User talk:Timtrent/Archive 20

Strike 3?
Hello Tim,

You have reviewed my draft article on the Berkeley Partnership and offered some useful advice. I have made changes in response to your feedback but, before I resubmit, I just wanted to check whether there are any consequences of the article not getting approved this time round.

Is there any kind of policy like '3 failed attempts and you're out'? Or can authors resubmit as many times as is necessary to get the article right (within reason, of course)?

Many thanks

Ahar78 (talk) 08:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no bar to frequent submission, though, possibly, there is an emotional one for a reviewer. Some drafts have been submitted half a dozen times or more with no improvements or having paid scant regard to reviewers' comments. Future reviewers look at the history and tend to lose patience with those drafts. This can happen, incorrectly, even if the article is acceptable. This is a natural human frailty.
 * When we see an editor who is trying hard, even imperfectly, we look much more kindly on their attempts, even if it takes several iterations. This is a similar human frailty.
 * Obviously there is a point beyond which there can be no progress. This happens when all sources are exhausted and notability has not been established, but that is a normal thing.
 * So, with the caveats above, submit freely whenever you are sure you have improved it above and beyond the call of duty, but never submit speculatively, if you follow me. Fiddle   Faddle  08:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That sounds fair enough! I've had a good go at addressing all of the comments raised so far and have just re-submitted for review. I hope that this one is closer to the mark. Thanks again for your support.

Ahar78 (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Help Please
Hello,

Will you please address my problem I've mentioned today (July 22) here => WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asheshneupane95 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 22 July 2014‎


 * Please never forget to sign material on talk pages ~ does the job
 * Please always LINK to your draft. Having to do detective work is not appealing.
 * The draft was not submitted. It is still not. But I have placed the box at the head which will allow you to submit it. After you submit it please continue to improve it until a reviewer comes along
 * I do not feel competent to review cricket articles. I dislike the game and am biased against it, so I will not review it of you don't mind. Fiddle   Faddle  14:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I don't know how to submit the draft. I'm kinda new to Wikipedia and I'm doing this for the first time. Will you please help me to submit the draft so that a reviewer can review the article.


 * ✅ I have submitted Draft:ACC Fast Track Countries Tournament on your behalf. It was easy. There was a buttpn on it that submits it. Now it is awaiting review. Fiddle   Faddle  17:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Great! Thank you very much.

Mansion House - Hurstpierpoint
Hi, please can you check on the status of Hurstpierpoint Mansion House. There seems to be very little development since you stepped aside. Can you pick it up again as I felt we were almost complete and ready to go our of draft. Can you progress it for me? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toby Lott (talk • contribs) 11:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * We are in the hands of others. The OTRS system has not delivered me a reply, and I have no idea how to ask for them to look. I am a novice in this area, too. Fiddle   Faddle  13:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Richard Pine
Can you look over this article that you 'passed' - Richard Pine. Is it still on probation now I've added referenced citations and more specific categories? Suggest improvements? Simon Baddeley (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There are, as usual, two answers. All articles are on probation at all times. Ok, that was a useless answer, even if true. The article is probably fine, though. I think it unlikely with this level of referencing that anyone could mount a successful challenge.
 * Could it be improved? Almost always, but I suggest you act as the father, not the mother. It will, at some point, be edited by someone else. Notice when that happens and consider whether that edit has improved it. It probably will have, even if you disagree with the edit. Nod sagely and move on to your next project. Your job as father is done. Fiddle   Faddle  12:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. That's helpful. I like the paternal image, just on the cusp of expecting a second grandchild! Of course the constant 'probation' is the wonder of Wiki but is 'my' article still Start-Class? Simon Baddeley (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I just left you some thoughts on classes on your own talk page! I am old enough and ugly enough to laugh at classes. "On the cusp of expecting" means, presumably, that you have been notified of the imminent conception? Fiddle   Faddle  12:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha. Will read. No my daughter's just gone to the delivery room! Simon Baddeley (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Time for the stirrups, then. Or is that equestrian? Fiddle   Faddle  14:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Girl born 12.14 - mum and babe doing well! Simon Baddeley (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Excellent news! Excellent!  Fiddle   Faddle  06:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Mum and babe doing well. I'm having rather didactic advice from another [|another editor] recommending immediate removal of a citation in the article on Richard Pine. This editor is unwilling to discuss my contention that a citation - a public domain letter from Seamus Heaney to the subject also quoted in a book review of Pine's work - is not necessarily a primary source (I know the rules on that). Chris Troutman seems to imply I might have faked the letter in question, and that I "claim" to have degrees, and referring to "resorting to a website". I have no idea what he means and I don't feel inclined to get into an argument with someone prepared to write to me in these terms. QUOTE You asked for my suggestions; I replied. If you don't want the facts don't ask for them. Obviously, you are way out of your depth. I find it sad that someone whom claims to have degrees resorts to a website to publish their thoughts. If you can't contribute according to our norms, take your ball and go home. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 23:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC) END  So much for "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Am I being overly defensive? Simon Baddeley (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it to be a shame that it has been expressed thus, but that you should consider it to be a part of what makes Wikipedia unique and interesting. What I suggest is that you take this question to WP:RSN, where you will get more eyes and wider opinions. They may back the removal or the retention, that I cannot predict. Primary source may be used in carefully controlled situations, there is no absolute prohibition. Indeed, they are essential in certain situations.
 * On Wikipedia we meet people in behaving in many ways, some of which they would never exhibit in face to face discussions. There are times when we might consider complaining about it, but I tend not to. Why? Because I care, but not that much. My life is too short to worry about it, and I suggest you follow my example. Herb Cohen's principle has a lot to recommend it. Fiddle   Faddle  12:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I should also have said that the only thing to take personally on Wikipedia is praise. All else is background noise. Fiddle   Faddle  13:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Wise and consoling advice. It's a happy day anyway, Simon Baddeley (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Review Of Article
{ping|Timtrent} I'm following up on a discussion we had a few weeks ago regarding this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/GCFLearnFree.org

During our discussion, you said if it sat for a while you might be able to review and approve/decline again. Is that possible? You were so helpful that I thought you might be willing to review one last time. Let me know?

Also, I took your advice and asked WP:RSN to check this link for reliability. http://www.wncn.com/video?clipId=10181442&autostart=true Alas, no one has responded. Is it appropriate to repost the inquiry?

Thank you again for all your help! LauraMcAliley (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ I am ambivalent about it, but I think it is good enough to stand a 60% chance of survival. Do ask your RSN question again Fiddle   Faddle  16:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * thank you. I will repost the RSN request. LauraMcAliley (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

From Patriarch2013
Timetrent:

Regarding your response to my previous message (see below for reference): Yes, it's a deal! I have edited the lead paragraph as requested and resubmitted. Thanks!

"Your alternate first paragraph tells me with precision what it does. Please understand that whether in real life I know or can research what it makes and sells is unimportant. When I review an article I speak as an ordinary reader when I say that I do not know. Now, from the new paragraph, yes, I know.

