User talk:Timtrent/Archive 21

History of Warefare
Dear Fiddle

Thank you for your appreciation of my article. You were right seeing that I put a lot of work into it.I would like to point out that not all my references are from amazon but I have 3 refernces to the new york times

http://www.nytimes.com/movies/movie/367125/The-War-File-The-History-of-Warfare-The-American-Civil-War/overview

http://www.nytimes.com/movies/movie/367139/The-War-File-The-History-of-Warfare-The-Spanish-Civil-War/overview

http://www.nytimes.com/movies/movie/367138/The-History-of-Warfare-The-Peasants-Revolt-1381/overview

Privatesteverogers (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I want to see your efforts rewarded with an article. I found at least one of the NYT references, yes. Thank you for pointing them out to me. Even these references in such an august media outlet don't quite cut the mustard in my view. They are independent, certainly, and are in WP:RS, but it would be hard to view them as significant coverage. Somehow you have to find significant independent coverage in WP:RS. This may be simple of it may prove a hard task, but you've worked hard until now and a little more research will simply be fun, if you choose to look on it as fun.
 * I hated having to push the draft back to you.
 * Our objective with WP:AFC is to seek to ensure that articles we accept are not immediately ravaged by other editors or, worse, sent for one of the deletion routes. In short, we want to guide your hand so that you create a potentially excellent article. Thsi means that, when we push it back, we are not rejecting it. We are saying "More, please, and better!"
 * I hope you have received the push back in that spirit. Fiddle   Faddle  13:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Fiddle

Thank you for your advice. I will see if it will be possible to improve my article by your standards. Don't worry I wont be discouraged.

Privatesteverogers (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm glad of that. It always feels difficult when I have to push a large piece of work back to the author. I know, though, that you will take your time and get it right. I've watched the progression of the draft with interest. Fiddle   Faddle  19:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Meow-Wow I Need Help!!!
Plz i need help go to my usr page or talk page and explain how to make it paw-some plz, plz, plz, plz, plz, plz!!!!

Mistystar of Riverclan (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC) 


 * I am confused. Fiddle   Faddle  22:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Request on 21:49:56, 23 August 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Rowantree1850
I still do not understand why my submission has been rejected again as I have tried to resolve the previous issue and include more references, including obituaries which I was told by a previous help desk is a good reference I would appreciate knowing the reason and any assistance which can be given --Rowantree1850 (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Rowantree1850 (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * First please confirm that you have read my comment in the box at the head of the draft. Then ask me questions here in this section about any comment that you do not understand. Fiddle   Faddle  22:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tim, yes I read the comment, at least I think I have ! I think the problem is about news articles? My apologies for being a bit of an ignoramus about this, I have never contributed to Wikipedia before and find the language extremely confusing, a bit like being at primary school on the first day ! There are literally hundreds of newspaper articles about Harry Braham in Australia, UK, America and New Zealand, so I don't know where to start. Do I need to redo the whole draft? How can I convince notability, I was advised obituaries were good sources, independent reviews as well which I have put in, unfortunately he is unable to do any more important performances, his death in 1923 being a major handicap ! I would really appreciate your valuable help many thanks--Rowantree1850 (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Rowantree1850 (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, let's look in detail. I'll transfer the decline comments from Draft:Harry Braham below and suggest we take themn one at a time:


 * Where you refer to print media please also refer to the date of the issue This is all you need to do in my view, for the references. Or you can add those where you have chapter and verse. In other words we need to be able to verifiy the reference as well as the reference verifying the fact.


 * Correct the citation error flagged in red Far better that you learn how to do this than I just do it for you. I can, but you need to ask me to


 * Remove the leading "−" characters and reformat the piece well, introducing section headings usig our scheme (See WP:MOS) I hope self explanatory?


 * Lose IMDB etc. These are not references Also sefl explanatory?


 * Try, instead of dumping all your references at the end, using them to cite particular facts if you are able. Do you need help with this one?


 * The draft needs a little reworking, yes. I think it's more a case of titivating than a full rewrite. The review process can be annoying, but consider how much worse is the process of defending against a posse intent on deleting your work! So continue to work with us while you learn your trade, and until you feel ready to fly solo. The process is iterative. We may push it back a few times for more work. Treat each time as a challenge! Never take anything personally on WIkipedia unless it is praise.
 * Obits are great sources, as are contemporary reviews of his work. Death tends to be a poor career move, but a great source of media copy! Fiddle   Faddle  20:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Napier Operatic Society
Hi Timtrent! Thanks heaps for accepting the Napier Operatic Society page, I'll continue to find more sources, with an emphasis on sources from outside the society itself. Cheers! :) Anthony Collier 12:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

SecureSafe
Hi Tim You're the reviewer of my article on SecureSafe and I just wanted to make sure that I have understood you correctly. You asked me to remove all inline links. I have removed all links that were listed to customers websites now and would like to submit my article for review again, but would like to ask you if this was what you meant first? Please specify what your mean by inline links if this was not it. Thanks so much for your help! --Stinne M (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That was precisely what I meant. I won't review it again myself, so submit it as soon as you are happy, and continue to improve ot while waiting for a review. Fiddle   Faddle  13:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

13:39:31, 26 August 2014 review of submission by Jolph
Hi there. My article about RELEX was declined for want of independent verifiable sources - yet five of the seven sources quoted were just that - industry journals, the respected analysts Gartner and Deloitte...

Can you explain more. As someone who has worked for Reuters and the BBC I'm pretty careful about sourcing - there seemed to me to be good sources quoted here. Perhaps you could be more specific about the quality and quantity of sources and also point to phrasing which strikes you as 'advertisement-like'

many thanks

jolph

Jolph (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It was declined as an advert, no more and no less


 * RELEX is a fast growing Helsinki- based provider of supply chain systems,
 * RELEX offers a system with a range of tools for managing supply chains.
 * "Clients"
 * All of these say it is promotional. I haven't even checked the references yet.
 * Your journalistic background is the issue. You need to come down to "Dull but worthy" because your tone is promotional
 * References:
 * Two to the orgs own site. Not good
 * http://www.logisticsmanager.com/Articles/19608/Relex+tops+Deloitte+supply+chain+tech+ranking.html regurgitated PR piece or press release. Yor Reuters background working for an aggregator should tell you that
 * http://article.wn.com/view/2014/05/20/Gartner_Names_RELEX_as_a_Cool_Vendor_in_InMemory_Computing_T/ - PR News Wirte! Ditto
 * http://www.fbcc.co.uk/news/relex-europe’s-rising-replenishmentdemand-forecasting-star-launch-uk - PR piece
 * http://www.supplychainstandard.com/liChannelID/25/Articles/4458/Too+old+to+work.html - probably OK. I have not read it in huge detail
 * http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/home/topics/technology-and-supply-chain/relex-says-it-can-give-brits-99-availability/229940.article?redirCanon=1 - PR piece
 * Nuff said? I used to write this PR stuff and can smell it at 1,000 paces. This means your draft is an advert. And the references need to be replaced. Fiddle   Faddle  13:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Jolph Tim, the piece from The Grocer is bylined and thus not PR, the logistics manager piece doesn't appear to be PR, moreover the Reuters I worked for was a wires agency and not an aggregator. I will find alternative sources for the other references. However comments such as 'I used to write this PR stuff and can smell it at 1,000 paces.' strike me as rather unnecessary. You clearly want this piece to have its facts referenced, by the same token you could equally stick to facts and not supposition.


