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.
You declined this draft and the author is asking for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronic music#Underscores article. It looks like there's a very good case for notability here. You've also given them the impression that they need to remove iffy sources in order to gain AFC approval. I'm inclined to give them my take, let then know AFC standards vary by reviewer and accept the draft. Let me know if you have any comments before I proceed down this path. ~Kvng (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Before I created this page, I looked at the condition of the page then I looked at the previous discussion on deletion evaluation. and I see the draft page is protected. then i tried to contact user Liz because she said if you want to make a draft page contact her? I made an article about him, it doesn't mean I have any relationship with the previous user. thanks have slandered me. Bye Nyonyalita (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia but I understand how to edit it because I keep learning even though I'm new. on idwiki I was slandered by one of the users and on enwiki I was also slandered by you. this made me stop editing Wikipedia. Thank you, I said goodbye. It makes me sick to be slandered like this. Nyonyalita (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Second Battle of Ilorin
Thank you for removing the AFC template, which I forgot to do. As you can see, this was a special easy case as repeated moves to article space go, because the author is two blocked sockpuppets, so that there is no one who is likely to contest the PROD, and I can use PROD rather than AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Oh of course none of us would ever misinterpret anything, lol. I just did not want you (or anyone) to think I was topic banned from something. A bad redirect decision, fair enough to call out even if in this case it was not me, it could have been. But behavioural issues resulting in a topic ban...not I. :) S0091 (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
S0091 I agree. I was more than surprised! With my advance agreement please feel at liberty to recdact, edit or delete anything whatsoever in the AFC comment that gives you cause for concern. Quote this diff if you feel you need to.
I do not believe it was a bad redirect decision. At that time it was a correct decision, one which circumstances overtook. Might it have been better to decline it? I will rate that as a definite "Perhaps!" but it is immaterial. Redirect was a good call. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
This is not nearly a big enough deal to redact or anything like that. I think the comments are sufficient but I appreciate your consideration. You are a good egg, Timtrent! :) S0091 (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Sometimes "they", either paid editors or ultras, would be better off to leave the draft in draft space than to push it into article space, where it shows up in the category of having been moved into article space. Sometimes the end result is a deletion. Even if the end result is another draftification, the AFD remains, as a finding of fact against the subject. Sometimes "they" think that they are more clever than they are. (Another way that "they" sometimes think they are clever is in changing the spelling or capitalization of titles.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi Tim, I will take your suggestions into account by adding more reliable sources and will try creating a more detailed article with acceptable sources.
My question is actually regarding your comment - about the two deletions and the draft not being notable. Is there anything I can do about those points and if that remains a key reason behind the rejection is it even possible to get a article on the subject matter (Petzone) accepted. Averus19 (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
@Averus19 Notability: 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.
Because it has been deleted twice before you have to show that this draft is substantially different from the prior drafts which you cannot see.You could ask the deleting admin to reveal them to you 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
The sources I tried getting were few of the only sources I could find, but yes they might not be reliable enough. I found some others but their mention of the subject matter is (seemingly) accurate but minimal. Should I just wait and check at a later date for more informative sources to come out? What would you suggest? Averus19 (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Do you know what there is about this article that is causing so many editors to come to the AFD to say Delete? We think that it needs deleting, but we don't usually see so many people swarm in to say Delete. There may be a backstory. The nominator, who was also the draftifier, is not one of the regular reviewers, and neither are the !voters. Are they all Australians? At this point, what I want is for the discussion to continue for six more days, because if it is closed early, based perhaps on a weather forecast for Tierra del Fuego, the author is likely to go to Deletion Review, which will be more of the same. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon I am as perplexed as you are. It is a totally non notable street, except to those who live in it. I can't even recall why I arrived there! I have offered a further comment related to the process, not the notability 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
You probably arrived the same way as I did, from Articles for Creation in article space. I think that snow closing a deletion discussion in which there is one noisy minority participant runs the risk of just moving the discussion to DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
I have a feeling I have crossed path with the user before, I have only rejected two articles in the past 3 weeks I guess. Not sure what to do. What do you advise? Jamiebuba (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
@Jamiebuba I often ignore such things. We attract abuse because we say 'no' to people. I use militant politeness and talk to them very sweetly if I respond at all. They usually have an axe to grind, and I choose to be impervious to their unpleasant blandishments.
However, the accusation of racism means you might use ANI if you feel upset or offended. Always be aware of WP:BOOMERANG if you do. All behaviours are examined when a report is made. I imply nothing about you by that statement.
