User talk:Timtrent

Click here to leave a new message, LINK to any article you want me to look at And sign your posts using ~~~~. I may not bother with posts where articles are not linked and posts are not signed. I may just delete them and ignore them and you. I do not review drafts on request, nor, normally, do I review a draft more than once, so please do not ask If you want me to do something for you, make it easy for me, please.

This is the home account for Fiddle Faddle, which is both my nickname and my alternate account. When you begin a new message section here, I will respond to it here. When I leave message on your Talk page, I will watch your page for your response. This maintains discussion threads and continuity. See Help:Talk page#How to keep a two-way conversation readable. If you want to use {{Talkback}} or {{ping}} to alert me about messages elsewhere, please feel free to do so.

It is 7:33 AM where this user lives. If it's the middle of the night or during the working day they may well not be online. For accurate time please the page

I do not remove personal attacks directed at me from this page. If you spot any, please do not remove them, even if vile, as they speak more against the attacker than against me.

Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page stalkers.

In the event that what you seek is not here then it is archived (0.9 probability). While you are welcome to potter through the archives the meaning of life is not there.

Hello, you re leaving an impression of witch hunting. Can you just stop.

Hello, you re leaving an impression of witch hunting. Can you just stop please. Are you the only reviewer on Wikipedia? Frankincense Diala (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frankincense Diala: complete nonsense, and very much bordering on a personal attack. Please do not pursue this line any further.

And no, Timtrent is not the only reviewer on Wikipedia (even if he is one of the best); there are quite a few of us. Would you, perhaps, like me to review this draft next? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

If you think you are better of and of good conscience then go ahead please. Frankincense Diala (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frankincense Diala: I am most definitely not "better of" (sic), but I am a different reviewer, which is what you implicitly asked for. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frankincense Diala I would say that DoubleGrazing has skills at least as good as my own. They and I know what will, and what will not, be acceptable here. There are nuances of difference between us because we are individuals. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frankincense Diala The only reason you trip over me so often is that you transgress so often. You will find that Wikipedians follow things through. An example is that when I find breaches of copyright I try hard to find them all.

@DoubleGrazing You are very kind with the "one of the best" comment. Thank you. I don't feel I deserve it. Please do review this editor's draft next. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Breaches of Wiki Commons? Frankincense Diala (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frankincense Diala Commons matters are dealt with on Wikimedia Commons, where you are blocked for a week currently for copyright violations. That seemed to be the only way to get your attention there. However, I will not deal with this on Wikipedia, only on Commons. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frankincense Diala I expect you are complaining about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Growth Africa, too. Please offer policy based comments there if you wish. You are entitled to comment 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It's okay. I don't have a problem with you or that. I only feel you the Wiki administrators should help us grow in the Wiki Space, especially passionate editors like myself. Frankincense Diala (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frankincense Diala I am not an administrator. I am an ordinary editor, as you are. Even if I were an administrator there are no special privileges that role would grant me when reviewing drafts. Reviewers are simply experienced volunteers. Our duty is twofold:

• we have a primary duty to Wikipedia to accept only drafts which meet the needs of Wikipedia. This does not mean we have to like, nor to approve, of the topic, We apply the rules of WP:N and WP:V. We also look for good prose (subjective).
• we have a secondary duty to editors using the process to review openly, transparently, clearly, and honestly so that they may learn, if they choose to.

We are subject to community scrutiny and must be able to justify any review, any acceptance, any rejection.

You suggest you need to be helped to grow. I agree. And that is why I helped you with a substantial review of a draft. You then ignored this review and moved that draft to mainspace at 23:27, 4 July 2024. Then you moved it back to Draft on 06:34, 5 July 2024. I reinstated the review history. You removed the review history, which I reinstated with a request not do so again. You removed it again.

And still you disregarded the review and resubmitted it for further review.

Helping you seems to be like a game of whack a mole. You ask for advice, then you ignore it and do something else, or the same again. If you are going to learn to grow please take notice of the review and help you ask for.

Please put your energy and enthusiasm to good use and do the work required.

(@DoubleGrazing, do you have any advice or comments you wish to add?) 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Nothing to add, that seems a very good summary, and advice, and I certainly couldn't have put it so well myself; but thanks for asking. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I see. I didn't ignore the corrections. I went back to work and haven done the needed corrections to the best of my knowledge, I implore you to take a careful look at the draft and its citations. I specifically asked if you are conversant with Nigerian Authority Sites, because you will see the draft has got citations coming from reliable sources (with presence on Wikipedia even). I am willing to do more. Frankincense Diala (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frankincense Diala I disagree completely. You chose the action of resubmitting for review without dealing with the existing review. Ergo, you ignored the review. I may yet choose to give you further help, but will wait until you have handled the existing help first. The manner of your handling of it will inform my decision to help you further. This includes answering your questions. I am offended by your behaviour, both towards me and towards Wikipedia. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't agree with you either that I resubmitted without dealing with the existing to the best of my knowledge; gor instance, I was asked to remove "Research Gate" as s source and I did. And for the offense, I apologise. Frankincense Diala (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frankincense Diala You do not need to agree. Please see the evidence for all to see at the revision history where you will find it all set out in black and white.

