User talk:Timtrent/Archive 25

Edited article per your suggestions
Hi, Please see revised article. I welcome any comments to further fix errors and move it live. Thanks! DyanDyan at SAC (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You are missing the point about references. I'm not sure how to give you this information without repeating what I've said on the draft. Perhaps WP:42 will encapsulate it better than can I. Your username suggests that you are associated with St Anselms. Please try to stand right back and look at it from 5000 miles away Fiddle   Faddle  19:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Yesterday I was on Kiwi IRC and got references approved, such as the Crier article. I'm really listening to all comments and implementing them, so it's frustrating to have different people say different things. The refs included are legitimate articles. It's also confusing when someone here pointed me to Bill Gates page and his entire 4th para is not cited. This is not a personal issue, I don't know Mr. DiSalvo well, so I am able to step back on this article but I understand your meaning about this. Would you mind pointing out the exact phrase or reference that you are referring to in your comments? That would be helpful to have a target. But again, the current refs were okayed by someone else in Wiki. Thanks! Best, Dyan Dyan at SAC (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I see at Draft:Steven R. DiSalvo that has given you a very useful suggestion. Perhaps you can hear them when you can not hear me. One does not "get references approved" on an IRC channel, and I suspect, if you have received different information on IRC that one party to the conversation has misunderstood. Let me try to be as clear as I am able:
 * 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
 * Each of these must be true, all at once, or it is not a valid reference.
 * There are rare times when a primary source may be used. WP:PRIMARY explains this correctly
 * St Anselms itself is a primary source. Anything produced by St Anselms, including their press releases, is a primary source. Blogs, unless very particular blogs, are a primary source (hence my suggesting that you be wary of them).
 * So you need to examine your current references. If they fulfil these criteria, then use them. If they do not, then replace them. My view is that all four are not useful to your cause. Another reviewer may disagree. It is correct and good that we disagree because we work on consensus, not a rule book.
 * I will not be re-reviewing this draft. I make it an almost inviolate rule not to do so because other eyes than a single reviewer produce the best result. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. I'd love to have been able to accept this one. Wikipedia is improved by decent articles. You have some work to do and you are well capable of doing it.  Fiddle   Faddle  13:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Timtrent (Fiddle, Faddle?), I appreciate your review, comments and encouragement. I got more feedback today and +Howicus says "it doesn't look bad," while noting "more sources always help." The ones I included (and others removed) were all I can find after an exhaustive online search. I will add more as they may become available. Thanks, again. Crossing my fingers for an approval. Dyan Dyan at SAC (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have not really looked since your edits. I hope you have found extra references, because, and this is important, biographies of living persons are very vulnerable to our deletion processes, even when uncontroversial, primarily because the person is alive. This is why we insist on excellence in referencing.
 * When we approve a draft we do so on the basis that it has a better than 60% chance of surviving a deletion discussion. If you think that fighting to get approval is tough you do not want to fight against a deletion discussion. It is a difficult experience. So continue to improve your draft. Find those sources
 * and
 * ought to help you. Fiddle   Faddle  14:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Only other references might be on a college webpage and I thought that was not allowed. Please advise. thanks! Dyan at SAC (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This will prove, as you say, a tough article to source. I wonder if DiSalvo has to do more to get the media coverage. He seems notable, yes, but verifying it is tough. I did a quick search and was stumped, too. Using a different college web site will help, but does not assure success. A different college is independent, because it is different, but to is not perfect because it is not necessarily WP:RS Fiddle   Faddle  14:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Your student expressed a willingness to learn. It was truly that simple. You have given them a tough topic! Referencing that is fiendishly hard, Thank you for the barnstar . What I hope is that they will pay the help forwards, for that is the true lesson here. Fiddle   Faddle  21:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Not really necessary to merge the two articles, unless you want.
Fiddle, faddle, sorry to cause you extra work!! There is no information in the old article George Fried that I have not included in the new article Captain George Fried.

IN the future I will try not to make the mistake of writing a second article on one that has a stub. The stub was so brief and poor I though it would be ok to rename the article. Besides, I feel the inclusion of the RANK OF A SEA CAPTAIN is important. Fried was always known as a sea captain during his fame. It seemed wrong to write the article under the name George Fried, which is a very common name. I hope you see my point.

Sorry to cause extra work for you AND

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP!!!!

David Wasserman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcw2003 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Timtrent............

Once again sorry to cause extra work!!!!!!! I guess you cant just redirect stub George Fried to Captain George Fried (wiki article) and delete the existing text of the stub George Fried.

It would be less work for you!!! Sorry I made this error.

dcw2003 David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcw2003 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

TimTrent, (fiddle Faddle)

I am sorry I created a new page, Captain George Fried. Please do not delete it if you can help it. It is a far better article than the STUB WHICH IT UPDATE.

If you have time, Timtrent, message me if you can. I am sorry to cause you or anyone else extra work.

dcw2003 (David)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcw2003 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No-one could expect youto know about this. You are learning the ropes here. So am I, and I've been here for a while. If you look at the section below, here, I have asked for admin help to resolve it.
 * With regard to the honorific, we have rules about that, too. Just go with the flow. If he was always known as 'Captan', place it in the article as a fact that you cite. That would work well. Fiddle   Faddle  06:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Merge help needed
Please look at the articles George Fried, and Captain George Fried, which ought to be an uncontroversial merge. The former is a pre-existing stub and the latter a new article created by a new editor. It would be a simple matter to copy and paste the fuller information over the stub, but I believe our rules may require a history merge, hence this request. Fiddle  Faddle  06:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorted. Yunshui 雲 水 07:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

09:06:01, 20 April 2015 review of submission by ITguyABC
Hello, Timtrent. Thank you for reviewing the page Draft:Colasoft Packet Builder I created. Just want to know if I got the meaning of reference sources now as I've added some sources. If not, please tell me, I will keep on improving it. Thanks again!

ITguyABC (talk) 09:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I fear not. The problem is that I don;t know how to explain this any better than I have already. WP:42 is your guiding star here, and you have not got a single reference that meets it. Fiddle   Faddle  09:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

10:09:12, 20 April 2015 review of submission by 2605:E000:61C7:D600:3895:1009:9F66:A17F
What can I do to make this page more accurate besides providing the linked references that I have provided? I'm a little confuse as how those aren't substantial enough to warrant an approval? There's only so much that I link to in order to re-confirm the information that is listed in the article? Please help.

2605:E000:61C7:D600:3895:1009:9F66:A17F (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Have you read the comment I left on the draft itself? It ought to help you. You do need to log in you you account to keep track of things. Fiddle   Faddle  10:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Rajeev Jain
Thanks very much for your kind suggestion.

Regards

Jeff 11:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhartendunatyaakademi (talk • contribs)

THanks for your help, sorry to cause extra work!!
I understand. I would have been glad to have copied Captain George Fried to George Fried myself to save you the time.

Either way, THANK YOU FOR DOING THIS FOR ME, Sorry I caused you extra work!!!!