 * A byline in this case is a indication that a journalist has taken this PR piece and put their name to it. It has all the hallmarks of a PR team. Reuters takes stuff uncritically and pushes it out amongst the good stuff. Wire service/aggregator is mere semantics. It is regurgitated trade puffery and unsuitable for WIkipedia. Even with facts referenced, unless this is rewritten it remains an advert. Fiddle   Faddle  15:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Jolph, Tim asked me to weigh in here. I agree with him.  The only reference that I would consider valid is from The Grocer, but you would need at least two other references for it to have any real weight.


 * As for the others:
 * www.relexsolutions.com - - not independent
 * www.relexsolutions.com - not independent
 * Logistics Manager - verbatim quote from press release
 * WN.Com - press release
 * Finnish British Chamber of Commerce - not independent - Relex is a corporate member
 * Supply Chain Standard - Not extensive - Relex coverage consists of two brief quotes from Relex executive
 * The Grocer - Valid


 * I also agree that the article reads like advertising. I'd add to Tim's comments that while it may be acceptable in a press release, quoting what a company says about itself in Wikipedia article is inappropriate and lends to the impression of spin.  In the three sentences that comprise the "Results" section, you've written  "RELEX cites..." "It also claims" and  "according to the company." JSFarman (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As you can see, with differences of opinion over one reference, two experienced editors are in broad agreement. I asked to take a look knowing that their opinion was likely to differ from mine in some areas. It is fine that they and I diverge. But, and this is important, there is the start of a broad consensus that you need to consider and abide by. You are welcome to ask for further eyes. No-one will object to that. But I think your route forward is to recognise that, for acceptance, you probably ought to listen to those who know the ways of Wikipedia.
 * We want to accept articles. At present yours doesn't make the grade, which is a shame. It's up to you to work towards achieving it. Our declining it simply adds to the backlog, so we do not do it lightly. It would be wonderful if all drafts presented to the volunteers who review them were acceptable straight away. But folk need to learn their craft. It's just like a job. Fiddle   Faddle  22:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to TimTrent
For TimTrent On. July 8, 2014 you resolved a problem for me. I had submitted an article for creation which was denied. I was told it had to be moved to a Draft namespace which I did not know how to do. You did it for me! Your help saved me from searching and frustration. Now, I know how to say thank you. Thank you TimTrent. JanvermontJanvermont (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what I did, but I am glad it made your life easier . Onwards and upwards! I hope oyu enjoy this rather absorbing hobby Fiddle   Faddle  22:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

04:01:00, 27 August 2014 review of submission by Bsdsagar
Bsdsagar (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The links and/or references provided in the article entitled "Matheron Lecturer Award" are from reliable sources. The reliability of these sources comes from the following two facts:

1. International Association for Mathematical Geosciences (IAMG) has been there since 1968. Pioneering mathematicians have established this association. The homepage of this association is at www.iamg.org. This association established Georges Matheron Lecturer Award, and is being awarded since 2006 to the 'scientists with outstanding research ability in spatial statistics or mathematical morphology'. The list of these awardees is provided by IAMG. The page that is providing this list is: http://www.iamg.org/special-lectures/matheron-lecturer.html. In my article for inclusion into wikipedia, I have given the following links, besides several other links, at appropriate places:

http://www.iamg.org

http://www.iamg.org/special-lectures/matheron-lecturer.html

2. IAMG Newsletter that provides the details of these awardees has been in existence ever since the IAMG is in existence. Hence, I request you to kindly consider the above links, and the IAMG Newsletter as the reliable sources.

Thanking you in anticipation, and with best regards. Daya Sagar


 * Please read and understand WP:42 to help you see why your use of this primary source is not ever going to be acceptable in this article. IT is not independent of the topic. It is the vehicle of the awarder of the award. We require references from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please.  Fiddle   Faddle  08:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Submission declined on 25 August 2014 by Timtrent
Hi Timtrent ! Fist of all, I would like to thank you for the reviewing effort. For your information, the subject matter in my article is a simple law firm and I wrote it as a third party view. Notable doesn't mean that the organisation is a big company, it can be just well known by everyone for its quality services. Anyway, the purpose of me writing this article is to show that I like them and from my point of view, they deserve an article in wikipedia. Highlighter118 (talk) 09:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm pleased you have had a good experience with them. They are notable to you, which is good. But that is very different from meeting WP:CORP and WP:GNG. If they can be shown to meet this criteria that is great. SO please show them meeting them, and resubmit once oyu have achieved it. Remember that we do not want to decline drafts, we want to accept them. Give us a better chance to do so. Fiddle   Faddle  09:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Lawrence F Jindra biography
Hello! Thank you for your review of the biography that I wrote about Dr Jindra located here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lawrence_F._Jindra,_MD#cite_note-24. I could use some help understanding why it was declined and how I can fix it. I read the links that you referred me to and I thought that I did the inline citations correctly. I am new to writing biographies for wikipedia and would very much appreciate any further guidance you can provide. Also, for the articles that he has published, which are peer-reviewed, is it ok to leave them in?

Thank you, Kim Kimvale1025 (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm more than happy to help where I can.
 * Peer reviewed papers work well as references, yes. They should remain, as long as you are careful to use them to cite a specific item in the article, not as a general "Jindra is Great" type of citation.
 * Please ask me questions that are as specific as you can. There is no deadline for this. I suggest that, as we solve each item you edit the draft to reflect that and we move to the next item. Bear in mind that we want to accept articles, so I am not being difficult for the sake of it.  Fiddle   Faddle  17:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Tim! All of the references that are peer-reviewed, published articles are authored by Jindra and are the results of the extensive research he has done. So for example, where I talk about his work in selective laser trabeculoplasty I then cite the published articles of his work in that area. Is that acceptable? Also, in creating the reference list, should I just use the proper citation with a link to pubmed and remove the search term that I used? I noticed in other wiki biographies that quoting the search terms was a format that was used which is why I did it that way but it's certainly easy enough to fix that. Kim Kimvale1025 (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * My preference, and it is mine, is to go directly to the paper, but ideally in the organ that peer reviewed it, which proves its pedigree. You should take care to use the paper to illustrate a precise point rather than general work, if you can. I tend to shy away from using other articles here as examples because they may not be good examples. If we use them as a precedent we descend towards idiocracy, something I am keen to avoid. I see part of our task to be the continuous improvement of Wikipedia's standards. We must set our own bar ever higher on a personal basis, seeking to exceed requirements at all stages of article editing. Ok, that sounds pompous, but the aim is laudable.  Fiddle   Faddle  21:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Tigran Tsitoghdzyan
Dear Timtrent. First of all wanted to thank you very much for al of your help concerning the first article I wrote. Appreciate it very much. I tried to follow your advice and edited the text to make it better. Actually I realise that I already wasted a lot of your time, but wanted to ask you for a favour. I know you try not to re-review an article, but this artist Tigran Tsitoghdzyan, is going to be first time on auction beginning of September, and as I understand it is a very important event in a life of a painter. I can imagine how many people are going to try to find info about him. Is it possible for you to help me to get the article reviewed before September? We both will be very-very grateful. Thank you very much in any case;)


 * I fear not. I understand why you wish it, but I am standing too close to this article now to influence its progress in any manner. You have not wasted my time at all. You have asked questions and I have answered to the best of my ability. Do feel free to ask at the Articles For Creation Help Desk, though. Fiddle   Faddle  15:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanx a lot anyway, Timtrent. Hope this time we will get through in time:) best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.34.252.106 (talk) 08:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The latest review is a useful one. I believe the phrase CT finds promotional may be within the quotation? If so the method of solving this is to write something (else) about him and then use the reference to show it. What you may not know is that you can add a parameter to the citation "quote=" and abstract a tiny snippet from the source. Note the word 'tiny'. Fiddle   Faddle  21:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It is regarding the Draft: Matheron Lecturer Award
Bsdsagar (talk) 08:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir:

Thank you for the update. It helps me fine tuning the article as per the requirement. I could add following additional references (books, News items, Journals, Periodicals (e.g. Journals and Newsletters) in support of this article.

