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 Sabrinap2015 (talk | contribs) at 19:45, 9 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 8:03 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.

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]

Thanks for all your help so far. I have deleted most of the Press Release originated references and used the strongest one I can find from the Simon Cowell biography as shown before. There are two other novels which have similar references - one is the Susan Boyle biography - the other a work by Richard Hytner about Consiglieri -eg Charles' role in working with high profile media figures like Simon Cowell. Susan Boyle, Professional Singer: The Fourth Six Months - CG ref p71 

By Lucyb Lightner

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FDRaAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=susan+boyle+the+fourth+six+months&source=bl&ots=8ndq1ggVIF&sig=dD65z5EPB01bQiy4FX0XhNChDHU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5v4bVb6vOIP0aoiegtAH&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=susan%20boyle%20the%20fourth%20six%20months&f=false 

Consiglieri: Leading from the Shadows by Richard Hytner- refs to CG on p. 56,88-89, 234-5, 242-3

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BDAlAwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=consiglieri+leading+from+the+shadows&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hvsbVcTlNY7haofKgvgH&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=consiglieri%20leading%20from%20the%20shadows&f=false

The problem is that in these cases the specific pages which feature Garland are not available within the online preview - could I use such a reference or do we need to have directly accessible text.

In its current form, is there any way that this biography could pass the test?

Lee Roberts 1968 (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you had the answer a couple of minutes ago. Do not despair. Have a chat to the reviewer who has pushed it back to you. This is an iterative process. 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. Keep going and you will probably achieve it. Only submit it for re-revoew when you are ready. Time is something that we all have. Fiddle Faddle 18:29, 7 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]
Actually, from the way he was trying to build the articles on top of the copyvio, I don't think he had much experience at all (at the "Your Wiki-foo is weak!" level).Naraht (talk) 12:11, 2 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]
Thanks for your reply. I appreciate it. However I still really confused about your comment that they are passing references. For instance references 3, 4, 5 are articles completely about the app itself showing that it has thousands and thousands of downloads. That's more than 5000 words about the software itself. While reference 7 is a BBC online article all about the app and how it helps children do their homework - this is not a passing reference. The whole article is about Stop Procrastinating and the research it has produced. References 2 and 9 are passing mentions I agree although they are in the BBC and Huffington Post. References 10, 11 and 12 are stories solely about Stop Procrastinating and the research it has produced, so the whole story is about the software, so not a passing mention. I'm also a bit confused as to why when the references here very reputable you have declined this but approved this one which references aren't as good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_(software). Thanks.
Rob19801980 (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rob19801980: I'm sorry. I ought to have been clearer. What I mean is that those that are passing mentions need to go. Full reviews need to stay. The source of a passing mention may be authoritative, but they are not significant coverage. Your role is to make sure that you only use excellent references. That way the process also helps you in the future.
All new folk here can see that we have some crap. That is the reason that we never use any article as a precedent for any other. if we did then we would escalate mediocrity. We often nominate crap for deletion. It is then either improved or deleted. Either is valid. Fiddle Faddle 11:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've followed your advice and removed the sourcing with only a passing mentioned, but left the full reviews and the major mentions in the BBC. Ie the BBC article that is left is fully about the app and it's research. Thanks again.

Rob19801980 (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rob19801980: Excellent, Rob. Now you stand a chance. Good luck. Continue to improve it while you await a review. It will not be from me. I almost never re-review drafts. I see it as important not to. Fiddle Faddle 15:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IXP online service, visual programming

I have added two references from different continents, both are print media.Javaflug (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:43:02, 2 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Bjrudell


Copyrighted Images - Brailsford & Dunlavey

Hi Timtrent, thanks for your message. Chris Spielmann did take the photos of Paul Brailsford and Chris Dunlavey, which is why they're showing up as his. But he sold the rights to those images in 2010 (when they were taken) to the company Brailsford & Dunlavey. Should they still be deleted? Or does this fact ensure that they can be included in the Brailsford & Dunlavey Wikipedia page?


