this. I just want to understand and correct the article. --Alishka93 (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Alishka93 please read WP:SPEAKSELF to see what the dreaft itself lacks. Then read WP:NOTDIRECTORY I am no6t at all sure that the articles you mention are valid here, either, will study them and may suggest their deletion. No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 08:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Notice

I was quite busy this past month and was unable to read and reply to messages. Did you try to contact me? Bearian (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bearian i do not think so Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 18:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

BLANK A DRAFT?

HI,

Thanks for responding to me! I really want to delete a company page draft. I am giving up on the whole idea. But, how do I blank a draft? What does this mean?

Thank you.

Dara — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dara at ERS2021 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Dara at ERS2021 edit it to empty it and save the empty page Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 15:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Jennifer E. Jones

Thanks for your comments on this. I've addressed your concerns. Pha telegrapher (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pha telegrapher much better, Even so "history of the organization.[1][2] [3] [4]" is a prime example of WP:CITEKILL. Instead we need one excellent reference per fact asserted. If you are sure it is beneficial, two, and at an absolute maximum, three. A fact you assert, once verified in a reliable source, is verified. More is gilding the lily. Please choose the very best in each case of multiple referencing for a single point and either drop or repurpose the remainder. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 12:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent Thanks very much. I've spread out the citations. Pha telegrapher (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Ford F-150 Lightning

Hey Timtrent. I tried to work the platform generation info into the distinguishing info on the Ford F-150 Lightning disambig page, as you suggested. It's useful info for disambiguation...; but I fear that the long descriptive stuff I've got there now may run afoul of the disambig page experts who, I believe, like a lot less info. YMMV. But I would appreciate it if you would look it over, and actually tweak anything you think would make it better, or more succinct. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@N2e The worst that is likely to happen is that someone will edit it down. Why not add a commentary on the talk page there of what you are trying to achieve and invite enhancements? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Request on 11:46:49, 16 June 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Kookaburra17

Kookaburra17 (talk · contribs)
- User:Kookaburra17/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I actually created the initial section (Combatting and suppression techniques) within Fake News. My plan was to leave this as a summary section, and have a link to an expanded new page, as this is an important topic (and similar to some other sections in Fake News). I presume my new page is premature as it currently has the same content as the initial section in Fake News. Kookaburra17 11:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kookaburra17: I see and understand your plan. For now, thiough, why not incorporate your work into the existing article? Make sure it is well referenced.

We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are 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 this article 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.

Later, if the FN article becomes unwieldy, you will have the experience and expertise to create a consensus for a split. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Deprodding of Site reliability engineering

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Site reliability engineering, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Lizthegrey (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Lizthegrey It seems to have served its purpose. But it does not appear that you were the editor who deprodded it Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent Yup, :@GorillaWarfare did but I saw you hadn't yet been notified so I figured I'd extend the courtesy. Thanks for flagging the page, it had been bugging me for a while that the bulk of the article was just a list recitation of points from a video Seth Vargo and I made years ago. Lizthegrey (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Lizthegrey: Thanks for doing the notification, I didn't even realize we had a {{deprod}} template

GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare seems we do. 👍 But, while I thank you and @Lizthegrey for the notification it was not necessary. Thanks to sterling work the article has no need of deletion, unless someone else disagrees. PROD has a dual purpose, and one of those has been achieved, rendering the other irrelevant.

I like it when good things happen. Wikipedia would have been enhanced either way, but is better enhanced this way. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Have a look to this!

A user undo my edits. If you find this edits worth and not vandalism then please revert them. Thanks [1][2][3][4] Trap133 (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I reverted these edits. If you find this edits vandalism then remove them and if not then please go the talk page of the user who undone my edits before. Thanks Trap133 (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Trap133 enough time has now passed to blur whatever the issue was, and people with those pages on their watch lists will have interacted with those edits by now. I have not looked at them and will abstain Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Reg Mani Kanteswara Rao Garlapati Profile - Modified Changes

Hi There,

I had added 10 patents references in the field of NLP, ML and AI. I would request if you can consider these to be notable citations for creation of the wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manikanta827 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Manikanta827 I have,

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, in multiple secondary sources which are 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.

My response is unaltered. So is my criticism of your user page.

If you are so keen on self promotion please get a web site. They are almost zero cost. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Possible to create a new article of the same topic?

Hi Timtrent! Creating an article sure is hard and makes me feel lost at the same time. One of the reviewers thinks I might be involved in paid editing (which I'm not) and tells me not to further edit the article until I answer the message. I have answered already and no other feedback so far. Do you know if there's anything else I can do at the moment? Thank you. Goodlug (talk) 07:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Goodlug You need to place your answer as a direct reply to the question on your talk page where all can see it. The question and the answer are each to be taken at face value. They are wholly entitled to ask. Asking creates no stain on your character. Answering honesty and simply is important. We take a declaration of not being paid to edit at face value. We assume good faith. Something along the lines of "Thank you for your question. I declare that I am not a paid editor. I have read the question with care."

