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 125.213.191.72 (talk) at 00:29, 2 April 2015. 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 11:03 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.


Request for proofreading

Hi Tim,

Thank you very much for your useful comments on my first article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:University_Ranking_by_Academic_Performance. I made the changes recommended by you and another reviewer. After reading the suggested Wikipedia help pages, I added more references from suggested sources according to Wikipedia requirements. I chose the references from peer reviewed journal articles, press release, conference proceeding, books, reports, and official university pages. I further edited the text, changed my username, and double checked my references to ensure that I have eliminated the mentioned conflict of interest.

In your comment on my talk page, you advised me to ask you for proofreading my draft article before re-submission. I would greatly appreciate it if you give me some feedback about my article. I tried my best to address the issues in my first draft and I'd appreciate any comments to help me improve any issues I might have missed.

Thank you. Murmehr (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Murmehr: You have been working very hard. Thank you for taking everyone's comments on board. I have looked at your draft, and I fear I am not competent to review it in any detailed manner. It looks to me to be ready for approval, but it is a field I know very little about. I suggest resubmission. Fiddle Faddle 15:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt reply. I'm going to resubmit the article. Murmehr (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page Patrolling

Thanks for your advice. How can I patrol a page, just reading or something else. Before, adding tag I have had chats in the chat room before committing benign crime. Any how I think I could not explain them my intention. Now I request you to favor me with some points for patrolling a page without referring me to NPP.Thanks. Nannadeem (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nannadeem: I am not sure what your objective is in patrolling pages. Please can you elaborate? Fiddle Faddle 17:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While reading a page at Pending-AFC (draft pages) I noticed a small rectangular box at the right bottom of page "mark the page as patrolled". So After reading the page, I marked that page, as patrolled. Now please read my question-come-request at top of this section. Nannadeem (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you understand patrolling pages to be about?
Do you wish to participate as a WP:AFC reviewer?
I have read your question. I am responding to it. Fiddle Faddle 17:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
by patrolling pages, my understanding suggests to read the page and report/note any serious issue
participation to WP:AFC pertains to future
Thanks for you attention. Nannadeem (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think your aims are praiseworthy. The system does't quite work that way. WP:AFC consists of volunteers who not only read the drafts but assess them for suitability for approval. Most of us work at quite a speed, and check articles and approve them or push them back for further work reasonably quickly. I think what we would all appreciate is more committed volunteers within the system, rather than help from just outside it.
The question only you can answer, is whether you have the skills and knowledge to join in. I think you have already answered that.
One excellent way of preparing is to monitor and participate in the WP:AFD process, offering opinions in deletion discussions. This is the tough end of Wikipedia, and takes calmness, and the ability to recognise when one is in error. Fiddle Faddle 19:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, I seek pardon for not considering your suggestion for WP:AFD. I think a writer is like a mother and mother loves her new born. Killing a baby of a writer(mother) is beyond my potency. Thanks and wish to close the topic at this end.Nannadeem (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nannadeem: Then you are unlikely to learn what makes an article survive. AFD discussions often keep articles rather than delete them. This will be your loss, and ours. Fiddle Faddle 18:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your warning is very rational and sweet. Poison can be used for life saving. To be a good learner I can join AFD per teaching of my teacher. Thank you.Nannadeem (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nannadeem: Start by observing. Note what arguments lead to the article being kept and what arguments lead to it's being deleted. Remain silent while you are learning. Silence shows wisdom in the learning stages. Gradually, when you are certain, make definite arguments to keep or to delete, based only on policy. Have the wisdom to make a statement and wait and watch. Arguing a cause is doomed to failure for many complex reasons. Some articles are so poor that they must be deleted. It is the only way with some of them to remove the obstacles to recreation. WP:TNT applies. However, TNT is a losing argument in a deletion discussion, because it shows that the topic is notable after all. A paradox.
Once you understand why articles are deleted you are in an excellent position to understand whether a WP:AFC draft is suitable for acceptance or not. Our criteria for acceptance are simple. A draft must stand a better than 60% chance of surviving a deletion process in order to be accepted. We ask for a higher standard in the hope of achieving the 60%.
At the same time as you do this, continue to edit documents, to add references, to research new facts, and be a valuable contributor anyway to articles yourself. Above all, learn, and continue to learn. Fiddle Faddle 22:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hi Tim. Thank you for your time and help. It is really appreciated.

