User talk:Timtrent

Messages for Fiddle Faddle and for Timtrent should be left here. This is the home account for Fiddle Faddle, which is both my nickname and my alternate account. When you begin a new message section here, I will respond to it here. When I leave message on your Talk page, I will watch your page for your response. This maintains discussion threads and continuity. See Help:Talk page#How to keep a two-way conversation readable. If you want to use {{Talkback}} to alert me about messages elsewhere, please feel free to do so.

It is 5:16 AM where this user lives. If it's the middle of the night or during the working day they may well not be online

I do not remove personal attacks directed at me from this page. If you spot any, please do not remove them, even if vile, as they speak more against the attacker than against me.

In the event that what you seek is not here then it is archived (0.9 probability). While you are welcome to potter through the archives the meaning of life is not there.

Decline of Quantium Solutions (draft)

Hi Timtrent, would like to clarify that for the university report, it is a published case under Institutional Knowledge(InK) by a reputable university in Singapore (SMU) and its contents are available on many OAI-POH platforms such as Google Scholar. I think this source qualifies as a reputable one? Please advice, thanks! Fuzzster87 (talk) 06:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Fuzzster87: I wonder why you have not linked to the article. It is at Draft:Quantium Solutions

But I asked if it had been peer reviewed, not who had published it. Peer reviewed or not, you need more references from WP:RS for the article to go forward. If you do not it will be challenged there and, potentially, deleted. Being asked to edity now is much more plesant than having to defend against deletion.

Find more references. We require sourcing from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. Then resubmit it after removing any doubtful ones. I try very hard not to re-review articles. You need more eyes than my own, so I am unlikely to re-review it. Fiddle Faddle 07:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Firstly would like to thank you for taking the time and effort to discuss on each individual source and on its credibility. It has been really helpful. I am trying to find at least one more justifiable source to make this article substantial enough. Will notify you when I have resubmitted it. Just for information, it is alright for me to label this article as a stub so that others can work on it in future - ie. when Quantium Solutions undergo new developments etc. Let me know thanks! Fuzzster87 (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@Fuzzster87: The stub flagging is really an esoteric way of saying "This is a short article." and it is fine if you label it. It does not mean that anyone will work ion itr for ages. But they will, sooner or later. Label with pleasure. Good luck with your reference hunt. Fiddle Faddle 06:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Hi, I have found 2 more references for Quantium Solutions, and resubmitted my article. Do let me know if the article is substantial enough, many thanks for the assistance thus far!Fuzzster87 (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Fuzzster87: It looks as if it has been a hard, hard search. If I were to re-review the article now I would have a problem with http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/21/ny-payoneer-idUSnBw216463a+100+BSW20140121 since it is a press release. http://postandparcel.info/31135/news/singpost-“cautiously-optimistic”-after-3q-results/ is fine for me, but ok. It has the look and feel of PR material, but seems to be a report of the formal annual report. If you want to remove the press release one and resubmit and let me know I would feel able to accept it. BUT there is no guarantee that others will feel the same once it is an accepted article, and you should keep seeking and adding references that are independent of Quantium. Fiddle Faddle 06:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Hi, I have removed the press release from the article. Just out of curiosity though, would the following reference http://finance.yahoo.com/news/payoneer-partners-quantium-solutions-inc-180000180.html be regarded as a press release as well? Thanks for the help thus far, I've resubmitted the article as well. Many thanks!

Fuzzster87 (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Please Explain!

Hi Timtrent.

I am so confused, I'm about to throw my hands up in the air. I've heard from so many editors I just don't know which I should look at. Zach said: (talk page stalker) Hi Allen (talk), The decline was in error. I made some minor changes and resubmitted the page on your behalf. (Some of the references have been repeated, but otherwise it looks solid. If someone else doesn't review it shortly I will.) JSFarman (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Then you declined the article? I can't find your comments anyplace and to be honest, I agree with Zach...the submission was "solid."

I beg of you, please help me! My frustration is starting to overcome me.

Thanks in advance. AllenAdcprny2 (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Adcprny2: I'm not surprised you are confused. There seem to be more than one Clipix drafts. I declined Draft:Clipix (2) (note the (2)) whcih was just a procedural thing. I said "A fuller draft exists at Draft:Clipix, and we will pursue that one, please. Feel free to merge relevant sections of this one into it and then blank this page to signify that your work in this draft is finished", which I hoped would be clear. Was I tired and thus not clear? My fault if so

To avoid confusion, look for and at Draft:Clipix, which I think is the draft you want to have accepted. I am offering no opinion on that draft, you have enough opinions already.

Have I managed to explain what has happened and helped you with your confusion? Please tell me of I have or have not. Fiddle Faddle 17:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

By the way, if the draft (2) is the one you want, THAT is fine too! I can probably help you sort that out if you like. Fiddle Faddle 17:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for getting back to me. I would like this entry to be reviewed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Clipix_%282%29 Again, as Zach agreed, the last entry is solid! Zach also said he made some edits and corrections. (THIS ENTRY WAS EDITED: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Clipix) Please tell me the most recent entry can be accepted!! I greatly appreciate your attention and look forward to your response. Thanks Timtrent!!Adcprny2 (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, i've set t up so that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Clipix_%282%29 has been resubmitted. I think it will be reviewed shortly. I won;t review it, it's outside my area of expertise.

