User talk:Timtrent/Archive 17

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carlos Dews
Hi, Fiddle Faddle! After talking with you, and folks on Teahouse and live help, I have been diligently reworking Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carlos Dews. If you have the time and inclination, I would appreciate your taking a look to see if your objections have been cleared up. I really want to have it ship-shape when a reviewer next decides its acceptability. Thanks and regards, Oldbeeg (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess it was ship-shape. Thank you! Oldbeeg (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: Reference checks for Aleya SenSharma
Dear Timtrent, A few of my references (links) show Aleya Sen and few display my name as Aleya SenSharma. You have advised - 'With regard to your name pre-marriage, if that is the name in references then you need to note in the article, if you have not, that you went by Sen and now SenSharma'.

I would NOT like to have a mention of my marriage in my article, but still be called by my post marriage name 'Aleya SenSharma'. I hope you understand. Is there an alternative for using my post marriage name on my article and the references provided without mentioning about my marriage? so that the resources are not termed as unreliable.

Also, if I request my article to be created under 'Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography' how long (approx days) does it take for the article to be created?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleya sensharma (talk • contribs) 10:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * There will be a problem. If the article is accepted, or if any other article is created about you, your marriage will be mentioned, by someone, and will be cited in a reliable source. I hope you realise that you will never have any control over this because you can not own the article. What you need to do now is to think hard about this article and what will happen in the future.
 * That problem will exist if you request creation. And a request can be immediate or take for ever. I fear it depends on the whim of thise doing the work.
 * Wikipedia is a very awkward place to work. As soon as we save the work it becomes public property. I'm sorry this is the answer you do not wish to hear, but I want you to know and understand how WIkipedia works. Fiddle   Faddle  14:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Redirect for Sam Cabot, plus some leftovers
Hi, Timtrent. I would like to discuss a problem with the Sam Cabot redirect. There are two writers who make up Cabot, and the redirect does not reference S. J. Rozan. I posted about my wanting to link two bios to a pen name in the Teahouse earlier, before I saw this redirect. Can two names be on a redirect (which I doubt)? Would a simple page titled Sam Cabot with wikilinks to Dews and Rozan work better? Is there another solution?

In the Dews edit text, there is still a lot of leftover submission text at the bottom, along with a second persondata box and the start of a second set of categories. Can I delete all that to further clean it up? And one final question. I have had more paragraphs and you close them to two. I don't want us in an edit war on paragraph size. Can we discuss? I don't care for the longer paragraphs as I think it makes them more daunting to read through. But the more practical reason for smaller paragraphs for me is that it makes it easier to find the place to make an edit. With all the citations intermixed with the text, having more 'beginnings' gives more reference points at which to start looking. Thanks and regards, Oldbeeg (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * My fault :) deal with the redirect in any way you see fit, and feel free to tidy anything that needs tidying. Don't forget to stand back and enjoy it when other editors take over the article. Be Father not Mother. Fiddle   Faddle  14:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Timtrent, after the 'clean-up', I hope to ignore it for a month or so. I have to figure out how to link the two separate writers to Sam Cabot. Is a Cabot page with an introductory sentence or so with wikilinks to Dews and Rozan an acceptable way to go? It would in effect stay a stub -- unless the books take off. Then it would need more information. Thanks for all your help, Oldbeeg (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I've changed Sam Cabot, but I am unsure, so I have asked for help, below. There will be someone who knows. The Helpme system is your friend. Mine too. I've been here for a year or two and I use it when I can't find the answer easily.
 * The other article needs to mention the Cabot partnership. If it does not, please add it, with sourcing, of course. Fiddle   Faddle  17:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Timtrent, I was editing the Rozan article, had added that Sam Cabot was her plus Carlos Dews, and decided a Dews page was needed so 'everyone' could be linked to 'everyone'. I like your using a disambiguation page -- I couldn't figure the way to do that. I hope Boleyn, or another disambiguation specialist will be along with comments. Thanks again for your help, Oldbeeg (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Sam Cabot
Pease inspect Sam Cabot and help me by turning it into the correct type of page. As you can see it is a page to allow a reader to enter Sam Cabot in the search box and to be shown that Sam is the nom de plume of a duo of authors writing collaboratively under the same name. I've done my best, but I'm not sure I'm correct i the way I've handled it, so seeing the correct solution will be useful, please. Fiddle  Faddle  17:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. Should be more useful now. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Angelo Maristela
Hi. Just received comments for my first article. In your comments, the tone should be neutral. I can fix that. However for the source Abode Magazine, the link I provided is an online issue. It has flippable digital pages. I did mention the page numbers though. Should I just delete that? Please let me know. Thanks A1unlimited (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I must have missed the page numbers. Have a good look at WP:CITE, and templates such as Cite web for ways of doing this. If it is a good reference do not delete it, just enhance it. Fiddle   Faddle  20:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

JohnHeggelund
I work for Children at Risk. They asked me to create the wiki using the information from the website so as not to create any consistency issues. How can I do my job and make the wiki page using that information without getting cited for copyright infringement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnHeggelund (talk • contribs) 20:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I surmised that you did and had been. We have a process under WP:COPYRIGHTS (see also WP:OTRS) to donate the article under an irrevocable licence. That may meet your needs. Obviously my action is to protect your copyright and must seem very annoying, but we cannot know with any certainty that you are who you say you are, as I am sure you can appreciate. If you need additional help place Helpme on your own talk page and ask this question, explaining the additional help you need. I am not a copyright expert, and you deserve an expert answer. Fiddle   Faddle  20:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/ThreadSafe
Hi Timtrent,

I was very disappointed that Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/ThreadSafe wasn't approved, particularly after waiting for 6 weeks. At least two of your three specific complaints are incorrect, see below. And I think the editorial standards you are applying for notability would have rejected at least 4-5 of the 13 Wikipedia articles on similar tools listed in List_of_tools_for_static_code_analysis - for instance AgileJ StructureViews has no references at all and the only references in Squale are about the project's funding.

Looking at the specific references you have flagged (numbering as in Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/ThreadSafe):


 * [3]: "ca;t see Threadsafe in this reference". It talks about "Contemplate's technology": this refers to ThreadSafe, which didn't have a name at that point.
 * [4]: "does not mention Threadsafe". Not true - you need to go to pages 2 and 3 of the article to see it. The first page, and indeed the whole article, is about precisely the point that the reference is attached to.
 * [5]: "flagged as requiring some form of subscription". No, they just want your email address so they can put you on their mailing list. There is a copy here if you would like to check what it contains. It also supports most of the earlier points in the article.

You don't say anything about [2], which is very detailed and supports each of the statements it is attached to. The author is one of the developers of ThreadSafe but InfoQ's editorial process screens out unsubstantiated material. In this case the bulk of the article is specific downloadable versions of open source codebases which can be checked with ThreadSafe under a free trial to obtain the results indicated. The editor who accepted the article did try ThreadSafe before accepting it.

You don't say anything about [1], which is independent but less detailed; again it supports each of the statements it is attached to.

I wonder what to do now? Maybe my points above are enough that you will reconsider? I could add two references, if that would help:


 * I didn't include it because it is subsumed by [2] and is older, but it is independent (in fact, written by the editor who accepted 2 for InfoQ).
 * this is an independent blog post, which I didn't include because it's lightweight compared with the other references.

Thanks in advance for your input! I hope you will understand my frustration.

