User talk:Timtrent/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25

From Tgweeze

Thanks for your help back on August 6. I will contact Missavan as you suggested and just keep plugging away. Thanks again. I'm sure I'll talk to you soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgweeze (talk • contribs) 20:29, 26 August 2014‎

Stealth Inc. 2 article disapproval.

Hi Timtrent

Thanks for reviewing the article. I was sad to see that the article got declined. However you raised some point which I want to answer.

It was mentioned in the note that I was knowingly or unknowing marketing the game which is uncalled for. I created the article because I see a lot of indie games not getting any page at wikipedia and I did it to improve wikipedia gaming coverage. I have contributed to few articles as of now still learning about various stuff. However I felt hurt when someone blame me for doing PR for some company which I don't even know.

You mentioned something about WP:N, I don't understand it correctly but giving a brief look I can say I have tried to cover reliable source from IGN, NintendoLife, Joystiq and various others to make it a reliable article. As for game popularity, the game is a sequel to a very popular indie game Stealth Bastard- thus I still think it deserve a page.

The third point you raised is "we require reference" - I have provide multiple ref. from IGN, NintendoLife, Joystiq. What else do you need?

I have also tried to keep the article clean and simple with proper named references and links. I am still not sure why it got rejected. I can still find wikipedia pages for many unreleased games/indies as well but not sure why this doesn't fit the bill.

Will be waiting for your response. I hope this is the right way to reply at talk pages since I am new, I am not sure if its ok.

Link to article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Stealth_Inc._2:_A_Game_of_Clones

Best Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashpant (talk • contribs) 04:25, 21 September 2014‎

Despite your assertions, my opinion of the draft remains unchanged. You need to work on it. You need to understand WP:N, and WP:RS. You have provided multiple poor references. Provide ones that pass WP:42 please.
Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. PLease make it possible to accept this one. Fiddle Faddle 09:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

---

Hi
I am not sure what's your judgement of "solid reference" because from what I see IGN, Nintendolife and Joystiq are the quintessential gaming media for news maybe not for you. I am also baffled by the criteria of WP:N
because either that or the moderation seems hypocritical to me. I find game and half backed pages such as Caffeine (video_game), BlueStreak (video_game), Space Hulk: Deathwing - mostly one liner article approved but not this. Even games like Shin Megami Tensei X Fire Emblem which has no info at all and I repeat no info at all, just 2s teaser and no news but probably that's more notable than a game with more news. Its fine because you are the boss but I think one should be more rational and practice they preach. I am completely fine with article not getting approved but what's baffling is the boatloads of one liner "game" article approved which are not even notable and new Ip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashpant (talk • contribs) 13:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
@Shashpant: WP:RSN will give you a definitive answer on your proposed references. Link to the draft and ask the precise question "IN this article are these considered reliable sources?" and quote with accuracy the source where you ask the question.
I understand your frustration with seeing other articles. We do not, ever, allow article A to be a precedent for article B. The rationale is that using a less perfect article as a precedent provides an increasingly steep slippery slope, and we head to Idiocracy. If you see a poor article you are at complete liberty to propose it for deletion, or to improve it.
I am not the boss. I am just a volunteer reviewer. Other reviewers will have their views, too. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. I;d love to feel I can accept this one. I simply feel it needs the work.
I can see that you disagree, so asking for different eyes at the articles for creation help desk is wholly appropriate. Please do. Fiddle Faddle 14:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Siegfried Werners entry

Hello

We last communicated some 2 months ago. I'm trying to get an entry about my father-in-law, retired Surinamese diplomat Siegfried Werners, accepted, but don't so far have the necessary citations. It's proving ridiculously tricky trying to find acceptable substantiation for his erstwhile diplomatic positions, not least because the government archives of Suriname for the relevant period are either non-existent or poorly managed at best! And we're talking about posts he held some 30 years ago. Would a scanned letter from a government official do the job? Any further suggestions would be most gratefully received...

With thanks

Joe Yapp

Peppler64 (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Peppler64: The challenge is that such a letter would prove that he exists, but not that he has notability. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. So coverage, online or print media (etc) about the gentleman is important. You could ask this precise question at WP:RSN for an authoritative answer. Fiddle Faddle 15:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Paul Kinsman

Hello Timtrent, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Paul Kinsman, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The hint of notability is that he was awarded a high honor - the Honorary Life Membership. There are also 11.2 Million hits which suggest notability. This may be better served at AFD. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Dusti*Let's talk!* 16:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I'll let the community decide at AfD. Thanks for letting me know. Fiddle Faddle 17:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Submission rejection - Copyrighted material?

Tim - I reviewed your review and rejection of my submission for Mark Anthony, The Psychic Lawyer where you said the submission included copyrighted material. I didn't see reference of which material included in the submission was protected by copyright.

Was there content in the submission that violates copyright protections, or was there a link or citation that linked to protected material?

I am new to this and any assistance you could provide would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EwareTroy (talk • contribs) 18:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me, I cannot remember. I reviewed it in May and moved on. Our copyright detection tools must have shown it to be copied from http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Mark-Gager/37933663 which is stated at the deleted draft. It was rejected thus by a far more recent reviewer than I. What I suggest is that you find references for the gentleman and write the draft around what is stated in the references. Fiddle Faddle 19:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

AFC comment

Thank you very much for helping me. I also took the time to read the help articles you sent. Demetrius Guidry (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Request on 22:27:14, 29 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Stephanie S3704


Hello, In the review of my DSC article, you gave this comment: I am unconvinced about a section in this article about interworking. Surely this is part of the protocol article

Would you please explain what you mean and/or how can I address this comment? Thank you.

Stephanie S3704 (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Stephanie S3704: I mean that I am not convinced that a section about the protocol per se has a place in the article about a device, and that I would seek to merge that section with an article about the protocol, removing it from your draft. In general we do not describe a thing in two or more different places, we wikilink to it. Fiddle Faddle 22:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Leo-Constellation Visualization

Servus Timtrent,

I'm the man from Munich with the Leo-Constellation Visualization news about Leo the Horse! Now I managed to include my addings, only the diagram is missed of course! Maybe you find my news about Leo the horse as interesting as to want to add my astonishing diagramm?

Give me a note and an upload link! Greetings JOEY — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsarJoey (talk • contribs) 14:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Servus Joey (which I thought to be an Austrian greeting!)
I do not want to add it, but you will be able to after some more time has passed and you have made some more edits to article and your account becomes autoconfirmed. Fiddle Faddle 14:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Servus Timtrent! I managed to upload my diagram into : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_%28constellation%29! I hope, there will be a positive review!

good time, JOEY — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsarJoey (talk • contribs) 14:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Servus Timtrent! here I'm once again! Looked at your WikiPage and found you being a Leo and preferring British English. Well, I'm Bavarian having spellchecked my Leo Visualization in British and state there you are a horse zodiac sign used back in celtic times! What do you think about this? Greetings JOEY

Servus, Joey,
Don't forget to log in! Well, I have no idea what to think! I have never paid much heed to astrology. Fiddle Faddle 20:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

22:34:57, 1 October 2014 review of submission by Stephanie S3704


Thanks for your explanation of your concern. Interworking a function of a Diameter Signaling Controller (DSC), so removing it doesn’t make sense. I'm happy to link to the Diameter protocol article as a reference for this section, but a Diameter Signaling Controller routes Diameter protocol messages as its function, so I believe it does have relevance on this page. I'd like to resubmit the article for reconsideration. All external links have been converted to references as requested, but left the Wikilinks within the page. If those are also a problem, I can remove them as well.

