User talk:Timtrent/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 → Archive 25

Tim, Should I go to Teahouse to get help with my post?

Tim, Should I go to Teahouse to get help with my post about Global Warming Deniers? I do wish to present facts, with references, and I do not want to break any rules inadvertently. I tried to post my pic on teahouse, but I got a message that I had not been "Approved" yet. I have made some minor changes to pages.. adding a reference, etc. I read that making more contributions is important.

BTW, I changed the page on Wikipedia that describes how to edit with a note to everyone how important it is to preview your post before Saving it. I found that there are hidden formats that can be disturbed inadvertently, for example.

Again, thank you for your help. Yes, I want to just present the facts, and they are very clear and simple today, so that should be easy. Still, I am not wanting to have to deal with Peer Review, so how do I avoid it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paullitely (talk • contribs) 05:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Paullitely: I think that to be an excellent idea.
When you say "I am not wanting to have to deal with Peer Review,", do you mean that you do not wish to go through the Wikipedia review process? Is so I can say clearly that you are entitled not to, and may, once your account has the right status, something it does after a set number of edits and an elapsed time period, create an article directly in the main article space.
Let me explain, though, why I think you should not do this.
Your article is contentious because it is in a contentious topic. It is written in such a manner that it would be subject to immediate deletion (0.9 probability), and that really hurts. The Wikipedia Articles For Creation review process is intended to guide you in the ways of WIkipedia and to help avoid the pain of deletion. No matter how many times an article is pushed back at review this hurts far less than being deleted.
There is one deletion process, WP:AFD, that prejudices the community against re-creation of the same article. If it were to be deleted by that route it would be very hard to re-create it. This has been created as a rule by consensus.
So yes, go to the teahouse. Ask for help. Take all the advice on board and all the help. Fiddle Faddle 07:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Tim,
What I was referring to with regards to peer review was a requirement I read somewhere here that if you include a publication, to check if it has been peer reviewed, and if not, it may not stand. if it has been peer reviewed, to go out and find and include the peer review info. I was not thinking of bypassing wikipedia peer review at all. Did I misunderstand this including or referencing publications peer review issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paullitely (talk • contribs) 09:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
No, you have it correct. Glad I misunderstood you.
BTW, no need to start a new section each time. Just follow the old thread and use the : character to achieve indents. Fiddle Faddle 09:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

AFC

Hi Fiddle Faddle,

Thank you for your suggestion. I have done a ton of work with sports-related articles and I know very well what and what isn't notable so I will bypass the AFC process if I know it will be notable enough. If I do create articles other than sports (which I rarely do), I prefer to send it to AFC to give suggestions. Thank you for volunteering your time to read my articles submitted to AFC. Robert4565 (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Smith Monitoring

Hi Tim, I believe I have updated the sources that you were questioning on my Smith Monitoring draft? Please let me know if there is anything else askew.

Thanks

Zain.siddiqui17 (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Zain.siddiqui17: I question http://www.inc.com/profile/smith-monitoring as a directory entry, same in a way with https://www.trustpilot.com/categories/security (yes, I know they lead the pack, but it is a passing mention only, not being about themexactly, http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/03/20/i-team-why-security-alarms-are-going-unanswered/ is barley more than a pasisng mention though it does mention their size. http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/05/10/dallas-based-alarm-company-providing-free-alarms-for-those-in-need/ is sort of about SMith, but it reports in a clever PR campaign. http://www.securitysystemsnews.com/blog/monitoring-company-employs-social-media-savvy-help-those-need is a blog, so it depends on the track record of the blog author, and it seems not to want t load for me anyway
There's a lot to referencing, isn't there? The upshot is that, if I reviewed it again I would not yet be ready to accept it. Yes, we have a high standard, but the objective is to make the article stick, not be deleted as soon as it arrives. Being deleted HURTS. Being asked to re-edit is simply a task to be done. Fiddle Faddle 16:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tim, I'm not sure what else I can take out in terms of the references? They are all the most reputable sources available to highlight the overview of our company. There aren't any articles written about Inc or Trustpilot, it just highlights the awards for our company. Would it be preferred that I remove that from the article altogether? The blog that you question 'securitysystemsnews.com' is a highly regarded website in our industry also. I am more than happy to change the article, I just don't have any other references. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zain.siddiqui17 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC) Zain.siddiqui17 (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Zain.siddiqui17: Try the links here: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. The problem is you may find that you are just not notable. I know that appears to suck, but, if solid references can;t be found, that is the conclusion one has to draw.
Now do not panic. I've given you an analysis as I see it. Others may form a different view. This is why I try not to re-revioew articles very often. The more eyes the better the advice. Maybe resubmitting would work here and you get lucky? I'm known for being picky, and that is no bad thing
Don't be in a rush to rip references away, but try, try and try again. There must be something in your state's major press about you?
One question to ask yourself "Why does the corp need a Wikipedia page?" Itls a serious question. Most business do not need (or even merit) one. You'll be in great company with or without a page. Fiddle Faddle 18:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Help With Wiki Draft

Hello, You reviewed my draft:

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

Can you please give me at least one concrete example of what you mean by "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations."? I do not understand whether you mean that the reference themselves are bad or that the way I cite them is bad.

Levygametheory (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Levygametheory: I did leave a fairly detailed comment below the box. If you have read that and still do not understand please come back to me and I'll try to do better. Fiddle Faddle 20:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, that clears. I wasn't sure if the comment was in addition to a problem with the way I did the citing or if that was the problem itself.

However, I'm afraid I still don't understand. For I quote from wiki policy:

"Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been vetted by one or more other scholars."

Hence, I do not understand why referencing a paper from a peer-reviewed journal - where I do little more than state what the paper demonstrates! - is not viable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levygametheory (talk • contribs) 21:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Levygametheory: As I said "However, a review of his work by others tends to be a review of him and his methods, so is a reference." The trick is to show that the paper has been peer reviewed. Complex or what? Fiddle Faddle 21:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

As you can see, all of the references pertaining to the "Research Contributions" (I assume the ones in the biography are OK, since although I do refer Neyman's personal CV I do so in addition to a multitude of other independent references) are from journals which are peer-reviewed to a high standard: Econometrica, Journal of Economic Theory, etc; reference 13 is a respected press (and, in any case, I only cite this book to state that Neyman has edited the book). From reference 10 onwards, all references except 12 (which is a technical report) are in journals that are well-known to be peer-reviewed - how could I possibly do more? For each journal I reference should I add a link to its homepage so one can see that it is is indeed a peer-reviewed journal?! I have never seen such a thing on wikipedia.

You can also see other pages, for example:

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

I cite references just as peer-reviewed as that one, or any of a hundred thousand other wiki pages on academics.