I have no intentions of filling a report at ANI. Wikipedia obviously doesn't do oral tradition as such makes the notability of the subject in question. Thanks for the advice, really appreciate. Talk soon again :) Jamiebuba (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
@Jamiebuba I find musicians difficult to assess unless clear cut, so choose to take no part in the discussion (keep vs delete). I see a theme of accusation of bias, however.
Were I to see this levelled against me I would check my rationale to make sure there is no unconscious bias in my thinking. If I were to find it I would either seek to correct it or walk away from the area where I might be accused it.
Nigeria is a difficult arena. There are a great many editors there who have an erroneous belief that their topic is notable when it is not, and we have to be very careful to treat every article or draft there with particular care, because a great many other editors there are correct about their topic's notability. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
LOL this is truly an opener. The problem am having is that, 1. some of these sources which they use are pay-to-play even the ones we consider reliable and are listed as reliable sources. I've come across a website once in the course of review where they advertised "Get featured on top news websites for just $500" and at the end the result from such articles are promotional jargons. Well, i'll do what i can on my own end. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
@Jamiebuba You may need to express (eg) UPE thoughts via paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for example. I have not seen Celestina007 since she tripped up end fell badly dealing with UPE and other interesting practices in that arena. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
I've come across her a couple of times in the past. She hasn't been on in a while, i hope she's fine. I'll send them an email soon, thanks again. Jamiebuba (talk) 08:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi Timtrent in respect of our conversation at Articles for creation/Help desk On [[1]] here are three references as requested, all are from reliable sources.
Nigerian Tribune[2]The Nation (Nigeria)[3] and The Sun (Nigeria)[4]. Thank you for giving me a listening ear, I appreciate. I would have add more references on over 15 local/ international invites/ recognition he received due to his inventions. But to avoid WP: Citeoverkill I withdraw, but if you request for it I will gladly provide aswel. Bruce954 (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
@Bruce954 That isn't what I asked for. I asked you to remove WP:CITEKILL and if I remember correctly, WP:BOMBARD, so I am not ready to look at this draft yet. When you do it then I will do what I said.
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. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your feedback on Igun Street.
I have now addressed the issue of not meeting guidelines for linking to external pages on Wikipedia and deleted them apart from the one produced by the Nigeria government. I hope that this is sufficient.
Can you please delete the template message now? Or do I have to do it? Please let me know.
I will have a go then I will let you know when I have done it.
However I won't be able to work on it for a couple of days. If you are free to touch it up before then I will very much appreciate it. You have already done such a great job on that page.
I adjusted some things and removed a source that used the term "announces". I also added some more sources. The sources that I currently have in the draft are not, evidently, announcements or PR pieces. They seem much more likely to be Human-interest story, Feature story, and discussion via interview, especially given the celebrity status, publication notoriety and appeal involved. I edited reference order to reflect strongest sources, as well as feature journalism and discussion. Are you able to see the new draft, look at the sources, and give feedback? (or do I need to resubmit first?) Happy to discuss and make changes accordingly. Thanks Anonamistad (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
@Anonamistad I think you have missed something. Interviews with the subject (or members of the overall subject) are primary sources because they are said by the subject, and are thus not independent of the subject.
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.
I went ahead and removed that primary source as well as minor SELFPUBS from their artist page and newsletter.
As for WP:Secondary, Hypefresh, Tinnitist, The Hype Magazine, and 24Hip-Hop work as WP:Secondary as well as pass WP:RS. They are Google News sources that have been used widely on WP, certainly independent of the subject, and surely with editorial standards. Those articles don't seem to lean on an apparent interview, but focus on providing thought and reflection based on primary sources, analyzing, evaluating, interpretating, and/or synthesizing of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources (definition via WP:Secondary). I will keep in mind the importance of secondary sources and add/update them as I find them.