Thank you!

Stephanie S3704 (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikilinks are perfect and the thing we aim for. They save repetition of material in multiple places. If you are confident that such repetition has not taken place then resubmit with pleasure. Fiddle Faddle 07:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Weird Stuff

How come your Username says Fiddle Faddle, but whenever I check the page history it says Timtrent?Mirror Freak My Guestbook 13:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

My user name is Timtrent. My pseudonym in my signature is Fiddle Faddle. That is also my alternate account. Fiddle Faddle 13:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Do I have permission to verbally express my disgust at the user who asked if any girls want to chat?Mirror Freak My Guestbook 18:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, I warned them on their talk page and let them understand the welcome they would receive, so I think, unless you feel you must, wisdom suggests ignoring them. I try not to descend below the moral high ground. Fiddle Faddle 18:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) No. --Jakob (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I used more words than Jakec to say that Fiddle Faddle 18:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll let this dude slide. (this time)Mirror Freak My Guestbook 18:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
@MirrorFreak: In general this type of editor vanishes when they find the place does not march to their tune. It is always possible, though, that they may find editing here a worthwhile hobby, so berating them tends to rebound, and we get accused of biting a newbie. I don't mind biting a vandal, but biting a misguided person gives no satisfaction to anyone. Fiddle Faddle 18:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Issues with Willong Megalithic Memorial Stones‎

I noticed that you accepted the AFC submission Willong Megalithic Memorial Stones‎ recently. Unfortunately, it appears that the article is a cut-n-paste from the cited source, which is a unreliable blog/website apparently run by the article creator User:Josan420. To make matters worse, the cited text is itself a copyvio of text from this travel blog post and this web article (which itself may be a copyvio from here, although at this point I stopped trying to keep track of who-copied-from-whom <sigh>).
In any case, I think the article needs to be speedied (though the subject does appear to be notable), but am running it by you in case I missed some crucial detail that may allow the text to be retained on wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Abecedare: It is rare that I miss a copyvio. Thank you for letting me know. Please speedy it with my blessing. Fiddle Faddle 21:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Done. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

20:57:11, 2 October 2014 review of submission by Jmschrei


Jmschrei (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you need. This is for my boss. He is a director and all of the things I wrote about him are obviously true, I just don't know how to prove them according to wikipedia. I have never tried to create a wiki article before, I had no idea it would be so laborious. Let me try asking a different way, if you were trying to get this approved, what would you use as references to support what is written? I trust your judgement.

@Jmschrei: You are in a very awkward position. Since it is for your boss you have to get it right, but wikipedia will not let you do what he needs. Now, use Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, and see what is available on the man.
Put very simply, a reference must discuss your boss. The source must be WP:RS, and it must be independent of him. But one major problem you will find is that, once it is accepted as an article, it will also be edited by anyone who wishes. If your boss has any indiscretions that he wishes had not happened then these are likely to appear in the eventual article assuming that references can be found. Fiddle Faddle 21:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I see. And if I can't find anyone "discussing" him where does that leave him? and...What kind of indiscretions!!!??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmschrei (talk • contribs) 21:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jmschrei: From Wikipedia's perspective, no references = no notability = no article. If he is as prolific as the draft says then I doubt this will be a problem, however, but the rule is firm.
Only he will know if he has indiscretions. I don't mean to imply that he has, but I do know that articles act as magnets for those who will find them if they exist. Fiddle Faddle 21:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh I see, I just thought perhaps you knew him… Just kidding.

Ok, so is there a time limit to this, I feel like I had a good go for today. Maybe revisit this when I have more time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmschrei (talk • contribs) 21:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jmschrei: No time limit at all. Work on it in peace and quiet. If it is currently submitted for review it may well be declined again before oyu can finish the work, but that is unimportant. Just work slowly and steadily and start to enjoy the hunt for references.The major issue is that the gentleman is alive. We are far more stringent for citations for living folk. Resubmit it again once you have done all you possibly can
By the way, on talk pages you can sign your message automagically by typing ~~~~, which turns into your signature. Who knew? Fiddle Faddle 21:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse

Hey, re your post to the "one direction" chat request at the TH - just a friendly reminder that Template:Teahouse invitation specifically invites new editors to join others at "an awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia." Gandalf's post probably took that more literally than most, but then again the TH is arguably the most chat room-like page on Wikipedia. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

And they, arguably, are wanting to meet young girls. WP:NOT applies. WP:DUCK, too. Fiddle Faddle 06:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Translational Research Institute page: duplicate

Hi Timtrent Thanks for reviewing the Translational Research Institute page. I had submitted one on behalf of TRI then needed to create an account under my own username "Gingerlilly". Could the one submitted under Gingerlilly be approved and the other one can be deleted. Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingerlilly (talk • contribs) 00:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done Fiddle Faddle 13:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance

Dear Timtrent, thanks loads for the welcome and guidance notes you left on my talk page :) I think the "backstage" of Wikipedia are overwhelming and everything, including the text editors and message boards look very alien to me! :P So I am really slow! I Got inspired by taking a look at your page - wow, lots of achievements!

As for the article: seems like there are two issues with my article: my username, which I will have to change, and also, the article is not from reliable sources according to Wikipedia rules. I am going to work on those and try to re-submit the article (and hopefully write more with time!). As for the reliable sources rule, in the case of this article, I don't know how I am going to do that - I will present my "case" at the Teahouse and see if I get some help :)

Cheers and again, super thanks! Tragicbooks (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tragicbooks: The teahouse is an excellent place to ask, as is the real time chat. There is absolutely no deadline, so work slowly and steadily. Wikipedia may be simple, but it is not easy. Fiddle Faddle 07:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Timtrent Thanks For Your Precious Time

Timtrent thanks for your valuable time and efforts to review and approve the article titled online gambling in India.

An attempt has also been made to introduce the lead section to the same. Please spare some of your time to see if it satisfies the quality criteria of Wikipedia.