Now, the other one. You created it so you can blank it. Blanking it says "I do not want this article that I crated" You can only blank articles you created and with no other edits. Fiddle Faddle 18:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Timtrent:

You're awesome! Thank you so much for your help. I must say, this process is truly confusing! Adcprny2 (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Adcprny2: All would have ben fine had you not created two drafts. It's a pleasure to have been able to help. Fiddle Faddle 19:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

INTEGRIS Health

I think that you have rejected the INTEGRIS Health article unfairly. You are holding it to MUCH harsher standards than any of the other pages that have been posted by INTEGRIS. I have used a variety of links to outside, credible sources and have only cited INTEGRIS when the facts could not be readily validated elsewhere. Furthermore, my citing of LinkedIn was due to the fact that it was the only source by which the information could be validated. I truly appreciate your dedication to Wikipedia and your hard work, but the standards you are holding this article to are not only higher than many other articles I have found on Wikipedia, including other INTEGRIS pages, but also incredibly discouraging. I know you want to hold Wikipedia to the highest of standards, and so do I. I am truly seeking to improve upon Wikipedia and expand upon this wonderful resource. But why would I continue to work so hard only to have my efforts diminished over and over based on double standards and seemingly arbitrary decisions of which facts can only be validated through the company's resources and which may have some other reference somewhere on the internet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhitleyOConnor (talk • contribs) 22:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@WhitleyOConnor: When one seeks a review one asks for an opinion. You have every right to disagree with mine. I have no intention of reviewing the draft a third time. My objective in asking you to edit is to prevent you from having the hurtful process of having to defend a deletion discussion. That is discouraging. Please go ahead and resubmit if that is what you feel is required now. I have no idea what the next reviewer will say because they are a different person. I stand by my opinion, you disagree with it. The way forward is thus to ask for other eyes.

I do take issue with your use of the word "unfairly" because it implies that I am arbitrary in my reviews for all articles, that I have singled yours out for some sort of particular treatment. I am not. I hold all to a high standard, and there is every reason why I should. Imagine what would happen if we lowered the standards? You seem to suggest that lower standard articles should set some sort of precedent. This leads inexorably to Idiocracy.

I can tell you clearly that I have made mistakes in the past and guarantee I will in the future. When I am told of them I admit to them freely. BUt I am not unfair. Fiddle Faddle 22:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Roberta Joy Weir

Aloha TimTrent/FiddleFaddle: I've been working more on my piece "Roberta Joy Weir" Articles for Creation since it was declined; I hope that I have resolved the issues you brought up. After looking at the Catherine Clark Gallery article, I'm wondering if it would be more on point to make the article about the gallery instead of the person (though Betty Parsons was an artist before she was an art dealer...). Thank you for your great enthusiasm for this sprawling behemoth of a project that is WikipediaP.g.duffy (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Aloha TimTrent/Fiddle Faddle, I managed to miss the subject line and posted a msg. to you that is now part of the previous post. I see what an amazingly involved soul you are in this process and I stand in awe. I hope I have been able to resolve the issues you raised with my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Roberta Joy Weir.P.g.duffy (talk) 01:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@P.g.duffy: As far as I can tell you have resolved the issues. The reference list is impossible for me to check. A preference, but not a rule is to have online versions of one's references available where possible. The reason is that we write for the ordinary reader, and they want to look at the references easily. But it is not compulsory. You do need more references, for each fact you assert. We have a higher stahdard of referencing for a living person thang for a thing. I try not to re-review articles so I won't pass by again, but you are welcome to ask my advice.

Should you write about the person or the gallery? Difficult. I suspect the answer is to write about both. The issue in each case is notability. For each you need sourcing from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS. For the person you need every fact you assert to be cited. For the gallery you need most of it to have references, but can get away with a stub article ( short, nit much content) with two good references.

So look for media coverage of each, see what sources exist, and edit the bio, create the gallery, based upon the sources you have. But make sure they are reliable sources

Reading User:Timtrent/A good article may be useful to you, too. Fiddle Faddle 07:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions; I do wish my subject had sought a bit more of the spotlight for herself and her role in things. Ms. Weir is known and referenced online in the Deadhead community, but I don't consider that anything more than passing mentions and not 'reliable sources'; I'll see if I can mine those sources for useful material. I certainly wasn't planning on burdening you to re-review my article, though I will seek your counsel again if that's ok.P.g.duffy (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@P.g.duffy: Good hunting! And of course you may ask me things. I may not have the answers, though :)

I just read User:Timtrent/A good article and see that I have a ways to go yet...White is the new Black!P.g.duffy (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Olé! Or, perhaps, Café Olé! Fiddle Faddle 22:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Found a few online sources; now to figure out referencing them...thanks again!P.g.duffy (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Apologies

Hello sorry I earlier calling you irresponsible. I earlier didn't know that Template:Sleeping Dogs already existed and unnecessarily blamed you. However that template is actually a redirect to Template:True Crime. However I want to create a new template about all the Sleeping Dogs video game in Template:Sleeping Dogs and thus want to ask for the article to be deleted in order to be able to do so. However as you might know I have resubmitted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sleeping Dogs. I thus would like the article's submission to be declined so that I can ask for Template:Sleeping Dogs and after that ask for submit my draft of the new Sleeping Dogs template. I apologize for any trouble I caused you earlier. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: Apologies are always accepted. Thank you. I was aware you were frustrated and smiled instead of being offended. It is the best way to handle things on Wikipedia unless one is truly upset.