BOOK: "http://www.springer.com/statistics/statistical+theory+and+methods/book/978-0-387-20331-7: Contributions in Honor of Georges Matheron in the Fields of Geostatistics, Random Sets and Mathematical Morphology Series". Lecture Notes in Statistics, Vol. 183, 2005, XIV, p.402, Springer Book.

NEWS: "News - Australian Mathematical Society". Australian Mathematical Society 2008. Retrieved 2014-08-27.

BOOK: "Front Matter-Mathematical Morphology in Geomorphology and GISci, 2013, p.xxix". CRC Press, Boca Raton, p. 546.

JOURNAL: "Georges Matheron Lecturer for the Year 2013: Professor Peter Alan Dowd". Mathematical Geosciences February 2014, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp 261-263.

NEWS: "News of Fellows - Royal Academy of Engineering". The Royal Academy of Engineering Newsletter 2013. Retrieved 2014-08-27.

I also request you to consider IAMG Newsletter as a periodical as the examples for periodical as per the wikipedia entry (given at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodical_literature) include the following:

"newsletters, literary magazines (literary journals), academic journals, and yearbooks. These examples are typically published and referenced by volume and issue. "Volume" typically refers to the number of years the publication has been circulated, and "Issue" refers to how many times that periodical has been published during that year." (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodical_literature)

Indeed IAMG Newsletter has issue numbers, and is being published and is regularly distributed publication by not-for-profit association.

To improve the quality of this article, during the days to come, I would keep adding more supporting references by satisfying the criteria mentioned at WP:42.

Thank you for the help.


 * You are doing a good job by adding other sources, but anything from IAMG is a WP:Primary source in this article, despite being of potential value as sourcing in other articles. It is not independent of the topic. If your other sources pass WP:42, do add them, and please look very carefully at removing those that do not, because they do the article no service.
 * There are arguments for the very restricted usage of primary sources, but they may not be the major source relied on by the article. In other words they may be used selectively and when absolutely no other source can verify the fact stated. If the award is genuinely notable the award each year will be covered by other sources, sources that pass WP:RS. those are thje sources we need.
 * Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. I'm real;ly pleased you are working so hard to give us a chance to do so.
 * By the way, it is more usual to sign messages at the end than at the beginning  Fiddle   Faddle  09:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

13:33:04, 28 August 2014 review of submission by PraktikantatUFA
PraktikantatUFA (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I reviewed and it for the reasons stated. If you have a question I'll be happy to answer it for you. Just leaving me this non message fulfils no obvious purpose, though.  Fiddle   Faddle  13:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey I have a question to my article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PraktikantatUFA (talk • contribs) 13:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Then actually go ahead and ask the question! I do not read minds well. Fiddle   Faddle  13:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Request on 13:41:25, 28 August 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Rosherion
Please explain why my draft article submitted for review, "Thomas E. Kennedy (Author)," was declined. I will be happy to fix it if I understand why it was declined. Earlier this year, I saw a page on your site that asked for an article on this highly acclaimed author. Thank you very much. Rosherion (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It will be my pleasure to help you. Before I start, please confirm that you have read the detailed comment I placed on the draft at Draft:Thomas E. Kennedy. If we start form that base point I can handle pretty much any help you would like. This will work best with your asking and my answering direct questions to clarify your understanding. There is no rush, so please start, within thsi section, whenever you are ready.  Fiddle   Faddle  13:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You have now asked me pretty much the same question twice. I have deleted the second time of asking since I have replied to the first. Fiddle   Faddle  13:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

C.E. Poverman entry
Hi, Tim. This is Tricia. I am the literary publicist for author, C.E. Poverman. Your acceptance of my entry for him is a little confusing as I wasn't finished completing his entry and still had some work to do on it. I'm not sure why it was accepted or maybe I'm missing something here as this is my first time contributing to Wikipedia. Please clarify. Thank you. TriciaTvdockum (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I imagine you submitted it for review and I judged it to be acceptable. Things do not need to be finished to be acceptable. But, if it was not ready, why would you submit it? Fiddle   Faddle  19:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I am very grateful that you accepted it. I will make a point to clean it up.  Thank you.  TriciaTvdockum (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * When you do please tread lightly. You have a declared WP:COI here. Fiddle   Faddle  19:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

09:27:23, 29 August 2014 review of submission by Engelking
Engelking (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This article already exists in German on Wikipedia and this is basically a translation of that page. The importance of the foundation is that it is probably one of the oldest family foundations in the world, undoubtedly the largest and had such enormous assets at its conception that it was administered by the Prussian government in Glogau. Maybe it requires some knowledge of Prussian history to fully understand this. There are many family members and historians living in English speaking countries, particularly in Texas who would expect to find this article on the English Wikipedia. See also the English article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Heinrich_Sack

--Engelking (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You need to assert this in the article and reference it. We cannot assume foreknowledge of Prussian history. Fiddle   Faddle  09:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Request on 10:06:33, 29 August 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by RRohanverma
Based on the review received, I wrote a new article about a company, calltruck. I request your help to know how to go about.

RRohanverma (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have had a quick look. You have written an advert. In this form it will not be acceptable. I have, nonetheless, placed a template upon it that will allow you to submit it for review. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. This one needs substantial work. Even then it may not pass WP:CORP. Fiddle   Faddle  10:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Theboyaa/sandbox
User:Theboyaa/sandbox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Theboyaa/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Theboyaa/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Nan Ellin
Hi there,

I recently took over the account for creating a page for academic Nan Ellin. I am confused why you rejected this contribution, because my sources are independent and seem appropriate. Also, can you direct me more specifically how to prove her "notability", because it seems obvious to me by her work alone (publications, her position in the department, etc). If you could show me an example of another academics page that fits all these requirements so I know what to look for that would be helpful. Thanks so much Nanellin (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Nanellin


 * It is truly aggravating for authors of pages on academics that the bar is so high, the more so when compared with a footballer who simply has to appear on the pitch for a split second in a qualifying game. Our standard in WP:PROF for academics is extraordinarily high.
 * The thing about this one is that you may be right and the references chosen may verify the pure facts, but they do not in the main, discuss her or her work (insofar as her work is an extension of her, rather than her work in a general manner). What you need to aim for if the highest standard of verification. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS.
 * Looking at other really substantial academics may help you. But, if the article is poor, which happens all too often, using it as a guideline may lead you in the wrong direction. Using precedents on WIkipedia fails every time. So look for several heavyweight profs whose careers are in the stratosphere, and consider how their articles could be improved.
 * Take those learnings and address Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nan Ellin. Currently it suffers from references in primary or non independent sources (or both). Ellin is probably notable, of course she is. What we need to achieve is demonstrating that to the readership as a whole. Our challenge is to have ever better standards.
 * Ellin's published body of work may seem to be ideal to use as a reference, but this is not always so. Let me try to explain. If she manufactured vacuum cleaners, the cleaners would be her work. A vacuum cleaner could not be a reference for her, simply because it is the product she makes. So it is with research. However, a review of his work by others tends to be a review of him and his methods, so is a reference, as is a peer reviewed paper a reference for his work. You may find WP:ACADEME of some use in seeing how Wikipedia and Academe differ hugely.
 * Have I come close to answering your questions? Fiddle   Faddle  18:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Edits
Thanks for your guidance, Tim.