Murmehr (talk) 12:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:37:13, 26 March 2015 review of submission by Ave atque Vale


Ave atque Vale (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for reviewing my article so promptly. However, I would like to point out that there were actually two separate battles with the same name: one fought in Michigan in 1763, and one in Virginia in 1656. Wikipedia currently only has an article on the Michigan battle; the page I wrote deals with the Virginia battle. As such, I think it's safe to say that an article for the Virginia battle doesn't currently exist, and I'd like to request a re-review of my article.

Thank you,


Ave atque Vale (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've set it up for a re-review. I declined it in a clerical basis before, but could not have accepted it since I have no knowledge at all of the area (as I am sure you can see!) Fiddle Faddle 17:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks so much for resubmitting it for me! Ave atque Vale (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic article

Thank you for the review of my article, I will try to submit my article to the Arabic Wikipedia. There is no need for an English article, since it already exists. Saventura (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela Assembly list

Timtrent, could you please go into more detail about why my submission was rejected? Seriously, your message was not clear at all. Sorry if I sound too rude.Mcleod Allen Mueller Hill, aka Ohyeahstormtroopers6, Imperator Universi 14:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk • contribs)

It is a list devoid of content. Fiddle Faddle 18:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Craft Distilling

Hi, Thanks for looking my article about Craft Distilling over. I case you did not notice I am the original author of the article and wished to contribute it to Wikipedia. I did not steal it from someone else. Do you have any suggestions ( before it gets deleted) for improvement so it can be used? This is my first real attempt to add to the Wikpedia so please pardon my clumsiness and lack of knowledge when it comes to using the editing functions or understanding the rules here. Thanks and Cheers, Chris Dangermonkey (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dangermonkey: Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials which will explain how to do this. However, items from external sites are not usually written in the right tone. It is far better to rewrite in new words.
This is the internet. Whoever you happen to be, we cannot believe your assertion. You have to go through the process of proving it beyond doubt. We will protect your copyright fiercely until that time, even if you are the copyright owner. Fiddle Faddle 22:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK Thanks for thee information, It is Way over my head I'm afraid ... I'll just stick to writing my articles on Spirits Review.com and give up now on contributing to Wikipedia much as I like it. Sorry, Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dangermonkey (talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dangermonkey: All you need to know is that we are diligent in protecting your copyright. To contribute to Wikipedia simply make sure that your writing is original. Please do contribute original material with pleasure. We do have people who can help you to donate copyright material, but I do advise against it. The process is arcane, but necessary so. Fiddle Faddle 07:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:24:29, 26 March 2015 review of submission by SisRob

Hey, I wanted to ask if you've seen my post on the help desk about my draft you had reopened. Could I have some reaction to it? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SisRob (talk • contribs) 13:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Satwant_Singh_Dhaliwal

I've made it dull. I've moved quotes from body to notes. What else is there to do?

I have left a full comment on your draft. Fiddle Faddle 06:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kezia Noble

hello timtrent, I would like to discuss: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kezia12121/sandbox/Kezia_Noble , On the draft you are reverting to, there is nothing about the books that kezia has written, i am sure author is notable for wikipedia, also there are no links and references that state notability as there are on the page i created about kezia Noble, this is the reason she was denied entry to wikipedia before because the person used no notability referencing and as u can see on the page in question has many news links kezia news kezia author etc..... Even a link that shows SKY news have approached her on 'a massive media story 'Julian Blanc' for answers on WHY WHAT & HOW I am sure this shows some notability as do all the other massive news channels and sites i have used, ie.... All top UK news rooms and papers.

Thank you for your time, I await your response

Jimmy Sandhu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kezia12121 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kezia12121: Improve the draft I am referring to and submit that if you wish. I very much doubt anyone will consider your sandbox offering with the other one waiting in the wings. But Ms Noble has, so far, been deemed insufficiently notable for Wikipedia. Your usr name suggests that you may not be the best judge. Fiddle Faddle 11:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'IXP' online service page

Thank you for your feedback, the differentiation between IXP online service and IXP Internet eXchange Point was added to the page. Please let me know if you have additional suggestions. Javaflug (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IXP ref

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to get better references. Javaflug (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome. It ought to save you time doing it this way :) Fiddle Faddle 12:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IXP

