Jump to content

User talk:Timtrent

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mobydickulous (talk | contribs) at 16:17, 13 August 2014 (Added comments regarding decline of draft for Logic Supply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 11:48 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.

Draft:Logic_Supply

Thank you for reviewing my article draft. I've left a few comments on the talk page (Draft_talk:Logic_Supply) that I would love a response to if you have the time. Mobydickulous (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demicka

Hi Timtrent, I made room for the move of User:Yahadzija/sandbox. Cheers, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For which much thanks. The draft is now moved into place as an article. Fiddle Faddle 13:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback

Hi, Just got your message re: the sidebar. Unfortunately, I had just resubmitted the edited draft for approval again before I saw your message. If you are editing the draft March Networks submission again, you'll note that I changed all the references you pointed out and added many other new third-party independent references. Emiskew (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Emiskew: Don't worry. Continue to improve the article all the way through until it is reviewed. Submission does not lock the draft. You've done a good job. I know it's horrible to have to cut, cut, and cut again, but it provides the best result, usually. I am too close to the article to re-review it now, and you thus depend on other eyes, something that is a good thing because it will produce a better end product. Fiddle Faddle 17:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of submission by Acaramne

Hello Tim, I believe you are the editor who declined the article (on June 25, 2014) I drafted on "Antonio Abrahao Caram". I wanted to thank you for the feedback and confirm that I have just resubmitted the article now accompanied by two significant public sources: a full bio of the individual featured on a draft bill introduced by City Council members back in January 1966, as well as an official record from City Hall showcasing how the City Council bill was voted into a resolution and was signed into law shortly thereafter in April 1966. Both document sources are linked to the page draft (in sandbox) and are properly covered by certified translations from Portuguese into English. I hope these documents will satisfy the requirements for reliable sources, and will be glad to entertain any additional suggestions you may have on how to continue improving the article. Thanks again for your attention and advice. Tony — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acaramne (talk • contribs) 16:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Acaramne: At first sight they seem to me to be appropriate. Make sure the online links are within the citations, though.
I try not to re-review articles, which means you will get an opinion from a different reviewer. Even if they decline it this is a good thing because working on their comments will strengthen the draft immensely. Always remember, we want articles. Fiddle Faddle 17:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 6 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with my article

To whom it may concern,

I have submitted an article called "Climate Change in Lebanon" a while ago and it was rejected since a lot of material from climatechange.moe.gov.lb website was used.

I have explained to my reviewer that we are the owners of this website as the Ministry of Environment. He then advised to rewrite the articles in my own words, which I did. But apparently it still cannot get published.

Please I am new at this and this wikipedia interface is quite complicated. Could you please guide me through this.

Thank you I really appreciate it.

Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Climate Change in Lebanon (talk • contribs) 08:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

17:38:08, 8 August 2014 review of submission by Elemdark


Hi Timtrent, would you mind telling me how to improve the article "NERA Economic Consulting" please? I have seen your comment that the article needs citation, but I have made sure to add citations for every fact mentioned in the article. I have been re-submitting the article multiple times and kept being rejected.

Thanks so much.

Elemdark (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see where you have submitted it multiple times, but I'm happy to be shown. The issue for me is that it is an advert. You have set out the org's stall and not written an article abut it based on what others say about it. Fiddle Faddle 13:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Crucible Industries LLC

Hi Tim, nice user page. Regarding Crucible, I've polished it and am willing do some more.
1. Refs are reduced. I believe I caught the dupes, even though I liked the French one.
2. The org's website has been referenced for their location, data sheets and distributors. I don't believe there are any facts that are dependent on their info.
3. Inline links removed.
4. Multiple refs in one place. There are three places I've left three.
5. First pass on the lead section is done.
6. Cut? I know there's a lot more out there...but it should be interesting. Point taken.