How am i doing?

Drubbo chowdree (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Substantially better. Concentrate on WP:42 for all your references. The only way drafts are accepted is if their references are cast iron. We require references from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. I have not checked the quality of the referencing, but the next reviewer will. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. Make it easy for us  Fiddle   Faddle  08:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

IAMG etc
B. S. Daya Sagar (talk) 08:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Thank you for the encouraging message that spurred my interest further to add references from some secondary sources. Your message helped me understanding on how important are the references from secondary sources than that of the primary sources. In the best interest of the IAMG, I would inform the council members at International Association for Mathematical Geosciences (IAMG) to make sure that the information about these prestigious awards awarded by the IAMG would be publicized in secondary sources as per the WP:42 and WP:RS. I am sure that IAMG would do it from this October onwards as the IAMG Annual conference is going to be held at New Delhi for the first time in India. This is the venue I would push IAMG to make the information regarding IAMG Awards public through Newspapers etc.

As such I have added several more references that can be verified, and I request your help in taking this article, if it has enough merit, to the state of acceptance. Thank you and best regards. B. S. Daya Sagar.


 * I will guide you with pleasure. What I cannot do is to re-review the article formally because I try very hard not to re-review where I have given substantial advice. I become involved, and that means I cannot be impartial. Your approach with IAMG seems good to me. Primary sources have a value, of course they do, but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and must record black as white if secondary sources say it is, whatever the primary sources say!
 * By the way, sign at the end of your message as others do. I see why you use your signature as a heading, but it is not the convention. Fiddle   Faddle  08:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, and also for the comment on the number of references allowed, and the suggestion to avoid references from primary sources. Accordingly I have removed the references that are of less important including almost all references from primary sources. I am sorry about the signature placement. Hope that my signature now would appear at the end. B. S. Daya Sagar (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

15:37:31, 1 September 2014 review of submission by Alex.kalai
Alex.kalai (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Dear Reviewer,

Could you please help me to improve my article regarding Media Diversity Institute? Where do you think that I should add sources?

Thank you in advance for your response.

Best Regards,


 * It is not simply adding sources. You need each source that you use to be about the MDI, not just about a concept. Look very carefully at each of your current sources. Fiddle   Faddle  19:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

question
Hi Tim, thank you for the superfast turnaround on my previous questions! Can you tell me, since I have over a month to wait for my article's review, is there an option like a forum or peer review here, where I can get critiques and feedback from others in the meantime on it? I want to increase my chances the best I can and am open to all advice. Here's my article draft page

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

thank you for your time and kind help! I will look back here for your answer ☺Jena fuller (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not particularly skilled with articles in the Music sector. All I can do is, like you, to read WP:MUSIC and do my best against it. Always remember that you can improve the draft the entire time it exists. I'm sorry not to be useful to you on this, but I know my limitations. Looking at your draft I think the credits section is weird, but weird things can be worked on. WP:MUSIC has to be your guiding star. Fiddle   Faddle  17:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Request on 14:42:55, 3 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Ehmeejay
Fiddle Faddle, thank you for your feedback. The references you are referring to are to support that specific fact. For example, if the article claims that a certain band performed and at PromoWest venue, then the reference backs up that fact. Therefore, the reference may not refer to PromoWest directly, however, it will back up that statement directly. For example, Newport Music Hall is one of the venues owned by PromoWest and in my article I claim that Green Day performed at this venue. I then reference the article backing up this fact.

Please let me know if you still think this is an issue and what issue specifically as I do not understand how this is not backing up my statements. I did thorough research to make sure every statement was backed up by a credible third party. Thanks.

Ehmeejay (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The references must meet WP:42, and be about the entity which is the topic of the article. Fiddle   Faddle  14:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding review of draft:gurubochon
Respected Sir / Madam,

In accordance with the review report received, I have edited the contents of the page GuruBochon (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/draft:gurubochon).

Will it be possible on your part to inform about the possible time to be taken for reviewing the article?

Thanks and regards,

Avik Sinha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avik sinha (talk • contribs) 07:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I have no idea how long it will be before another reviewer arrives to review it. Fiddle   Faddle  07:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

open minded attitude about pictures
The article discussed how meditation can help with DE. So I have a picture of a man meditating. It illustrates the meditation aspect.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles are about facts, not decoration. Meditation does not require specific seating positions. I am open minded, and your picture added no value. Take it to the article's talk page please. Fiddle   Faddle  21:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Request on 11:23:51, 4 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by CFamal2014
Hi Timtrent. Thanks for the review of my article. I understand the reasons for its rejection, but unfortunately at this moment, we (consortium of the project) still don't have independent sources concerning this topic, since this project is recent and so far there are no publishable results or events, and thus no references in news, magazines or even scientific literature....However, I noticed that are two similar projects (Osirys and Epiwork) in wikipedia... I would appreciate any assistance that you could give me regarding this issue, so I could have this article accepted. Thanks CFamal2014 (talk) 11:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If there are no independent sources then this is not yet suitable for WIkipedia. WI will look at the other items and consider whether they have a place here. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, you see, not press style media. Fiddle   Faddle  11:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The articles you mentioned are no longer part of WIkipedia. They failed to meet our standards. Thank you for pointing out their low grade of referencing. Fiddle   Faddle  21:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Lawrence F Jindra biography
Hi Timtrent, Thank you again for your help and guidance on the biography that I submitted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lawrence_F._Jindra,_MD) which was subsequently not accepted. I have done a significant amount of work on the referencing, which I believe you felt was the major issue with the bio. Do you think that you could take another look and see what else I can do to make this wiki worthy? :) If you know of any other editors who you feel would contribute can you tell me who they are? Thank you! Kim Kimvale1025 (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There is one big red error message which you need to cure. I suspect the next reviewer will then accept the draft. The referencing was the major issue. There is a section with no references. That either needs them or needs to be removed. I try very hard not to re-revoew drafts. Reviews are better with more than one pair of eyes. Fiddle   Faddle  13:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