Best regards, Don (Dsannella (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC))


 * Thank you for coming here. I'm sorry you had to wait six weeks. We are all people like you, volunteers. It will never work at the speed people wish for. I specialise in reviewing the oldest submissions, and I will give you a written guarantee that I do not always get it right. You are more than welcome to ask for other eyes on my review. I don;t have the time at present to look in any further detail because I am off to work. I felt that you deserved to know that I will look again, but not until the sun has set and risen again
 * One point before I go; other articles succeed or fail on their individual merits. It may seem weird, but it is the way of Wikipedia. Each article is as vulnerable as any other to being nominated for deletion, and at ay stage in its life here. If those articles fall below the standard required, any editor may nominate them for deletion. What I want to prevent with yours is a fast nomination for deletion the moment it lands in article space. Articles with a track record of being deleted are often deleted summarily whenever they are spotted.
 * I will look tomorrow. If the references you have proposed pass the WP:RS test (I have not looked, I felt an answer was more important than a detailed answer today) please add them Fiddle   Faddle  16:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your very quick and helpful response, and for your willingness to have another look so quickly! WOW! Wikipedia is a great resource that I use every day and I very well understand that maintaining quality requires a lot of hard work from dedicated volunteers like you. What I said about the speed wasn't meant as a complaint, but I can see that it came out that way, sorry!


 * I've added the two references I mentioned. I think they improve notability because they are definitely independent. The second one is a blog. The WP:RS guidelines say that "personal and group blogs" are unacceptable. This is a company blog - don't know if that counts or not - and the article is an independent review by a user of ThreadSafe.


 * The article is now a little cluttered with multiple references for most statements but I don't see what else I can do if the previous references were insufficient. I can of course remove some if necessary and would be grateful for your guidance. I would be reluctant to remove the Atkey paper because, although the author is one of the developers of ThreadSafe, it provides the most useful and detailed information.


 * I have also clarified that the GrammaTech article requires registration (not subscription).


 * I haven't removed your annotations on the three references that I refer to above (note that the numbering of references in the article is now different: 1,2,3,4,5 before -> 2,3,4,5,7 now, not to be confused with 1,2 below which are now 1,6 there).


 * Thanks again! Dsannella (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I will look now at each reference individually here:


 * http://www.infoq.com/news/2013/08/ThreadSafe-Public-Release I am not competent to judge whether InfoQ is WP:RS or not. There is, however, Reliable sources/Noticeboard where you can ask about it. It has a borderline look and feel, but that means nothing. After you have received a reply I'd love to know the answer. That way I can gain new knowledge, and we both win.
 * http://www.devx.com/Java/contemplate-delivers-threadsafe-java-concurrency-static-analysis-tool.html I have the same answer as for number 1. There is a problem, though, because that article identifies you as the CEO, and that means that we have to note that you are conflicted in writing this article. WP:COI is important to us, as I am sure you know. That does not make it impossible to write a neutral article, but it makes it darned hard. WP:AFC minimises COI, however, because of the rather tough review process through pedantic people like me.
 * http://www.infoq.com/articles/Java-Concurrency-Static-Analysis-with-ThreadSafe has precisely the same issues as number 1. It is a review, which is what we want and need, not a notice of release, so it is the best reference so far. If InfoQ makes the grade, this is a great reference. If not, not. We depend upon InfoQ
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20131014022454/http://www.cfo-insight.com/risk-management-it/it/software-errors-new-technology-briefing-for-cfos/ This most definitely is RS. I see, now, that Contemplate is mentioned in it, but Threadsafe seems not to be. We need the subject of the article to be handled in the reference. While I know you can argue that Threadsafe is a product from Contemplate, the average casual reader does not know that so easily. So something has to happen to make the connection. Folk like me, we're picky about references, and this is one of those picky times
 * http://www.cio.com/article/749493/Why_Software_Testing_Can_t_Save_You_From_IT_Disasters It took me a while to find it. And it is, of course, there. And the source is reliable. I suggest you change the reference to be http://www.cio.com/article/749493/Why_Software_Testing_Can_t_Save_You_From_IT_Disasters?page=2&taxonomyId=3039
 * http://blog.novatec-gmbh.de/threadsafe-fast-way-discover-concurrency-problems/ is indeed a blog. What we need to do is to confirm whetehr the organisation and its blog can be classified as RS. The author, appears to be like me, a decent bloke but non notable himself. https://www.linkedin.com/in/ivansenic That is not an obstacle, but he is an employee of the orgamnisation. Before we even look at the organsiation we presume that his opinion is his employer's. He does not have the illusory independence of a journalist, for example. TReading http://blog.novatec-gmbh.de/about/ shows us that Novatec has a purpose that is not simply the provision of information. They sell their expertise. They are thus not RS, certainly in this field. Gartner they are not (though I have strong doubts about that organisation as RS at tomes, too)
 * http://grammatech.com/whitepapers/conquering-complex-java-concurrency-bugs-with-codesonar Subscribing to a newsletter (etc) really is payment. My working life was on permission based marketing, and I have some expertise in the value of data. Giving my data in order to receive a white paper is payment. So I must refer to the version (and you should reference) the version that is free to access. I see it as a white paper about Threadsafe. Good. http://grammatech.com/about tells me about Grammatech. I am sure you will see that I have the same concerns, well similar concerns, to those I have about number 6
 * None of this is insoluble. If you look at Cite web and its sister templates you will see that there are parameters you have not used. Some of the issues may be solved by used of quoted snippets and the quote= parameter. I commend further study of the parameters.
 * So, what would I do were I the author?
 * Drop like a hot brick any references that are not WP:RS. Same with any that do not mention the product, though a route is to link product to corporation and make that reference refer to the linkage. The problem there is that it is word gymnastics to do so with that reference. Read User:Timtrent/A good article and the places it links to. Loads of reading, but time is what we all have. Yes, you are keen to promote this article to main namespace, but, of course, you realise that this is Wikipedia and is not a promotional tool for Threadsafe. We report notable things, we do not promote them to become notable.
 * Even though the review process can take a rather long time, as shown by the huge number of submission in Category:AfC pending submissions by age/Very old, a category refilled overnight every day, and the category in which I 'work', resubmit when you are ready and forget about it until reviewed again. Edit even after resubmission.
 * You can see why I had no time yesterday! I hope you find this of some use, and at least an explanation of my thinking. Remember, I am not necessarily correct. I am just a couple of pages further on in the manual than you are, after all. Fiddle   Faddle  08:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for the very detailed and helpful comments! I'll do what you say. I have already asked about InfoQ and DevX in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and will let you know here when it seems that there is a conclusion.


 * Can I just respond to a couple of things above? I understand that you're short of time.


 * Re COI and Wikipedia not being a promotional tool: I understand and for that reason I have been extremely careful with my wording, with most of this article being near-quotes from the sources. (I was explicit about the degree of my COI when I first submitted the article but I don't see anymore where that is recorded.)


 * Re lack of explicit mention of ThreadSafe in [4]: It's in the title of the broken image at the top but nowhere else - unfortunately the publication has ceased publication so this is an archive copy without images, and I think the image included this as a caption. The only way I can establish that ThreadSafe is Contemplate's only product is by pointing to http://www.contemplateltd.com but surely that is verboten. I could add an explanation as a tag on the reference, using Cite web parameters - is that what you're suggesting?