Thanks for the tips. I do hope it has a broader interest base, tying into history, business, science, and blades. It has sort of the David/Goliath thing too, and then the Phoenix. I hope the next round goes better, and it proves worth the read. - Rick Alrich44 (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Alrich44:I think you're doing a good job. If you have not done so already, resubmit, but continue to improve it while waiting for a review. I think there may be a decent WP:DYK in this to do with particle produced steel vs regular smelted steel. That has to happen pretty fast after acceptance, so check out the DYK stuff in advance..
A nagging thought at the back of my mind suggests that the knife elements might be better in a separate article, but they CAN be, if and when folk want
Once accepted, if you want to aim for WP:GA that is more relaxed. Check out WP:GOCE who will often help. From a standing start you have done what I view as a mighty fine job. Others will have other opinions. Remember, the only thing to take personally on WIkipedia is praise. Everything else is fluff and clutter. Fiddle Faddle 20:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim. A GA sounds interesting. By more relaxed, do you mean the guild would provide guidance on a new article, or how to relax the Crucible article? The relaxing part I'm not clear about, even though I enjoy doing it. I'm thinking about the DYK. Part of me wants to explore and do whatever, so I avoid getting too drawn into one thing. At the same time, I want to complete one thing well. So, I will probably do both. Letting drama flow past is a goal of mine (Tai Chi), thanks for the heads up. Alrich44 (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Alrich44: I mean that editing an article into shape to be a GA is a relaxed process in that there are no time constraints, and you can encourage others to join in (the GOCE folk, for example, who will often enjoy leaping into an article and editing it, provided you ask them to). DYK has time constraints based on when an article first appears. Rules abound! Fiddle Faddle 15:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: Ah, gracias. I am feeling more relaxed.
@Alrich44: The main thing to remember after acceptance is that you are the article's father, not its mother. Your role starts to become one of standing back and being proud as it takes its first steps, not one of guiding its every move Fiddle Faddle 15:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like the deer family. How did you know I would be protective? Okay, I should just be mildly curious what others will do while they're feeding on it. Then we'll see what...never mind. Alrich44 (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because everyone is protective. And, to be fair, a small amount of protection is good. That's why a good dad gives his son and daughter a good supply of condoms plus the talk about being sensible with sex. Mum worries to hell and back. Dad takes care of the problem at source, trusting the kids. The trust tends to be earned by decent behaviour. I seem to be off on a ramble . Anyway, that's what we did for my son. Mostly he was wise.
People will edit the article as they see fit. We have to trust them while protecting it from genuine vandalism. Their ideas may be better than yours. Good. Or worse, when you can and should discuss it with them. They may be heading in a direction you hadn't considered. So enjoy the article once accepted, but beware WP:OWN which is against our nature. I say this having been around the WIkiblock a few times. Have I mentioned that the only thing to take personally here is praise? Yeah, I seem to have. Fiddle Faddle 16:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tis a good ramble, especially when you've been around the block. Alrich44 (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Systems that archive talk pages

Hi Tim, On my talk page, you had said you're willing to guide me into how to use systems that archive talk pages. And the pointer would be? Alrich44 (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) ClueBot III is what you are after. Precise documentation is on the page.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 23:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. I put it on my list. Looks like it's down with a funny pic.Alrich44 (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if you have any problems setting it up. Fiddle Faddle 07:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Center_for_Advanced_Materials

Greetings,

This is my article for creation that you reviewed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Center_for_Advanced_Materials It needed reliable resources so I added some of media links talking about the center. I have many more media links but in Arabic. Please let me know if the resources I provided are enough or maybe I need more.

Thank you Sincerely, Amira — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amira AbdelMoneim (talk • contribs) 09:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted though the system failed to tell you so on your talk page. References in Arabic are absolutely fine. Note how I formatted them using the WP:REFLINKS tool. Fiddle Faddle 10:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

Wanted to let you know that I started a discussion on Bulletrajabc at WP:ANI regarding his actions with the Praneet sah article.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 01:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

11:04:41, 11 August 2014 review of submission by Hamik.m


Dear Timtrent, i'm a bit puzzled, because I have only one citation in the article and it is referenced uzung the footnote. Could you please explain the reason of rejection more precisely and what should I do? Thank you very much in advance.

Hamik.m (talk) 11:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Timtrent

I have a second rejection on my first article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tigran_Tsitoghdzyan with the reason of not using inline citations properly using the footnotes. I have only one citation and it is referenced suing a footnote so I'm a bit puzzled what should I do. Could you please help? Thank you in advanceHamik.m (talk) 11:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to take the following actions:
  1. Provide additional references as citations. 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
  2. All inline links must be removed, please, and turned into references if appropriate, Wikilinks, or external links in a section so named
Read WP:REFB and WP:CITE for all the information you need. They are already linked in the pinnk box declining the submission for the moment. It is work, and you are entirely able to do it . WIkipedia has much higher standards than people believe and you will be able to achieve success with them. Fiddle Faddle 15:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Timtrent

I tried to delete al the details you were writing about. Could you please tell me if now it is OK?

The text in the Rebecca Killman's article obviously I cannot change. Just to avoid any misunderstanding, the whole section is one big reference.