03:12:15, 7 September 2014 review of submission by WikiAlexandra
Hey Timetrent, thanks for the feedback. I've properly implemented the reference list and re-coded the reference sources by using the "cite" template, thus separating citations from external links. Is the article fit for re-submission now? Thanks! WikiAlexandra (talk) 03:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Look at sentences such as " Notable media outlets such as The Motley Fool [7], MLive [8], FoxNews [9], Tech News World [10], MSN Money [11], or AutoTrends.org [12] have previously asked TopSpeed’s editors to weigh in with automotive commentary on industry news or used the site’s renderings to illustrate future trends." which are simply a list of links, not references. References are about the org, not what the org says. WP:42 is your guiding star here. Resubmit it with pleasure and, at the same time, continue to improve it. Fiddle   Faddle  06:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick feedback. I'm not sure I fully understand. The links in question are sources for the information provided in your quoted sentence, which in turn are pages that reference the topic (TopSpeed.com) for certain information in their articles. Should these not be included as references on the wiki page? (PS: I took as an example the Autoblog.com page, references 2, 3 and 4, which were created using the same principle) WikiAlexandra (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * A reference must be about Top Speed. What Top Speed says, wherever it is printed, is a primary source, because it has been said by Top Speed. We don;t care what TS says, not in the least but, unless someone comments about what they say. And we may not simply be a link farm to a load of other sites. Fiddle   Faddle  12:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand. Should I remove those references or at least trim them to a more reasonable number?WikiAlexandra (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The answer is 'neither'. Instead you need to consider each. Does it pass WP:42 as a reference? If not, lose ot. If it does, then look at what it says and consider if that material should be worked into the draft and then the reference used to cite it. IN this way the article itself is enhanced and we don;t send our readers on a link hunt. Fiddle   Faddle  12:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * So basically, a website talking/commenting/debating about a TopSpeed article, an image rendering or a comment would pass WP:42, but a page that just references, mentions or quotes them, wouldn't. Is this correct?WikiAlexandra (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Privided it passes WP:42 yes. Fiddle   Faddle  16:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

No for an Answer
Timtrent:  You said you responded to my question about my article on "No For an Answer" on 2 August. I couldn't find your response to my question. I must have missed it. Can you send it to my email: rstern@locallawpub.com? Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjstern (talk • contribs) 18:55, 7 September 2014‎


 * I do not reveal my email address, so will simply link to the archive where the review is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2014_August_2#No_For_An_Answer You really do need to log in more often. This answer will be archived in time, too. Fiddle   Faddle  18:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

from Jgscanlon2099
Note for timtrent/ fiddle faddle from Jgscanlon2099 i have finished rewriting the article again, putting more of an editors view on the article, as you suggest and making amendments and creating further links, please can you look at it and comment, pre review, many thanks

Jgscanlon2099 (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fiddle   Faddle  22:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

from Jgscanlon2099 to Faddle cc Gryllida (talk

Timtrent, have left message on my talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Reelkandi hopefully you can advise further

Jgscanlon2099 (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Plerase do not use ==== as a section heading. Use real words. I will look at the page you speak of, whcih is not "your" talk page but the talk page of the draft. Thank you for linking to it. Fiddle   Faddle  06:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comments
from: Jgscanlon2099 i left a thankyou on my draft-talk page, for your very helpful comments! Will continue to work on it, and come back to you. Jgscanlon2099 (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Noel Lee (executive)
Since it looked like you were online, I was wondering if you had a moment to take a look at this little piece of original research. It's obviously not vandalism, so I am not allowed to revert per WP:COI. CorporateM (Talk) 12:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Easy to do. I agree that your reversion of it might have been considered to be borderline. See my edit summary. If it can be cited so be it  Fiddle   Faddle  12:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Should(or can?) we remove application for review before it gets declined
Hi its Jgscanlon2099 re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Reelkandi left pretty much same message as here on my draft talk page... which was...should we (or even, can we) remove the article application for review until we've got closer to a more suitable conclusion of the edit, before (or just in case) it gets taken down?

Jgscanlon2099 (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Be unconcerned. It will not get taken down while it is being worked on. There is a 6 month inactivity window after which it is taken down after several warnings, but it is refundable even then! Fiddle   Faddle  17:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep using Draft:Reelkandi's talk page which I started using :-p
You may want to move your comments to the draft talk page: the first one, add as a section before last; the second one, post as a "reply" in the last section. I suspect it's a little confusing to the folk otherwise -- suggestions keep coming in 2 places.

Thanks for nudging there about the tone, by the way; I look forward to their next version. --Gryllida (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll stick with the scripted scheme, but I won't object to your migrating the comments to the talk page. Good compromise? Fiddle   Faddle  16:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ta. --Gryllida (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Lawrence F Jindra's Bio
Hi Tim, I just resubmitted Dr Jindra's bio after incorporating your suggestions and those suggestions of others. After I selected the "resubmit" button, when I selected "save page" I did not receive a message that the article had, if fact, been resubmitted. Should I submit again or wait? Thank you, KimKimvale1025 (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * something went wrong, so I have resubmitted it on your behalf. Fiddle   Faddle  07:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I appreciate all of your help. Kim Kimvale1025 (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

review pre submission needed on Afternoon Tease
from: Jgscanlon2099 to Fiddle

hi Timtrent/fiddle faddle on your advice i have created a new and separate draft page for AFTERNOON TEASE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Afternoon_Tease), which is now separated from Reelandi draft page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Reelkandi), as per your good advice.

i have concentrated on Afternoon Tease first, then will go back to the reelkandi draft page to re-edit, as per your advice and comments.. before i submit, can you check the Afternoon Tease page and comment...

changes include a complete re-write, re-edit. Note, you will still see 'reelkandi' in red, as technically there isnt an (approved) wiki page for reelkandi, as yet...

Jgscanlon2099 (talk) 08:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you stand a far better chance now they are separate. Do you want me to take the submission banner off Reelkandi for the moment? I made a minor edits to AT just for style, and I have not checked the refs. I trust you to check them against WP:42 Fiddle   Faddle  08:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Jgscanlon2099 yes please, please take the submission banner off if you can for reelkandi, i am editing it later today/tonight and will represent to you first i have checked the references for AT, so if you are happy, then i would like to submit this...albeit reelkandi (in red) isnt in wiki yet, as we know, so hope this does not prejudice Jgscanlon2099 (talk) 10:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Always remember that I am one reviewer. Other opinions are as valid as my own. Redlinks do not prejudice submissions. Fiddle   Faddle  11:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Jgscanlon2099 sorry should i be submitting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Afternoon_Tease or were you doing it (in case there was anything you needed to check)? it still says not submitted hence why i ask...

Jgscanlon2099 (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * We always leave drafts to the authors to submit. I will almost certainly not review it, primarily because I am now involved with it. It would be an unfair review. I think you know now what works and what doesn't work. Fiddle   Faddle  12:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Orlando Haddad page
Thank you for your comments. I really would like to be the lease pain possibly. I do not know what an inline link is... are these the links throughout the page text? I see these on other pages I thought that was what was needed.

Also changing my name.. I see its preferred, I will do this soon. I am not a company.

thank you for your time

TarvarusMedia (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * An inline link looks like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Timtrent and, as you can see, is very different from a citation (read WP:CITE and WP:REFB to find out more about those)
 * A change of name would be wise, I think. The current name will always require an explanation

Talkback
Ron h jones (Talk) 12:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

My AfC
Thanks for your help reviewing Godwin Grech. I really appreciate the effort you put in. Having not used AfC before, I looked into the process and you guys do a lot of hard work. Thank you again. Clare. (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

'll'lllllllll
Lalalalala!a!a!a!!a!alalalalalalalala!alalalalalalala (There, I told you I would tamper with your talk pages)Scottishwildcat12 (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Reelkandi draft version 2014-09-12 v1.0
Jgscanlon2099 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Reelkandi

timtrent/fiddle faddle i have re-written the reelkandi draft in line (i think) with your comments, can you look at it. changes include: (1) removing lines Gryllida crossed out (on her advice) (2) moving Afternoon Tease page to a new draft page, as discussed yesterday (3) Creating a Native advertising section (4) Removing references do not correlate to the point being made (5) Moved sections around, re-wrote to be more "encyclopedic", less "journalistic"

Remember it is now not currently submitted for review, so just need your input asap many thanks for all your help and hope we are getting there

Jgscanlon2099 (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have had a quick look. I would risk submitting it. It stands a far, far better chance now. Fiddle   Faddle  14:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

just found out the "review" backlog is weeks and weeks long, aaaahhhh!

