User talk:Timtrent/Archive 44

Two Unrelated Issues
Greghenderson2006

I agree with your comments. As I said, I think that a block from article space should be a more common sanction against paid editors who are acting in good faith but are acting like paid editors.

Next Thai General Election
You sometimes nominate articles for deletion after an appropriate draftification has been contested. This is another. The twist is that I have requested a sockpuppet investigation into the two authors, because the second one came in when the first was blocked. Tag team editing sometimes refers to a form of battleground editing, but there is another type of tag teaming which is a form of sockpuppetry. I am sure you have seen tag team sockpuppets before. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Robert McClenon I see tag teams all too often. If you feel it urgent pinging a CU will always be welcomed. If non urgent, not!
 * Mr Henderson is a very pleasant editor, but is ploughung the wrong furrow in the wrong field.
 * I like the concept of blocks from mainspace. I agree with you. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In the case of the Thai election, there is a known sockmaster, and the CUs and clerks want as complete a blacklist of sockpuppets as possible. So in a few days or a week they will check whether the one I reported comes from the same duck pond.  Robert McClenon (talk)

Draft:Fela Akinse
Hey @Timtrent, I just had a look at this draft, felt I recognised it, and saw your post at Sockpuppet_investigations/Princek2019.

Am I missing something, but I feel like the sources on this draft are okay and perhaps establish notability? The article isn't written particularly well, and there's a couple of missing sources, but overall this feels like a pass of WP:NPEOPLE? Or am I wrong?

Best,  Qcne  (talk)  12:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Qcne I haven't looked deeply at the quality. I would lose the recognition section totally since anyone can be a panellist, though. It is either UPE or vanity publishing.  Your call. I'm not back to reviewing until Monday. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Qcne I've lefts a response to the editor at the SPI 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hm, thanks. I'll mark it under review and scrutinise it really carefully. Can't wait to have you back reviewing!  Qcne  (talk)  13:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Qcne It's been a necessary pause for propriety after the unpleasant accusations.
 * A brief look at the draft suggests WP:CITEKILL and a lack of references, coupled with those that Fail Verification. That is as far as I should go to influence you, I think.  Most importantly, your opinion is your own.
 * Thank you for the good wishes, I appreciate them 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Request on 10:34:38, 9 October 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Catherine Gowdy
Hello, and thanks very much for the lovely feedback. I'm a little confused about the declined article as a number of presenters Barra works with could be categorised exactly the same, but their articles have been approved. Is there something I've done wrong with this particular article. I've included some approved articles as examples. Thanks again. C.


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Travers
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tina_Campbell
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Traynor
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angie_Phillips

Catherine Gowdy (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Catherine Gowdy No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We have many tens of thousands of poor quality articles, and remarkably few people hunting them down. In time they will disappear of be improved 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Catherine Gowdy of the four you used as examples, I see one that has borderline notability. The other three I have nominated for WP:AFD to allow the community to decide. My belief is that they fail our inclusion criteria. Consensus will be formed and they will either be retained or deleted. All come from days when our inclusion criteria were very lax. 2006/7 were the early days of Wikipedia when it felt like articles were created willy nilly. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

misclicked
Sorry about the revert, this was an accidental misclick and then my computer froze :( —Kusma (talk) 10:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Kusma A perfect storm! These things happen. Thanks for letting me know. I had just started to wonder, now I know.  😳 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Help
Hello. Help delete template for acticle Akane Yamaguchi. Thanks you. 27.64.221.154 (talk) 06:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Why? 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Crypto Aid Israel
The sources are all publications of the cryptocurrency community, and so not independent, so it fails general notability. That's one more reason to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Robert McClenon I agree with you. I also find preying on the generous and emotional to be disgraceful. I do not include the creating editor, whose good faith I assume.
 * Thank you for your source analysis. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that, during the World Wars, there were businessmen who were said to be involved in "war profiteering", that is, trying to make an unreasonable return from business associated with the war, during which every citizen was expected to focus primarily on the national goal of winning the war. This appeared to be war profiteering.  By the way, the AFD has been early closed as delete.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We hope, and those of us who belong to organized religion (I'm Catholic) pray, that we are not in World War Three, but we may be in the skirmishes leading up to a conventional World War Three.  In any case, profiteering from the war, whether WW3 or not, may not be as bad as terrorism or imperial expansionism, but it isn't good.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Robert McClenon Unlike you, I have no religion. As a separate issue I have no belief in a deity. Deities always seem to be on all possible sides in a war, and are always invoked by winners and losers alike.
 * I do find it rather odd that a putative deity founded their religion in the Middle East. I wonder, were that deity to exist, if that might be an amusing experiment to see what transpired.
 * I hope that reason will prevail. I hope that all warring parties everywhere wilily down their arms and embrace their supposed enemies. I hope that those with money realise that they have enough, and have no desire any more to gain more. I hope that those with power recognise the inherent fragility of power and seek to educate others in sensible and equitable use of any power they, we, might have.
 * That cannot be a prayer, for I have no deity to pray to. In that thought I envy you a little, assuming you have faith as well as religion. You have a fixed point to pray to, to praise, and to blame. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Ann Wead Kimbrough