There certainly seems to be enough here to approve for now. Ive seen much less sourcing, of any kind, for many other music artist articles. From this most recent publish, there is a balanced mix of WP:Secondary, WP:RS, and limited WP:Primary. Looking forward to further feedback and your thoughts. Thanks Anonamistad (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Greetings. I write because I don't know how to write a proper critic in the Reception section. Besides, I may not write the plot properly. Therefore, if you want, you edit that article in my place. You have my permission. Thank you so much. Fico Puricelli (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
@Fico Puricelli Thank you, but I will forego that opportunity. If it were a topic that interested me I might have had a go at it. It isn't an area I specialise in. I can review it, but have no interest in researching it nor writing it. Posting a request at WP:TEAHOUSE might help, though. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
A helping hand
The Helping Hand Barnstar
Thanks for taking OlifanofmrTennant under your wing and working with her. There have been some mistakes made that, while watching from the wings, I see as primarily inexperience combined with overeagerness. As things imploded for her in various areas, I think you've done a good job of balancing an understanding view with showing proper steps in the process. Hopefully, she'll stick around and grow into a useful contributor to the project. Thanks for your efforts! ButlerBlog (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
That was truly delightful and wholly unexpected. But definitely deserved. She might enjoy your good wishes on her talk page. You're probably right! I'll look at what might be an appropriate outreach there. As noted, I've watched this from the wings. I had a QF on a GA review from her that was invalid, and I did chalk it up to inexperience. But it's what made me look at other contributions. I watched the ANI and the AfC discussions and chose to stay out of it as there was no need to muddy the discussion. She's also got an ongoing discussion re: some copyvio/attribution issues. All of it is very apparent that she's eager to participate in the project in a meaningful way but doesn't have a complete grasp of the policies and, more importantly, the culture. Obviously, that can be learned (we all have to start somewhere). I wanted to recognize your efforts because you not only did that act of kindness, but you also took the time to re-review the AfCs and point out what should be done (i.e. giving an example for her). So thanks again! ButlerBlog (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
You also mentioned that I should remove "simple announcements." Could you be a little more specific, please? I'm not sure what you'd like me to remove.
This picture is handled on Wikimedia Commons, where it has been deleted by an administrator who decided that my view was correct.
Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather than the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via c:COM:VRT
Obviously the publicist did not (yet?) provide you with the right to upload the picture to WIlimedia Commons, or you do not understand copyright, or both.
Now, those announcements. The very first reference is an announcement. It's also a course blurb, a flannel panel, a PR piece, puffery. Perhaps Ms Singer could suggest wine to go with the trout? I'm going to pan fry it in butter. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
@TimTrent Ah, you've got quite the knack for humor! 🤣
We've found ourselves in a copyright conundrum, haven't we? You've got a point, though. Copyright can be as tricky as deciphering hieroglyphics on a Monday morning. It's all about that photographer wielding the mighty copyright scepter. 📸👑
As I'm sure you can tell, I'm a newbie. Editing Wikipedia is like navigating a maze with a blindfold. I was under the impression that everything must be referenced. Since that is not the case, I will remove the "simple announcements." I'll also seek to rectify the copyright problem. 🕵️♂️
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.
I hope that helps you to gain a better understanding of what a reference really is.
Greetings! I am not the original author of Draft:List of songs written and produced by Woozi, but I was watching it and noticed you declined it for being "impossible to verify" and needing secondary sources, which I am a bit confused about. I believe the list was sourced from KOMCA, which is certainly a reliable source. I don't have access to the albums' liner notes, but the list entries can certainly also be verified from there, as has been done on featured lists such as List of songs written by J-Hope and List of songs written by Bruno Mars. Still, liner notes are primary references, so I'm not sure what needs the secondary sources you are referring to. Thanks ⇒ Luminous Person (talk)18:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Re: Rejection of Lilias Fraser Draft Article
Dear Reviewer
You have objected to my use in my draft wikipedia article on Lilias Fraser of parts of the obituary of her published in the Sydney Morning Herald. You state this is on grounds of copyright. I wrote that obituary and the copyright rests with me. If you look at the bottom of the article at https://www.smh.com.au/national/through-the-lens-determinedly-20041119-gdk57t.html you will see my name. Is this still an issue? Are there any other problems? Thanks for any help or advice you can give.
RE Draft article Lilias Fraser
Dear Tim Trent
You rejected the article on Lilias Fraser on grounds of my use of phrases from copyright material appearing in her Sydney Morning Herald Obit [1]
As you will have seen at the bottom of the article, that obit was written by me. It is my copyright.
I am not at all a proficient user of wikipedia and not sure what to do now. Also does the draft have any other problems? Any help you can give me would be greatly appreciated.
