User talk:Timtrent/Archive 29

Can you take a look at Draft:Tim Sexton?
Hey again,

I submitted this article as a paid editor (which I disclosed on the User page that I created for paid editing and in the edit history when I submitted this) and it's been sitting for a while. It seems like reviewers tend to avoid articles by paid editors who disclose, particularly since you and I both know through reviewing that (conservatively) a good 50% of the submissions are created by COI editors who don't disclose. LaMona reviewed it after it sat for about three weeks, which was great, and I edited it based on his/her comments, although some of her concerns weren't relevant -- there were no refs to blogs, non-independent or unreliable sources).   However it *was* overcited (whch you may remember is a problem of mine)!

I would appreciate any edits to the article - I may have lost perspective -- but notability is clearly established, the info is verifiable through reliable sources, and I think it's neutral. (If you think it's not suitable for some reason, all good - I fully trust/respect your judgment and I will rewrite according to your concerns.)

BTW - my second and final article as a paid editor. It's too frustrating. Thank you, Julie JSFarman (talk) 14:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you have lost focus a little and have tried too hard. I would prune back the citations more than a little. Had I come across this in my normal reviewing I would have pushed it back with a comment about WP:CITEKILL. My view on multiple citations for a single fact is that one is ideal and the best one should be chosen, two are acceptable, three just about scrape in, but more than three make the reading experience judder. My normal advice is either to repurpose the references rendered spare by refining them, or to discard them.
 * I agree he seems to be notable. I could easily accept it as it is, but would prefer not to until you have taken out your pruning saw. I wold also look at paragraphs which contain lists of folk and see how best to précis them to minimise listography. After all, if he is notable then he doesn't need the lists, and he can't inherit anything from the names in them
 * I stress that this is just my opinion, and you are free to disagree.
 * I have set up the talk page with Connected contributor to reflect your declaration, by the way, and also combined a duplicate reference for you.
 * I'm not sure it has been hanging around because folk saw paid editing. I think it is not a simple yes or no, and folk shy away from those. I chose to put the review here since you messaged me here. Feel at liberty to copy and paste any relevant parts to the review area on the draft if you wish Fiddle   Faddle  14:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You are awesome. I will work on it this AM.  THANK YOU.  JSFarman (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * A total pleasure. You have no need to accede to this request, but I could do with active help in a draft I have in my own userspace. I am COI involved and have become stuck by not being able to see past my COI. I have User:Timtrent/Chris W. Allen (academic) one the back burner at present and can;t see whether it can be made to show Allen as notable, or whether I am flogging a dead horse. The entry by a friendly IP editor on the tax page there leads me to think it is the latter, but I would appreciate other eyes, and, indeed, other hands on the keyboard. As you see from the talk page there, Allen and I are friends. My intent, had I been able to get further with it, was to use AFC to submit it. Fiddle   Faddle  14:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Absolutely! I have a friend (a fellow Wikipedian) who is a librarian at UCLA -- she has access to great resources.  I'll ask her to do some research as well.  Looks like he can pass notability to me. JSFarman (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You are a star . At present his is simply "interesting", but I believe notability can be shown. I am stuck, rather. It's far easier to wrote an article such as Keith White (disabled yachtsman), which I did in a few hours than to write one on an academic and friend. If a prof inspires his students, and some of the student reviews say he makes a deadly boring topic live for them, then he is worthy of an article. I just ran into a brick wall Fiddle   Faddle  16:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * First, I can't believe you were able to put the Keith White article in a few hours.  That would have taken me days.   Great article (and I'm quite taken with his story).
 * I added a couple of refs to your Chris W. Allen draft. I haven't had time to do more digging,  but I'm certain there are more sources.  I totally get the brick wall - I experience it frequently -- but his story is also cool and his mission is noble.  Psyched to help you with this.  I'll get back to it later today or tonight! Julie JSFarman (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I met Keith in Dartmouth. I'm one of a team of yacht taxi skippers and was on duty that day, and, not unreasonably, Keith needed assistance to moor his yacht when he dropped in on us. I went aboard to help him. I found him to be tough, switched on, and determined, and probably as mad as a box of frogs! I thought there just had to be an article on him. Like so many articles I've created, I found there was not. I was lucky, and sources fell into my lap. It was the standard "find references and say what they say, using them as citations" thing. But luck was a major factor, though interest in the topic helped! Trying for a DYK on Keith, followed, later, by GA, though I shall need some help for that, probably from WP:GOCE, and a little elapsed time on his voyage will do no harm
 * Chris Allen is genuinely amazing. I can't imagine going to Kabul to teach journalism, and not even speaking the language. He would deny it, but I find it heroic. And he has been there twice. His blog, something we can't feature, says it all. The students were in rapt attention to him and his translator. They learnt what could be, if only they could make it. Sorry, I am evangelising, but I think you can probably see why I have hit a brick wall. At your discretion, please migrate the userspace draft to the Draft: namespace, or, when you feel appropriate, to the main namespace. And thank you for the additions. I shall go and see if I can add anything.  Fiddle   Faddle  19:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A team of yacht taxi skippers?? That's crazy!  I don't even know what that means.  Although I could probably find out somewhere here.