THANKS AGAIN,

dcw2003 (DAVID) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcw2003 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That's the thing. Copying your work in would, alone, have been wrong. Bizarrely, we need to merge the two together and merge the edit history. Wiser heads than mine say this.


 * Work is never a problem. One day you will, I hope, be offering sage advice to other new folk. Fiddle   Faddle  18:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Timtrent - thank you! I appreciate the advice you gave me on my article - and the specific comments. Those help a great deal.

GMTEgirl 09:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC) 

Submission declined
Hi Timtrent

My article was recently declined: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Institute_of_Enterprise_and_Entrepreneurs stating that the submission did not have reliable sources but I included a number of sources which I'm sure are reliable. I also based the submission on a similar article which does not (to my mind) have any reliable sources that are independent yet it has been approved (this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Leadership_%26_Management ) and wondered why that one was approved but mine not?

Thanks in advance, Nathan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.212.120 (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * We never use another article as a precedent. Yours requires better references, as I have said with clarity when declining your draft. You may be sure your sources are reliable. I think the reverse for many. Please do what I suggested and compare those you have against the standard I have reminded you about. Fiddle   Faddle  18:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 14:03:37, 23 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Wknabe
Dear Timetrent, My name is John Mavrakis, and I am the Founder of ideologie, a business advisory and licensing firm. One of our clients is Walter Knabe, a well known and respected artist in the world. In order to broaden the knowledge base of Walter, I wrote and drafted, and subsequently asked for posting, of a Wikipedia page for Walter. In order for there to be consistency in his social media management, I set up the account in Walter's name, and did all of my work in that realm. In fact, Walter had no idea I was doing this, and was overjoyed when I told him it was being submitted for posting. I had read all of the information about posting on Wikipedia, and knew that I had met every criteria before posting. So, when I saw that we were denied, I was flabbergasted! How do I go about getting this post live, now that you know it came from me and not Walter himself? Thanks a million! John Mavrakis ideologie john@ideaologie.com 812-320-2882

Wknabe (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * So, broadly speaking, you created those draft to ingratiate yourself with your client?
 * What you do is stop being flabbergasted and then do what is said on the draft in my review. Fiddle   Faddle  14:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Mike_Foreman_(executive)
Hi, my draft is still available here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mike_Foreman_(executive) Is this okay now to publish into Wikipedia, may I have your feedback please?

Thanks Jas — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasDhaliwal (talk • contribs) 10:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no idea why you removed the review history, which removed your resubmission button. I have reinstated it. Any editor in good standing may move a draft to the main namespace as an article, but I see this one as likely to fail. You should resubmit it for review and act upon the reviewers' comments fully.
 * Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. Fiddle   Faddle  10:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This was a mistake on my part, but thanks for restoring the history. I have resubmitted the article for review again. Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasDhaliwal (talk • contribs) 10:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

WHy not use headers?????
Jeff 13:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)== /* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rajeev_Jain */ ==

Sir, Please do see : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rajeev_Jain and tell me if you want more refrences. Thanks !! Jeff 13:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:BOMBARD applies. Fiddle   Faddle  13:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete my page: Rajeev Jain
Dear Timtrent,

My name is Rajeev Jain and I am a Director of Photography by profession. I have yesterday/ today been appraise by my friend Aakash Pande (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aakash_Pandey) a page about me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rajeev_Jain) on Wikipedia by a fake author 'Jeff' 'Bhartendunatyaakademi'. I would like to share that this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rajeev_Jain) is hugely distressing to me and I request you to kindly delete this page at the earliest. My web page 'www.rajeevjain.com' provides information about myself for your reference.

I look forward to your urgent attention to this matter.

Yours faithfully, Rajeev Jain

www.rajeevjain.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeevjain (talk • contribs) 16:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not an admin so have asked for administrative help. See below. Fiddle   Faddle  16:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Please examine the request above regarding Draft:Rajeev Jain, and consider the best route forward. I have no experience in whether and how we accede to the requests of the subject of an article, the more so when it is a draft.

I have blanked the gentleman's contact details for his privacy. Fiddle  Faddle  16:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Another editor has courtesy blanked the draft pending admin decision. Fiddle   Faddle  17:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Rajeev Jain where another editor has made a nomination. Fiddle   Faddle  19:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear User talk: Fiddle Faddle and Timtrent,

I am sorry that I have deleted the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rajeev_Jain, but please go and see the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:I_dream_of_horses, where some one @Bhartendunatyaakademi made me a villain. You can understand my frustration. I was getting whats app that this must be me or someone close, who is responsible. and I couldn't control myself, went and deleted.

I shall appreciate, please remove all this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rajeevjain and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rajeev_Jain) from there.

..................................................

Dear User talk:I dream of horses,

I need favour if you can remove Point No: 8 Rajeev Jain, 8.1 How these people on wikipedia ??, 8.2 Trying to improve article: Rajeev Jain, 8.3 Rajeev Jain, 8.4 Muneesh Sappel &16 Delete my page: Rajeev Jain from your contents. As since 2-3 days some one irritating me onWhats app indirect messages that me or some one close to me who has created userid: @Bhartendunatyaakademi is responsible to remove him from wikipedia. I didn't want to hurt him, wanted to tell him that If you are genuine and has done good work, No one can remove you from Wiki.

..................................................

I am telling every one in India that you people use Wikipedia to come on the google. But why I will need a page when I already come on google, if you type "Rajeev Jain" on google... You see about me on the right side of google page, which is already an achievement when there are thousands of "Rajeev Jain" - being so common name in India.

Its not a show off or trying to impress you but I have a page on me, which has 20k+ likes: https://www.facebook.com/rajivjaincinematographer. Its not a profile page instead its a community page on cinematography, other one is group page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/rengedragonpictures/ which has 11k+ members.

Think, If I am wrong guy why so many people will join me on social media and I am not a actor/ star.

I went on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bhartendunatyaakademi#Talkback, thinking to ask please dont write about me that you have already done a damage. But I cant find how to send a message to him. Please forward this message to him Bhartendunatyaakademi also. If you ask me @Bhartendunatyaakademi didn't write anything wrong about me, but the way he has done, even I wont appreciate, he shouldn't try to make my page on other's deletion of pages. Whatever that guy has done.... a hard work on my links, even I didn't know that my interviews and articles on so many websites... Please say "Thanks" and "Sorry" from my side.

