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 9:09 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.

Draft:Unipart Group

Thanks, that's really helpful. I am absolutely trying to avoid conflict of interest and have tried to avoid puff. I will follow the steps you've outlined and, once again, I'm very grateful for the help.

Fxdn (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)FXDN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fxdn/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fxdn (talk • contribs) 10:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Now at Draft:Unipart Group Fiddle Faddle 10:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Timtrent,

Sorry to trouble you and thanks for responding to my submission. I'm not an experienced editor and I'm not sure what to do at this stage.

Would it be more appropriate for me to edit the existing page myself making the changes and adding content?

BTW I tried to use the live help chat but I really couldn't see how that worked!

Many thanks in advance for your time and patience in helping with this

regards Frank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fxdn (talk • contribs) 10:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@Fxdn: Always trouble me! Well, not always, but you know what I mean. The route forward is simple. I remember that you have declared yourself to be fro Unipart and wish things to be corrected. Wisely you wish to avoid conflict of interest. You probably won;'t be surprised that we have a mechanism for that. It is {{Request edit}}, deployed on the talk page of the article.

Here is how to use it:

• Go to the article's talk page, and start a new section
• Make the same statement as you did declaring your Uniparrtness and desire to correct items
• Deploy {{Request edit}},
• For EACH edit that you wish to make, show the before item, probably a whole paragraph, and the desired after item. It would be wise to title each ===Requested edit 1===, 2, etc, for clarity
• If you have references embedded in the changes you wish to make (and I hope you do), deploy {{Reflist}} at the foot of your requests, but above the next bulletetd 'instruction'
• At the foot, ask people politely to consider the edits and to make them if they agree with them and sign the post using ~~~~, which turns automagically into your signature.
• Monitor the article and talk page for discussions and changes but do not be at all surprised if nothing ever happens. Also do not be surprised if your wording is change (etc)

What happens next depends solely on the cadre of editors who watch the page. If nothing happens at all for a couple of weeks give me a shout and I'll try to work out the right route to cause action. We ought at least to see people discuss the proposed edits even if they choose not to perform them Fiddle Faddle 10:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@Fxdn: too late at night for me to help you today, but this did not go the way I expected. I expected two things, one I stated the other I did not.

I expected you to follow my instructions literally. You embroidered them, That was the one I stated and the embroidery caused failure.

I expected you to use the text from the EDIT window in each article, not the finished text. Thsi is why the format is, well, crap. This is the one I did not state.

Do not bother about the contents page or the LIST of references. If you use the edit window text the references will come with you

I have a busy weekend. I suggest you revert Talk:Unipart to the version before you started, then do ONE and preview it. Follow my instructions literally, and step by step. Fiddle Faddle 23:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the talk page there. Start again with a clean sheet. Fiddle Faddle 23:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Invercargill Brewery

Thanks for your suggestions. Hopefully I've got it right this time around!Additionally (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done @Additionally: Promise kept Fiddle Faddle

Thank you so much!!! My first Wiki published article. Have a lovely weekend. 103.29.31.21 (talk) 08:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

help me please

Hi Fiddle Faddle, I am a newbie and am trying really hard to improve the micro jobs page that is marked for deletion. I have added a lot of sources, and valid "see also entries" and hopefully some facts you will like. Please help me. As I said, I am new and really need some guidance. Thank you! Kendeyl (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kendeyl: I'll have a look at it. Micro job's references needed more than [1], [2], so I am starting with that. Even Forbes put it in quotes, though, signifying that it is a neologism. And it was WW1 that started by women entering the previously male workplace.. I have removed the places where WIkipedia was used as a reference. We may never use WIkipedia that way because it is not a reliable source.

It;s not whether I like the facts or not. The issue is how the facts are referenced and how they are used.

Starting with referencing, every fact you assert requires a reference. But, your second sentence, while referenced, is not a fact. I book my handyman through the telephone, or through meeting him at another job.