Be aware that we construe paid editing broadly, and answer with precision. If you have the smallest business relationship of any description (except as a pure customer) then our rules may interpret you to be paid.

None of what I have said implies that you are paid, because you have said to me that you are not.

Once you make the simple declaration in reply to that message you are free to continue to edit in whatever way you choose. Generally there is no feedback.

It's good to be asked and to answer. Every editor can expect to be asked at some point. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Goodlug Oh yes. If a draft has been rejected you may create a new draft. Use the rejection to learn from prior errors. Use the essay I showed you to plan, research and only put fingers to keyboard once you have a storyboard Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Timtrent! You tips are very helpful. Goodlug (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

A.K Sharma

Hello

I dont have much knowledge about the notification you have posted on the draft page, I make some changes with my best knowledge. If you are talking about the Political career he just joined the BJP party there no political history. I written the page in the view of Indian Administrative Service officers. If you check the category of Indian Administrative Service officers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Indian_Administrative_Service_officers) there are hundred of articles of IAS officers which have done there duties not more. I write this article because he serve current Prime Minister Of India from long time and serve higher rank among the IAS. Please suggest me the changes that can publish the page as i dont want to waste this article.

Plotterof (talk) 10:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Plotterof I can't really add anything. Try the Articles for Creation help desk?

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, in multiple secondary sources which are 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 16:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

:Articles for deletion/Asom Barta

You mentioned that all three references in "Asom Barta" article are primary sources and two are press releases. I removed two references from there and added two newspaper registration number references in there with an press release reference. The Asom Barta newspaper published from Majuli, Assam in Assamese language. The newspaper registered with Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) and also verified with Office of Registrar of Newspaper For India (RNI). MSME registration number is UDYAM-AS-31-0000103 & RNI verification number is ASSASS01389. These references not include in this article before. But yesterday these references was added with this article. I hope "Asom Barta" is a suitable article for Wikipedia. Riyan sukur (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Riyan sukur You seem to have been blocked as a sockpuppet, so none of this is relevant any more Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mahnaz_Malik

Hello

I have an issue. I have working on the article for months pervious issues never mention citation only the last 2 months. And I agree I had issued with no placing thr citation. I have now but still there is a issues.

The page says rejected but userplotterof has stated that this would have failed the deletion process. But I can't seem to edit or resubmit it.

I have placed articles written online based in Pakistan and the US, UK. Website such as the guarding, legal 500 and still that seems to have cause a rift.

Please sir if you can simple Google the person and see the articles I have listed. I don't know what more a notable person can count? She has wrote numerous of books and is the youngest women arabitor appointment as cited ? Please if you can review and help me.

Thank you. Njinfo10109 (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Njinfo10109 I'm not really sure what you hope I can achieve. @Hatchens has rejected the draft, and they need to be approached to see if they will reconsider. You tell me that citations were not mentioned until two months ago, but the review in 2020 mentions them explicitly. The subject of the article seems to me to be WP:ROTM. My son is an arbitrator and more besides, but I would be shocked if anyone suggested he was worthy of an article here, because he just does his job. So, it seems, does Mahnaz Malik.

Does the authorship qualify? Wikipedia:NAUTHOR will tell you. Discover how Malik passes that set of criteria, and present that to Hatchens and they are likely to change their mind if convinced

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.

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, in multiple secondary sources which are 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 21:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Thank you. I'm just surprised. I appreciate your son is an arbitrator but the notability comes from Mahnaz Malik being the youngest ever arbitrator appointed by the World Bank! It also comes from her winning the UK Financial Times of the Year Award. That's beyond just a job.

Also, I do not understand how the author of several books two of them published by Oxford University press is not notable. All sources are not self published but of third party sources and news.

Further she's been noted as a leading children's writer in other Wikipedia entries?

My question is what I do? It seems quite unfair that someone can reject on whimsical grounds.

Thanks Njinfo10109 (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

As stated, Mahnaz Malik is cited by articles in wikipedia as well. Linked under.

And the user user @Plotterof has agreed that this would have failed the deletion process and should have not even been placed in it.

Links https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_and_publishing_in_Pakistan

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_R._Harris_World_Law_Institute

Information Books and publishing in Pakistan Valley, R.L Stine, Famous Five, Hardy Boys series. Very recently,[when?] Mahnaz Malik, a Pakistani born British, published her first story book for children 25 KB (3,681 words) - 15:39, 12 February 2021 Whitney R. Harris World Law Institute and Dispute Resolution Symposium" Washington University School of Law "Mahnaz Malik is keynote speaker at the Washington University International Arbitration 27 KB (2,785 words) - 07:51, 23 June 2021 Njinfo10109 (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Njinfo10109 I very much doubt the rationale was whimsy. Any concerns with reviews should be raised directly with the reviewers in order that you understand them. That us what you do next.