I will consult with DoubleGrazing, and, if they have the time, interest and inclination, the will be able to confirm that your impression of the reality is not the reality. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't comment on whether Frankincense Diala felt that they had adequately addressed the reasons for the earlier decline, or for that matter whether they genuinely even understood those reasons (ie., the concept and interpretation of notability, in the Wikipedia context), but I can say that the resubmitted draft certainly still failed on the key decline grounds of notability: I don't think a single one of the sources cited counts towards the WP:GNG standard, and certainly not many enough to satisfy it. That's what this seems to me to essentially boil down to, and that's why the latest decline was ultimately correct. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Then you are not a Reviewer Frankincense Diala (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Then you are not experienced enough to be a reviewer to Bio of a Living Person Frankincense Diala (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frankincense Diala Forgive me for pointing out the blindingly obvious. You wish to learn and grow. However, when offered advice you resist, you insult. The advice @DoubleGrazing has given you is correct. The advice that I have given you is correct.

Comparing this with your expressed desire to learn and grow I find a serious disconnect.

I have run out of any ability to help you. Your actions are diametrically opposed to your words. I will spend no more time advising you. I will, however, insist on quality in the work you produce. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

You want to insist on qualities yet you see my opinion as insult when one of the qualities of sn editor in your position (reviewer) is to be patient and tolerant. Frankincense Diala (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frankincense Diala If you take a pace back from the fact that you are involved with some of my actions, and examine them dispassionately, you will find that they are calm, patient, and tolerant. I have worked hard to advise you patiently and with tolerance.

Once you stop fighting advice and reviews and start working collegially you will find things go far more smoothly for you.

While you have explained on your user talk page that you are not paid to edit here, and that you receive no reward, broadly construed, from your edits, this conversation is very similar to any with a WP:COI editor striving to force their opinion on Wikipedia, striving to force their draft, their way, into mainspace.

Please put your considerable efforts into correcting the draft and then resubmitting it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you Frankincense Diala (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Timtrent, I put a stop to the draft (your good advice went unheeded) and this section makes me think that the editor needs to be stopped as well. Hey, I appreciated the enormous amount of time and energy you put into draft review. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I smell fish with this editor. Good call. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: Forgot to ping 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Grangetown Boys Club F.C.

Morning, I’m quite unsure as to why Grangetown Boys Club F.C. has been moved to being a draft. Looks like the bulk of the article that was initially changed with something that was already a draft. My initial creation of the article certainly passes Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. Cheers. NouveauSarfas (Talk page) 10:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@NouveauSarfas I was, and remain, of the opinion that the article, as presented, did not pass. Your opinion differs from mine, and I will not obstruct any further action by you.

Thank you for contacting me. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @NouveauSarfas: as I've also come across these drafts (why two, BTW?), and remember thinking after a quick glance that notability wasn't there, I'm curious on what basis you're so sure that this "certainly passes"? Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: No idea what the second draft is about, however, Grangetown Boys Club were promoted to the Northern Football League Division Two - that certainly meets "England: Clubs that play or have played at step 6 of the National League System (level 10 of the English football league system), or in the FA Cup, FA Trophy, FA Amateur Cup or FA Vase generally meet WP:GNG criteria." as put out by WP:FOOTYN. NouveauSarfas (Talk page) 10:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@NouveauSarfas: oh okay, thanks for explaining. You'll note that FOOTYN is not a policy, but an essay. And it doesn't say that a club playing at step 6 is notable, only that for such a club sources are likely to exist which meet GNG. In other words, GNG is still the criteria that must be satisfied. I can't remember of the top of my head whether WP:NFOOTY said something about club notability, when it was still in force, but now that it no longer applies, WP:NTEAM clearly makes clubs subject to GNG.

Sorry, I thought you were working together with the author of the other draft, given the similar contents and timing. My bad, shouldn't make assumptions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: No worries, appreciate the explanation. NouveauSarfas (Talk page) 10:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

User talk:BrownHairedGirl

Just so you know, any automated Twinkle messages placed on that talk page usually gets reverted by plenty of other users. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 07:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan I kind of knew that. But thank you. I had not even noticed that she was the creator. She is someone I miss. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I have now realised that users who are about to start discussions about page creations don't know who the page creator is until you make the edit on their talk page. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 07:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan to be fair, we do (it may be an option in prefs), but we have to check, then we have to know, etc, etc. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Bilkis Bano

Hello, Timtrent. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Bilkis Bano, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)