Urban dictionary is a user edited source and cannot be a reference

What seems to have happened is that your contractor (Odd, is it not how the term 'micro jobber' or whatever it night be means contractor or temp) has written an article you are now wedded to, probably because you have paid good money for it. You need to start from the bottom up.

• Are there references for this term?
• Is it, even so, a neologism, something Wikipedia hates
• Using the references as my sources, assuming it will fly, can I create an article that describes the term "Micro Job" itself, and not the world of work within which temporary employment, sourced online or in the flesh is normal and has been for years
• Does this article differ from Temporary work or similar articles? If so, ought it to be merged into them or is it truly separate?

All this stuff is what we try to help folk with in the Articles for Creation process. Even there Wikipedia can feel brutal, but you do get the time to edit to your heart's content until one of us deems it to be ready after you submit it. Unfortunately we also make mistakes, all of us. I have in the past and I will in the future. I may be making one now. I don't think I am, but I may be. You have every right to disagree with me, too.

Specific problems in the article are that it constructs a scenario from the sources. This falls under WP:OR, perhaps WP:SYNTH. Your entire controversies section is original research, for example. The source doesn't mention Micro Job, and thus does not assist your article. We require sourcing from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS.

As you can see, I've flagged a few of the areas within the article for discussion, though, rectification, etc, but I will not do all of it because it will pepper it with gratuitous tags and banners. I have also suggested in the deletion discussion that it be sent back to Draft: for you to work on. Please may I suggest to you that you endorse my suggestion there? You have such a lot of work to do that I doubt the seven day time limit for discussion there will be sufficient. When you post there, be humble, be straightforward, and simply suggest that it was a draft article, placed into main space too soon, and that you would like it back as a draft to work on until it either makes the grade or you are convinced it never will.

Wikipedia is not an easy place. It can be brutal. Even the draft/review process can feel brutal, but, as you have seen, difficult as that process is, the deletion process actually hurts. That is why we try hard to avoid premature acceptance.

A piece of reading for you" User:Timtrent/A good article. It helps quite a bit, though is not perfect. Fiddle Faddle 07:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Fiddle Faddle, thanks for helping me so much. is it possible to get this moved to drafts while I work on it? I am going through a divorce (and taking care of 4 kids) as of this Monday and I am really stressed out. I am afraid I may not be able to make all of your changes before the deletion deadline. I will read your suggested article right after writing this comment.

Microwork is not the same as a micro job. The microwork wiki article: Microwork is a series of small tasks which together comprise a large unified project, and are completed by many people over the Internet.

Micro jobs are not small tasks done together for a unified project. A micro job is a single temporary job booked through the internet. This industry is booming and people are searching for info on it.

Crowdsourcing is like microwork ... it's a large number of people doing a small portion of something for a greater result. This in not the same a a micro job either.

So hopefully you will be open to the option that a micro job page will be useful to wiki readers. There are a lot of monthly searches on this term :)

I will follow ALL OF YOUR advice, I just need a little time. My goal is for this article to be relevant and incredible. I really appreciate your help!

Kendeyl (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kendeyl: I have added a further request to the deletion discussion to migrate it to Draft: I cannot do this because there are protocols for handling articles once they are in the wild and consensus is required. Even if it is deleted all is not lost. So look after the kids and enjoy your weekend and beyond. If it gets deleted come to me for help. Fiddle Faddle 22:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Reg : Article India Inclusion Summit!!!

Hello Timtrent/Fiddle Faddle,

Thank you so much for the welcome, i really liked the cookies :-)...

Thank you so much for your review and the suggestions you made to improve the article.:-)... I accept to your point that the names i mentioned in the article and the reference links i provided for them is not actually related to the summit, but the other links do contain their names, what i thought is when i mentioned Mr. V R Ferose MD Sap Labs, i thought i need to provide a link which shows the person is notable, but missed this point that it is not related to summit.