Bjrudell (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bjrudell: First, there is no need to rush. I know it seems that way, but take it slowly. That which is deleted is never lost. There are two options I see:
  1. Forget the pictures. In the article they are decorative rather than useful. In an article on the individuals they would be useful. IN this article, eventually, someone is likely to delete them as non needed decoration.
  2. Allow them to be deleted and, simultaneously, go through the process of proving that the copyright was sold to whoever claims it today. Once the claim is validated you will be able to add them to the articles you specify when gong through the process.
Remember, there is genuinely no rush to establish ownership of copyright and donation of material. It just feels as if there is.
However, this brings me to another point, a point that in a Draft article hardly matters. Effectively you have stated that you are associated with B&D. That means that you need to read WP:COI which will be 'effective' once the draft is accepted. At WP:AFC we give a lot of leeway because reviewers will ensure yo strip any COI out. Fiddle Faddle 17:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

kezia noble vs richard la ruina

hello there i have looked in to a few other's who are on wikipedia with no problems and similar referencing to kezia and there does not seem to be much difference in the links that are provided by whom ever made the pages. here are a few examples (there are many on wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_La_Ruina , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marwa_Rakha , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Spira. I would just like to know whats the difference between these guys and 'kezia noble'?

Thanks for reading this

Jiimy Sandhu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.145.84 (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I am not interested in the other articles. 22:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 02:14:17, 3 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Lizseach


Thank you for your prompt feedback! :) I am wondering if you have any suggestions for which sections of this entry should have been cited. I have a couple of ideas, but I am wondering if there is anything specific. In attempting to teach myself how to write an entry, I looked at other examples of academics to see how inline citations had been used with them. The two I took as my models were Nelson Lichtenstein (another faculty member at the same institution) and James T. Richardson (another sociologist). Given the way inline citations were used in those two entries, I actually thought I might be overdoing it, and did not include even more citations so as not to appear amateurish. Apparently, I erred in the wrong direction. :( Any suggestions for where to add more would be appreciated. Thank you so much for your help.

Lizseach (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Lizseach[reply]

Lizseach (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, I had brain failure! I shall return it to the unreviewed state. My apologies. Fiddle Faddle 07:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

02:19:48, 3 April 2015 review of submission by Folkrelic


The resubmission of Joe Stevens (photographer) that you rejected is not a duplicate. I had time to do a better job. Please delete the first resubmission.

D2 02:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by editing things, not by creating new versions. I suggest you just do what is asked of you. Fiddle Faddle 06:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

05:48:41, 3 April 2015 review of submission by HihiPete


Thanks for your comment about more citations, but doubt I can do this - the album is from a group that already has a page on wiki and this provides the details of their third studio album, which is listed on that page? I see this as only adding a link from that page to this page, and, thereby, add the details of the album.

Also, can you tell me how I can download the album's artwork (cover), assuming this page is approved, at some stage?

HihiPete (talk) 05:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that references are non negotiable.
With regard to downloading cover artwork, you may download anything, but you may only upload material which is licenced correctly for Wikipedia. WP:COPYRIGHTS is a lengthy read, but the lace to study. Fiddle Faddle 07:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lon Safko Page

Hello. I had submitted an article on 'Lon Safko' for re-review after improving the references, however it was again rejected by you due to unreliable and non-verifiable sources. Actually Lon Safko is my client and I have had detailed discussions with him on this topic. His contention is that I should request you to accept this article along with the information that's present unless and until anyone comes up with proofs to the contrary. Let me know how can you help to resolve this situation. I will really appreciate your assistance in this regard. This is my first venture at Wikipedia and i am really interested to become part of this system on regular basis. I await your response. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayazf (talk • contribs) 07:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. See WP:COI. Use proper references. This is not Mr Safko's personal brochure. Fiddle Faddle 07:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:09:23, 3 April 2015 review of submission by JeromySolo


Good morning,

Thank you for taking the time to review my entry submission. I saw that the reason for rejection of the entry was the lack of notability as well as incorrect referencing.

For my article, I reference Columbus Business First (A major publication in Columbus -- itself an off-shoot of the national Business Journals publication group) and This Week Community News (a major news source in the Hilliard area, where Ares is headquartered). Could you please guide me in the direction of sources which would better serve as references for my article?

In terms of the notability of the subject, Ares Sportswear is in the top 5 of the customized athletic apparel industry. Could you please provide insight on how I can better prove it's notability?

Thank you!


JeromySolo (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did, on the draft. Lose the lousy references, keep the good ones, find more. Fiddle Faddle 21:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Doing as I am told.

Tokyogirl79, here is a revision of the Joe Stevens (photographer) entry. I tried to resolve the issues you raised. I would appreciate your suggestions for improvement.

