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 Edendiss (talk | contribs) at 19:49, 13 October 2014 (→‎Request on 19:46:56, 13 October 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Edendiss). 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 3:41 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.

Political Second Chance Sydrome

Hello you edited this article. I am new to wiki. I created the coin based on the political situation in the Bahamas. How can I find sources to support something I created. Can you help me out with this.

pasted draft, not required

Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42 Fiddle Faddle 19:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Political Second Chance Syndrome it is a sickness that plagues the system of government that allows leaders to continue to make mistakes without any accountability for their actions.[1] There can’t be accountability and efficiency with leaders getting second chances after dismal failures in major sectors across the country. Leaders should not get a SECOND CHANCE. Political leaders need to be replaced immediately with new leaders that must be vetted by a panel to weed out the potential for future inefficiencies. If political leaders are suffering from this Syndrome then it breaches the ideology of Democracy, and it sets a bad precedent for the citizenry to see their political leaders unaccountable for their actions. Eradicating and quarantining the Political Second Chance Syndrome must be a top priority in any democracy to function properly. It is a direct matter of national security that leaders be accountable and efficient. Unaccountability leads to inefficiency that will then lead to corrupt political leaders that destroys the foundation of democracy. A more direct version// Political Second Chance Syndrome” - it is a sickness that plagues the system of government that GIVES leaders ELECTED OR APPOINTED IMMUNITY DESPITE THEIR MISTAKES AND INEFFICIENCIES. THERE MUST BE ZERO TOLERANCE, NO SECOND CHANCE FOR dismal failures in major sectors across the country. OVERSIGHT Panels AT ALL LEVELS SHOULD BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY AND weed out THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR the MISMANAGEMENT AND INEFFICIENCIES. "POLITICAL SECOND CHANCE SYNDROME" UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY DEFYING THE HIGHEST PRINCIPLES TO WHICH DEMOCRACY SERVES[2] See Also •Rule of law •Recall election •Good governance •Types of democracy •Democratic peace theory

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkersingh123 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use search engines. Try Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Wikipedia is not for non notable neologisms, so you need to do some research. Fiddle Faddle 16:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

16:21:18, 6 October 2014 review of submission by Kuleanna


Thank you for your comments, I would like to request a re-review. I have tried to correct references to sources by using specific coverage about the entity, and these are independent and reliable sources. Should I click the re-submit or wait for further comments? Kuleanna (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as you are sure the draft is the best draft you can make it with all the information at your disposal, resubmit. 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. It may be that this draft is now acceptable or we may need to push it back a further time. Either is ok, truly. I have not looked at it again because I try very hard not to re-review. Additional eyes always produce a better set of reviews.
Always remember that you may edit and improve the draft at any time, even after submission. Fiddle Faddle 16:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thank you. Kuleanna (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

00:37:04, 7 October 2014 review of submission by Faberger


At this stage I'm not asking specifically for a re-review. However, I'm more than puzzled by some of the reasons why my article was rejected and I'd appreciate some clarification on your comments in order to bring this forward.

In your first line you say 'The first paragraph says, broadly, "This was a non notable failed business" and then you go to a great deal of trouble to write a lot about the entity. I am perplexed.'. No, I never meant to say that, this is your own personal interpretation of it, and does not reflect the millions of people who're reading wiki articles every day. What are you perplexed about exactly? And where does it say it was a non notable business? what metrics are you referring to to say it's non notable? This was an entity in charge, exclusively of the parent company, of over 150 distribution channels in Europe, the Middle-East, Africa, South America and part of South East Asia, at a time when the parent company didn't make 'mobile gaming' a priority in its strategy. It is all the more important to report on it because of how the parent has changed strategy over the years and is now solely investing in mobile gaming. It is the perfect example of how business acumen and business development outside of Japan is managed by Japanese companies. Also, the main article for the parent company is extremely poor and doesn't add anything to Wikipedia as it is just a identity card of the company with a few lines and doesn't describe in any way on how it impacted on the industry and global popular culture, let alone the good and bad accomplishments it has under its belt.