What you can do is to edit the template (redirect) you want to repurpose. That is all you need to do . I doubt anyone will bat an eyelid. If they do then discuss it with them. That is part of the cut and thrust of Wikipedia. Fiddle Faddle 10:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

If it were that easy {{Db-move}} wouldn't have existed. I want to make a formal request so that in future nobody says that I changed the content of the article of unfairly just like what I am doing with Resident Evil Survivor 2 Code: Veronica which is also a redirect article. KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: Unless I misunderstand you, {{Sleeping Dogs}} is the page you want to repurpose. If that is correct you do know that all you need to do is to edit it? There is no need to have your new template approved and moved over it, all you have to do is to apply edits to it? Obviously you need to edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Sleeping_Dogs&redirect=no, but you can anyway.

Am I missing a huge point here? Feel free to tell me what I'm missing, but spoon feed me, please. Fiddle Faddle 10:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

What I mean is that just like I have requested Resident Evil Survivor 2 Code: Veronica to be deleted I would like Template:Sleeping Dogs to be deleted. I just want to follow the proper procedure. Also an editor keeps inserting Sleeping Dogs games into Template:True Crime. Template:Sleeping Dogs was created by him. I had moved that to Template:True Crime however that Sleeping Dogs template article still exists as a redirect to Template:True Crime. KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, just go ahead and edit it. That is the action I would take if it were in my way. It is as correct a procedure as any other. Fiddle Faddle 11:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Well alright I'll do that. But can you please decline Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sleeping Dogs that I had resubmitted by mistake earlier? KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done with pleasure. Fiddle Faddle 11:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. When I had moved the template earlier I didn't know that the old name of the template (Sleeping Dogs) would become a redirect to the new name of the template. It was somewhat careless on my part not knowing about such a thing. I apologize again for any trouble you had to go through because of my mistake. KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

We are expected to know everything from day one . This means we learn fast! Fiddle Faddle 18:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on my submittal for Global Warming Deniers

Tim Trent, Thank you for your help on my submittal for Global Warming Deniers. It is my first submittal, and I know it is a controversial subject. However, I have been following this subject for over 10 years, and I think it is important to show that the last 10 years of being a Global Warming Denier was on target despite not being popular. I am an environmentalist supporter, and I support preserving nature, stopping coal mining and fracking and other abuses of our earth. However, I absolutely hate being manipulated for political and economic gains by politicians and big corporations and big private money, as we have been on this issue. My personal Blog at paullitely.wordpress.com shows the results of my research and the sources I have come to see as reliable and accurate. Take a peek and see what you think. I am not giving up on this article. If necessary, and if it makes sense, I can reduce it to something very short to begin with, then expand on it later. My main issue is that if you look for Global Warming Deniers, Wikipedia directs it in the interest of "disambiguation" to Climate Change Deniers, and that is definitely not what we are all about. Who can deny Climate Change??? This linking over portrays us as being idiots. We are not all idiots (we have our share), most of us are very smart, follow the facts, and we hate being manipulated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paullitely (talk • contribs) 12:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Paullitely: I hope you understand that I am not making a comment about the rights and wrongs of the topic, just about the article. As an article we may not ever express an opinion. We must report faithfully what is said in WP:RS, but we may not juxtapose two statements (or more) that synthesise another statement not said by the existing statements. You may record faithfully, provided there is a citation "X holds this to be true." You may record "Y holds that to be true." What you cannot say is "Because of the opinions of X and of Y, then the other is true."

Another thing you need to know before you play i the Wikipedia climate change pond is that this area is as hotly contested by people with stringy held opinions as you can imagine, and that this means it has a discretionary earlier imposition of sanctions against editors who revert what other editors have written in articles. Normally we have a 'there strikes and you are out' rule. In Climate Change we have a 'transgress twice and you are out' rule. There are other areas that have similar sanctions because they, too, are hotly contested.

Should you reduce you r article to bare bones? Yes. But, and this is important, it must be fact, fact. fact, with no opinion, no oratory, nothing. And every fact you assert must be backed by a reference, ideally a citation inline from reliable sources. We require sourcing from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please.

Learned papers, unless peer reviewed, are primary sources. They can only be references in very restricted circumstances if they have not been peer reviewed. It is quite important to cite the reviews when citing a paper.

If you can achieve this, and with a comp[act article title, then you will have done extremely well.More power to your elbow. And, to be clear, I gibe you this advice whether I agree with your topic or not. It is important that you understand that, whatever my private opinions, opinions on which I will not be drawn, for Wikipedia I am independent.

Does this help? Fiddle Faddle 18:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Ann M. Ravel

Hi Timtrent -- Why does Ann M. Ravel not meet the GNG requirements? She is the vice chair and one of the six President-appointed and Senate-confirmed commissioners of the independent federal agency (FEC) responsible for enforcing federal campaign finance regulations. Four of the six commissioners currently have pages. See Matthew Petersen, Caroline Hunter, Ellen Weintraub, and Steven Walther. Is there a reason to believe that Ann Ravel is somehow less noteable than the other commissioners on the FEC? Horaceswithin (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Horaceswithin: While I understand that other people have articles, no Wikipedia article sets a precedent for any other. It is good to query notability. It is not an entitlement. So I queried it. If you are certain that she is notable please resubmit at once. To me she is an unremarkable public servant. To you not. This is good and healthy difference of opinion. Fiddle Faddle 20:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Udutu

