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 11:54 PM 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, yes it has been indeed a hard search. 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)

It would. The clue is in "NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--" among other things. I have tried to accept the article, but there is something in the way. Please remind me in a few hours when I hope the something will be gone. Fiddle Faddle 07:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Hi, thanks for the update. Was there something wrong with the article format?Fuzzster87 (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Fuzzster87: Nothing wrong with the format. We have an issue harder to solve. The admin who protected Quantium Solutions against re-creation has been asked to unprotect it but has offered an alternate opinion on the new article. I have placed his comment there. He has chosen, as is his right, not to unprotect it, so I cannot move it to the final name. Wikipedia is not, as you are finding, a simple place to write articles. Fiddle Faddle 07:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: It is indeed hard to write articles in this space when things are seen subjectively. So the conclusion is this article cannot pass? Can you explain what he meant by the subject would go better within Singapore Post article with a redirect from QS? What can I do on my end? Thanks for the assitance!Fuzzster87 (talk) 09:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Fuzzster87: You are suffering from multiple creations of the same article. Normally it is not this hard. Normally one creates a draft, fixes most things, and it is accepted, even if there is some way to go towards perfection, even if the reviewer you meet is as pedantic as am I.

What he is suggesting is that you merge the information into the other article, adding a section if necessary. Now he may not be right. None of us needs to be right. I suggest the route forward is to consider his suggestion and to open a dialogue with him. As you know, were it not for the history, I would have accepted the article. However, a thing to know is that, once an article, anything can happen to it, including someone else merging it into the other article. I would have not objected had it been merged subsequently.

Wikipedia can be subjective, yes. The concept is a mixed blessing and the alleged wisdom of crowds can result in moronic stupidity.

That is not the case here at all, that is a general remark, born out of frustration with seeing it at times. RHaworth is a careful and considered admin, and what he says is well worth weighing and discussing, much like you and I are discussing matters. Approach him for advice on his talk page and acknowledge to yourself that either he or you, or neither of you may be correct. There is a route forward. The finding of it is the fun of the chase. Fiddle Faddle 09:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Hi, thanks for the reply. I have actually initated a talk with him previously when I first submitted the article, but at that time I submitted it directly (was not aware of this submit a draft first option). However instead of getting advice the talk became a heated discussion as archived here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RHaworth/2014_May_22#Deletion_of_Quantium_Solutions. I will still try to initiate a conversation as I have very much improved on the article compared to my previous submission, thanks to your help. Just wanted to clarify what you meant as "merge"? I'm wondering if I add a few liners on Singapore Post wikipedia about QS, and link it out as a stub for others to add on it, will that be plausible? Once again, thanks! Fuzzster87 (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Fuzzster87: What I would do if I had spent as much time ofnm the QS article as you have is to take a hard look at the SP article, and create a section for QS. I would then edit QS 'into it' in such a form that it looks and fees appropriate to be a section not a main article. I would take it with all references intact, and copy and paste it into the new section.

Having done that I would place a message on the SP talk page with a heading ==Quantium Solutions== and make a statement that I have added the text for QS into SP after spending some time and WP:AFC where a reviewer determined that this was an appropriate route to follow. Then I would walk quietly away and absolutely ignore any further editing to it.

A final act would be to ask RH to create Quantium Solutions as a redirect to the section of SP, something he can do because he has the power to alter the protection on the QS page.

At this point it is "Job Done". There is nothing left to do. Fiddle Faddle 07:36, 26 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)

Any idea how I can get this article reviewed again, it's been another week? Thanks!

Bbrookler (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bbrookler: I fear there is no way of hastening a review. Since I have effectively participated in the article by offering very specific advice I don't feel able to re-review it myself, as I'm sure you appreciate. Whatever you do, do not re-re-resubmit it. As far as I can tell that changes the submission date to the day you do it and will delay the review. Most reviewers work from the oldest to the newest, though there are exceptions. Fiddle Faddle 19:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the lightning fast reply! Do you know of any other reviewers who could look at this?