 * I did some editing on Chris W. Allen and moved it to the article space.  I think we can add a quote from him to give the article more depth (given that it can be prefaced by something like "In a 2014 article for Unheralded Fish, he wrote:...")   I wish there were more sources -- it feels like this is just part of his story!  Julie JSFarman (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * that is far more than I could have hoped, for which my grateful thanks. You can see why I got stuck. With good fortune others will find things to add to the article. I. of course, cannot, except via the talk page.
 * A yacht taxi is a small boat (we have a choice of three, one of 19 feet and two of 21 feet in length) used to ferry yacht owners and crew to and from their boats in our harbour. We have a team of about a dozen of us who do this as a part time occupation. This will show you where I am located. Fiddle   Faddle  17:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The Chris article was ready to go! Great to work on it/publish it.  I get weirdly thrilled when I can move an article into a mainspace; I think it's what attracted me to AfC to begin with.  And yes!  It will be improved by other editors.  (I created a stub on a record executive a couple of months ago Joe Galante,  and it was adopted as a student project -- it's so gratifying to see that happen.


 * The harbour looks beautiful, and almost New England-y. When I first looked at the photos I thought Dartmouth, New Hampshire, as I forget that you're English. (Or that you live in England, anyway.) Such a good part time occupation.  Mine is drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes.  Happy Saturday!  Julie JSFarman (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The Mayflower left from here, by the way. Plymouth was also involved. The passengers assembled up river from my house at Kilngate, and embarked quietly there before leaving harbour. Kilngate is just downriver from where Sir Walter Raleigh used to moor his ship. We have a wealth of living history that we just take for granted. There are at least two other Dartmouths, one in New Hampshire and the other in Nova Scotia. The latter was part of our fishing trade. Truly small fishing vessels left here to fish the cold waters over there. The former? No idea, but I could find out. British Steel (yacht) was built here and is moored in the harbour today. Ah, drinking. As long as the flavour is excellent I approve. Drinking for the sake of it, no. Smoking is your choice, but I have asthma and can't exist peacefully in the same room as a smoker. I prefer to die of other things, ideally enjoyable ones  Fiddle   Faddle  14:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft check?
Hello,

Thanks for commenting on my draft and giving some guidance; it's been "few and far between"! Please look this over: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Schnitzel_Records_Ltd.

Here are my notes: Issues with quoting one sentence from each ref are that this will land me in "promotional language territory", as I'm attempting to write about a for-profit business. This issue would also happen if I was writing about a non-profit such as Susan G. Komen. To maintain Wkipedia's neutral tone, I can only invoke the references with paraphrased, bland writing ( = the first draft / the one at the top). Sure, I can go ahead and do the direct quote procedure, but it's going to end up in promo tone land. The same would happen as if I was writing about breast cancer survivors who'd been helped by Planned Parenthood, you know?

5 refs per sentence IS overkill - thanks for noticing. It was done to bring the refs to the attention of approval editors, who had not been checking.

I guess my root question is - there is very limited assistance (and zero rewrite/no other editor attempts) being given despite multiple requests for help - teahouse, live chat, peer review, afc requests, a note on the article itself, multiple editor talks - very little actual ref checking was done, this has been going on for months, and there seems very little interest in adopting the article into Wikipedia, so ... should this be abandoned? I'm trying to succeed here, and for whatever reason, it feels like it's not working out for me here. Perhaps I'm just stuck and frustrated - especially when I see articles with zero references in the "live" mainspace (check out Paper Garden Records, iirc...) or flagged with tons of issues, but still "live"? It sort of feels lopsided.

Thank you! 15tinybirds (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia offers pretty much no help at all. WP:AFC is the best we have, and, to be fair, you rely on a draft catching the interest of a reviewer for much help to be given. The checking of references is, pretty much, down to the contributing editor until the draft is submitted. Then you depend on the diligence of the reviewer.
 * The problem you have is in the referencing. Solve that and you create a draft that is acceptable. Note, though, that, if this cannot be solved, then the draft cannot be accepted. Ignore all other articles that you have seen that are poor. They annoy me, too. For examples of good referencing have a look at WP:GA and use the ones in your genre as examples. Note, though, that your genre is not music as you might expect, but is corporations. You must demonstrate that you pass WP:CORP
 * You need to read WP:42 and look at each reference. Does it meet that test? If so, keep it. If not, lose it, unless it meets either of WP:PRIMARY or WP:SELFPUB, but use those sparingly.
 * I sample checked two of your references:
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jason-holmes/andy-crofts-of-the-moons-_b_5196193.html looked promising from the URL but is a passing mention of the org, not significant coverage
 * http://www.popmatters.com/feature/194364-adding-color-to-a-world-of-music-andy-crofts-of-the-moons/ was the same
 * I decided to feed this back to you rather than check them all.
 * Should this be abandoned? Honestly, I have no idea. It is down to the references. Find ones that comply and there is a very strong probability your draft will be accepted. Fiddle   Faddle  08:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , I came across your draft in AfC and had intended to review it but got caught up in another project. I just went through the article -- I think the more articles we have on labels, the better --- but the references used simply aren't adequate.  I did check them all.  Six of the nineteen aren't independent (they're directly related to the label), 11 are not about the label, but about bands who are signed to the label.  That leaves two possible sources for notability.  Both are interviews - which aren't considered independent -- but even if they were, they're not enough to carry the article.