 * Re GrammaTech whitepaper: I take your point but the statement in question is a factual one about something that they sell ("ThreadSafe is available as a fully-integrated plug-in to GrammaTech's CodeSonar suite of program analysis tools"), not a matter of opinion. (I copied the heading and style from another Wikipedia article about a similar tool.) For COI reasons I didn't use it as support for the earlier statements in the article although all of that and more is there too. And I don't see anything in the WP:RS guidelines which forbids references to subscription-only material, in fact the encouragement to refer to scholarly journals etc. suggests the opposite. I can't publish the link I gave in the article (and will remove it now from the web) because I don't own the copyright.


 * Re use of quoted snippets etc. using Cite web parameters: I can do it but I have never seen that on Wikipedia - well, maybe in articles about controversial issues in politics but not in technical articles like this one. I can see that an editor might want to see the justification but don't you think that actual readers would regard it as annoying clutter? Or would these details be edited out at the point of publication?


 * Dsannella (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * All understood. I view the article as written neutrally. COI needs to be logged "because it does" if you follow me. The WP:AFC process pretty much handles trade puffery, as I'm sure you know. We force folk to rip any that might have been present out . Look at Epsom College for deployment of the quote parameter. References to subscription only material are fine, but we flag them. References are references are references, if you follow me, but we like to ensure that folk to not trip over without being forewarned. It is acceptable to use a primary source where no RS exists, but we use them sparingly (the key point). It is worth noting on the talk page that one has done this in the hope of transparency. Some folk refuse to understand and stuff 'their articles' with link after link to their own 'stuff' (repetition intended).
 * Always remember that I am one opinion only. I have been wrong in the past and the present. I will be wrong in the future. Use me as guide. This is why I do my best never to review an article twice. Articles, unless they are immediately acceptable, need more than one set of eyes. I'm sure I've missed a question, somewhere, for which my apologies. Fiddle   Faddle  13:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've done everything you suggested - I think - and resubmitted the article. Still waiting for somebody to respond to my questions about InfoQ and DevX in Reliable sources/Noticeboard. You say that you try not to review an article twice, but since you've already put quite a lot of work into this one and been so helpful in listing what I need to do, and since this article has already been scrutinised by three sets of eyes, perhaps you'd like to make an exception in this case. Maybe even before it reaches Category:AfC pending submissions by age/Very old? Dsannella (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm tempted, but I will pass on the opportunity. We have a backlog clearance drive lasting for the whole of June, and I am certain that the article will be handled very soon. It really is important to have further eyes. I predict the article will be live before the end of June. Fiddle   Faddle  11:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Congratulations. I knew it would be accepted soon. Hard work, but worthwhile. It is no mean feat to get an article accepted when one is the principal. It takes a lot of head scratching to do it. Please do not stop with Threadsafe. Writing articles on Wikipedia is a hugely valuable skill for one's real world efforts, too. Being able to write neutrally also enhances one's ability to write marketing copy. Yes, a paradox, but true. I started in IT sales & marketing in 1979 and it finally spat me out around 2009. I can still write bullshit and hype with the best of them! Fiddle   Faddle  00:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your help! I was waiting to hear about InfoQ and DevX in Reliable sources/Noticeboard before coming back, but there have been no responses. I guess the other editor decided that the references were strong enough to accept the article. I'm much more used to writing dry academic prose than marketing material, so neutral isn't so hard for me. I have made minor anonymous contributions to Wikipedia articles in the past but this has been a different experience. I'll try to do more when I have some time. Dsannella (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft Postal Certifications
Hi Timtrent, you declined my draft article about postal certifications. You mentioned in your description that it is not clear enough what the article is about: a list or a generic page. Postal certifications are a hard topic. All over the world only five postal certifications are available. In my article I mentioned all the five certifications (List them up) and tried to give an overview why they were launched, when they were launched, what postal organizations expect on the certifications etc.

Not sure what you asked me to add or to clarify on this.

Can you please advise me?

Thanks and greetings from Germany Pinpoint_since1991 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinpoint since1991 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Please never forget to link to the article. I found it easily, but it helps.
 * I wrote "I need some more clarity regarding this article. Is it a list of postal certification schemes or does it discuss postal certification in generic terms. To me, at present, it tries to do both and thus fails. Instead of covering two subjects in one article consider two articles, or stick to one subject." and that is really my only criticism so far. I have no idea if you are attempting a list of systems, or whetehr the article is about the topic. To me it tries top bring the two together and thus fails. I would prefer an article on each.
 * But, and this is important, I am not the sole reviewer.
 * Others may form a different view, and that is fine. May I suggest you ask at the Articles For Creation Help Desk for other eyes to look and guide you in the route froward? Don't forget to link there to your draft. Fiddle   Faddle  16:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Dov Schperling
Hello, I have edited my article's text and added many sources. Please review it and let me know if it is ready for submission. Thank you --Schmuels (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I will go and have a look shortly, but why not resubmit it anyway. By the way that wasn't quite the right use of the Helpme template. One places it on one's own talk page and asks a question directly related to one's self. Not to worry. Fiddle   Faddle  17:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you. Looking forward to your feedback.--Schmuels (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Feedback left at the draft article Fiddle   Faddle  18:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment. the page is a bibliography of a deceased person.--Schmuels (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect you need to make that more obvious with "Fred Smith (September 4, 1876 - July 4, 1942)" It;s very easy to miss
 * It is written just above the bibliography "Dov Schperling ( 17 December 1937 - 5 Mar 2014 ) ". anyway- can I get help on getting this article accepted?--Schmuels (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I've moved what seem to be references rather than external links into the References section. I cannot read Hebrew so cant; do much more than that with them. What I suggest is that you resubmit, and get the next reviewer's advice. I don't think I can be much more help. Fiddle   Faddle  07:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ok, thank you--Schmuels (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Good luck. Fiddle   Faddle  20:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Henry k raine
Thanks for the good advice. Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cahill1974 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it will survive. There is sufficient referencing and enough work to be a stub article. Fiddle   Faddle  21:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

RE: Review
Hi Tim,

I apologize for the accidental deletion of the review, and the vandalism of your comment. Someone was at my computer at the time and I wasn't watching what they were doing. Thank you.

- Hickerz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hicksterz (talk • contribs) 22:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Accepted with pleasure. I think you can make this article work. Just research the references you need and all will be fine. Fiddle   Faddle  22:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Library consultant
Back in 2009, you nominated the page Library consultant for deletion (see Articles for deletion/Library consultant). A new user has submitted an Articles for Creation draft at Draft:Library consultant and I thought you might want to take a look at it. —Mz7 (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It is quite possible that the world has moved ahead, but I am pushing this back once to the author for more rigour solely on the basis of what I see in the article. I try not to re-review articles unless for obvious material, so, since my review is opinion based, albeit with rationale, I shall not re-review it. Other eyes are important here. Thanks for letting me have the chance to look at it. Fiddle   Faddle  06:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Powerflush
Hi Tim, where do I find your comments on my submission?

As you can guess, I'm new to this!

