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 Dabraham (talk | contribs) at 00:51, 13 May 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 4:51 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.

can you look at this artice and edit it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roblox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samal10124 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can. Why do I want to? Fiddle Faddle 21:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its Wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samal10124 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Samal10124: So, correct it. I have no knowledge of the organisation nor interest in it. Fiddle Faddle 15:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

02:27:03, 5 May 2015 review of submission by Librariegrrl


I added a bunch more References. I didn't format them perfectly (that's why I didn't "re-submit" yet) because I wanted to check with you first to see if I gave enough info to correct my initial error. It seems obvious that if Bastille (band) is notable because of winning awards and charting, then each member of the four-piece deserves individual recognition as well. I didn't know how to elaborate on Chris Wood's contributions without repeating everything in the Bastille (band) main article or the Bas Blood (Bastille album) article.

I really would like your help because if I can get this right, then I can add an article about Kyle Simmons (the 4th Bastille member). For some reason, the article on Will Farquarson was approved. I basically used that article as the basis of my Chris Wood article, but it was still rejected. This makes me think that you should review the Will Farquarson article also so that I understand why he wasn't A7'd and Woody was.

Librariegrrl (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Librariegrrl: There is a little tool in the eft hand margin, reFill. I used it to format the references. I turned OGG the option for access dates, which we do the first time around. Try that . I only reviewed the draft as if he were a living person. Musicians have to pass WP:MUSIC, a standard I never quite seem to get right, so I can't tell you if he passes that one. I do know that a band member has to be pretty special to get a named article, and that they are usually redirected to the band itself. Fiddle Faddle 08:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


@Timtrent: Thank you for explaining about why Woody (band member) wouldn't get his own article. I only thought that he should since William "Will" Farquarson who is no more notable as he is also "merely" a band member of Bastille *did* get an article. I see that the correct answer is *not* that Woody and Kyle should *also* get articles like Will. It's that I need to ask them to take down Will's article based on A7 "notability" for WP:MUSIC. The correct course of action is to roll info and details about individual band members of Bastille into the Bastille (band) main article until one of them becomes more "notable" (like, Bono or something). (note: I have no issue with Dan Smith - lead singer and founder of Bastille having his own article because he is truly special, but Will is no different than Woody or Kyle.). So, *new question*: how do I ask that Will Farquarson be taken down and add Will Farquarson, Chris "woody" wood and Kyle Simmons to wikipedia to "redirect" to Bastille (band)? thanks bunches for all the help Librariegrrl (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Librariegrrl: Take the following steps, in order.
  1. OnTalk:Will Farquarson start a new section explaining what you believe needs to happen along the lines of "Since Fred is not really notable in his own right, I will be merging the relevant material into the band's article. To allow for objections I will wait a couple of days before I do this." Use your own words and name the band article proper, linking to it
  2. After the period has elapsed, merge the relevant details, saying in your edit summary what you are doing
  3. On completion of the merge, there is no need to ask for the member to be deleted. Instead you turn it into a redirect to the band article by replacing 100% of the text in it (This included any categories, etc) with #REDIRECT[[Insert non-formatted text here]] where the non formatted text is the name of the target article.
  4. State on the band member's talk page that the material is now merged and that you have turned the page into a redirect
We use redirects in these circumstances because the person's name is a valid reader entry point. Indeed, it is valid to create redirects for every band member of a significant band to point to the band's article. My view is that every good Wikipedia editor should do this.
The important thing with an existing article that you are turning into a redirect, unless you are the only editor, is to seek consensus first, hence the message on the talk page. If you are the only editor, WP:BOLD applies. Note, though, that you may not go against a consensus. So, if folk object to your original message, and the arguments against outweigh the arguments for, leave it as it stands. Fiddle Faddle 07:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent:Thanks so much. I will follow the steps that you outlined. Hopefully I will have time this weekend. Thanks again for your help. Librariegrrl (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:41:03, 5 May 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Azzi65


I want to override a previous submission of an article on 'Lon Safko'. Kindly let me know how to go about that. Do I have to ask that particular contributor to remove his submission and also what's the process to delete a submission?