 * Notability for record labels has been discussed ad infinitum on talk pages related to music (one example is here) and the consensus has been that labels need to meet general notability guidelines.


 * I understand your frustration...I've gone through it. But there are so many articles on labels that can be improved if you're so inclined.  For example 4AD is desperate for a rewrite.  Epic Records is an embarrassment. I could go on and on.  You might also join WikiProject Music.   Julie JSFarman (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

16:21:10, 31 October 2015 review of submission by Tammy.escalante01
Hi,

I would like to set-up a page to use for a class to discuss the Pythagorean Theorem and its Converse. Is there a way to do this?

Thank you Tammy.escalanteo1Tammy.escalante01 (talk)


 * There is, or I think there is. Start by looking at Education program and work from there. There are education ambassadors who will help you. This is not an area I am familiar with. If you find you need more help to get started ask at WP:Teahouse/Questions Fiddle   Faddle  16:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I see you have already visited the teahouse. Excellent. There may be better advice than mine available there. I wish you excellent results. Remember that Wikipedia is very different from a classroom. While we can facilitate coursework we must always build the encyclopaedia as our first priority. Fiddle   Faddle  16:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!


Happy Halloween!

Hello Timtrent: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!   –  North America1000 23:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC) Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message. Sent to users on my mailing list. To opt-out forever, just remove your name.

My thanks for your guidance
Timtrent, thank you for your tips and suggestions for my article. I appreciate your guidance.

SterlingStevenAWilliams (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, . We all try our best. We want to accept articles. Fiddle   Faddle  14:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Request on 02:01:25, 4 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Jnishimoura
Thank you for your feedback regarding the DRAFT of the Jacques Habra article. I understand what you are saying, but I am not clear about what to remove. Habra's companies and technologies are part of his BIO. Should I only include the more notable ones? How do I know what is considered notable? Could you please provide some specific direction.

Thank you,

Jackie

Jnishimoura (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It is hard to be absolutely precise. Yes, his companies are part of his life, but they must not take the biography over. By this I mean it is fine to state that he is CEO of Foo Corporation, but it is not fine to go into detail on what Foo Corporation does. It is ok to say that Foo has a $US20bn turnover, bit not the minutiae of Foo's products.
 * In other words they are part if him, but are not the topics of the article. If Foo Corporation is notable it has, or will have, an article and can be/will be linked to.
 * Does that help? Fiddle   Faddle  11:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Bulk delete on Commons
Did you know that there is an easy mass-delete-nomination tool on Commons? on C:Help:VisualFileChange.js, under "Step 0: How to Install" there is a button "Just try it without installing". Click on that, fill in a username and click "Proceed", and it shows you all that user's uploads. Check the boxes for the ones you want deleted, supply a reason and click "Execute", and it's all done for you, producing a deletion request like this, tagging the files and notifying the uploader. JohnCD (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * That is wonderful information, thank you, I will have a look right now.  Fiddle   Faddle  18:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What an excellent tool. I am not, as you may have worked out, 100% at home on Commons. Thank you again. Fiddle   Faddle  18:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Just a bit of Help?
Thanks for welcoming me on my talk page. Though I'm quickly becoming familiar with things, I'm not at a comfortable place yet, and I haven't found a mentor yet. I would appreciate it greatly if you wouldn't mind helping me out on just one thing by looking over the links below to the special article and special redirect page I created, to please let me know, User:Layman, Esq./Maxims of the common law User:Layman, Esq./Rules of the common law
 * What your best criticim/concern may be?
 * Whether it would be acceptable to turn them into real articles?

Regards, Layman, Esq. (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC).