--120.59.107.248 (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Political Second Chance Sydrome

Hello you edited this article. I am new to wiki. I created the coin based on the political situation in the Bahamas. How can I find sources to support something I created. Can you help me out with this.

pasted draft, not required

Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42 Fiddle Faddle 19:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Political Second Chance Syndrome it is a sickness that plagues the system of government that allows leaders to continue to make mistakes without any accountability for their actions.[1] There can’t be accountability and efficiency with leaders getting second chances after dismal failures in major sectors across the country. Leaders should not get a SECOND CHANCE. Political leaders need to be replaced immediately with new leaders that must be vetted by a panel to weed out the potential for future inefficiencies. If political leaders are suffering from this Syndrome then it breaches the ideology of Democracy, and it sets a bad precedent for the citizenry to see their political leaders unaccountable for their actions. Eradicating and quarantining the Political Second Chance Syndrome must be a top priority in any democracy to function properly. It is a direct matter of national security that leaders be accountable and efficient. Unaccountability leads to inefficiency that will then lead to corrupt political leaders that destroys the foundation of democracy. A more direct version// Political Second Chance Syndrome” - it is a sickness that plagues the system of government that GIVES leaders ELECTED OR APPOINTED IMMUNITY DESPITE THEIR MISTAKES AND INEFFICIENCIES. THERE MUST BE ZERO TOLERANCE, NO SECOND CHANCE FOR dismal failures in major sectors across the country. OVERSIGHT Panels AT ALL LEVELS SHOULD BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY AND weed out THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR the MISMANAGEMENT AND INEFFICIENCIES. "POLITICAL SECOND CHANCE SYNDROME" UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY DEFYING THE HIGHEST PRINCIPLES TO WHICH DEMOCRACY SERVES[2] See Also •Rule of law •Recall election •Good governance •Types of democracy •Democratic peace theory

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkersingh123 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Use search engines. Try Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Wikipedia is not for non notable neologisms, so you need to do some research. Fiddle Faddle 16:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Political Second Chance Syndrome

I found a few websites to support my Political Second Chance Syndrome. Please help me publish this word.

http://www.nationnews.com/articles/view/our-caribbean-dlp-scales-second-chance-political-cliff/ http://markworgan.wordpress.com/2011/07/10/dave-to-catch-second-chance-syndrome/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/10235327/Row-as-disgrace-Chris-Huhne-lands-top-energy-job.html http://www.freeman.org/serendipity/index.php?/archives/200-GIVING-BIBI-A-SECOND-CHANCE.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkersingh123 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

None of these show that PSCS is notable. Fiddle Faddle 07:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

00:37:04, 7 October 2014 review of submission by Faberger


At this stage I'm not asking specifically for a re-review. However, I'm more than puzzled by some of the reasons why my article was rejected and I'd appreciate some clarification on your comments in order to bring this forward.

In your first line you say 'The first paragraph says, broadly, "This was a non notable failed business" and then you go to a great deal of trouble to write a lot about the entity. I am perplexed.'. No, I never meant to say that, this is your own personal interpretation of it, and does not reflect the millions of people who're reading wiki articles every day. What are you perplexed about exactly? And where does it say it was a non notable business? what metrics are you referring to to say it's non notable? This was an entity in charge, exclusively of the parent company, of over 150 distribution channels in Europe, the Middle-East, Africa, South America and part of South East Asia, at a time when the parent company didn't make 'mobile gaming' a priority in its strategy. It is all the more important to report on it because of how the parent has changed strategy over the years and is now solely investing in mobile gaming. It is the perfect example of how business acumen and business development outside of Japan is managed by Japanese companies. Also, the main article for the parent company is extremely poor and doesn't add anything to Wikipedia as it is just a identity card of the company with a few lines and doesn't describe in any way on how it impacted on the industry and global popular culture, let alone the good and bad accomplishments it has under its belt.

The comment 'you go to a great deal of trouble to write a lot' is judgmental to say the list. OF COURSE I spent a lot of time to start this article! is it not how each one of your contributors should behave?

In your second line, you say 'European subsidiaries do not generally merit articles independent of the principal because they are the same business, yet in a different geographic region'. Now, this is entirely wrong and shows from your part a total disconnect and misunderstanding of Namco specifically and in general how Japanese businesses operate 'overseas'. Very often what Japanese companies call their 'overseas' businesses are often disconnected from the parent company, in terms of management, strategy, development and even financing. The fact they're called the same name doesn't imply that the parent company has anything to do with how the company develops, for better or worst, and this is EXACTLY what this article is meant to contribute: a truthful and non-judgmental report on how Japanese video games publishers have been operating since the 1970's outside of Japan. As the author, I can not report on other Japanese video game publishers but Namco, that's why this article is about NBNE and not video game publishing by Japanese companies from a broader point of view.

In your third line you say 'Many of the references are regurgitated press releases and PR material.' I am referring sources to add the precious sense of authenticity to the article, even for the smallest details. The aggregation of these materials is meant to reinforce the sense of a logic suite of actions (managerial, financial and strategic) during a verified timeline. Of course, if it's just a matter of following how these are taking shape in the article, then I'll revise them. Otherwise I don't see how I could make without them. If I were to write a book, I'll do exactly that, adding everything and anything (in a condensed manner) related to how this business evolved, and how its members went through 'a great deal of trouble' to make it work as the independent entity it was assigned to be by the parent company.

As for your last line 'PLease attend to tense, grammar and spelling. "Spinned" is not a word, as a simple spell check will tell you. We require the simple past tense, the perfect tense.'. I understand that point, but I'm more than perplexed (and here's why I am) on how other articles are reviewed given the great many spelling mistakes, inaccuracies and over-abundance of biases for one side or another. I should also add that your first word is written with two capitals (PLease) showing that you didn't do any spell check before sending me your message... illustrating that those of us with the best intentions (to add value as you said) can sometimes make even the most stupid mistakes.

Thanks for clarifying.


Faberger (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Faberger: Obviously you did not make any differences regarding Japanese businesses clear in the draft.
You still start by telling us that this business could not be notable because it achieved nothing. Writing a great screed about something that is not notable simply achieves a great screed about a non notable business. Your references do not verify notability.
Please read WP:PRIMARY with regard to the deployment of primary sources. MUltiple primary sources are multiple primary sources. We are not about sources for a magazine story, we only record facts in reliable sources, independent of the entity and about it.
We do not, ever, use other articles as precedent for an article, otherwise we would descend towards idiocracy. The other articles of which you speak need to be sorted out. It is not your best point that yours emulates something of poor quality.
Mine is one opinion. Other reviewers may differ in their views. Nothing is preventing you from resubmitting it unchanged. Fiddle Faddle 07:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

16:21:18, 6 October 2014 review of submission by Kuleanna


Thank you for your comments, I would like to request a re-review. I have tried to correct references to sources by using specific coverage about the entity, and these are independent and reliable sources. Should I click the re-submit or wait for further comments? Kuleanna (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

As soon as you are sure the draft is the best draft you can make it with all the information at your disposal, resubmit. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. It may be that this draft is now acceptable or we may need to push it back a further time. Either is ok, truly. I have not looked at it again because I try very hard not to re-review. Additional eyes always produce a better set of reviews.
Always remember that you may edit and improve the draft at any time, even after submission. Fiddle Faddle 16:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Understood, thank you. Kuleanna (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Shane Stay article

Hi Timtrent Fiddle Faddle,

I am required to do this work for a task I've taken up as a student. I do not have any personal connection with Shane Stay. There is no conflict of interest. It is harder than I thought. I'm not very proficient in Wiki language and code. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Novemberflower (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you simply look at the way other things are formatted and use that. WP:Mentorship may be useful for you. The main thing is to type the words and add the references. Is your course one led by an instructor who uses Wikipedia? If not then then need to gain expertise with us too. I can aim them in the right direction. Fiddle Faddle 16:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

BOMA Project Page Edit

Hi Tim-

Thanks for your guidance on setting up BOMA's page. I have resubmitted the brief article with an article from th United Nations. I hope this is enough.

