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 11:14 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.

Can you take a look at Draft:Tim Sexton?

Hey again,

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

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

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

@JSFarman: I think you have lost focus a little and have tried too hard. I would prune back the citations more than a little. Had I come across this in my normal reviewing I would have pushed it back with a comment about WP:CITEKILL. My view on multiple citations for a single fact is that one is ideal and the best one should be chosen, two are acceptable, three just about scrape in, but more than three make the reading experience judder. My normal advice is either to repurpose the references rendered spare by refining them, or to discard them.

I agree he seems to be notable. I could easily accept it as it is, but would prefer not to until you have taken out your pruning saw. I wold also look at paragraphs which contain lists of folk and see how best to précis them to minimise listography. After all, if he is notable then he doesn't need the lists, and he can't inherit anything from the names in them

I stress that this is just my opinion, and you are free to disagree.

I have set up the talk page with {{Connected contributor}} to reflect your declaration, by the way, and also combined a duplicate reference for you.

I'm not sure it has been hanging around because folk saw paid editing. I think it is not a simple yes or no, and folk shy away from those. I chose to put the review here since you messaged me here. Feel at liberty to copy and paste any relevant parts to the review area on the draft if you wish Fiddle Faddle 14:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

First, I can't believe you were able to put the Keith White article in a few hours. That would have taken me days. Great article (and I'm quite taken with his story).

I added a couple of refs to your Chris W. Allen draft. I haven't had time to do more digging, but I'm certain there are more sources. I totally get the brick wall - I experience it frequently -- but his story is also cool and his mission is noble. Psyched to help you with this. I'll get back to it later today or tonight! Julie JSFarman (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@JSFarman: I met Keith in Dartmouth. I'm one of a team of yacht taxi skippers and was on duty that day, and, not unreasonably, Keith needed assistance to moor his yacht when he dropped in on us. I went aboard to help him. I found him to be tough, switched on, and determined, and probably as mad as a box of frogs! I thought there just had to be an article on him. Like so many articles I've created, I found there was not. I was lucky, and sources fell into my lap. It was the standard "find references and say what they say, using them as citations" thing. But luck was a major factor, though interest in the topic helped! Trying for a DYK on Keith, followed, later, by GA, though I shall need some help for that, probably from WP:GOCE, and a little elapsed time on his voyage will do no harm

Chris Allen is genuinely amazing. I can't imagine going to Kabul to teach journalism, and not even speaking the language. He would deny it, but I find it heroic. And he has been there twice. His blog, something we can't feature, says it all. The students were in rapt attention to him and his translator. They learnt what could be, if only they could make it. Sorry, I am evangelising, but I think you can probably see why I have hit a brick wall. At your discretion, please migrate the userspace draft to the Draft: namespace, or, when you feel appropriate, to the main namespace. And thank you for the additions. I shall go and see if I can add anything. Fiddle Faddle 19:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

A team of yacht taxi skippers?? That's crazy! I don't even know what that means. Although I could probably find out somewhere here.

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

@JSFarman: that is far more than I could have hoped, for which my grateful thanks. You can see why I got stuck. With good fortune others will find things to add to the article. I. of course, cannot, except via the talk page.

A yacht taxi is a small boat (we have a choice of three, one of 19 feet and two of 21 feet in length) used to ferry yacht owners and crew to and from their boats in our harbour. We have a team of about a dozen of us who do this as a part time occupation. This will show you where I am located. Fiddle Faddle 17:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Back to being JSFarman2

I pruned Draft:Tim Sexton as you suggested. I cut down the name-droppy lists, but it's hard to get rid of some of the citations -- he's had a looooooooong career, and there's a lot that I needed to verify. (To be truly entertained, look at the dif -- writing this article has been a process of cutting, cutting, cutting, cutting.) Hoping that it works but always willing to edit again! And not just because I'm incredibly tired of this article and want to be done with it. Aaaarrrrrg. Thank you! JSFarman2 (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Update - the article was accepted by another reviewer! Clearly your advice was solid. Thank you again! Julie — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSFarman2 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@JSFarman2 and JSFarman: This is excellent news. The truism that 'less is more' almost always holds good when we hit an AFC acceptance barrier. I'm glad another reviewer appreciated your work too. We forget, sometimes, that our objective is to get a valid article into main namespace, not to create the best article we possibly can from the get go. Well done. Cutting back material is harder than adding it. Fiddle Faddle 17:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Always harder for me to write less. And cite less! And just one more thanks -- I definitely lost perspective - the pruning was necessary. JulieJSFarman (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@JSFarman: It is even harder to achieve when one is associated with the topic of the article. As is writing sufficient, and, indeed, judging the quality of the references. We become blinded either by the need to say too much or the need to adhere to the rules, and our normal ability to write a decent, neutral, factual, well referenced article deserts us. Fiddle Faddle 14:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft check?

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

@15tinybirds: Wikipedia offers pretty much no help at all. WP:AFC is the best we have, and, to be fair, you rely on a draft catching the interest of a reviewer for much help to be given. The checking of references is, pretty much, down to the contributing editor until the draft is submitted. Then you depend on the diligence of the reviewer.