The comment 'you go to a great deal of trouble to write a lot' is judgmental to say the list. OF COURSE I spent a lot of time to start this article! is it not how each one of your contributors should behave?

In your second line, you say 'European subsidiaries do not generally merit articles independent of the principal because they are the same business, yet in a different geographic region'. Now, this is entirely wrong and shows from your part a total disconnect and misunderstanding of Namco specifically and in general how Japanese businesses operate 'overseas'. Very often what Japanese companies call their 'overseas' businesses are often disconnected from the parent company, in terms of management, strategy, development and even financing. The fact they're called the same name doesn't imply that the parent company has anything to do with how the company develops, for better or worst, and this is EXACTLY what this article is meant to contribute: a truthful and non-judgmental report on how Japanese video games publishers have been operating since the 1970's outside of Japan. As the author, I can not report on other Japanese video game publishers but Namco, that's why this article is about NBNE and not video game publishing by Japanese companies from a broader point of view.

In your third line you say 'Many of the references are regurgitated press releases and PR material.' I am referring sources to add the precious sense of authenticity to the article, even for the smallest details. The aggregation of these materials is meant to reinforce the sense of a logic suite of actions (managerial, financial and strategic) during a verified timeline. Of course, if it's just a matter of following how these are taking shape in the article, then I'll revise them. Otherwise I don't see how I could make without them. If I were to write a book, I'll do exactly that, adding everything and anything (in a condensed manner) related to how this business evolved, and how its members went through 'a great deal of trouble' to make it work as the independent entity it was assigned to be by the parent company.

As for your last line 'PLease attend to tense, grammar and spelling. "Spinned" is not a word, as a simple spell check will tell you. We require the simple past tense, the perfect tense.'. I understand that point, but I'm more than perplexed (and here's why I am) on how other articles are reviewed given the great many spelling mistakes, inaccuracies and over-abundance of biases for one side or another. I should also add that your first word is written with two capitals (PLease) showing that you didn't do any spell check before sending me your message... illustrating that those of us with the best intentions (to add value as you said) can sometimes make even the most stupid mistakes.

Thanks for clarifying.


Faberger (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Faberger: Obviously you did not make any differences regarding Japanese businesses clear in the draft.
You still start by telling us that this business could not be notable because it achieved nothing. Writing a great screed about something that is not notable simply achieves a great screed about a non notable business. Your references do not verify notability.
Please read WP:PRIMARY with regard to the deployment of primary sources. MUltiple primary sources are multiple primary sources. We are not about sources for a magazine story, we only record facts in reliable sources, independent of the entity and about it.
We do not, ever, use other articles as precedent for an article, otherwise we would descend towards idiocracy. The other articles of which you speak need to be sorted out. It is not your best point that yours emulates something of poor quality.
Mine is one opinion. Other reviewers may differ in their views. Nothing is preventing you from resubmitting it unchanged. Fiddle Faddle 07:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Political Second Chance Syndrome

I found a few websites to support my Political Second Chance Syndrome. Please help me publish this word.

http://www.nationnews.com/articles/view/our-caribbean-dlp-scales-second-chance-political-cliff/ http://markworgan.wordpress.com/2011/07/10/dave-to-catch-second-chance-syndrome/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/10235327/Row-as-disgrace-Chris-Huhne-lands-top-energy-job.html http://www.freeman.org/serendipity/index.php?/archives/200-GIVING-BIBI-A-SECOND-CHANCE.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkersingh123 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of these show that PSCS is notable. Fiddle Faddle 07:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BOMA Project Page Edit

Hi Tim-

Thanks for your guidance on setting up BOMA's page. I have resubmitted the brief article with an article from th United Nations. I hope this is enough.

Thank you!