So resubmit after makng that change, and tell me here that you have done so. I will accept it and we will both be happy. Deal? Fiddle Faddle 19:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriarch2013 (talk • contribs)


 * ✅ Fiddle   Faddle  20:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Logo upload in Cantata++
Hello FiddleFaddle, I added a software information box in the article and wanted to ask you, whether I can use the Logo of Cantata++ on top of the box, like you see here: in this example. May I just take a screenshot of it or how do I have to go on with this? I was already asking on Wiki Commons; but they told me that the english Wiki has its own rules and regulations according to the use of images. So, do I have to upload it first somewhere here ? I'm looking forward getting a help from you ;-) Best regards, QARon (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Logos are complex beasts. WP:LOGO will help. One needs the article to be in main article space (I have lost track, forgive me!) and one needs to upload it here, to the English Wikipedia, as a logo. I think one needs a fair use rationale, too, a complex topic.. It is obviously a copyright image, but 'fair use' is stated to apply. Technically you save the image from a web page where it exists, and upload it. I don;t use the upload wizards. I go native, so I am not going to be a huge amount of help to you in the process, which can be arcane. Going native is the way it used to be and is ok, but you have to know what is what. Fiddle   Faddle  13:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, found it. It is not an article but is a draft. Await its acceptance and ignore the logo issue for now. It will just sidetrack you. Fiddle   Faddle  13:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay! Thank you anyway ;-). QARon (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I should have said, and thought I had, that Fair Use does not apply to Drafts, only to established articles. We have to await acceptance. Fiddle   Faddle  21:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

23:02:30, 26 July 2014 review of submission by Shahzaib Sultan
Hi first of all I like to thanks you in order to give me chance of compiling reliable sources regarding my topic. Now I feel glad to telling you that my topic is almost ready. According to your suggestion that give you for improvement. Kindly take a look and review it again. Thanks in advance. Shahzaib Sultan (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I am on vacation. I suggest you await review by another, and continue to improve the article while you wait. Fiddle   Faddle  19:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Infobox help
Please help in defining the correct meaning for Settlement type option in Infobox. Some write it as Municipality, Corporation and some mention it as City, Town or Metro. Which is correct? What is the exact definition?--Vin09 (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you need to pose this question on the talk page of the template itself. I have no idea. Fiddle   Faddle  19:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅--Vin09 (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
Which sited sources are not reliable? It will help to know which sources need to be replaced by a more reliable and verifiable source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ridley-Lowell_Business_%26_Technical_Institute

Thank You for your guidence and help with the Article regarding Parviz Kambin. I am ready to resubmit the article. I need to clear up one issue and that is correcting or removing the banner box. Can you guide with this issue. Also, and just as important, all of the references are published and avaiable in Medical Libaraies at major US universities and the College of Physicans of Philadelphia. These references are not always available online. Regarding Dr. Kambin's name appearing on some of these publications please note that it is a medical and legal obligation to include the name of the founder and patient holder of this technically in the publications.Jds319 (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The review history is not to be removed, if that is the banner box you mean. The reviewer who accepts the article will remove them all. The sources I have checked failed the criteria. I use this as an indicator that all will fail. They do not have to be online, though an online version helps. You must judge what to include as a reference, but it must meet the criteria. We require references from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please check each of your references against this yardstick, replacing them where necessary. If you cannot reference a fact then discard the fact. Fiddle   Faddle  19:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Question on edit
Tim, thanks for reviewing the new page that I was one of the original authors of. You made one change that I wanted to ask about though. The page was made collaboratively by a couple of groups (SSB BART Group and Adobe Accessibility) and we wanted to also give credit to the Georgia Tech group that had a lot of good (and a lot of outdated) information. Your edit was to remove this information (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=US_State_Laws_and_Policies_for_ICT_Accessibility&oldid=611273911, last paragraph on the page). Is this type of information against wikipedia policy, or has it been moved elsewhere? I'd appreciate any suggestions you have. Thanks, AWK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.150.10.209 (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no idea which article you speak of. Please link to it. Fiddle   Faddle  21:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, now I half understand. This paragraph:


 * This compilation was initially developed as a cooperative project of SSB BART Group and Adobe Accessibility. More information on these laws and standards can also be found on the Georgia Tech Research Institute's web site.


 * This is an attribution for the article. It is not, as far as I can see, a part of the article. As you see it is now at Talk:US State Laws and Policies for ICT Accessibility. The issue is that we are creating an encyclopaedia, and that was not encyclopaedic. Fiddle   Faddle  21:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Hi Timtrent! My name is Eric, I love your edits! I am new here, and edited the article about Jack Canfield, after reading several of his books. I'd like to get your opinion (I think I have much to learn!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Canfield Thank you!

Psychology Forever (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC) 


 * I never knew I had loveable edits . I find the motivational speakers of this world to be leeches and parasites on the face of society just behind lawyers
 * Learning here is a matter of getting it wrong sufficiently often to start to get it right. Fiddle   Faddle  19:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, most of them are really bad, and I must say that Canfield himself is pretty bad too at it. It's just that as an author, or rather an editor, I find him pretty wit. Motivational speakers... They are mostly bad, especially these days. The only one I related to was Les Brown some twenty years ago. Do you know him? Check him out. You might not need the yack-sack this time! ;)
 * Still learning...
 * Psychology Forever (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Not come across that one yet, and not likely to. But I hate them with an abiding passion. I can do all their tricks, but I have a set of ethics which stops me from pulling parlour stunt motivation on folk
 * Watch out for those who come here to self promote! WP:ROPE usually fixes them  Fiddle   Faddle  21:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Steve_Geng
Hello Fiddle Fadle/Timtrent...FYI, I left a response to your comment on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Steve_Geng ...Tks...Minusminority (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Merges versus history merges
Hey Tim. Noting your answer at the teahouse regarding Hattha Kaksekar Limited, and the instructions at the draft, I thought you should be aware that history merges (as opposed to merges) are not done for pages that have separate origins; they are for pages that started with the same content but which have been split across two or more pages, often because of a cut and paste move. So if the draft copied and pasted the content of the existing article and then diverged from it, we might do a history merge if there wasn't a parallel history problem, but that's not the case here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I was wholly unsure so went for safety. Fiddle   Faddle  16:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

19:01:50, 30 July 2014 review of submission by George Winters
First, thank you for the recommendations. I went through the rejected draft, and removed most of the references, and added references from independent sources. I did leave one that I felt was relevant. Draft:Association_of_Applied_Paleontological_Sciences George Winters (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

George Winters (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That is excellent news. I try very hard not to re-review articles, so forgive me if I wait alongside you with interest. Fresh eyes always help you to create a better end product. We may use primary sources sparingly, but we must be very sparing. Fiddle   Faddle  20:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

20:39:26, 23 July 2014 review of submission by JanaGibson
Hi Tim, I hope I am in the right place for this question. I believe you are the editor who declined the article I put in drafts on Josh Garrett? I understood your first comment, that there is no rush, but was not sure about your second comment with regard to "substantive rationale" -- I wasn't sure what you meant by that. What does the article need in the way of development? I shaped it based on the article about Jennifer Pharr Davis, who holds the record for the Appalachian trail, but am happy to rework it, of course. Thanks for your attention to it and your advice. Jana