Thank you!

Jamie — Preceding unsigned comment added by James cpi (talk • contribs) 13:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks James cpi. I have left a further comment on the draft. Ironically it is longer than the draft itself. Fiddle Faddle 16:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for re-review

Hi there TimTrent,

[[1]]

Thank you for reviewing my initial draft on 17 Sep. I have taken some time redrafting noting the helpful comments you made. Could you please take another look?

Newcastleton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newcastleton (talk • contribs) 21:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I have left what I hope is a helpful comment on the draft. I try not to review articles more than once, believing a better outcome happens with more than one set of eyes. Fiddle Faddle 21:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

PSCS

I created the word based on what's going on in Bahamian Politics. So how do you want me to legitimize it when there will be no sources for it. I based it on the Prime Minister stating that he is a Prime Minister of Second Chances which is screwing up the entire country. He does not want to prosecute MP's for official corruption and other issues.

How do I defend this if it is not written any where. Do I use sources for other words that is in the definition like democracy, syndrome etc./ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkersingh123 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You cannot. Fiddle Faddle 07:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Message from Juancescritor

Dear Timtrent


Thank you for your kind remarks, your quick response and your offer to assist. I am a Venezuelan author, Playwright and Director, but also with a special interest in Biographies since I believe not many people dedicate words to this subject. That is the reason for this article in Wikipedia I submitted some days ago, which I felt had mistakes and was, in a way, incomplete.

If possible, I would like to learn exactly when footnotes must be introduced in a sentence or phrase, so I can correct mine and submit it again for approval. Thank you again, and I am looking forward to your answer.


Warmest regards


Juancé --Juancescritor (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Juancescritor: Every fact you assert in a biography of a living person needs a citation. Now, some facts need no proof. These are ones that are unlikely to be challenged. Other facts need citations. What you need to do is to use the "Find sources"link in the pink box and see what references exist for her, and then see how these need to be incorporated into the draft. WP:REFB and WP:CITE are your friends here. Fiddle Faddle 20:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Organic Division

Timtrent. I have resubmitted the article... Thanks for the pointers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Division_of_Organic_Chemistry_of_the_American_Chemical_Society — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjmyers19 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bjmyers19: excellent news. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. Fiddle Faddle 20:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Smile

I've made this edit, bit of ce and toning down spam. It's far from perfect, but if you want to give it a run out, that's fine with me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Submission

Hi Timtrent,

I have made amendments to the page... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Duncan_McLean_(Video_Designer) - could you please let me know if these are enough for it to be approved? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.252.254 (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Without reviewing it in detail, no. What I can say is that you are working in the right direction with reviews. Please, however, make sure it is his work that is reviewed as well as the piece as a whole, because your draft is about the gentleman, not about generic pieces of work. I try not to re-review a draft because it creates a better outcome if a different pair of eyes reviews it each time.
Please continue to refine it while awaiting a reviewer's visit. Fiddle Faddle 14:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your review

Thank you very much for reviewing 50th All Japan Rugby Football Championship, I really appreciate this. I am still not used to create articles that have to be checked first, but maybe that is better than having people spam around here. May add the next tournament, too. Have a nice weekend. 88.151.72.35 (talk) 10:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.151.72.35 (talk)

One of the benefits of registering an account is that you gain privileges, including that of creating articles. I believe there is a short gestation period after registration. Fiddle Faddle 10:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Derek Smith Television Producer

Hi Thank you for reviewing Derek Smith Television Producer. I'm not sure that I agree with your decision. The refs to Radio Times are listings, but all the others are reviews by television critics in local and national press. I can scan the articles that are referenced if necessary. I do think there should be no doubt of Derek's right to a Wikipedia listing. As one of the the most important and creative producers in the history of the BBC, it's overdue that he has a page. In the meantime, I'll expand the references as much as I can. I have a scrapbook of cuttings. Graham (grayderek55) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grayderek55 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you lose any refs to pure listings. All they show is that he exists. For the others, we need chapter, verse, and the title of the article. We need nothing scanned in, but we need to be able, for example, to see what the reference is from its title. A template such as {{cite news}} may be very helpful to you. The gentleman appears to be notable, but we have to prove it, and that is your challenge. Fiddle Faddle 14:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Rejection of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Legal_Challenges_to_the_Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act173.67.162.239 (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I know of no other site that has a list of ALL challenges. To find this information for free requires a detailed search at a federal court house. Or it requires costs of $ .10 a page, and a subscription to www.pacer.gov. Please explain where these sites are?

How would I know? But if this costs $.10 a page it seems to me that the sites are copyright, too. And we cannot have copyright violations. Fiddle Faddle 14:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the cost of getting it via download FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. IT IS FREE IF AT A FEDERAL COURT HOUSE. THERE IS NO COPYRIGHT ON ANY OF THIS MATERIAL!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.162.239 (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Whatever you say. But I now have no further interest since you chose to type in all capitals, which is bad netiquette. 15:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

New Page Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ely_Ensign

Hi! Many thanks for your introduction. Is it okay to include among my ref sources material printed in Ely Ensign itself? Or must ALL refs be independent? Scpj (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@Scpj: The answer is that the sources, that is the references, must be about the periodical. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. There are very limited circumstance where the periodical may refer to itself, and WP:PRIMARY is a good arbiter of when. In my view, which is not the only view, material printed within it only establishes the fact that it was printed. Such facts appear useless to verify its notability, though they may be interesting in the showing that something was printed. Fiddle Faddle 20:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Greenwich International Film Festival Review

Just wanted to thank you for helping review the article on the Greenwich International Film Festival, I've made the corrections that you've noted.

-eckmann88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.54.92.202 (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I am seriously ubsure whether the time is yet right for this draft since the inaugural festival happens in June 2015. Fiddle Faddle 22:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Cover-More Insurance

Hi TimTrent.

I've spent a bit of time today in the IRC-Chat getting help to understand what was wrong with my citations.. I think I'm getting the problem now, particularly that you're needing further removed independent sources - Are you able to take a look and let me know if its on the right track? The guy helping in the chat room "HowiCus' suggested I post here to ensure I'm aligned to the issues you saw.

Anyway - would be great to get some more feedback - I've even removed references where the partners/associates make assertions!

Thanks,

G — Preceding unsigned comment added by GB at CoverMore (talk • contribs) 03:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you have improved the draft's citations greatly. It's a steep learning curve, isn't it? Now you are citing things about the org from independent coverage. You have one obvious issue remaining. An inline link at "EtiQa Takaful." That needs to become either a WIkilink (even a red one), or, if appropriate, a reference, or simply be unlinked. I also do not see the point, currently, of the section "Product Offerings" Fiddle Faddle 07:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that - yes, its been a mammoth undertaking... I have definitely learned alot!