The problem you have is in the referencing. Solve that and you create a draft that is acceptable. Note, though, that, if this cannot be solved, then the draft cannot be accepted. Ignore all other articles that you have seen that are poor. They annoy me, too. For examples of good referencing have a look at WP:GA and use the ones in your genre as examples. Note, though, that your genre is not music as you might expect, but is corporations. You must demonstrate that you pass WP:CORP

You need to read WP:42 and look at each reference. Does it meet that test? If so, keep it. If not, lose it, unless it meets either of WP:PRIMARY or WP:SELFPUB, but use those sparingly.

I sample checked two of your references:

• http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jason-holmes/andy-crofts-of-the-moons-_b_5196193.html looked promising from the URL but is a passing mention of the org, not significant coverage
• http://www.popmatters.com/feature/194364-adding-color-to-a-world-of-music-andy-crofts-of-the-moons/ was the same

I decided to feed this back to you rather than check them all.

Should this be abandoned? Honestly, I have no idea. It is down to the references. Find ones that comply and there is a very strong probability your draft will be accepted. Fiddle Faddle 08:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@15tinybirds:, I came across your draft in AfC and had intended to review it but got caught up in another project. I just went through the article -- I think the more articles we have on labels, the better --- but the references used simply aren't adequate. I did check them all. Six of the nineteen aren't independent (they're directly related to the label), 11 are not about the label, but about bands who are signed to the label. That leaves two possible sources for notability. Both are interviews - which aren't considered independent -- but even if they were, they're not enough to carry the article.

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

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

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

• Tammy.escalante01 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Tammy.escalante01/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

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

Thank you Tammy.escalanteo1Tammy.escalante01 (talk)

There is, or I think there is. Start by looking at Wikipedia:Education program and work from there. There are education ambassadors who will help you. This is not an area I am familiar with. If you find you need more help to get started ask at WP:Teahouse/Questions Fiddle Faddle 16:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Tammy.escalante01: I see you have already visited the teahouse. Excellent. There may be better advice than mine available there. I wish you excellent results. Remember that Wikipedia is very different from a classroom. While we can facilitate coursework we must always build the encyclopaedia as our first priority. Fiddle Faddle 16:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Timtrent:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Sent to users on my mailing list. To opt-out forever, just remove your name.

Just a bit of Help?

Thanks for welcoming me on my talk page. Though I'm quickly becoming familiar with things, I'm not at a comfortable place yet, and I haven't found a mentor yet. I would appreciate it greatly if you wouldn't mind helping me out on just one thing by looking over the links below to the special article and special redirect page I created, to please let me know,

• What your best criticim/concern may be?
• Whether it would be acceptable to turn them into real articles?
  

User:Layman, Esq./Maxims of the common law
User:Layman, Esq./Rules of the common law

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

@Layman, Esq.: The issue you face is that there is an article Common law. Folk will take some convincing that separate articles on the topics you mention are needed. They, as I have done, will suggest that you edit and improve Common law instead,

Am I missing something? I can miss things. If i am, please be pleasantly blunt! Fiddle Faddle 17:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Faddle:

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

Regards,

Layman, Esq. :(talk) :05:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Layman, Esq.: I never ignore questions. Feel free to ask. If I don't know an answer I will try to aim you somewhere where answers will be forthcoming.

By "folk" I mean editors and readers. I suppose I mean editors, mainly. We, and that includes you, take great pride in doing our best to make sure Wikipedia is all encompassing, but not confusing. Often we succeed.

Common law is something I have a nodding acquaintance with, no more. That knowledge or lack thereof was not an influence. I looked, instead, at whether I believe, certainly at present, that the small snippet you hope to be an article is useful as a freestanding article. I am not yet convinced that it is, but it is "us" you have to convince, not me.

To get eventual approval you need to demonstrate that it is a topic worthy of its ow article rather than a topic that is solely a section of the larger article. Did you know we can redirect to sections in a larger article?

Anyone may create an article directly in the main article space. That used to be the way for everyone, but we started to make life "easier" for new editors by providing reviews. Too many articles that had potential were summarily deleted as being below par. The review process is run by editors whose accounts have been open I think for 3 months and who have some 500 edits in the main namespace to their credit. This is an arbitrary qualification. Anyone with that tally may opt to be a reviewer. We hope they will show an aptitude for the work, but it is not guaranteed. Review and acceptance is the other side of the pancake where deletion is the first side. One needs experience of each in order to do the other, if you follow me. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles.

Submit away. Some of us re-revoew, others do not. I try not to. I believe that new eyes provide a better result for the author and the encyclopaedia. I have been known to be wrong

M of E is a substantially longer article than yours. It does need a clean up because it is essay-like. There is a problem in comparing articles, though. Let me assume it is an awful article. If we used it as a precedent then a slightly worse article could be acceptable, and so on, ad idiocracy

You may ping me with pleasure, but I am not the guardian of your edits. By that I mean that you are as entitled as am I to make any edits you see fit to any article, provided you can justify them, and ideally with references or, better, citations. Always remember that others may edit your edits. If you are about to make a sweeping edit it is wisest to fire a warning shot on the article's talk page and to gauge reaction there. We work on consensus, which may look like a ballot, but is not. Building consensus for a major edit is always a wise thing. Consensus can be nemine contradicet.

Have I covered ll your questions? Do ask more and ask me to explain more. Fiddle Faddle 08:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

My thanks for your guidance

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

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