Jgscanlon2099 (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

just been told by a guy on chat/help forums that the links in reelkandi draft to earl carpenter shouldnt be there at at all as its not of

TheDruId - scanlonbabe, That said, sources which don't mention Reelkandi /at all/, such as involved bios of Earl Carpenter, don't count toward notability or article acceptance, and can come across as padding to try to show notability where it doesn't exist.

should i delete them? i thought they were helping, thought they were needed? he is founder of reelkandi, hence the links that mention this point..

Jgscanlon2099 (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * if they link him to Reelkandi they may stay. If not they ought to go. They do not assist in RK's notability if they do not mention it. Lots to learn, isn't there? Fiddle   Faddle  16:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

so i see your point point above, makes sense, but....

me to TheDruid, point taken, for some reason i was under the impression that if you write about someone that is involved with the subject (in this case hes the founder) then an article that backed up his involvement would be sensible to put in The Druid back to me - But those sources /don't/ back up his involvement, and they're not independent sources, either.

it says specifically that he is the conceptual founder in the articles, hence why i put them, as well as backing up his role as a west end actor, etc... then he says the sources arent independent? i dont get that...they are written by theatre websites, who have no relationship to the subject?

Jgscanlon2099 (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * independence of source is always a judgement call. If it can possibly be construed that a source is linked to RK then it becomes WP:PRIMARY. While this appears pedantic in the extreme, truly it is not, because WIkipedia is geared only to independent and reliable sources. The final point is that it needs, certainly as a principal reference upon which you rely, to be significant coverage as well.
 * One of the joys of the draft process is that you can learn all of this without having to defend an article against deletion. IMagine doing that at the same time as learning!
 * Now, where he is stated to be the founder and it is stated in a useful source, my own take is that it may go in. The question you need to ask and answer is "Should it?"
 * My feeling is that it is precisely on the borderline for this article, but would be the right side of the border for an article about the chap himself.
 * By the end of this process you will be well on your way to your next article! It's a hothouse learning environment, isn;t it? Fiddle   Faddle  18:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

fromJgscanlon2099 understood, albeit, ive come to conclusion that if i contacted 30 x different "editors" (is that what you call yourself? not sure!), you end up deleting-adding-deleting-re-writing, for the sake of diminishing returns, i.e. poor standardisation comes into effect, no?

I guess i went most with your advice as it made the most sense to me, logical, not emotive, as one couldn't challenge your view as you seemed to have the article's best interests in mind...where'as, i've had people going, "maybe you know too much about the subject to be writing about it, so stop writing, go home and do something else, as well as (almost) personal attacks (written that is), because i hadnt read/understood the rules...i dont get how you get a culture of helpers (supposedly, in the online chat forum, are initially dismissive, rather than helpful...i mean, why help? thats not helping...anyway, im sure you know that culture well..

meanwhile, most surprising is reading similar articles on wiki, in the same genre, according to many of the rukes, you can see they lack reference, overstate and have the writers opinion all over it...and yet...theyve been passed, albeit many years ago probably — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgscanlon2099  (talk • contribs) 10:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You are right. I only care about the article. There is always a danger of emotions getting in the way, and we all have to guard against that.


 * Similar articles are often awful. Those that we don't feel to be of an acceptable standard are often deleted, but we have to find them first . If we allowed a poor article to set a precedent we would descend into idiocracy very fast. I set my personal standards very high, for me and others. It is rare that I am disappointed. By setting a high standard then the articles thus produced are very likely to be ones that stand the test of time.
 * Wisely you have taken nothing about this process personally. You are here to create and to learn. More power to your elbow!
 * When selecting folk to ask for opinions it pays to ask those who are working in the right direction. Our reviewers are all volunteers and thaey are, except when one of us makes a mistake, working for the greater good. Fiddle   Faddle  13:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Jgscanlon2099 just arrived home to read my reelkandi draft has been accepted! i feel like i have won an oscar!! Thankyou, thankyou somuch and to Gryllida also, such tremendous help and the start of a new long journey for me....you have made one person this world very happy to have achieved, greatly appreciated timtrent/fiddle faddle

Jgscanlon2099 (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The credit is all yours. We helped, yes, but you listened and acted. I accept your thanks with pleasure, but you did it. Fiddle   Faddle  06:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

From Bill Daly
Thanks for your response - very useful. One thing I can't find, either in the instructions or the FAQs, is how to add a Jpeg photo to a User Page (ideally in a box on the right hand side with biographical data underneath). Perhaps I'm missed it, but if you could point me in the right direction as to where I can find the info, that would be very helpful.

Bill Daly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Daly (Writer) (talk • contribs) 09:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * After a certain point your account gains the privileges to upload files, and does do automatically. When it exists for you it will appear in the left hand margin as a menu item. Until then you need to edit and spend some time here. If you insist on writing your autobiography no-one will stop you, but I advise against it for so many emotional reasons (on your behalf). It almost never goes well for the writer's state of mind. Fiddle   Faddle  09:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help (Kreditech article)! (And one small question)
I would like to thank you for reviewing the Kreditech article, many thanks! I have a small question that I thought you could maybe help answer. I have found a few volunteers who would like to translate the Kreditech article, and I was wondering if you know of a more comprehensive help guide that I could recommend to them (as an alternative to Translate us which I found to be somewhat confusing… particularly with Step 7… there’s no sidebar on the article with the “Add link” option). Thanks again for all your help, it’s much appreciated.The Editor is Here (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have never translated an article, so I am not able to advise you, I fear. Fiddle   Faddle  15:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, no problem. Thank you for getting back to me regardless :)The Editor is Here (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Left hand margin, by the little cog wheel, by Languages is the link you mention, I think. Fiddle   Faddle  16:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes! I see it now. Strange... I didn't see it there before. Thank you for pointing it out.The Editor is Here (talk) 09:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CitiusTech
Hi Timtrent / Fiddle Faddle,

Following is my submission - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/CitiusTech

I am working on making my submission more notable and credible. However, I have trouble understanding the reason for 'Great Place to Work' news item being not noteworthy. I believe, the central theme of the reference articles sufficiently support the article's claim of CitiusTech having won the award. May be I am missing something. Can you please elaborate on the same?

Best Regards, Vikram Kasbekar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.74.6.2 (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Great places to work tend to be self laudatory items. It is by no means the thing it is notable for. It is a thing of such minor importance as to be discounted. Fiddle   Faddle  13:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

further revisions and evolution of Afternoon Tease
Hey Timtrent/fiddle faddle regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afternoon_Tease which you kindly approved i noted (for example) that on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragile_(Yes_album) an album called Fragile is directly related to the band that made it (in this case, the band is called YES). So the title on the page actually says Fragile (Yes Album).