I've removed both the EtiQa Takaful link and the information on "product offerings'. - In relation to the EtiQa component, it was very weird because I couldn't get a true Wiki link - presumably because its Wikipedia Malaysian language... Hence why i tried that type of link. Anyway - I'm just as happy to leave it out. https://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETiQa_Takaful.

Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GB at CoverMore (talk • contribs) 02:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@GB at CoverMore: Try [[:ms:ETiQa Takaful|ETiQa Takaful]] which produces ETiQa Takaful. Fiddle Faddle 06:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
@Timtrent: Thanks so much for your help - this has been a very steep learning curve... So what happens now? Do I need to wait for another review or will it just go up? As 'painful' as it was, it was kinda fun. I think I'll start looking at other articles to write/edit!
@GB at CoverMore: make sure you have resubmitted it, and await a review. SInce I've helped you a lot I feel I ought not to review it myself. Hope for acceptance, do not be disappointed if it is pushed back for more work. We push back to try very hard to make drafts deletion proof. And what an excellent idea now to have fun here. I hope you do. You might want to change your username to a more generic one. There is a way of doing so, but I can;t remember it. It might be WP:CHU. Alternatively you may have a second user name for your more private use. If you do, make sure they are never, ever used to back each other up on discussions, or edit the same article with them. There are rules at WP:MULTIPLE. Fiddle Faddle 07:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

atheist science

Just wanted to say thanks for the reply to my query, that clears the matter up, not exactly to my satisfaction, but I follow the reasoning.

Yours, real atheism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realatheism (talk • contribs) 10:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Realatheism: I knew you were not going to enjoy the answer, but hoped you would understand it. I was not disappointed in the latter. Acting as you appear to hope would mean Wikipedia would need to change direction. While this is not impossible it is unlikely. It is unlikely because its direction is dictated by consensus. You are at perfect liberty to seek to influence that consensus, but I suggest you will have as much effect as a flea does on an elephant. I make no comment on whether your thinking is something I agree with or not. Fiddle Faddle 10:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks again! GB at CoverMore (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

concensus anathema to truth

It is an interesting remark you make, on the nature of Wikipedia as a product of concensus, it bears directly upon the idea at the core of Atheist Science, which denies the existence of individuals, as in persons, and asserts the existence of a unified being, a human superorganism. Undoubtedly the individual who would oppose this natural force of human corporate nature, is destined for disappointment, as you rightly say. Nonetheless, we are raised to believe we are beings in our own right, and according to this ideal one might hope that an encyclopedia would serve the ideal we all subscribe to by seeking to counter the tendency for the information it contains to orbit around political authority, rather than truth, as forlorn a desire as this no doubt is. Concensus, needless to say, I hope, is anathema to truth.46.208.3.29 (talk) 12:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH will interest you. Fiddle Faddle 12:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Ross Barney Architects Draft Review

RE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ross_Barney_Architects

Thank you for your comments, very helpful. I took out some of the "promotional" nomenclature and refined as much as I thought possible without loosing the content intent. Please advise if you think any of the remaining content needs a tone shift. Thanks in advance. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgann (talk • contribs) 13:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Rgann: In my view substantially better. by the way, all bombings are devastating. I know the USA is not used to being bombed, but flatten the tone. Emotive words give the terrorists power. That's a maxim for life, too. Terror events are horrible for those embroiled in them and their nearest and dearest. The rest of us need a very robust attitude to terror attacks. Fiddle Faddle 13:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
@Timtrent: I agree with your view. I rephrased to read "Following the attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in 1995...". Any other thoughts? Thanks for taking the time to review. Cheers.
@Rgann: Nothing obvious springs out. You could spend some time using the citation templates such as {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}} to improve your references and their appearance, but it is inessential. Now oyu hope for acceptance and decide to be prepared for it being pushed back to you. We push back to try to deletion-proof the draft prior to acceptance. Fiddle Faddle 14:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Behm (disambiguation)

and Boehm (disambiguation). This user is starting to create several OK, and not OK dabs. The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is not set correctly on any of them, so best to fix at source. Widefox; talk 18:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Widefox: Please join WP:AFC as a reviewer and pick this type of thing up
The criteria we use are simply that an article must stand a better than 60% chance of surviving a deletion discussion. All else can and shoudl be solved by the community, for which I thank you. Fiddle Faddle 19:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. OK, as that's the threshold, then it's all fine. Good work. Wish I had the time. Widefox; talk 19:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Request on 19:46:56, 13 October 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Edendiss


Hello! Since LeHo page does not exist, is there any other reason why Home and Hospital Education page was rejected, too? The review message said that the topic is already covered by LeHo. But it isnt. So, can we give it another try? thanks Edendiss (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)edendiss

Edendiss (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Edendiss: Learning at Home and in the Hospital - LeHo exists, but will probably be deleted in about seven days (0.9 probability). You should contribute to the deletion discussion.
If the other page is promoted to become an article it will also be deleted (0.9 probability), It suffers form the same issues, You need to follow the advice I left you on your talk page to make further progress. I am willing to guide you if you follow that path. INdeed, that is my guiding you. Fiddle Faddle 21:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

15:30:00, 14 October 2014 review of submission by Roberturban78


Good morning, I saw the review and was unclear about what seemed advertisial. All of the information was sourced from notable and independant sources- such as the INC 500 magazine and other business journals and magazines in which we were not responsible for creating or writing any of the content. I am not sure about what else to edit or add that wouldn't seem like an advertisiment for the company. Please advise- thank you for your help.

Sincerely,

Robert Urban

Roberturban78 (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The combination of the text and the references is typical of an advert, or of the use of WIkipedia as an advert. The two that I can link to do not impress. one is simply an entry in a list and the other is pretty much the same. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. WIth those much of the criticism vanishes. Fiddle Faddle 16:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Article you reviewed

I stumbled on this article, I didn't write it. I added a few sources. It needs work. But I think that it merits inclusion, and urge you to take another look. [2] ShulMaven (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@ShulMaven: no Declined for the same reasons as before. I commend your enthusiasm, but not your attention to the stated problems on the declined draft. The alleged sources you added were generic and pointless. This diff shows you added no sources, just resubmitted with a long spiel about how wonderful it was. Fiddle Faddle 21:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I sent the wrong link. At least, the link in your response is to an earlier version - before I added sources. The review in Library Journal is particularly persuasive, although the brief description by WGBH is validating. What I think has to be considered here is that this is a thinktank, it is validated by the judgment of major news organizations that cite it. I believe that this is the correct link [3]ShulMaven (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
@ShulMaven: You need to consider article quality. This has poor referencing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Terrorism_Research_and_Analysis_Consortium_(TRAC)&oldid=629595019 is the permalink to the sole edit recorded by you in the edit history. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3ATerrorism_Research_and_Analysis_Consortium_%28TRAC%29&diff=629595019&oldid=623175565 is the set of edits you made in your single edit. Whatever you think you did, you added no sources to it.
Please go back and read the reason it was declined. We do not accept articles because the topic is a deserving cause; we accept them when they are ready to be accepted. Just resubmitting drafts is not appropriate, nor is resubmitting them when the work has not been done. Those of us who review material volunteer to do it and give our time freely to help people create bulletproof articles. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. If you have an interest the article please improve it so it may be accepted. Fiddle Faddle 22:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Gonzalez.329/sandbox

Thanks for reviewing my submissions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonzalez.329 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

crown green bowls

You said the approval for the crown green bowls article was 'unconventional'. Can you explain why please? Thanks Scootermacc (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Request on 12:11:45, 15 October 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Vsarmie


I need assistance from the reviewer that will enable me to; 1. Have a better understanding of the Wiki formatting language to use and be familiar with; 2. Additional thing(s) needed that will my satisfy article posting requirement; 3. Or enable me to further contribute to this initiative..