I'm sorry once again for any inconvenience, but have no other way to get things going:)

Thank you very much for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamik.m (talk • contribs) 00:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hamik.m: I am not online for a week or so. I am afraid I have no time to advise you. I have moved this comment into "your" section on this page. Please work within it if you have further questions and do not forget to use ~~~~ to sign your messages to me. Fiddle Faddle 05:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


INTEQUITY

Your comments are not wholly true. Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and Management Sciences, referred to, at the "Intequity" article is an independent double pier reviewed international academic journal, with influences from the UK, USA, Australia, Africa etc., when i last looked. They, independently, published "Management Accounting of Intellectual Creations", which used the words "Intequity", "intequibly" and "intequible". Being the author of that paper removes not their independence. I am currently the only researcher i know of, who actively researches "Intequity". It is however a fact that the word "Intequity" is being used extensively internationally for business purposes. Those uses are not influenced by me. Research is business and self promotion is part of research, especially when the topic is sensitive and receives oppositions relating to Caiaphas syndrome. Self-promotion means not something is not valid. You, as editor can easily do a search, with, for example, Google's search engine and see that the word "Intequity"is being used extensively and that the concept is valid, without reference to only my research publications.

What do you think about transferring the article to the "portmanteau" or "neologism" page as an example at one of those pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdpienaar (talk • contribs) 10:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the only researcher who researches it the probability is that it is a non notable neologism. It is also Original Research. Wikipedia may not be used for self promotion as you will continue to discover.
I doubt it would fly on one of the pages you suggest. You are welcome to see what happens.
The only town I know with a double pier was Brighton in Sussex, but one burned down Fiddle Faddle 15:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

msg monosodium

Hi Tim, I've started some cleanup work on MSG. I may use your coaching/thoughts if you're interested. Alrich44 (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Alrich44: I am away for a week or so, so, while very happy to help, I am not online. The only tips I have are to stand well back and consider WP:42. And, when making contentious edits, if you do, to build consensus on the talk page, and, even if it goes against you, to comply with it. Fiddle Faddle 05:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. For now, I'm just grouping the references by government, manufacturers & suppliers, and other. And I've already started Talk sections for what I'm doing. Have a good week. Alrich44 (talk) 05:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Change Lebanon

Ok great yes you have clarified things!

Just to make it even clearer, is the below procedure the correct one for our case:

Add this sentence on our website:

The text of this website is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

And then send an email, ideally using the language from the template at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries: (1) From an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org; (2) After sending the email, place {{OTRS pending}} on the article's talk page. Someone will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable and update the page to indicate that the confirmation of the license has been received.


Is this right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Climate Change in Lebanon (talk • contribs) 08:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Climate Change in Lebanon: I believe so. But I am not an expert. I think the "The text of this website is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)." may be sufficient. I advise you to use {{helpme}} on your own talk page and to explain your needs there, in detail, because the person who drops by will be unfamiliar with your problems. Explain which page(s) you want to use and that the webmaster will grant your request for varying the copyright. Keep it as brief as you can while making sense. Folk do not like to read a great wall of text. Ask for help from a copyright expert when you pose the question. I would help further but I am travelling and will be offline in a few minutes. Fiddle Faddle 08:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

11:12:51, 12 August 2014 review of submission by Zinfandelorganic


Zinfandelorganic (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC) Hi, Thank you for your comments, which I have taken on board. (It has been a learning curve)! I have re-written passeges and also deleted text from my article Hunt Monitors, which I have re-submitted to you today (12 August 2014 approx 12 noon). I have also added several more references/links. Thank you for your patience and help. Zinfandelorganic[reply]

@Zinfandelorganic: It looks much tighter, and now stands a chance. I'm glad I was able to point you in the right direction. Other eyes than mine will now review it and may well push it back to you with further suggestions. Treat that all as part of the learning curve, especially if you are emotionally involved with the topic. I am certain that you will work patiently on this with a view to acceptance. It still may be better as part of a more all embracing article, but that is now for you and further reviewers to judge. Wikipedia is easy, but not simple. Fiddle Faddle 10:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot Figure Out What To Do To Be Published

Hi there

I've just had my entry declined for the second time, the first time was by another mod, and she declined due to a lack of citations. This is my first real entry on Wiki so I was unsure about citations and how to use them, can you assist me and explain what it is that I did wrong in detail as I really do not understand why the article cannot be published.

Thanks a million — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surflou (talk • contribs) 19:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Surflou: I am not online much at present, and on an awkward connection, so a detailed answer is impossible for me. I suggest asking a question at the Articles for Creation Help Desk. We are not moderators, nor admins, though some folk are admins by happenstance. We are just volunteers who kind of know our way around. Fiddle Faddle 10:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE Request Draft:Crucible Industries LLC

Hi Timtrent, I've opened a discussion to discuss whether the GOCE should decline the copy-editing request here to copy-edit the above article. You are invited to comment on the discussion here; meanwhile I've placed the request on hold. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timtrent&oldid=621080404"