Best Regards, Rajeev Jain

www.rajeevjain.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeevjain (talk • contribs) 18:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have done what is necessary. I have asked for administrative assistance and I have passed this into more capable hands than my own. I am not a messenger. You have been able to leave me a message. Leave them a message in the same manner. Fiddle   Faddle  22:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I've set the template as if anyone has come by to answer it. I'm disappointed that, despite two attempts on the IRC channel, and one message on WP:AN no-one came to assist. Fiddle  Faddle  18:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was actually in the middle of reviewing this when you did that as I saw your post at AN. My take is that WP:BIODEL says that in this type of situation the article may be deleted, so there is not a hard and fast answer. What is odd in this case is that the subject seems to be claiming that they are sufficiently notable but they just don't want a WP article. Usually these objections ar form people who do not believe they are notable enough for an entry or who object to certain personal details but neither of those seem to be the case here. That being the case I think it is appropriate that the MFD decide the ultimate fate of the draft. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking pity on me. I agree with your assessment. Something odd is happening, and MfD may as well decide this as anywhere else. Will yo/have you offer/ed and opinion there? I wonder why others never came to help? But that is an idle wonder.  Fiddle   Faddle  19:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Lprosenberg/sandbox
Why did you decline my speedy deletion on User:Lprosenberg/sandbox? The article is unambiguously promotional, and even if the user intends to edit it, Wikipedia should not be a storage place for promotional material. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I declined it because it is not necessarily in storage, and because userspace drafts, if submitted through WP:AFC, which this is likely to be, have a certain accepted immunity from speedy deletion. The contributing editor was discussing it on the teahouse questions forum. I decided to cut them some slack. Hackles, down, please. No-one will die if this stays here a few hours longer. Fiddle   Faddle  23:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Excuse my french !
Hello, Sorry for using the sandox instead of the "brouillon", i was indeed working on an article written in french. My question : do i need to copy my work and paste in the french Wikipedia ? Or is there anything faster and easier i should now ? Thank you for your help anyway. I did not realize i was working with the english version ! All the best, Phil — Preceding unsigned comment added by VingtQuatreK (talk • contribs) 16:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I imagine that you can simply copy and paste. There is a process I never understood for interwiki moves, though. I tried it once and made a complete Horlicks of it. No idea where to find it, either!! Fiddle   Faddle  16:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Michael Owren
I am kimoller Kimoller (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC). I wrote the article on Michael Owren, which was accepted, but was indicated to be an orphan and to have insufficient citations from independent sources. I think I have very adequately corrected these problems. Please check and if you agree, please remove the indications of remaining problems with the article. Best wishes D. Kimbrough Oller Kimoller (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * we work on a trust system. If you consider that you have done sufficient to remove the banner(s) that indicate problems on this or on any other article, remove them, stating in your edit summary that you have done so because you believe the issues have been solved. You do noted anyone else to do this. Fiddle   Faddle  22:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Neue Gestaltung
Hi Timtrent, you recently reviewed my article Draft: Neue Gestaltung and suggested to review the references again. I’ve taken out all "passing sources" and would be thankful if you can take a look at the article again to give some much appreciated feedback. Many thanks in advance. Mehrinhalt (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for trusting me enough to ask me. I will have to leave the references to someone else. What I'd like to see is a longer lead section. See WP:MOSLEAD, a section which summarises the article in a nutshell. Lack of one will not hinder acceptance in my view, but having one will aid it.
 * I suggest you resubmit and see how it fares. This is an iterative process, after all. I try not to re-review a draft, especially one that I view as being close to acceptance. Fiddle   Faddle  18:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for your feedback and advice. Will look into the lead section again. Mehrinhalt (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

NEED SUPPORT
Hello, Sir! I am happy that you reviewed my first writing based on my school. But, I wanted to know in details about what changes am I supposed to make in that article so as to publish it publicly!! Thanking You in Advance. 😉 Arjdaund (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Please confirm that you have read the message I left on the draft article for you. Fiddle   Faddle  13:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Carborundum Universal
Hello Tim trent, I have recently submitted the article, Draft:Carborundum_Universal, for review but u rejected for lack of reliable resources. The references includes some of the books, do u think those are not reliable? I need your help to resolve it. SiloniSam (talk) SiloniSam


 * Please start by confirming that you have read the comment I left for you on the draft when I pushed it back to you for more work. Fiddle   Faddle  06:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 13:29:51, 27 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by MaximEurActivCM
Dear User:Timtrent

I am answering to your nice message from last week:

You raised several problems: 1. Conflict of interest → Thank you for suggesting the possibility to get an editor to proofread the articles. 2. Because EurActivCM gave the impression not to link to only one person → I have created a new username User:MaximEurActivCM I am the only Community Manager (CM) at EurActiv then would this username be OK?

Help me ¿Is there somewhere a tutorial that shows how to create an article on Wikipedia? Something like "Wikipedia for dummies". If this exists, that would be very helpful so that I can create an article that will not be deleted in the future.


 * Your first article will help you. I cannot tell you if that username would be ok or not. I think it probably will be. The Helpme template is only for your own talk page, please, not anywhere else Fiddle   Faddle  13:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)



This is what I was looking for Your first article – Thank you for your help. Sorry for the Helpme, I found this somewhere and believed it should be used every time I was asking a question. Best, MaximEurActivCM (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 17:30:54, 27 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by GRCCENTRI
Hi Timtrent,

Thank you for reviewing the page CENTRI Technology. I noticed that it was declined for "reliable sources." Can you please advise which sources need to be updated? We cited numerous sources that are from third-party publications.

Please let me know.

Thanks,

GRCCENTRI (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Instead of looking at third party sources you need to look at WP:RS. Which of these sources is reliable? If you are not sure, ask about an individual source at WP:RSN
 * Coverage is also important. It must be significant. A passing mention is insufficient.
 * It must also be about the org.
 * I'm asking you to investigator these areas because I do not believe in spoon feeding you, but I will analyse on of your references at random for you to show you what I look for.
 * http://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/story/centris-optimization-policy-control-technology-early-operator-trials/2013-04-01 is a good piece of coverage. It is significant and I believe it to be independent in that the story is written by the journalist and is not just a reproduced PR piece or Press release. However everything in it from "According to a forthcoming white paper commissioned by Centri and written by regular FierceWireless contributor Mark Lowenstein, products s" onwards is in question because Centri has commissioned some work. That reduces the independence to Borderline for me. I am also unsure whether the outlet passes WP:RS.
 * What I would like you to do is to be as analytical as I am, and strengthen your referencing as well as adding meat to the article itself. You need to assert in your prose and verify with your referencing the fact that it passes WP:CORP. I cannot do this for you, but I can lead you towards the end goal. Fiddle   Faddle  17:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Elena Aprile
I accepted this article/ Fellow APS has been consistently held to be an honor sufficient for notability.  DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 20:24:18, 27 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by GRCCENTRI
Hi Timtrent,

Thank you for the feedback. Based on your suggestions, I have added meat to the article and additional references, which I believe strengthen the submission.

GRCCENTRI (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I wish it good fortune. I try very hard never to re-review a draft. Better results happen with extra sets of eyes. When you are confident, resubmit it, and continue to work on it while awaiting a review. Fiddle   Faddle  22:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

21:32:01, 27 April 2015 review of submission by AlexHayton
Hi Temtrent, is there anything needed to amend for this draft? All the comments you've put down have already been reconsidered and changed, is there still any improvement?