Bbrookler (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bbrookler: Many, but none would accede to a request to accelerate matters. This is one area where squeaky wheels tend to receive less oil than any of the others. I'm afraid Wikipedia is an exercise in patience. What I suggest is that, apart form improving the article as you find more references, you ignore it completely. I know Flowboard is your beloved child, but a wikipedia article is truly irrelevant to its commercial success. Treat it as "Job done" until it is reviewed

By the way, as soon as it is accepted, leave it alone because at that point your conflict of interest will become important. In Draft space it is far less so. There are mechanisms for asking for edits to a real article, and they avoid your doing it yourself.

Let me suggest you have some fun. Edit other articles that interest you and improve them. Writing for WIkipedia is a huge challenge and will most definitely improve your own professional copywriting. I speak as a long term, now retired, specialist in bullshit and hype (Marketing!). Editing here meant I was better in real life. I was able to detach myself from the topic and produce what was needed in the tone required. Fiddle Faddle 20:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the calm, measured advice. I will consider it done until I get an acceptance or rejection :) I will look into some other articles to edit as well. Thanks again!

Bbrookler (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bbrookler: It can become quite an interesting hobby, in a geeky sort of way . It also teaches us an awful lot about non face to face communication and how fast that can go wrong. Think of your last poor email experience and you have it in spades! Fiddle Faddle 20:38, 25 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)

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)

Yes, I have read those comments and the links. If you were to provide examples using my article it would be easier to understand entirely what I need to change. While I don't mind revising the article numerous times, it would be better to make all necessary changes at once. Please advise. Guy

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)

Thank you for the correction

Thanks for the correction. It happens to be that my institution is doing a write-up on our school and the founder Mrs. Kehinde Nwani and most of her works are on the net. I know it is a copyright violation as you have stated it but I didn't think in that direction in the first place being that most of what was written about her where interviews conducted with her. I will go on and interview my boss to get better information for the purpose of this write-up and others which will come up in the future. once again, I thank you for the correction. God bless you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinelonma (talk • contribs) 13:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Thanks for the correction. It happens to be that my institution is doing a write-up on our school and the founder Mrs. Kehinde Nwani and most of her works are on the net. I know it is a copyright violation as you have stated it but I didn't think in that direction in the first place being that most of what was written about her where interviews conducted with her. I will go on and interview my boss to get better information for the purpose of this write-up and others which will come up in the future. once again, I thank you for the correction. God bless you. Chinelonma (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Chinelonma: I have no deity, but I thank you for the thought. May I counsel you to create the article in a different manner, please. Find references in the media, online or printed or radio or TV, and use the facts they report to build the article. Write the article withouit speaking to the lady at all, just on what is reported about her. You see we can only go on reported facts, not on first hand accounts. This is the way of the encyclopaedia.

For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every fact you assert requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS

You may also find User:Timtrent/A good article useful Fiddle Faddle 14:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Please check new source

@Timtrent Can you please check new academic study I have added to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:FloraQueen#References

Does it affect notability? What else is missing in terms of sources. Thanks

Theone net (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Theone net: it does not harm it, but the thesis need to have been published and peer reviewed for it to help it. UNreviewed it is an indicator that the organisation has notability, but it is not enough. Reviewed it is better, but not sufficient. I can;t do better than explain what is required. We require sourcing from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42.

In addition the tone is advertorial. You need to edit it to be 'dull but worthy'. Fiddle Faddle 17:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Thesis published where and peer reviewed where? With reviewed peer, do you mean author of this thesis?

@Theone net: The paper needs to have been 'published' in academic terms, and/or 'peer reviewed' in academic terms. The world of academe has mechanisms for papers being published in journals or repute, or of peer review. WHat I suggest you do with this proposed reference is to ask a question at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, showing them the link to the reference and asking if this is a suitable reference. I am not competent to make that call. Fiddle Faddle 08:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

AFD Notice

A draft submission that you had previously declined that was promoted to article space over the suggestions of AFC, Kash Gauni, is now up for deletion. As the commentary from AFC is used as a contributing reason for deletion, please feel free to look in and give your thoughts. Hasteur (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done, and thank you for the notification. Fiddle Faddle 16:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Please solve my "Oops"

I migrated a page to Draft: from a User Page and the User Talk page has come too.