Thank you Timtrent! I will do as requested for the article!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole Cuillierrier (talk • contribs) 21:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nicole Cuillierrier: This is all working towards your achieving a great article, assuming Udutu to be notable. Take t slow and steady, there is no rush. Fiddle Faddle 21:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Evolution, entropy and the second law of thermodynamics

Draft:Evolution, entropy and the second law of thermodynamics

Working on encyclopedic style. If I have not got it yet, could you give me a specific correction from which to learn? The submission heavily draws heavily from one published article and may appear to favor a point of view since it is recent (February 2014) and original. However, the thinking seems to be well within the scientific mainstream. LEBOLTZMANN2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LEBOLTZMANN2 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@LEBOLTZMANN2: I believe your tone is substantially better. It now requires a reviewer more specialised than am I to determine the route forward. The best place to ask for that is the Live Help Chat link in the second box at the top of the article. I am incapable of making a competent review of this article as it stands today. Fiddle Faddle 07:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

how to resubmit?

Thank you for reviewing my article. I have revised it and am trying to resubmit it. I am having difficulty figuring out how to do that. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aasd3511 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Aasd3511: You had lost the review from the top (a format was malformed, which you objected to quite reasonably). I have reinstated the review information, fixed the format and noticed that you also created a new sandbox version. I have reviewed that as a duplicate of the prior submission. That prior submission has the resubmit button replaced and you may resubmit it with pleasure. I try not to re-review,. so another reviewer will take it on. We do try very hard to keep review history in place until the article is accepted. Fiddle Faddle 07:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Tim, Should I go to Teahouse to get help with my post?

Tim, Should I go to Teahouse to get help with my post about Global Warming Deniers? I do wish to present facts, with references, and I do not want to break any rules inadvertently. I tried to post my pic on teahouse, but I got a message that I had not been "Approved" yet. I have made some minor changes to pages.. adding a reference, etc. I read that making more contributions is important.

BTW, I changed the page on Wikipedia that describes how to edit with a note to everyone how important it is to preview your post before Saving it. I found that there are hidden formats that can be disturbed inadvertently, for example.

Again, thank you for your help. Yes, I want to just present the facts, and they are very clear and simple today, so that should be easy. Still, I am not wanting to have to deal with Peer Review, so how do I avoid it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paullitely (talk • contribs) 05:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Paullitely: I think that to be an excellent idea.

When you say "I am not wanting to have to deal with Peer Review,", do you mean that you do not wish to go through the Wikipedia review process? Is so I can say clearly that you are entitled not to, and may, once your account has the right status, something it does after a set number of edits and an elapsed time period, create an article directly in the main article space.

Let me explain, though, why I think you should not do this.

Your article is contentious because it is in a contentious topic. It is written in such a manner that it would be subject to immediate deletion (0.9 probability), and that really hurts. The Wikipedia Articles For Creation review process is intended to guide you in the ways of WIkipedia and to help avoid the pain of deletion. No matter how many times an article is pushed back at review this hurts far less than being deleted.

There is one deletion process, WP:AFD, that prejudices the community against re-creation of the same article. If it were to be deleted by that route it would be very hard to re-create it. This has been created as a rule by consensus.

So yes, go to the teahouse. Ask for help. Take all the advice on board and all the help. Fiddle Faddle 07:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Tim,

What I was referring to with regards to peer review was a requirement I read somewhere here that if you include a publication, to check if it has been peer reviewed, and if not, it may not stand. if it has been peer reviewed, to go out and find and include the peer review info. I was not thinking of bypassing wikipedia peer review at all. Did I misunderstand this including or referencing publications peer review issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paullitely (talk • contribs) 09:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

No, you have it correct. Glad I misunderstood you.

BTW, no need to start a new section each time. Just follow the old thread and use the : character to achieve indents. Fiddle Faddle 09:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

AFC

Hi Fiddle Faddle,

Thank you for your suggestion. I have done a ton of work with sports-related articles and I know very well what and what isn't notable so I will bypass the AFC process if I know it will be notable enough. If I do create articles other than sports (which I rarely do), I prefer to send it to AFC to give suggestions. Thank you for volunteering your time to read my articles submitted to AFC. Robert4565 (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Smith Monitoring

Hi Tim, I believe I have updated the sources that you were questioning on my Smith Monitoring draft? Please let me know if there is anything else askew.

Thanks

Zain.siddiqui17 (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Zain.siddiqui17: I question http://www.inc.com/profile/smith-monitoring as a directory entry, same in a way with https://www.trustpilot.com/categories/security (yes, I know they lead the pack, but it is a passing mention only, not being about themexactly, http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/03/20/i-team-why-security-alarms-are-going-unanswered/ is barley more than a pasisng mention though it does mention their size. http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/05/10/dallas-based-alarm-company-providing-free-alarms-for-those-in-need/ is sort of about SMith, but it reports in a clever PR campaign. http://www.securitysystemsnews.com/blog/monitoring-company-employs-social-media-savvy-help-those-need is a blog, so it depends on the track record of the blog author, and it seems not to want t load for me anyway

There's a lot to referencing, isn't there? The upshot is that, if I reviewed it again I would not yet be ready to accept it. Yes, we have a high standard, but the objective is to make the article stick, not be deleted as soon as it arrives. Being deleted HURTS. Being asked to re-edit is simply a task to be done. Fiddle Faddle 16:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tim, I'm not sure what else I can take out in terms of the references? They are all the most reputable sources available to highlight the overview of our company. There aren't any articles written about Inc or Trustpilot, it just highlights the awards for our company. Would it be preferred that I remove that from the article altogether? The blog that you question 'securitysystemsnews.com' is a highly regarded website in our industry also. I am more than happy to change the article, I just don't have any other references. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zain.siddiqui17 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC) Zain.siddiqui17 (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Zain.siddiqui17: Try the links here: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. The problem is you may find that you are just not notable. I know that appears to suck, but, if solid references can;t be found, that is the conclusion one has to draw.