Hello, Timtrent. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ann Wead Kimbrough".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗ plicit  23:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Explicit I just couldn't get it over the notability hurdle. References just didn't exist where I coudl find them. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Sphere Media
I have started the source analysis, and so far they are, as you say, press releases and stuff like that. I will finish within 24 hours. In the meantime, I have !voted a Weak Delete because, if the sources are good (and I don't think that they will be), it needs to be blown up and started over, or just blown up, or sent to Sagittarius A*. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Robert McClenon Thank you. I never like to get into a comment fight at AfD 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What is a comment fight? Is that sort of like a food fight, only a little worse because the ammunition cannot then be eaten?  It probably still needs to be sent to Sagittarius A* (the mass of which can be calculated from the orbital period of the doomed stars circling it).  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Robert McClenon ROFLMAO 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If the proponent isn't a paid editor, they shouldn't be acting like a paid editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no law or policy against being a paid editor. It is only their work and not the paid editor that should be blackholed.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Robert McClenon Thank you for your impartial review of the references. It proves that I was correct in my opinion that this article is unsuitable to remain. I would have been happy with whatever your analysis showed. I am happier to be broadly correct. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Nazism and Palestine
The account that moved it from draft space to article space is under discussion at WP:ANI for gaming ECP, which is another reason to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Robert McClenon It seems to have gone. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * got it while I was using to find the closing script in vector 22. Thanks, Alalch. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @ScottishFinnishRadish I felt I ought not to close the AfD myself. I do feel this (now) Draft is a wrong 'un. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The article had no right to exist, and so does not exist. Sometimes contentious topics remedies work well.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Robert McClenon I hadn't really come across that area. Makes me glad I am not an admin! 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Approval Of Draft
I am writing this to you to substantiate the article about Hasan Mohammed Jinnah on Wikipedia. This article is currently listed as lacking substantial references, but I believe that it meets the criteria for inclusion.

He is a state public Prosecutor of TamilNadu, India, who has widespread media coverage.

The article about him on Wikipedia is a well-written and informative. It covers all of the major aspects of personality and the cases in which he played a crucial role. The article is also well-sourced, with citations to reliable sources such as Tamilnadu Department of Information and Public Relations (DIPR), Madras High court press release.

I believe that the article meets all of the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. It is well-written, informative, and well-sourced. It is also a topic that is of interest to a wide range of people.

I urge you to reconsider the article. I will add his Twitter,Linkedin handle and other sources here. Thank you for your time and consideration.

reference :


 * 1) https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/hasan-mohamed-jinnah-appointedas-state-public-prosecutor/article34731045.ece
 * 2) https://www.linkedin.com/in/hasan-mohammed-jinnah-809a80287/?originalSubdomain=in
 * 3) https://www.hcmadras.tn.nic.in/Notification%20No.%201%20of%202023%20SSA.pdf

Abayan leo (talk) 06:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Abayan leo Please see the big box at the head of this page where it says "". If you have resubmitted it then someone else will review it.
 * LinkedIn (listed here) is wholly unsuitable as a reference and must be removed. Your assertion that us is well referenced fails any case. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft review : Ajit Raizada
Hi there, appreciate the comments on my draft - Draft:Ajit Raizada. I am a relatively new contributor and hence there may have been gaps. A few comments on how I have drafted the article for your refence:

- agree with your comment that  ' The sole element that might be notable is likely to be authorship'. The career as an administrator is secondary. I did try to highlight the authorship and have followed most Wiki 'people articles' to provide chronology as well different aspects of the subject - education, career etc.

- I tried to meticulously referenced external sources - 31 in all - most of which are skewed towards the literary career of the subject. I have however ensured that I taken in enough references which support his administrative career which provide more texture and background to the subject.

- Moreover, I looked at several other wiki articles of people of very similar background - V. P. Joy (poet and administrator), Amitabh Rajan (mainly administrative career),. Arun Bhatnagar - (mainly non notable administrative career with reasonable but limited references). Parikipandla Narahari (administrator, author and musician). They are all non notable Indian administrators and most are authors. For all these cases without exception, references do not cover every position of their careers as is in the case of Ajit Raizada whereas their published works, articles and journals are well supported by references as is the case for Raizada.

I have duly note you comment that I do not review drafts on request, nor, normally, do I review a draft more than once, so please do not ask

However, I also noted :) - If you want me to do something for you, make it easy for me, please.

Hence, may I request you to please spend some time to go thru once again. I'll be very to take in suggestions, as a new and inexperienced contributor, to make changes as required. Thanks!

YRSing (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @YRSing What do you hope would be achieved by my taking a further look through it?
 * Probably that is a rhetorical question, so instead of going through it let me refer you to the process in this essay. It's one of many giving you a process that almost guarantees that an article may be accepted if the topic is truly notable.
 * Your job is only to show that the subject is notable. That can be done in very few sentences as long as you have three excellent references. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Fixes at User talk:Heatrave
Thanks for that. The stupid changes to the editing interface have really screwed things up for my standard editing. I think I've fixed it in preferences. We'll see. Sometimes I think developers **** things up just to say they've got something to do. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I always choose "Source" to edit. Visual @£!$s things up a treat 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Visual Editor is a poorly designed and poorly tested piece of code.  Avoid it if you can, and you can avoid it.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As long as one sets the edit switch to "Source" the visual editor is acceptable. Notice I did not say "excellent"! 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive
 Hello Timtrent:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!