JanaGibson (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are in the right place, or "a" right place. When we review articles we leave, generally, a comment when we decline them. I have done that on the draft. That is what I mean by the substantive rationale. It is intended not to discourage you but to spur you to greater things.
 * I can quite understand that you have modelled the draft on another article, but don;t make the assumption that any article sets a precedent for any other. One may model something on another article which is not really suitable, and thus the standard falls. That si the route to idiocracy.
 * What I hope you will do is to create greatness. The record looks horribly hard to achieve, and it may be sufficient to warrant an article on every record holder. Others will judge that better than I. I am a generalist, and I go simply on what the article tells me, along with its references. I have high expectations of every editor whose work I review and almost all of them rise to meet them.
 * I also try hard not to re-review an article. All work benefits form more than one set of eyes, the more so since any of us may be wrong! Fiddle   Faddle  20:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Tim! Because I am new to this I did not realize I needed to look at the draft for your comments, which I have now seen and will edit the draft accordingly. The youtube links are provided only to guide people to where they can see copies of the original interviews that are not available on line because news media sites remove interviews after a while, but I will remove the links to avoid any suggestion that youtube is the original source. I checked out what you meant by "somewhat WP:BLP1E" and understood your concern but the WP:ATHLETE page suggests that Garrett meets the guidelines under that standard, with long distance hiking being an athletic endeavor similar to long distance running: "Athletes who compete in the field of Athletics are presumed notable if they meet any of the criteria below... 7. Has at any time held a world or continental record (including world junior records, world youth bests and masters age-group world records) ratified or noted by the appropriate official body" Your comments have made me realize that I should include a citation from the Pacific Crest Trail Association's announcement  last year of the new record. I think, by noting that Garrett's record may soon be broken, I may have given the impression that happens all the time. But there have actually only been a handful of Pacific Crest Trail record holders in the decades since records started being kept, and Garrett was the first person to do it in under 60 days, which perhaps should be mentioned in the article. Thanks again for your guidance, for spurring me "to create greatness" and for your patience with my not knowing where to go to find your original comments. Jana — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanaGibson (talk • contribs) 21:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The only thing that makes me doubt the WP:ATHLETE element is your statement in the article that it is an unofficial record. I'm sure I remember that. Official records are easy, it's a free pass to an article. There is a patent unfairness in this that you'll come to loathe and despise . An academic, for example, has to be AWESOME in order to get an article. A footballer has to be on the pitch for a split second in a qualifying match and he gets an article.
 * Youtube is also a matter of copyright. We cannot point folk to breaches of copyright. There's a lot to know, isn't there? We're expected to know it all from day one, too! Fiddle   Faddle  22:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Before even reading your response here I had deleted the "unofficial" line as I tightened up the article, because including it was sloppy in the first place. As I mentioned earlier I had modeled the article on that about Jennifer Pharr Davis who has the Appalachian Trail record, and hers says "unofficial," and one of the articles about Garrett said that. But the announcement from the Pacific Crest Trail Association doesn't say that. So I have used that reference and deleted the "unofficial" which I hope will suffice. And I understand what you mean about the unfairness -- hiking (or academia) doesn't get as much attention as football. But Garrett got a lot of media, including USA Today, NPR and magazines like Men's Health, besides all the local West Coast stuff. I went ahead and just took out the youtube references. People can google the headline if they want to hear the interviews and if they get the youtube copy that's fine, I presume. Thanks again for your guidance. Fingers crossed. Oh, and funny that you thought the article seemed "rushed." Perhaps I should be insulted as I took days to put it together and it obviously didn't look that way! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanaGibson (talk • contribs) 22:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "Rushed" has more meanings than just time. We can rush for many days to create something that lets the reader know we are out of breath. You were fixed on a goal, and hastened towards it, but you didn't give yourself the chance to create a rounded end product. Now, with a prod from, well, mainly yourself, you have altered that. Fiddle   Faddle  22:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I saw your new comment on the draft page and greatly appreciate your new inclination. I hope the next editor agrees. I also greatly appreciate your writing style, with almost every line making me smile, and hope that you write elsewhere. I have googled "Tim Trent" to find out, but without success so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanaGibson (talk • contribs) 23:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I do, but not as myself. I used to blog, and do so no longer. I do have a video under my name, and a somewhat dormant phlog at ipadio.
 * I hope they take the same view, too. Continue to improve and expand the article while you wait. If they decline it, talk to them after reading why and use their help understand why. Fiddle   Faddle  06:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi again Tim, I just came across an article on the Smithsonian site about long distance hiking records, noting Josh Garrett as the Pacific Crest Trail record holder, which reminded me that my article about him still sits sorrowfully in drafts. I am in a bit of a quandary as you suggest that I keep improving and expanding the article while I wait. But having already devoted a few days to gathering source material and compiling the piece (I guess I was so slow because it was my first)I am loathe to go further only to have somebody reject the article even though it appears to me (and to you now)that Garrett is worthy under the athlete criteria. As nobody else seems to be in a rush to step in, might you consider making an exception to your general tendency re rereview? As for expanding the piece: there was some controversy as Garrett took the record from a popular female hiker who had done the hike self supported, while Garrett had outside support and sponsorship. I thought including that would be a bit inside baseball but the Smithsonian article goes into all of that and perhaps it would add interest. JanaGibson (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Seriously, do add the new, cited information. We don't want to decline articles, we want to accept them. The more solid facts in them the better the article. The reason I don't like to re-review is because human nature means I concentrate on my prior review points, not the article as a whole. The review process is intended to make as sure as we can that an article will survive as an article. Trust me that we are remarkably gentle compared to a deletion discussion! We want to make sure you don;t have to suffer a deletion discussion. Thatls why more eyes are better during the review period. Fiddle   Faddle  07:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

14:33:23, 31 July 2014 review of submission by Rstebbings
Hello Tim thanks for reviewing my first draft, the Post Office Shop sits as a separate website domain from www.postoffice.co.uk and has a distinctive offering with very little cross over between the two. Are you saying that any edits I make on Post Office Shop will automatically be rejected again? I'd much rather keep the Post Office Shop Wikipedia page separate from the existing Post Office page. Please can you advise?

Rstebbings (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The answer will depend on what the community decides as a consensus, not on me and not on you. That's a good thing. Either of us may be right or wrong, but the community will give a verdict. My prediction is that it will not note any distinction between the two unless you make it abundantly clear and us references to show the difference. However, I have been wring before and will be wrong again. Fiddle   Faddle  16:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

OTRS Permission now granted
Hi, I received an email from the permissions team to say they have everything and that they have sent the confirmation required to remove (Mansion House - Hurstpierpoint) out of draft and into an article. have you seen that ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toby Lott (talk • contribs) 05:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have now. And the article is now live. Now is the time for you to say "My work on this article is done" and to step away. I guarantee that edits to the text will happen, some of which you will not agree with, but be the article's father, not its mother, and watch with pride as it grazes its knees rather than prevent it from grazing them at all. Fiddle   Faddle  06:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello can you help me
I see that you became involved in the discussion about an artice for deletion Hiberno Irish, can you explain to me what has happened, it seems that everything has just disapeared, including my edits--Twominds (talk) 05:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It was deleted as a hoax. Fiddle   Faddle  06:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

why have my edits disapeared? ,, and how in the name of the lord can the term Hiberno Irish be a Hoax--Twominds (talk) 08:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * At risk of repeating myself, it was deleted as a hoax. SInce you are the hoaxer I am not about to explain that any further. Fiddle   Faddle  12:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Message from Venner Road
You have marked my two contributions for deletion. I suggest you reconsider. Both David Webb and Terence DuQuesne are noteworthy individuals.

Here is one of DuQuesne's academic articles: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/79m150qt

which he wrote by invitation.

Here are his entries in the British Library catalogue:

http://explore.bl.uk/primo_library/libweb/action/search.do?dscnt=1&tab=local_tab&dstmp=1407071557372&vl(freeText0)=terence%20duquesne&fn=search&vid=BLVU1&mode=Basic&fromLogin=true

David Webb was an established actor; here is his IMDB entry: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0916081/?ref_=fn_al_nm_3

He also ran an anti-censorship organisation and contributed to a number of anti-censorship publications. He was even invited to give evidence and make submissions concerning government policy.