Azzi65 (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Work on that submission in co-operation with the other editor. The emphasis is on the word co-operation Fiddle Faddle 11:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12:22:20, 5 May 2015 review of submission by AlexandraWnyc


AlexandraWnyc (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexandraWnyc: I am not a mind reader. Please ask a question. Fiddle Faddle 15:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RACES

Can you please provide the content of my recently deleted draft submission (The Australian Racism, Acceptance, and Cultural-Ethnocentrism Scale), as noted in your comment?

Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Kaine Grigg (talk • contribs) 12:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Kaine Grigg: No. It was a copyright violation. Even if I were an administrator I would not do so. Doing so would be a further copyright violation. You know where you copied it from and you may find it there, but you may not use those words here. Fiddle Faddle 15:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


But in the response to The Australian Racism, Acceptance, and Cultural-Ethnocentrism Scale draft submission you have stated:

"If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page."

I am confused. Can you please provided me with the text that I submitted.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Kaine Grigg (talk • contribs) 13:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Kaine Grigg: Click the list. That is why it say 'this list' on your talk page and is a hyperlink. I am not a member of it. But no-one will give you text that was a copyright violation. Fiddle Faddle 13:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Tim....I have been in Search Of You!

Dear Tim, thanks so much for responding to my authorship request; I'd like to go into authorship/editorial further with you (or someone from TeaHouse) personally now that the major disclaimer stuff has been *public-ally issued by my project: PROJECT BLUEJACKET, a research and documentation project of SEAwind Alliance, Alaska 99577-7701. Nice to meet you...look forward to being a part of the Great Wikipedia Project!Project Bluejacket (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Project Bluejacket (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Project Bluejacket: What you might find even better is asking for a mentor at WP:CO-OP. I don't think I responded to any request, you know. Nowadays I am mainly engaged in reviewing draft articles, which is how we met.
You would do well to read WP:YFA as well as finding a mentor. Wikipedia is unlike any environment you have ever met before
That something is declassified does not, of itself, mean it is appropriate for Wikipedia. You also need to recognise that copyright is king. We may not, ever, infringe upon anyone else's copyright.
You should also ensure that your user page, User:Project Bluejacket states with clarity that you are the sole user of your account, assuming that to be correct. We have a policy of one account = one person. Your account name is ambiguous, and you needs to state it with clarity. Fiddle Faddle 18:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21:30:28, 5 May 2015 review of submission by Junflr


Hi Timtrent,

Wanted to create a page for her because she already exists on Wikipedia when searched for. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWPR-FM, under former DJs) I just added a link to her iMDb page as another external link and I am wondering what else can be included/how else I can improve the page. I am pulling together a list of her other credits now. Looking forward to your feedback.

Thank you.

Junflr (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. I added a comment to the draft for you which I omitted by accident earlier. Fiddle Faddle 21:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

==Articles for creation== As per Template:Telugu Desam/meta/shortname this page, I have created Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Template:YSR Congress/meta/shortname this. It was declined.--Vin09 (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC) My mistake it already exists here Template:YSR Congress Party/meta/shortname.--Vin09 (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Submission declined on 27 April 2015 by Timtrent

Dear Timtrent

Thank you for your advice. I certainly appreciate the time and effort you put forth to consider my article on Peter Drucker’s tagline, “Do what you do best and outsource the rest.”

I would like very much to respectfully discuss your comments and I hope you understand that I am in no way seeking to be argumentative or quarrelsome. Since I am new to this process, I must bow to your commitment and experience to the Wikipedia process. That being said, I thought the best way to proceed would be for me to first give you an idea of how and why I attempted to write this brief article.

It started about seven weeks ago, when I was looking up an old saying for my son, “Do what you do best, and get the best to do the rest.” Then, what I stumbled upon truly surprised me. I found that the quote in a modern context, now reads “Do what you do best, and outsource the rest.” I thought, “Outsource; are you kidding me‽”

Then, while researching who actually said it and why, I was led to Peter Drucker. What surprised me the most, were the unusual adulations that were given to the late Peter Drucker when describing the effect he has had on global business over the past several decades.