The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Tim,

How are you? Thanks for the message you left on my TP. I've been in and out mostly because of personal stuffs i've been stuck with. I should be more frequent this week. I've missed this space alot. Jamiebuba (talk) 08:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Jamiebuba Just make sure you know when to step away for a while. Wikiburnout is a real thing. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For real, thanks anyways. Talk soon again. Jamiebuba (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Renexia
Hi Tim, I'm writing to you about the Renexia page (Draft:Renexia ). After the first warning I updated the sources. Now, all informations contained on the page are supported by soucers for a total of 24 including: 1 institutional website (Delaware State Chamber Of Commerce) and 23 mass media (newspaper, press agency, television, information site, magazine). Some of these, are 5 main streams (for example WSJ, Reuters, Corriere della Sera and Rai – Italian Radio Television), the others are specialized in the energy sector. Do you consider WSJ, Reuters like other non-independent sources and the specialized press inadequate to write about the topic? I await your kind response to better understand. Thank you Elmo di piume (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Elmo di piume I hope the first five original sources and any like them are now gone.
 * Mass media is often fine, often not. It depends on the content. If it is a regurgitated PR piece, if it starts with something like "ANYTOWN, DATE, Foo announces" and/or ends with "For more information contact Foo at details", then not. If it is written about the entity, is significant coverage, is independent of the entity, and is not a deprecated source such as the UK Daily Mail then it is likely tobe useful you.
 * Reviews are an iterative process. Once you are happy please submit it for further review. Don;t stop there. Continue to polish it until you get feedback.
 * I hope this helps you have your draft accepted 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Abdul Hapidz
Greetings Timtrent! I was wondering if you could give your review and opinion on my draft that was recently declined, despite it meeting the notability criteria. Possibly it may be declined due to the references used. Many thanks. DuckieWackie (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Pangalau While Facebook, a Wordpress site, and Instagram are not reliable sources, in my view they should not prejudice acceptance. I think you have met a perfectionist. I will resubmit on your behalf and accept it. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Pangalau You do not appear to have edited this draft? Please explain further? 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the resubmission, pardon me but what do you mean by me having no edit on the draft? Additional, informations with more references were added after the decline as can be seen in the page's history. Additionally, the draft was first created and written by me prior to its first submission. I hope this is what you meant and clears it up. Thanks. DuckieWackie (talk) 09:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Pangalau Ah your username and handle differ! 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I really think I should change my signature back to my username, It has caused more confusion lately, whoops. My apologies! DuckieWackie (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Pangalau With your user name, why not use my signature as your example? 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually that idea came about when I visited your talk page and noticed it, the issue was brought up earlier this week and I've forgotten to get back to changing it. Pangalau (talk) 10:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Pangalau Out of interest, why did you choose me to ask? 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is no doubt that your presence on Wikipedia has man an impact personally for me, thus I came to ask due to your experience and friendliness. I've checked the review of my draft's talk page and it does not seem like this user replies to any of his talk sections. Pangalau (talk) 10:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Pangalau Thank you for the compliment. I appreciate it.
 * The other editor and I disagree about acceptance criteria. The AFC reviewer brief is to accept a draft which we believe has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. I often accept borderline drafts. I view the community as being a better judge than I am.
 * I've interacted with them before. Their review history suggests they require a more perfect draft. I doubt I will persuade them and I have chosen not to make the attempt. Life is too short. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It makes sense to not start a debate with the other reviewer in order to save extra time and effort. Your actions and service have been admirable, thank you! Pangalau (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Pangalau Oh, please do not forget to deal with the three references I have flagged as unreliable.
 * I believe in making friends. Every editor here should feel valued and also enjoy this bizarre hobby. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll find better references for them if not they'll be removed. Pangalau (talk) 11:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic–United States relations
G6 completed. Please proceed with moving Draft:Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic–United States relations to article space. -- Whpq (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

S abuse?
I was rather amused to read this edit, but then disappointed to see your next edit of the page. I rather like the idea of deleting pages because users have s raped in them. JBW (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh me too! Me too! You have to adore serendipity!
 * @JBW 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Wikilover3509/sandbox
Hello Timtrent -- Though the sandbox draft isn't very promising, Barry Corbet might well be notable. A search of Google with ""barry corbet" mountaineer" comes up with enough to potentially satisfy GNG. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Espresso Addict Indeed he may, but not with this sandbox draft. There was not even a clue that he was a mountaineer. You might enjoy writing a decent article on Corbet? 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "Barry Corbet, member of the 1966–67 American Antarctic Mountaineering Expedition that made the first ascent of Mount Vinson, the summit of Antarctica, and other high mountains in the Sentinel Range." I've given the creator some advice but if you could remove the "fuck off" template that might be encouraging. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Espresso Addict They really need to start Draft:Barry Corbet and discard the sandbox. They need to find referencing and write, in their own words, what the referencing says.
 * I rejected the sandbox because it was submitted for a review, and that sandbox, as submitted, could not pass, nor would a simple decline have sufficed.
 * All rejection dies is stops this iteration. It does not prevent the start of a new set of review iterations. It's four minutes into tomorrow here, and whatever I do with that sandbox I will get it wrong because my eyes are closing. I'm glad you are there to guide them. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 00:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * you may find the conversation above of interest and of use. Go to WP:AFC, use the wizard, and copy and paste what is useful into a brand new draft.  Only submit it for review when it looks ready.  Please read HELP:YFA first.
 * The lead section must exist and must summarive the draft. Write that last, and place it first. Your only job is to prove that Corbet passes WP:BIO. The draft need not be long, but it needs to offer the proof.
 * I'm happy to offer guidance if you wish. That is what reviewing is about.
 * @Espresso Addict I hope that helps. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Timtrent really appreciate your guidance since I am new to the world of Wikipedia editing and contribution. I will try to find more references. Wikilover3509 (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Recent Review
Hi,

Thank you for reviewing the article linked below.

I noticed your comment mentioning Paid editors are expected to do far better. Could you elaborate on this point, please?

Thanks in advance.

Draft:WCKD RZR Robwckd (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Robwckd A paid editor is paid have articles accepted. Patently you are not achieving that, so you must learn how to. That learning is part of your fee . You should be able to produce drafts that are declined once at the most, probably accepted at once.
 * I'm a volunteer. I get no fee. That means I am not going to teach you how to earn yours. Paid editors are expected to do better. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft: William John Titus Bishop
Hi Timtrent,

Many thanks for your further input to the article Draft:William John Titus Bishop. As per your advise I have:

1) Removed the Disogs and Musicxmatch references.

2) Removed any uncited statements of fact

3) Removed any self-published sources.

4) Supported all primary sources with secondary sources

5) Removed any unreferenced announcements.

6) Read over the literature on suitable types of source, referencing and reliability as well as checking the reliable sources for musicians and albums.