Jamie — Preceding unsigned comment added by James cpi (talk • contribs) 13:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks James cpi. I have left a further comment on the draft. Ironically it is longer than the draft itself. Fiddle Faddle 16:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Stay article

Hi Timtrent Fiddle Faddle,

I am required to do this work for a task I've taken up as a student. I do not have any personal connection with Shane Stay. There is no conflict of interest. It is harder than I thought. I'm not very proficient in Wiki language and code. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Novemberflower (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you simply look at the way other things are formatted and use that. WP:Mentorship may be useful for you. The main thing is to type the words and add the references. Is your course one led by an instructor who uses Wikipedia? If not then then need to gain expertise with us too. I can aim them in the right direction. Fiddle Faddle 16:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for re-review

Hi there TimTrent,

[[1]]

Thank you for reviewing my initial draft on 17 Sep. I have taken some time redrafting noting the helpful comments you made. Could you please take another look?

Newcastleton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newcastleton (talk • contribs) 21:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have left what I hope is a helpful comment on the draft. I try not to review articles more than once, believing a better outcome happens with more than one set of eyes. Fiddle Faddle 21:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PSCS

I created the word based on what's going on in Bahamian Politics. So how do you want me to legitimize it when there will be no sources for it. I based it on the Prime Minister stating that he is a Prime Minister of Second Chances which is screwing up the entire country. He does not want to prosecute MP's for official corruption and other issues.

How do I defend this if it is not written any where. Do I use sources for other words that is in the definition like democracy, syndrome etc./ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkersingh123 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot. Fiddle Faddle 07:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Juancescritor

Dear Timtrent


Thank you for your kind remarks, your quick response and your offer to assist. I am a Venezuelan author, Playwright and Director, but also with a special interest in Biographies since I believe not many people dedicate words to this subject. That is the reason for this article in Wikipedia I submitted some days ago, which I felt had mistakes and was, in a way, incomplete.

If possible, I would like to learn exactly when footnotes must be introduced in a sentence or phrase, so I can correct mine and submit it again for approval. Thank you again, and I am looking forward to your answer.


Warmest regards


Juancé --Juancescritor (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Juancescritor: Every fact you assert in a biography of a living person needs a citation. Now, some facts need no proof. These are ones that are unlikely to be challenged. Other facts need citations. What you need to do is to use the "Find sources"link in the pink box and see what references exist for her, and then see how these need to be incorporated into the draft. WP:REFB and WP:CITE are your friends here. Fiddle Faddle 20:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Organic Division

Timtrent. I have resubmitted the article... Thanks for the pointers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Division_of_Organic_Chemistry_of_the_American_Chemical_Society — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjmyers19 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bjmyers19: excellent news. 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. Fiddle Faddle 20:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

I've made this edit, bit of ce and toning down spam. It's far from perfect, but if you want to give it a run out, that's fine with me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Submission

Hi Timtrent,

I have made amendments to the page... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Duncan_McLean_(Video_Designer) - could you please let me know if these are enough for it to be approved? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.252.254 (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without reviewing it in detail, no. What I can say is that you are working in the right direction with reviews. Please, however, make sure it is his work that is reviewed as well as the piece as a whole, because your draft is about the gentleman, not about generic pieces of work. I try not to re-review a draft because it creates a better outcome if a different pair of eyes reviews it each time.
Please continue to refine it while awaiting a reviewer's visit. Fiddle Faddle 14:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cover-More Insurance

Hi TimTrent.

I've spent a bit of time today in the IRC-Chat getting help to understand what was wrong with my citations.. I think I'm getting the problem now, particularly that you're needing further removed independent sources - Are you able to take a look and let me know if its on the right track? The guy helping in the chat room "HowiCus' suggested I post here to ensure I'm aligned to the issues you saw.

Anyway - would be great to get some more feedback - I've even removed references where the partners/associates make assertions!