Now do not panic. I've given you an analysis as I see it. Others may form a different view. This is why I try not to re-revioew articles very often. The more eyes the better the advice. Maybe resubmitting would work here and you get lucky? I'm known for being picky, and that is no bad thing

Don't be in a rush to rip references away, but try, try and try again. There must be something in your state's major press about you?

One question to ask yourself "Why does the corp need a Wikipedia page?" Itls a serious question. Most business do not need (or even merit) one. You'll be in great company with or without a page. Fiddle Faddle 18:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

regarding recent submission rejection

Hi there

Thanks for the quick review. I made some edits to the language and added a couple more references and hope the tone is neutral and acceptable.

- Brent  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbrookler (talk • contribs) 17:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC) 

@Bbrookler: A great deal better in my eyes. The opening para about 'leading', though. You need to think "Dull but worthy" as of you were sitting suffering the most tedious powerpoint presentation of all time. Let me try:

We have "Flowboard is a leading interactive presentation app and platform built first for the iPad and web. Flowboard allows users to create, publish and share presentations through their cloud-based SaaS system. Flowboard is the first presentation software to allow embedding of PDFs, video and gallery objects in easy linkable screens, defining modern interactive presentations. Flowboard grew out of Treemo Labs."

Now here's my go at it:

"Flowboard is an interactive presentation app and platform for the iPad and web. It allows users to create, publish and share presentations through their cloud-based SaaS system. Flowboard is the first presentation software to allow embedding of PDFs, video and gallery objects in easy linkable screens, defining modern interactive presentations<boy does that 'is the first' stuff need a reference, otherwise you have to lose the "is the first" element>. Flowboard is also the new name for Treemo Labs"

Not much different. A few subtle changes can remove advertorial and peacock words and render it dull and lifeless, or, as we say, WP:NPOV. And yes, I know precisely how hard this is. My career was in sales and marketing! If you can wrote for Wikipedia then your bullshit and hype (oops, "Marketing") will be far easier to write. A paradox, but it works. Fiddle Faddle 18:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again! I made edits per your advice here. I seem to have made a mistake, I meant to have the page be /wiki/Flowboard_Presentation_Software but it looks like it is /wiki/Flowboard - how do I remedy this? Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbrookler (talk • contribs) 21:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Fiddle Faddle 21:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Maryann Krieglstein

Thanks you very much for your review. I just want to clarify: You're saying she is wp:notable but the article as written lacks proper independent citations? --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dkriegls: I believe the lady to be notable, yes. I think you just need to solve the referencing dilemma. I try hard not to re-review articles, so forgive me if I stand back having given you pointers. Fiddle Faddle 20:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand, you were beyond helpful. I assumed I was being over inclusive due to my COI (even if I tried my best not to). I will work on getting those better references (that mention her) and cut out the "blot" of info not supported by the references, and then ask some editors I've worked with before to reveiw it. I was avoiding working with editors I know because I didn't want my former relationship with them to be an issue with assessing my COI editing. An additional question if you don't mind: I'm new to the Articles for Creation process and was treating it as a "Peer Review" for a draft I had a major COI with, in order to get honest feedback. Do you see this as an appropriate use? I wasn't sure, as I almost never use Drafts, because I usually avoid COIs like the plague. Thanks --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 21:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

AfC is a great way of handling COI issues. One is somewhat protected from accusations of COI when one uses it. I think you chose wisely. Fiddle Faddle 21:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Great! Thanks and good to know. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Help With Wiki Draft

Hello, You reviewed my draft:

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

Can you please give me at least one concrete example of what you mean by "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations."? I do not understand whether you mean that the reference themselves are bad or that the way I cite them is bad.

Levygametheory (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Levygametheory: I did leave a fairly detailed comment below the box. If you have read that and still do not understand please come back to me and I'll try to do better. Fiddle Faddle 20:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, that clears. I wasn't sure if the comment was in addition to a problem with the way I did the citing or if that was the problem itself.

However, I'm afraid I still don't understand. For I quote from wiki policy:

"Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been vetted by one or more other scholars."

Hence, I do not understand why referencing a paper from a peer-reviewed journal - where I do little more than state what the paper demonstrates! - is not viable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levygametheory (talk • contribs) 21:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Levygametheory: As I said "However, a review of his work by others tends to be a review of him and his methods, so is a reference." The trick is to show that the paper has been peer reviewed. Complex or what? Fiddle Faddle 21:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

As you can see, all of the references pertaining to the "Research Contributions" (I assume the ones in the biography are OK, since although I do refer Neyman's personal CV I do so in addition to a multitude of other independent references) are from journals which are peer-reviewed to a high standard: Econometrica, Journal of Economic Theory, etc; reference 13 is a respected press (and, in any case, I only cite this book to state that Neyman has edited the book). From reference 10 onwards, all references except 12 (which is a technical report) are in journals that are well-known to be peer-reviewed - how could I possibly do more? For each journal I reference should I add a link to its homepage so one can see that it is is indeed a peer-reviewed journal?! I have never seen such a thing on wikipedia.