Jan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janlepkowski (talk • contribs) 08:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * easier than you think. We were all new once, of course. Draft:Power flush (heating systems) is where the draft article is now, and where the review comments are. There is an awful lot one needs to learn at once, isn't there. The question you need to consider is "Is power flushing a notable topic, and suitable for WIkipedia?" For me it;s borderline, but the current article does need work. I fear quite a lot. User:Timtrent/A good article may help you. Don't rush. We have loads of time. Fiddle   Faddle  09:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Acorn Stairlifts Draft
Acorn Stairlifts

Our recent submission regarding Acorn stairlifts was rejected as reading too much like an advert. So as to help us edit the article accordingly, could you please offer some guidance as to how our article differed from the one written by Stannah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stannah_Lifts which also has some internal links and company information. Obviously we'd like to get our re-submission right so would be grateful to know what differences there are between Stannah's wiki entry and our own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.76.52 (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I wish you had linked to the article. I have been handling so many articles that I cannot find yours. I can thus only give you general help:
 * Ignore Stannah. If the article on them is not up to standard any editor at all may edit it, nominate it for deletion (only in good faith, obviously). The thing about Wikipedia is that no article sets a precedent for any other. I know that feels weird, bit think deeply. If we let poor quality set a precedent the whole thing gets dragged lower. See Idiocracy, which would be unfortunate indeed
 * Make sure, despite being excited about your products, that you do not over-feature them. What we need to see is an article with references about Acorn, the company. We require sourcing from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. So ot is sufficient to say "Acorn Stairlifts manufacture stairlifs and specialise (if you do) in difficult access installations(CITATION - a third party WP:RS discussion of how cracking good Acorn as a company is.
 * Deal with company history (verified by proper references in WP:RS)
 * Accept that Acorn may just not be notable. What has it done that has come to media notice? Not Press Release stuff nor PR stuff. What have media people said about Acorn. Include the bad stuff, if any. If you do not and the article is accepted someone else will!


 * I'm not sure I'll be able to offer more advice if I find the draft, but feel free to find it for me and link to it. I'll do my best. I would counsel you, though. Not much good ever comes from an organisation writing its own Wikipedia article. It often backfires. Fiddle   Faddle  17:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I failed because it is Draft:Acorn Mobility, not stairlifts.
 * Simple things matter
 * "most notably the Acorn Superglide 120 and Acorn 180 Curved Stairlift System.' er, no. Wikipedia decides what is notable. a reference in WP:RS may achieve it.
 * History section. No refs means it is unimportant. It should either go or be referenced. If there are no references it is plain not notable
 * "Acorn Mobility Services are committed to the Investors in People standards, of which it is a member. The company has over 1,000 employees worldwide." Is it? So reference it. Mainly, folk use IIP as some sort of "look at me!"
 * "Acorn Mobility Ltd is happy to lend their support to many charitable causes including the Macmillan Cancer Support, Sue Ryder and The Arthritis Foundation and regularly donate stairlifts to local hospices and homes." Whoppeee! Go Acorn. But, unless the re are WP:RS references for it, we don't care. And, as a marketing copywriter of many years experience,. ''So what?" What value does this add to Acorn's notability?
 * "In 2003 Acorn Stairlifts partnered with Dr Hilary Jones" Who? And So what?
 * Instead of looking at this as "We must have a page on Wikipedia" ask yourself why? Then find all the references you can about Acorn, and create your article from them, built around verifiable and significant facts. I hope this helps you to understand my review Fiddle   Faddle  17:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

New articles
Hi Timtrent. Just a word to thank you and your colleagues for monitoring the progress of articles by new Wikipedians and assisting them in improving their performance. See for example here. Keep up the good work.Ipigott (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't realise I had been so busy. I have declined many more than I have accepted. I wish we could somehow change the poor quality that often issues from the firehose of ordure. Fiddle   Faddle  17:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't despair! Even if you only manage to keep one out of ten, the future of the EN Wiki will be assured. For some, it's a long learning process, for others, innate ability. Thanks to people like you, many of the newbies decide to stay around. Unfortunately, many more are frightened away by the treatment they receive, especially when they are told their work is not sufficiently notable or smacks of publicity or is simply below standard. P.S. I like your bios on British gymnasts.--Ipigott (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, the acrobatic lads. They seem to get such a raw deal. No olympic sport, no real recognition. I hoped others would pick up the baton, but no!
 * Always remember, not every newbie is worth it, but AfC lets them at least try to be!  Fiddle   Faddle  21:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Non-islet cell tumor induced hypoglycemia
Hi, Timtrent. Did you see my comment here? Axl ¤  [Talk]  10:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I have now. Please may I suggest that you ask at the Articles For Creation Help Desk for a re-review, based upon that discussion and the comments at the head of the draft and any other information you feel to be relevant. If I have any advice it is to be concise. I'm sure you understand why I declined it - it was in order to force some sort of action. Very few of us have the deep expertise required to review this. Is there any coverage (I have not re-checked) in relevant WP:RS media? That would be useful Fiddle   Faddle  10:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Article Neil Randall David
Hi TimTrent I am very pleased with the Wikipedia acceptance of my article titled “Neil Randall David”. However, the title is not the ideal name for this biographical article. Can you assist me in changing to one of the following? Reason for change. Neil David is an American Indian, internationally known but not by his formal name. He is commonly called Neil David Sr. or Neil David; and signs his art in that manner. If someone wants to use Wikipedia to find out more of him or his Indian background they would not be able to reach his site readily. I have some minor edits on his Wikipedia site,I can handle these, but I do not know how to rename it. The name most appropriate would be Neil David Sr. followed by Neil R. David, or Neil R. David Sr. or Neil Randall David Sr. in that order.

When I go to Wikipedia and type in Neil David, I get a number of Neil David with optional middle names or intitials but not a direction to Neil David Sr. Can you change the title or assist me in getting it changed? Thank you, MarkThree MarkThree (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Easy to do, and done. Well, in a moment. Fiddle   Faddle  20:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Cheers!

 * I noticed that every time I checked that discussion the originator has not answered my points. The world of full of killjoys.
 * I have only been playing on AfC for about a month. I think my track record is broadly the same during the drive as outside it. give or take. A drive isn;t perfect, and no-one seems to be playing much in the fire hose of ordure which is the recent submissions pile.
 * Ok. let's have a race, kind of. I'm sort of deflated about it, not because of killjoy boi's comments, but because it is too long, a whole month. So I will probably get bored soon.
 * Oh. I have a habit of calling a spade a spade. ~ sips tea~  Fiddle   Faddle  20:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Invercargill Brewery
Thanks for your suggestions. Hopefully I've got it right this time around!Additionally (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Promise kept   Fiddle   Faddle

Thank you so much!!! My first Wiki published article. Have a lovely weekend. 103.29.31.21 (talk) 08:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Reg : Article India Inclusion Summit!!!
Hello Timtrent/Fiddle Faddle,

Thank you so much for the welcome, i really liked the cookies :-)...

Thank you so much for your review and the suggestions you made to improve the article.:-)... I accept to your point that the names i mentioned in the article and the reference links i provided for them is not actually related to the summit, but the other links do contain their names, what i thought is when i mentioned Mr. V R Ferose MD Sap Labs, i thought i need to provide a link which shows the person is notable, but missed this point that it is not related to summit.