 * The issue you face is that there is an article Common law. Folk will take some convincing that separate articles on the topics you mention are needed. They, as I have done, will suggest that you edit and improve Common law instead,
 * Am I missing something? I can miss things. If i am, please be pleasantly blunt! Fiddle   Faddle  17:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think it would be right for me to say you're missing anything.
 * Feel free to ignore this because I said you were only being asked to do one thing - review the article, which you're done doing. Great thanks and appreciation.
 * Is "Folk" a user, or are you talking about folks in general?
 * How familiar are you with common law itself? To what extent did your familiarity/lack thereof effect your decision?
 * I want to try to get an eventual approval of the article. I wouldn't try to do so if I didn't actually think it was a generally good and useful thing to try to do. Subject to that, I'm just focussed on learning right now, but I'm not perfectly clear on who I'm supposed to be convincing.
 * Who do you have to be to approve such an article?
 * Can I just submit a modified article again in the same way?
 * As far as justification to exist as an article, how would you compare Maxims of equity to my article? What's the biggest difference?
 * For what my opinion is worth, which I'm sure is supposed to be almost nothing, and as far as justifiability goes, as opposed to what has already been proven, Maxims of equity has almost no greater reason to exist. The following two kinda sorta diagrams.
 * I want to try to clean up some things in Maxims of equity. Do you want me to ping you on the talk page when I do?
 * Regards,
 * Layman, Esq. :(talk) :05:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Layman, Esq. :(talk) :05:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I never ignore questions. Feel free to ask. If I don't know an answer I will try to aim you somewhere where answers will be forthcoming.
 * By "folk" I mean editors and readers. I suppose I mean editors, mainly. We, and that includes you, take great pride in doing our best to make sure Wikipedia is all encompassing, but not confusing. Often we succeed.
 * Common law is something I have a nodding acquaintance with, no more. That knowledge or lack thereof was not an influence. I looked, instead, at whether I believe, certainly at present, that the small snippet you hope to be an article is useful as a freestanding article. I am not yet convinced that it is, but it is "us" you have to convince, not me.
 * To get eventual approval you need to demonstrate that it is a topic worthy of its ow article rather than a topic that is solely a section of the larger article. Did you know we can redirect to sections in a larger article?
 * Anyone may create an article directly in the main article space. That used to be the way for everyone, but we started to make life "easier" for new editors by providing reviews. Too many articles that had potential were summarily deleted as being below par. The review process is run by editors whose accounts have been open I think for 3 months and who have some 500 edits in the main namespace to their credit. This is an arbitrary qualification. Anyone with that tally may opt to be a reviewer. We hope they will show an aptitude for the work, but it is not guaranteed. Review and acceptance is the other side of the pancake where deletion is the first side. One needs experience of each in order to do the other, if you follow me. 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.
 * Submit away. Some of us re-revoew, others do not. I try not to. I believe that new eyes provide a better result for the author and the encyclopaedia. I have been known to be wrong
 * M of E is a substantially longer article than yours. It does need a clean up because it is essay-like. There is a problem in comparing articles, though. Let me assume it is an awful article. If we used it as a precedent then a slightly worse article could be acceptable, and so on, ad idiocracy
 * You may ping me with pleasure, but I am not the guardian of your edits. By that I mean that you are as entitled as am I to make any edits you see fit to any article, provided you can justify them, and ideally with references or, better, citations. Always remember that others may edit your edits. If you are about to make a sweeping edit it is wisest to fire a warning shot on the article's talk page and to gauge reaction there. We work on consensus, which may look like a ballot, but is not. Building consensus for a major edit is always a wise thing. Consensus can be nemine contradicet.
 * Have I covered ll your questions? Do ask more and ask me to explain more. Fiddle   Faddle  08:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Try asking at WikiProject Law. Its quite active, I believe.Lihaas (talk) 06:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