No-one can give assurances about a deletion discussion. They are based upon multiple policy based arguments. If it is a close decision it can go either way, and depends upon policy based arguments only, Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I have done that as you can view from the messages to the user but he does not respond. So I am asking for help on what to do next? Please do help, I appreciate your help alot and knowledge

Thank you  Njinfo10109 (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Njinfo10109 They responded earlier today. They are not online 24 hours a day Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 05:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

page submit Club of Brussels

Question @Timtrent : which are the unverifiable contents ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micheldekemmeter1 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Micheldekemmeter1 the answer is anything unsupported by a reference in a reliable source.

We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are 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 this article 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.

You have a major conflict of interest with Draft:Club of brussels since I assume you are one of the founders. You must read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and perform that disclosure Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 18:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

draft V1SH

Hi Fiddle. Thanks for the comments left on V1SH draft. I have modified the page to present the V1SH as a theory other than a research topic per your comments. Now I have resubmit the V1SH draft for review. Please let me know any issue if possible. Many thanks. Regards David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidypan (talk • contribs) 10:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Davidypan I think it now needs other eyes than mine. I have drunk twice now at this well, a third time would be too often Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Fiddle. Your previous comments helped us to correct/improve the page. Much appreciated your helping. Thanks! Regards David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidypan (talk • contribs) 22:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Davidypan As a reviewer I do the best I am able to do. 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.

Please do not forget to sign talk page messages with ~~~~ which translates automagically to your Wikipedia signature Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Fiddle. You are really helpful. I have corrected those issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidypan (talk • contribs) 06:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Davies_(poet_and_wood_carver)#Wood_Carvings

Hi, I’m at a loss to know what more I need to add about John Davies to demonstrate his notability. My Wiki draft already indicates that he has had six collections published by one of the UK’s leading independent publishers, and has achieved two major poetry prizes. I’ve also listed in my draft the journals and anthologies in which his poems have been published. He’s also edited three anthologies. Davies is thus noteable for both the range and the quality of his poetic output.

This has been recognised, as I mention, by his inclusion in the Oxford Companion to the the Literature of Wales and in Shaffer’s classic published by Cambridge University Press. Neither of these are “passing mentions” and both are reliable professorial sources independent of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonbread (talk • contribs) 12:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Moonbread I have asked for a review of my review by others Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Odisha Administrative Service getting Deleted

All Information provided are sourced from Govt of Odisha Gazette. Why are you going to delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunaditya (talk • contribs) 12:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sunaditya The rationale is at the discussion and your policy based contributions are welcome there. I have simply requested that it be discussed. I am not going to delete it. I do not have the power to do so Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 12:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Raghu Kilambi

Dear Timtrent,

Re your review of my article [[Draft:Raghu Kilambi|Raghu Kilambi|]: the reason notability was no longer clear in the version you’d reviewed is because someone named Novem Linguae deleted an entire section with several very high profile mainstream sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Raghu_Kilambi&oldid=1029963290 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Raghu_Kilambi&diff=1029980217&oldid=1029963290

He did warn that this might change Kilambi’s “notability”, so I read the policy Wikipedia:Notability and it seems clear that Kilambi meets it, or did before the PowerTap section was deleted:

“A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline

Note in the deleted section multiple references to Forbes, Car and Driver, plus Globe and Mail in the preceding section – exactly what most of us would view as “reliable independent sources,” inasmuch as any media outlet ever is, and each with “significant coverage”, not just offhand mentions. None of them are based upon press releases or the like, except one third party article which is covering a press release by Andretti group and isn’t particularly central to the discussion.

Novem Linguae explained that he deleted the section because he felt it was too “promotional”, meaning I suppose that most of the sources were positive to boosterish in nature. I certainly agree that the media should approach things, especially things having to do with climate change, more skeptically then they often do. They – especially this Macgill fellow – clearly like Kilambi because “ooh aah, clean hydrogen power, cool!” I wasn’t looking for only positive stuff, but I couldn’t find any controversies or criticisms of Kilambi or PowerTap. I did try to be neutral about it by attributing assertions and projections to those who made them (“According to Kilambi” etc.) rather than repeating them as facts. Is PowerTap really going to take off? Heck if I know. But what was there prior to deletion is pretty much exactly what the sources say, as you can easily verify for yourself.