Please see the below links which i have provided in respective to the other speakers. This Summit happened for a good cause Fiddle for physically and differently abled people in the society and they are going help them in all possible ways. I created this article in order to give the information to all the people who might not have attended this sumiit and get the details and contribute for such kind of people. I understood the point you made here about the wiki rules and norms for the reference links, as you suggested, please go through the below links and I hope the article will pass the review and get published. :-)

1. http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/bangalore/Summit-for-differently-abled-promises-new-paths/2013/11/26/article1910719.ece 2. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/Summit-helps-disabled-persons-help-themselves/articleshow/26598871.cms 3. http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/summit-to-push-for-an-inclusive-society/article4152711.ece 4. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-12-03/news/44710291_1_asd-autistics-disabilities

Fiidle, Here are the other links which with the clips of the National Papers covering the Summit

http://myimpact.impactmeasurement.co.in/index.php?page=Clipj&id=691665f0bc9a2f34d107de3318673f4a&id2=6c8f9acc3b4a1a0e8ca33196721fca2d

http://myimpact.impactmeasurement.co.in/index.php?page=Clipj&id=20833a446b940e2622fe6afe62e18d7d&id2=6c8f9acc3b4a1a0e8ca33196721fca2d — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjali Reddy J (talk • contribs) 04:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks & Regards Anjali


 * I have looked at the article as it stands today, and I have resubmitted it in your name and accepted it. Forgive me, I do not have the time today to look at the links above. I am not sure if you have included them in the article or not. If you can improve the article please do so. Just remember that it is now in the wild, on its own, and you should father it, not mother it  Fiddle   Faddle  07:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Timtrent/Fiddle Faddle,

Thank you so much for not only reviewing the article and also submitting it and accepting it. I have included the above links in the article :-)...Sure i will definitly improve the article and contribute to other articles too by following all the wiki norms & rules. Thank you so much once again..:-)...have a great day and happy weekend..:-)

Thanks & Regards Anjali — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjali Reddy J (talk • contribs) 08:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Citiustech Wiki page
Hello Timtrent,

This is with regards to the wikipedia page we have been trying to create with the title "CitiusTech".

It would be of great help if you could guide us with the exact URL of the draft under consideration. Along with the same also do educate us the procedure of deleting the unwanted drafts created.

Looking forward for your guidance. Thank & regards, Admin - CitiusTech — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.70.17.154 (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It is never a good idea to write an article about your own corporation. But, since you are doing so, let us proceed. To me it does not matter at all which article you choose as long as it is obvious that you have chosen one. Perhaps I chose the wrong one. Who can say? But what you need to do is to migrate any missing information from the one to the other, and then BLANK the one the information was moved from. Blanking an article you created signifies that you wish it to be deleted. Give me a shout when you have done so and I'll see what I can sort out procedurally. Do not resubmit until you have sorted your end out. I may be busy having fun elsewhere, so my bit may take a short while. Be pleasantly patient.  Fiddle   Faddle  09:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Brian Kennedy (businessman)
Hi thanks for the message. I have retyped and made into my own words the offending copyright text. I have also but links into each stated information to prove notability against all relevant information. All parts are now text written in my own words and referenced. How do I get my article released as Im not sure what else I need to do inorder to accomplish this.?

I have been constantly improving and making changes to the text and notability to meet all Wikipedia criteria.

Thanks for you help from a person that is new to Wikipedia.

Darran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian George Kennedy (talk • contribs) 12:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Darran. Thanks for the message. I will not be reviewing that article, so you might want to make it clear on iot. If you leave a comment in the following format




 * in exactly that formatnd leave it on the article itself above the line, then the next reviewer will see it. May I ask, why is your name Darran and your username "Brian George Kennedy"?  Fiddle   Faddle  13:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I always try hard to work with new editors. Thanks for making it easy to do so. Fiddle   Faddle  13:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi , When I originally credit the account I thought that I need to create it in the name of the person I was writing about, but have learned since that this is not the case.

Thanks

Darran — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian George Kennedy (talk • contribs) 13:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Would you like to know how to change your user name? I advice it strongly to avid confusion. It is easy enough, but, like all things, there is a process. I'll find it out and leave some notes on your own talk page. Fiddle   Faddle  13:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

That would be great. Yes Please.

Im struggling to understand your last comment on how to place a comment on my page using




 * in exactly that formatnd leave it on the article itself above the line

Sorry but very new to list and have really struggled to be honest.

Darran

Easier than you think.
 * 1) Open the article about BGK
 * 2) Edit it
 * 3) Locate the line that looks like
 * 4) Above it type or paste as follows:
 * {{Afc comment|1=
 * after the = soigné type what you want to say
 * after you have ended what you want to say type ~ and then sign it with ~ which turns automagically into your signature

Ought to be easy if you take it step by step Fiddle   Faddle  13:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Perfect. That helped a lot and has worked.

Really appreciate all you help.

Darran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian George Kennedy (talk • contribs) 13:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

EACC
Hi Tim, we received your message but I am confused if the EACC (European American Chamber of Commerce) page was created or not. It appeared as if our submission was accepted today, could you clarify? Thank you, YvonneEACCNY (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It did. See European American Chamber of Commerce which I found by following the link on your talk page. Fiddle   Faddle  22:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

help me please
Hi Fiddle Faddle, I am a newbie and am trying really hard to improve the micro jobs page that is marked for deletion. I have added a lot of sources, and valid "see also entries" and hopefully some facts you will like. Please help me. As I said, I am new and really need some guidance. Thank you! Kendeyl (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look at it. Micro job's references needed more than [1], [2], so I am starting with that. Even Forbes put it in quotes, though, signifying that it is a neologism. And it was WW1 that started by women entering the previously male workplace.. I have removed the places where WIkipedia was used as a reference. We may never use WIkipedia that way because it is not a reliable source.
 * It;s not whether I like the facts or not. The issue is how the facts are referenced and how they are used.
 * Starting with referencing, every fact you assert requires a reference. But, your second sentence, while referenced, is not a fact. I book my handyman through the telephone, or through meeting him at another job.
 * Urban dictionary is a user edited source and cannot be a reference
 * What seems to have happened is that your contractor (Odd, is it not how the term 'micro jobber' or whatever it night be means contractor or temp) has written an article you are now wedded to, probably because you have paid good money for it. You need to start from the bottom up.
 * Are there references for this term?
 * Is it, even so, a neologism, something Wikipedia hates
 * Using the references as my sources, assuming it will fly, can I create an article that describes the term "Micro Job" itself, and not the world of work within which temporary employment, sourced online or in the flesh is normal and has been for years
 * Does this article differ from Temporary work or similar articles? If so, ought it to be merged into them or is it truly separate?
 * All this stuff is what we try to help folk with in the Articles for Creation process. Even there Wikipedia can feel brutal, but you do get the time to edit to your heart's content until one of us deems it to be ready after you submit it. Unfortunately we also make mistakes, all of us. I have in the past and I will in the future. I may be making one now. I don't think I am, but I may be. You have every right to disagree with me, too.
 * Specific problems in the article are that it constructs a scenario from the sources. This falls under WP:OR, perhaps WP:SYNTH. Your entire controversies section is original research, for example. The source doesn't mention Micro Job, and thus does not assist your article. We require sourcing from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS.
 * As you can see, I've flagged a few of the areas within the article for discussion, though, rectification, etc, but I will not do all of it because it will pepper it with gratuitous tags and banners. I have also suggested in the deletion discussion that it be sent back to Draft: for you to work on. Please may I suggest to you that you endorse my suggestion there? You have such a lot of work to do that I doubt the seven day time limit for discussion there will be sufficient. When you post there, be humble, be straightforward, and simply suggest that it was a draft article, placed into main space too soon, and that you would like it back as a draft to work on until it either makes the grade or you are convinced it never will.
 * Wikipedia is not an easy place. It can be brutal. Even the draft/review process can feel brutal, but, as you have seen, difficult as that process is, the deletion process actually hurts. That is why we try hard to avoid premature acceptance.
 * A piece of reading for you" User:Timtrent/A good article. It helps quite a bit, though is not perfect. Fiddle   Faddle  07:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Fiddle Faddle, thanks for helping me so much. is it possible to get this moved to drafts while I work on it? I am going through a divorce (and taking care of 4 kids) as of this Monday and I am really stressed out. I am afraid I may not be able to make all of your changes before the deletion deadline. I will read your suggested article right after writing this comment.