All good things Topg1985 (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Topg1985 Thank you. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Streatham Rovers
This was a really poor AfC accept in my opinion; I have moved it back to draftspace. Although the sourcing clearly marks the entire thing as a joke/spoof/hoax, the article is written from the perspective that it is a real team. We are not in the business of writing fiction. At a minimum, it needed to be rewritten to clearly indicate that it is a joke before it should have ever been accepted. Please take more care when you approve drafts. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Premeditated Chaos Pretty obviously I disagree. You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What part, exactly, do you disagree with? That the article's subject is a fictional team? That the article, when you accepted it, was written to present the fictional team as a real thing? You disagree that Wikipedia is not intended to present fiction as fact? This is not a matter of opinion, but of maintaining the quality of this project. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Premeditated Chaos The categories make the satire, irony clear, as did the references. I do not expect to convince you, nor do I intend to make the attempt. I do find your tone to be somewhat hectoring, which is a disappointment. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I find it frankly astonishing that a user of your tenure would be this unconcerned about accepting an article that was written to present a blatantly fictional thing as real. Regardless of what the categories and the references say, the text is the important thing to readers. Your response here indicates this isn't even a mistake caused by not reading closely enough, it was a deliberate decision to accept an article written as a hoax, which is even more appalling. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Premeditated Chaos I read the draft article and the references with care. It was obvious to me that it documented a hoax perpetrated on others. Perhaps it might have been more obvious with hindsight. I am still disappointed by your hectoring tone, you are way better than that. I think we are not going to agree on this subject, perhaps the more so because of the approach you are taking over it.
 * You will notice that I am not arguing over the draftification of the article, proving that the community works. It will either be improved and resubmitted or will wither on the vine of G13. It's truly not worth getting bent out of shape over. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We should be careful not accept drafts that lie in WikiVoice, since this would mislead our readers. I think this draft needs a big rewrite if it is to become ready for mainspace. – Novem Linguae (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

AfC log archives - help!
Hey, I copied your archive stuff from User:Timtrent/AfC log to mine User:KylieTastic/AfC log and just changed the username, but the bot did not archive (I did some manually) and the archive list does not show up I get "No archives yet.". I had a vague recollection you had issues getting yours to work... am I missing some step or a magic rune somewhere? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @KylieTastic It's not totally obvious until you look at mine and yours. I have September 2023 in place and will unti1 December. You are in the same state.  After the first couple of days of December September will be archived.
 * If you can find a way to show only the current month please let me know! 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @KylieTastic Ah no. I seem to be talking WP:BOLLOCKS. Fooled myself! I will look some more.  How long have you waited for the first run? 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Answered my own question by looking!! . I think give it a few days until Cluebot wakes up. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup I only set up yesterday expecting something to kick in overnight. I guess Cluebot prob has a very last list of pages, so I'll give more time. At first I assume the page was too bit so that why I did a manual. The couldn't work out why the archives did not list either and assumed it was the same issue. I'll just be patient for a bit. I only did it as I realised I had a lot of missed logs that I assume may be hampered by the size, or it may be the AFCH tool is just slower than me and I close articles too quick. Thanks for looking though :) KylieTastic (talk) 11:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If you click the header on my archive box there, you get one heck of a complex index table. Not that the table has anything to do with it!
 * From memory, the first run was very late in the UK day just after I had wondered why it hadn't run!
 * And yes the AFCH tool is slower than any of us think. Got to wait until it finishes before closing the tab. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @KylieTastic forgot to ping 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It kicked in and is now working... so looks like it does use the bot indexes. Thanks for your help KylieTastic (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * KylieTastic Glad it works. I always wonder how it finds out the first time 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I assume it uses the API equivalent of ahastemplate search to find all users. KylieTastic (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Uni
the absolute greatest 47.157.116.101 (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Er, ok. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Jacek Bocheński
Thank you J.D.K. (talk) 10:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Harald Grytten author's page
Thank you for your quick feedback on the article I wrote on Harald Grytten - I apologize for the obvious issues - the Norwegian version of this page has a similar problem, virtually none of the publications are cross-referenced.