If a man whose only "contribution" to the world was to murder a stranger in a restaurant while drunk

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

qualifies for a page here, I'm sure these two men do as well.

A Baron VennerRoad (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Then please make sure both show sufficient notability. Fiddle   Faddle  13:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

David Webb
As I pointed out, David Webb does pass this site's guidelines for inclusion. He was an actor of stage, film and TV, an author, and also ran an anti-censorship organisation for many years.

Here are some press cuttings related to him:

http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/webb/webb_cuttings_index.html

Here is one of his publications: http://explore.bl.uk/primo_library/libweb/action/display.do?tabs=moreTab&ct=display&fn=search&doc=BLL01016170997&indx=1&recIds=BLL01016170997&recIdxs=0&elementId=0&renderMode=poppedOut&displayMode=full&frbrVersion=&dscnt=1&fromLogin=true&tab=local_tab&dstmp=1407086458170&vl(freeText0)=david%20webb%201931&vid=BLVU1&mode=Basic

there are a lot more

A Baron — Preceding unsigned comment added by VennerRoad (talk • contribs) 17:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The article is the place to do this. Add to the article. At present it does not meet the various criteria for being retained. Fiddle   Faddle  17:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

10:10:53, 5 August 2014 review of submission by Myve
Hi! I would like that someone would re-review my article suggestion because I am new with Wikipedia and I am not sure that what kind of information should the article include that it would be published. Sini Tarkkinen is a huge name here in Finland and very well-known. She brought Pin Up -culture to our attention here in Finland. Sini Tarkkinen is also a highly recognized media person and she is a very skillful tattoo artist. Sini owns a Tattoo Studio; PinUp Tattoo and she was in the tv-show HelsInk which is shown on tv at the moment. Sini Tarkkinen is a huge name in Pin Up scene internationally; she judged Scandinavian Pin Up contest and also Pin Up UK. She is also an administrator for many international Pin Up -oriented Facebook pages. Sini is a humble person and deserves to be found from international Wikipedia as well as wikipedia.fi (where She is already found). So, please help me. Thank you.

Myve (talk) 10:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid no-one deserves to be found anywhere. They may merit inclusion, and it is up to you to show this with references, as I stated on the draft when I reviewed it. You may find User:Timtrent/A good article helpful. You need to show that she passes WP:BIO. It is quite normal for someone to be notable in one nation but not in another. Fiddle   Faddle  10:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Notability Advice
Hello, thanks for reviewing the page! This is my first attempt so really appreciate the help. I hope I'm posting in the right place, at first I thought fiddle faddle was wiki jargon I didn't know yet.

I would love to ask for a bit of advice before I edit and resubmit if you don't mind? I've had a read over the notability guidelines, and wondered if the problem with my references was that the sources aren't strong enough, or that they aren't independent because they refer to reviews? Having done a little more research, I've found a clip of Channel 4 news coverage on the company's first piece and a review from the Guardian for another, would this help with notability?

I can see that my references list is a little messy, something I can definitely clean up. And maybe it would be neater to subsume the award nominations into a body of text on information about the company, I think I was a little nervous and got carried away with listing.

Thanks again!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Graciefields/Offstage_Theatre_UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graciefields (talk • contribs) 13:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Reviews as references are pretty good, provided they review the entity itself. Since iot is a theatre company then a review of a production is, in part a review of the company, by definition. So the problem is that they were not, quite strong enough. We like breadth and depth. The C4 piece will counter this in my view (unless you are linking to Youtube and it is not C4's own channel, when it will be disqualified as a link to a copyright violation). A Grauniad review, though, will bolt it into place. Add what you can and resubmit. Let me know and I'll have a look at it. I try not to re-revoew, but I will make an exception in this case. Fiddle   Faddle  11:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tim, I've improved my citations and found lots of new sources so hopefully I've addressed your suggestions! However, the Channel 4 news clip was on Vimeo, and I didn't include it as don't want to risk infringing copyright rules. I also found some more news coverage that is brand new so the content is on their own website. It's a French news channel so perhaps less impressive, but hopefully it still proves notability without the copyright problems of the Channel 4 clip. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graciefields (talk • contribs) 12:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Videos are always awkward. If there is any doubt in your mind go to WP:RSN and ask about it there. When asking, link to the draft and to the reference you want to use and ask for advice on using it or not. Fiddle   Faddle  13:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Demicka
Hi Timtrent, I made room for the move of User:Yahadzija/sandbox. Cheers, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * For which much thanks. The draft is now moved into place as an article. Fiddle   Faddle  13:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback
Hi, Just got your message re: the sidebar. Unfortunately, I had just resubmitted the edited draft for approval again before I saw your message. If you are editing the draft March Networks submission again, you'll note that I changed all the references you pointed out and added many other new third-party independent references. Emiskew (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't worry. Continue to improve the article all the way through until it is reviewed. Submission does not lock the draft. You've done a good job. I know it's horrible to have to cut, cut, and cut again, but it provides the best result, usually. I am too close to the article to re-review it now, and you thus depend on other eyes, something that is a good thing because it will produce a better end product. Fiddle   Faddle  17:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Review of submission by Acaramne
Hello Tim, I believe you are the editor who declined the article (on June 25, 2014) I drafted on "Antonio Abrahao Caram". I wanted to thank you for the feedback and confirm that I have just resubmitted the article now accompanied by two significant public sources: a full bio of the individual featured on a draft bill introduced by City Council members back in January 1966, as well as an official record from City Hall showcasing how the City Council bill was voted into a resolution and was signed into law shortly thereafter in April 1966. Both document sources are linked to the page draft (in sandbox) and are properly covered by certified translations from Portuguese into English. I hope these documents will satisfy the requirements for reliable sources, and will be glad to entertain any additional suggestions you may have on how to continue improving the article. Thanks again for your attention and advice. Tony — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acaramne (talk • contribs) 16:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * At first sight they seem to me to be appropriate. Make sure the online links are within the citations, though.
 * I try not to re-review articles, which means you will get an opinion from a different reviewer. Even if they decline it this is a good thing because working on their comments will strengthen the draft immensely. Always remember, we want articles. Fiddle   Faddle  17:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 6 August
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Race to Prince's Bridge page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=620061214 your edit] caused a URL error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F620061214%7CRace to Prince's Bridge%5D%5D Ask for help])