Levygametheory (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

If you are confident that your references are excellent then pace a comment at the head of the article saying that they are most definitely in peer reviewed journals (etc) and resubmit with leasure. Do not forget to sign the comment using ~~~~ which turns automagically into your signature. The ideal format for the comment is {{Afc comment|1='''Author's comment: <your words go here> ~~~~}}. Fiddle Faddle 21:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Econometrica

Econometrica is peer reviewed as appears here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econometrica Journal of economic theory here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Economic_Theory And so on. One only needs to brows Wikipedia to acknowledge that (assuming that Wikipedia is good enough to serve as source for that...). I have read your objections and have not yet seen any concrete example that the proposed page violates Wikipedia's regulations. Have any? Please educate me. Otherwise, why not publish? OEdhan (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@OEdhan: I think you have recently created an account. That's excellent. But I cannot determine what the article is that you have a query about. Please link to the draft article so I can answer your question. There is no way I can identify it otherwise. Fiddle Faddle 22:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah, light dawns. You have come to have a moan about an article I have been in discussions with the author about. It has been dealt with. What was the point, though? Is it important to you to restart a discussion that is over? Fiddle Faddle 22:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Roberta Joy Weir

Aloha TimTrent/FiddleFaddle: I've been working more on my piece "Roberta Joy Weir" Articles for Creation since it was declined; I hope that I have resolved the issues you brought up. After looking at the Catherine Clark Gallery article, I'm wondering if it would be more on point to make the article about the gallery instead of the person (though Betty Parsons was an artist before she was an art dealer...[1]). Thank you for your great enthusiasm for this sprawling behemoth of a project that is WikipediaP.g.duffy (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Aloha TimTrent/Fiddle Faddle, I managed to miss the subject line and posted a msg. to you that is now part of the previous post. I see what an amazingly involved soul you are in this process and I stand in awe. I hope I have been able to resolve the issues you raised with my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Roberta Joy Weir.P.g.duffy (talk) 01:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@P.g.duffy: As far as I can tell you have resolved the issues. The reference list is impossible for me to check. A preference, but not a rule is to have online versions of one's references available where possible. The reason is that we write for the ordinary reader, and they want to look at the references easily. But it is not compulsory. You do need more references, for each fact you assert. We have a higher stahdard of referencing for a living person thang for a thing. I try not to re-review articles so I won't pass by again, but you are welcome to ask my advice.
Should you write about the person or the gallery? Difficult. I suspect the answer is to write about both. The issue in each case is notability. For each you need sourcing from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS. For the person you need every fact you assert to be cited. For the gallery you need most of it to have references, but can get away with a stub article ( short, nit much content) with two good references.
So look for media coverage of each, see what sources exist, and edit the bio, create the gallery, based upon the sources you have. But make sure they are reliable sources
Reading User:Timtrent/A good article may be useful to you, too. Fiddle Faddle 07:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions; I do wish my subject had sought a bit more of the spotlight for herself and her role in things. Ms. Weir is known and referenced online in the Deadhead community, but I don't consider that anything more than passing mentions and not 'reliable sources'; I'll see if I can mine those sources for useful material. I certainly wasn't planning on burdening you to re-review my article, though I will seek your counsel again if that's ok.P.g.duffy (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
@P.g.duffy: Good hunting! And of course you may ask me things. I may not have the answers, though :)
I just read User:Timtrent/A good article and see that I have a ways to go yet...White is the new Black!P.g.duffy (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Olé! Or, perhaps, Café Olé! Fiddle Faddle 22:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Found a few online sources; now to figure out referencing them...thanks again!P.g.duffy (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Buldana Urban Cooperative Credit Society

Respected sir

thanks for your reply. Please don't delete the article. i will try my level best to add more references to the article. we are new to the Wikipedia we don't have clear idea to Wikipedia works..so please give us some time to add more references.

one more request sir it is possible to keep photograph of our chairman and managing director on our article. previously i placed but somebody deleted. if possible we will if not no problem. just kind request.

thanks & regards V S Dongre.

Vsdongre (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Vsdongre: I am not about to delete the article. I have given my opinion in favour of keeping it. Wikipedia works by consensus, and I think it is likely that the consensus will keep the article. Since you are new to Wikipedia, may I suggest WP:Mentoring to allow you to learn how it works.
I have no opinion on the photographs you mention
I have a feeling that you work for the organisation. May I advise you to leave the article to others now. You have a conflict of interest, something that was not important while it was a draft, but is now very important now it is a real article. Fiddle Faddle 23:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


Respected sir

Thanks for help 106.78.220.221 (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Admin help needed

I made a mistake accepting Megalocoelacanthus by instead accepting it as MCDinosaurhunter/sandbox and ether I or the AfC move process (probably not the latter) have/has created a redirect situation I cannot undo. The objective is to have the article at Megalocoelacanthus please.

I am obviously too tired to edit today! Fiddle Faddle 22:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done -- Diannaa (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Hello Tim,

Thanks for reviewing my second attempt at the Berkeley Partnership article. It's my first post so I'm still getting to grips with how to construct a decent and acceptable article. I will have a go at converting all in-line links to references and will remove the link to the FT.com article as it forces registration before letting you read. Annoying!

Cheers

Ahar78 (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ahar78: references behind forced registration are fine, though I happen to prefer not having them as references just to spite them! User:Timtrent/A good article may help you. Fiddle Faddle 12:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Maryann Krieglstein

Thanks you very much for your review. I just want to clarify: You're saying she is wp:notable but the article as written lacks proper independent citations? --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dkriegls: I believe the lady to be notable, yes. I think you just need to solve the referencing dilemma. I try hard not to re-review articles, so forgive me if I stand back having given you pointers. Fiddle Faddle 20:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I understand, you were beyond helpful. I assumed I was being over inclusive due to my COI (even if I tried my best not to). I will work on getting those better references (that mention her) and cut out the "blot" of info not supported by the references, and then ask some editors I've worked with before to reveiw it. I was avoiding working with editors I know because I didn't want my former relationship with them to be an issue with assessing my COI editing. An additional question if you don't mind: I'm new to the Articles for Creation process and was treating it as a "Peer Review" for a draft I had a major COI with, in order to get honest feedback. Do you see this as an appropriate use? I wasn't sure, as I almost never use Drafts, because I usually avoid COIs like the plague. Thanks --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 21:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
AfC is a great way of handling COI issues. One is somewhat protected from accusations of COI when one uses it. I think you chose wisely. Fiddle Faddle 21:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Great! Thanks and good to know. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I logged in on another PC, and it has an older version of my work in sandbox. How do I get to work on the same version?

Tim,

I logged in on another PC, and it has an older version of my work in sandbox. How do I get to work on the same version on this PC, or should I just stick to my laptop? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paullitely (talk • contribs) 06:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

@Paullitely: The sandbox is not, of course, stored on your PC or laptop. It seems as if you may be suffering form persistent cache in your browser. Since this is a local computer issue I do not have the expertise to help you. There has to be a way of clearing your cache on your local machine, but I do not know it. Fiddle Faddle 13:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Remotely fueled spacecraft propulsion

Tim, you have a comment on my article indicating that you need to be shown the work is not [WP:OR] I have responded to that, but I have not seen your presence back on the page in a couple days. If I could get you to return and either remove your comment about [WP:OR], or clearly point out a section that needs work, I would appreciate it.Matthewhburch (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