You can also see other pages, for example:

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

I cite references just as peer-reviewed as that one, or any of a hundred thousand other wiki pages on academics.

Levygametheory (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

If you are confident that your references are excellent then pace a comment at the head of the article saying that they are most definitely in peer reviewed journals (etc) and resubmit with leasure. Do not forget to sign the comment using ~~~~ which turns automagically into your signature. The ideal format for the comment is {{Afc comment|1='''Author's comment: <your words go here> ~~~~}}. Fiddle Faddle 21:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Econometrica

Econometrica is peer reviewed as appears here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econometrica Journal of economic theory here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Economic_Theory And so on. One only needs to brows Wikipedia to acknowledge that (assuming that Wikipedia is good enough to serve as source for that...). I have read your objections and have not yet seen any concrete example that the proposed page violates Wikipedia's regulations. Have any? Please educate me. Otherwise, why not publish? OEdhan (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@OEdhan: I think you have recently created an account. That's excellent. But I cannot determine what the article is that you have a query about. Please link to the draft article so I can answer your question. There is no way I can identify it otherwise. Fiddle Faddle 22:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, light dawns. You have come to have a moan about an article I have been in discussions with the author about. It has been dealt with. What was the point, though? Is it important to you to restart a discussion that is over? Fiddle Faddle 22:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Buldana Urban Cooperative Credit Society

Respected sir

thanks for your reply. Please don't delete the article. i will try my level best to add more references to the article. we are new to the Wikipedia we don't have clear idea to Wikipedia works..so please give us some time to add more references.

one more request sir it is possible to keep photograph of our chairman and managing director on our article. previously i placed but somebody deleted. if possible we will if not no problem. just kind request.

thanks & regards V S Dongre.

Vsdongre (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Vsdongre: I am not about to delete the article. I have given my opinion in favour of keeping it. Wikipedia works by consensus, and I think it is likely that the consensus will keep the article. Since you are new to Wikipedia, may I suggest WP:Mentoring to allow you to learn how it works.

I have no opinion on the photographs you mention

I have a feeling that you work for the organisation. May I advise you to leave the article to others now. You have a conflict of interest, something that was not important while it was a draft, but is now very important now it is a real article. Fiddle Faddle 23:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Respected sir

Thanks for help 106.78.220.221 (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Admin help needed

I made a mistake accepting Megalocoelacanthus by instead accepting it as MCDinosaurhunter/sandbox and ether I or the AfC move process (probably not the latter) have/has created a redirect situation I cannot undo. The objective is to have the article at Megalocoelacanthus please.

I am obviously too tired to edit today! Fiddle Faddle 22:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done -- Diannaa (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

my wikipedia submission denial...

I basically used the same format for my submission as Franco Donatoni and william bolcolm with my own hyperlinks

I would like to create a wikipedia page, as my name has been linked on another page, and would like to have content... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donaldjstewart (talk • contribs) 00:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why it wasn't accepted...please advise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donaldjstewart (talk • contribs) 00:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@Donaldjstewart: Wiser by far to leave the creation of an article about you to someone else. Autobiographies are firmly discouraged. It is highly unlikely that one can write in a neutral manner about one's self. One also tends to have an inflated view of one's notability. I have left a further comment on the bare draft you created. Fiddle Faddle 06:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

thank you for the clarification — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donaldjstewart (talk • contribs) 04:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Hello Tim,

Thanks for reviewing my second attempt at the Berkeley Partnership article. It's my first post so I'm still getting to grips with how to construct a decent and acceptable article. I will have a go at converting all in-line links to references and will remove the link to the FT.com article as it forces registration before letting you read. Annoying!

Cheers

Ahar78 (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ahar78: references behind forced registration are fine, though I happen to prefer not having them as references just to spite them! User:Timtrent/A good article may help you. Fiddle Faddle 12:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I logged in on another PC, and it has an older version of my work in sandbox. How do I get to work on the same version?

Tim,

I logged in on another PC, and it has an older version of my work in sandbox. How do I get to work on the same version on this PC, or should I just stick to my laptop? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paullitely (talk • contribs) 06:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

@Paullitely: The sandbox is not, of course, stored on your PC or laptop. It seems as if you may be suffering form persistent cache in your browser. Since this is a local computer issue I do not have the expertise to help you. There has to be a way of clearing your cache on your local machine, but I do not know it. Fiddle Faddle 13:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Remotely fueled spacecraft propulsion

Tim, you have a comment on my article indicating that you need to be shown the work is not [WP:OR] I have responded to that, but I have not seen your presence back on the page in a couple days. If I could get you to return and either remove your comment about [WP:OR], or clearly point out a section that needs work, I would appreciate it.Matthewhburch (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

@Matthewhburch: I rarely review articles for a second time. My comment is there for you, primarily, and future reviewers second. Your job is to convince the world, not just me, that this is not original research. I have visited the page, yes, but see no further need to comment. It is the article that must convince future reviewers. My comment is there for historic reasons until such time as the article is accepted from the draft state.