How do I edit the title for Afternoon Tease (Reelkandi)? As i think it should have the producers name in the title to make the immediate association?

Jgscanlon2099 (talk) 11:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Our conventions are to leave titles unencumbered when they are unique. Anything in parentheses is to do with disambiguation. I suggest you sit on your hands and avoid temptation to place them on the keyboard  Fiddle   Faddle  12:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Request on 10:22:53, 16 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by 86.131.210.204
Hi there I submitted a page for the Business Centre Association, however it has been declined. Can you please explain the problem? Many thanks JLDeditor86.131.210.204 (talk) 10:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

86.131.210.204 (talk) 10:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Please confirm first that you have visited the draft and read the reason I gave. I will be happy to explain further once you give me this confirmation. Fiddle   Faddle  10:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your feedback. I have made some amendments (learning as I go) - I removed the newspaper links especially as I noticed that one of the links is broken, looks like it's been re-archived since I last edited the page. I have however kept a link from The Journal, this gives more info on the House of Commons Reception which I thought would be useful. Also added new information just released today, hence the link to The Telegraph. This however doesn't mention the BCA. Would a scanned photo of the paper be better? Thanks, Jo JLDeditor (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

links to a thing are always better than a picture of a thing. They way you have described it, though, I can;t see how a picture would be better than a link anyway. The reference either mentions BCA and is valid or doesn;t and is not. Am I missing something obvious? Fiddle  Faddle  12:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tim, the online link doesn't mention the BCA, so I guess is not required in this sense (I've removed it). However, the newspaper itself carries an 'open letter' (not published online) which does mention the BCA. So I wondered if it would be more relevant in this case to include a scanned photo of the open letter from the paper. I've never seen this on a Wiki page before though - would it help?

Is there anything else I need to do (other than changes I have already made) before the page can be approved? Many thanks, Jo JLDeditor (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The answer is twofold. The newspaper is copyright, so you cannot easily upload a scan without being in breach of copyright. I should have thought of that before. Mea culpa. The other thing is that a 'mention' is not likely to be significant coverage, and the letter is potentially by them and an advert, so would be a primary source.
 * I'll have a look at the draft, but I try very hard not to re-revoew things I have reviewed already unless the changes are sweeping. If I have a comment to make on it I will leave it there. Fiddle   Faddle  15:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help thus far Tim, I shall work on the references. Jo JLDeditor (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I see every reason why you should achieve this. Wikipedia is somewhat arcane in its needs. Inevitably you will find existing articles that drive a coach and horses through what I am saying, by the way. When we find them we attempt to improve them. If necessary we may need to delete them. Work slowly and steadily. There is no point in rushing.  Fiddle   Faddle  16:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my first article
Dear Timtrent, thank you for reviewing my first article. according to your suggestion i removed the inline links (?) iIhad some problems with the internal wiki sites in few cases, e.g. "Joint Research Centre" i did not got the wiki link "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Research_Centre" which is normaly coming once you type "Joint Research Centre". Now in my article it works but only when typed with the dash "Joint_Research_Centre".

i didnt totaly understood what you ment by "... Wikilinks, or external links in a section so named" should i add additional section for wikilinks ?

Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nepelska (talk • contribs) 16:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I was not as clear as aI believed. My apologies. I hoped the comma before the final list item would show that it was External links to be in a section namedExternal links.
 * You have missed one inline link, by the way.
 * The odd link you mention will get corrected in time. You may ignore it with pleasure.
 * I won't be re-revoewing it, I'm afraid, even when you re-submit it. I try very hard not to re-revoew drafts, but I will answer any questions I am able to answer. Fiddle   Faddle  16:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Reelkandi added Infobox -some issues
ref https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reelkandi hi timtrent/fiddle faddle, oh dear, worked quite hard on filling in right data, saved it and its really messed up the format at the top. can you look at it, as i filled all the parameters in right (well i thought i did?!!) thanks Jgscanlon2099 (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have a widget that colour codes syntax. You were mussing { before a {ubi  Fiddle   Faddle  21:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

something so simple and the havoc it creates!! many thanks. im trying to wokr out howto put the logo in also, reading the Page that tells you...read it twice, still trying to understand what they are going on about!! thats just me!

Jgscanlon2099 (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Also, a couple of questions, which i know you will know the answers to (-)) 1 what is the easiest way to "add categories" for the two articles i have written. 2 is there any benefit in adding in reelkandi (with references) to other sites where reelkandi have involvement, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Carpenter

thanks

Jgscanlon2099 (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * i think your preferences page has a tab that allows you to opt to use HOTCAT. That presents a way of adding cats easily. Yiu will grow to hate the category system because it does not enforce a hierarchy. WE, the editors, do that ourselves.


 * I think the other thing is meat for a See also section, but we have to be careful that 'See also' elements are of direct relevance. What I do suggest is that you step away from RK and AT and enjoy editing some other articles that interest you. Remember to be their father, not their mother! Fiddle   Faddle  14:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome message and request for help
Hi Timtrent, Thanks so much for posting a message on my talk page. My course page is here. I invite you to help my students by going to the talk pages of the articles they are editing - there is a list on the course talk page, and providing them with feedback on their edits. They are expected to communicate all the edits they are doing on the article talk pages. I highly appreciate your help! LeshedInstructor (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Glad you appreciated it. I suggest you consider the standard welcome for students for each of your participants, unless you do this a different way, of course. I arrived at your page after finding a couple of pages submitted for review at WP:AFC by some of your tribe, and welcoming several of them. Their enthusiasm is laudable, but they may run into some of the snarky and snipy elements at Wikipedia in their naïve enthusiasm. Protecting them from that is rather imporatnt.
 * If you do not already have it, WP:TWINKLE may well be of huge use to you
 * At present I work in WP:AFC, doing my best with others to clear the huge backlog of submissions we have. Broadly, the issues we find are gathered in the individual paragraphs I use in my 'reviewer's cheat guide', sometimes more than one, often tailored to fit. You may find it useful to read: User:Timtrent/Reviewing
 * I'm more than happy to look at your tribe's work and to engage with them. You have an interesting challenge ahead. I hope you enjoy it and help them to enjoy their time here. We always need new editors. Fiddle   Faddle  08:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for the information and the resources. I am actually surprised that students were interested in creating new pages. They are not supposed to. Instead, they are choosing articles at a C-class and improving them, trying to reach a B-class. Again, any feedback you can give them will be highly appreciated. LeshedInstructor (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think their attempts at new page creation were, largely, an error, but let's encourage them do do this alongside your course! It is one thing to learn in a structured environment such as yours, quite another to expose one's self to the rather bizarre, arcane, and sometimes unfriendly world that is WIkipedia. Those who graze theior metaphorical knees will undoubtedly be better for the experience.
 * Another resource you may find of interest is User:Timtrent/A good article, which, while not infallible, is a half decent guide to getting started. Fiddle   Faddle  11:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=626251197 your edit] to A Leading Man 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) 20:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A Leading Man is an American drama film distributed by Mance Media Cite web|last=Latham |first=Brandon |title=Exclusive: Mance Media Acquires 'A Leading Man,' Which

Organic Division Page
Hi thanks for reviewing the Page I created on the ACS Organic Division. I do understand the need for references and I am looking around to see what I can use. The organization is mostly referenced in trade journals (scientifically peer reviewed) that other Wikipedia editors may not not be able to access the entire article...but they will be able to see abstracts. I hope that will suffice. I am trying to learn and I think it is important to add this resource to the Wikipedia Encyclopedia.