I have changed the name from IXP to IXP visual programming lanuage and online service Therefore I like to remove the second part of the first sentence " ...and differs from a physical installation of an Internet exchange point (IXP)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javaflug (talk • contribs) 15:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. It is important to spoon feed your audience. Fiddle Faddle 15:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New "Brailsford & Dunlavey" Page

Hey Timtrent, appreciate your time looking at this new page. Its acceptance/rejection is in your hands, and I fully embrace that. Looking forward to any feedback you might offer, positive or tough-constructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjrudell (talk • contribs) 19:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bjrudell: Not in mine. Always in yours . I try very hard never to re-review a draft because it makes a far better draft and then article if other eyes review it. Do keep working on it while waiting for a review Fiddle Faddle 19:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Seisen Saunders

Just asking that you notify Annew43, not me, for any comments you have (whether reviewing or otherwise) on Draft:Anne Seisen Saunders. I only submitted it because the creator's having trouble submitting it (see WP:HD#From sandbox to create an article) and I didn't look it over or otherwise attempt to clean it up or to make some statement that it didn't need cleaning. Nyttend (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for resolving the situation. Not sure what happened, but your Teahouse invitation on Annew43's talk page says "Hello! Teahouse, I noticed your article was..." Is that a template coding error (shouldn't it say "Hello! Annew43, I noticed..."?) or just a mistake when you left the message? Your message at my talk page said the same thing, for what it's worth. Nyttend (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing a template error. I just use the AFC helper script. Since it;s worked (maybe!) every other time I'm sure you can see why checking is not high on my list. I was about to solve the initial problem when you pinged me :). I somehow didn't associate your name with AFC submissions! Fiddle Faddle 21:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 31 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

Please check these pages 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, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Halloran

Hi, This article needs to be titled Bob Halloran, Sportscaster to avoid disambiguation with the other Bob Hallorans who are not the same person. Nmwalsh (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the approval for the article

Dear Tintrent,

Greeting of the day !!!

I am eagerly waiting for your kind approval and nascent appearance in your Wikipedia.

The article is the realty of the previous imagination for pain less blood less non infective surgery, which is certainly going to health to the suffering of the mankind setting a side the Panic of the surgery.

If there is any query kindly let me know for its removal so that the matter may be expedited at the earliest.

Best regards. Mohd Imran Ansari — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imranansarimail (talk • contribs) 10:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will not re-review this piece. I do not believe that it is suitable for the reasons I have stated. Fiddle Faddle 10:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Goddard Oxenbridge

Thanks for approving the article on Oxenbridge. Online info is very sparse. A detailed search at a local archive or British Library would be needed to provide a detailed biography of info that is not available on the Net. The St Joseph's & its relation to the secondary school St Mary's has been incorporated into the appropriate existing page. The reference to the Verona Father's is fully referenced by the accusations at Mirfield College which resulted in the Catholic Church paying over £1 million in an out of court settlement. There is no suggestion of inappropriate behaviour during the Convent period which existed before 1911. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armourae (talk • contribs) 11:48, 1 April 2015‎

Draft:Charles Garland

Thanks for the guidance and reasons for rejection. I am new to this, having only edited friends and institutions where I have worked up to now. This is my first article and I tried to use references from respectable trade journals like Campaign, The Hollywood Reporter and Billboard to provide acceptable sources of information. You mentioned that the references were regurgitated press releases so keen to find a way to improve this. Please let me have other criteria for references - do you need other journals or other sources to validate facts, and I can hopefully comply. Best wishes and thanks for your help. Lee Roberts 1968 Lee Roberts 1968 (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Roberts 1968: The best place to look for guidance is WP:42 which is rather brutal shorthand. The trick is to get coverage abut the topic, not by the topic. Fiddle Faddle 12:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - just so I am clear the articles are not acceptable because they draw upon a press release about the subject's departure or news which has been originated by them. You need an article which may be an interview or take quotes from them and which is originated independently, but which provides chronological proof of facts such as job role. On that basis, are all 4 of the references unacceptable or may some be left in the article? Please give guidance if any can remain. Lee Lee Roberts 1968 (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close. Press Releases are always spin. They are to be distrusted. Interviews are, too. So an interview with Garland has his words, un commented upon. That is thus a primary source wherever it is published. We need what folk have written or said about Garland, and independently. If nothing exists then he is not Notable in our sense. Facts that are unlikely to be challenged do not need thorough verification. Does that help? Fiddle Faddle 12:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I have found this - which is from Simon Cowell's biography and helps to validate facts - eg the subject's background and his professional record.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3qvLC8mHLQgC&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=charles+garland+beckham&source=bl&ots=YN1xHRxLZJ&sig=JZChHhqqqcqEeImvGwpcXM5rtpw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TewbVaa9B8HhaKnEgOgD&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=charles%20garland%20beckham&f=false

Is this sufficiently impartial? Do you recommend I remove all the other references and keep just this, or do any of the other references carry any value to retain?