Microwork is not the same as a micro job. The microwork wiki article:  Microwork is a series of small tasks which together comprise a large unified project, and are completed by many people over the Internet.

Micro jobs are not small tasks done together for a unified project. A micro job is a single temporary job booked through the internet. This industry is booming and people are searching for info on it.

Crowdsourcing is like microwork ... it's a large number of people doing a small portion of something for a greater result. This in not the same a a micro job either.

So hopefully you will be open to the option that a micro job page will be useful to wiki readers. There are a lot of monthly searches on this term :)

I will follow ALL OF YOUR advice, I just need a little time. My goal is for this article to be relevant and incredible. I really appreciate your help!

Kendeyl (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I have added a further request to the deletion discussion to migrate it to Draft: I cannot do this because there are protocols for handling articles once they are in the wild and consensus is required. Even if it is deleted all is not lost. So look after the kids and enjoy your weekend and beyond. If it gets deleted come to me for help. Fiddle   Faddle  22:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Bonaventure Senior Living
Thank you Timtrent for reviewing my first submission to Wikipedia. This article was not meant to be an advertisement, but now that I read it I see that it reads like one. I have removed the advert wording. I anticipated that this first article would be a learning experience and require revisions while I learn the ropes. I appreciate your time! CMS.LLC (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I try not to re-review articles, so forgive me if I do not pass that way again. I'm glad you found my review helpful. Painful as being declined is, a deletion discussion is far more painful. So keep taking advice and you will both learn a lot and, I hope, get an article accepted.  Fiddle   Faddle  22:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Unipart Group
Thanks, that's really helpful. I am absolutely trying to avoid conflict of interest and have tried to avoid puff. I will follow the steps you've outlined and, once again, I'm very grateful for the help.

Fxdn (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)FXDN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fxdn/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fxdn (talk • contribs) 10:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Now at Draft:Unipart Group Fiddle   Faddle  10:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Timtrent,

Sorry to trouble you and thanks for responding to my submission. I'm not an experienced editor and I'm not sure what to do at this stage.

Would it be more appropriate for me to edit the existing page myself making the changes and adding content?

BTW I tried to use the live help chat but I really couldn't see how that worked!

Many thanks in advance for your time and patience in helping with this

regards Frank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fxdn (talk • contribs) 10:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Always trouble me! Well, not always, but you know what I mean. The route forward is simple. I remember that you have declared yourself to be fro Unipart and wish things to be corrected. Wisely you wish to avoid conflict of interest. You probably won;'t be surprised that we have a mechanism for that. It is Request edit, deployed on the talk page of the article.
 * Here is how to use it:
 * Go to the article's talk page, and start a new section
 * Make the same statement as you did declaring your Uniparrtness and desire to correct items
 * Deploy Request edit,
 * For EACH edit that you wish to make, show the before item, probably a whole paragraph, and the desired after item. It would be wise to title each ===Requested edit 1===, 2, etc, for clarity
 * If you have references embedded in the changes you wish to make (and I hope you do), deploy Reflist at the foot of your requests, but above the next bulletetd 'instruction'
 * At the foot, ask people politely to consider the edits and to make them if they agree with them and sign the post using ~, which turns automagically into your signature.
 * Monitor the article and talk page for discussions and changes but do not be at all surprised if nothing ever happens. Also do not be surprised if your wording is change (etc)
 * What happens next depends solely on the cadre of editors who watch the page. If nothing happens at all for a couple of weeks give me a shout and I'll try to work out the right route to cause action. We ought at least to see people discuss the proposed edits even if they choose not to perform them Fiddle   Faddle  10:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * too late at night for me to help you today, but this did not go the way I expected. I expected two things, one I stated the other I did not.
 * I expected you to follow my instructions literally. You embroidered them, That was the one I stated and the embroidery caused failure.
 * I expected you to use the text from the EDIT window in each article, not the finished text. Thsi is why the format is, well, crap. This is the one I did not state.
 * Do not bother about the contents page or the LIST of references. If you use the edit window text the references will come with you
 * I have a busy weekend. I suggest you revert Talk:Unipart to the version before you started, then do ONE and preview it. Follow my instructions literally, and step by step. Fiddle   Faddle  23:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the talk page there. Start again with a clean sheet. Fiddle   Faddle  23:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Sleeping Dogs template
I really wonder what makes you think that the subject of this article already exists. The Template:True Crime only lists the first game Sleeping Dogs not the whole series since the game was earlier being developed as True Crime 3: Hong Kong however later became a new IP just like the first Devil May Cry (video game) was actually earlier being developed as Resident Evil 4 but later became a whole new IP. The template created by me was for the whole Sleeping Dogs series including the new Sleeping Dogs game Sleeping Dogs: Triad Wars and True Crime (series) is related to it since earlier Sleeping Dogs was being developed as True Crime 3. It is some editor who keeps inserting Sleeping Dogs series in the Template:True Crime. However only the first Sleeping Dogs is related to the True crime series just like only the first Devil May Cry is related to resident Evil series. In Template:Resident Evil only the first Devil May Cry is listed under the Related section. Your reason given for not approving the template is utterly wrong and incorrect. Therefore I request you to please re-review the template. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * What makes me think it exists is that the one redirects to the other and the content is similar. I will not be re-reviewing it. I try very hard to leave the to other reviewers. You need to explain this on a section for documentation, bounded by tags so a future reviewer can see what you mean. I do suggest you make it better explained than the paragraph above, one I abandoned about half way through as impenetrable.  Fiddle   Faddle  08:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest you learn to properly speak English. My comment is not that difficult to understand. Just because is long doesn't mean you should abandon it midway. You are an irresponsible person. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It was and is impenetrable. You need to be concise, well punctuated and with paragraph breaks, I recall you were the one asking for help. When you ask for help, do it with clarity.
 * I 'much enjoyed' your split infinitive "To properly speak". Do not take your pique at your template having been declined out on me. Instead do what I suggested. If you reply here please try very hard not to tell me what I am or am not. Indeed do not use rudeness at all. It is not a behaviour welcomed on Wikipedia Fiddle   Faddle  08:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok so when I complain it's rudeness. Anyway I'll try to be clear. I created a template on the Sleeping Dogs series listing all it's games. The template lists True Crime (series) under the Related section. This is because earlier Sleeping Dogs was being devoped as Tue Crime 3. However the game later became a whole new game. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, when you call me an irresponsible person, that is rudeness. Now please go away. I have no interest in any further interaction with you. I have already told you I will not be re-reviewing the template. You have been given advice. If you dislike it, ask someone else. Fiddle   Faddle  08:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll go away. But can you please tell me whether you understood my explanation in my previous comment. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=612871936 your edit] to Teso College Aloet may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * students. The films screened in the school include educational, documentary, action, comedy etc..
 * ❌ up to the article's real author. Fiddle   Faddle  10:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

National centre For excellence
Hi Timrent, You had recently declined my article. I didnt understand the reason. I searched the net thoroughly and I kept each and every article that I found on the net. The best one so far is the CBSE web link. Pls help me :-( Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulmdinesh (talk • contribs) 11:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Please look at Draft:National Centre For Excellence, and notice that there are no references. There are some external links, but they are external links. We require sourcing from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. If you need urgent help please ask at the articles for creation help desk. I am away for the rest of the day. Fiddle   Faddle  11:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Isobel Pravda article
Thanks for the comments on the article. I've replaced the IMDB references with other sources, and removed the 'dump' of references at the end. Let me know if it needs more work before it can be published. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TPravda (talk • contribs) 12:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I saw sufficient to accept it, but it remains vulnerable to possible deletion discussions. It is in need of more 'beef' in the text. Real stuff, and referenced, obviously. Fiddle   Faddle  17:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

CEDIA Notability
Hi Timtrent

Thanks for your time and effort in reviewing and providing feedback on my article submission.