@Matthewhburch: I rarely review articles for a second time. My comment is there for you, primarily, and future reviewers second. Your job is to convince the world, not just me, that this is not original research. I have visited the page, yes, but see no further need to comment. It is the article that must convince future reviewers. My comment is there for historic reasons until such time as the article is accepted from the draft state.
The purpose of the draft and review process is to seek to ensure that articles are not proposed for deletion once they are accepted. Your draft would have been discussed to death and then deleted (0.9 probability). Having it pushed back to you one or more times for edit is painful, yes. Having it deleted really hurts badly. Trying to defend in a Wikipedia deletion discussion is not easy for new editors. The review process is a microcosm of the deletion process. The expected outcome is eventual acceptance of all but impossible articles. There are articles it is impossible to accept. Make sure yours is not one of them. Fiddle Faddle 21:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Tim, I need you to specifically indicate what it is that you see which you believe is [WP:OR]. If you cannot provide an example of what it is that you see as being [WP:OR], then I need you to remove the content and either accept the article, or provide another reason for delay that I can address. I do not believe that requesting that you be specific in an addressable manner is too much for me to ask. Matthewhburch (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I view the entirety of the article to be an essay and WP:OR. To be clear, that is all of it, 100%. My view is that you may be able to salvage it, but that it cannot be accepted in its current state.
You have resubmitted it for review. I suggest your route ahead is to await that review, a review which will look at the draft as it stands today. If the next reviewer shares or disagrees with my views, that is fine. My view is that the draft, as it stands today would fail at WP:AFD, were it to be in the main article namespace.
My comment forms part of the history of the reviews. It will not be removed. I may, at my sole discretion, offer further commentary later. Fiddle Faddle 21:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Is acceptance of articles into Wikipedia arbitrary? I would have thought that it would be based on the article. If you cannot describe the problem, then it's arbitrary. If you can describe the problem, than I ask you to do so. Matthewhburch (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Acceptance of articles is based on the reviewer's opinion, or the eventual opinion after multiple reviews. We use experience of what is and is not acceptable coupled with policies and guidelines. We get it right most of the time. When we get it wrong others put that right. IT can be viewed as arbitrary with guidelines/
Retention of articles is based upon consensus. There is either a tacit consensus not to nominate an article for deletion because, to every editor who views it there is evidence that it is a clearly acceptable article, or one editor nominates it for deletion, of which there are three forms:
  • Speedy deletion, a clear failure of rigidly defined criteria - WP:CSD
  • Proposed deletion, a mechanism which may be opposed, perhaps arbitrarily, by anyone - WP:PROD
  • Articles for Deletion, a process with a nominator and their rationale, a discussion for at leats 7 days, and a consensus based verdict summarised and close usually by an administrator - WP:AFD
So there you have it. Acceptance has a degree of the arbitrary about it, but the retention or deletion of articles is consensus based. An article having been deleted at WP:AFD, it is very hard to re-create it. There are, again, rules.
I have described the problem. My opinion on the drafts is that, even as it stands to day, 100% of it is an original research based essay. This is a very specific description of the piece. Indeed, you have been given the links to follow:
These are directly i the box declining the article. Then, ion the comment I have shown you Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. I am not a tutor. I cannot teach you how to write here. WP:Mentoring can, however. Perhaps you shoudl follow the various routes for assistance. Fiddle Faddle 22:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The majority of your argument above seems to be based on the idea that this is original research. Please note that [WP:OR] clearly indicates that verifiable information and routine calculations are not original thought.

As for the neutral point of view, as noted above, everything in the article is either a clear statement of fact or a routine calculation. If you find something that is not, then I would ask you to clearly point it out.

I do not expect you to teach me how to write. I expect you to clearly point out actual problems.

Please provide a link to the Wiki rule that I must keep already-addressed comments of a person who is no longer reviewing a article on a draft page. Matthewhburch (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You will find that consensus dictates it. Barrack room lawyering here is pointless. Fiddle Faddle 22:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I am more than willing to discuss the article, but I've already refuted your comments in a way you have been unable to address in any other way than a snarky comment about Barrack room lawyering. I have also edited the page to remove essay-like structures, and given you ample opportunity to defend your comments, which you have not been able to do. My challenges to WP:OR above, remain unanswered once again.

Since you have provided a snarky answer rather than a link to the rule for your claim that I must keep already-addressed comments and rejection notices in my draft, I am now going to once again delete your commentary and the old rejection notice. Please do not restore them unless you can point me to a rule which indicates that I must maintain them in my draft content. Matthewhburch (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You must do as you see fit. You have only refuted my opinion in the way that satisfies you. Other reviewers will look at your draft. It is likely but not certain that they will restore all prior comments as is customary. We usually check the entire article history when we make a review. IT is not as if any of this stuff is actually important. Fiddle Faddle 23:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

If you can only supply arbitrary arguments against a draft, then your comments have no place there. I have advised that the article is not WP:OR because it is verifiable data and routine calculations. You have not addressed that, despite the fact that I have pointed out the statements in WP:OR that verifiable data and routine calculations are not grounds for classification as WP:OR. As long as you refrain from adding unsubstantiated claims that the article is WP:OR, there will be no further need for discussion between us. That being said, I would appreciate an apology for your snarky attitude. Rudeness says more about the one being rude than the one that the rudeness is directed at. Matthewhburch (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You do have a way about you, don't you? Everything has to go the way you want it. Sometimes it will. Wikipedia, though, is a tough place to work. It's different from anywhere else you have ever worked (0.9 probability). I'll be interested to see what others think of your draft. Fiddle Faddle 23:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

More snarky comments? Despite your own statements at the top of this talk page? You do yourself a disservice. It is by no means necessary that everything has to go the way I want it. I've been around for enough decades that I've learned that lesson quite nicely, thank you. At the same time, I don't accept arbitrary reasoning as a substitution for reasoned thought, especially in arguments against me. Matthewhburch (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

my wikipedia submission denial...

I basically used the same format for my submission as Franco Donatoni and william bolcolm with my own hyperlinks

I would like to create a wikipedia page, as my name has been linked on another page, and would like to have content... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donaldjstewart (talk • contribs) 00:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why it wasn't accepted...please advise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donaldjstewart (talk • contribs) 00:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@Donaldjstewart: Wiser by far to leave the creation of an article about you to someone else. Autobiographies are firmly discouraged. It is highly unlikely that one can write in a neutral manner about one's self. One also tends to have an inflated view of one's notability. I have left a further comment on the bare draft you created. Fiddle Faddle 06:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

thank you for the clarification — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donaldjstewart (talk • contribs) 04:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Input on Submission

Thanks for your input on my recent submission-- it was exactly what I was looking for. I agree with you entirely. I will clean up the article, add more references, and resubmit. I am working on this in my spare time so it will be a long time in the works! I have met George and am working on this with his permission so getting all the facts straight is important to both of us. Thank-you again. Sincerely. WebspinnerLlewellyn (talk) 10:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@WebspinnerLlewellyn: I'm glad I got it right for you. Read User:Timtrent/A good article, too. And, as for time, you have it in spades. Good luck with the article, Getting it right is hard work. Fiddle Faddle 10:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Elizabeth Taylor

I guess I don't understand this yet. I submitted a correction on a factual error regarding Elizabeth Taylor, her contract with MGM, her free agency, etc. The info. is wrong in the article, Suddenly, Summer was a Columbia Picture, but MGM was still calling the shots. She couldn't appear in another studio's film without MGM agreeing to loan her out. My info. is correct. Robert L. Brunelli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunfighter1 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Sunfighter1: So, as I am sure I suggested, please correct the article. WIkipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. Go to the relevant article and click the 'edit' tab, and take it from there. Even when your information is correct you still need references. Fiddle Faddle 08:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Buyer (disambiguation)

I don't understand what you're saying. "The two pages..." There are four pages: buyer, buyer (fashion), Franklin Pierce Buyer, and Steve Buyer. All of them are on different topics, and buyer would appear to be primary. There's nothing in my submitted disambiguation page that belongs in the buyer article, except for the single lead sentence to clarify what the primary topic is, and that's normal. You wouldn't remove "A tree is a perennial woody plant" from tree (disambiguation) just because it's already in tree. If I would follow your advice and turn buyer into a disambiguation page, where would I put its current contents? We'd have to move the page (and then put a disambiguation page there), or we'd have to create a mess by performing a copy/paste move. 149.160.173.187 (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Then feel free to resubmit. My opinion may be incorrect. Fiddle Faddle 14:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

ECB

I agree with you - and can't see where DGG got the idea that it was copied from here. I've deleted as a copyvio of a different site which is even less likely to have been copied from here than the livingtemples one. I also reserve the right to be wrong... Peridon (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding my article