Coming from a financial background, I’d heard of Peter Drucker, because if you’re business has anything to do with management, his name would be familiar. In the same fashion, if one loved soccer, the name Pele would be familiar. In fact most soccer fans after having considered his record, would have no difficulty in referring to Pele as having been “legendary.”

Likewise, if one were talking about football, few would have a problem saying that Joe Montana was “legendary.” If one were speaking of baseball, few would have a problem saying that Babe Ruth was “legendary.” I’m sure you see my point. However, the statement that Peter Drucker was “legendary” was not mine.

That was Forbes magazine who made that specific description:

http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/01/vested-outsourcing-microsoft-intel-leadership-managing-kate-vitasek.html

By no means are descriptions such as this isolated. In fact Forbes magazine went one step further when Stephen Forbes himself wrote an article printed by the Wall Street Journal entitled “A Tribute to Peter Drucker” where he stated that Drucker was, “, the most influential management guru of the modern era?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113202508406497251

BusinessWeek when speaking about his contribution to management stated, “And nobody has been more central to the creation of management as a subject worthy of serious attention than famed management guru Peter F. Drucker.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2004-09-07/peter-drucker-mr-dot-management

If I might impose on you to consider one last reference, I believe that the following will succinctly make my point. As you are probably aware, the Harvard Business Review periodically presents what is referred to as a “McKinsey Award” for outstanding and significant accomplishments in the world of business. To carry our sports analogy one step further, the “Heisman Trophy” would be to college football as the “McKinsey Award” is to business. Of importance is the fact that Peter Drucker has won the award seven times the most ever awarded to one person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Business_Review http://quotes.quotesquiz.com/quote/authors/peter-drucker

Now the question is why did I show you these references? Believe it or not, I like you abhor puffery, because prior to retiring, I too had to work against such tactics in my previous profession. Therefore I submit that my referring to Peter Drucker’s achievements as having been referenced as “legendary” is by no means puffery. In fact the extraordinary adulation that he received over the years is the very reason I wrote the article. I was completely stunned, when I realized to what extent the tagline in question affected global business. (My article was about the tagline, not Peter Drucker)

The gentleman who edited my first submission advised me to focus my article more on the tagline itself rather than Peter Drucker. That is why in the article you critiqued, I merely mentioned Peter Drucker with a brief description. The point to be made is that I have no ax to grind or interests to pursue other than the dissemination of what I thought to be worthy subject matter.

I of course am willing to submit to all qualified critiques and suggestions. I do want to make my submission as encyclopedic as possible. However, I feel is important to understand that the actual descriptions that I used were not my attempts at puffery or bias reporting. Like Pele, Joe Montana, and Babe Ruth, the global business community considers Peter Drucker to be nothing less than “legendary.” To say less of his accomplishments would simply not be accurate.

I can only hope, with everything having been said, that you might reconsider my submission. Perhaps with a fresh pair of eyes on the subject, WP:PEACOCK WP:WEASEL would no longer seem relevant. I look forward to your continued help and editing.

Thank you for your kind consideration

Hbazarte Hbazarte (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hbazarte: I see we are discussing Draft:Do what you do best and outsource the rest. I'm not sure what it is that you want me to say. There are many people in business I don't care for, Drucker included, and all motivational gurus without exception. I find them to be leeches and parasites. Any fool can say what they have said, but they had the trick of publicity. But that doesn't influence my review of the article as an article. One of your references attributes the exhortation to Tom Peters, by the way.
So, if the exhortation is, of itself, notable, it is the exhortation that must be reported in the article, and only from the perspective of collating what is said about it in terms of significant coverage, and independent of it or, I suggest its promoters, and in WP:RS. We can include nothing else. Those are the rules.
Words like legendary are difficult for Wikipedia. A legendary man only exists in legend. Such words are superlatives, and peacockery. Drucker was a real management consultant.
So, were I to write the article, I would start with the references, and list with precision what they say. I would set out a timeline, and look at placing the referenced elements on that timeline, but uncommented upon. The article would be neutral and not draw any conclusions, which yours does. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are not allowed.
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. I'd love to have been able to accept this one. I;d love the next reviewer to be able to accept it. Fiddle Faddle 19:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Timtrent,

Thank you so much for your prompt review of my message. Although I completely disagree with your assessment of Drucker as a “motivational guru,” that certainly is not the issue at hand. We all have room for our own opinions and I now clearly see that we cannot express them inside of a Wikipedia article. So then, to your advice: I say point taken! I think your suggestions were sound and I will do my best to apply them. I will work to quote only from reliable sources by Wikipedia’s definition. Over the days ahead, I will make the necessary changes as you advised.