It is my second attempt at doing something useful for wikipedia. Port norw (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Port norw I've worked my way through the weirdness your message left here. Now I can see it.
 * With a list of publications, we have ISBN which will be more help than a reference for each one. What we need an article to be is about the subject, and thus we need the references to be about the subject. When the subject writes things it is tempting to view those things as very important. And they may be, but usually are not
 * Let me try to explain. If they manufactured vacuum cleaners, the cleaners would be their work. A vacuum cleaner could not be a reference for them, simply because it is the product they make. So it is with research, writings, etc. However, a review of their work by others tends to be a review of them and their methods.
 * What you need to maximise your efforts on is references about the writer, not for the things written. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand - and thanks for the reply. Btw, I have no idea how my reply to you came bundled with someone else's reply, thus triggering your remark about using paragraphs - the message above mine was not... mine.
 * I am trying to understand how to use the References area (it always refers me to a References template which I haven't been able to understand yet.
 * These items that you kindly sent me feedback for are strictly Bibliography (actually, pretty much similar to what the Norwegian wikipedia page has - this author is a much loved and prized Norwegian historian and writer and it will be very easy to find references about him. I know there are many Norwegian-heritage US citizens that would like to be able to read about him, and that was what triggered me into using him as my "entry point" into participating in the growth of Wikipedia.
 * All the best, Vasco Port norw (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Port norw I'm pretty sure Grytten is notable. "All" yiu have to do is to prove it.  There is a Wikidata item for him. That will likely solve the bibliography, because it indexes indices of works.
 * Read WP:REFB and also WP:CITE, they ought to help.
 * I have no idea what caused the horrendous mess, but I nuked it! 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Brilliant! Thank you, Fiddle@Timtrent
 * I'll read through - I studied marine biology and worked in human medicine (documentation, approval for new drugs and new indications at regulatory) so referencing will come as second nature. It is the mechanics of it on wiki that are a bit tricky but I'll get there.
 * At this point I'd like to personally thank you - in this day and age of rage hand-in-hand with anonymity, your approach to my tries has been full of oxygen. Port norw (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Port norw We have a useful "thing", WP:BITE. But it's important to be friendly, otherwise we waste new editors by annoying the bejesus out of them.
 * There are many templates for citations. The edit window in the top left just outside the editable space has a drop down list. Unless, of course, you use the mobile interface which bewilders everyone. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Been learning before next move - it seems pretty straightforward, and I plan to act tomorrow. I wouldn't dare go mobile at this point - maybe later... perhaps much later... Port norw (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Port norw As you are doing, simply take your time. There is no deadline, after all, except one which we set ourselves. I suggest you only submit when you feel ready. Submitting too early can cause you perception problem sin the eyes of others.
 * You will get a reasonably fast turnaround. We have reduced the backlog to under a week, so truly only submit when ready.
 * Use your sandbox to play. That is what was really intended for. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I hope it looks better now - thank you so much for the precious guidance Port norw (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Port norw I have tweaked one line. I used ISBN, whcih has a real purpose - that of offering all the sales sites it can rather than preferring one. I doubt one needs both the longer and the short ISBN. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you Timtrent,
 * I cleared the ISBN mess - was unaware of the use of templates for it.
 * I don't know if you're patient enough to let me know if there's any way to change the GUI to add a "frequently used template" instead of the process I went through, ({{ then ISBN on search, then...)
 * Also, I am not sure why, but the list of references used on the text above are now repeated under the first entry in Bibliography. Help if you can?
 * All the best Port norw (talk) 10:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed the mess here!
 * Fixed the references, too. Use the History tab and compare your version and mine and you will see how I fixed it.  Here, too!
 * There is no way that I know to be able to do a search and replace, which I think is what you want. When I want to do it I copy the source code and paste it into a text editor, do the operation, and then paste it back to the article.
 * I have huge reserves of patience when folk try hard to learn things 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Port norw forgot to ping 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Here I go (check your help).
 * I hope you're keenly aware of how rare "huge reserves of patience" is. I am grateful Port norw (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Good idea - the text editor - I feel I need a bit more confidence on cause-and-effect and syntax of system before I let go off the shore.
 * Assuming that you seem to think that form might good enough now, is there any extra steps I must follow to re-submit to scrutiny for approval? Port norw (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Port norw one final(?) thigh from me. All inline links should be removed, please, and turned into references if appropriate, Wikilinks, or external links in a section so named. See External links
 * I'm not checkimg more than cosmetics which will hinder acceptance, you understand, but I suspect you can submit it after that. I only actually review once. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I know, I read your opening message carefully. I am thus the more grateful for your time.
 * So, best practices are references and Wikilinks instead of links - initially I had the notion that they were permutable. I will clean up that mess.
 * And thanks again! Port norw (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Port norw Wikipedia evolves by the will of the community, which forms consensus on all sorts of things over time. Inline links were one such.
 * I love the way autocarrot has given you one final thigh. I doubt it has a leg to stand on. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have to be honest with you - I am yet to read anyone else's feedback, I am fully focused in learning and you've been a really good help. I plan to do it when I feel that I've learned enough to undestand enough to be sure that this attempt will not fail because of my incapacities. Port norw (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Port norw Learn not as a student, but as a teacher, even if you never intend to teach. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed.
 * I now followed your advice and cleared the text of links, showing only references instead.
 * Is there any need to Resubmit, or the next point-evaluation happens automatically when I push Publish?
 * All the best Port norw (talk) 01:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

{{outdent}} @Port norw As you can see, I have made some edits and then accepted the draft. I did this on the simple basis that it was "sufficiently good" and that you were unlikely to be able to enhance it. Now it is in the community's hands, Be its father, not its mother. Watch it with pride, but allow it to graze its own knees. 🇺🇦 Fiddle {{sup| Timtrent }}  Faddle {{sup| Talk to me }} 🇺🇦 08:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Peatland restoration
G6 deletion completed. Please go ahead with AFC acceptance and move to article space. -- Whpq (talk) 19:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Arbpia topic restrictions
You do realize that the topic is under EC restrictions and new editors aren't allowed to edit in it? That does not mean that new articles by non EC editors are automatically deleted, but they can be without any other reason and it isn't infrequently that they are. A draft is basically a large edit request and needs an EC editor to sign off on it to be included in the encyclopedia. I think the draft will likely be accepted sooner or later by an EC editor who regularly works in the topic area. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Buidhe I'm afraid you failed to make that clear in your comment. It's one thing to know something, but another to make one's knowledge clear to all. AFC is, generally, where new editors draft articles and request approval. Can we expect the creating editor to know the ins and outs of restrictions?
 * Clarity is really important in areas like this to seek to ensure that anyone falling would of a putative sanction does so in the full knowledge of what is at stake. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My comment wasn't aimed at the creator but as a reminder for the experienced editors who patrol AfC. Your comment was not good advice for the creator. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Buidhe Since you have clarified the sanctions, I agree my advice was not. The rest? I stand by my suggestion that you were not as clear as you might have been.
 * No matter. Do not let us turn this into a tennis match. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Help with an article
Hi, first of all thanks for your time. Today I wrote an article and I think it was declined.

Could you read or guide me through my article to see what's the best way to write and be approved with an article?