It was certainly interesting to me, following up on another RHOT star (this was a big deal in Canada) to discover that he is now involved in this kind of thing, and that this looks to be one of the reasons for his divorce from fellow RHOT star Roxy Earle. However, again, none of this was visible in the version which you reviewed. I would like to appeal this decision on the ground that the version you reviewed was not the draft as it was submitted.Sequel part III (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sequel part III as a reviewer I can only review what is there, not what might be there. There is no need to appeal. Do the work needed and resubmit for review. Another reviewer will get to it as soon as they are able Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

John Davies poet and wood carver

Thanks for your help with this. I have now added further material. Do I now click Resubmit?? Moonbread (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Moonbread you should, yes. Reviews are an iterative process. Article creation is the hardest task on Wikipedia, and very few folk get it right first time. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Club of Brussels draft page

Strange, I am not a paid contributor. + I took out the youtube link. Can we proceed ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micheldekemmeter1 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Micheldekemmeter1 The Club of Brussels was founded byu one Michel de Kemmeter. Your username is the same name as the founder. Assuming you to be the same person then this club is a club you founded. This means that, broadly construed, you derive benefit from the Club of Brussels. Thus, in Wikipedia terms, you are a paid editor (0.95 probability).

I do not review drafts I have reviewed before. If you choose to resubmit it then someone else will review it. Different eyes are always a bonus.

This talk page asks those wishing me to inspect an article to link to it. Asking for help tends to work better if you make life easy for the perosn you ask.

Signing your posts is not just a courtesy, it is essential etiquette here. Please do not forget to do this Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent It was founded by a collective of 50 experts in systemic and complexity thinking and scientists. It is a non profit. I will have collegues work on it too, thanks a lot. Micheldekemmeter1 — Preceding undated comment added 16:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Micheldekemmeter1 then you and each of those colleagues, broadly construed, derive benefit from it. You should ask at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard for a ruling. We are all fallible, but consensus, generally, is held isn high regard here. Use that noticeboard to seek to determine consensus Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Andhra Raju people

hey Fiddle thanks for your reivew https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andhra_Raju_people. I have used the tool for copyrights and it did not show me any. For the Upanaynam part I have removed it for now, but what would be the correct way to add those details back. Should I just hyperlink to wiki page? Are there any other parts that need fixing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobs tina (talk • contribs) 21:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bobs tina wikilinkig to the correct page is the correct way of handling the inclusion of larger material from elsewhere. THGsi is hiw Wikipedia is designed.

The copyright violation you included was material that you copied from elsewhere, verbatim, thus you cannto say that yo do not know. The copyright violation detector will only work for you with the current version of the draft, not the version I removed your violation from.

Revision Deletion is a process where a qualified administrator removes all pibklic traces of your copyright violation. This task must be performed and the template must be left in place It is not a template that you may remove under amy normal circumstances.

The correct way to add details is to write them in 100% of your own words. No close paraphrasing, no copying. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I have made a comment on the article's talk page. Zsinj^Talk 19:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!

I so appreciate you responding and making the submission on my behalf! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skelley4195 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Skelley4195 it was easy to do. While awaiting review do feel free to improve it. Help:Your first article is a useful thing to study Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

Hi, I've originally asked a question there, but I noticed a huge backlog of questions, I'll be attempting to answer some, and only the ones that I'll be confident in answering, if you have any problems with my answers, please ask me to stop answering. Justi yaya 06:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Justiyaya As long as your answers contain useful information I am sure no-one will ask you to stop. New folk are always welcome Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 06:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Justi yaya 06:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

AfC

I just thought I’d add a personal note of appreciation for the work you are doing at AfC. Hopefully this bit of “faddle” is an encouragement - it’s not always easy assessing articles for creation! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@Aussie Article Writer Thank you. Some are too hard to assess, but there is always someone else who will find them easy, so I pass those by, nodding sadly Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, keep up the good work! I find AFC too hard to work on. It’s often a thankless task, even I have gotten angry at nominators. Pruning articles is an essential part of Wikipedia, and it takes a strong personality to delve into it. You seem like someone with good humour (I love your sig!) and I’m glad you are doing it. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@Aussie Article Writer i find it fun, but I guess I may be odd Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Message from Jonathan Ferreira dos Santos|

@jonathandidi1 Jonathan Ferreira dos Santos (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jonathan Ferreira dos Santos You have now made two identical edits, one here, and one elsewhere which I have reverted since it made no sense there, and that was a public page. I can see no other edits that you have made. How can I help you? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 04:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

DT intro

Howdy. I can't seem to get any takers at the Closure request page. So, would you be interested in reviewing & closing an RFC at Donald Trump, concerning it's intro? GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay I don't think I could review anything on Drumpf in an impartial manner. Thank you for the approach. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 18:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Request on 18:52:42, 13 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by FredTJoseph

FredTJoseph (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Frederick T Joseph (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

My name is Daniela and I was paid by Frederick Joseph to create his Wikipedia page under his account, not knowing that an "autobiography" would be rejected. Would it be approved/published if I created my own account and created his page on there? FredTJoseph (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