Mansion House - Hurstpierpoint
Hi, please can you check on the status of Hurstpierpoint Mansion House. There seems to be very little development since you stepped aside. Can you pick it up again as I felt we were almost complete and ready to go our of draft. Can you progress it for me? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toby Lott (talk • contribs) 11:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * We are in the hands of others. The OTRS system has not delivered me a reply, and I have no idea how to ask for them to look. I am a novice in this area, too. Fiddle   Faddle  13:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Richard Pine
Can you look over this article that you 'passed' - Richard Pine. Is it still on probation now I've added referenced citations and more specific categories? Suggest improvements? Simon Baddeley (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There are, as usual, two answers. All articles are on probation at all times. Ok, that was a useless answer, even if true. The article is probably fine, though. I think it unlikely with this level of referencing that anyone could mount a successful challenge.
 * Could it be improved? Almost always, but I suggest you act as the father, not the mother. It will, at some point, be edited by someone else. Notice when that happens and consider whether that edit has improved it. It probably will have, even if you disagree with the edit. Nod sagely and move on to your next project. Your job as father is done. Fiddle   Faddle  12:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. That's helpful. I like the paternal image, just on the cusp of expecting a second grandchild! Of course the constant 'probation' is the wonder of Wiki but is 'my' article still Start-Class? Simon Baddeley (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I just left you some thoughts on classes on your own talk page! I am old enough and ugly enough to laugh at classes. "On the cusp of expecting" means, presumably, that you have been notified of the imminent conception? Fiddle   Faddle  12:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha. Will read. No my daughter's just gone to the delivery room! Simon Baddeley (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Time for the stirrups, then. Or is that equestrian? Fiddle   Faddle  14:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Girl born 12.14 - mum and babe doing well! Simon Baddeley (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Excellent news! Excellent!  Fiddle   Faddle  06:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Mum and babe doing well. I'm having rather didactic advice from another [|another editor] recommending immediate removal of a citation in the article on Richard Pine. This editor is unwilling to discuss my contention that a citation - a public domain letter from Seamus Heaney to the subject also quoted in a book review of Pine's work - is not necessarily a primary source (I know the rules on that). Chris Troutman seems to imply I might have faked the letter in question, and that I "claim" to have degrees, and referring to "resorting to a website". I have no idea what he means and I don't feel inclined to get into an argument with someone prepared to write to me in these terms. QUOTE You asked for my suggestions; I replied. If you don't want the facts don't ask for them. Obviously, you are way out of your depth. I find it sad that someone whom claims to have degrees resorts to a website to publish their thoughts. If you can't contribute according to our norms, take your ball and go home. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 23:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC) END  So much for "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Am I being overly defensive? Simon Baddeley (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it to be a shame that it has been expressed thus, but that you should consider it to be a part of what makes Wikipedia unique and interesting. What I suggest is that you take this question to WP:RSN, where you will get more eyes and wider opinions. They may back the removal or the retention, that I cannot predict. Primary source may be used in carefully controlled situations, there is no absolute prohibition. Indeed, they are essential in certain situations.
 * On Wikipedia we meet people in behaving in many ways, some of which they would never exhibit in face to face discussions. There are times when we might consider complaining about it, but I tend not to. Why? Because I care, but not that much. My life is too short to worry about it, and I suggest you follow my example. Herb Cohen's principle has a lot to recommend it. Fiddle   Faddle  12:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I should also have said that the only thing to take personally on Wikipedia is praise. All else is background noise. Fiddle   Faddle  13:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Wise and consoling advice. It's a happy day anyway, Simon Baddeley (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Review Of Article
{ping|Timtrent} I'm following up on a discussion we had a few weeks ago regarding this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/GCFLearnFree.org

During our discussion, you said if it sat for a while you might be able to review and approve/decline again. Is that possible? You were so helpful that I thought you might be willing to review one last time. Let me know?

Also, I took your advice and asked WP:RSN to check this link for reliability. http://www.wncn.com/video?clipId=10181442&autostart=true Alas, no one has responded. Is it appropriate to repost the inquiry?

Thank you again for all your help! LauraMcAliley (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ I am ambivalent about it, but I think it is good enough to stand a 60% chance of survival. Do ask your RSN question again Fiddle   Faddle  16:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * thank you. I will repost the RSN request. LauraMcAliley (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

From Patriarch2013
Timetrent:

Regarding your response to my previous message (see below for reference): Yes, it's a deal! I have edited the lead paragraph as requested and resubmitted. Thanks!

"Your alternate first paragraph tells me with precision what it does. Please understand that whether in real life I know or can research what it makes and sells is unimportant. When I review an article I speak as an ordinary reader when I say that I do not know. Now, from the new paragraph, yes, I know.

So resubmit after makng that change, and tell me here that you have done so. I will accept it and we will both be happy. Deal? Fiddle Faddle 19:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriarch2013 (talk • contribs)


 * ✅ Fiddle   Faddle  20:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Logo upload in Cantata++
Hello FiddleFaddle, I added a software information box in the article and wanted to ask you, whether I can use the Logo of Cantata++ on top of the box, like you see here: in this example. May I just take a screenshot of it or how do I have to go on with this? I was already asking on Wiki Commons; but they told me that the english Wiki has its own rules and regulations according to the use of images. So, do I have to upload it first somewhere here ? I'm looking forward getting a help from you ;-) Best regards, QARon (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Logos are complex beasts. WP:LOGO will help. One needs the article to be in main article space (I have lost track, forgive me!) and one needs to upload it here, to the English Wikipedia, as a logo. I think one needs a fair use rationale, too, a complex topic.. It is obviously a copyright image, but 'fair use' is stated to apply. Technically you save the image from a web page where it exists, and upload it. I don;t use the upload wizards. I go native, so I am not going to be a huge amount of help to you in the process, which can be arcane. Going native is the way it used to be and is ok, but you have to know what is what. Fiddle   Faddle  13:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, found it. It is not an article but is a draft. Await its acceptance and ignore the logo issue for now. It will just sidetrack you. Fiddle   Faddle  13:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay! Thank you anyway ;-). QARon (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I should have said, and thought I had, that Fair Use does not apply to Drafts, only to established articles. We have to await acceptance. Fiddle   Faddle  21:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

23:02:30, 26 July 2014 review of submission by Shahzaib Sultan
Hi first of all I like to thanks you in order to give me chance of compiling reliable sources regarding my topic. Now I feel glad to telling you that my topic is almost ready. According to your suggestion that give you for improvement. Kindly take a look and review it again. Thanks in advance. Shahzaib Sultan (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I am on vacation. I suggest you await review by another, and continue to improve the article while you wait. Fiddle   Faddle  19:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Infobox help
Please help in defining the correct meaning for Settlement type option in Infobox. Some write it as Municipality, Corporation and some mention it as City, Town or Metro. Which is correct? What is the exact definition?--Vin09 (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you need to pose this question on the talk page of the template itself. I have no idea. Fiddle   Faddle  19:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅--Vin09 (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
Which sited sources are not reliable? It will help to know which sources need to be replaced by a more reliable and verifiable source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ridley-Lowell_Business_%26_Technical_Institute

Thank You for your guidence and help with the Article regarding Parviz Kambin. I am ready to resubmit the article. I need to clear up one issue and that is correcting or removing the banner box. Can you guide with this issue. Also, and just as important, all of the references are published and avaiable in Medical Libaraies at major US universities and the College of Physicans of Philadelphia. These references are not always available online. Regarding Dr. Kambin's name appearing on some of these publications please note that it is a medical and legal obligation to include the name of the founder and patient holder of this technically in the publications.Jds319 (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The review history is not to be removed, if that is the banner box you mean. The reviewer who accepts the article will remove them all. The sources I have checked failed the criteria. I use this as an indicator that all will fail. They do not have to be online, though an online version helps. You must judge what to include as a reference, but it must meet the criteria. We require references from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please check each of your references against this yardstick, replacing them where necessary. If you cannot reference a fact then discard the fact. Fiddle   Faddle  19:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Question on edit
Tim, thanks for reviewing the new page that I was one of the original authors of. You made one change that I wanted to ask about though. The page was made collaboratively by a couple of groups (SSB BART Group and Adobe Accessibility) and we wanted to also give credit to the Georgia Tech group that had a lot of good (and a lot of outdated) information. Your edit was to remove this information (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=US_State_Laws_and_Policies_for_ICT_Accessibility&oldid=611273911, last paragraph on the page). Is this type of information against wikipedia policy, or has it been moved elsewhere? I'd appreciate any suggestions you have. Thanks, AWK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.150.10.209 (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no idea which article you speak of. Please link to it. Fiddle   Faddle  21:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, now I half understand. This paragraph:


 * This compilation was initially developed as a cooperative project of SSB BART Group and Adobe Accessibility. More information on these laws and standards can also be found on the Georgia Tech Research Institute's web site.