16:43:39, 10 November 2015 review of submission by Aagreeny4
Hi! I was wondering what to do, some of the articles are old and they can only be found on microfilm. What should I do then? Thank you Aagreeny4 (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This is not an issue. Provided you give chapter and verse, ideally using a citation template Cite book, Cite news etc, then all will be fine. We are content with non online references provided they are fully fleshed out. Fiddle   Faddle  16:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Aagreeny4 (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Matakana War Memorial for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Matakana War Memorial is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Matakana War Memorial until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Grutness...wha?  23:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your guidance re. my question about libel which I posted to the Teahouse. (I didn't have a chance to thank you there before the question and response got archived.) Your synthesis of the relevant guidelines and things to consider was very helpful. Kekki1978 (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Always know that none of us is 100% correct. We simply do our very best. I'm happy you found it of some value, . Fiddle   Faddle  18:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You dare insinuate that I may not be 100% correct, at all times? Gasp!  You have even tidied up my template-naming-conventions?   Double_gasp!!!  You are treading on thin ice indeedy....    :-)       p.s. If you have time to spare, who should run for arbcom?  I was going to ask FiddleFaddle, but I suspect they might be a sock.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ROFLMAO By the way I tidied it so it would be handled automagically by the AFC Helper script! Your naming convention does not seem to get handled
 * Lordy, the heady delights of arbitrating this rabble! Think of me as Samson in the temple, giving the pillars a shove.
 * Now, where are my old socks? Fiddle   Faddle  00:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For sure you will need a big warm pair, if you wanna vacation in arbland. :-)     Or is that arb-land?  Very chilly place either way!  In any case, I think you basically have to be an admin with 50k edits to run, and since you haven't blocked enough people, yourself, you will probably not be able to "win".  As an anon, I cannot even vote for you, so if you did run, you'd be on your own, bub!  ;-)      I am nudging people, though, to see if some brainstorming will lead to a strong set of candidates.  If you want to run, that would be great.  If you want to put the armtwisting on some other victims  heroes and heroines that would also be helpful.  You can stalk my contribs, or see the list at ever-friendly Hafs's page, User_talk:Hafspajen, which is 244 usual suspects to peruse.  There are three or more non-admins running already this year, see WP:ACE2015/C, two former and one likely-soon-to-be, so perhaps arbcom-elect will finally break the mold.  Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * p.s. And thanks for the note about the comment-syntax. I just manually hammer them out, so I don't know how to make the AFCH script jump through the hoops.  Feel free to trout me if you see me forgetting again later.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * However warm the socks there is not a hope of my becoming part of the bureaucracy here, you know. I can do far more as a free agent. Fiddle   Faddle  09:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, agreed. But as a free agent, you should influence the WP:BURO, if possible.  IAR applies even to one's own rules.  Who ought be up for election?  There are 8-and-three-quarters candidates announced, for nine slots.  Think over who would make arbcom new&improved.  AfC-faction already has User:DGG as "our" sitting arb.  :-)      And although she would likely be good at it, User:Anne_Delong only recently became an admin -- unanimously which may be a first in modern wiki-times methinks -- and hasn't made many posts to the arbcase-pages in any case, so may not be interested in such things either.  Another obvious choice would be User:Kudpung, but again, I'm not sure we could twist his arm enough to make him run.  Arbcom is no fun, because simultaneously you must exercise IAR to accomplish anything helpful, and of course, you get blown out of the water every time you do IAR.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I wouldn't be qualified to do that job right now - since becoming and admin I haven't worked much in those sorts of areas - I haven't blocked even one person. I do have some technical background, though, so sometime in the future I might like to work with sockpuppet investigations.  Maybe I can expose that FiddleFaddle editor - I've always thought he might be connected to ...&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * He's certainly a suspicious character! Fiddle   Faddle  15:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Anne, you aren't thinking like a proper rogue admin yet. Look, 'tis very simple, you have two good-faith wikipedians telling you that FiddleFaddle is suspicious, so you should block them immediately, just on general principles.  "Unblocks are cheap" as the old saying goes, right?  Right.  And besides, you need to get your block-stats inflated.  :-)      But seriously, who ought to run, if not you, Anne?  Give it some thought, and write up a voterguide if you like, outlining the generic criteria you want to see in arbcom candidates, and/or evaluating the standing candidates (plus optionally some hypothetically-standing-candidates).  Same for you FiddleFaddle... if that is your real name!  ;-)    75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't you mean rouge?
 * I cannot imagine the frustration of being a member of ArbCom and to be faced with the mindless tedium of persnickety folk all believing their way is the right way. Fiddle   Faddle  16:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The people I represent at arb com are the editors who actually want to work on the encyclopedia, as distinct from those interested primarily in following legalistic procedure. There are several good reason not to run for arb com: the tension involved in arguing with the majority who think very differently on basic principles, the anxiety about evaluating ambiguous situations correctly & avoiding unnecessary injustice, and the time it take (about 1 to 2 hours/day, if you pay attention to everything--which is not actually required), and the need to be there at least once a day--the work is done by email and moves very fast. There is one and only one good reason to run: the possibility of this year having enough people who want to actually solve problems to make a difference. On most important issues this year I was in a minority of 1; It is possible that I might be in a majority this year--if enough people who think as I do should run. Frankly,I consider this a critical election--there are enough arbs leaving that it could be turned  around--but only if good people will run.  There would still be problems, but it would be possible to work on them in a different way.  I would be delighted totalk further with any one considering it--there's another week left. FF,, , I mean you (among others) 75, you'll need to get an account first and wait till next year.


 * The requirements to win an election is to be well known and reasonably well liked in WP--at least as compared to the other candidates. It helps to have some previous experience in something related: OTRS, arb clerk, spi, etc, but all I had was minimal experience at OTRS. You don't even have to be an admin. The true qualification is simply that more than 50% of the people will vote for you.     DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I am persuaded that candidacy is a useful idea, so I have put myself forward. I even think I may have done it right, though the instructions are arcane. Fiddle   Faddle  21:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me be the first to thank you! And those instructions are good practice for transcluding an RfA, which is notoriously hard - I had to help with it '-) Yngvadottir (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is most assuredly scope for a script! Perhaps that is part of the idea. There is, of course, the risk that I might be elected. That is a bridge we will cross at the time. The part that seems somewhat false is the asking and answering of people's questions, areas where the right answer is the wrong answer, unless it isn't/
 * I thank you for your thanks, . I decided that, if I like the place, I ought to espouse a new thing to do. If elected I hope do do it well. . Fiddle   Faddle  22:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Congratulate me, gentlemen, I've found a volunteer" -- The Mikado DGG ( talk ) 07:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect I may be the old fool that there is no fool like (paraphrased from Statler and Waldorf, The Muppet Show) Fiddle   Faddle  08:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, let the grumpy muppets complain up in their balcony. I sincerely thank you for running, good and good, wow and wow.  Considering what is happening on-stage, and behind the curtain, you can see why those muppets are always making poor puns and wheezy laughs.  Statler: You think this show is educational?  Waldorf: Yes... it will drive people to read books!         ;-)      75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I somehow do not expect my running to make a difference, you know. Fiddle   Faddle  15:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree, per my comment over on my usertalk (that I am in the midst of a-writing now). You are well-suited to the job, of running an insurgent-candidacy, and shaking up the arb-voting.  Mostly because, you are well-suited to doing the job of being an arbitrator!  DGG and myself don't make mistakes -- for evidence, see "You dare insinuate..." commentary which began this thread-jacking.  :-)      You running has already made a difference, in what may be small potatoes on an astronomical timescale and a wiki-geopolitical measure, but that I still claim is pretty important:  you've given myself, and I dare say DGG, hope.  A quantity very hard to come by on the 'pedia, some years.  Strive on.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Scenario