Best regards,

Dan

Link:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1j1roNDIAcKJLzxxtlZjsGeLqzW37UatiMAtXCS4Fvx4/edit?usp=sharing

Navajones (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Navajones Certainly, though I believe you will struggle to write an unbiased autobiography. Very few people are successful at the task because it is about them.
 * The simplest advice is to read this essay, which has a blow by blow guide on how to do it. If there are references that meet our needs it can be done.
 * 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, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
 * You may need to perform a total rewrite. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Ateneo de Zamboanga University Concert Band
What can I add to make this sufficient enough for its own article? Thanks. Raymondsiyluy05 (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Raymondsiyluy05 Why not just merge it as suggested? 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that just shrink info down? I mean it operates more like a separate entity rather than just a band for the university. Raymondsiyluy05 (talk) 04:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Raymondsiyluy05 You need to assess whether it can pass WP:NMUSIC om its own. If not then the merge is a string option 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

In Person Friday Night at the Blackhawk
Hi! I was wondering if you would reconsider you're decision re: Volume 1, seeing as Volume 2 already exists. Both were reasonably important albums in early sixties jazz and should have a separate page (imo) from the definitive complete sets issued four decades later. I also think they belong in the Davis album chronology, and it feels incomplete having only the second. Thank you for your time! TlonicChronic (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @TlonicChronic I understand why you suggest that, but Vol 2 ought not to stand alone either. See Talk:In Person Friday and Saturday Nights at the Blackhawk, Complete where I have proposed that merger as well.
 * Isn't this a four volume set? 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a four volume set, but volumes one and two are not a part of it. They were produced seperately and released separately; the track listings don't align. Just like Bitches Brew isn't listed under the Complete Bitches Brew release, nor Miles with Quincey with Live at Montreaux, or On the Corner with OtC Complete, nor Live 1969 with the Bootleg Series that includes it as well. They all have seperate pages. TlonicChronic (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @TlonicChronic Since I am now very confused, I suggest you make that comment at the link I gave you above, and I will link to this conversation on the draft. I suggest you them resubmit it. My confusion means I will not easily be able to review it 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help. I'll add links here to make this more comprehensive. We have:
 * · Bootleg Series Vol. 2 (2013) which contains Festiva de Juan Pins (1993)
 * · Blackhawk, Complete (2003) which contains In Person Friday Night at the Blackhawk, San Francisco, Volume 1 (1961) and Volume 2
 * · The Complete Plugged Nickel (1995) which contains Highlights (1995) and At Plugged Nickel, Chicago, Vols. 1 & 2 (1969)
 * · The Complete Montreux (2002) which contains Miles & Quincy (1993)
 * · and the eight "Complete" Miles Davis box sets.
 * I am of the opinion that the three pages that don't exist should be made, not that the other should be subsumed. However, I think it's inconsistent that the Plugged Nickel highlights, released concurrently with the Complete volume, has it's own page, where three albums released on Columbia when Davis was signed don't have their own pages, but need to be added to the Complete reissue that was released decades later, after his death. TlonicChronic (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

== I was told I needed to provide 2-3 sources which were reliable and independent of the subject to demonstrate notability. I have done so, what is the issue? this is about https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Matti_Charlton ==

thank you 216.209.142.143 (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I am not altogether sure why you are asking me. I have reviewed this once, and am unlikely to do so again. Looking at the draft you have taken my earlier advice, for which I thank you. I am asking the latest reviewer to comment
 * do you have thoughts, please? You have reviewed this draft twice now and declined it twice, so youradvuce would be beneficial. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * One thing I cannot see is what makes Charlton notable, except to those who know and love or like them. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Timtrent, looks like another editor just answered the IPs questuon at the Teahouse. ~WikiOriginal-9~  ( talk ) 22:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @WikiOriginal-9 I'm grateful. I'll look 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

need advice on linking YouTube videos
Dear Fiddle Faddle, I am the author of the Draft article about painter Temo Svirely A few days ago you declined it suggesting that I clean up the references. I have a question. There are several YouTube videos which, in my opinion, would add to the value of the article if properly linked. For example, this one, which is a short but powerful documentary about an important historical events, based on Temo's interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q8JmqHxk1U Is there a right way of referencing it, in the Wikipedia article ? Would it be right to simply add them as inline links, as they are now? Please, advise ! AndreiMikhailov (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @AndreiMikhailov Youtube is a problem because it is user generated content, so is not suitable as a reference. It may, however, be a suitable External link, in a section so named.
 * WP:YOUTUBE is your guide here. and Youtube may be used to ensure the link works well 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! I followed your advice. AndreiMikhailov (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * But I also have another question. The draft contains a list of his exhibitions. I have tried to find, if possible, a documented proof that an exhibition took place, and reference them. Is that really necessary? I mean, some of those references are not particularly informative. For example, I want to ask your advice, on these two: https://archive.ukrweekly.com/print-media/2011/The_Ukrainian_Weekly_2011-03.pdf  and  New York Art events in December 2012 . Does it really make sense to include such references? I am thinking about simply dropping them. Their only purpose would be proof that an event took place... What would be your advice? AndreiMikhailov (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @AndreiMikhailov It’s hard to be sure 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @AndreiMikhailov The real question is whether the event adds value rather than the reference to it 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought, it is kind of like CV. A list of achievements of a person. I thought I should list all tangible achievements... No ? Sorry I am new to Wikipedia authoring... Logically, if we want to tell objective facts about a person, then something like CV must be part of the article ! What do you think ? AndreiMikhailov (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @AndreiMikhailov If it is a simple, uncontroversial fact not susceptible to argument against, then a primary source is allowed. See WP:PRIMARY. Even self published items can be allowed in some circumstances, see WP:SELFPUB
 * My interpretation is that it is allowable
 * I'm sorry to be equivocal. The problem is that these things are a matter of opinion, and then a consensus which may form. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I see. Do editors dislike links pointing to PDF files ? AndreiMikhailov (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @AndreiMikhailov a pdf file is fine provided it is not a pdf isolation. It needs to be on the site for which it is relevant. As an example, if you separated a pdf from its "neighbourhood" perhaps hosting it on Freds_host.com instead of learned_site.com (where it was first published), then it becomes difficult to justify. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Request on 20:24:23, 20 November 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Drayden475
Hi there, I was continuing to improve my Wikipedia article draft [| Bushfires NT], and wanted some clarification regarding Facebook as a reference. The initial reference was for the custom-made modified Toyota utility vehicles for the purpose of fire fighting. Given that the Facebook link is directly from the origination in question in relation to the topic, is it not appropriate to consider it a primary source over an external link?