CEDIA and their respective awards are the most desired in the custom installation industry. Electronics Design Group, Grahams Hi-Fi, Vantage Controls, Crestron Electronics & Linn Products wiki article also cite CEDIA Awards. Anyone and everyone in the industry knows of CEDIA and their awards, I am surprised it doesn't have a wiki page already. If I created a CEDIA page, would this help (assuming I can reference it sufficiently and get is accepted)?

With regard to Finite solutions notability, I have added that they have been consulted by BBC & Sky News, with independent references.

Cheers, Morgan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkengmad (talk • contribs) 19:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Excellent idea. I hoped you would consider it. Read User:Timtrent/A good article for hints and tips, and make sure the referencing is top notch. We require sourcing from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. Fiddle   Faddle  19:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way I try hard not to re-review articles. More and different eyes are always better, Our hope is to help you learn how to create a ribust article that FLIES, rather than see you have to defend one in a deletion discussion. The former is work, the latter HURTS! Fiddle   Faddle  19:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Qatar_Canadian_School
Sorry, it appears we set to it at the same time and I didn't set the review flag. I'll leave you to it! Rankersbo (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Not to worry.I chose simply to accept it and allow the creator to handle the ref errors. Since it is a school they seemed to me to be worth disregarding as a gating factor to acceptance, though I do hate the remarkably free ride that schools get. If you want to enjoy cleaning up please be my ghost (guest?). I was just sipping from the firehose of crap and finding some surprisingly acceptable articles there.   Fiddle   Faddle  09:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Powerflush (Heating)
Hi Tim, I have made changes to my entry on powerflushing. How do I resubmit for review?

Thanks

Jan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janlepkowski (talk • contribs) 13:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You took the stuff off the top. I've given you back the ability to submit it. Please leave the top stuff present. Fiddle   Faddle  13:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Vince Phillips (attorney)
Thanks for reviewing the article on Draft:Vince Phillips (attorney). Can you please clarify your recommend: I'm very confused about the sections "References" and "Sources". Please resolve that confusion by deploying the sources, where they qualify is significant coverage independent of Phillips in WP:RS as references. The remainder should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by F2fedit (talk • contribs) 14:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You have two sections. One is "references", the other is "Sources". I do not understand why you have two sections. We want "references". Are your sources actually references? If so, please make them so. If not, what are they?


 * When we are given references for a living person we have a higher standard if 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


 * I am not sure what else to say to answer you unless you can explain with precision what you do not understand? Fiddle   Faddle  14:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Please Explain!
Hi Timtrent.

I am so confused, I'm about to throw my hands up in the air. I've heard from so many editors I just don't know which I should look at. Zach said: (talk page stalker) Hi Allen (talk), The decline was in error. I made some minor changes and resubmitted the page on your behalf. (Some of the references have been repeated, but otherwise it looks solid. If someone else doesn't review it shortly I will.) JSFarman (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Then you declined the article? I can't find your comments anyplace and to be honest, I agree with Zach...the submission was "solid."

I beg of you, please help me! My frustration is starting to overcome me.

Thanks in advance. AllenAdcprny2 (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not surprised you are confused. There seem to be more than one Clipix drafts. I declined Draft:Clipix (2) (note the (2)) whcih was just a procedural thing. I said "A fuller draft exists at Draft:Clipix, and we will pursue that one, please. Feel free to merge relevant sections of this one into it and then blank this page to signify that your work in this draft is finished", which I hoped would be clear. Was I tired and thus not clear? My fault if so
 * To avoid confusion, look for and at Draft:Clipix, which I think is the draft you want to have accepted. I am offering no opinion on that draft, you have enough opinions already.
 * Have I managed to explain what has happened and helped you with your confusion? Please tell me of I have or have not. Fiddle   Faddle  17:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, if the draft (2) is the one you want, THAT is fine too! I can probably help you sort that out if you like. Fiddle   Faddle  17:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for getting back to me. I would like this entry to be reviewed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Clipix_%282%29  Again, as Zach agreed, the last entry is solid! Zach also said he made some edits and corrections. (THIS ENTRY WAS EDITED: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Clipix) Please tell me the most recent entry can be accepted!! I greatly appreciate your attention and look forward to your response. Thanks Timtrent!!Adcprny2 (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, i've set t up so that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Clipix_%282%29 has been resubmitted. I think it will be reviewed shortly. I won;t review it, it's outside my area of expertise.
 * Now, the other one. You created it so you can blank it. Blanking it says "I do not want this article that I crated" You can only blank articles you created and with no other edits. Fiddle   Faddle  18:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Timtrent:

You're awesome! Thank you so much for your help. I must say, this process is truly confusing! Adcprny2 (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * All would have ben fine had you not created two drafts. It's a pleasure to have been able to help. Fiddle   Faddle  19:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

INTEGRIS Health
I think that you have rejected the INTEGRIS Health article unfairly. You are holding it to MUCH harsher standards than any of the other pages that have been posted by INTEGRIS. I have used a variety of links to outside, credible sources and have only cited INTEGRIS when the facts could not be readily validated elsewhere. Furthermore, my citing of LinkedIn was due to the fact that it was the only source by which the information could be validated. I truly appreciate your dedication to Wikipedia and your hard work, but the standards you are holding this article to are not only higher than many other articles I have found on Wikipedia, including other INTEGRIS pages, but also incredibly discouraging. I know you want to hold Wikipedia to the highest of standards, and so do I. I am truly seeking to improve upon Wikipedia and expand upon this wonderful resource. But why would I continue to work so hard only to have my efforts diminished over and over based on double standards and seemingly arbitrary decisions of which facts can only be validated through the company's resources and which may have some other reference somewhere on the internet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhitleyOConnor (talk • contribs) 22:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * When one seeks a review one asks for an opinion. You have every right to disagree with mine. I have no intention of reviewing the draft a third time. My objective in asking you to edit is to prevent you from having the hurtful process of having to defend a deletion discussion. That is discouraging. Please go ahead and resubmit if that is what you feel is required now. I have no idea what the next reviewer will say because they are a different person. I stand by my opinion, you disagree with it. The way forward is thus to ask for other eyes.


 * I do take issue with your use of the word "unfairly" because it implies that I am arbitrary in my reviews for all articles, that I have singled yours out for some sort of particular treatment. I am not. I hold all to a high standard, and there is every reason why I should. Imagine what would happen if we lowered the standards? You seem to suggest that lower standard articles should set some sort of precedent. This leads inexorably to Idiocracy.