AlexHayton (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Please look again at references. A wordpress site is unlikely to be WP:RS. WP:42 is your friend. Fiddle   Faddle  22:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

22:47:11, 27 April 2015 review of submission by AlexHayton
I have amended the article with a new reference. Please kindly have a look at it. Thank you

AlexHayton (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ and commented on the draft. Fiddle   Faddle  22:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Teck Guan Group
Thank you for pointing out the unreliable reference provided. Hopefully now it's okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexHayton (talk • contribs) 23:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

23:07:51, 27 April 2015 review of submission by Jnishimoura
Jnishimoura (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello -

Could you please give me a couple of examples of how to fix my submission that was rejected? I just want to make sure I'm doing it right. Many thanks!

Jackie
 * More than you can shake a stick at. Pick any from Good articles. You have some hard work to do. Enjoy doing it. Fiddle   Faddle  23:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

09:25:27, 28 April 2015 review of submission by Kunal.v.v
I have made some changes in the article. I'am gathering information from different sources and trying to incorporate in one article, my grammar could be wrong, please suggest on that as well.Kunal.v.v (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Kunal.v.v (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Please continue. When ready please resubmit. It is references that you lack. Others will review this next time. I try not to re-review drafts. Fiddle   Faddle  09:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Interswitch
Hi Timtrent, I noted your comments on Interswitch. In addition to the sources used there’s also:
 * A further FT article
 * A Bloomberg article focused exclusively on the company, its partnership with Helios and its expansion into Uganda
 * A Jeune Afrique article on the firm’s newly launched investment fund
 * And for what it’s worth, considering it can be problematic to use interviews in an article like this, the CEO has been interviewed by Forbes Africa and The Banker.
 * There’s also a mention in this Bloomberg article, which says that out of 25 million cards in circulation Nigeria 18 million are Verve (Interswitch-owned payment card).

So for notability we have three FT articles, two Bloomberg articles, Jeune Afrique, Forbes Africa and The Banker.

As for the sources you’re concerned about – Punch, Leadership, Vanguard and This Day are all national newspapers in Nigeria and should pass the test for reliable sources.

So if it’s tone you’re concerned about, we can work on that and if it’s sources, we can work on that too. Let me know how you think we should proceed. Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you are looking at raising the standard in the article. We always come to look at WP:BURDEN, which means that you as the editor who adds the material have the burden of proving that the facts and the references are suitable. Use the best sources you have available to you. Use the article talk page to explain your choice of referencing, and then, not before, add your !vote to keep to the discussion, referencing the addition of references and the talk page explanation of what you have done.
 * We have to aim for the stars, or, you do, since this si your client. Your work on 'their' page has to be beyond reproach, so you can;t afford to drop a single ball.
 * As you are probably aware, deletion discussions are difficult areas to defend in, and work best on facts rather than emotion. We also hold professional editors to a very high standard. Ask CorporateM! More power to your elbow because you have to get it right. Fiddle   Faddle  16:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Do look at Connected contributor which I commend to you for deployment on the talk pages of your articles where you have a professional interest. Use all parameters. Fiddle   Faddle  16:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the prompt advice – do you suggest then that I work on a new version on the talk page? Or in my userspace perhaps? Are there any avenues for a stay of execution until then? HOgilvy (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Perform the edits with precision on the article itself. Cool and calm precision. Document the reasons on the talk page, and then comment at the deletion discussion.The time limit is 7 days. You have plenty of time.
 * Even if the article is deleted all is never lost. At that point I would suggest a totally new, excellent, draft in the Draft: namespace, presented for review and then acceptance. Using that process is by far the wisest for a chap in your position. Talk to me at the time that becomes necessary and I will guide you. I suspect it will not be necessary. Convince me of the excellence of your work in the current article and I will withdraw the nomination. Note that this does not automatically end the discussion if others have opined for deletion. Fiddle   Faddle  16:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I see, thank you. I'd usually work on major changes in my userspace to avoid making direct edits but these are different circumstances so perhaps it's the appropriate route. HOgilvy (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that defending a deletion discussion is a special case. As long as you document what you are doing and why I see no obstacle. My opinion is of no importance, of course. Others may disagree. But, with neutral edits and correct referencing, I doubt very much that anyone will make an accusation about your motivation stick. Fiddle   Faddle  17:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree, thanks again and I'll ping you in the meantime if need be. HOgilvy (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Timtrent, just to say thanks for your guidance on this and for having another look at it. HOgilvy (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * A pleasure. I think the learnings from this are that brevity while retaining fair prose and excellence of referencing will always win the day. Later, others can enjoy enhancing the articles to their hearts' content. Wikipedia looks easy, but it's one heck of a tough place to edit. Fiddle   Faddle  09:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It most certainly is, as it should be! Thanks again. HOgilvy (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Carborundum Universal
Hello Timtrent

Thanks for your guidance. I have resolved the reference issues, I hope so, and resubmitted my article, Draft:Carborundum Universal. I wish your help to verify that. Thanks in advance.

SiloniSam (talk) SiloniSam


 * ✅ It is resubmitted. Others will review it Fiddle   Faddle  10:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Peryn
Hello once again! You advised me to correct the article, so can you help me and do you will to do it? I've got several questions. --Sterndmitri (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * the article to correct is Perun (disambiguation). It should be very easy. Fiddle   Faddle  10:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

okay I will. But my question was about the article Peryn: I think I've got several matters to get an advice about. So can you help me, and do you want to? This is ok to give a negative answer, whatever the reason is. --Sterndmitri (talk) 11:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If I can help I will. To get a broader range of opinions, though, the Teahouse Questions forum will serve you better. Fiddle   Faddle  11:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I will take it into account.

It bears similarities and it would be quite relevant and descriptive to associate Peryn Island is considered to have played a role similar to that of the Vatican Hill in the development of its place in the medieval city and its later history.

This is not your edit, just I have a question about it. Does it really sound smooth in English? I realize clearly the meaning. But I am looking at that sentence for 2 last days, and I can't get away of my head the idea about the sentence to be too long, with a lack of punctuation, and a little bit dissonant. So what do you think about it?

English is not my first language, you know, so I am imagining those whose level of English worse than mine, and I am more than sure they would hardly perceive the sentence. Since now English is a language for international communication, lexical complicatedness cuts the auditory. Originally, I meant this article to be widely understandable. This is not a super-goal, it s just interesting and may help to contribute in improving my English, at least. --Sterndmitri (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If we take the sentence as a piece of language it is a valid sentence, but it is a complex one. It is hard to understand. My thoughts are that it says this:
 * "It has similarities to the Vatican Hill. Peryn Island has been a key factor in the development of [whatever the place is], both in medieval times and later"
 * This is easier to understand, but may not have the same meaning that you want the words to have. My view is simple. In your native language you may use the most complex construction of sentences that you wish. In a second language short sentences that express single idea are best.
 * Because it is Wikipedia I would not be too concerned. Someone else will edit it in time anyway. Would you like me to flag to for copyediting into even better English? We have folk who love doing that. Fiddle   Faddle  12:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Sorry for the late response. Thank you and let's appeal to that folk!--Sterndmitri (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅, see Peryn at the head. Fiddle   Faddle  08:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

please brother approve my article
brother its a humble request i plea before you please approve this article please please please User:Aman1712/Mrityunjay_kumar_dashttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aman1712/Mrityunjay_kumar_das#Mrityunjay_Kumar_Das — Preceding undated comment added 12:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * . Please see the draft. Fiddle   Faddle  12:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

what can i do to make this article appropriate
please dont only regect the article suggest what to change and how to change [] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aman1712 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * My suggestions are o the draft. Please actually read what I said there. Fiddle   Faddle  14:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