This is certainly turning out to be a beneficial learning experience. Again, thank you for your consideration.


Hbazarte Hbazarte (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hbazarte: I had not realised I had been ambiguous, my apologies. I see, now, that it was possible to read my words to suggest Drucker was a motivational guru. That was not my intention nor my desired meaning.
With regard to the article, Wikipedia is extremely simple to edit, but not in the least but easy, as you are discovering.
If I can give advice worth a penny, it is this: "Avoid all opinions and conclusions and report only verified facts"
Your article would be great for a magazine. It is well written, clear, and holds the attention. Unfortunately it is also a draft we cannot accept. Go to editing it with a scalpel, and enjoy the process. Fiddle Faddle 21:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Limo Anywhere

Hi Timtrent:

The referenced sources are third-party trade publications who posted articles which are independent in nature. There is not a single reference to a press release or to company-sourced material. While it would be great if larger, more notable publications could be sourced, that is simply not possible. Further, the statements made in the post are basic facts - the products and services provided, the name of the founder, the website, and the headquarters location. All basic facts, all easily checked. Further, as the company in question is the leading technology provider in one of the most rapidly changing industries in the world (ground transportation), I might argue that the presence of the company on Wikipedia is quite valuable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gentrymc (talk • contribs) 21:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gentrymc: Feel free to resubmit it or to ask for other opinions. I stand by my comment. If this is the only outlet that covers the outfit it fails WP:CORP. Valuable to whom? Certainly not to Wikipedia. Fiddle Faddle 21:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: The first paragraph of WP:CORP states "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Further down, the guideline states that "Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products." I have provided significant coverage of an undisputed industry leader in not one but two independent, reliable, third-party sources as stated in the guideline. On what basis does this fail?
@Gentrymc: Your answer is on the draft, where I have analysed your putative references. You have more research to do. I will not review this item again anyway. You have other reviewers to convince, convincing me is worthless Fiddle Faddle 21:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Gentrymc, using Wikipedia to promote your own corporation is a very silly thing to attempt. Your bluster made me check the org out after I analysed the alleged references. Please read WP:COI. Wikipedia is not at all interested in giving you a place to push your wares. Fiddle Faddle 21:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: User:Jderocher/Sandbox has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:Jderocher/Sandbox. Thanks! Tutelary (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tutelary: As in comedy, timing is everything! Fiddle Faddle 22:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just leave it on the creator's talk page. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change

Upon reading about auto confirmed users, I visited this page page. Did I do any damage to my profile, there my username is red linked and at this page it is ok.--Vin09 (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vin09: You have been to two different Wikipedias. simple and en. Fiddle Faddle 07:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Comidor

Hi Timtrent, Really sorry for that, it was not my intention to offend anyone. I tried to replace the whole part with my own words. Can you have a look now and let me know about your thoughts? Thanks a lot for your time! Best Regards, Tony (talk 13:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC+2)

@Antpetsas: One of the first things we try to check is copyvio stuff, so it surprises me that they missed it. It isn't a rule exactly. It is protecting Wikipedia from legal action by the copyright owner that is vital. WP:COPYRIGHTS tells you more than you want to know.
I would have handled that section another way, as it says in my note, and I recommend it to you. It will create a better article. But this is your draft, and I can only advise. I do not re-revoew very often. More yes provide you with better feedback, so continue to improve the draft and resubmit it as often as you need to gain more feedback. Fiddle Faddle 10:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: In any case mr Tim I would like to thank you for your time and support. If you could provide me with some additional feedback it would be wonderful. This is only my first attempt to post a wikipedia article and I thought that just a reference would be enough on this occassion. Best regards! Cheers! Tony (talk 13:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC+2)

12:38:08, 7 May 2015 review of submission by Fuddyb88


Hey. I need a re-review on the previous draft because Architect Reza Kabul is one of India's prominent architects especially in the high-rise and hospitality sector.