 * This is an attribution for the article. It is not, as far as I can see, a part of the article. As you see it is now at Talk:US State Laws and Policies for ICT Accessibility. The issue is that we are creating an encyclopaedia, and that was not encyclopaedic. Fiddle   Faddle  21:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Hi Timtrent! My name is Eric, I love your edits! I am new here, and edited the article about Jack Canfield, after reading several of his books. I'd like to get your opinion (I think I have much to learn!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Canfield Thank you!

Psychology Forever (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC) 


 * I never knew I had loveable edits . I find the motivational speakers of this world to be leeches and parasites on the face of society just behind lawyers
 * Learning here is a matter of getting it wrong sufficiently often to start to get it right. Fiddle   Faddle  19:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, most of them are really bad, and I must say that Canfield himself is pretty bad too at it. It's just that as an author, or rather an editor, I find him pretty wit. Motivational speakers... They are mostly bad, especially these days. The only one I related to was Les Brown some twenty years ago. Do you know him? Check him out. You might not need the yack-sack this time! ;)
 * Still learning...
 * Psychology Forever (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Not come across that one yet, and not likely to. But I hate them with an abiding passion. I can do all their tricks, but I have a set of ethics which stops me from pulling parlour stunt motivation on folk
 * Watch out for those who come here to self promote! WP:ROPE usually fixes them  Fiddle   Faddle  21:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Steve_Geng
Hello Fiddle Fadle/Timtrent...FYI, I left a response to your comment on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Steve_Geng ...Tks...Minusminority (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Merges versus history merges
Hey Tim. Noting your answer at the teahouse regarding Hattha Kaksekar Limited, and the instructions at the draft, I thought you should be aware that history merges (as opposed to merges) are not done for pages that have separate origins; they are for pages that started with the same content but which have been split across two or more pages, often because of a cut and paste move. So if the draft copied and pasted the content of the existing article and then diverged from it, we might do a history merge if there wasn't a parallel history problem, but that's not the case here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I was wholly unsure so went for safety. Fiddle   Faddle  16:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

19:01:50, 30 July 2014 review of submission by George Winters
First, thank you for the recommendations. I went through the rejected draft, and removed most of the references, and added references from independent sources. I did leave one that I felt was relevant. Draft:Association_of_Applied_Paleontological_Sciences George Winters (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

George Winters (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That is excellent news. I try very hard not to re-review articles, so forgive me if I wait alongside you with interest. Fresh eyes always help you to create a better end product. We may use primary sources sparingly, but we must be very sparing. Fiddle   Faddle  20:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Cantata++
Good morning, Finally I finished work on the Draft:Cantata++ article. As you see I enlarged the content as much as I could and added reputable references from universities, the MIT and some other technical institutions. May you have a look at it and give me your opinion about what you think? Do you think there is any chance now that the article will "survive" in Wiki? And may you also please have a look at the list of references - did I list them correctly? (Author, title, publication, etc.)? I hope everything's going to be fine now because I really invested an enormous amount of time in it! I appreciate your help! Best regards, QARon (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC). If so, what would be the next step to do?


 * The next step is to submit. The step after that is to hope. I think it may work this time. but it feels borderline because of the history now. Even when you have submitted it, continue to improve it. You cannot lose. What I can say with clarity is that if hard work and determination were the acceptance criteria you would qualify in spades. Fiddle   Faddle  17:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Declined article (DieDra)
Hi Tim,

Regarding your decline of my submission of DieDra as a blues artist, you refer to notability and the Golden Rule. I added two more references to recent articles in prominent blues magazines in the US and the UK. Together with an earlier reference to Bob Eagle's book on the subject, I strongly believe that this constitutes as much notability as any artist in a sub-popular genre will receive, short of receiving a Grammy Award. In the notability guideline it states "...These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article ...". However, the following criteria are met: 1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. (I listed 3) 4. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. (DieDra did a European tour earlier this year, which was covered in Dutch and Belgian blues magazines. It doesn't make much sense however to refer to these on an English wiki page, since they are in Dutch and French respectively). 7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city. (DieDra represented Alabama in the International Blues Challenge in Memphis three years in a row. She made the finals twice). 9. Has won or placed in a major music competition. (As a finalist in the International Blues Challenge she ended with the 9 best out of 255 international competitors. There is no 2nd or 3rd place in this competition, so one could say that the 8 losing finalists placed. The IBC is the first most prominent music competition for blues music.)

According to the page, a musician may be notable if at least one of the criteria is met. I say she meets 4. :) Agreed, not all of it comes back in the article, but that's for good reason.

So I kindly beg you to reconsider your declination and focus on the quality of the article instead. As a non-native speaker/writer I am sure I left room for improvement.

Kind regards, Sjaak Schouten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjaak65 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have left what I hope is a helpful comment at Draft:DieDra. I try not to re-review articles so I suggest you follow my suggestions, unless you disagree with them, and resubmit. I hope it is accepted next time. Sometimes it takes several iterations. Fiddle   Faddle  17:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

21:01:54, 15 August 2014 review of submission by Hamik.m
Dear Timtrent, i tried to remove all the subjective opinions and added a couple more of inline references. Could you please tell me if it is OK now? Otherwise please help to improve it. this is my first article...

Thank you very much for you reviews and all your help.

Hamik.m (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Look at "Tigran Tsitoghdzyan: Reflection in the Age of Technology, by Rebecca Killman, Visual Language Magazine, Vol.3, 2014" and notice that it has an external link in it. That will fail it. In addition the quotation is huge. We may only quote small excerpts, not entire works, unless the author has given consent and that consent is correctly licenced. PLease edit that to be a section in your own words, using the source as a reference.
 * I have made some format changes to give it a better chance
 * It is not simple, is it? But it is worth it! Fiddle   Faddle  18:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Timtrent

thank you very much for your help and sorry for disturbing you with this, I just made quite a lot of changes to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tigran_Tsitoghdzyan and hope now the page is OK. Could you please advice?

thank you very much once again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamik.m (talk • contribs) 00:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I saw, perhaps for the first time, "Tigran's work was covered by the Fjords Magazine[1], The Daily Mail[2], La Reppublica[3], etc." That will not work. Instead report on what those media outlets have said using them as a source. Beware The Daily Mail, however. It is viewed as a trash paper, not a reliable source.
 * Your guiding star for any article must be "What do the sources say?" And you must build your article around the sources. Never do iyt the other way around. Fiddle   Faddle  07:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Timtrent

Did everything according to your remarks. Added citations from the articles, eliminated the Daily Mail. Will be very grateful if you will advice if I understood everything correctly.

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamik.m (talk • contribs) 10:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That is much better. I suggest you continue to improve it while waiting for a review. I try very hard never to re-review an article. Remember that no article is perfect and that all may be criticised. Our objective is to help you to create a draft that will not be nominated for immediate deletion, and we each have different opinions. Fiddle   Faddle  12:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Thank you.
Hi,

I just read your comments of yesterday about an article I'm just about to turn back to and hopefully complete. The subject is a very young dancer named Virginia Myers, who first came to public attention in New York City quite early in the 20th Century. I happen to be her son and I knew nothing about this first portion of her life (quite a mystery in itself since she never talked about it to me in the 50 or more years we were close), along with the mystery of how she could possibly have created by herself, without even a single lesson, or a teacher nearby, or a single rehearsal, the spell-binding extemporaneous dance performances she did. Nobody in the dance or the arts up to that time had ever seen or heard of another dancer that could do that. It's probably unlikely that any other dancer ever will have such an opportunity again or have the improvisational skill, imagination and talent to bring it off successfully. By the way, all I had ever heard was that she had done some dancing at a concert in Carnegie Hall when she was around 16 and had done a few Broadway musicals later, but never as a solo star, and never creating the story-dances herself.