Brian J. Myers (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Peer reviewed papers are fine. Abstracts are useful provided you are certain the org is subject to significant coverage within the paper, not just a mention. A lovely solid mention in mainstream media would be excellent, too. Fiddle   Faddle  18:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe I have made a good amount of progress in adjusting the page. I am thinking that I need to add about 5-10 more references. I wanted to ask you to look it over and let me know if you feel I am now on the right track with this before working on it more and resubmitting the article. Full disclosure: I did reference my own History article on the National Organic Symposium and I hope this isn't construed as a conflict of interest.Brian J. Myers (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The answer is that, while it appears that you are doing sterling work, as someone without access past the abstract stage, and with the abstracts not doing more, if at all, than mentioning the org in passing, I truly cannot tell. So, to bolt this draft into place as an article I suggest you are very selective in finding references from this search which are about the org and pass WP:42. All we need to make this unassailable is a pair, literally, of references that every reader can have access to.
 * Now, to be clear, even without those it will be acceptable, and can be accepted, but those extra two will be worth the effort. The trick is to find them, see what they say, see if there is a point already in the draft where they can be used as a reference, or, if not, to write that part based upon using them as a reference.
 * Your own paper: It would be churlish to view one entry as COI. Obviously ten such entries would be a different matter  Fiddle   Faddle  16:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Thanks for staying with me on this. As you can see I am making some progress on the page as I find time. Your point on the bullets is a good one. I will move to adjust that. I still have more references that I have to add first though. Once I do those two things, I will resubmit the article. I just wanted to have everything in place with best practices before proceeding. Right now, my only frustration is trying to learn how to best communicate with people like yourself on things like this. Also, I see a message from Teahouse and I ned to learn about that. I feel I am leaning on you a bit at present. I appreciate your comments so far. Brian J. Myers (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This route seems to work well. I'm keeping a quiet eye on the draft and simply adding pointers for you. This is a race won by the best, not the fastest, so I commend your quiet patience. Fiddle   Faddle  16:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

ADAC article
Hi Timtrent,

I never made a wikipedia article before. I tried to add 3 new references but I don't know if they're much better than the existing ones.

ADAC xml files will eventually be used by all civil engineers and surveyors who design new housing estates or who survey existing ones in the area of member councils. The standard will be adopted by more councils in future, so it will become more and more noteworthy. So - I think it is significant. I have a vested interest - I'm associated with one of the applications used to create/edit ADAC files - "ADACX".

I'd appreciate any advice or examples of how to improve the article. Thanks! Damianharkin (talk) 06:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have also looked for sources, though my search was restricted to Google. I can find none. You may be forced to conclude that your topic is not yet notable. The clue is in your word "eventually" above.
 * Keep searching for references that meet WP:42, keep adding them. Fiddle   Faddle  06:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your valuable comments. I am editing my entry in accordance with these comments and will resubmit when completed.Childrenofheart (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I hope you find the sources the article needs. Even if not it is likely that it will be notable at some point in the future. Fiddle   Faddle  11:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Richard Pick (musician)
Thanks - I appreciate all of the good input and direction. There is quite a learning curve for a beginner here (ME) so please bear with me. I am in the process of collecting other resources, references and contacting Mr. Pick's former students and publisher for any other articles or background detail available. My aim was just to get a short bio for Richard Pick into the site and then pass the torch to those other interested parties, but maybe it makes more sense for me to just collect, organize and post all the material. Thanks again and I shall return after further research and homework. - mark bayer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horse Attack Mark (talk • contribs) 13:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * All you need to do is to show sufficient to pass WP:BIO. So make sure that what you collect is genuinely useful. You roriginal concept of doing the bare minimum is a good one. Fiddle   Faddle  13:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: NERA Economic Consulting (September 23)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! The submission has not been accepted because it included copyrighted information, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

The existing submission may be deleted at any time. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Timtrent Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Revent&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Timtrent reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Revent talk 04:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

How bizarre. I have no recollection of this draft at all. I must have placed a submission template on it for the original author. Fiddle  Faddle  06:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Quick question


Hi Timtrent,

Thank you for looking at my submission. You rejected it over my misunderstanding over what a reference is.

Here is the para in question:

Ivor Dembina is a Jewish stand-up comedian from London, UK.[1]. He runs the Hampstead Comedy Club in London, which he founded in 1994[2] He has been cited as an influence by many fellow comedians such as Stewart Lee1[3], Alan Davies[4], Jo Brand[5], Arthur Smith[6], Malcolm Hardee[7] and others. He wrote for the first season of the Omid Djalili Show on BBC1[8]. He appeared in the first season of Eye Spy as 'Jewish Dad' on Channel 4 [9] He is openly critical of Israel’s conduct in the West Bank and Gaza [10]. Ivor’s comedy focuses on his Jewish background and his political outlook[11]. He was the first stand-up comedian to perform comedy at the Houses of Parliament[12].[13] He toured the Middle East with his show This is Not a Subject For Comedy[14]

If I removed the following sentence from the para (which I only included to help with notoriety) "He has been cited as an influence by many fellow comedians such as Stewart Lee1[3], Alan Davies[4], Jo Brand[5], Arthur Smith[6], Malcolm Hardee[7] and others." would the para then meet the required standard?

Thanks for your help.

Martin (Newcastleton) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.39.97 (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The immediate question posed by my comment is resolved in this area, yes. The question them remains "Are the rest of the references sufficient?" I am travelling at present so have no time to answer fully. I suggest you make the change you have written, and ask on the AFC Help desk. Fiddle   Faddle  15:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Angel Sessions
Hi Timtrent,

You reviewed and declined the Draft:Angel Sessions on September 3, 2014 because it lacked reliable sources. It has been re-submitted to AfC by which is no big deal and I'm sure is something that happens all of the time. However, I saw this post as Commons:Village Pump made by the same user who is trying to get the page added to Wikipedia. This is, in my opinion, and obvious COI issue, but since it is only a draft I am not sure what, if any action, should be taken. Is it normal to tag drafts with stuff like COI or Connected contributor, etc. so that reviewers are made aware of such things. This is completely unchartered territory for me. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You could place Connected contributor with all parameters filled out on the talk page of the draft. Use the permalink at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=135270396 where the editor places the ownership comment on Commons on the otherlinks= parameter. Drafts tend to find COI editing 'acceptable' because they get the COIness ripped away during the process. Fiddle   Faddle  11:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the speedy reply. Do you tagging it in such a way at this stage would be considered "overkill" and "biting a newcomer". I don't want to discourage the guy, but if the draft gets accepted, I think it's fair to assume he will continue to edit it. - Marchjuly (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would have no hesitation at putting CC on the talk page. I would not put a COI banner on the draft article itself. CC is polite, factual and germane. COI just feels like a slap in the face. Fiddle   Faddle  12:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Maybe it might be best to post something at their talk first, but not sure. I need to think about it. Posting a CC template out of the blue might be mistaken as an attack of some kind by a newcomer, and they might just remove it as such. -Marchjuly (talk) 12:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever you feel to be appropriate. I tend to prefix it with talkpage to flesh the page out somewhat. Fiddle   Faddle  12:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)