FredTJoseph (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@FredTJoseph Joseph has zero notability whoever writes the article. Rather weird to create an account in Joseph's name. You may ask at the Teahouse how to change your user name, and you must make the disclosure required in WP:PAID Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Tornado Tube

I believe I have added the requisite disclosures regarding COI for the subject article, please let me know if I did so correctly. Burnhamassociatesinc (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Burnhamassociatesinc It seems to be academic because your username has acquired you a block. May I suggest you ask ethe blockkng admin in your unblock request how you might address this matter? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TerryBG (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

An Anomaly Seeing You At The Drama Board

This thread is beyond funny, I have however negated their unfounded accusations against you. Celestina007 (talk) 00:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007 I Just saw it. I guess they have not been paid. I get dragged there rarely, and very rarely have anything to say there when ity happens. There's not much to say because folk will draw their own conclusions anyway, as they have a right to do. Equally, it is their right to make a report if they so wish. I'd forgotten about them, and have no interest in them beyond article quality.

Thank you for your thoughts there. You have been very kind and I appreciate them. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 06:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon (another superior of mine) said it best, he mentioned something along the lines of Paid editors having the feeling of entitlement and reporting sincere volunteers like all three of us is very much unfair and laughable, oh well, I have permanently added them to my watchlist. Celestina007 (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007 It was simply a paid editor with a view of their importance that I do not share. Nor, it seems, does Robert. I see Queen Gertrude here. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Environmental Conservation

I am not sure what additional you are asking for when you say that “ This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. “ could you explain more fully what we are missing here?

We understand that there is a specific Wiki project to add reputable peer-reviewed journals like ours to Wikipedia (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals).

The journal issues are hosted by Cambridge University Press, our current publisher, archived at https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/environmental-conservation/all-issues with all content from issue 1 in 1974 onwards (referenced as the official site) = 46 years of publication of academic articles and international secondary citation by many researchers in many other journals. Readers can view such referencing activity by consulting the metrics on the publishers website. What do you mean by “significant coverage of the subject”?

So, we are a bit puzzled and need your guidance as to what the problem is, especially as we see many other journals have a similar wiki entries. What is it precisely about this journal entry that is not acceptable as a “subject” when other journals are acceptable subjects? Belleab31 (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Belleab31 Please see the formal question on your talk page, one you must respond to before makmhg any other edits on Wikipedia.

As a paid editor you are being paid to make edits to Wikipedia, a volunteer project. I do not use my time as a volunteer to spoon-feed paid editors, who are expected to hit the ground running, the more so since they have the paid time to achieve that.

No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Brutal, especially since I am not a “paid editor” for Wikipedia. I will ask for advice elsewhere. Belleab31 (talk) 08:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Belleab31 "Our current publisher" says you are a paid editor. The question on your talk page must be answered, please make sure you answer it with precision Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Girmit Global Museum

Hello Thanks for response. Can I recover page I submitted as I didn't keep a recent copy? Also reference 1 is blank but the page does refer to a reference 1 or is it referring to #2. Is there any way I can include this reference, I think to may have been referring to the author, Tinker. Thank you. AwesomeAubergine (talk) 09:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@AwesomeAubergine You need the admin who suppressed your copyright violation. I am not an admin and I cannot help you. Far better to write it in your own words Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Help needed on improving an article

Hello Timtrent,

Thank you for your review of the Mentora Gymnasium article! My name is Simona and I am the one who created it.

I see that you are an experienced editor and so I would like to ask for additional feedback on how I can get the abovementioned article to meet the qualifications to be live. I hope this is alright with you.

I have read a lot of the information you listed in your review and more. Still, I have some questions I hope you can help me get the answers to. Specifically, will the following changes improve the chances of the article going live?

Removing the information for which there are no published, reliable, independent sources. (i.e. the license mention)
Adding the information that it is a non-profit institution (this reduces the notability criterion?)
Keeping only one of the three school portrait sources so it does not look like just passing mentions (i.e. the Berlin.de domain which is the official website of Berlin)

Please take into consideration that I am still new to Wikipedia editing and I am very sorry if this is the wrong approach. Any feedback you have for me is greatly appreciated!

Thank you and I hope to hear from you soon.

Best regards,

Simona Peovska (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Simona Peovska please do not overthink this. All it has to do is to pass Wikipedia:NSCHOOL

Follow this essay by finding your references. Write the draft around the references. The school pics? I'm afraid not really relevant Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

John Davies poet 1944

Thanks again for your help and advice. I haven't been able fully to understand the "groups ref" business but I've made some changes that might help. I've now, at your suggestion, used the cite template as often it seemed appropriate. I think it's a much better system because it takes the reader straight to the cited author's name and book title etc. So thanks for that. Moonbread (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Moonbread the look of the thing, and the itiolity of thje references is far better now. Good luck with the review Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft Amir Ghavidel

The draft is NOT for a living person. He died 12 years ago and was a pioneer filmmaker. His name is in the books, one is referenced. It is sad that wiki of living directors like Sirus_Alvand is in the mainspace and Amir Ghavidel is not considered noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngm 7 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ngm 7 My mistake on missing his death. '''IMDB references are still not allowed.'''