Nice to meet you! Thanks for your patience! - If you look at my 2014 link you see what I really would like to stop: an editor makes a useful edit, is taken to AE, three noticeboards are busy for weeks, we loose a female admin: what I waste of potential that could have gone into the creation of articles. Your help is welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * We are on the same side here, certainly in a broad sense. Fiddle   Faddle  22:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * By which I mean I detest unnecessary proceedings and the wasting of any editor. I am still making no comments on current cases. Fiddle   Faddle  22:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I took the current example only to save time for reading last year's but go ahead, it was illuminating (and "clearly a violation" was first said by one who is a candidate now, but corrected when I said what I saw, - and what most of last year's candidates were able to see). Being very careful in saying "clearly a violation" would be a good approach. Do you know where I learned about arbcom? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think anyone aiming for a complex role needs to be very careful about their choice of phrasing. Anyone in that role needs to be even more careful. I think you can see I am very circumspect when dealing with live issues in this beauty pageant, and, if you look, for example, at archive 2 and beyond of the controlled demolition theories article talk page (next question down) you will see I have not changed that way of working much since those days.
 * Arbcom is a difficult area to work. I must be insane to consider it. But we have to do better. If I can make even a tiny difference then it will be worth it. Fiddle   Faddle  22:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, great edit summary ;) - yes, arbcom needs to improve, which would start simply with the arbs actually looking at a diff. (Hint: 2013, an editor voted for a ban - as #6, the majority for it - presenting "deeply concerned" one diff. What concerns me deeply is that none of his colleagues seems to have checked the diff. I had the 2013 candidates do it. - Then, when then banning didn't work, they put him under an absurd restriction, to not add any infobox, not even to "his own" articles. To make that work they had to restrict me also because otherwise I would have added them.) I made a DYK about the spirale of justice, DYK? - After looking at diffs properly, it would be nice to have arbcom look at the scope of a case. The infoboxes case was requested because of reverts of infoboxes, such as Joseph. - You are welcome to use the QAIbox to your liking ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * All I can say is that I, if elected, commit to looking at all the evidence, discarding oratory, and coming to my best attempt at a conclusion, even if I am in the minority, even if I am alone in my opinion. Our method of consensus is imperfect, but it is the best method we have. I really can't go into details of your and other people's prior engagements, and I am sure you do not expect me to. I do understand that you make persuasive arguments. I have not studied the opposing arguments, nor, certainly at this stage, do I intend to. The reason is that I am currently standing for election to a body that may be required to look at the matter. I will not prejudge the matter at this stage in case that means I should not immerse myself in it later, if elected. My only commitment, should I be elected and should it come before the body, is to look at the evidence and come to my best attempt at a conclusion. I have to step aside from this, Gerda. I know you want to hear more from me about it, but I cannot do that. I am neither in favour of your position nor am I against it. As I have said elsewhere, I have an opinion on inboxes which prevents my closing a discussion on them in individual articles, but I do not believe it prevents me from hearing and forming an unbiased opinion on a discussion about inboxes as an entity that led to some form of sanction. Fiddle   Faddle  09:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * pings need to be signed to work ;) - I don't know why you think I expect anything more from you. I trust that you will look at evidence and scope, which is great improvement to what I have seen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Workshop
Reading more answers to other questions, I noticed that you said you had no experience of the workshop phase. I have, and liked it, that was a collection of constructive ideas. Sad to see how little of it went into the decision, and how long it took until at least some ideas became real, Beethoven for example. The question how to reach a consensus is still open. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I shall read those with interest. Thank you. Fiddle   Faddle  22:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hi Tim, Just writing to say "thanks so much" for giving such specific feedback on the "Mike Steib" article. I spent a lot of time reorganizing the language and the references and feel confident that it is a useful Wikipedia article now, thanks to you! :) Best, Laura — Preceding unsigned comment added by LJacobs2195 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pleased I was of some use to you. I try not to re-review drafts. This is because new pairs of eyes tend to help authors produce a better draft. 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 had a very brief glance at the draft to refresh my memory. As I said, I'm not re-revoewing it, but one thing would spoil it for me: Inline links. All inline links must be removed, please, and turned into references if appropriate, Wikilinks, or external links in a section so named. See External links.
 * Remember, this process is iterative. it may be pushed back to you more than once before you gain acceptance, or you may not be able to prove notability. Either is a good result, though the latter will annoy you. Fiddle   Faddle  22:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

PureVPN Draft Resubmission, Improved the History Section as per your suggestions
I'm trying to tackle the issues with my article one-by-one. I have changed the History section of the draft and included actual content from the reference and then cited the reference to back up the statement.