Please see the below links which i have provided in respective to the other speakers. This Summit happened for a good cause Fiddle for physically and differently abled people in the society and they are going help them in all possible ways. I created this article in order to give the information to all the people who might not have attended this sumiit and get the details and contribute for such kind of people. I understood the point you made here about the wiki rules and norms for the reference links, as you suggested, please go through the below links and I hope the article will pass the review and get published. :-)

1. http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/bangalore/Summit-for-differently-abled-promises-new-paths/2013/11/26/article1910719.ece 2. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/Summit-helps-disabled-persons-help-themselves/articleshow/26598871.cms 3. http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/summit-to-push-for-an-inclusive-society/article4152711.ece 4. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-12-03/news/44710291_1_asd-autistics-disabilities

Fiidle, Here are the other links which with the clips of the National Papers covering the Summit

http://myimpact.impactmeasurement.co.in/index.php?page=Clipj&id=691665f0bc9a2f34d107de3318673f4a&id2=6c8f9acc3b4a1a0e8ca33196721fca2d

http://myimpact.impactmeasurement.co.in/index.php?page=Clipj&id=20833a446b940e2622fe6afe62e18d7d&id2=6c8f9acc3b4a1a0e8ca33196721fca2d — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjali Reddy J (talk • contribs) 04:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks & Regards Anjali

@Anjali Reddy J: I have looked at the article as it stands today, and I have resubmitted it in your name and accepted it. Forgive me, I do not have the time today to look at the links above. I am not sure if you have included them in the article or not. If you can improve the article please do so. Just remember that it is now in the wild, on its own, and you should father it, not mother it Fiddle Faddle 07:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Timtrent/Fiddle Faddle,

Thank you so much for not only reviewing the article and also submitting it and accepting it. I have included the above links in the article :-)...Sure i will definitly improve the article and contribute to other articles too by following all the wiki norms & rules. Thank you so much once again..:-)...have a great day and happy weekend..:-)

Thanks & Regards Anjali — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjali Reddy J (talk • contribs) 08:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Citiustech Wiki page

Hello Timtrent,

This is with regards to the wikipedia page we have been trying to create with the title "CitiusTech".

It would be of great help if you could guide us with the exact URL of the draft under consideration. Along with the same also do educate us the procedure of deleting the unwanted drafts created.

Looking forward for your guidance. Thank & regards, Admin - CitiusTech — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.70.17.154 (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It is never a good idea to write an article about your own corporation. But, since you are doing so, let us proceed. To me it does not matter at all which article you choose as long as it is obvious that you have chosen one. Perhaps I chose the wrong one. Who can say? But what you need to do is to migrate any missing information from the one to the other, and then BLANK the one the information was moved from. Blanking an article you created signifies that you wish it to be deleted. Give me a shout when you have done so and I'll see what I can sort out procedurally. Do not resubmit until you have sorted your end out. I may be busy having fun elsewhere, so my bit may take a short while. Be pleasantly patient. Fiddle Faddle 09:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Brian Kennedy (businessman)

Hi thanks for the message. I have retyped and made into my own words the offending copyright text. I have also but links into each stated information to prove notability against all relevant information. All parts are now text written in my own words and referenced. How do I get my article released as Im not sure what else I need to do inorder to accomplish this.?

I have been constantly improving and making changes to the text and notability to meet all Wikipedia criteria.

Thanks for you help from a person that is new to Wikipedia.

Darran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian George Kennedy (talk • contribs) 12:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Brian George Kennedy: Hi Darran. Thanks for the message. I will not be reviewing that article, so you might want to make it clear on iot. If you leave a comment in the following format

{{Afc comment|1=Your comment, whatever you want to say ~~~~}}

in exactly that formatnd leave it on the article itself above the ---- line, then the next reviewer will see it. May I ask, why is your name Darran and your username "Brian George Kennedy"? Fiddle Faddle 13:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I always try hard to work with new editors. Thanks for making it easy to do so. Fiddle Faddle 13:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi , When I originally credit the account I thought that I need to create it in the name of the person I was writing about, but have learned since that this is not the case.

Thanks

Darran — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian George Kennedy (talk • contribs) 13:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Brian George Kennedy: Would you like to know how to change your user name? I advice it strongly to avid confusion. It is easy enough, but , like all things, there is a process. I'll find it out and leave some notes on your own talk page. Fiddle Faddle 13:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

That would be great. Yes Please.