I don't care whether the guy is notable or not, nor whether he gets an article or not. If you care that much make sure you prove it. Whining to me is not going help. Nor will it hinder.I doubt it makes you feel better, even Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Whatever dude. The fact that you missed that he was dead tells me the process is not thorough. Plus, you might want to take a deep breath. It calms you down. I agree with your comment on IMDB though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngm 7 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ngm 7 No. It tells you that human beings make mistakes. I made one. You spotted it. I agreed and corrected myself. IT was still a valid decline, alive or dead. Now go and improve your referencing. And do not forget to sign your posts. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

And yes I am Ghavidel's son, and that's why hearing that people say they don't care he's dead or alive, it gets to me. But, it is true. Why should people care? Have yourself a good day. And I'm new to this. Let's see if this signing works Ngm 7 (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ngm 7 Signing works

I did not say I did not care whether he was dead or alive. That would have been crass of me, offensive. I apologise that my statement was capable of misinterpretation. I should have noticed that he was no longer living, which was an error

I genuinely only care about the quality of articles.. I often have no interest of any description in the topic, the person concerned. It is important for me not to care if they are notable or not because I must judge the draft on what the draft states and almost only that. The role I volunteer for is one where narrow judgements are made. If I get it wrong and accept a draft that is subsequently sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and deleted there is it very hard indeed for a new article to be created. I want accept articles. The tightrope with a draft like yours is making sure ity has a better than 50% chance of surviving a deletion process. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks.Ngm 7 (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Please help with the article Draft: Padma Rao Sundarji

Hi! Need your expert help with my draft Draft: Padma Rao Sundarji. With your feedback, I have removed a part of my write up which may have seemed like poor sourcing. The subject of this article meets the notability criteria as she has written a book about the thirty year long civil war of Srilanka. The details of the book (for published, primary & reliable sources) as well as the book reviews (for secondary sources) have been cited. She has also co-authored for other publications (details of which are also mentioned as references). She has been a recognised international journalist who has worked for various reputed news organisations. Her work is mentioned in the external links & brief write up about her are available on the official websites of the news organisations - they have been quoted as references as well (can these be considered as third party sources?). Also cited are sources of the news media articles which talk about the person herself and they are not passing mentions (these sources are independent of the subject, as per my understanding). A live help volunteer had mentioned that a personal interview by a recognised news media with a verified youtube channel will be accepted as a primary source. I can provide the same if required. There have been a lot of changes made to the write up since the time the previous comments and feedback have been provided. I am really trying my hardest to learn and ensure that I do not go wrong again. Requesting your expert advise in making the necessary changes & help in moving the article to mainspace please! Please do let me know if my modified article now is good enough, and if not, request you to point out to me exactly as to what needs to be changed. Thanks in advance!ShravanthiRK (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@ShravanthiRK She has to pass Wikipedia:NAUTHOR and it is my belief is that she does not. Primary sources are interesting. Let me explain what it is we need in terms of sourcing:

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, in multiple secondary sources which are 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.

Make sure you read the WP:PRIMARY element. a Primary Source may only verify a simple fact. It does nothing to verify notability in a Wikipedia sense.

Your article is a list of things. You say "She worked for A, B, C... H, I, J, etc." That is nothing except a list of employers. I used to work for several; large corporations, sometimes in senr=ior positions, but I do not deserve a Wikipedia article. I. too, have written a book, but I do not, nor does it, deserve an article.

Read, please, this essay. It shows you how to select facts form references and write the best draft you can. This may mean starting form the ground up. If it does please embrace the task and do it well Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me, I must admit that I have faced a lot of challenges in the past without having a detailed feedback from the Wiki volunteers, which limited my understanding of what was expected. But I really appreciate you taking time to reply to my request in detail. Heartfelt thanks, sir!

Honestly, I had mentioned in detail her achievements as a journalist, all the noteworthy articles she had written and the famous personalities she was chosen to interview. However, I had to remove them as the only sources I had for them were the published work (articles she wrote) themselves, which, I believe would not be considered as valid sources (please correct me if I am wrong here). So I kept removing parts of the write-up and it came down to just mentioning the names of the reputed organizations she worked for. But now that you point it out, I will try to look for other sources which can improve the Career section of the article.

If I may bother you a little more, would this link be considered a significant coverage and accepted as a valid source: https://www.asianage.com/opinion/oped/200818/the-vajpayee-i-knew-was-a-hardcore-feminist-too.html? This is an article published by Asian Age News media.