The idea of having his work online is not as advertisement. I am working on the changes that you have suggested. I shall resubmit my draft after finding more references and citations.

However, I do have a question in mind : a page with far less references and citation is allowed : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafeez_Contractor

Therefore I would want to understand whether the advertisement looking format was the only reason for denial?

Appreciate your patience.

Thanks. Fuddyb88 (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuddyb88: I need several things in my life, too, notably the magic word.
No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy Fiddle Faddle 13:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of magic word means nothing is about to happen from me. Ask your mother for a refund for the lessons you failed to grasp, please. Fiddle Faddle 22:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dcw2003

I have two quick issues TimTrent. I want to know how to run the process (bot?) that does auto citations, or in other words references multiple citations of the same exact source to a single reference number rather than sucessive numbers.

Two, I am looking for user PHRSE, is there a way to search for a user in order to talk with him? Thanks!!!

Previous request was from dcw2003

@Dcw2003: Not hard, I'm pleased to say. First reFill:
I have it in my tools in the left hand menu. It arrived one day, so I imagine you have it too. I run it this way:
  1. click options
  2. when they load, and sometimes they refuse, untick the option for not adding access date
  3. Click run, or fix page
  4. WAIT
  5. Eventually, when it finishes, follow the prompts and be amazed.
Not sure? Create a sandbox and try it out
Ok, now that user. I tried the searches and failed. So we track them down by working out where you have seen them before. If that fails you deploy {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask the question. A handy soul will be along to help in a shorter time than you might expect. Fiddle Faddle 18:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not got reFill? WP:REFILL tells you how to get it. Complex, but you CAN do it!!! Fiddle Faddle 18:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

06:08:51, 8 May 2015 review of submission by Juamari


Juamari (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Reviewer--

I am asking for clarification on the comments provided. The topic of the article itself is well referenced by several university press books and established academic articles. While the topic is focused on the Latino LGBT community, it is also of interest to other LGBT groups, AIDS historians; public health professionals. The primary objection seems to be with the People's section. The people section is included because this organization was the launching pad for several important academics, artists and activists, some of which have wikipedia pages, and some of which do not. I am interested in editing further and want advise on what would strengthen the article-- should I secure more references for the individuals cited in the People's section, or simply delete that, even though I think it provides important linages, or list fewer names with more established reputations? Please advise, I think this is a worth contribution that merit inclusion.

06:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Juamari: I would drop the People section entirely. Notability is never inherited. And I would seek online links to the other references if available. And please do not let it linger for 6 months. Fiddle Faddle 08:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:52:27, 8 May 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Steve Last


Dear Jim

Thank you for reviewing my article, which I have to admit was submitted more in hope than expectation that a first version would be acceptable! I hope to be able to resubmit a shorter version on lines which you will find are more in accordance with Wiki principles. I would however like your advice about one aspect of meeting that requirement. While you may have detected that I do have a personal view on the subject, I appreciate the need for verifiability and objectivity etc. in Wikipedia.

My problem is that the basic issue is one with significant public safety aspects. For a number of reasons I won't bore you with it may start to generate significant attention, but a large amount of the basic research on the subject has been in danger of getting lost. Consequently I have spent a lot of the last year tracking down old papers, many of which are not in a particularly useful format, being either poor photocopies, or simply images of old documents, which are hard to read as well as impossible to search.

A lot of these I have re-scanned, OCR'd, and proofed, while being very careful not to edit any text other than for spelling etc. I've then republished them as PDFs, which are available on a website dedicated to this subject. Everything done from online sources is clearly in the public domain since I found it just by searching; the originals of all paper sources are in my possession.