Im struggling to understand your last comment on how to place a comment on my page using

{{Afc comment|1=Your comment, whatever you want to say ~~~~}}

in exactly that formatnd leave it on the article itself above the ---- line

Sorry but very new to list and have really struggled to be honest.

Darran

@Brian George Kennedy: Easier than you think.

1. Open the article about BGK
2. Edit it
3. Locate the line that looks like ----
4. Above it type or paste as follows:

{{Afc comment|1=

after the = soigné type what you want to say

after you have ended what you want to say type ~~~~ and then sign it with ~~~~ which turns automagically into your signature

Ought to be easy if you take it step by step Fiddle Faddle 13:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Perfect. That helped a lot and has worked.

Really appreciate all you help.

Darran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian George Kennedy (talk • contribs) 13:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Bonaventure Senior Living

Thank you Timtrent for reviewing my first submission to Wikipedia. This article was not meant to be an advertisement, but now that I read it I see that it reads like one. I have removed the advert wording. I anticipated that this first article would be a learning experience and require revisions while I learn the ropes. I appreciate your time! CMS.LLC (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@CMS.LLC: I try not to re-review articles, so forgive me if I do not pass that way again. I'm glad you found my review helpful. Painful as being declined is, a deletion discussion is far more painful. So keep taking advice and you will both learn a lot and, I hope, get an article accepted. Fiddle Faddle 22:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

EACC

Hi Tim, we received your message but I am confused if the EACC (European American Chamber of Commerce) page was created or not. It appeared as if our submission was accepted today, could you clarify? Thank you, YvonneEACCNY (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@EACCNY: It did. See European American Chamber of Commerce which I found by following the link on your talk page. Fiddle Faddle 22:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Sleeping Dogs template

I really wonder what makes you think that the subject of this article already exists. The Template:True Crime only lists the first game Sleeping Dogs not the whole series since the game was earlier being developed as True Crime 3: Hong Kong however later became a new IP just like the first Devil May Cry (video game) was actually earlier being developed as Resident Evil 4 but later became a whole new IP. The template created by me was for the whole Sleeping Dogs series including the new Sleeping Dogs game Sleeping Dogs: Triad Wars and True Crime (series) is related to it since earlier Sleeping Dogs was being developed as True Crime 3. It is some editor who keeps inserting Sleeping Dogs series in the Template:True Crime. However only the first Sleeping Dogs is related to the True crime series just like only the first Devil May Cry is related to resident Evil series. In Template:Resident Evil only the first Devil May Cry is listed under the Related section. Your reason given for not approving the template is utterly wrong and incorrect. Therefore I request you to please re-review the template. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: What makes me think it exists is that the one redirects to the other and the content is similar. I will not be re-reviewing it. I try very hard to leave the to other reviewers. You need to explain this on a section for documentation, bounded by <noinclude></noinclude> tags so a future reviewer can see what you mean. I do suggest you make it better explained than the paragraph above, one I abandoned about half way through as impenetrable. Fiddle Faddle 08:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you learn to properly speak English. My comment is not that difficult to understand. Just because is long doesn't mean you should abandon it midway. You are an irresponsible person. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: It was and is impenetrable. You need to be concise, well punctuated and with paragraph breaks, I recall you were the one asking for help. When you ask for help, do it with clarity.

I 'much enjoyed' your split infinitive "To properly speak". Do not take your pique at your template having been declined out on me. Instead do what I suggested. If you reply here please try very hard not to tell me what I am or am not. Indeed do not use rudeness at all. It is not a behaviour welcomed on Wikipedia Fiddle Faddle 08:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok so when I complain it's rudeness. Anyway I'll try to be clear. I created a template on the Sleeping Dogs series listing all it's games. The template lists True Crime (series) under the Related section. This is because earlier Sleeping Dogs was being devoped as Tue Crime 3. However the game later became a whole new game. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

No, when you call me an irresponsible person, that is rudeness. Now please go away. I have no interest in any further interaction with you. I have already told you I will not be re-reviewing the template. You have been given advice. If you dislike it, ask someone else. Fiddle Faddle 08:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll go away. But can you please tell me whether you understood my explanation in my previous comment. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Teso College Aloet may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• students. The films screened in the school include educational, documentary, action, comedy etc.).