Also, if I decide to bring down the article and start again completely like a brand new draft, should I request for a deletion of this article or is there any other procedure? Please don’t get me wrong but the decline messages on the draft are quite demotivating to improve the same article :) I mean, I still want to put in my best efforts to contribute to wiki & not give up, however, I am only wondering if it probably helps to start afresh completely!?

Thank you once again! Gratitude! ShravanthiRK (talk) 05:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@ShravanthiRK You can perform a rewrite im the draft itself is you think that to be the correct route. There is no procedure. You may prefer a clean break, and could request deletion if you prefer. Placing {{Db-u1}} at the head of the draft will request its speedy deletion. IT will mean that there is then no review history. This is your choice.

Now, the source. It is written by her so simply says that she writes articles. We only care what reliable sources say about her. Let me try to explain. If they manufactured vacuum cleaners, the cleaners would be their work. A vacuum cleaner could not be a reference for them, simply because it is the product they make. So it is with research, writings, etc. However, a review of their work by others tends to be a review of them and their methods, so is a reference. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 06:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Right! Makes a lot of sense now!! Will try my best to improve the article! Thank you so much! Ever grateful for your time and help! God bless you! :) ShravanthiRK (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me, I am really sorry to bother you again. I have been looking for sources that have a significant coverage of the person I am writing about. A book review published on 29th Feb 2016 by 'Ceylon Today' newspaper (a Srilankan News Print media) has a good write up covering Padma Rao, her professional association with reputed organisations, her interviews with famous personalities and also her journey of writing the book. It is quite a detailed write-up. However, this article is not available online but exists as print media. So, will this reference be considered as valid source to establish the notability of the person? Requesting your help! Thanks a lot in advance! :) ShravanthiRK (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@ShravanthiRK print media is fine, so is quoting and citing broadcast media Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me, Noted! Thanks a lot again! :) ShravanthiRK (talk) 05:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

You are correct in pointing out the need for proper references in my draft article on Seamus Woods. The templates are a great help. Thanks very much. Palisades1 (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Palisades1It'sa bit of worthwhile extra work. M<y objective ios to get you to 'deletion proof' the draft Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 06:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shneor_Orel

Hi, i just saw the this article has been considered for deletion. Please help me save it. Iv have added recently a few notable links in the references. please tell me what can i do better? Thank you for you time and your help. Have a blessed week end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shneororel (talk • contribs) 19:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shneororel The almost hardest task on Wikipedia is to create a new article. The actual hardest task is to write your autobiography. It is almost impossible for any of us to stand far enough away from ourselves to be neutral, dispassionate, and genuinely not to care whether our life merits an article or not.

Your task is harder because your chosen genre is hard to pass Wikipedia:NMUSICIAN in.

You need to do two things, potentially a third.

First, be sure you pass those tough criteria (with references showing that you do)

Second, make sure the article reflects that you pass the criteria

Third, if you have done the second, state clearly at the deletion discussion that you have changed the article to show a clear pass of the criteria. State your case simply, and absolutely without passion. State it quietly.

The article has been back and fort between Draft: and Maim spaces. I would have put it back into draft for you to work, but you keep moving it from Draft: to be an article even though it does not, currently, pass (in my opinion). Since I was no longer entitled to move it back to Draft (See Wikipedia:DRAFTIFY) I was pretty much mandated to ask that it be discussed for deletion. Doing anything see would have either been move warring, or ignoring a problem. I could not ignore a problem.

I have looked at all the references. I can see that they are indicative of a bright future, but none of them talks about you usefully.

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, in multiple secondary sources which are 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 20:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent Thank you so much for your help. i didn't make it on purpose (moving from draft etc...)

i am new in wikipedia. Is it possible to remove the deletion like this we can move it to draft and leave it there until i do the things that you told me to do. thanks in advance — Preceding — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shneororel (talk • contribs) 13:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shneororel Since another editor has offered an opinion that it should be deleted, what you need to do is offer your own opinion there. I am technically unable now to withdraw any nomination. Place your comment almost exactly as you have done in the paragraph above. I will not stand in your way Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent thanks again for your help. ok i am gonna do that. can you just help me finding the talk that you talking about (where i have to write the comment ? because i can't find it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shneororel (talk • contribs) 01:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shneororel: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shneor Orel which is linked from the atrticle itself. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 06:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Girmit Global Museum - accepted

Thank you Timtrent So what needs to be done by me to have the page available to the public now? or is it available now? AwesomeAubergine (talk) 12:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@AwesomeAubergine "Accepted" means it is there, published Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, is there any way I can change the title of 'Girmit Global Museum' to 'Global Girmit Museum'? 220.233.199.63 (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

In my Google search this page is not coming up? Thanks 2406:3400:21B:3FF0:FD8D:6997:ED38:37FB (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@AwesomeAubergine Google is not instant. It indexes Wikipedia pages when it chooses, not 100% of them, and at its sole discretion. Wiklipedia submits a google sitemap to it on a regular basis showing what has changed. Google chooses when and if it will act

Please do not edit while logged out.