Thanks,

G — Preceding unsigned comment added by GB at CoverMore (talk • contribs) 03:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have improved the draft's citations greatly. It's a steep learning curve, isn't it? Now you are citing things about the org from independent coverage. You have one obvious issue remaining. An inline link at "EtiQa Takaful." That needs to become either a WIkilink (even a red one), or, if appropriate, a reference, or simply be unlinked. I also do not see the point, currently, of the section "Product Offerings" Fiddle Faddle 07:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that - yes, its been a mammoth undertaking... I have definitely learned alot!

I've removed both the EtiQa Takaful link and the information on "product offerings'. - In relation to the EtiQa component, it was very weird because I couldn't get a true Wiki link - presumably because its Wikipedia Malaysian language... Hence why i tried that type of link. Anyway - I'm just as happy to leave it out. https://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETiQa_Takaful.

Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GB at CoverMore (talk • contribs) 02:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GB at CoverMore: Try [[:ms:ETiQa Takaful|ETiQa Takaful]] which produces ETiQa Takaful. Fiddle Faddle 06:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: Thanks so much for your help - this has been a very steep learning curve... So what happens now? Do I need to wait for another review or will it just go up? As 'painful' as it was, it was kinda fun. I think I'll start looking at other articles to write/edit!
@GB at CoverMore: make sure you have resubmitted it, and await a review. SInce I've helped you a lot I feel I ought not to review it myself. Hope for acceptance, do not be disappointed if it is pushed back for more work. We push back to try very hard to make drafts deletion proof. And what an excellent idea now to have fun here. I hope you do. You might want to change your username to a more generic one. There is a way of doing so, but I can;t remember it. It might be WP:CHU. Alternatively you may have a second user name for your more private use. If you do, make sure they are never, ever used to back each other up on discussions, or edit the same article with them. There are rules at WP:MULTIPLE. Fiddle Faddle 07:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review

Thank you very much for reviewing 50th All Japan Rugby Football Championship, I really appreciate this. I am still not used to create articles that have to be checked first, but maybe that is better than having people spam around here. May add the next tournament, too. Have a nice weekend. 88.151.72.35 (talk) 10:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.151.72.35 (talk) [reply]

One of the benefits of registering an account is that you gain privileges, including that of creating articles. I believe there is a short gestation period after registration. Fiddle Faddle 10:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Legal_Challenges_to_the_Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act173.67.162.239 (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I know of no other site that has a list of ALL challenges. To find this information for free requires a detailed search at a federal court house. Or it requires costs of $ .10 a page, and a subscription to www.pacer.gov. Please explain where these sites are?

How would I know? But if this costs $.10 a page it seems to me that the sites are copyright, too. And we cannot have copyright violations. Fiddle Faddle 14:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the cost of getting it via download FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. IT IS FREE IF AT A FEDERAL COURT HOUSE. THERE IS NO COPYRIGHT ON ANY OF THIS MATERIAL!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.162.239 (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say. But I now have no further interest since you chose to type in all capitals, which is bad netiquette. 15:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Derek Smith Television Producer

Hi Thank you for reviewing Derek Smith Television Producer. I'm not sure that I agree with your decision. The refs to Radio Times are listings, but all the others are reviews by television critics in local and national press. I can scan the articles that are referenced if necessary. I do think there should be no doubt of Derek's right to a Wikipedia listing. As one of the the most important and creative producers in the history of the BBC, it's overdue that he has a page. In the meantime, I'll expand the references as much as I can. I have a scrapbook of cuttings. Graham (grayderek55) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grayderek55 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you lose any refs to pure listings. All they show is that he exists. For the others, we need chapter, verse, and the title of the article. We need nothing scanned in, but we need to be able, for example, to see what the reference is from its title. A template such as {{cite news}} may be very helpful to you. The gentleman appears to be notable, but we have to prove it, and that is your challenge. Fiddle Faddle 14:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ely_Ensign

Hi! Many thanks for your introduction. Is it okay to include among my ref sources material printed in Ely Ensign itself? Or must ALL refs be independent? Scpj (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Scpj: The answer is that the sources, that is the references, must be about the periodical. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. There are very limited circumstance where the periodical may refer to itself, and WP:PRIMARY is a good arbiter of when. In my view, which is not the only view, material printed within it only establishes the fact that it was printed. Such facts appear useless to verify its notability, though they may be interesting in the showing that something was printed. Fiddle Faddle 20:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwich International Film Festival Review

Just wanted to thank you for helping review the article on the Greenwich International Film Festival, I've made the corrections that you've noted.