I want to change the name of the article from Rajiv Gandhi Rajiv Gandhi Rajiv Gandhi International Cricket Stadium to Rajiv Gandhi International Cricket Stadium (Dehradun). [2] How can I do it i am getting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshhussey (talk • contribs) 16:27, 23 June 2014‎

@Harshhussey: All things cna be changed but you may not yet have the rights to move an article to a new name. May I counsel you against moving an existing article without requesting a consensus on the article's talk page. If it is your own sandbox you speak of, while I can move it to a new name as a draft, I will not because I believe that you need to edit the existing article. Fiddle Faddle 17:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Question about linking to corporation website

Hi,

A draft I submitted ("Vident Financial") was rejected for the following reasons:

"The corporation's own web site is invalid as a reference. We require sourcing from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it"

Obviously, I understand why information needs to come from a third party, but in this case it's literally just a description of the company. I've noticed a handful of other similar companies who use references to their own website for non-qualitative, technical descriptions of their operations. Any clarification you can offer on this point would be helpful and appreciated. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TWTCommish (talk • contribs) 17:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@TWTCommish: One may use the org;s own site sparingly as a reference, but you have it as 66.667% of your references. I quote understand why you would compare similar articles, but consider this: If we allow a poor article to set a precedent for accepting a new article the quality will degrade because the precedents degrade in quality. The trick to getting an article accepted here is to get many reliable and independent references. At present Vident is displayed as a run of the mill financial services company. While it does not need to be unique to merit a WIkipedia article it must be notable, and nothing in the article nor the references asserts notability. Reading User:Timtrent/A good article may be beneficial. Fiddle Faddle 17:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
@Timtrent: 66.67% seems like a pretty loaded way to say "2 out of 3," especially given that the small number there is a reflection of the fact that it's a simple entry (which is by design, given that it was flagged for being too much like an advertisement when it was more detailed). As for noteworthiness, a perusal of coverage on ETF sites should more than establish that. I'll assume, then, that referencing another of these will suffice and will resubmit shortly. User:TWTCommish
I try very hard not to re-revoew articles, so I wish you joy. How is 66.667% different form 2 out of 3? One in three is a good reference in the revision I reviewed. Fiddle Faddle 17:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
@Timtrent: It's not technically different, hence the word "loaded." :) It'd be like saying "100%" for 1 out of 1. Nevertheless, I'm editing it now. User:TWTCommish

Tehanim/sandbox

Not sure how this article shows any evidence of meeting WP:GNG, or why it was moved to this title. Was it just an aberration on your part?! I guess an alternative to speedy deletion would be to move it back to AfC to give the author a chance to improve it. Sionk (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Sionk: Total brain failure on my part. I think I have undone it (though am checking) and also apologised to the author. Thanks for spotting it. Good catch. Fiddle Faddle 19:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction

Thanks for the correction. It happens to be that my institution is doing a write-up on our school and the founder Mrs. Kehinde Nwani and most of her works are on the net. I know it is a copyright violation as you have stated it but I didn't think in that direction in the first place being that most of what was written about her where interviews conducted with her. I will go on and interview my boss to get better information for the purpose of this write-up and others which will come up in the future. once again, I thank you for the correction. God bless you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinelonma (talk • contribs) 13:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for the correction. It happens to be that my institution is doing a write-up on our school and the founder Mrs. Kehinde Nwani and most of her works are on the net. I know it is a copyright violation as you have stated it but I didn't think in that direction in the first place being that most of what was written about her where interviews conducted with her. I will go on and interview my boss to get better information for the purpose of this write-up and others which will come up in the future. once again, I thank you for the correction. God bless you. Chinelonma (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
@Chinelonma: I have no deity, but I thank you for the thought. May I counsel you to create the article in a different manner, please. Find references in the media, online or printed or radio or TV, and use the facts they report to build the article. Write the article withouit speaking to the lady at all, just on what is reported about her. You see we can only go on reported facts, not on first hand accounts. This is the way of the encyclopaedia.
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every fact you assert requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS
You may also find User:Timtrent/A good article useful Fiddle Faddle 14:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

AFD Notice

A draft submission that you had previously declined that was promoted to article space over the suggestions of AFC, Kash Gauni, is now up for deletion. As the commentary from AFC is used as a contributing reason for deletion, please feel free to look in and give your thoughts. Hasteur (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done, and thank you for the notification. Fiddle Faddle 16:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Please solve my "Oops"

I migrated a page to Draft: from a User Page and the User Talk page has come too.

Pages concerned are

The user talk page is a redirect PLUS an edit, so I am unable to solve the problem. Please would a very kind admin sew this back together such that Draft talk:Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli is empty, and User talk:Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli has the prior commentary merged into it and, presumably, a history merge performed.

I'm sure it was all my fault. My apologies Fiddle Faddle 17:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking into it... PrimeHunter (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Done. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Darn... You're too fast PH... I was going to test a theory of mine that if I was to rollback my semi-automated edit using the actual rollback right, then the only edit on the page would be the move and a MOR could be done to move the talk page back... Oh well, I'm sure another opportunity will arise at some point (or I'll force a use case on testwiki). — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks PH. T13, that was beyond me! Well, not really, but let's just say it was! Fiddle Faddle 17:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • A rollback leaves another edit in the page history so I'm pretty sure that wouldn't allow a move over redirect but I haven't tried. Thanks for the explanation about the rewrite script. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Please check new source

@Timtrent Can you please check new academic study I have added to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:FloraQueen#References

Does it affect notability? What else is missing in terms of sources. Thanks

Theone net (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Theone net: it does not harm it, but the thesis need to have been published and peer reviewed for it to help it. UNreviewed it is an indicator that the organisation has notability, but it is not enough. Reviewed it is better, but not sufficient. I can;t do better than explain what is required. We require sourcing from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42.
In addition the tone is advertorial. You need to edit it to be 'dull but worthy'. Fiddle Faddle 17:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Thesis published where and peer reviewed where? With reviewed peer, do you mean author of this thesis?

@Theone net: The paper needs to have been 'published' in academic terms, and/or 'peer reviewed' in academic terms. The world of academe has mechanisms for papers being published in journals or repute, or of peer review. WHat I suggest you do with this proposed reference is to ask a question at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, showing them the link to the reference and asking if this is a suitable reference. I am not competent to make that call. Fiddle Faddle 08:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Symphony Analytics

HI Timtrent. I noticed you declined the article for creation, Symphony Analytics. I can't find where it is now. Could you point to it, and give me a couple of extra pointers as to what I need to do to fix the issues you have? Thanks PaulinSweden (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)PaulinSweden

 Done message left on your talk page Fiddle Faddle 17:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

regarding recent submission rejection

Hi there

Thanks for the quick review. I made some edits to the language and added a couple more references and hope the tone is neutral and acceptable. 

- Brent  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbrookler (talk • contribs) 17:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
@Bbrookler: A great deal better in my eyes. The opening para about 'leading', though. You need to think "Dull but worthy" as of you were sitting suffering the most tedious powerpoint presentation of all time. Let me try:
We have "Flowboard is a leading interactive presentation app and platform built first for the iPad and web. Flowboard allows users to create, publish and share presentations through their cloud-based SaaS system. Flowboard is the first presentation software to allow embedding of PDFs, video and gallery objects in easy linkable screens, defining modern interactive presentations. Flowboard grew out of Treemo Labs."
Now here's my go at it:
"Flowboard is an interactive presentation app and platform for the iPad and web. It allows users to create, publish and share presentations through their cloud-based SaaS system. Flowboard is the first presentation software to allow embedding of PDFs, video and gallery objects in easy linkable screens, defining modern interactive presentations<boy does that 'is the first' stuff need a reference, otherwise you have to lose the "is the first" element>. Flowboard is also the new name for Treemo Labs"
Not much different. A few subtle changes can remove advertorial and peacock words and render it dull and lifeless, or, as we say, WP:NPOV. And yes, I know precisely how hard this is. My career was in sales and marketing! If you can wrote for Wikipedia then your bullshit and hype (oops, "Marketing") will be far easier to write. A paradox, but it works. Fiddle Faddle 18:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again! I made edits per your advice here. I seem to have made a mistake, I meant to have the page be /wiki/Flowboard_Presentation_Software but it looks like it is /wiki/Flowboard - how do I remedy this? Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbrookler (talk • contribs) 21:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Fiddle Faddle 21:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Any idea how I can get this article reviewed again, it's been another week? Thanks!