You may MOVE the page to its correct title if you wish. You will find this in the "More" tab on your logged in page Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 06:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Timtrent

Awesome, thanks so much for your speedy & helpful responses! A big learning curve for me. Have done the move & can view on Google, fingers crossed I did it all correctly.

AwesomeAubergine (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The article on Shravan Sampath

Hello Tim,

This is Rajesh, and I have published the article on Shravan Sampath. Your feedback is well taken. I have made necessary changes and only provided references to articles written by Shravan, where his projects are specifically mentioned, and his contributions to renewable energy sector in the country is clearly mentioned. The references are from high quality Indian business dailies such as Business Standard, Financial Express, Financial Chronicle, The Times of India, the Tribune, and so on. I would look forward to your perusal of the changes made and your favourable response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeshkmr1234 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Rajeshkmr1234 I have taken the unusual step for me of re-reviewing the draft, and left a detailed rationale. I will not make a third review. Other eyes are better next time Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 06:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your feedback Tim. As per your review and feedback, the references have been changed suitably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.184.171 (talk) 09:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I offended you

I appreciate your feedback, and to clarify: I'm not trying to be snarky. But you were right to point out I'm irritated. Because I am trying to work within Wikipedia standards and have revised the article multiple times in order to adhere to them. My response was legitimately honest and not meant as sarcasm on every point I made: there are multiple citations from verifiable, secondary, trustworthy sources. And I'm leaving this comment here not because I hope you'll accept my argument. But because otherwise I'm just taking what you say and agreeing with your rationale when I don't do that. It is 100% valid what you say about not wanting pages immediately deleted, plus pretty much every other feedback I've received during this process tonight. But that doesn't change that I disagree with it. To me it seems more like I submitted the page wrong the first way, and had I not done that, it wouldn't have been as easily subjected to numerous rejections afterward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheresaVonDoom (talk • contribs) 08:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@TheresaVonDoom 99% of folk's first submissions are incorrect, and that is absolutely fine. Reviewers have individual, sometimes different, opinions. That is fine, too. It's important that this is an iterative process, and important that different eyes view things.

The problem is that a journalist's work itself does not make them notable. What makes them notable its what others say ''about them and their work''. If you are confident that the draft is as good as you can make it in that regard then I hope the next reviewer accepts it. He does appear to be notable.

I wish you genuine good luck Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Herald.Wales

The references are what one would expect form news services reporting in a new news service, that us WP:MILL

I don't really understand the point you're making, please advise on how to rectify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PembsBoi69 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@PembsBoi69 then it is not yet notable. see Wikipedia:Too soon Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent please explain how a news service that launched after us has achieved 'notability': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_National_(Wales) thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by PembsBoi69 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@PembsBoi69 No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy

Please explain "after us" Are you a staff member? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 12:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent �I am a staff member and have made sure to inform Wikipedia of that status when creating the article (writing about something you're attached to etc.) we have provided various references, none of which come from 'in-house' articles either. What further sources do you require? Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PembsBoi69 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@PembsBoi69 We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are 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 this article 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.

Please sign your posts

Where have you made this declaration? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 12:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@User:Timtrent I made this declaration upon creating the article. I feel that I have provided references that cover every fact referred to in the article from third party websites, would our own coverage of the same facts class as valid references? PembsBoi69 (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@PembsBoi69 Then feel free to resubmit it for review. I do not re-review drafts unless the circumstances are very special. Other eyes will assess your draft.

I do not see the declaration anywhere. It must be in accordance with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 12:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@User:Timtrent I am unable to add the declaration {{connected contributor (paid)}} to this article now, every time I try to edit the article I am being asked to create it from scratch, how can I access the original article to add the declaration if it's no longer there? PembsBoi69 (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@PembsBoi69 Draft talk:Herald.Wales exists. I placed that template there for you.WHty you need to do is to place {{paid}} on your own user page, which does not yet exist. If this is causing you a problem I will do that if you ask me to. User pages `re usually the 'property' of the user concerned.

You will see I have requested other eyes on the draft Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Request on 08:24:42, 27 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by YousepThoma

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

The rights of this work belongs to me and this is not a copy. We don't have other copyright licenses that tells the author will take the responsibility of intentional errors and at the same time it safeguards both author/copyright holder and user . All my works cited in community sites uses this license.

YousepThoma (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@YousepThoma We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are 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 this article 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. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Hello, Timtrent, I have removed 03 references and Cited 02 references per fact asserted for tracking online data. Thank you, Carolyn Hodges (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)