 * I can tell you clearly that I have made mistakes in the past and guarantee I will in the future. When I am told of them I admit to them freely. BUt I am not unfair. Fiddle   Faddle  22:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on my submittal for Global Warming Deniers
Tim Trent, Thank you for your help on my submittal for Global Warming Deniers. It is my first submittal, and I know it is a controversial subject. However, I have been following this subject for over 10 years, and I think it is important to show that the last 10 years of being a Global Warming Denier was on target despite not being popular. I am an environmentalist supporter, and I support preserving nature, stopping coal mining and fracking and other abuses of our earth. However, I absolutely hate being manipulated for political and economic gains by politicians and big corporations and big private money, as we have been on this issue. My personal Blog at paullitely.wordpress.com shows the results of my research and the sources I have come to see as reliable and accurate. Take a peek and see what you think. I am not giving up on this article. If necessary, and if it makes sense, I can reduce it to something very short to begin with, then expand on it later. My main issue is that if you look for Global Warming Deniers, Wikipedia directs it in the interest of "disambiguation" to Climate Change Deniers, and that is definitely not what we are all about. Who can deny Climate Change??? This linking over portrays us as being idiots. We are not all idiots (we have our share), most of us are very smart, follow the facts, and we hate being manipulated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paullitely (talk • contribs) 12:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I hope you understand that I am not making a comment about the rights and wrongs of the topic, just about the article. As an article we may not ever express an opinion. We must report faithfully what is said in WP:RS, but we may not juxtapose two statements (or more) that synthesise another statement not said by the existing statements. You may record faithfully, provided there is a citation "X holds this to be true." You may record "Y holds that to be true." What you cannot say is "Because of the opinions of X and of Y, then the other is true."


 * Another thing you need to know before you play i the Wikipedia climate change pond is that this area is as hotly contested by people with stringy held opinions as you can imagine, and that this means it has a discretionary earlier imposition of sanctions against editors who revert what other editors have written in articles. Normally we have a 'there strikes and you are out' rule. In Climate Change we have a 'transgress twice and you are out' rule. There are other areas that have similar sanctions because they, too, are hotly contested.


 * Should you reduce you r article to bare bones? Yes. But, and this is important, it must be fact, fact. fact, with no opinion, no oratory, nothing. And every fact you assert must be backed by a reference, ideally a citation inline from reliable sources. We require sourcing from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please.


 * Learned papers, unless peer reviewed, are primary sources. They can only be references in very restricted circumstances if they have not been peer reviewed. It is quite important to cite the reviews when citing a paper.


 * If you can achieve this, and with a comp[act article title, then you will have done extremely well.More power to your elbow. And, to be clear, I gibe you this advice whether I agree with your topic or not. It is important that you understand that, whatever my private opinions, opinions on which I will not be drawn, for Wikipedia I am independent.


 * Does this help? Fiddle   Faddle  18:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Apologies
Hello sorry I earlier calling you irresponsible. I earlier didn't know that Template:Sleeping Dogs already existed and unnecessarily blamed you. However that template is actually a redirect to Template:True Crime. However I want to create a new template about all the Sleeping Dogs video game in Template:Sleeping Dogs and thus want to ask for the article to be deleted in order to be able to do so. However as you might know I have resubmitted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sleeping Dogs. I thus would like the article's submission to be declined so that I can ask for Template:Sleeping Dogs and after that ask for submit my draft of the new Sleeping Dogs template. I apologize for any trouble I caused you earlier. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Apologies are always accepted. Thank you. I was aware you were frustrated and smiled instead of being offended. It is the best way to handle things on Wikipedia unless one is truly upset.
 * What you can do is to edit the template (redirect) you want to repurpose. That is all you need to do . I doubt anyone will bat an eyelid. If they do then discuss it with them. That is part of the cut and thrust of Wikipedia. Fiddle   Faddle  10:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If it were that easy wouldn't have existed. I want to make a formal request so that in future nobody says that I changed the content of the article of unfairly just like what I am doing with Resident Evil Survivor 2 Code: Veronica which is also a redirect article. KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Unless I misunderstand you, Sleeping Dogs is the page you want to repurpose. If that is correct you do know that all you need to do is to edit it? There is no need to have your new template approved and moved over it, all you have to do is to apply edits to it? Obviously you need to edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Sleeping_Dogs&redirect=no, but you can anyway.
 * Am I missing a huge point here? Feel free to tell me what I'm missing, but spoon feed me, please. Fiddle   Faddle  10:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * What I mean is that just like I have requested Resident Evil Survivor 2 Code: Veronica to be deleted I would like Template:Sleeping Dogs to be deleted. I just want to follow the proper procedure. Also an editor keeps inserting Sleeping Dogs games into Template:True Crime. Template:Sleeping Dogs was created by him. I had moved that to Template:True Crime however that Sleeping Dogs template article still exists as a redirect to Template:True Crime. KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Seriously, just go ahead and edit it. That is the action I would take if it were in my way. It is as correct a procedure as any other. Fiddle   Faddle  11:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Well alright I'll do that. But can you please decline Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sleeping Dogs that I had resubmitted by mistake earlier? KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

✅ with pleasure. Fiddle  Faddle  11:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. When I had moved the template earlier I didn't know that the old name of the template (Sleeping Dogs) would become a redirect to the new name of the template. It was somewhat careless on my part not knowing about such a thing. I apologize again for any trouble you had to go through because of my mistake. KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * We are expected to know everything from day one . This means we learn fast! Fiddle   Faddle  18:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Ann M. Ravel
Hi Timtrent -- Why does Ann M. Ravel not meet the GNG requirements? She is the vice chair and one of the six President-appointed and Senate-confirmed commissioners of the independent federal agency (FEC) responsible for enforcing federal campaign finance regulations. Four of the six commissioners currently have pages. See Matthew Petersen, Caroline Hunter, Ellen Weintraub, and Steven Walther. Is there a reason to believe that Ann Ravel is somehow less noteable than the other commissioners on the FEC? Horaceswithin (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * While I understand that other people have articles, no Wikipedia article sets a precedent for any other. It is good to query notability. It is not an entitlement. So I queried it. If you are certain that she is notable please resubmit at once. To me she is an unremarkable public servant. To you not. This is good and healthy difference of opinion. Fiddle   Faddle  20:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Udutu
Thank you Timtrent! I will do as requested for the article!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole Cuillierrier (talk • contribs) 21:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This is all working towards your achieving a great article, assuming Udutu to be notable. Take t slow and steady, there is no rush. Fiddle   Faddle  21:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Evolution, entropy and the second law of thermodynamics
Draft:Evolution, entropy and the second law of thermodynamics

Working on encyclopedic style. If I have not got it yet, could you give me a specific correction from which to learn? The submission heavily draws heavily from one published article and may appear to favor a point of view since it is recent (February 2014) and original. However, the thinking seems to be well within the scientific mainstream. LEBOLTZMANN2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LEBOLTZMANN2 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe your tone is substantially better. It now requires a reviewer more specialised than am I to determine the route forward. The best place to ask for that is the Live Help Chat link in the second box at the top of the article. I am incapable of making a competent review of this article as it stands today. Fiddle   Faddle  07:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

how to resubmit?
Thank you for reviewing my article. I have revised it and am trying to resubmit it. I am having difficulty figuring out how to do that. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aasd3511 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You had lost the review from the top (a format was malformed, which you objected to quite reasonably). I have reinstated the review information, fixed the format and noticed that you also created a new sandbox version. I have reviewed that as a duplicate of the prior submission. That prior submission has the resubmit button replaced and you may resubmit it with pleasure. I try not to re-review,. so another reviewer will take it on. We do try very hard to keep review history in place until the article is accepted. Fiddle   Faddle  07:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)