Bbrookler (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bbrookler: I fear there is no way of hastening a review. Since I have effectively participated in the article by offering very specific advice I don't feel able to re-review it myself, as I'm sure you appreciate. Whatever you do, do not re-re-resubmit it. As far as I can tell that changes the submission date to the day you do it and will delay the review. Most reviewers work from the oldest to the newest, though there are exceptions. Fiddle Faddle 19:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the lightning fast reply! Do you know of any other reviewers who could look at this?

Bbrookler (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bbrookler: Many, but none would accede to a request to accelerate matters. This is one area where squeaky wheels tend to receive less oil than any of the others. I'm afraid Wikipedia is an exercise in patience. What I suggest is that, apart form improving the article as you find more references, you ignore it completely. I know Flowboard is your beloved child, but a wikipedia article is truly irrelevant to its commercial success. Treat it as "Job done" until it is reviewed
By the way, as soon as it is accepted, leave it alone because at that point your conflict of interest will become important. In Draft space it is far less so. There are mechanisms for asking for edits to a real article, and they avoid your doing it yourself.
Let me suggest you have some fun. Edit other articles that interest you and improve them. Writing for WIkipedia is a huge challenge and will most definitely improve your own professional copywriting. I speak as a long term, now retired, specialist in bullshit and hype (Marketing!). Editing here meant I was better in real life. I was able to detach myself from the topic and produce what was needed in the tone required. Fiddle Faddle 20:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the calm, measured advice. I will consider it done until I get an acceptance or rejection :) I will look into some other articles to edit as well. Thanks again!

Bbrookler (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bbrookler: It can become quite an interesting hobby, in a geeky sort of way . It also teaches us an awful lot about non face to face communication and how fast that can go wrong. Think of your last poor email experience and you have it in spades! Fiddle Faddle 20:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Decline of Quantium Solutions (draft)

Hi Timtrent, would like to clarify that for the university report, it is a published case under Institutional Knowledge(InK) by a reputable university in Singapore (SMU) and its contents are available on many OAI-POH platforms such as Google Scholar. I think this source qualifies as a reputable one? Please advice, thanks! Fuzzster87 (talk) 06:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Fuzzster87: I wonder why you have not linked to the article. It is at Draft:Quantium Solutions
But I asked if it had been peer reviewed, not who had published it. Peer reviewed or not, you need more references from WP:RS for the article to go forward. If you do not it will be challenged there and, potentially, deleted. Being asked to edity now is much more plesant than having to defend against deletion.
Find more references. We require sourcing from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. Then resubmit it after removing any doubtful ones. I try very hard not to re-review articles. You need more eyes than my own, so I am unlikely to re-review it. Fiddle Faddle 07:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
@Timtrent: Firstly would like to thank you for taking the time and effort to discuss on each individual source and on its credibility. It has been really helpful. I am trying to find at least one more justifiable source to make this article substantial enough. Will notify you when I have resubmitted it. Just for information, it is alright for me to label this article as a stub so that others can work on it in future - ie. when Quantium Solutions undergo new developments etc. Let me know thanks! Fuzzster87 (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
@Fuzzster87: The stub flagging is really an esoteric way of saying "This is a short article." and it is fine if you label it. It does not mean that anyone will work ion itr for ages. But they will, sooner or later. Label with pleasure. Good luck with your reference hunt. Fiddle Faddle 06:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
@Timtrent: Hi, I have found 2 more references for Quantium Solutions, and resubmitted my article. Do let me know if the article is substantial enough, many thanks for the assistance thus far!Fuzzster87 (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
@Fuzzster87: It looks as if it has been a hard, hard search. If I were to re-review the article now I would have a problem with http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/21/ny-payoneer-idUSnBw216463a+100+BSW20140121 since it is a press release. http://postandparcel.info/31135/news/singpost-“cautiously-optimistic”-after-3q-results/ is fine for me, but ok. It has the look and feel of PR material, but seems to be a report of the formal annual report. If you want to remove the press release one and resubmit and let me know I would feel able to accept it. BUT there is no guarantee that others will feel the same once it is an accepted article, and you should keep seeking and adding references that are independent of Quantium. Fiddle Faddle 06:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
@Timtrent: Hi, yes it has been indeed a hard search. I have removed the press release from the article. Just out of curiosity though, would the following reference http://finance.yahoo.com/news/payoneer-partners-quantium-solutions-inc-180000180.html be regarded as a press release as well? Thanks for the help thus far, I've resubmitted the article as well. Many thanks!Fuzzster87 (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
It would. The clue is in "NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--" among other things. I have tried to accept the article, but there is something in the way. Please remind me in a few hours when I hope the something will be gone. Fiddle Faddle 07:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
@Timtrent: Hi, thanks for the update. Was there something wrong with the article format?Fuzzster87 (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
@Fuzzster87: Nothing wrong with the format. We have an issue harder to solve. The admin who protected Quantium Solutions against re-creation has been asked to unprotect it but has offered an alternate opinion on the new article. I have placed his comment there. He has chosen, as is his right, not to unprotect it, so I cannot move it to the final name. Wikipedia is not, as you are finding, a simple place to write articles. Fiddle Faddle 07:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
@Timtrent: It is indeed hard to write articles in this space when things are seen subjectively. So the conclusion is this article cannot pass? Can you explain what he meant by the subject would go better within Singapore Post article with a redirect from QS? What can I do on my end? Thanks for the assitance!Fuzzster87 (talk) 09:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
@Fuzzster87: You are suffering from multiple creations of the same article. Normally it is not this hard. Normally one creates a draft, fixes most things, and it is accepted, even if there is some way to go towards perfection, even if the reviewer you meet is as pedantic as am I.
What he is suggesting is that you merge the information into the other article, adding a section if necessary. Now he may not be right. None of us needs to be right. I suggest the route forward is to consider his suggestion and to open a dialogue with him. As you know, were it not for the history, I would have accepted the article. However, a thing to know is that, once an article, anything can happen to it, including someone else merging it into the other article. I would have not objected had it been merged subsequently.
Wikipedia can be subjective, yes. The concept is a mixed blessing and the alleged wisdom of crowds can result in moronic stupidity.
That is not the case here at all, that is a general remark, born out of frustration with seeing it at times. RHaworth is a careful and considered admin, and what he says is well worth weighing and discussing, much like you and I are discussing matters. Approach him for advice on his talk page and acknowledge to yourself that either he or you, or neither of you may be correct. There is a route forward. The finding of it is the fun of the chase. Fiddle Faddle 09:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
@Timtrent: Hi, thanks for the reply. I have actually initated a talk with him previously when I first submitted the article, but at that time I submitted it directly (was not aware of this submit a draft first option). However instead of getting advice the talk became a heated discussion as archived here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RHaworth/2014_May_22#Deletion_of_Quantium_Solutions. I will still try to initiate a conversation as I have very much improved on the article compared to my previous submission, thanks to your help. Just wanted to clarify what you meant as "merge"? I'm wondering if I add a few liners on Singapore Post wikipedia about QS, and link it out as a stub for others to add on it, will that be plausible? Once again, thanks! Fuzzster87 (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
@Fuzzster87: What I would do if I had spent as much time ofnm the QS article as you have is to take a hard look at the SP article, and create a section for QS. I would then edit QS 'into it' in such a form that it looks and fees appropriate to be a section not a main article. I would take it with all references intact, and copy and paste it into the new section.
Having done that I would place a message on the SP talk page with a heading ==Quantium Solutions== and make a statement that I have added the text for QS into SP after spending some time and WP:AFC where a reviewer determined that this was an appropriate route to follow. Then I would walk quietly away and absolutely ignore any further editing to it.
A final act would be to ask RH to create Quantium Solutions as a redirect to the section of SP, something he can do because he has the power to alter the protection on the QS page.
At this point it is "Job Done". There is nothing left to do. Fiddle Faddle 07:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Appletree Medical Group