So you can see that it is important to me that readers are definitely able to verify statements made on this subject, as I do not want to just quote from sources but make them available in their entirety, far more easily than they are at present. However, these new PDFs can only be accessed from my own site.

So before I spend a lot of time rewriting the article, my questions are whether

(1) the conversion of original sources into a more accessible format counts as "Original research" ?

(2) does the fact that anyone wanting to access these more usable versions will have to go to via my own website invalidate them as reliable references for wikipedia purposes? Obviously they should still be available on their original site as well.

You can see the site at www.picma.org.uk where one of the main menu items is actually "available documents". The lists are incomplete as I still have several hundred to annotate for relevance.

Regards Steve Last

Steve Last (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve Last: The thing is, Wikipedia handles only matters reported on in WP:RS because it's an encyclopaedia. Your thoughts are more for Flight magazine. What I suggest you do is to ask this question in a very condensed manner at the Teahouse Questions Forum and get a wider set of opinions by doing so.
With regard to old papers, etc, provided you have chapter and verse, they are fine, but note what we need as a reference: We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. So, if they comply with that, fine. If they are internal airline reports then they are of no use. Fiddle Faddle 15:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, new at this - could yu expand the WP:RS and WP:42 references so I can find them please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Last (talk • contribs) 16:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve Last: Click them? Is that not what you meant? Fiddle Faddle 16:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:56:34, 8 May 2015 review of submission by Alexandra Alice Forest


Alexandra Alice Forest (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, Would you please help me? I do not understand what is the problem with my article. I have provided important sources like India Today, Times of India or Bloomberg (I do not know where my Bloomberg link has gone). Greetings, Alice Forest

@Alexandra Alice Forest: I will have no time to look at this until at least 1300 UTC on Saturday. Fiddle Faddle 22:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandra Alice Forest:  Done on the draft Fiddle Faddle 20:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

04:16:22, 9 May 2015 review of submission by Fuddyb88


Hey Timtrent,

I shall definitely get started on that refund. In the meanwhile, I request you to please give my draft a re-read, as I have made the necessary changes: 1. restricted his work to selected projects that have been given recognition | 2. Mentioned under 'In the media' where people have spoken / reviewed his works.

Thanks. Fuddyb88 (talk) 04:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuddyb88:  Done in that I have left a comment on the draft. Thank you for the magic word Fiddle Faddle 20:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have read your comment and shall start drafting an article which is more concise with references for all facts. Appreciate you doing the re-review. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuddyb88 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about a HEADING?

Hi Timtrent,

Thanks for looking at my article. I've removed the inline links and I would like to draw your attention to the three links to CTV, Macleans and the Globe and Mail. These are three major Canadian news sources. The articles themselves speak of David's teaching and reference the Pro Actor's Lab itself. I think that this is notability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Professional_Actor%E2%80%99s_Lab&redirect=no

Thanks again,

Thelonious — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theloniousjanke (talk • contribs) 10:59, 10 May 2015‎

@Theloniousjanke: I try not to re-review articles. Thank you for letting me know. Please resubmit and continue to improve the draft while awaiting your next review. Fiddle Faddle 20:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Theloniousjanke: I do not see those references you mention. I only see FAR too many links to the org's own web site. It will not be accepted like this. Fiddle Faddle 20:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Abie Bain and Draft:Abie Bain

Tim TRENT I have another problem.

I created article Abie Bain, and accidentally made a change to the draft page from whence I copied all the text to the actual article ABIE BAIN.

THERE IS NOT DIFFERENCE AT THIS TIME BETWEEN THE TWO ARTICLES REQUIRING A MERGE>

However, I am not allowed, apparently to perform this function. A merge is not really necessary, but could you take care of it or have someone else do it??????


Thanks , I'd be glad to do it but I think it requires an administrator.


From dcw2003............Sorry, i did not leave my user name in the previous note.