ThanksMartha1 (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Martha Ansara (hope this time I have signed this correctly and you will get it
-- End of message -->Martha1 (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Draft: Lilias Fraser -- Apologies
My apologies Tim,
I believe you have edited my draft article about Lilias Fraser -- and obviously you knew I had written the SMH obit. I have tried to compare the two and my brain just doesn't do it! If you have fixed the wikipedia draft, that's great. It reads well as it is now. If you haven't edited it to get rid of the problem, again I'd appreciate your advice. I hope I never write another article!!! But if I do, I understand that I can't quote myself without attribution. Again, I'm sorry to be a pain.
And thanks for your work.
@Martha1 First, what a horrible mess. You seriously expect me to read every single one of these messages and work out what you want? That is rhetorical.
Second, did you link to the item concerned? No. And you still expect help? That is also rhetorical.
This means that you are already causing me grief.
The article has been declined, not rejected. You may work on it and resubmit when ready.
You say that you are Martha Ansara, and you most probably are. This is the internet, and you can be anyone. So if it is 90% probably that you are Ansara, it is 10% probable that you are someone else.
I have edited the draft article you submitted. This shows you when I did so. I have redacted a number of copyright violations, and shown this in the text. You say "It reads well as it is now", but that means you have not checked it, because it does not. It requires editing. Please do not put the copyrighted material back, neither verbatim, nor with attribution. Write it differently without using close paraphrasing, which is also a breach of copyright.
Are there other things awry with the draft? I stopped reviewing after redacting the copyright violations. Fraser is potentially a notable person. Your job, by dint of what you write and by referencing, is to show that, so go to it with a will.
However, if your intent is to write Fraser's memorial, please read WP:NOTMEMORIAL. We want dull-but-worthy, factual prose, with citations. For citations please read WP:42.
I hope you do write other articles, edit other articles. Writing a biography is probably the hardest thing we can do here, so you have had a baptism of fire. Maybe I've been a little brusque, a little hard om you, but, and thus is fundamental, Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. The easiest way to be blocked is to repeat uttering copyright violations. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 02:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Heading for editor who seems not to understand headings
- ""International Journal of Social Economics moved to draftspace"". This happened because sources were lacking. But after sources had been added, the article was again moved to draftspace. Please let me know why it is not ready for wikipedia, and what changes are necessary.Chrisf1980 (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC) comment added by Chrisf1980 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Could you please provide instructions here? You say they are clear but I do not understand. (I mean: there are 2 references now, indicating that (1) the journal is ranked 44 in the Scimago Journal & Country Rank and (2) it has an impact factor of 1.533. What other information is needed?) Chrisf1980 (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
@Chrisf1980 I have taken pity on you and found it.
First, though, read the notice here at the head of this page. It's up at the top, in plain sight.
It is not even complete. Placing it in Mainspace was premature. You have an empty section.
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 compare your two chosen references against that quality scale
Two references is unlikely to be sufficient
I had two choices. Send to WP:AFD or send back to Draft. The mechanism I chose gives you time to improve this in peace and quiet. Work well and diligently and do not create yet another version.
By posting a message as a part of another thread you hijacked that thread, and made a mess on my talk page; I had to create a heading to separate your message from that of another editor. That is not an endearing trait. By failing to link to the draft you did not help me to help you. Luckily I relented. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi there! I appreciate you reviewing my Feb 2023 draft, Draft:FKP Scorpio. I almost felt like it was going to disappear into the ether. Your eyes on quality are much appreciated.
I believe I have tidied up the references and ensured they meet the rigourous requirements. I have removed any dead links and/or replaced with archive links, I believe all passing mentions have passed on, and as for PR pieces: it's hard in the tour promotion industry to find pieces that don't read as PR. It's quite a dry world from what I understand. However I believe these references were only used for factual information about acquisitions.
I just wanted to ask, before I submit the draft for re-review, is there any more specific feedback you have about the draft or was it entirely just the referencing?
@Daylon124 I see you have made several edits since the review. Even so you do not appear to have corrected the referencing.
If FKP Scorpio is a notable business then people will have said things about it. These things will not be said by it, but about it. And they will not have been said in press releases. As an example, your current references 2-5 are press announcements or from their own site. This cannto be accepted in this state. Please check 100% of the references, and remove any press releases. They verify nothing. They are what the org wishes to say about itself.
Once you have done that then your text will change to reflect the remaining references and any new ones you choose. This means I cannot say whether references are the only problem. O do not know what the finished draft will be. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 02:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
@Timtrent Thanks for your quick response. I believe the majority of the references are about FKP and not by them but I will look at replacing the ones you mentioned before re-submitting the draft. daylon124 (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi,
I was wondering how this draft does not meet the criteria for an entry. There thousands of independent articles about Kristian Leth online, reviews of his work, interviews and mentions of his live performances - and he has received multiple International and National awards. I might be misunderstanding the criteria, but isn't that exactly what they are looking for?