Pasted material, unreviewed

Joe Stevens (photographer)

Joe Stevens is a rock photographer who photographed David Bowie 12 to 15 times in his career[1]. Several of his photographs are included in Paolo Hewitt's 2013 book on Bowie, "Album by Album."

Career

Stevens sees himself as a chronicler of history[2]. He is a contemporary of rock photographers Jim Marshall (1936-2010)and Bob Gruen (1945- ). He lives near Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

Accolades

"Stevens isn't a rock & roll photographer. He is rock & roll" (Adam Coughlin, "Pictures: A look at the images, not just the rockers," The Hippo, Nov. 3, 2011)

"Hot Shots: Joe Stevens reflects on his time photographing David Bowie," Christopher Hislop, Seacoast Sunday, Jan. 20, 2013 "Pictures: A look at the images, not just the rockers," Adam Coughlin, The (Manchester, NH) Hippo, Nov. 3, 2011

Thank you. D2 03:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Folkrelic

D2 00:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Folkrelic: I am not Tokyogirl79. I'm not about to re-review this material. As long as you are submitting the correct version then someone else will review it. There is never any need to paste material onto my talk page form drafts. I do not read it here, nor do I make suggestions here. Fiddle Faddle 17:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:39:29, 4 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by AkshataKini


HI, I'm new to Wikipedia and would like to ask if the references can be from the official website. The reason being, there is not much data available other than the ones mentioned in the references.

Kindly guide me on the same.

AkshataKini (talk) 05:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:PRIMARY which explains when primary sources may be used. As you can see they are allowed, but in very specific situations. Fiddle Faddle 17:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please disregard duplicate submissiong User:Inajane/sandbox/Maris Racal

Hi Timtrent!

Thank you for reviewing my article. Please discard my duplicate work in my sandbox and consider this one Draft:Mariestella Racal Just let me know how can I improve my article and if it already pass the criterias.

Thank you so much for your assistance!--Inajane (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

08:59:05, 6 April 2015 review of submission by Try1234


Hello im a musician and i really need a wiki page badly please help me out Try1234 (talk) 08:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe you need a page on Wikipedia? Fiddle Faddle 15:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Prakash Panangaden

Hi,

I have updated the Draft: Prakash Panangaden to fix the issues you raised. I also discussed with some editors on the on-line wikipedia help last night to get further advice. I am really hoping it is ok now.

Thanks, Laurie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljhendren (talk • contribs) 16:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the task on so well. I re-review drafts very rarely, believing that other eyes provide a better result. Do not be disheartened if it happens to be pushed back to you again. 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 19:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

09:50:07, 7 April 2015 review of submission by Kdakin


I cannot understand why I have had my article deleted as I have produced numerous notable and widely used IBM software since 1970. The internet did not exist during the time I wrote most of this software - so there are few references on-line to this software - but it is still extant in some form or another as can be seen from the references in the article. I actually also programmed the first ever fully interactive spreadsheet SIX years before Visicalc. See -Works Records System. ken (talk) 09:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kdakin: You have had the draft declined, not deleted. References may be from printed media, but must meet WP:42. Are you important? You write as though you think you are? We discourage autobiographies for just this reason. You may be notable, and, if so, you will merit an article here. I did a fair bit in the IT industry, too. I am not notable. I do not merit an article here. Fiddle Faddle 09:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

K Dakin / Ken Dakin

I have re-edited my article with additional bio.

Please look at notability of the articles (especially Works Records System - first electronic spreadsheet (mainframe) and IBM OLIVER (CICS interactive test/debug) - probably the first fully interactive test/debug system - similar to Visual Studio on PC's - but for mainframes - in 1974) ken (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kdakin: It is important that more eyes than mine look at drafts, thus I try very hard not to review a second time. My impression, though, is that the subject;s own notability is neither asserted nor verified. Instead you have fallen into the trap of believing that your work is notable, and so you must be. The draft is about you, and the wording and the references must be about you. Looking at your contributions record I know that you have been here long enough to understand that, and would were the article not an autobiography Fiddle Faddle 10:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


It appears that programming what almost certainly qualifies as, the first ever on-line electronic spreadsheet for a mainframe, does not, even itself, signify a notable achievement. It was achieved long before Visicalc was thought of or written and also before IBM PC's had been created (and furthermore ran bug-free for 27 years at ICI, a major international chemical company).
Also, it appears that solving a really major reliability problem with the most successful transaction server for a period of at least 20 years (namely providing storage protection between multiple CICS applications) is not noteworthy! In addition, IBM OLIVER (CICS interactive test/debug) may easily have been the first ever fully interactive test/debug system - long before PC's and Visual Studio were even thought of.
It also appears to be 'not notable' that I solved yet another multi-million dollar worldwide IBM problem with Command CICS, at a time when IBM just stopped supporting Macro level CICS applications in the 1990's, leaving thousands of major customers with the job of rewriting or converting tens of thousands of perfectly sound legacy application programs.