Pages concerned are

• User talk:Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli
• Draft talk:Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli

The user talk page is a redirect PLUS an edit, so I am unable to solve the problem. Please would a very kind admin sew this back together such that Draft talk:Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli is empty, and User talk:Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli has the prior commentary merged into it and, presumably, a history merge performed.

I'm sure it was all my fault. My apologies Fiddle Faddle 17:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking into it... PrimeHunter (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Darn... You're too fast PH... I was going to test a theory of mine that if I was to rollback my semi-automated edit using the actual rollback right, then the only edit on the page would be the move and a MOR could be done to move the talk page back... Oh well, I'm sure another opportunity will arise at some point (or I'll force a use case on testwiki). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks PH. T13, that was beyond me! Well, not really, but let's just say it was! Fiddle Faddle 17:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• A rollback leaves another edit in the page history so I'm pretty sure that wouldn't allow a move over redirect but I haven't tried. Thanks for the explanation about the rewrite script. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Symphony Analytics

HI Timtrent. I noticed you declined the article for creation, Symphony Analytics. I can't find where it is now. Could you point to it, and give me a couple of extra pointers as to what I need to do to fix the issues you have? Thanks PaulinSweden (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)PaulinSweden

 Done message left on your talk page Fiddle Faddle 17:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Appletree Medical Group

This article has references to ten different sources, none of which, as far as I know, have any relationship to the subject. I don't understand how the references could be improved. This operation is being cited in the UK by academics and managers as an example for our NHS to follow. This is a contribution to the WikiProject National Health Service. Can you please make it clearer how you think the article could be improved? Rathfelder (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: I am not sure how I can make it clearer except for going through each source and explaining with precision what is wrong with it. Have you looked in detail at each yourself? Fiddle Faddle 19:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: I have now analysed each reference and commented on the draft. If I have not achieved clarity I will be more than happy is you ask for other eyes, perhaps at the AFC help desk? Fiddle Faddle 22:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Aristedes Metallinos - rejected draft

Dear Timtrent. Thanks for your swift response on my latest draft on the laic (lay) sculptor Aristedes Zacharias Metallinos. Publications about this man are in Greek. I have been striving to arrive at accurate translation, hence the time I am taking. So far as I can discover only one of the references I quoted is on-line - the one by [[ http://www.gbip.gr/book/95557%7CEurydice Antzoulatou-Retsila]]. This link refers to an edited compilation containing the relevant article about the subject, rather than the original article about Metallinos by the same author in 1985.

Eurydice Antzoulatou-Retsila (1985) ‘The folklore of Corfu in the art of the laic stone-sculptor Aristidi Metallinou’, article in Miriovivlos Periodical, issue 7, pp. 37-47

Dr. Antzoulatou-Retsila's reputation as a student, researcher and writer on the study of Hellenistic folklore is established. I am striving to contact her to see if there is an on-line transcript of her 24 page article (with images) about Metallinos. I'm relieved you say this is not essential to establish the artist's notability, but that more of what is written in this and the other article by Mari should be in my submission. Have I understood you correctly?

I will work, as you kindly suggest, on the Mari biography. This is a mere 130 words long (in Greek) containing a rather rough photo of the man's face as a young man and images of some of his sculptures. I can find no on-line record of this book, though I have held Mari's publication - a collection of biographies - in my hands. I will work on weaving this short biography more effectively into the Wikipedia draft.

Metallinos is an interesting man - an artisan who took to sculpture in stone and marble in the last 12 years of his life producing at least 250 works; worthy in my view, and I hope yours, of an entry in Wikipedia. Outside the academic articles I have found, Metallinos' work is almost unknown, being contained in a closed museum, where I have viewed them, in the village of the artist's birth.

Your continued tutelage would be valued. I have made several contributions to Wikipedia, but I am finding this the most challenging. Best wishes Simon Baddeley (talk) 08:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC) Simon Baddeley (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)Simon Baddeley (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Sibadd: There is every reason to have references in Greek, they are allowed. However that does not help when one attempts to assess an article. IT will simply delay matters, but that is fine. Time we have. What we want to achieve is for the raft to be good enough to accept with small risk of nomination for deletion.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Both of those may help you.

