User talk:Timtrent

Start a new discussion thread

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 11:35 AM where this user lives. If it's the middle of the night or during the working day they may well not be online. For accurate time please purge the page

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.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

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.

R. C. Bhargava

Hello, hope you are safe and doing fine. Regarding your nomination of this article for deletion, I think you have made a mistake on good faith. Please have a look at my comment and reply me. Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 08:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmorwiki, I disagree. Interviews with the gentleman are primary sources. If you feel the sources are suitable feel free to edit the article and note the discussion that you have done so. My opinion and yours differ. Consensus will decide. Fiddle Faddle 09:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion. I think you havent done proper WP:Before I have shown a source that verifies he was honoured with Padma Bhushan in 2016 which makes him notable. See WP:ANYBIO. Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 09:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmorwiki, I refer you to my previous answer. Fiddle Faddle 09:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 09:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmorwiki, I have corrected my typo above. "note" the discussion. The sense is radically different.

It is fine for us to disagree. That is what consensus is about. Fiddle Faddle 09:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you for tireless good work at the AfC Helpdesk. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a page - Sandeep Aggarwal

Hi Timtrent,

Can you please help me in identifying the issue which are actually making the information promotional? This is my first contribution so it will be learning for me so that I can keep things noted for future work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramesollin (talk • contribs) 17:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesollin, the short answer is all of it. My attention was drawn by the vast number of things that look like references. WP:BOMBARD is the clue here. We require a few high quality references, not a wall of a disproportionately great numbers of references Fiddle Faddle 17:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is really making sense to me. Thanks for this valuable input. I just start reworking on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramesollin (talk • contribs) 18:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesollin, Compare each reference against WP:42. If its fails or is borderline, lose it

For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle Faddle 18:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent, Noted all advises. I'll adopt the same in my review submission for sure.

Language referring to female subjects

Hello, and thank you for the work you do to make Wikipedia better. I just wanted to drop you a line asking you not to refer to female subjects as "ladies" because many women will read it as condescending or belittling. So "the author's book" rather than "the lady's book". I know you have good intentions and did not mean any disrespect, so I thought you might like to know that that could rub some people the wrong way. best, Karen McNeil (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karen McNeil, You bring an interesting perspective, and I know you did it with good intentions. I shall consider your words. Fiddle Faddle 19:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]