Thanks for all your help. LeeLee Roberts 1968 (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Roberts 1968: The Cowell book does no harm, and is better than the other sourcing I've looked at. The reason I think it is ok is that Garland's appointment to the position is unlikely to be susceptible to challenge. It happened. The book beats a press release hollow, though we must recognise that the book is, of itself, a promotional piece, designed either to sell itself because it is about Cowell or to sell Cowell
You're getting the trick to it. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL ought to help you somewhat. What I'm striving to spot and failing is whether Garland passes WP:BIO. If he passes, then great. I suspect he may well not. The 'newspapers' angle is your best bet here. Unfortunately the name is common so the search will be hard
Now, let's be fair, there are loads of biogs on non notable people on Wikipedia. Eventually they will face deletion. My objective as a reviewer is to help you get to a point where there is a 0.6 probability of your draft surviving a deletion discussion. The discussions we're having over the draft now are detailed. Imagine trying to defend against deletion. It gets 10 times harder. Fiddle Faddle 16:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12:46:43, 1 April 2015 review of submission by Vizzerdrix55


This article is a translation of the article of the German wikipedia article. As you can see in the discussion of the article, I am not that familiar with Wikipedia to correctly mark the translation mark. The history of the article is as following: The UKBB wrote the german text on their homepage. They decided to publish the informations on the German wikipedia. The translated the text in English and wanted the translation to be published on the English wikipedia (my part) and on their homepage. Vizzerdrix55 (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the referencing is not good. Solve that and it is like to move forward. Fiddle Faddle 12:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anne_Seisen_Saunders

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anne_Seisen_Saunders

She's normally referred to by her Buddhist name, Seisen, which is why I've used that rather than the more common last name.

Suspect I'm only partway there on the references... any help appreciated.

Mulling over fair continuous prose - you used it referring to my list-like article... you're right and I'm not yet sure how to fix that without simply co-joining paragraphs of different topics... sigh.

Thanks for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annew43 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Knights and Ulphans...

and... User:Babyjanus361 as well. Sigh.Naraht (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and after looking for one of the strings, User talk:Knight Archie as well.Naraht (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC
Ah well. Fiddle Faddle 18:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And User talk:Sigma Upsilon - Upsilon Lambda Naraht (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22the+sad+experiences+of+the+boys+all+%22&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go Naraht (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Naraht: Zapped them all at CSD and set up an SPI for this lot. Keep 'em coming as you find more. Fiddle Faddle 18:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that, I've seen *considerably* more underhanded Sockpuppeting. He *might* not know all the rules rather than knowing them and trying to break them.Naraht (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And the Pope might not be catholic Fiddle Faddle 20:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19:36:29, 1 April 2015 review of submission by Rob19801980


Thanks for looking at the draft edit of this. I'm a bit confused about the request for better referencing as the references are from some of the most reliable sources available including the BBC, Guardian and Daily Telegraph. They are more reliable in fact then the references for another website blocker on wikipedia and also the entry that I wrote has more information than this one that has been approved. If you could explain why this one here has been approved when the one I wrote has been rejected would help me in improving the entry, thanks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_(software) Rob19801980 (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rob19801980 (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that many of these are passing mentions, not significant coverage. Fiddle Faddle 20:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

00:29:11, 2 April 2015 review of submission by 125.213.191.72


Hi there,

I have about 60 different references, many of which are from acclaimed newspapers within Australia. I actually am unsure how much more credible the sources can be. I also have references to Australian government (telecommunication) documents and websites, and to particular state Australian governments, all of which reference the company. We have got even more coverage of late for a recent purchase of a large international telecommunications company, so I can include more articles from acclaimed news publishers if needed, however I feel if anything the reference list is getting on the excessive side.

Please advise where the problem lies so I can fix it accordingly.

Thanks,

Lauren

125.213.191.72 (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timtrent&oldid=654567505"