My draft can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:PureVPN

P.S. I'm sorry I'm new to all this and very grateful for your prompt responses and your patience :)

Iwantprivacy (talk) 11:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you are heading in the right direction. Were I to re-review it I would still be critical of the referencing, especially with the links to the sources of supply. This will be seen as spam links. "Make Use Of" looks like paid editorial. It smells of it. IT may not be, but it will be viewed as such. NYT is a decent reference. More like that, please.
 * I try very hard not to re-review, so, when you resubmit, someone else will look at it. Their opinion may differ from mine. For me, I think you have moved 50% of the way there. may help you more than I can.  Fiddle   Faddle  11:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Question
Is there a way to completely REMOVE or DELETE everything I submitted so far and start over? I would like to completely start over with a very short submission. Please let me know or if you can delete all of it, please let me know. Thanks!

Chris Coffey Chris Coffey 18:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keshakoko1 (talk • contribs)


 * You may place at the head of any article or page where you are the sole editor with confidence that it will be deleted. Where you are the editor who created the page but others have contributed you may place the text at the head, but there is no guarantee that your request will be honoured because others have contributed. The admin who visits the page will make a determination.  Fiddle   Faddle  18:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!
Thank you. It is a pleasure to answer questions Fiddle   Faddle  20:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

15:17:18, 14 November 2015 review of submission by BineMaja
Hi Timtrent, I kindly invite you to look at the revised article about Theodor Abt. I improved the referencing and made some corrections. Hopefully, it is now in accordance with wiki-rules? Please let me know your evaluation. Many thanks! BineMaja (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you should go to WP:GA and have a look at how good articles in your field handle referencing. I do not re-review drafts very often, believing that other eyes on a draft provide a better all round result, but I can tell you that your style may confuse folk. Please do read WP:CITE and WP:REFB Fiddle   Faddle  15:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your advice. I checked those sources and clarified some references. In my eyes, the article should meet the basic wiki-criteria; Anyway, improvements by other users are always welcome ;-). I hope it can go online now - I'll submit it again. BineMaja (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Always remember that this is an iterative process. Fiddle   Faddle  20:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Question Again
Since my article hasn't been accepted or posted (since May, 2015) and only is a DRAFT. I want to complete remove it and start over. Your response was a little confusing because there were NO others making contributions to an article never posted. I guess I'll have to read up and try and figure out to just remove my draft. I thought I could tell from your response on how to delete this but it was complicated....just like everything on this site. I'll keep trying or get someone who knows and has had articles posted to help me. Thanks!

Chris Chris Coffey 18:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keshakoko1 (talk • contribs)


 * you are associated with two drafts. please see my discussion further above. The one in your sandbox is easy, just do what I suggested. Draft:Larry Geller is the one where others have contributed. Indeed, my view is that yo may not simply blank it, so I have reverted that blanking Fiddle   Faddle  19:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggest just blank the body-prose, of Draft:Larry_Gellar. But keep the draft_talk.  :-)      Thataway, Chris can start writing the draft one sentence at a time, boring cold hard just-the-facts tone, start with the sources with best depth, and work through them one by one.  Builds character in the person becoming a wikipedian, plus builds up the body-prose of the person being described in the BLP-article, per WP:V. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems I was too slow. :-)      WP:TIAD sometimes applies!
 * 19:24, 13 November 2015 NawlinWiki (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:Larry Geller (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page)
 * What a shame, all that hard work down the drain. :(  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   13:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe perchance Chris keep an offline copy of the wikitext? If not, we can do a refund thing, I suppose.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Highly improbable.  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   13:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Luckily, my web browser kept a copy of the wikitext (but not the talk page), now in Draft:Larry Geller and User:Jeff G./sandbox/Larry Geller.  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   06:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion.  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   13:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There have been three drafts I know of (one having been deleted). I made a place for a fourth. Please see User_talk:Jeff G. for details.  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   13:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

07:38:23, 18 November 2015 review of submission by MpMe2015
HAVE NOW DEALT WITH THE ISSUES MENTIONED IN PREVIOUS MESSAGES BY THE REVIEWER - look forward to learning that the article has been approved. Thank you!


 * You have introduced new copyright violations. On this basis I have submitted the draft for summary deletion. There is a strong probability that it will be deleted unless you remove those copyright violations before an administrator examines my proposal and the draft.