Spacebo80 Spacebo80 (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
@Spacebo80 We need excellent references. IMDB may not be used, not may any user generated site. 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. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the detailed reply. I have updated the entry with secondary and independent sources, articles, interviews, reviews from National Danish newspapers, broadcasters, composers' unions and International film festivals. Does that fullfill the criteria? Best. Spacebo80 (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Good distinction. There are a couple of interviews now, though used for the editorial remarks. I will find secondary sources for those places too. Best. Spacebo80 (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
@Spacebo80 "significant coverage" is usually considered to be three or more sensible paragraphs, though written well and about the topic. It's a matter of thinking "What would my English teacher say about these paragraphs?" 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Right. So numerous newspaper articles reviewing works or talking about records or publications by the subject should be the right kind of material. Right?
@Greghenderson2006 I know what it would be used for. I am concerned about a number of things, not least of which is that the titles given in the template appear to me to be deceptive. An additional concern is that such a template would have an effect of appearing to legitimise the walled garden that Drmies and others are investigating. I am also interested since you are blocked from Article space in how you might deploy the template, since you cannot. This last makes any acceptance pointless in my view. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Can you explain how the title is deceptive? It is simply a template with the same title as the California Historical Landmarks in Santa Clara County. The template would be used as a listing of the landmarks for navigational purposes, which is common as with other templates. The wallled garden has nothing to do with the template. The walled garden that others were talking is for creating too many articles on the same subject, e.g. Carmel-by-the-Sea. The articles for Santa Clara County were already created for landmarks and the template just makes it easy to get to them from an article page. I am temporarily blocked for not disclosing paid contributions. Once the block is removed, I, or anyone can can place the template on an aritlce so they can navigate between landmarks, just as it is done now with the Template:California Historical Landmarks in Calaveras County, California. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
@Greghenderson2006 Read the titles in your template and read the titles of the articles. An example is Old site of Mission Santa Clara de Asis and Old Spanish Bridge. I see that as deceptive.
As for undisclosed paid editing, please be aware that this is a practice I despise.
The title names in the template are just a copy of what is on the landmarks page. I agree, but the title on the landmarks page need to change in that case. For example, "Old site of Mission Santa Clara de Asis and Old Spanish Bridge," was not created by me. It was created on the landmarks page to describe the landmark on the Memorial Cross Park page. Since I can't change the landmark page, I could change the template to just point to the page where the landmark is described. What do you think?
I am sorry about the undisclosed paid editing. It was my fault not to disclose it. I've learned my lesson, and I am hopeful the block will be uplifted soon. I've written over 400 articles and want to abide by the rules of Wikipedia.
@Greghenderson2006 Regarding your final point, since it is the work of moments to make the disclosure, and since you did not, I find that want to abide by the rules of Wikipedia to be less than impressive. That you have written over 400 articles suggests to me that Drmies and colleagues have over 400 articles to check, plus other edits. That is a vast amount of unnecessary work, caused by you.
This obscures other points that you make. You have been blocked for the reason in the block log. The fundamental words are "highly problematic COI editing". We are then referred to your user talk page, where the totality of the issue has not yet been determined.
If you want to abide by the rules of Wikipedia, then you should have already abided by the rules of Wikipedia. You find my ear to be unsympathetic. My assumptions of good faith do not stretch to perpetrators of UPE. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Timtrent, my bucket of good faith is empty. I blocked them from main space and don't want to block them altogether, but the editor can't seem to stop digging. I'm kind of waiting for this to show up on ANI (it's likely that Netherzone and/or Melcous are pondering this already) where, I have no doubt, an INDEF request is likely to succeed. Thanks for your work here, Drmies (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
@Drmies I feel the major issue is that they do not appear to have acknowledged the totality of what they have done. I am unimpressed by what I see as dissembling in their answers. I agree with you that they appear to have no idea of when to remain silent, nor of when to work with others to put matters right.