01:14:29, 30 April 2015 review of submission by Compgen15
This version contains changes made to references and in-text citations as well as new interwiki links. This draft was refused due to essay like writing. Revisions have been made to fix this issue. Lastly, edits have been made to include a content box. Compgen15 (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I am glad you have resubmitted it. Others will review it I do not often review the same draft twice. Fiddle   Faddle  13:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Please let me know what i can do next
Please let me know what i can do next? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icpnaveed (talk • contribs) 09:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. What can you do next? Frankly, if you don't tell me what you are talking about nor link to an article, how can you possibly expect anything??????? Fiddle   Faddle  13:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Based on his contribs, I'm guessing they are referring to Draft:International Cities of Peace which you are a decliner on. —  13:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Potentially. But I choose not to read their mind.  Fiddle   Faddle  13:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Big Thanks
but we are all little guys. That is the trick to it. Thank you for your appreciation. I was, however, just a guide. Fiddle  Faddle  16:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

TapClicks
Hi Timtrent: This is Holly, thanks for your review! I have been working on a Tapclicks page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:TapClicks Truly trying! Just finished updating with objective sources in references, etc. I am about to resubmit... Really hope you can advise me, if anything is still wrong! It has been rather challenging for me... Grin!

In future I want to try to add the company block, I saw the example code....but first I just need to get the basic page up!

Hollystump (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Holly


 * WIkipedia is simple, but not easy. Do not get discouraged when it is pushed back to you, as it has been. Check with the latest reviewer if you need to understand their review. Fiddle   Faddle  13:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Request on 05:03:43, 4 May 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Bhavisha86
Bhavisha86 (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC) Hi i want to create wiki page for my company CEO Rashesh shah company name is Edelweiss Capital. this company is on wiki already

Kindly help in creating wiki page for himBhavisha86 (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The world is full of CEOs. Most of them have absolutely no inherent notability. Please do check WP:GNG to determine whether he is likely to be acceptable. Creating one as a favour to the man or to curry favour with him is not really a good idea for your career. Fiddle   Faddle  07:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Please treat yourself to a heading
Hello 	Timtrent,

You recently reviewed my article called "Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights" and stated that "While purporting to take a global view, this is an article about Environmental Bill of Rights, a Canadian measure. It should be merged into that article".

I wanted to let you know that I disagree with merging my article with the article called "Environmental Bill of Rights" (EBR)(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Bill_of_Rights) because this article is referencing a specific piece of legislation - the EBR that was passed in Ontario in 1993. While my article is referencing a completely different piece of legislation, the Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights (Bill C-634). Because of this distinction and after chatting online with experienced editors I have been advised to resubmit the article with the title of "Bill C-634: Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights".

I hope this makes the topic of my article more clear.

Thank you for your help and comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ENVS6178 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Probably wise. Another reviewer will look at it next time anyway. I almost never re-review a draft. Fiddle   Faddle  16:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft:It's Geek 2 Me listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Draft:&. Since you had some involvement with the Draft:It's Geek 2 Me redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Fiddle   Faddle  22:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Request on 11:41:03, 5 May 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Azzi65
I want to override a previous submission of an article on 'Lon Safko'. Kindly let me know how to go about that. Do I have to ask that particular contributor to remove his submission and also what's the process to delete a submission?

Azzi65 (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Work on that submission in co-operation with the other editor. The emphasis is on the word co-operation Fiddle   Faddle  11:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

12:22:20, 5 May 2015 review of submission by AlexandraWnyc
AlexandraWnyc (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not a mind reader. Please ask a question. Fiddle   Faddle  15:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank You Tim....I have been in Search Of You!
Dear Tim, thanks so much for responding to my authorship request; I'd like to go into authorship/editorial further with you (or someone from TeaHouse) personally now that the major disclaimer stuff has been *public-ally issued by my project: PROJECT BLUEJACKET, a research and documentation project of SEAwind Alliance, Alaska 99577-7701. Nice to meet you...look forward to being a part of the Great Wikipedia Project!Project Bluejacket (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Project Bluejacket (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What you might find even better is asking for a mentor at WP:CO-OP. I don't think I responded to any request, you know. Nowadays I am mainly engaged in reviewing draft articles, which is how we met.
 * You would do well to read WP:YFA as well as finding a mentor. Wikipedia is unlike any environment you have ever met before
 * That something is declassified does not, of itself, mean it is appropriate for Wikipedia. You also need to recognise that copyright is king. We may not, ever, infringe upon anyone else's copyright.
 * You should also ensure that your user page, User:Project Bluejacket states with clarity that you are the sole user of your account, assuming that to be correct. We have a policy of one account = one person. Your account name is ambiguous, and you needs to state it with clarity. Fiddle   Faddle  18:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

21:30:28, 5 May 2015 review of submission by Junflr
Hi Timtrent,

Wanted to create a page for her because she already exists on Wikipedia when searched for. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWPR-FM, under former DJs) I just added a link to her iMDb page as another external link and I am wondering what else can be included/how else I can improve the page. I am pulling together a list of her other credits now. Looking forward to your feedback.

Thank you.

Junflr (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Good luck. I added a comment to the draft for you which I omitted by accident earlier. Fiddle   Faddle  21:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

RACES
Can you please provide the content of my recently deleted draft submission (The Australian Racism, Acceptance, and Cultural-Ethnocentrism Scale), as noted in your comment?

Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Kaine Grigg (talk • contribs) 12:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No. It was a copyright violation. Even if I were an administrator I would not do so. Doing so would be a further copyright violation. You know where you copied it from and you may find it there, but you may not use those words here. Fiddle   Faddle  15:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

But in the response to The Australian Racism, Acceptance, and Cultural-Ethnocentrism Scale draft submission you have stated:

"If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page."

I am confused. Can you please provided me with the text that I submitted.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Kaine Grigg (talk • contribs) 13:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Click the list. That is why it say 'this list' on your talk page and is a hyperlink. I am not a member of it. But no-one will give you text that was a copyright violation. Fiddle   Faddle  13:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Mistake
==Articles for creation== As per Template:Telugu Desam/meta/shortname this page, I have created Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Template:YSR Congress/meta/shortname this. It was declined.--Vin09 (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC) My mistake it already exists here Template:YSR Congress Party/meta/shortname.--Vin09 (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Submission declined on 27 April 2015 by Timtrent
Dear Timtrent

Thank you for your advice. I certainly appreciate the time and effort you put forth to consider my article on Peter Drucker’s tagline, “Do what you do best and outsource the rest.” I would like very much to respectfully discuss your comments and I hope you understand that I am in no way seeking to be argumentative or quarrelsome. Since I am new to this process, I must bow to your commitment and experience to the Wikipedia process. That being said, I thought the best way to proceed would be for me to first give you an idea of how and why I attempted to write this brief article. It started about seven weeks ago, when I was looking up an old saying for my son, “Do what you do best, and get the best to do the rest.” Then, what I stumbled upon truly surprised me. I found that the quote in a modern context, now reads “Do what you do best, and outsource the rest.” I thought, “Outsource; are you kidding me‽”

Then, while researching who actually said it and why, I was led to Peter Drucker. What surprised me the most, were the unusual adulations that were given to the late Peter Drucker when describing the effect he has had on global business over the past several decades.