This article has references to ten different sources, none of which, as far as I know, have any relationship to the subject. I don't understand how the references could be improved. This operation is being cited in the UK by academics and managers as an example for our NHS to follow. This is a contribution to the WikiProject National Health Service. Can you please make it clearer how you think the article could be improved? Rathfelder (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: I am not sure how I can make it clearer except for going through each source and explaining with precision what is wrong with it. Have you looked in detail at each yourself? Fiddle Faddle 19:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
@Rathfelder: I have now analysed each reference and commented on the draft. If I have not achieved clarity I will be more than happy is you ask for other eyes, perhaps at the AFC help desk? Fiddle Faddle 22:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Margaret Catherine Alice Hyson article

Hello, Timtrent, I rewrote parts of the article on Margaret Catherine Alice Hyson, and gave additional references. Could you kindly review it again to see if it is ready to be published on Wikipedia? I was participating in the GLAM Wiki - Wiki Pride event yesterday and had hoped to have this article included. Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJentzsch (talk • contribs) 13:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Accepted Fiddle Faddle 13:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Margaret Catherine Alice Hyson article

Thank you for your assistance with this article! This really is a learning process, and it helps to have the guidance of great editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJentzsch (talk • contribs) 13:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

CV

You've just missed a copyvio here. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Well caught. I think I am tired. I saw one of them and decided it was insufficient. You caught the lot. Fiddle Faddle 14:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Tsogo Sun AfD

You're right, of course. I'll admit I was somewhat irritated at the time, mainly because my request to respeedy the damn thing had been declined, and thought it was probably better to just ping other people than to risk saying something out of line. Also, JamesBWatson had already expressed it far better than I ever would, and I fully expected that the people who had previously flagged or deleted this would speak up.

In case you didn't catch what he said....

That left me with question "are there no suitable sources, or are there plenty of sources, but Alison, lacking experience of how Wikipedia works, has failed to provide them?" so, as I have said already, I made my own searches for sources. Unfortunately, I found very little that was at all helpful. For example, in a Google search for "Tsogo Sun", the first couple of pages of hits included the following: 11 pages at www.tsogosunhotels.com (clearly not an independent source); Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (all of them not independent or not reliable or both); a page at www.bloomberg.com merely giving statistics relating to stocks and financial issue, not substantial coverage; a pdf file at www.discovery.co.za, which is clearly an advertising brochure; and so on... I had to search well down the list of hits before I found things such as http://www.iol.co.za/business/news/sabmiller-reviews-tsogo-sun-stake-1.1676630, which does appear to be an independent reliable source, but it is merely a news report that a business was "reviewing" its stake in Tsogo Sun, and could not possibly be regarded as substantial coverage of Tsogo Sun itself. Wikipedia's notability criteria are often criticised, as many people see them as giving too much weight to subjects that are of trivial importance, but which receive a lot of popular attention, while giving too little weight to more solid subjects of a less popular kind. Many newcomers to editing Wikipedia are surprised to see that even quite a large and successful company may fail to satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards, while many people (including myself) think that Wikipedia gives a ridiculous amount of coverage to utter trivia, such as individual minor characters in cartoon series. However, assessing the subject according to what Wikipedia's guidelines are, rather than what you or I might think they should be, I'm afraid I really cannot see any evidence at all that Tsogo Sun comes anywhere near to satisfying those guidelines. That being so, any article on the subject, no matter how it might be written, would almost certainly be deleted. Saying such a negative thing may seem unfriendly, but in fact I think it would be much less friendly to give you false hope, by advising you on how to improve the article, thereby encouraging you to spend time and effort on it, which would be likely to be wasted time and effort, as the article would be likely to be deleted anyway. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)5:07 am, 12 June 2014, Thursday (15 days ago) (UTC−5)

At the time he said that, I don't know if he was aware that the article had already been created, deleted, and REFUNDed under a different username, and I'm pretty sure he missed that her response was to just cut-and-paste it under a different capitalization. (sigh) Reventtalk 14:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I was really also rehearsing what others will say. Yes, I read it. I also checked all the references. I don't understand why it isn't notable, but it isn't. Fiddle Faddle 14:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Polystar article - comments on declined submission

Hi Timtrent,

I saw that you edited my article, which is great. Thanks for doing it so soon after submission. This is my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Polystar

You left some comments which I'm not sure I fully understand. I think it would be beneficial for you to give specific examples of my issues with sources. I have used all the sources I had available, none of which are related to the subject of my article.

I don't mind revising it numerous times, but I need a little more help.

Best,

Guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy redmill (talk • contribs) 08:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Guy redmil: Before I go into any more detail, of which there is not much, did you read the specific comment under the 'decline' boxes? It was intended to be as specific as possible, but I am happy to explain further once I know you have read it and the links it gives you. Fiddle Faddle 08:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


@Timtrent Yes, I have read those comments and the links. If you were to provide examples using my article it would be easier to understand entirely what I need to change. While I don't mind revising the article numerous times, it would be better to make all necessary changes at once. Please advise. Guy

@Guy redmil: I have done my best with a further comment on the article, this time in detail. Please ask me very specific questions if I have not met your needs. I intend to answer you, I just may not be understanding what you are asking me. Fiddle Faddle 15:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent That's fine. Thanks. Is it Timtrent or Fiddle Faddle I'm writing to? Sorry, the 'User' code in your comments show "Timtrent". I intend to fix the broken links or find other sources. I wasn't sure why the 'Frost' reference was unacceptable, but now that you have explained I understand fully. Conclusions: more sources = better and avoid press releases in general. Thanks. Although I find the explanations of the articles you link to slightly difficult to put into practice. Thanks a lot. Guy

00:03:30, 28 June 2014 review of submission by Odoule


I am requesting a re-review since the article was modified and I hope we understood well to the requests of your reviewers. Please let me know whether or not is the current version of the article acceptable. Odoule (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Odoule (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

no Declined for reasons stated at the draft. Yo have doen a great deal of work. The draft process is iterative. The next review will not be by me. Other eyes are needed after you do this work. Fiddle Faddle 08:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

California Report Card Entry

Hi there,

Thanks so much for your time and your feedback. This is my first time posting a new wikipedia article, so I am definitely still learning how to write an appropriate article. I can see what you mean about the issues with the entry I submitted. I tried my best to take out a lot of the sections in which I come to conclusions without outside sources. I saved this newly cut down version in my sandbox. If I resubmit will this second submission go to you again? Or should I post it here? Please let me know and thanks again for helping me fix this up -- I really appreciate it.