Fundamental to any wikipedia article is knowing in the very first sentences why the topic, in this case the gentleman, is notable. We need something like "Aristedes Metallinos produced over 250 sculptures, one of which sold recently for $1,.5m, and is acknowledged as the premier sculptor of Greece" This is patently untrue, but has the notability one requires that one requires

Find any media coverage about him.

Read User:Timtrent/A good article

Have good luck! Fiddle Faddle 13:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Margaret Catherine Alice Hyson article

Hello, Timtrent, I rewrote parts of the article on Margaret Catherine Alice Hyson, and gave additional references. Could you kindly review it again to see if it is ready to be published on Wikipedia? I was participating in the GLAM Wiki - Wiki Pride event yesterday and had hoped to have this article included. Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJentzsch (talk • contribs) 13:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Accepted Fiddle Faddle 13:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Margaret Catherine Alice Hyson article

Thank you for your assistance with this article! This really is a learning process, and it helps to have the guidance of great editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJentzsch (talk • contribs) 13:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Tsogo Sun AfD

You're right, of course. I'll admit I was somewhat irritated at the time, mainly because my request to respeedy the damn thing had been declined, and thought it was probably better to just ping other people than to risk saying something out of line. Also, JamesBWatson had already expressed it far better than I ever would, and I fully expected that the people who had previously flagged or deleted this would speak up.

In case you didn't catch what he said....

That left me with question "are there no suitable sources, or are there plenty of sources, but Alison, lacking experience of how Wikipedia works, has failed to provide them?" so, as I have said already, I made my own searches for sources. Unfortunately, I found very little that was at all helpful. For example, in a Google search for "Tsogo Sun", the first couple of pages of hits included the following: 11 pages at www.tsogosunhotels.com (clearly not an independent source); Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (all of them not independent or not reliable or both); a page at www.bloomberg.com merely giving statistics relating to stocks and financial issue, not substantial coverage; a pdf file at www.discovery.co.za, which is clearly an advertising brochure; and so on... I had to search well down the list of hits before I found things such as http://www.iol.co.za/business/news/sabmiller-reviews-tsogo-sun-stake-1.1676630, which does appear to be an independent reliable source, but it is merely a news report that a business was "reviewing" its stake in Tsogo Sun, and could not possibly be regarded as substantial coverage of Tsogo Sun itself. Wikipedia's notability criteria are often criticised, as many people see them as giving too much weight to subjects that are of trivial importance, but which receive a lot of popular attention, while giving too little weight to more solid subjects of a less popular kind. Many newcomers to editing Wikipedia are surprised to see that even quite a large and successful company may fail to satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards, while many people (including myself) think that Wikipedia gives a ridiculous amount of coverage to utter trivia, such as individual minor characters in cartoon series. However, assessing the subject according to what Wikipedia's guidelines are, rather than what you or I might think they should be, I'm afraid I really cannot see any evidence at all that Tsogo Sun comes anywhere near to satisfying those guidelines. That being so, any article on the subject, no matter how it might be written, would almost certainly be deleted. Saying such a negative thing may seem unfriendly, but in fact I think it would be much less friendly to give you false hope, by advising you on how to improve the article, thereby encouraging you to spend time and effort on it, which would be likely to be wasted time and effort, as the article would be likely to be deleted anyway. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)5:07 am, 12 June 2014, Thursday (15 days ago) (UTC−5)

At the time he said that, I don't know if he was aware that the article had already been created, deleted, and REFUNDed under a different username, and I'm pretty sure he missed that her response was to just cut-and-paste it under a different capitalization. (sigh) Revent^talk 14:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I was really also rehearsing what others will say. Yes, I read it. I also checked all the references. I don't understand why it isn't notable, but it isn't. Fiddle Faddle 14:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

CV

You've just missed a copyvio here. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Well caught. I think I am tired. I saw one of them and decided it was insufficient. You caught the lot. Fiddle Faddle 14:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)