Coming from a financial background, I’d heard of Peter Drucker, because if you’re business has anything to do with management, his name would be familiar. In the same fashion, if one loved soccer, the name Pele would be familiar. In fact most soccer fans after having considered his record, would have no difficulty in referring to Pele as having been “legendary.”

Likewise, if one were talking about football, few would have a problem saying that Joe Montana was “legendary.” If one were speaking of baseball, few would have a problem saying that Babe Ruth was “legendary.”  I’m sure you see my point. However, the statement that Peter Drucker was “legendary” was not mine. That was Forbes magazine who made that specific description: http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/01/vested-outsourcing-microsoft-intel-leadership-managing-kate-vitasek.html

By no means are descriptions such as this isolated. In fact Forbes magazine went one step further when Stephen Forbes himself wrote an article printed by the Wall Street Journal entitled “A Tribute to Peter Drucker” where he stated that Drucker was, “, the most influential management guru of the modern era?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113202508406497251

BusinessWeek when speaking about his contribution to management stated, “And nobody has been more central to the creation of management as a subject worthy of serious attention than famed management guru Peter F. Drucker.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2004-09-07/peter-drucker-mr-dot-management

If I might impose on you to consider one last reference, I believe that the following will succinctly make my point. As you are probably aware, the Harvard Business Review periodically presents what is referred to as a “McKinsey Award” for outstanding and significant accomplishments in the world of business. To carry our sports analogy one step further, the “Heisman Trophy” would be to college football as the “McKinsey Award” is to business. Of importance is the fact that Peter Drucker has won the award seven times the most ever awarded to one person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Business_Review http://quotes.quotesquiz.com/quote/authors/peter-drucker

Now the question is why did I show you these references? Believe it or not, I like you abhor puffery, because prior to retiring, I too had to work against such tactics in my previous profession. Therefore I submit that my referring to Peter Drucker’s achievements as having been referenced as “legendary” is by no means puffery. In fact the extraordinary adulation that he received over the years is the very reason I wrote the article. I was completely stunned, when I realized to what extent the tagline in question affected global business. (My article was about the tagline, not Peter Drucker)

The gentleman who edited my first submission advised me to focus my article more on the tagline itself rather than Peter Drucker. That is why in the article you critiqued, I merely mentioned Peter Drucker with a brief description. The point to be made is that I have no ax to grind or interests to pursue other than the dissemination of what I thought to be worthy subject matter. I of course am willing to submit to all qualified critiques and suggestions. I do want to make my submission as encyclopedic as possible. However, I feel is important to understand that the actual descriptions that I used were not my attempts at puffery or bias reporting. Like Pele, Joe Montana, and Babe Ruth, the global business community considers Peter Drucker to be nothing less than “legendary.” To say less of his accomplishments would simply not be accurate.

I can only hope, with everything having been said, that you might reconsider my submission. Perhaps with a fresh pair of eyes on the subject, WP:PEACOCK WP:WEASEL would no longer seem relevant. I look forward to your continued help and editing.

Thank you for your kind consideration

Hbazarte  Hbazarte (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I see we are discussing Draft:Do what you do best and outsource the rest. I'm not sure what it is that you want me to say. There are many people in business I don't care for, Drucker included, and all motivational gurus without exception. I find them to be leeches and parasites. Any fool can say what they have said, but they had the trick of publicity. But that doesn't influence my review of the article as an article. One of your references attributes the exhortation to Tom Peters, by the way.
 * So, if the exhortation is, of itself, notable, it is the exhortation that must be reported in the article, and only from the perspective of collating what is said about it in terms of significant coverage, and independent of it or, I suggest its promoters, and in WP:RS. We can include nothing else. Those are the rules.
 * Words like legendary are difficult for Wikipedia. A legendary man only exists in legend. Such words are superlatives, and peacockery. Drucker was a real management consultant.
 * So, were I to write the article, I would start with the references, and list with precision what they say. I would set out a timeline, and look at placing the referenced elements on that timeline, but uncommented upon. The article would be neutral and not draw any conclusions, which yours does. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are not allowed.
 * Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. I'd love to have been able to accept this one. I;d love the next reviewer to be able to accept it. Fiddle   Faddle  19:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear Timtrent,

Thank you so much for your prompt review of my message. Although I completely disagree with your assessment of Drucker as a “motivational guru,” that certainly is not the issue at hand. We all have room for our own opinions and I now clearly see that we cannot express them inside of a Wikipedia article. So then, to your advice: I say point taken! I think your suggestions were sound and I will do my best to apply them. I will work to quote only from reliable sources by Wikipedia’s definition. Over the days ahead, I will make the necessary changes as you advised.

This is certainly turning out to be a beneficial learning experience. Again, thank you for your consideration.

Hbazarte Hbazarte (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I had not realised I had been ambiguous, my apologies. I see, now, that it was possible to read my words to suggest Drucker was a motivational guru. That was not my intention nor my desired meaning.
 * With regard to the article, Wikipedia is extremely simple to edit, but not in the least but easy, as you are discovering.
 * If I can give advice worth a penny, it is this: "Avoid all opinions and conclusions and report only verified facts"
 * Your article would be great for a magazine. It is well written, clear, and holds the attention. Unfortunately it is also a draft we cannot accept. Go to editing it with a scalpel, and enjoy the process. Fiddle   Faddle  21:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Limo Anywhere
Hi Timtrent:

The referenced sources are third-party trade publications who posted articles which are independent in nature. There is not a single reference to a press release or to company-sourced material. While it would be great if larger, more notable publications could be sourced, that is simply not possible. Further, the statements made in the post are basic facts - the products and services provided, the name of the founder, the website, and the headquarters location. All basic facts, all easily checked. Further, as the company in question is the leading technology provider in one of the most rapidly changing industries in the world (ground transportation), I might argue that the presence of the company on Wikipedia is quite valuable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gentrymc (talk • contribs) 21:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Feel free to resubmit it or to ask for other opinions. I stand by my comment. If this is the only outlet that covers the outfit it fails WP:CORP. Valuable to whom? Certainly not to Wikipedia. Fiddle   Faddle  21:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph of WP:CORP states "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Further down, the guideline states that "Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products." I have provided significant coverage of an undisputed industry leader in not one but two independent, reliable, third-party sources as stated in the guideline. On what basis does this fail?