As a programmer of 40 years standing with many successful software projects completed, just what then does one have to do to be considered notable?
It seems also, that the article I produced recently about Alec Naylor Dakin, who worked alongside Alan Turing in hut 4 at Bletchley park, was also not notable. It has been re-worked by me from the original Times & Telegraph article - so is not copyrighted material. Only a short quote from his obituary remains intact (as a quote) . It also now has some added biographical material about his inventor father that doesn't appear in either Obituary. This man deserves recognition, and the relevant Wikipedia editor is denying him that.ken (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kdakin: Please curb your indignation. Read WP:BLP. Do not hector me, it is counter-productive. I have never, not ever, toadied to the "Do you know who I am?" brigade, and I am not about to start now. Are you notable? I have no idea. I also have no interest. The article neither asserts nor verifies your notability. This an encyclopaedia. not a "Who's Who in IBM"
The only thing being denied here is a piss poor article being approved. Do the work, and stop complaining to me when you cannot do it right yet. I doubt your first effort at software was bug-free.
I am losing interest. That is principally because of the hectoring. Fiddle Faddle 14:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the edit history of Alec Naylor Dakin, where your work was revision deleted as a copyright infringement. I imagine IBM also protected its copyrights assiduously. You need to learn your trade here. Wikipedia will not change, so you must. Fiddle Faddle 15:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Gray

Hello TimTrent... I have just noted your rejection of my significant modification to The Gray Matrix. It appears you still consider it a 'Test' article - because I considered it to be for real this time especially. I really need help in this as I fail to understand what significant changes to make to make it acceptable. I had contacted the Tea Room chat but was told to contact the reviewer, which is you. My main purposes are two-fold: (1) To provide a meaningful definition for people who read about Gray Matrix on the Engel Scale page and (2) to correct the many bits of misinformation put out there who trace it back to 2005 (e.g.) and describe it as the modification of others - when in fact it was the pre-cursor. I need to set the record straight. Any help you can give in terms of practical suggestions would be much appreciated... Thank you!

--Frank Gray (talk) 10:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Frankgray: The draft I declined was sparse in the extreme. I suspect you have not submitted what you believe you have submitted. Tell me with precision what you want submitted and I will do that for you.

14:42:25, 7 April 2015 review of submission by Rodevel


Hello, please let me know in few words why my page is not ok for wikipedia. it is the presentation of the aventura park and has now link to the website www.edenland.ro

thanks a lot

Rodevel (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did. It is an advert Fiddle Faddle 14:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Lutz Michael Wegner