Since I am not a writer, please provide advice in plain English.

Thank you, Victor Sarmiento

Vsarmie (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Vsarmie (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Vsarmie: May I suggest WP:Mentoring. I am unable to assist you myself. Fiddle Faddle 18:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

lead section

Dear Tim

Many thanks for getting back to me so promptly, and for relocating the TOC section in the right place, but I am struggling to know where to go to put in a lead section. I have made the changes to the sections via the 'edit' button, but have a total blank on where to put the lead section. I have read the notes to the link you have sent me, but am unsure exactly what I have to do. e.g. do I copy a template over as shown in the 'Elements of the Lead' section? Yours hopefully, Helena (LoveWalsallLibraries) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovewalsalllibraries (talk • contribs) 10:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Lovewalsalllibraries: in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Walsall Central Library I have left you a placeholder. Just replace it with your chosen words. No template, just type. Summarise the article in the lead. Max 3 paras. It is only obvious where to put it when it is obvious!
By the way, typing ~~~~ on a talk page signs your messages automagically. Fiddle Faddle 11:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear Tim,
Just wanted to say a big thank you for your help today, and for getting back to me so quickly. I am going to submit this article again now and hope it will be accepted. It has been a steep learning curve for me, and I'm keeping my fingers crossed. Best wishes Helena — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovewalsalllibraries (talk • contribs) 14:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@Lovewalsalllibraries: Just remember that it may be pushed back to you again, and that thsi is fine. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. We want them to be awesome, too.
When I left a comment just now it had not yet been resubmitted, by the way Fiddle Faddle 14:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Tim
Thanks for your comment concerning the references/bibliography section, but to my understanding you can list material into the bibliography that you have consulted but not necessarily used for references. I am hoping that this will not mean that it will be rejected again! As you have commented on our page concerning this matter does it mean it will get automatically rejected again? As I work for Walsall Libraries and my manager has approved this content I really cannot see now why there should be a problem. Please advise, Thanks Helena — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovewalsalllibraries (talk • contribs) 15:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@Lovewalsalllibraries: I don't perceive there to be a problem, I'd just like to see some of the authoritative material in the blbio list used as full references. Each of us offers reviews based on our own interpretation of the rules, and I see no reason for it not to proceed smoothly. Is it submitted yet? Fiddle Faddle 15:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Tim
It's me again I'm afraid! I have clicked the submit box again in the little pink box at the top of the page, and its told me in a yellow box at the bottom of the page that a review is waiting. Have I done this ok? (I remembered to 'save the page inbetween these stages' Thanks Helena :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovewalsalllibraries (talk • contribs) 16:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Sounds fine :) Fiddle Faddle 17:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

18:54:38, 16 October 2014 review of submission by Carmie33019


Would like specifics for decline so I can improve Carmie33019 (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Could you please specify what I did wrong so that I know why it was declined??

Please visit the draft which already explained it in detail. Fiddle Faddle 21:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

No For An Answer

I took your advice and wrote to the person who rejected my article "No For An Answer" (the Marc Blitzstein show). He never responded. His reasons for rejection make no sense. He obviously is not familiar with show business. Is there an appeal process? Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjstern (talk • contribs) 23:32, 18 October 2014‎

@Rjstern: I need my memory jogged, I fear. Please link with precision to the draft we are speaking about. I must have reviewed about 400 drafts since we wrote to each other so it has escaped my mind. I know you must feel impatient, but if the topic is notable it is notable so time is less important than you may feel. I will give it a hard and unbiased stare. I may not feel competent to give you an answer. if so I will say so with clarity. Fair enough? Fiddle Faddle 22:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
No need. I have found it at Draft:No for an Answer. Ok, it will take me a little while to decide (a) if I am competent and then (b) if I am, what to say. Bear with me. Midnight here! Fiddle Faddle 22:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Basilio L. Sarmiento Biography editions

Hello Mr. trent,

The article I am trying to post about my father's biography (Basilio Sarmiento),edited in/for the English Wikipedia page actually can be found in the Dutch or German version of the Wikipedia.

Although the subject is printed in German, I tried to effect or do some changes to reflect a more accurate information on my father personal information but encountered difficulty! Not only because German language is foreign to me but also due to not being familiar on how Wikipedia works!

My impression from the denial response received was, I need to provide, cite /substantiate my sources for the article? In that regard, I did find some links showing or reflecting his works since I was told his book(s) of poems were used as textbook in the Philippines..

The following are links I found reflecting his works. Please advise if these will suffice your requirements. 1. http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001360144/Cite 2. http://www.worldcat.org/title/sagimsim-kalipunan-ng-mga-tula/oclc/20115442 3. http://opac.emc.hs.admu.edu.ph/bookinfo.asp?strSearch=&nType=1&nResourceID=1000011960 4. http://opac.emc.hs.admu.edu.ph/results.asp?key1=Basilio%20Sarmiento 5. http://books.google.com/books?id=sGvJv9n4ilIC&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=basilio+sarmiento&source=bl&ots=RjVq57yc-W&sig=yqZCR2aD_0SZzvB_WBmJHAGip6I&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bBBBVIbODM7BggSLq4HoAw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=basilio%20sarmiento&f=false 6. http://books.google.com/books/about/Sagimsim_kalipunan_ng_mga_tula.html?id=PNRHAAAAMAAJ 7. http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilio_Sarmiento

I appreciate any assistance you can extend to the matter and please advise if the above links will be sufficient to satisfy your requirements?

Yours, Victor Sarmiento Vsarmie (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

They show that the books he wrote exist, but they are not about the gentleman. The dutch Wikipedia is interesting in that it has a couple of offlline references at the foot, and I would add those to your draft anyway, but we need something that discusses him and his work for the next reviewer to allow the draft to move forward. Fiddle Faddle 08:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No For An Answer (2)

Thank you for your excellent advice. I have added two citations to articles from the New York Times that help to show the importance and great interest in the work. I think it's ready to go. We can still make additions once it's up. Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjstern (talk • contribs) 17:19, 19 October 2014‎

@Rjstern: More advice the NYT in 1040? Unlikely! 1940 perhaps? Are there any online links on the NYT site? I know this is not mandatory, but it would sure help!
You can edit at any time, even after submission It ain't locked! Any improvements you can spot, make 'em, and make 'em now!
I'm not going to do a formal accept/decline myself, I feel I am involved and thus have disqualified myself, but I'll be more than happy to keep advising you. Fiddle Faddle 17:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Please delete the Draft:Later Sui Empire. I Want to make new draft.