 * Your answer is on the draft, where I have analysed your putative references. You have more research to do. I will not review this item again anyway. You have other reviewers to convince, convincing me is worthless Fiddle   Faddle  21:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way,, using Wikipedia to promote your own corporation is a very silly thing to attempt. Your bluster made me check the org out after I analysed the alleged references. Please read WP:COI. Wikipedia is not at all interested in giving you a place to push your wares. Fiddle   Faddle  21:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

AfC notification: User:Jderocher/Sandbox has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:Jderocher/Sandbox. Thanks! Tutelary (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * As in comedy, timing is everything! Fiddle   Faddle  22:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll just leave it on the creator's talk page. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Change
Upon reading about auto confirmed users, I visited this page page. Did I do any damage to my profile, there my username is red linked and at this page it is ok.--Vin09 (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You have been to two different Wikipedias. simple and en. Fiddle   Faddle  07:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Comidor
Hi Timtrent, Really sorry for that, it was not my intention to offend anyone. I tried to replace the whole part with my own words. Can you have a look now and let me know about your thoughts? Thanks a lot for your time! Best Regards, Tony (talk 13:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC+2)


 * One of the first things we try to check is copyvio stuff, so it surprises me that they missed it. It isn't a rule exactly. It is protecting Wikipedia from legal action by the copyright owner that is vital. WP:COPYRIGHTS tells you more than you want to know.
 * I would have handled that section another way, as it says in my note, and I recommend it to you. It will create a better article. But this is your draft, and I can only advise. I do not re-revoew very often. More yes provide you with better feedback, so continue to improve the draft and resubmit it as often as you need to gain more feedback. Fiddle   Faddle  10:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * In any case mr Tim I would like to thank you for your time and support. If you could provide me with some additional feedback it would be wonderful. This is only my first attempt to post a wikipedia article and I thought that just a reference would be enough on this occassion. Best regards! Cheers! Tony (talk 13:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC+2)

can you look at this artice and edit it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roblox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samal10124 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can. Why do I want to? Fiddle   Faddle  21:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Its Wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samal10124 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * So, correct it. I have no knowledge of the organisation nor interest in it. Fiddle   Faddle  15:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Dcw2003
I have two quick issues TimTrent. I want to know how to run the process (bot?) that does auto citations, or in other words references multiple citations of the same exact source to a single reference number rather than sucessive numbers.

Two, I am looking for user PHRSE, is there a way to search for a user in order to talk with him? Thanks!!!

Previous request was from dcw2003


 * Not hard, I'm pleased to say. First reFill:


 * I have it in my tools in the left hand menu. It arrived one day, so I imagine you have it too. I run it this way:
 * click options
 * when they load, and sometimes they refuse, untick the option for not adding access date
 * Click run, or fix page
 * WAIT
 * Eventually, when it finishes, follow the prompts and be amazed.
 * Not sure? Create a sandbox and try it out
 * Ok, now that user. I tried the searches and failed. So we track them down by working out where you have seen them before. If that fails you deploy helpme on your talk page and ask the question. A handy soul will be along to help in a shorter time than you might expect. Fiddle   Faddle  18:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Not got reFill? WP:REFILL tells you how to get it. Complex, but you CAN do it!!! Fiddle   Faddle  18:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

06:08:51, 8 May 2015 review of submission by Juamari
Juamari (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear Reviewer--

I am asking for clarification on the comments provided. The topic of the article itself is well referenced by several university press books and established academic articles. While the topic is focused on the Latino LGBT community, it is also of interest to other LGBT groups, AIDS historians; public health professionals. The primary objection seems to be with the People's section. The people section is included because this organization was the launching pad for several important academics, artists and activists, some of which have wikipedia pages, and some of which do not. I am interested in editing further and want advise on what would strengthen the article-- should I secure more references for the individuals cited in the People's section, or simply delete that, even though I think it provides important linages, or list fewer names with more established reputations? Please advise, I think this is a worth contribution that merit inclusion.

06:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I would drop the People section entirely. Notability is never inherited. And I would seek online links to the other references if available. And please do not let it linger for 6 months. Fiddle   Faddle  08:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Request on 14:52:27, 8 May 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Steve Last
Dear Jim

Thank you for reviewing my article, which I have to admit was submitted more in hope than expectation that a first version would be acceptable! I hope to be able to resubmit a shorter version on lines which you will find are more in accordance with Wiki principles. I would however like your advice about one aspect of meeting that requirement. While you may have detected that I do have a personal view on the subject, I appreciate the need for verifiability and objectivity etc. in Wikipedia.

My problem is that the basic issue is one with significant public safety aspects. For a number of reasons I won't bore you with it may start to generate significant attention, but a large amount of the basic research on the subject has been in danger of getting lost. Consequently I have spent a lot of the last year tracking down old papers, many of which are not in a particularly useful format, being either poor photocopies, or simply images of old documents, which are hard to read as well as impossible to search.

A lot of these I have re-scanned, OCR'd, and proofed, while being very careful not to edit any text other than for spelling etc. I've then republished them as PDFs, which are available on a website dedicated to this subject. Everything done from online sources is clearly in the public domain since I found it just by searching; the originals of all paper sources are in my possession.

So you can see that it is important to me that readers are definitely able to verify statements made on this subject, as I do not want to just quote from sources but make them available in their entirety, far more easily than they are at present. However, these new PDFs can only be accessed from my own site.

So before I spend a lot of time rewriting the article, my questions are whether

(1) the conversion of original sources into a more accessible format counts as "Original research" ?

(2) does the fact that anyone wanting to access these more usable versions will have to go to via my own website invalidate them as reliable references for wikipedia purposes? Obviously they should still be available on their original site as well.

You can see the site at www.picma.org.uk where one of the main menu items is actually "available documents". The lists are incomplete as I still have several hundred to annotate for relevance.

Regards Steve Last

Steve Last (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The thing is, Wikipedia handles only matters reported on in WP:RS because it's an encyclopaedia. Your thoughts are more for Flight magazine. What I suggest you do is to ask this question in a very condensed manner at the Teahouse Questions Forum and get a wider set of opinions by doing so.


 * With regard to old papers, etc, provided you have chapter and verse, they are fine, but note what we need as a reference: We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. So, if they comply with that, fine. If they are internal airline reports then they are of no use. Fiddle   Faddle  15:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, new at this - could yu expand the WP:RS and WP:42 references so I can find them please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Last (talk • contribs) 16:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Click them? Is that not what you meant? Fiddle   Faddle  16:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

02:27:03, 5 May 2015 review of submission by Librariegrrl
I added a bunch more References. I didn't format them perfectly (that's why I didn't "re-submit" yet) because I wanted to check with you first to see if I gave enough info to correct my initial error. It seems obvious that if Bastille (band) is notable because of winning awards and charting, then each member of the four-piece deserves individual recognition as well. I didn't know how to elaborate on Chris Wood's contributions without repeating everything in the Bastille (band) main article or the Bas Blood (Bastille album) article.