Best,

Olivia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliviabarnett (talk • contribs) 05:07, 28 June 2014‎

@Oliviabarnett: I will have a look anyway. The process is that you resubmit for review. Fiddle Faddle 08:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
One section lacks references. Work on these and then resubmit. Other eyes than mine are needed. User:Timtrent/A good article may help you for the future. Enjoy having fun here, it's a challenging hobby. Oh, words like 'moreover' hint at original research. Fiddle Faddle 08:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Trade Point and XM

Hi Tim,

Thanks very much for your feedback. I agree that it would be best to write an article for the holding company, Trade Point, and then spin off sections into other freestanding articles. For this reason, I have created an article about Trade Point, discussing strictly information about it and presenting its subsidiaries. Further, I cleaned up the article about XM which I wrote yesterday, removing all unnecessary information and references relating to other entities. I trust that the content is clearer now. Last, I have also found logos for both articles, but I understand these need to be added after the articles are approved.

I have just posted the article about Trade Point and resubmitted my article on XM. Could you please take a look and let me know if these two are OK now? Many thanks for your time.

Cmanoli (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Cmanoli: I've reviewed the new draft. It has a few issues, but I think neither of us are surprised by that Review is an iterative process, and it may take a couple more goes to get it right. XM is much improved. There is a red error in the references. Are you able to correct that or do you need help? I suggest waiting until Trading Point is accepted before resubmitting XM. There are lessons you will learn and be able to put into practice. Time is a commodity that we have in plenty, and there is no rush. Fiddle Faddle 08:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Aristedes Metallinos - rejected draft

Dear Timtrent. Thanks for your swift response on my latest draft on the laic (lay) sculptor Aristedes Zacharias Metallinos. Publications about this man are in Greek. I have been striving to arrive at accurate translation, hence the time I am taking. So far as I can discover only one of the references I quoted is on-line - the one by [[ http://www.gbip.gr/book/95557%7CEurydice Antzoulatou-Retsila]]. This link refers to an edited compilation containing the relevant article about the subject, rather than the original article about Metallinos by the same author in 1985.

Eurydice Antzoulatou-Retsila (1985) ‘The folklore of Corfu in the art of the laic stone-sculptor Aristidi Metallinou’, article in Miriovivlos Periodical, issue 7, pp. 37-47

Dr. Antzoulatou-Retsila's reputation as a student, researcher and writer on the study of Hellenistic folklore is established. I am striving to contact her to see if there is an on-line transcript of her 24 page article (with images) about Metallinos. I'm relieved you say this is not essential to establish the artist's notability, but that more of what is written in this and the other article by Mari should be in my submission. Have I understood you correctly?

I will work, as you kindly suggest, on the Mari biography. This is a mere 130 words long (in Greek) containing a rather rough photo of the man's face as a young man and images of some of his sculptures. I can find no on-line record of this book, though I have held Mari's publication - a collection of biographies - in my hands. I will work on weaving this short biography more effectively into the Wikipedia draft.

Metallinos is an interesting man - an artisan who took to sculpture in stone and marble in the last 12 years of his life producing at least 250 works; worthy in my view, and I hope yours, of an entry in Wikipedia. Outside the academic articles I have found, Metallinos' work is almost unknown, being contained in a closed museum, where I have viewed them, in the village of the artist's birth.

Your continued tutelage would be valued. I have made several contributions to Wikipedia, but I am finding this the most challenging. Best wishes Simon Baddeley (talk) 08:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC) Simon Baddeley (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)Simon Baddeley (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Sibadd: There is every reason to have references in Greek, they are allowed. However that does not help when one attempts to assess an article. IT will simply delay matters, but that is fine. Time we have. What we want to achieve is for the raft to be good enough to accept with small risk of nomination for deletion.
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Both of those may help you.
Fundamental to any wikipedia article is knowing in the very first sentences why the topic, in this case the gentleman, is notable. We need something like "Aristedes Metallinos produced over 250 sculptures, one of which sold recently for $1,.5m, and is acknowledged as the premier sculptor of Greece" This is patently untrue, but has the notability one requires that one requires
Find any media coverage about him.
Read User:Timtrent/A good article
Have good luck! Fiddle Faddle 13:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks as if 'my' article on Metallinos has been accepted, but I believe with you that the subject needs and deserves further verification in line with your advice above, i.e entry on Greek wikipedia, translation of available academic reference material woven into the piece and images of the artist's work that support the key concept of 'notability'. Thank you for your continued interest. I am encouraged to persevere with the article by Wiki's trust in my good faith in an untrustworthy world. Simon Baddeley (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@Sibadd: I'm not sure that what I see as premature acceptance has done you any favours, unfortunately. If someone nominates it for deletion at present, something I hope will not happen, it will limit your time to work. I prefer the quiet of the draft process to let people work unhindered by pressure. After all, time is a thing we all have. Go to it with a will, but not with a panic. You might want to open a dialogue with the editor who accepted. I usually trust his judgement. This time I am mildly concerned about the extra pressure he is putting you under. However, he may be intent on improving the article as well, of course, which would be an excellent outcome. Fiddle Faddle 10:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
It surprised me but temperamentally I don't expect 'nice' surprises, and fully intend to continue working along the lines you advise. So - yes - it is a favour, but as you say 'it may not be' - not least because I know you will be watching to see that the article is improved. I am puzzled at the moment as to how to upload an indicative image that at present I have on my blog - among other examples of the sculptors work on the lost pastoral life of a Greek village. He made ten reliefs of this kind, i.e. Ano Korakiana in relief. I have permission from the Metallinos family to display these on the internet. I have also had permission from Angeliki Metallinos, grand-daughter pf the sculptor, to place images of her grandfather's work in the public domain, available as 'creative commons' material in any article that might appear in Wikipedia. The sculptor intended his work to be a gift to the village of Ano Korakiana, leaving specific instructions that his work not to be divided or sold. It is this condition which I deeply respect but which makes establishing the sculptor's notability especially difficult. I have run photos of the work by members of the British Council and by other critics - Greek and British. They are intrigued and impressed by the work of the laic sculptor and believe it would be good if his achievements were known. Again many thanks for your tutelage.Simon Baddeley (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I published the article, and I did so because it clearly meets WP:GNG (which says nothing about your imagined "first sentences" requirement). You are, of course, welcome to test that at AfD, where I look forward to making the case in its favour. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Why so combative, Andy? There really is no need. Fiddle Faddle 12:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
@Sibadd: There is a procedure for the donation of copyright materials. I suggest the Wikimedia Commons procedure is followed, which wil distrubute the pictures wider because they become immediately available in all the WMF projects. Commons:Help_desk should be able to put you on the right track. Whatever the process is you will need evidence in the form they suggest from the estate of the artist in order to upload them.
Again, good luck. And let me know how I can help you. Fiddle Faddle 11:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Graphene flagship

Hello. Thanks for the super fast review of the page. I've looked it over and replaced the references with more diverse ones (not from the Flagship site). I hope it is good enough now. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newtocambridge (talk • contribs) 20:32, 28 June 2014‎

@Newtocambridge: For my taste it feels a little in the realms of excitement and hyperbole (can one be have a little hyperbole?), but other eyes are needed to re-review it. May I suggest you improve it continuously while submitting it now? Make ot DU*ll but Worthy" and oyu will have our needs to perfection. Any further independent references will never hurt. Fiddle Faddle 19:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Hopefully this doesn't show up twice, Wikipedia said there was an error in submitting. If it does, I'm sorry! Just wanted to thank you for your assistance with my first Wikipedia article, "Siouxsie Q." You made the process easy and painless while still informing me of ways to make the article better. Your hard work and dedication is much appreciated! AppendixGMedia (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

09:53:58, 29 June 2014 review of submission by Ingwaar


I want to create article About Fenugreeg on Serbian Language i was read all tutorial and strictly followed this. Please can you akso return this article in my sandbox because i can`t again start from scratch. I want to this article be in Latin Serbian or i Cyrillic. Thanks in advance.