I think you might be reacting too strongly. Many of my articles have undergone review, and I have earned Autopatrolled status as a result. While I acknowledge that there have been issues with COI editing in the past, I have learned from those mistakes and am committed to moving forward. I want to emphasize that I am not someone who intentionally engages in wrongdoing or harmful actions. It would be great if you could be more understanding of my efforts to improve. My intentions are genuinely positive. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
@Greghenderson2006 I think there is no purpose in your continuing this conversation. You do not have the ability to change my mind. I find it impossible to see what you say as verifiably correct. Please cease and desist from posting on my talk page. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm going to jump in here and say that in re-reviewing your articles that were written when you had autopatrolled status, myself, @Melcous, and @Graywalls have found a great deal of puffery, promo, original research and content that does not match the sources. It's been hours and hours of time, and we have just begun this task of clean up, going thru a few dozen articles so far. Additionally, Greg, you are inundating us with edit requests, and challenging our analyses left and right. Please kindly remove your fingers from your ears. "There's nothing wrong with my editing!"Netherzone (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
@Netherzone That deluge seems to me to be tantamount to WP:POINT, and disruptive editing. Were I an admin I might be considering a mainspace talk page block, certainly while reviewing the mess. Of course I do not know if that is a type of block available to admins. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Just a query and a reply to you assessment of this draft. While I would not argue with your assessment that the draft is too soon and does lack secondary coverage, I would ask you to re read the draft as some of the comments you have left indicates that you have not read thoroughly / understood the content of the draft:
1. "B" is in reference to the competition being the second tier of the European Championships (stated in lead) and is linked to the competition Rugby League European Championship B to which the draft is about the 2023 edition.
2. The article doesn't not suggest the entirety of the champions has six teams. It states the the 2023 edition of the B Championship has six team as that is what the article is about - the 2023 edition only - hence the title.
3. Yes there is an A tier of the championship (see the see also section), a navigation template could be useful (if someone knows how to make one), but any excessive coverage of Championship A shouldn't be on this article as it's not something you see commonly on Wikipedia e.g. there isn't extensive coverage of the 2023–24 UEFA Champions League on the 2023–24 UEFA Europa League page just because the Europa League is second tier. (Which brings to a late point).
4. The article clearly states in lead that the competition is postponed with no date given so I don't understand your comment that once clarification is done to what "B" mean matches will have started. (Which as explain in point 1, it should be clear to what B refers to).
Finally, eluded to in point 3, the draft content here was part of 2023 Rugby League European Championship A be for the article was split because the two competitions are "notably seperate", the 2023 Rugby League European Championship B article was then AfDed for failing notability. So ignoring the hypocrisy of this, maybe this content should be put back on the Championship A article until the competition actually can be sourced well enough to be it's own article, given that the Championship A is also postponed. Mn1548 (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
@Mn1548 Now, if the draft were to say all that, albeit briefer, then I would not have had the chance not to understand the points you have made.
The issue is that you know all this, but a casual reader does not. I am that casual reader. I understand articles, and I expect them to tell me about the content. If I miss things, even if they were in it that means it isn't clear enough. Don't let things go over the reader's head. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
The thing is the article does say all that, granted point 3 could be clearer as there is nothing explicit in the lead. But point 1 - explicitly stated in the first two sentences of the lead (with necessary links), point 4 - explicitly stated in the third and final sentence of the lead. Point 2 - explicitly stated in the infobox (also how team numbers is presented in pretty much every sports competition article on Wikipedia). I'm not bringing this up to have a go, but I do not see how points 1, 2, and 4 could be made any clearly, they are written in a way same as any sports competition article on Wikipedia. Mn1548 (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I wanted to ask you for some feedback on the Irvine Iqbal page. I do not understand what you need more to make this page live. I know that there are claims but they are reference.
@HAMZJAHANZEB Please confirm that you have read the notice left on the draft and at your own talk page. It may be that you have a specific question about it. It will be easier to answer specifics that the general question you have asked me. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Whoops, just saw this and I think we edit conflicted. I'd prefer consensus and a CU to stop the disruption, but will close AfD if you draftify. No strong feelings, just figured it might be firmer close. StarMississippi14:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
I feel the same about you @Timtrent. Always a pleasure to collaborate, although I wish it was about less spammy stuff and more interesting articles. Took care of the revision deletion you requested. Have a good one! StarMississippi14:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Star Mississippi Since I spend most of my time at AFC unless there is a rare occasion when I find an article to wrote, we will always trip over each other n the seamy side of the project, I think.