-eckmann88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.54.92.202 (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am seriously ubsure whether the time is yet right for this draft since the inaugural festival happens in June 2015. Fiddle Faddle 22:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

atheist science

Just wanted to say thanks for the reply to my query, that clears the matter up, not exactly to my satisfaction, but I follow the reasoning.

Yours, real atheism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realatheism (talk • contribs) 10:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Realatheism: I knew you were not going to enjoy the answer, but hoped you would understand it. I was not disappointed in the latter. Acting as you appear to hope would mean Wikipedia would need to change direction. While this is not impossible it is unlikely. It is unlikely because its direction is dictated by consensus. You are at perfect liberty to seek to influence that consensus, but I suggest you will have as much effect as a flea does on an elephant. I make no comment on whether your thinking is something I agree with or not. Fiddle Faddle 10:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Thanks again! GB at CoverMore (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

concensus anathema to truth

It is an interesting remark you make, on the nature of Wikipedia as a product of concensus, it bears directly upon the idea at the core of Atheist Science, which denies the existence of individuals, as in persons, and asserts the existence of a unified being, a human superorganism. Undoubtedly the individual who would oppose this natural force of human corporate nature, is destined for disappointment, as you rightly say. Nonetheless, we are raised to believe we are beings in our own right, and according to this ideal one might hope that an encyclopedia would serve the ideal we all subscribe to by seeking to counter the tendency for the information it contains to orbit around political authority, rather than truth, as forlorn a desire as this no doubt is. Concensus, needless to say, I hope, is anathema to truth.46.208.3.29 (talk) 12:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TRUTH will interest you. Fiddle Faddle 12:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Barney Architects Draft Review

RE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ross_Barney_Architects

Thank you for your comments, very helpful. I took out some of the "promotional" nomenclature and refined as much as I thought possible without loosing the content intent. Please advise if you think any of the remaining content needs a tone shift. Thanks in advance. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgann (talk • contribs) 13:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rgann: In my view substantially better. by the way, all bombings are devastating. I know the USA is not used to being bombed, but flatten the tone. Emotive words give the terrorists power. That's a maxim for life, too. Terror events are horrible for those embroiled in them and their nearest and dearest. The rest of us need a very robust attitude to terror attacks. Fiddle Faddle 13:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: I agree with your view. I rephrased to read "Following the attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in 1995...". Any other thoughts? Thanks for taking the time to review. Cheers.
@Rgann: Nothing obvious springs out. You could spend some time using the citation templates such as {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}} to improve your references and their appearance, but it is inessential. Now oyu hope for acceptance and decide to be prepared for it being pushed back to you. We push back to try to deletion-proof the draft prior to acceptance. Fiddle Faddle 14:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Behm (disambiguation)

and Boehm (disambiguation). This user is starting to create several OK, and not OK dabs. The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is not set correctly on any of them, so best to fix at source. Widefox; talk 18:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Widefox: Please join WP:AFC as a reviewer and pick this type of thing up
The criteria we use are simply that an article must stand a better than 60% chance of surviving a deletion discussion. All else can and shoudl be solved by the community, for which I thank you. Fiddle Faddle 19:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. OK, as that's the threshold, then it's all fine. Good work. Wish I had the time. Widefox; talk 19:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:46:56, 13 October 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Edendiss


Hello! Since LeHo page does not exist, is there any other reason why Home and Hospital Education page was rejected, too? The review message said that the topic is already covered by LeHo. But it isnt. So, can we give it another try? thanks Edendiss (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)edendiss[reply]

Edendiss (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timtrent&oldid=629479456"