Drayden475 (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Drayden475 The answer is "potentially" by Facebooks wholly deprecated. If, however, it is the org's own channel, which I think you say it is, it is allowed to be used to verify simple facts. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Timtrent In this case is it ok to keep it as a citation, given the fact it is still an active page used only by the organisation, and was relating to the face that they had received new custom-built GFUs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drayden475 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Drayden475 The best answer I can give is "Probably". I think it is, others may disagree. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Drayden475 I've left a comment om the draft which ought to help with future reviews 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Please review the resubmitted article
I have re-submitted the article the draft of which was declined earlier.

I have made all suggested changes. Please have a look.

Draft:Shailaja Chandra

Money2023 (talk) 07:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Money2023 if you actually read the head of this page you will see that this is not going to happen. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * You are a star! Thank you. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Sayyid Ihsanullah Shah Rashdi and its sources
Hi Timtrent, I was wondering how Sayyid Ihsanullah Shah Rashdi got through AfC! Is there no guidelines for source analysis in AfC reviews? I see that you have been here for a while and know a lot more than many of us here, so I thought you would be the right person to get some insights on the AfC process. Also, what are your thoughts on moving it back to the draft space as at this point, it only has 3 sources that includes an essay. Jeraxmoira (talk) 07:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Jeraxmoira It has been edited substantially since acceptance, but no matter. It was accepted because I believed that it had sufficient notability to survive an immediate deletion discussion, something it has done. However, it was always a borderline acceptance, something we are expected to accept. The community is always a better judge than any one individual, the more so when it is seen to be borderline. Paradoxically, notability is meant to trump poor referencing, so the thinking must be "Is the subject notable?" rather than "These references are poor".
 * It is both perfectly possible, and also perfectly acceptable, if you consider that I have made a mistake. I may have done so. If I have, and you feel that the article in its current state should not survive, I can have no objection, and do not have any objection of you dispose if it as you see fit.
 * With regard to returning it to draft, I am not sure that will do more than delay matters. It "hides" it from the community. AfD might be more appropriate, which draws the community's attention to it, and has a wider scope for discussion. If it is sent to AfD I remain neutral in any discussion where I have accepted a draft. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jeraxmoira I should have said "Our acceptance criteria are that we accept if, in our personal judgement, a draft has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process."
 * In reality many reviewers, especially those starting out on a reviewing "career" ask for near perfection prior to acceptance. I think they see jt as a stain on their review if folk disagree. Instead, they should see that accepting borderline drafts is part of what we are meant to do. We need to act as a filter on quality that does not prevent Wikipedia from growing. As you can understand that 50% chance is a somewhat coarse filter.
 * AFC has a backstop, automatic unless one has auto patrolled states. New acceptances are queued for WP:NPP review. That filter is much finer. I "unreview" in an NPP sense, drafts I accept where borderline to seek to ensure further eyes.
 * The simplistic view is that AFC weeds out the great majority of the material that will never, ever survive. NPP quality assures the encyclopaedia th the extent it can.  Very often articles are edited further in mainspace between AFC and NPP, and the system works as intended.
 * I hope that helps your thinking a little further, the more so to understand why a borderline article was accepted. I am one of the few AFC reviewers who will accept borderline drafts. I believe more should work to the acceptance criteria and not seek to polish too highly. Obviously the community may take the action it chooses after any acceptance. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I completely understand and appreciate your perspective regarding the article's acceptance and I am glad you are one of those who accepts borderline drafts as I always thought we needed a near perfect draft to clear the AfC review from my previous experience. W.r.t the article, I don't think it's fair to draftify it now as it has passed AfC.
 * I also agree with all of your points except for the paradox statement. I am still thinking about AfD'ing it as the major contributor involved is trying to add back the unreliable sources. I suspect there is a COI as well! Jeraxmoira (talk) 11:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jeraxmoira I won't add any link anymore. I'll ask you in messages to confirm if some links are suitable in your opinion or not
 * like I want to know if this link is legit to add or not
 * http://heritage.eftsindh.com/site/992/matiari/pir-jhando
 * Let me stay away from it let Seniors make changes I'll only add things after confirming if they're OK to do or not thanks again🙂 SaneFlint (talk) 11:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jeraxmoira Sending to AfD because of behaviour is not really a good idea. If you have a policy based reason with the article then I see no reason to object. Editor behaviour should be handled another way 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That was poorly phrased by me, my bad. If it's going to AfD, it will be for notability only. Jeraxmoira (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jeraxmoira notability was verified by @Timtrent I had given bunch of the resources . I don't know why holding grudge with me 🙂 SaneFlint (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @SaneFlint It is important not to take this personally. Jeraxmoira has no dislike of you (or if they have it is not relevant here, though I cannot see why they should). I verified by accepting the draft that, in my personal view, stood a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. It has done so, principally because there has been no immediate deletion process. Now this part is interesting: Even if a deletion process is started now, it is not an immediate process. Pass or fail that process, I have done my job, though that job is for Wikipedia. Your work has been important. It gave me the chance to seek to improve Wikipedia. You drafted it to seek to improve Wikipedia.
 * In the future, short, medium, or long term, others may submit the work as it stands then (which is no longer the draft I accepted) to one of our deletion processes. Absolutely any editor has the right to do this (there are a very few exceptions), and any editor has the right to offer an opinion to 'keep', to 'delete' or simply to offer a comment. This is where self restraint comes in. Of course you will wish to offer an opinion. Be very restrained, and wait a day or two before offering that opinion. It must be based on policy, and should be offered once, and well, Those who say the most, who answer every point, tend to lose the argument. That is the way of Wikipedia.
 * My firm suggestion to you is to consider what you will do next here. Will it be improving articles? Will it be starting a new draft? If you consdier a new draft, read this essay first. There is a process inside it which will help you to succeed,bit only if followed well and if the topic is notable . 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like to improve this article according to reviewers opinion SaneFlint (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @SaneFlint You are at liberty to do so. May I suggest you do this for the next two or three days by planning, and only apply edits to it when you are 100% sure they are within verifiability policy. WP:V is your guide.
 * Let me give you this thought. Often less work is more effective. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * it says **
 * Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences,
 * means it will be reviewed by those who visits daily and published information which I published before will matter? SaneFlint (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @SaneFlint I think we will benefit from an explanation of where we are now.
 * There are no reviewers, not by that title, any more.
 * There are no editors with more authority that any other editor, ever, not even our founder Jimbo Wales
 * Every editor, any editor, may edit any article, provided their edits are constructive, and within policy. Edits that are not constructive or not within policy may be reverted at any time
 * This means that we have a totally self policing encyclopaedia. We must also police ourselves. Policing ourselves leads me to those prior references. I'm not going to look at any in any detail now. I am going to ask you to look at them in detail. Are they what we require?
 * We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
 * So, you must ask yourself two questions:
 * Is this edit, the one you wish to make now, going to improve the article, or is it likely to be criticised by editors, reverted, or perhaps lead to an editor suggesting a deletion process?
 * Is the reference you are going to use compliant with the indented paragraph above?
 * If the answer to either of these questions is negative, then do not make that edit. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * being a heartbroken by all these and people's behaviour. only you were being kind enough here which i truely appreciate. World is not kind enough for a reason. I don't feel good to do anything with Wikipedia for now. feels totally disappointed. I think urdu and Sindhi etc article aren't easy to understand easily for most reviewers. sometimes they deliberately claims that British based writers articles are not allowed even for a source, etc in early morning everything was all good then reviewers came and saw it was entered so they targeted me it's ok they were right I was wrong enough. thanks again🙂 SaneFlint (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @SaneFlint Please do not feel the way, if you are able not to, I mean. Wikipedia is not an easy place, but it is a rewarding hobby.
 * I am English. I see many attempts by those wth English as a second, or third language to get their drafts accepted. Many succeed, as you have done. Some, like you, find the process difficult.
 * Wikipedia is online 100% of the time, globally. It is inevitable that editors will arrive at some point ,and edit any article without mercy. I have created many articles here. Some have been so edited that I do not recognise any of my own words, but that makes he happy. I am happy that I started something that others made their own.
 * Please try very hard to look at it that way. Wikipedia gives us all a chance to be generous. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * thank you. I understand this. I'll control myself and look forward to responding to deletion discussions 🙂 SaneFlint (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * there is now a bar to respond. I'll be able to answer there for once right? SaneFlint (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @SaneFlint It is wise to wait. When you respond, use a few words as you feel will get your point across.
 * I have had articles that I created deleted. It was a choice not to be unhappy about it. I made that choice with pleasure. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * hi
 * you had confirmed everything last night now he's calling notability issue even before accepting it notability was confirmed :( SaneFlint (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jeraxmoira Hi. I think you have deleted my all references and called them unreliable including some were written by British and non British writers.🙂 just to let you know all sources are written after British Raj end. I really need your cooperation on this. SaneFlint (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Kindly keep article content discussions in the article's talk page. Jeraxmoira (talk) 09:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jeraxmoira Sure 🙂 SaneFlint (talk) 09:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jeraxmoira Thank you) SaneFlint (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ISU Skating Awards Review
Hi there,