The purpose of the draft and review process is to seek to ensure that articles are not proposed for deletion once they are accepted. Your draft would have been discussed to death and then deleted (0.9 probability). Having it pushed back to you one or more times for edit is painful, yes. Having it deleted really hurts badly. Trying to defend in a Wikipedia deletion discussion is not easy for new editors. The review process is a microcosm of the deletion process. The expected outcome is eventual acceptance of all but impossible articles. There are articles it is impossible to accept. Make sure yours is not one of them. Fiddle Faddle 21:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Tim, I need you to specifically indicate what it is that you see which you believe is [WP:OR]. If you cannot provide an example of what it is that you see as being [WP:OR], then I need you to remove the content and either accept the article, or provide another reason for delay that I can address. I do not believe that requesting that you be specific in an addressable manner is too much for me to ask. Matthewhburch (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I view the entirety of the article to be an essay and WP:OR. To be clear, that is all of it, 100%. My view is that you may be able to salvage it, but that it cannot be accepted in its current state.

You have resubmitted it for review. I suggest your route ahead is to await that review, a review which will look at the draft as it stands today. If the next reviewer shares or disagrees with my views, that is fine. My view is that the draft, as it stands today would fail at WP:AFD, were it to be in the main article namespace.

My comment forms part of the history of the reviews. It will not be removed. I may, at my sole discretion, offer further commentary later. Fiddle Faddle 21:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Is acceptance of articles into Wikipedia arbitrary? I would have thought that it would be based on the article. If you cannot describe the problem, then it's arbitrary. If you can describe the problem, than I ask you to do so. Matthewhburch (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Acceptance of articles is based on the reviewer's opinion, or the eventual opinion after multiple reviews. We use experience of what is and is not acceptable coupled with policies and guidelines. We get it right most of the time. When we get it wrong others put that right. IT can be viewed as arbitrary with guidelines/

Retention of articles is based upon consensus. There is either a tacit consensus not to nominate an article for deletion because, to every editor who views it there is evidence that it is a clearly acceptable article, or one editor nominates it for deletion, of which there are three forms:

• Speedy deletion, a clear failure of rigidly defined criteria - WP:CSD
• Proposed deletion, a mechanism which may be opposed, perhaps arbitrarily, by anyone - WP:PROD
• Articles for Deletion, a process with a nominator and their rationale, a discussion for at leats 7 days, and a consensus based verdict summarised and close usually by an administrator - WP:AFD

So there you have it. Acceptance has a degree of the arbitrary about it, but the retention or deletion of articles is consensus based. An article having been deleted at WP:AFD, it is very hard to re-create it. There are, again, rules.

I have described the problem. My opinion on the drafts is that, even as it stands to day, 100% of it is an original research based essay. This is a very specific description of the piece. Indeed, you have been given the links to follow:

• Wikipedia:NOTESSAY#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought
• Wikipedia:No original research
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:Encyclopedic_style#Information_style_and_tone

These are directly i the box declining the article. Then, ion the comment I have shown you Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. I am not a tutor. I cannot teach you how to write here. WP:Mentoring can, however. Perhaps you shoudl follow the various routes for assistance. Fiddle Faddle 22:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The majority of your argument above seems to be based on the idea that this is original research. Please note that [WP:OR] clearly indicates that verifiable information and routine calculations are not original thought.

As for the neutral point of view, as noted above, everything in the article is either a clear statement of fact or a routine calculation. If you find something that is not, then I would ask you to clearly point it out.

I do not expect you to teach me how to write. I expect you to clearly point out actual problems.

Please provide a link to the Wiki rule that I must keep already-addressed comments of a person who is no longer reviewing a article on a draft page. Matthewhburch (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You will find that consensus dictates it. Barrack room lawyering here is pointless. Fiddle Faddle 22:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I am more than willing to discuss the article, but I've already refuted your comments in a way you have been unable to address in any other way than a snarky comment about Barrack room lawyering. I have also edited the page to remove essay-like structures, and given you ample opportunity to defend your comments, which you have not been able to do. My challenges to WP:OR above, remain unanswered once again.

Since you have provided a snarky answer rather than a link to the rule for your claim that I must keep already-addressed comments and rejection notices in my draft, I am now going to once again delete your commentary and the old rejection notice. Please do not restore them unless you can point me to a rule which indicates that I must maintain them in my draft content. Matthewhburch (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You must do as you see fit. You have only refuted my opinion in the way that satisfies you. Other reviewers will look at your draft. It is likely but not certain that they will restore all prior comments as is customary. We usually check the entire article history when we make a review. IT is not as if any of this stuff is actually important. Fiddle Faddle 23:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

If you can only supply arbitrary arguments against a draft, then your comments have no place there. I have advised that the article is not WP:OR because it is verifiable data and routine calculations. You have not addressed that, despite the fact that I have pointed out the statements in WP:OR that verifiable data and routine calculations are not grounds for classification as WP:OR. As long as you refrain from adding unsubstantiated claims that the article is WP:OR, there will be no further need for discussion between us. That being said, I would appreciate an apology for your snarky attitude. Rudeness says more about the one being rude than the one that the rudeness is directed at. Matthewhburch (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You do have a way about you, don't you? Everything has to go the way you want it. Sometimes it will. Wikipedia, though, is a tough place to work. It's different from anywhere else you have ever worked (0.9 probability). I'll be interested to see what others think of your draft. Fiddle Faddle 23:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

More snarky comments? Despite your own statements at the top of this talk page? You do yourself a disservice. It is by no means necessary that everything has to go the way I want it. I've been around for enough decades that I've learned that lesson quite nicely, thank you. At the same time, I don't accept arbitrary reasoning as a substitution for reasoned thought, especially in arguments against me. Matthewhburch (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Input on Submission