Please delete the Draft:Later Sui Empire. I Want to make new draft. PADHZ07111989 (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)lease delete also the deletion page and debate pages.

@ADHZ07111989: I am not an administrator. You may place {{Db-author}} at the head of the draft. Fiddle Faddle 19:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding meatpuppetry

Hi Timtrent,

You were very helpful before so allow me to bother you again. I was wondering if you could take a look at these three edits ([4], [5] and [6]) and tell me what you think when you have the time. I realize you're not an admin, but, based upon your experience as an editor, could this possibly be "meatpuppetry", or is it simply just a coincidence. If I should be taking this somewhere else, then please advise. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: To be fair, I have no idea. It could be the same editor via a variable IP address, or several editors. The final edit has some sort of sourcing. if it quotes the actor concerned that is pretty much primary sourcing and inadmissible, but the article is about a load of fictional characters anyway. You need to talk to someone from one of the Wikiprojects the article is part of. They will be more expert than I am i this field. Pick one only and ask on the project talk page whether the edit with the sources is valid. I suggest you ignore the potential puppetry part. Experienced editors will notice that anyway. Fiddle Faddle 08:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice Timtrent. I'm have no problem at all if the source is good as I posted at Talk:List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters#Gareth. As for the other stuff, the posts just seemed a little unusual for me. - Marchjuly (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
A pleasure. I would be past the limit of my competence if I advised on this source. Fiddle Faddle 11:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Allanblackia oil

dear Timtrent Question on my submission on 'Allanblackia oil' : the wiki page shows a message 'This article needs additional citations for verification etc.' . However the article is full of references most to published papers. Can you help clarufy why this remark ? Thanks Rob mm diks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robmm.diks (talk • contribs) 07:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Robmm.diks: I suggest you remove that banner. Any editor in good standing may add or remove banners for valid reasons. I cannot see why this needs to remain, and have no idea why it is present. Do not forget to use an edit summary. Fiddle Faddle 08:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Greenwich International Film Festival Review

Hi,

Just wanted to let you know that the red errors which you had pointed out in Draft:Greenwich International Film Festival on October 12 have been corrected, and the article is ready for a re-review. Thanks for your help. Eckmann88 (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Lisa Gralnick

Timtrent,

I tried to follow all your directions to make my entry presentable. Can you take another look and see if it is ready to publish. I would really appreciate it. I would like to try another one and hopefully I will be more proficient the next time. My article is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Lisa_Gralnick&action=edit.

Thanks, Susan — Preceding unsigned comment added by SusanCummins (talk • contribs) 23:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@SusanCummins: I see excellent progress. There was such a lot to do that I am not surprised you missed a few things. I see two things for immediate improvement:
  • You still have some inline links scattered throughout, such as " Professors Kurt Matzdorf " These must all be changed per my earlier comment or the review is likely to go against it next time, too
  • Your references are really hard for me to check. Are there any press articles about the lady, too?
You can edit all the time, even when submitted for review, so enjoy editing. I don;pt do formal reviews twice if I can help it. Wikipedia gets a better outcome with more pairs of eyes. Fiddle Faddle 00:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Timtrent,

I got rid of all the inline links I think. Here are a few newspaper articles about Lisa but they are not exclusively about her. She is very credible but mostly in the academic and museum world. Her are the newspaper links http://www.nytimes.com/1989/11/12/magazine/the-ultimate-marketplace-the-world-of-wearable-art.html and http://www.houstonpress.com/2011-02-24/calendar/lisa-gralnick-the-gold-standard/full/. Thanks for taking another look. Susan SusanCummins (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@SusanCummins: They look fine to me. If you have nit done so already please add them to cite facts in the draft. Fiddle Faddle 08:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

How do I do that? SusanCummins (talk) 00:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

23:00:35, 21 October 2014 review of submission by SusanCummins


I have tried to continue to improve the links to other websites and I added in the 2 newspaper reference. What more can I do to get this approved? SusanCummins (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC) SusanCummins (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@SusanCummins: I may be being very dense, but I can't see where you have added the news media as references? News media tend not to have ISB Numbers, certainly when used as references. Fiddle Faddle 09:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Found them, eventually. You have added them as inline links, not as citations. {{cite news}} will handle this for you. However, instead of saying "She has received coverage..." you need to write about her and use the coverage as the citation to verify the fact you write about. Fiddle Faddle 09:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Zach Paxson

This is my first article but want to do more in the future once I learn the ways of Wikipedia. Any help you can give me upgrading my article from Stub would be greatly appreciated! Susanhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Paxson Zach_Paxson 18:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Obrienboone (talk)

@Obrienboone: This article may be hard to make more than a stub for the medium term future. The gentleman is only borderline notable in our terms (as presented by you) because he has not done much and very few folk have written about him. I accepted the draft because of the Ohio song thing, and it was a toss of the coin for me about accepting vs pushing it back to you. The trite answer is to let the community do it, but, in truth, that fails unless someone is a Paxson enthusiast. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL is a great place to start, modifying the searches if necessary. You need to embrace what the sources say about him, and to phrase it in your own words in the article, using the source as a reference. Before you do anything, read WP:REFB and WP:CITE, and polish your skills on inline citations.
Wikipedia:Stub has some information for you. We also have rules about references: For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS
Your route forward is to expand the article without adding fluff and clutter. Fiddle Faddle 19:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
You may also find a quiet read of User:Timtrent/A good article a useful tool in learning some of the ropes. Fiddle Faddle 19:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Interlude Page Review

Hello, and thank you for taking the time to review Interlude's page. I just have some questions about why the page was rejected. You mention that I treat it as notable in it's own right, and that references are about Interlude and not on the campaigns per se. In terms of reference, I included sources such as Fast Company, TechCrunch, Yahoo News, and TIME... so I'm not sure I understand the comment. Additionally, the page follows the format of other entries I've seen, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droga5. It would be extremely helpful if you could provide more detail on how I could improve the entry and have my submission approved. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deebs90 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Deebs90: Please link to the draft concerned. I review a great many drafts. Fiddle Faddle 21:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, apologies, it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Interlude_(Interactive_Video)&oldid=623230391(Deebs90 (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC))

@Deebs90: Thanks. Draft:Interlude (Interactive Video) it is. Ok. Now, form the article, INterlude doesn't seem to be particularly notable, but the campaigns may be the things that are. In fact you have the majority of the draft about the campaigns, and the company that created them takes a back seat. The campaigns are award winning, it seems, but the company appears not to be. Are you with me so far?
If so you may wonder how a campaign produced by an org can be notable but the org is not. And the answer is just that it can happen. Your challenge, of you want to show that INterlude is notable, is to find references for it. But the word is a common word, so search engines will fail you.
What you need is respected marketing and PR magazines writing about Interlude, not about the fantastic campaign on behalf of Foo.
Some refs that may be useful:
I used this search to find them, and discarded many to find just these two Fiddle Faddle 21:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