I also spend a fair bit of time hunting down incorrectly(!) licenced files at Commons. AFC leads me there. I wish more reviewers would follow the pictures when they review a draft 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Feedback
Hi @Timtrent Thank you for your commitment towards making sure the Waya article is up to standard. Sadly, it wasn't up to based on your final review which I have no objections to. Consequently, I have lost interest and would want to move on and focus on other projects. Learning for me is one thing I am passionate about, I admire your research rigor and would love to work with you. Can you suggest any topic or projects that we can do together on this platform? Peaxman (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
@Peaxman Writing a biography is the hardest task to perform successfully on Wikipedia. You have done a good first pass at it, and, if you are diligent, can achieve Waya's biography. I truly suggest you continue with it. He's an interesting character, tinged with criminality.
One thing you might wish to do is to look for stub articles and see how well you can expand them. Small improvements to start with lead to bigger improvements.
The key is always starting with references and then writing the fact that the reference cites, obviously in your own words.
I had given up already and wanted to move on but with words like this, maybe I can try. I will wait for the decision to dratify on the deletion page. I don't want to do it myself looking at your last advice on dratification. If it is successfully dratified by someone else, I will give it one last try. Thank you for your encouragement. I am Learning alot so far in my wikipedia journey and loving it. Peaxman (talk) 06:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
@Peaxman There is nothing to prevent you from improving the article while you wait. With diligence it is likely that you can save it. The first thing to do is to take out the trash. What I think you have done is written the article and then found references to suit.
Find good references about Waya. To remind you, 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.
Hi @Timtrent I have taken time to take out the trash. I focused on areas where concerns where raised. I removed primary sources as you advised. Merged two sections into one to avoid fluffy statements then renamed the single section with a much objective name. I also added a few references that I could find on the internet. Took out self-reports. I found a document online for the claim of being appointed board chairman and added the link to it. I hope I am right with that. You can take one last look. I have exhausted my research on the subject. You can also verify the links to be sure. I think this should suffice. If this doesn't save it from deletion, I guess I am going to disappear to the Bahamas for a long holiday away 😀😀 Peaxman (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
@Peaxman The answer is by finding references. 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. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
@OlifanofmrTennant When I load that page I see clear !votes. The first seven have not closed yet. The remaining three you agreed with the outcome for one, disagreed on one and missed one completely. Am I missing something?
I was about to do that--thanks. I'm going to look into it later today, and the connection with Bosun Tijani. Let me know if you have any thoughts or see anything. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
The range was airy enough, a /16, blocked for ages already. As far as I'm concerned some of those huge ranges in two specific parts of the world should just be hardblocked indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Timtrent. Thanks for taking a look at my submission and your feedback about overdoing my citations. anhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Branko_Brkic&action=edit -- I'm so hoping my edit has been saved correctly for review! I was nervous to hit "publish" as I didn't want to make that live before getting the resubmission review...would you let me know if you are able to see my edits or if I should be hitting "publish" for you to read my draft? Thank you @WofozWofoz (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
My, my. Hot on the heels of 'dubious editing pattern gate', we now have your money extortionating. You do get up to all sorts. :))) DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
I suppose it is the lot of a reviewer. I could get quite upset by this, but I choose not to. I have emailed the correct email address under WP:SCAM asking for a speedy resolution, and I hope the editor complaining presents their evidence in a timely manner. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't think anyone for a moment takes it seriously, other than possibly the complainant in question (and even that I'm not sure about). But yeah, it's hardly the sort of excitement you need or want. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
@DoubleGrazing If no evidence is presented I shall feel quite vindictive! I will, of course, never know
To avoid acting upon that I have already asked 331.... to act as the editor to whom an appeal should be made about rejection, and I will ignore Editcloud so far as is possible 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
The modus operandi is really obvious, so I didn't even consider the accusation. These scammers impersonate editors everyday, but there's not much that can be done other than reporting to WMF T&S and paid-en@. Best, MarioGom (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
@MarioGom Thank you for the kind words. I made an immediate report to paid-en@ and have had a lovely and productive and supportive conversation with the legal team. It's always the right thing to trust the processes and not to get bent out of shape over things like this. No stain attaches to my editing here.
My decision to stand back from AFC until the dust has settled is a pragmatic one. AFC needs to be seen to be above reproach. Thus we need to react well when accused of impropriety.
Whether the accuser is a potential victim of a scam or a scammer themselves trying heavy bluff, that is for others to determine. I am not interested inn them or the organisation they are trying to promote. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
.svg)
Done Good catch. Thank you 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