I had done two previous articles that are now in Wikipedia, one is on Jerome Myers, her artist-father and the other on Ethel Myers, her artist-mother. There is a small section on Virginia in Ethel's article. You might also enjoy the kind of art work her parents were doing if you decide to visit the pages.

Do be assured I will certainly nail down unchallengeable references to all that will be said about Virginia. Do understand, no one in the dance world would know anything about her achievements until the point in time. I didn't until I discovered in our art storage room a sealed box titled "Virginia Dances." It contained just about everything (quite well-documented) that we can now confirm about her early career.

I'll include just one New York review, among a great many, describing one of her performances

New York Review 5-1-1915 (by Helen Ten Broeck) CHILD DANCER CAPTIVATES BY SKILL AND GRACE Seven-Year-Old Virginia Myers Astonishes Audiences of Artists at Berkeley Lyceum

Little Virginia Myers, the seven-year-old daughter of Artist, Jerome Myers, gave her annual program of dances at the Berkeley Theatre on Thursday evening last. It is far within the truth to speak of this baby as a prodigy. She is a finished creative artist, and her interpretations of the musical classics, which she makes a visible grace, leave nothing to be excused on account of her youth. Not a single artist of note at present in New York was absent from her dance on Thursday, and not a dissenting opinion as to her genius was expressed by the sternest critics of physical grace.

Among the musical selections visualized by the little dancer were Tschalkowsky's Andante Cantabile; the four numbers of the Suite Romantique, by Ethelbert Nevin; the well-known Vieuxtemps Reverie, “Starlight” by de Zuleuta, a new Algerian dance by Steinway, and the four movements of the Ballet Egyptienne, by Luigini. To each of these numbers the child brought a marvelous vividness of realism, and the effect of her interpretation of the Egyptian dance electrified an audience familiar with all the great dancers of the day.

Little Virginia’s dances are quite her own. She has never been permitted to take a lesson or to see a public dancer, but her interpretations of the different emotions in the dance bear comparison with the great artists in mime and the classic dance.

I should add that all of the documents referenced in the article I am planning, as well as others documentation regarding Virginia Myers, have already been accepted by the Jerome Robbins Dance collection at Lincoln Center and will now have a home there as well as a place where the originals may be viewed.

I am also in the process of finishing a site titled "Virginia Dances" where reproductions of much of the reviews, articles, essays, poetry and many letters written by important people in the arts and culture of New York City are responding he impact of the performances they had seen.

I'll include a link to it as well. Only the first 4 pages of it are close to completion at this point, but a lot of the key reference materials are already there.

http://ques.com/virginia%20dances/

Again, thank you for your help. Barry BEDownes (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BEDownes (talk • contribs) 16:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

20:39:26, 23 July 2014 review of submission by JanaGibson
Hi Tim, I hope I am in the right place for this question. I believe you are the editor who declined the article I put in drafts on Josh Garrett? I understood your first comment, that there is no rush, but was not sure about your second comment with regard to "substantive rationale" -- I wasn't sure what you meant by that. What does the article need in the way of development? I shaped it based on the article about Jennifer Pharr Davis, who holds the record for the Appalachian trail, but am happy to rework it, of course. Thanks for your attention to it and your advice. Jana