BuckleySandler Wiki

Hi. The BuckleySandler article was deleted this morning before I could address copyright concerns. I'd like to fix those and bring the page back, is this possible? And, sorry for my stumbling on this, I'm still learning how things work and excited to contribute more. DCVAWriter (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@DCVAWriter: What you do is talk to the deleting admin. They have the power to handle this with you at their sole discretion. You find out who they are by heading to that page location where it will tell you who did it and for what reason. We act fast with copyright breaches once discovered. Fiddle Faddle 15:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
@Timtrent: Got it. Thanks! DCVAWriter (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
@DCVAWriter: They seem to have viewed it as an advert, too. This means you will need to make a good case for having it undeleted. Fiddle Faddle 16:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
@Timtrent: Okay. I think if Key People are removed and it goes back to just factual about the company it might be a better article.
@DCVAWriter: As long as it passes WP:CORP it is fine. Key people are fine too, provided they are not an advert. Remember that an article is about an entity and must not be or appear to be, by it. Fiddle Faddle 16:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
@Timtrent: Thanks again. "About" not "by" is a nice way to distinguish. Thanks for the good advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCVAWriter (talk • contribs) 17:10, 24 October 2014‎

02:25:27, 25 October 2014 review of submission by Strangecow


The article on Emanuel Raymond Lewis was declined for "not (being) adequately supported by reliable sources."

Most of Dr. Lewis' accomplishments sited herein were document in the Congressional Record, as entered by Congressman Steny Hoyer, the current minority whip. Hoyer knew Dr. Lewis personally, calling him in the congressional records "a dear and good friend of mine for many, many years" and gave he gave the eulogy at Lewis' memorial service. The Congressional Record may not be filled with irrefutable fact, but it is at least official testimony by one of the most senior members of the house of representatives. Furthermore, Dr. Lewis worked in the and for the U.S. Congress, and his tenure in the House overlapped that of Hoyer for many years as its document librarian and researcher; Hoyer's testimony contains first-hand knowledge of Lewis.

A small part of the content, detailing his family relationships, was added from his obituary. I contacted his son and requested a photo.

The book Lewis wrote on Seacoast fortifications, is referenced by a link to the publisher's website. The Congressional Record document mentions other publications.

Wikipedia does not have a page describing the history of the the Congressional Librarian, which has now been placed under the Office of the Clerk. Thus, some things of interest about it were included.


Strangecow (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Strangecow: Let me analyse your references:
So, as you see, there is work to be done. Fiddle Faddle 07:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Request on 14:49:25, 25 October 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Peter-ed-tech


Hi Timtrent, You have just rejected (politely) my article on the National Development Programme in Computer Assisted Learning because it contains copyrighted material from edtechhistory.org.uk - since I am the author of edtechhistory.org.uk does this count to void the copyright problem? If not what is the best way for me to add to Wikipedia the material I am writing that I think ought to be there? Peter-ed-tech (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Peter-ed-tech (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Peter-ed-tech: Copyright issues often confuse those who assert that they own the copyright. Quite reasonably they wonder why their work is not acceptable. The answer is that we do not, currently, know that you are the author, and we do not know this because this is the internet and you could be anyone, though, probably, you are who you state you are. It's hard to say that without appearing to give offence. None is intended.
There are two solutions:
  • Licence your own site (or selected pages on it) under a compatible licence that allows not only WIkipedia but other users to use your copyright material. Once so licenced this cannot be revoked. A bell cannot be unrung.
  • Use the process in WP:Donating copyright material
Recognise that each of these routes allows your copyright material to be used by others, and for their own commercial purposes. Recognise, too, that your words own your own web site may not be the words that Wikipedia needs. You may be better advised to craft the relevant sections of a Wikipedia article in new words. We need "dull-but-worthy" and that may not be the same as your own site needs. Fiddle Faddle 17:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the response Timtrent. Think I will rewrite the article in a dull but worthy way so it is different copy to my website and resubmit - do you think this is sensible? Peter-ed-tech (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
@Peter-ed-tech: That is the approach I would recommend. I suggest you delete the copyright violations at once and rebuild at leisure. Make sure your text for Wikipedia cannot be viewed as a close paraphrase of your own site.
No need for a new section each time, as you can see. Loads to learn, is there not? Fiddle Faddle 18:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thanks - lots to learn but that is what makes it interesting! Peter-ed-tech (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

From Melitta2012

Hi, I am new to wikipedia, it has been hard and taken me a while to figure out how to prepare an article. You were the last reviewer to my article about the deceased artist Beny Tchaicovsky. I would really appreciate if you could check my article again at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Melitta2012/sandbox before I submit again to a reviewer. I would really appreciate any feedback and correction including syntax and grammar since English is not my first language. Thank You so much for your work in wikipedia.

You certainly have been making a great contribution to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melitta2012 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 27 August 2014‎

@Melitta2012: I have only just found your message on my USER page, not here on my tall page.
You have not removed all the inline links I am afraid. Do not worry about grammar and syntax. Those will all be edited if necessary when it is accepted. I suggest that you look for the inline link (there may be more than one) and sort that out and simply resubmit if you have done everything else I suggested. Fiddle Faddle 23:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jay-P

AlexanderGee (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Hello,

Kindly have a look at my edit on the page and advise me accordingly. I feel like i have gotten rid of the pea cock term and clutterAlexanderGee (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@AlexanderGee: Even better than that, another reviewer also agrees and has accepted it. Fiddle Faddle 05:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Tim

Could you please look into my article and review it since i believe it contains enough and good references ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hangover_%28Salman_Khan_Song%29 ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AliDho (talk • contribs) 12:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@AliDho: if you don't mind I'll leave this to someone else. It is not my field, really. I do suggest you do not use Youtube as a reference, though. Instead deploy {{Youtube}} as an external link. We tend to deprecate Youtube as a reference. The link must be to the copyright owner's channel in the external link, by the way. Fiddle Faddle 12:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


So does this mean that my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumme_Ki_Raat has been reviewed?

what shall i do? should i delete it and creat it again? and aslo when you creat a article is it necessary to creat a draft of the article first?

i did not creat jumme ki raat as a draft.. how do i delete both of my articles? and can i creat them again but from a new account with the same names? AliDho (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@AliDho: Your other article is already in the main article namespace. It does not require submission. Fiddle Faddle 12:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I very much doubt t has been reviewed. It appears that you created it there. It must now take its chance with other articles. Fiddle Faddle 12:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I am getting confused now. You have added and deleted questions and I cannot keep up.

The new article is an article already. It may as well stay there. Simply improve it.

It is not necessary to start in the draft space, but you need to be experienced to get it right in main namespace.

Please remember to sign your talk page comments with ~~~~, which turn by magic into your signature Fiddle Faddle 13:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You place {{Db-author}} at the head of each. I have no idea why you need a new account. Nor do I understand why you place new questions in the middle of old material here. Fiddle Faddle 13:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Tim

Please do me a favor delete both of my articles .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hangover_%28Salman_Khan_Song%29 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumme_Ki_Raat as i'm not being able to do it by myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by AliDho (talk • contribs) 13:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not an admin. I cannot do it. Fiddle Faddle
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timtrent/Archive_22&oldid=1140565077"