Igor Malušević (talk) 09:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ingwaar: I will arrange for help for you. I will do this on your talk page. Fiddle Faddle 11:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 Done, help request set up. Fiddle Faddle 11:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

08:41:47, 29 June 2014 review of submission by Prithvisimha092


Sir,

I have spent a lot of time studying biofuels and the latest generation of biofuels; The article involves news and research on the second generation of biofuels and I thought that this would be of particular interest to the Scientific Community worldwide given the current focus on Energy and Fuels. Also, Wikipedia does not have an article on Drop-in Fuels and the technology that goes with it.

Please advise what changes were required from my side.

Regards

````Prithvi Simha 

the Scientific Community

Prithvi Simha 08:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Why do you expect me to tell you what to put in your draft. It was blank, empty, devoid of content. Write the article first, then submit it.
Why, also, did you submit this talk page as an article? Fiddle Faddle 08:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

08:56:04, 29 June 2014 review of submission by Prithvisimha092


Dear Sir,

I have discussed in my article the latest advances in the bio-fuels market and introduced to readers the concept of drop-in technology. Though a lot of people are aware of biofuels, advanced biofuels or drop-in fuels is a very recent development.

I have scoured news articles, scientific research papers and governmental agency websites to select a few that readers will surely find interesting.

I am new to Wikipedia and might have made some mistakes during submission which I have fail to notice and thus am requesting your assistance.

Prithvi

Prithvi Simha 08:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@Prithvisimha092: That is not the item you submitted for review. I reviewed what was submitted, which was your sandbox. Do you want me to submit that draft for review for you? Fiddle Faddle 09:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

09:03:50, 29 June 2014 review of submission by Prithvisimha092


Dear Sir,

Thank you for the reply. Yes I wanted my draft on "Drop-in Fuels" to be reviewed. Please submit the draft for me. I will get a hang of the submission process soon and such mistakes shall not be repeated from my side.


Prithvi Simha 09:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done, but no Declined Fiddle Faddle 09:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
09:15:32, 29 June 2014 review of submission by Prithvisimha092


Thank you for submitting my article. As you pointed out it was declined. I have published articles in international peer-reviewed journals. There reviewers comments are available to the authors to improve their articles. Could you please let me know if the article was rejected due to grammatical mistakes/errors or the content.

I would then like to edit it and resubmit it.

Prithvi

Prithvi Simha 09:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@Prithvisimha092: There is no need to start a new section every time you message me. PLease just continue the conversation, now under this subheading. the ":" character allows you to use indenting. IT is also Four ~ charaters to sign your name. ~~~~ gives the full signature.
If you go to the article you will find the content of the review. It is there, on the article, and forms part of the review history of the article. There is work to be done. You may find reading WP:ACADEME to be very useful here. Wikipedia is not Academe, and our rules and requirements are very different. You will find writing here a difficult and interesting exercise unlike anything you have encountered before. Fiddle Faddle 09:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
09:29:59, 29 June 2014 review of submission by Prithvisimha092


Sir the article that you have moved to drafts is not the article that I intended to submit. I had modified it and included all paragraph breaks and references.

Please direct me to a new submission page where I can submit my article again


Prithvi Simha 09:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

= 09:29:59, 29 June 2014 review of submission by Prithvisimha092 =


Sir the article that you have moved to drafts is not the article that I intended to submit. I had modified it and included all paragraph breaks and references.

Please direct me to a new submission page where I can submit my article again


Prithvi Simha 09:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@Prithvisimha092: Please simply edit that article by changing it to the one you want to submit. Please do not create another one. Do not, please, remove anything above the ---- line. You have created no other articles. See Special:Contributions/Prithvisimha092. Thius this was the only one available, and' it was the one you asked me to submit above

When you are finished, please simply resubmit.

And please STOP using new sections for every comment Fiddle Faddle 09:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


Sir,
  I have resubmitted the article as per your guidelines. 
  Please let me know if I have done this the correct way.
  --Prithvi Simha 12:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
@Prithvisimha092: You have submitted it correctly, thank you. Now we will await a new reviewer to review the new work. Please use FOUR ~ characters when you sign messages. Fiddle Faddle 12:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


  Thanks. Still getting to know how to use all the syntax. 
  Prithvi Simha 12:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Re Draft:Henrik Lindstrand

Hi, Thanks for your comments! Have replaced IMDB references with ones from The Film Institute + more. Hope this is sufficient. Thanks! Eternalgroove (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@Eternalgroove: The next reviewer will give you a verdict. I try not to re-review articles because more eyes are always better. The process is designed to give the articles that pass through it the best possible chance of surviving the hurly burly of the main article space here. I'm pleased you found the comments useful, and thank you for taking the time to say so. Fiddle Faddle 19:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Adult Match Maker deletion reconsideration

Hello,

I was wondering if you could help me. I tried creating a new page for the Australian company Adult Match Maker which was significantly different than what was presented before, there are more noteworthy and reputable sources, and the page isn't purely promotional but actually has valid information in it and for some reason it got deleted because it was considered to be similar to the already deleted one? Can you please help me and let me know what my mistake is and if there is any chance to reconsider the deletion of the page?

Thanks,

Teresajens (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@Teresajens: The person to speak to is the admin who deleted it. If it is significantly different then it ought to stand a chance. Regrettably I am not an admin and cannot see the deleted version. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adult_Match_Maker&action=edit&redlink=1 shows you all the information you will need in order to have that conversation. Good luck. Fiddle Faddle 21:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Marty Watt

Hello Tim, Regarding the Marty Watt submission: Should I just start deleting sentences that don't have footnotes? or have I misunderstood entirely the footnote process so that the article seems like it doesn't have any? Are my references to the Washington Post and Washington Star and Drummer magazine valid despite the fact that they aren't online? (I have them on paper) Thanks, Wattcima — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wattcima (talk • contribs) 21:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@Wattcima: Exactly the reverse. You need to find references for the facts you assert. Time is on your side. There is no rush. Just search. Only when you have exhausted all avenues should you consider losing material. Fiddle Faddle 21:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

But the Newspaper quotes already used are ok as far as they go? Wattcima (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@Wattcima: Online, print or broadcast media are all 100% fine. The important criterion is that it is a WP:RS Fiddle Faddle 22:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

National Numeracy

Hey, I've had my draft rejected.

Do I need to remove the content of my 'pseudo-references' (referring to the information, rather than the citations and references)?

Also, with a fairly new charity that doesn't have many secondary sources to refer to, is there any advice?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtis-McCarthy (talk • contribs) 13:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Curtis-McCarthy: The answer is complex. Lets start with the basics. Non negotiable is the double bar to leap, that the organisation must pass WP:N and be WP:V. WIth that in view you need to decide if now is the time when an article should be written. What have people said about the org in WP:RS? No sources? Wait for them to happen.
Build your article about what is said about the org and do not use its own site as a reference at all. t is simply the org's own web site. In the same manner that I have a web site that describes me as a silver skinned 7 foot tall elf, it is unreliable (I don't, but it makes the point}. Have I answered your question? I know it was couched in different terms! Fiddle Faddle 13:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

National Numeracy

@tim

Thanks, I'll consider finding some secondary sources and such, and making it all a little bit more succinct, if it fails again, I'll wait — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtis-McCarthy (talk • contribs) 13:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Kenneth Baker, S.F.Chronicle Jan. 26, 1989 p.E3
  2. ^ [1]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timtrent/Archive_18&oldid=1142730605"