 * Please do not use ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. It makes you appear to be shouting. You have not dealt with the issues in any meaningful way. The references are still not citing the facts you assert at the facts you assert. You seem to be trying to make this a baptism of fire for yourself instead of following advice. If the advice is hard to understand please ask the person giving the advice to clarify it. Please do not just make assumptions. Fiddle   Faddle  09:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Signpost inquiry
Hi, I've emailed you on a matter related to your election candidature. Tony  (talk)  06:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have received it and am considering your questions. Signpost is very much a piece of "Press Media". On that basis, and prior to my making a reply, may I know broadly the treatment the answers will receive, please. Are they to be anonymous and simply compiled for statistical purposes or are they to be attributable? May I see any prior treatment of candidates pre-election in prior elections without the need to trawl your archives?
 * I think treating blanks as 4 is not a useful statistical device. One may also choose not to answer a question. However, the rules are of your making. Fiddle   Faddle  09:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have qualifications in statistics?
 * The design of the survey is by the Signpost's editorial board, minus Gamiliel, who is standing for election.
 * Did you read the survey introduction? It clearly stated "on the record". People running for public office are usually not bothered by making their views public before an election. I see you've been busy writing thousands of words of your opinion in public on your candidate question page. Have you been controlling the questions there?
 * A previous example is our coverage of the WMF election. Tony   (talk)  10:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for supplying the additional information. I will now look at your questions in detail and give you my answers. Fiddle   Faddle  10:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course you should support candidates you feel are stronger
There is every reason to applaud your openness. Thank you for recommending me for as long as you have. I have said all the way through that we need the best of the best. We may both be surprised if I am elected. I feel it unlikely because of the admin/tools silliness, but my candidature is no less serious for that. I'm pinging you here because, well, I didn't want to clutter your talk page with this in case folk felt i might be whingeing. .

Let us both hope that we get both the ArbCom we need as well as the one we deserve. I fear the admin thing may move us away from the committee we need. My intention never to be an admin (save, presumably, for an interlude of non admin adminship if elected to ArbCom) is a statement of the way I wish to and will continue to edit Wikipedia. I have more influence over the direction as an editor than I would ever have as an admin. I can be seen to work ethically as a simple editor. If an admin there might be temptations to be complainant, judge, jury, and (justified) executioner with vandals, articles to be deleted etc. I have seen this rather more often than I would wish. Fiddle  Faddle  13:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to ping me. This year has been the first where I felt there were genuine candidacies from non-admins, which is a brilliant place to be. In the end, there were 2-3 people I was thinking of dropping to neutral and you were the unlucky one. If one of the others slips up in the next few weeks (it does happen!) I'll be willing to update my guide. Hopefully people actually read the comments too, so if they disagree with one of my decisions, they may well endorse you as an alternative. I have ensured that I supported at least one non-admin - even if none get on this year they may next. WormTT(talk) 13:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Only update what you genuinely believe to be worthy of an update, and never believe the bluster of a candidate. I like the fact that we have several non admin candidates. I don't pretend to be a strong candidate or to be potentially good if I am elected. If it comes to it I will simply do my best. What I do think is needed, though, is a true recognition that an editor is an editor, is an editor. And that, for ArbCom, the rules are that editors in good standing may offer candidature.
 * Why do we somehow deify admins? Indeed, why do we go through the excesses of RfA to pillory some poor devil who is happy to be a janitor?
 * I think the answer is that we love rules and are very happy when we are bound by rules. There are many doctoral theses to come out of the heady social experiment that is Wikipedia.
 * Meanwhile, for me, it remains a pleasant hobby where I can gain knowledge that is almost certainly useless, but is fun to acquire.
 * To make that continue for a goodly time please use whatever powers of persuasion you have to seek to ensure that we get the committee we need. I very much doubt those are the ones who stand on the "ArbCom must be reformed!" platform. That is a job best done from the outside. If we get a great team in place we may be pleased to discover that reform is less necessary than some folk think. Fiddle   Faddle  14:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Good luck!
I'm no longer an active editor (I don't have the time anymore, given real life commitments), but thought I'd see if anything interesting was going on in this year's ArbCom elections. I'm incredibly impressed by your candidacy. Your answers on the questions page were flawless, in my view. I agree fully with your statement that an editor is an editor, and that non-admin status shouldn't mean anything in an ArbCom election. More importantly, your answers show that you transcend the factionalism, pettiness, and closed-mindedness that often consume those who seek positions of trust on Wikipedia. Instead, you seem pragmatic but principled - qualities I would want in an arbitrator if I were before ArbCom. I won't be voting in the elections, but I wish you the absolute best. 174.102.162.186 (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You are more than kind. Thank you. I suspect I may become the best candidate not to be elected, though I also suspect I may be carried through on a protest vote. What folk do not understand, I think, is that, as a putative arbitrator, I will be bound by process. Change comes form those not process bound. I can influence individual decisions, even be in a minority of one, but true change comes from the outside. It might come because "I" am standing, but it will not come (putatively) because I am elected.
 * Candidature such as mine is already causing a brouhaha over whether "I" should be granted admin powers. Hell, why would I want those? I just need to see what I need to see. To heck with blocking folk and deleting articles!
 * I am sure you see where I am coming from. Fiddle   Faddle  00:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Commented out message?
Para que serve o link verde?

É para isso?

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio(a)_Discuss%C3%A3o:Bruno_Gon%C3%A7alves_Piraj%C3%A1#Indica.C3.A7.C3.A3o_de_elimina.C3.A7.C3.A3o_r.C3.A1pida_para_a_p.C3.A1gina_Cogitas3d

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruno Gonçalves Pirajá (talk • contribs) 13:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Eu não falo português. Eu tenho usado o Google Translate, a fim de criar thsi mensagem para você. Este é o Idioma Inglês Wikipedia, e yoiu deve usar tanto Inglês aqui e só criar artciles em Inglês. Fiddle   Faddle  14:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)