Thanks for your input on my recent submission-- it was exactly what I was looking for. I agree with you entirely. I will clean up the article, add more references, and resubmit. I am working on this in my spare time so it will be a long time in the works! I have met George and am working on this with his permission so getting all the facts straight is important to both of us. Thank-you again. Sincerely. WebspinnerLlewellyn (talk) 10:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@WebspinnerLlewellyn: I'm glad I got it right for you. Read User:Timtrent/A good article, too. And, as for time, you have it in spades. Good luck with the article, Getting it right is hard work. Fiddle Faddle 10:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Elizabeth Taylor

I guess I don't understand this yet. I submitted a correction on a factual error regarding Elizabeth Taylor, her contract with MGM, her free agency, etc. The info. is wrong in the article, Suddenly, Summer was a Columbia Picture, but MGM was still calling the shots. She couldn't appear in another studio's film without MGM agreeing to loan her out. My info. is correct. Robert L. Brunelli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunfighter1 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Sunfighter1: So, as I am sure I suggested, please correct the article. WIkipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. Go to the relevant article and click the 'edit' tab, and take it from there. Even when your information is correct you still need references. Fiddle Faddle 08:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Polystar article - comments on declined submission

Hi Timtrent,

I saw that you edited my article, which is great. Thanks for doing it so soon after submission. This is my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Polystar

You left some comments which I'm not sure I fully understand. I think it would be beneficial for you to give specific examples of my issues with sources. I have used all the sources I had available, none of which are related to the subject of my article.

I don't mind revising it numerous times, but I need a little more help.

Best,

Guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy redmill (talk • contribs) 08:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Guy redmil: Before I go into any more detail, of which there is not much, did you read the specific comment under the 'decline' boxes? It was intended to be as specific as possible, but I am happy to explain further once I know you have read it and the links it gives you. Fiddle Faddle 08:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Buyer (disambiguation)

I don't understand what you're saying. "The two pages..." There are four pages: buyer, buyer (fashion), Franklin Pierce Buyer, and Steve Buyer. All of them are on different topics, and buyer would appear to be primary. There's nothing in my submitted disambiguation page that belongs in the buyer article, except for the single lead sentence to clarify what the primary topic is, and that's normal. You wouldn't remove "A tree is a perennial woody plant" from tree (disambiguation) just because it's already in tree. If I would follow your advice and turn buyer into a disambiguation page, where would I put its current contents? We'd have to move the page (and then put a disambiguation page there), or we'd have to create a mess by performing a copy/paste move. 149.160.173.187 (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Then feel free to resubmit. My opinion may be incorrect. Fiddle Faddle 14:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

ECB

I agree with you - and can't see where DGG got the idea that it was copied from here. I've deleted as a copyvio of a different site which is even less likely to have been copied from here than the livingtemples one. I also reserve the right to be wrong... Peridon (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding my article

I want to change the name of the article from Rajiv Gandhi Rajiv Gandhi Rajiv Gandhi International Cricket Stadium to Rajiv Gandhi International Cricket Stadium (Dehradun). How can I do it i am getting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshhussey (talk • contribs) 16:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Harshhussey: All things cna be changed but you may not yet have the rights to move an article to a new name. May I counsel you against moving an existing article without requesting a consensus on the article's talk page. If it is your own sandbox you speak of, while I can move it to a new name as a draft, I will not because I believe that you need to edit the existing article. Fiddle Faddle 17:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Question about linking to corporation website

Hi,

A draft I submitted ("Vident Financial") was rejected for the following reasons:

"The corporation's own web site is invalid as a reference. We require sourcing from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it"

Obviously, I understand why information needs to come from a third party, but in this case it's literally just a description of the company. I've noticed a handful of other similar companies who use references to their own website for non-qualitative, technical descriptions of their operations. Any clarification you can offer on this point would be helpful and appreciated. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TWTCommish (talk • contribs) 17:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@TWTCommish: One may use the org;s own site sparingly as a reference, but you have it as 66.667% of your references. I quote understand why you would compare similar articles, but consider this: If we allow a poor article to set a precedent for accepting a new article the quality will degrade because the precedents degrade in quality. The trick to getting an article accepted here is to get many reliable and independent references. At present Vident is displayed as a run of the mill financial services company. While it does not need to be unique to merit a WIkipedia article it must be notable, and nothing in the article nor the references asserts notability. Reading User:Timtrent/A good article may be beneficial. Fiddle Faddle 17:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: 66.67% seems like a pretty loaded way to say "2 out of 3," especially given that the small number there is a reflection of the fact that it's a simple entry (which is by design, given that it was flagged for being too much like an advertisement when it was more detailed). As for noteworthiness, a perusal of coverage on ETF sites should more than establish that. I'll assume, then, that referencing another of these will suffice and will resubmit shortly. User:TWTCommish

I try very hard not to re-revoew articles, so I wish you joy. How is 66.667% different form 2 out of 3? One in three is a good reference in the revision I reviewed. Fiddle Faddle 17:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: It's not technically different, hence the word "loaded." :) It'd be like saying "100%" for 1 out of 1. Nevertheless, I'm editing it now. User:TWTCommish

Tehanim/sandbox

Not sure how this article shows any evidence of meeting WP:GNG, or why it was moved to this title. Was it just an aberration on your part?! I guess an alternative to speedy deletion would be to move it back to AfC to give the author a chance to improve it. Sionk (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Sionk: Total brain failure on my part. I think I have undone it (though am checking) and also apologised to the author. Thanks for spotting it. Good catch. Fiddle Faddle 19:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)