You reviewed my draft of ISU Skating Awards ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ISU_Skating_Awards ) yesterday and gave the following feedback:

All other considerations apart this needs a careful look. It is meant to be a generic article abut the awards, so why is there a 2024 intro about that venue? Please work on what you want to wrote about before resubmitting. Once you do that we can give it a competent review

Please could you give me some more information on this as not completely clear.

Are you suggesting as the 2024 Awards are yet to take place we can not include any information/placeholders on this for now?

If i was to remove mentions of 2024 Awards would the draft be approved?

Many thanks! RedTSports (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @RedTSports Thank you for asking for more information.
 * Please take a hard look at your "Key Information" section. It sits at the top and makes the draft about 2024. It needs to go, either from there, or, if you judge it to be relevant, to the correct place in the draft.
 * With the draft in whatever that new state is it can receive a competent review, which may point out other areas for attention or may see it accepted immediately. I have not looked at it through that lens, so cannot be more specific.
 * Your task is to look at it through the eyes of a stranger. Ask yourself "Does this make sense?" then ask "Is it readable? Does it invite me in?"
 * I think you might also choose to combine "About" into the lead section by removing the heading there.
 * Come back and ask more when you need to. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for coming back to me.
 * I'm not clearly on the changes - i have removed any mention of 2024 in the intro section and as per your suggestion combine the intro and about information together.
 * Was there anything else for me to look at before i put it in for a review again?
 * Thanks again RedTSports (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, meant to say I am *now clear RedTSports (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @RedTSports I cannot see any difference in Draft:ISU Skating Awards? 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies, have republished, how about now? RedTSports (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @RedTSports I think it now looks to be in a state where another reviewer will either ba able to accept it or to make a further set of suggestions. One point: you link to YouTube inline.  WP:YOUTUBE will help you with understanding Youtube here, and External links will help you understand why we do not link inline. I suggest you handle this before submission.
 * I am assuming to have handled the prior reviewer's comments. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your help and for the note on YouTube, I will review that now RedTSports (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)