I really would like your help because if I can get this right, then I can add an article about Kyle Simmons (the 4th Bastille member). For some reason, the article on Will Farquarson was approved. I basically used that article as the basis of my Chris Wood article, but it was still rejected. This makes me think that you should review the Will Farquarson article also so that I understand why he wasn't A7'd and Woody was.

Librariegrrl (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a little tool in the eft hand margin, reFill. I used it to format the references. I turned OGG the option for access dates, which we do the first time around. Try that . I only reviewed the draft as if he were a living person. Musicians have to pass WP:MUSIC, a standard I never quite seem to get right, so I can't tell you if he passes that one. I do know that a band member has to be pretty special to get a named article, and that they are usually redirected to the band itself. Fiddle   Faddle  08:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining about why Woody (band member) wouldn't get his own article. I only thought that he should since William "Will" Farquarson who is no more notable as he is also "merely" a band member of Bastille *did* get an article.  I see that the correct answer is *not* that Woody and Kyle should *also* get articles like Will.  It's that I need to ask them to take down Will's article based on A7 "notability" for WP:MUSIC.  The correct course of action is to roll info and details about individual band members of Bastille into the Bastille (band) main article until one of them becomes more "notable" (like, Bono or something). (note: I have no issue with Dan Smith - lead singer and founder of Bastille having his own article because he is truly special, but Will is no different than Woody or Kyle.).  So, *new question*: how do I ask that Will Farquarson be taken down and add Will Farquarson, Chris "woody" wood and Kyle Simmons to wikipedia to "redirect" to Bastille (band)?  thanks bunches for all the help Librariegrrl (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Take the following steps, in order.
 * OnTalk:Will Farquarson start a new section explaining what you believe needs to happen along the lines of "Since Fred is not really notable in his own right, I will be merging the relevant material into the band's article. To allow for objections I will wait a couple of days before I do this." Use your own words and name the band article proper, linking to it
 * After the period has elapsed, merge the relevant details, saying in your edit summary what you are doing
 * On completion of the merge, there is no need to ask for the member to be deleted. Instead you turn it into a redirect to the band article by replacing 100% of the text in it (This included any categories, etc) with #REDIRECTInsert non-formatted text here where the non formatted text is the name of the target article.
 * State on the band member's talk page that the material is now merged and that you have turned the page into a redirect
 * We use redirects in these circumstances because the person's name is a valid reader entry point. Indeed, it is valid to create redirects for every band member of a significant band to point to the band's article. My view is that every good Wikipedia editor should do this.
 * The important thing with an existing article that you are turning into a redirect, unless you are the only editor, is to seek consensus first, hence the message on the talk page. If you are the only editor, WP:BOLD applies. Note, though, that you may not go against a consensus. So, if folk object to your original message, and the arguments against outweigh the arguments for, leave it as it stands. Fiddle   Faddle  07:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much. I will follow the steps that you outlined.  Hopefully I will have time this weekend.  Thanks again for your help.  Librariegrrl (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

12:38:08, 7 May 2015 review of submission by Fuddyb88
Hey. I need a re-review on the previous draft because Architect Reza Kabul is one of India's prominent architects especially in the high-rise and hospitality sector.

The idea of having his work online is not as advertisement. I am working on the changes that you have suggested. I shall resubmit my draft after finding more references and citations.

However, I do have a question in mind : a page with far less references and citation is allowed : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafeez_Contractor

Therefore I would want to understand whether the advertisement looking format was the only reason for denial?

Appreciate your patience.

Thanks. Fuddyb88 (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I need several things in my life, too, notably the magic word.
 * No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy Fiddle   Faddle  13:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Lack of magic word means nothing is about to happen from me. Ask your mother for a refund for the lessons you failed to grasp, please. Fiddle   Faddle  22:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

18:56:34, 8 May 2015 review of submission by Alexandra Alice Forest
Alexandra Alice Forest (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Would you please help me? I do not understand what is the problem with my article. I have provided important sources like India Today, Times of India or Bloomberg (I do not know where my Bloomberg link has gone). Greetings, Alice Forest


 * I will have no time to look at this until at least 1300 UTC on Saturday. Fiddle   Faddle  22:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ on the draft Fiddle   Faddle  20:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

How about a HEADING?
Hi Timtrent,

Thanks for looking at my article. I've removed the inline links and I would like to draw your attention to the three links to CTV, Macleans and the Globe and Mail. These are three major Canadian news sources. The articles themselves speak of David's teaching and reference the Pro Actor's Lab itself. I think that this is notability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Professional_Actor%E2%80%99s_Lab&redirect=no

Thanks again,

Thelonious — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theloniousjanke (talk • contribs) 10:59, 10 May 2015‎


 * I try not to re-review articles. Thank you for letting me know. Please resubmit and continue to improve the draft while awaiting your next review. Fiddle   Faddle  20:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not see those references you mention. I only see FAR too many links to the org's own web site. It will not be accepted like this. Fiddle   Faddle  20:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Abie Bain and Draft:Abie Bain
Tim TRENT I have another problem.

I created article Abie Bain, and accidentally made a change to the draft page from whence I copied all the text to the actual article ABIE BAIN.

THERE IS NOT DIFFERENCE AT THIS TIME BETWEEN THE TWO ARTICLES REQUIRING A MERGE>

However, I am not allowed, apparently to perform this function. A merge is not really necessary, but could you take care of it or have someone else do it??????

Thanks, I'd be glad to do it but I think it requires an administrator.

From dcw2003............Sorry, i did not leave my user name in the previous note.


 * Since you are the sole contributor to each article and draft, I would say that the legal attribution has been satisfied. You can BLANK the draft with confidence now. Fiddle   Faddle  22:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

04:16:22, 9 May 2015 review of submission by Fuddyb88
Hey Timtrent,

I shall definitely get started on that refund. In the meanwhile, I request you to please give my draft a re-read, as I have made the necessary changes: 1. restricted his work to selected projects that have been given recognition | 2. Mentioned under 'In the media' where people have spoken / reviewed his works.

Thanks. Fuddyb88 (talk) 04:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ in that I have left a comment on the draft. Thank you for the magic word Fiddle   Faddle  20:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I have read your comment and shall start drafting an article which is more concise with references for all facts. Appreciate you doing the re-review. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuddyb88 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Review... 20 days ago
Good morning!

Just wondering where my review is in the queue! I know you are super busy and I so appreciate all the feed back. I hope you have a wonderful day.

PattiMoly99 (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There is not so much a queue as a backlog, handled by a group of volunteers who are watching that backlog grow ever larger. I cannot say when your submission will be reviewed, I can say that it will be, but that is all. We pick the articles we feel capable of reviewing at the time we look at them, rather more on a whim than with a system. Fiddle   Faddle  14:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What I can say is that it took me detective work to find Draft:SHINE Medical Technologies, and a link to it would have made my life faster and easier. Fiddle   Faddle  14:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

OH goodness!! So sorry!! I'm still a newbie at this!! Have a fantastic day!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PattiMoly99 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)