Dear Timtrent, I appreciate your effort to keep BLP pages free from subjective nonsense. I'm out of the academic game and don't need an ego booster. What "this gentleman" (quote page history) would like to create is an anchor which is sufficiently persistent, e.g. to disambiguate the name against the better known Prof. Peter Wegner from Brown Univ. To make it worth enough to appear in the Wikipedia, there must be notable achievements which must be substantiated, I fully agree. I thought I added three modest achievements in the article and provided references from independent sources. In the old days of CS, by the way, achievement meant that you were listed in Donald Knuth's TAoCP books. See Vol. III. Maybe we could settle the issue if you gave me direct hints on what to drop. Thanks Gelegenheitsleser (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gelegenheitsleser: I am just the chap you met . We all strive to keep BLP on track, if you look above this thread you will see bombast used to thrust a chap forward, and failing. Thank you for being civilised.
The trick with this draft is to pare it to the bone, only citing things about the gentleman (yes, I know it is you, but I strive to keep to third party). So, for example, http://www.wu.ac.at/infobiz/team/janko/ is about Janko, not Wegner. We should only cite it if it links Janko to Wegner. Then http://scholarwiki.indiana.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Remarks_on_the_algebra_of_non_first_normal_form_relations is inadmissible because it is a user edited source. I can't read the offline reference. The other refs are about Wegner.
Ok, so far so good. I am unsure that what remains passes WP:PROF, something you and reviewers must judge separately. I am far more capable of judging simple WP:BLP matters. I do know DGG has an expertise here, so I am pinging them to ask for an opinion and assistance for the draft. My view is simple. If it is citable and about Wegner, and passes WP:42 cite it. It it is not citable, certainly for now, omit it. The objective is to provide the sensible minimum to allow acceptance such that there is a better than 60% chance that it will not face immediate deletion. I don;t mind whether you have a technical conflict of interest as long as you are able to construct WP:NPOV copy. Most folk cannot do that for their autobiography. You seem to be able to. More power to your metaphorical elbow.
I don't re-review drafts where I can help it. Further pairs of eyes always produce a better result, much like peer reviews.
You may find WP:ACADEME of interest. Fiddle Faddle 17:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent Thanks, this is a good start. I removed the NF2 and the Janko link. I will look into the other hints, e.g. WP:PROF. I like to keep the other references, e.g. the one to Traudl Herrhausen, because they create noteworthy historical cross-references. TH is the widow of Alfred Herrhausen, former Deutsche Bank CEO who was killed by the red army brigade. Instead of sitting back, she went into politics, getting many good things started, among them CS at my university. I mention it because WP creates these interesting cross-links. In reading the Peter Wegner page, I learned that he was hit by a bus in London and suffered severe brain damage. Jesus! Then in looking for WP pages about non-first normal-form, I came across the Patrick C. Fischer page, a fellow I cited frequently. I learned he was the target of the Unabomber in 1982. Holy cow! So yes, keep it short and precise, but not necessarily dry. I give my best ... Gelegenheitsleser (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gelegenheitsleser: You have the trick to it. I hope you pass the test of notability. Fiddle Faddle 19:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline notability. The possible notability is either as an authority in his subject, or an academic administrator. Authority in one's subject is normally judged for scientists by the citations to their works, and none of his published papers or conference proceedings listed in Google Scholar show more than 22 reference--this is rather low for the subject. Academic administrator means president of the college or the like--her was a department chairman. The evidence that he started his department seem to derive from a university press release and an article in a regional paper that is clearly based on the press release. Whether this is a notable accomplishment would depend on WP:GNG, which would probably require additional sources. A professional magazine article on him would probably be the most likely. However, he has an article in the deWP, and I cannot remember that we have ever deleted an article on a German academic who has an accepted article there--their standards for such things seem higher than ours. But this article was only added there very recently.
The criterion for accepting a draft is not that it will certainly be notable, but that it have a decent chance of passing afd. It's hard to predict Afds, but this does have a reasonable chance. I'm adding this as a comment, and then accepting it. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


and I did the same at Satwant Singh Dhaliwal for the same reason: I want to let the community decide in the usual open manner where anyone interested can find it. There are a number of others who comment on these academic articles, and if it's nominated for afd, they'll see it there. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Timtrent, How do I create an infobox with photo, caption, birthdate/place, occupation, etc. and website of the person I am writing about? Thank You, Akligman1 Akligman1 (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deploy {{infobox person}} at the head of the article. Leave all the blank parameters present, and fill out the ones you need. Fiddle Faddle 08:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Timtrent. Please describe how I "deploy." Akligman1 (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and paste it, in with its parameters. Then fill in the parameters you have data for and leave the others alone. Fiddle Faddle 15:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are full instructions on the template page. click the link. Fiddle Faddle 15:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar!

Hi, I very much appreciate the barnstar. I'm new to the community so I'm starting with the easy AfCs, but I hope to help put a dent in that backlog! Your comments and reviews have been really informative as I've started to get involved. Here's to working together! Cheers, wia (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiisawesome: We all start at the easy ones! I keep a list of updated boilerplate comment at User:Timtrent/Reviewing which you are welcome to adopt, adapt and improve for your own use. Fiddle Faddle 13:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's really useful; I'll bookmark the page. Thanks! wia (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikiisawesome: You might also find participating at the AFC help Desk a useful place to learn more. Sometimes we old hands can get sharper than one might wish with some of the questions. We forget that the 20th time we hear the question is irrelevant, for it is the first time the "current idiot" has asked it. Pick up some easy ones and progress to the harder ones over time. The only 'rule' is always to click the TB link after you have answered to make sure they know they have an answer. Fiddle Faddle 17:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:45:30, 9 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Sabrinap2015


I need help with fixing the problems outlined. I have had a hard time going through the process and would like some assistance in getting the issues resolved.


Sabrinap2015 (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timtrent&oldid=655725433"