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done up to the article's real author. Fiddle Faddle 10:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

National centre For excellence

Hi Timrent, You had recently declined my article. I didnt understand the reason. I searched the net thoroughly and I kept each and every article that I found on the net. The best one so far is the CBSE web link. Pls help me :-( Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulmdinesh (talk • contribs) 11:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@Rahulmdinesh: Please look at Draft:National Centre For Excellence, and notice that there are no references. There are some external links, but they are external links. We require sourcing from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. If you need urgent help please ask at the articles for creation help desk. I am away for the rest of the day. Fiddle Faddle 11:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Isobel Pravda article

Thanks for the comments on the article. I've replaced the IMDB references with other sources, and removed the 'dump' of references at the end. Let me know if it needs more work before it can be published. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TPravda (talk • contribs) 12:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@TPravda: I saw sufficient to accept it, but it remains vulnerable to possible deletion discussions. It is in need of more 'beef' in the text. Real stuff, and referenced, obviously. Fiddle Faddle 17:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

CEDIA Notability

Hi Timtrent

Thanks for your time and effort in reviewing and providing feedback on my article submission.

CEDIA and their respective awards are the most desired in the custom installation industry. Electronics Design Group, Grahams Hi-Fi, Vantage Controls, Crestron Electronics & Linn Products wiki article also cite CEDIA Awards. Anyone and everyone in the industry knows of CEDIA and their awards, I am surprised it doesn't have a wiki page already. If I created a CEDIA page, would this help (assuming I can reference it sufficiently and get is accepted)?

With regard to Finite solutions notability, I have added that they have been consulted by BBC & Sky News, with independent references.

Cheers, Morgan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkengmad (talk • contribs) 19:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@Barkengmad: Excellent idea. I hoped you would consider it. Read User:Timtrent/A good article for hints and tips, and make sure the referencing is top notch. We require sourcing from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. Fiddle Faddle 19:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

By the way I try hard not to re-review articles. More and different eyes are always better, Our hope is to help you learn how to create a ribust article that FLIES, rather than see you have to defend one in a deletion discussion. The former is work, the latter HURTS! Fiddle Faddle 19:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

Draft:Qatar_Canadian_School

Sorry, it appears we set to it at the same time and I didn't set the review flag. I'll leave you to it! Rankersbo (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Rankersbo: Not to worry.I chose simply to accept it and allow the creator to handle the ref errors. Since it is a school they seemed to me to be worth disregarding as a gating factor to acceptance, though I do hate the remarkably free ride that schools get. If you want to enjoy cleaning up please be my ghost (guest?). I was just sipping from the firehose of crap and finding some surprisingly acceptable articles there. Fiddle Faddle 09:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Powerflush (Heating)

Hi Tim, I have made changes to my entry on powerflushing. How do I resubmit for review?

Thanks

Jan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janlepkowski (talk • contribs) 13:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Janlepkowski: You took the stuff off the top. I've given you back the ability to submit it. Please leave the top stuff present. Fiddle Faddle 13:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Vince Phillips (attorney)

Thanks for reviewing the article on Draft:Vince Phillips (attorney). Can you please clarify your recommend: I'm very confused about the sections "References" and "Sources". Please resolve that confusion by deploying the sources, where they qualify is significant coverage independent of Phillips in WP:RS as references. The remainder should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by F2fedit (talk • contribs) 14:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@F2fedit: You have two sections. One is "references", the other is "Sources". I do not understand why you have two sections. We want "references". Are your sources actually references? If so, please make them so. If not, what are they?

When we are given references for a living person we have a higher standard if 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

I am not sure what else to say to answer you unless you can explain with precision what you do not understand? Fiddle Faddle 14:45, 16 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)

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)