JanaGibson (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are in the right place, or "a" right place. When we review articles we leave, generally, a comment when we decline them. I have done that on the draft. That is what I mean by the substantive rationale. It is intended not to discourage you but to spur you to greater things.
 * I can quite understand that you have modelled the draft on another article, but don;t make the assumption that any article sets a precedent for any other. One may model something on another article which is not really suitable, and thus the standard falls. That si the route to idiocracy.
 * What I hope you will do is to create greatness. The record looks horribly hard to achieve, and it may be sufficient to warrant an article on every record holder. Others will judge that better than I. I am a generalist, and I go simply on what the article tells me, along with its references. I have high expectations of every editor whose work I review and almost all of them rise to meet them.
 * I also try hard not to re-review an article. All work benefits form more than one set of eyes, the more so since any of us may be wrong! Fiddle   Faddle  20:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Tim! Because I am new to this I did not realize I needed to look at the draft for your comments, which I have now seen and will edit the draft accordingly. The youtube links are provided only to guide people to where they can see copies of the original interviews that are not available on line because news media sites remove interviews after a while, but I will remove the links to avoid any suggestion that youtube is the original source. I checked out what you meant by "somewhat WP:BLP1E" and understood your concern but the WP:ATHLETE page suggests that Garrett meets the guidelines under that standard, with long distance hiking being an athletic endeavor similar to long distance running: "Athletes who compete in the field of Athletics are presumed notable if they meet any of the criteria below... 7. Has at any time held a world or continental record (including world junior records, world youth bests and masters age-group world records) ratified or noted by the appropriate official body" Your comments have made me realize that I should include a citation from the Pacific Crest Trail Association's announcement  last year of the new record. I think, by noting that Garrett's record may soon be broken, I may have given the impression that happens all the time. But there have actually only been a handful of Pacific Crest Trail record holders in the decades since records started being kept, and Garrett was the first person to do it in under 60 days, which perhaps should be mentioned in the article. Thanks again for your guidance, for spurring me "to create greatness" and for your patience with my not knowing where to go to find your original comments. Jana — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanaGibson (talk • contribs) 21:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The only thing that makes me doubt the WP:ATHLETE element is your statement in the article that it is an unofficial record. I'm sure I remember that. Official records are easy, it's a free pass to an article. There is a patent unfairness in this that you'll come to loathe and despise . An academic, for example, has to be AWESOME in order to get an article. A footballer has to be on the pitch for a split second in a qualifying match and he gets an article.
 * Youtube is also a matter of copyright. We cannot point folk to breaches of copyright. There's a lot to know, isn't there? We're expected to know it all from day one, too! Fiddle   Faddle  22:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Before even reading your response here I had deleted the "unofficial" line as I tightened up the article, because including it was sloppy in the first place. As I mentioned earlier I had modeled the article on that about Jennifer Pharr Davis who has the Appalachian Trail record, and hers says "unofficial," and one of the articles about Garrett said that. But the announcement from the Pacific Crest Trail Association doesn't say that. So I have used that reference and deleted the "unofficial" which I hope will suffice. And I understand what you mean about the unfairness -- hiking (or academia) doesn't get as much attention as football. But Garrett got a lot of media, including USA Today, NPR and magazines like Men's Health, besides all the local West Coast stuff. I went ahead and just took out the youtube references. People can google the headline if they want to hear the interviews and if they get the youtube copy that's fine, I presume. Thanks again for your guidance. Fingers crossed. Oh, and funny that you thought the article seemed "rushed." Perhaps I should be insulted as I took days to put it together and it obviously didn't look that way! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanaGibson (talk • contribs) 22:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "Rushed" has more meanings than just time. We can rush for many days to create something that lets the reader know we are out of breath. You were fixed on a goal, and hastened towards it, but you didn't give yourself the chance to create a rounded end product. Now, with a prod from, well, mainly yourself, you have altered that. Fiddle   Faddle  22:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I saw your new comment on the draft page and greatly appreciate your new inclination. I hope the next editor agrees. I also greatly appreciate your writing style, with almost every line making me smile, and hope that you write elsewhere. I have googled "Tim Trent" to find out, but without success so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanaGibson (talk • contribs) 23:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I do, but not as myself. I used to blog, and do so no longer. I do have a video under my name, and a somewhat dormant phlog at ipadio.
 * I hope they take the same view, too. Continue to improve and expand the article while you wait. If they decline it, talk to them after reading why and use their help understand why. Fiddle   Faddle  06:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi again Tim, I just came across an article on the Smithsonian site about long distance hiking records, noting Josh Garrett as the Pacific Crest Trail record holder, which reminded me that my article about him still sits sorrowfully in drafts. I am in a bit of a quandary as you suggest that I keep improving and expanding the article while I wait. But having already devoted a few days to gathering source material and compiling the piece (I guess I was so slow because it was my first)I am loathe to go further only to have somebody reject the article even though it appears to me (and to you now)that Garrett is worthy under the athlete criteria. As nobody else seems to be in a rush to step in, might you consider making an exception to your general tendency re rereview? As for expanding the piece: there was some controversy as Garrett took the record from a popular female hiker who had done the hike self supported, while Garrett had outside support and sponsorship. I thought including that would be a bit inside baseball but the Smithsonian article goes into all of that and perhaps it would add interest. JanaGibson (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Seriously, do add the new, cited information. We don't want to decline articles, we want to accept them. The more solid facts in them the better the article. The reason I don't like to re-review is because human nature means I concentrate on my prior review points, not the article as a whole. The review process is intended to make as sure as we can that an article will survive as an article. Trust me that we are remarkably gentle compared to a deletion discussion! We want to make sure you don;t have to suffer a deletion discussion. Thatls why more eyes are better during the review period. Fiddle   Faddle  07:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello again Tim. I made some edits yesterday to my draft page about Josh Garrett as his record was indeed just broken, so he is now a past rather than current record holder. In doing so, apparently I managed to stuff the page up. I am getting an error message saying that there are ref tags on the page without content in them. I have looked over the edits and don't see ref tags without content in them. I remember that when I first put the page up there was a separate place to add the references, in addition to within the body of the article, and when I added the new references I did not see where to separately edit that section,so I didn't. But as the new references that I added in the body appeared nicely in the reference section when I previewed the article, I thought I was alright. But apparently not. Could you perhaps guide me as to what the problem is and where I need to go to fix it? Here is the address of the edit page, in case that is helpful to you: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=621112076  Many thanks, Jana. JanaGibson (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It was easy to correct. Have a look (use the history tab and compare revisions) to see what I did. Wikipedia is all about learning all the time. I still am. I hope the draft gets reviewed soon. It matters not at all that his record has ben broken, record holders are always having that happen.
 * I've been away, hence the slow reply. Do keep improving the draft while you wait for the reviewer.
 * Did you google me in the end? Fiddle   Faddle  17:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Tim, I feel like a bit of a dufus as I can't quite work out what you did -- unless it's that I somehow put four ref tags in the front of your comment "This looks a bit rushed..." (Did I?) and you removed them. But then I see a later comment from you asking me not to remove that line, so maybe I had removed the line without noticing? I don't see the differences between versions displayed as clearly as they are in, say, a Microsoft Word "Tracked Changes" document. Thank you for making the repair! On another note, a lovely note, I did find your "It Gets Better" video and was completely charmed. You remind me of a character in an Iris Murdoch novel, like "The Sea, The Sea." Bless you for your kind words and sage advice to viewers. JanaGibson (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I shall have to find out about Iris Murdoch. Thank you. Sometimes the only difference one can try to make is a small, personal one. The world, the civilised part at least, is far better than when I was a kid.
 * Yes, you managed to put for ref tags in front of the comment. Or those are what I deleted :) Fiddle   Faddle  08:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: Astrology
My dear Tim, whatever be the opinion of the people in the Western world about astrology and calling it a pseudo-science or a hoax or a non-sense, I am to inform you that astrology has been a part of Hindu life and culture for the past 4000 years or so, and it still continues to play an important role in our life. Even those Indian skeptics who vehemently speak and write against astrology, in fact, secretly approach priest-astrologers in the time of need. The vexing question whether astrology is a science or not was settled by the Supreme Court of India on 05/05/2004 which court had ruled that astrology is a science and had also directed the Indian Universities to teach this subject. This judgement was delivered in the Case No. Appeal (civil) 5886 of 2002 "P.M.Bhargava & Others. Vs. University Grants Commission and Another". You can accsess the court order at Govt. of India website - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=26188 In case you are interested please do study this court order. Thanks. Namaskar.Aditya soni (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no bias for or against astrology, and I recognise that the topic has a long and proud history for Hindus. The topic, as a topic, is not one I have any interest in, though I have a curiosity. I have no expertise in the area at all. I am also certain that your work, while not perfect, is acceptable on WIkipedia, and simply requires editors with more experience to render it more acceptable in the places where it is not quite up to standard. Again, I hope you stay, but will respect a decision to leave. Fiddle   Faddle  08:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But why have the more learned and more experienced editors, as part of their collective responsibility, not worked on these articles whose contents could never have offended any one reader? They could have brought them up to the required standards; haven't I seen so many editors working for improving one selected article and earn kudos. My main aim was to introduce the topic. Thanks all the same.Aditya soni (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the answer is that the English Language Wikipedia editors find it hard to understand that a topic they view as fringe in their culture is a mainstream topic in another culture. Also, some do not look at the article, but look at the topic. If they do not comprehend the topic well then any article is damned in their eyes. What happens then is that a posse forms and they ride off to lynch someone in order to seek to justify their own ignorance. I am ashamed of this behaviour, and do my best to try to put it right.
 * In order for an editor to pick up and improve an article they must be interested in the topic. Now, forgive me a very broad generalisation which is not intended to offend. By experience I have found that many editors from India have a very different view of what Wikipedia is from the fact of what Wikipedia is. I do not include you in this category. They edit in a cavalier manner, often for promotional or self promotional reasons. This biases even experienced editors against Indian topics when edited by an Indian editor. This is very similar to the British Raj in its worst cultural bias.
 * There are many excellent editors from India. The problem is in getting editors with entrenched views to see the difference between the dedicated editor and the self promotional editor. I saw you at once to be a dedicated editor. It was easy to see. I also saw your work as important, but slightly missing the target. We can always correct the aim at the target if the heart is in the right place. Yours is in that right place.
 * It is our fault that you are facing this unpleasantness, not yours. Someone started a juggernaut rolling and others pushed. As you can see at ANI there are a good number of us pushing back hard.
 * Your aim in introducing the topic was and is excellent. If you choose to stay I will fulfil my promise in guiding you towards enjoying your time here. Fiddle   Faddle  12:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nelly Kaplan
Hi Timtrent. I have moved the above old draft to Nelly Kaplan (writer) and changed it into a redirect with an "R from merge" template. The text of the draft is hidden in the history of the redirect in case anyone wants to see it for copyright reasons. I also added an edit summary to Nelly Kaplan crediting the original draft creator for the merged in material (something to do as you along if you do this in the future). Thanks for taking on that merge job - it's fussy work that not everyone is willing to do. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I knew there'd be a way! Thanks. Luckily this one was easy because the target was almost empty. Fiddle   Faddle  21:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)