@Dcw2003: Since you are the sole contributor to each article and draft, I would say that the legal attribution has been satisfied. You can BLANK the draft with confidence now. Fiddle Faddle 22:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Kaiho Sangyo (09:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC))

Thank you very much for your prompt answer Timtrent! I understood your comment about WP:42 and I will fix the problem in the article tomorrow. I m waiting for the comments from WikiProject Japan! Best regards

Alejandro R Moreno (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alejandro R Moreno: I am not sure whether there is a problem with references or not. I wanted to pre-empt there being any. I do see an issue with the tone, which needs to become "Dull-but-worthy" instead of chatty. Fiddle Faddle 10:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent:Thank you for the comment! This is my first contribution to Wikipedia so I still have a lot to learn. I really appreciate your help and your time. Tomorrow I will try to use a more objective language. Problaby your comment points to the "Corporate philosophy" section, I realize about what the problem is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejandro R Moreno (talk • contribs) 11:19, 11 May 2015‎
@Timtrent:Today I could add new independent references and I corrected the article tone. Any other advice, idea, correction will be more than welcome. Thank you again! --Alejandro R Moreno (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)　[reply]

Review... 20 days ago

Good morning!

Just wondering where my review is in the queue! I know you are super busy and I so appreciate all the feed back. I hope you have a wonderful day.

PattiMoly99 (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PattiMoly99: There is not so much a queue as a backlog, handled by a group of volunteers who are watching that backlog grow ever larger. I cannot say when your submission will be reviewed, I can say that it will be, but that is all. We pick the articles we feel capable of reviewing at the time we look at them, rather more on a whim than with a system. Fiddle Faddle 14:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I can say is that it took me detective work to find Draft:SHINE Medical Technologies, and a link to it would have made my life faster and easier. Fiddle Faddle 14:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OH goodness!! So sorry!! I'm still a newbie at this!! Have a fantastic day!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PattiMoly99 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Help

I messed up a move reverting the vandal move and ended up with Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Article titles please sort out my well intentioned mess. Fiddle Faddle 15:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The title is still messed up (with the word "Wikipedia" duplicated)... please fix. Blueboar (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar: I cannot. I am not an admin and it needs one. Fiddle Faddle 15:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed - it's back at WIkipedia:Article titles. JohnCD (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For which much thanks, JohnCD Fiddle Faddle 15:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: The Naked Convos page review

Hi Timtrent,

You reviewed my draft exactly a month ago and I made adjustments a few days after and resubmitted. Since then I haven't heard anything. Please do have a look soon. Here is the link: Draft:The_Naked_Convos

Thank you, and I hope to hear from you soon.

Seryxme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seryxme (talk • contribs) 15:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Seryxme: I try very hard never to re-review a draft. I saw it earlier and was tempted to look, but you will get a better result form a different pair of eyes. Fiddle Faddle 15:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok then. But how do I get someone else to look at this ASAP? I'd really like this to go up soon so I'd want to know if I still need to make adjustments. Please let me know if you can help refer another reviewer.

Thanks. Seryxme (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Seryxme: You could ask at the Article For Creation Help Desk. Please continue to look for improvements while waiting for a review, and continue to make good edits. Fiddle Faddle 15:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. Thank you. Seryxme (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Seryxme: I realise I seem unhelpful. I'm rather more tired than I noticed. I shall go offline for a while. Do use the helpdesk Fiddle Faddle 15:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moving articles to userspace drafts rather than copying them

User:Thestudent1461/sandbox is a copy of War in Afghanistan (2001–present). For some reason, you indicated that the article page should be moved to the userspace draft page, rather than simply allowing its contents to be copied. This doesn't make sense. Can you explain why you wanted this to happen? Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackmcbarn: Indeed it does not. I seem to be making bizarre mistakes today. The sandbox version is the copy and should go (as I am sure you will agree). I am about to go online for a much needed break judging by my errors. Thank you for asking me gently Fiddle Faddle 16:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21:06:35, 11 May 2015 review of submission by Darawier


Darawier (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC) Dear Timtrent, thank you for your very speedy review of this entry, and for suggesting revision to the references. I've fixed it up now, adding the missing reference, and also adding headings in their proper places, as well more links to external sources. I hope the notability of this entry is clear now, but please let me know if you feel any further clarification would be useful. Darawier (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Darawie: I'm glad you have resubmitted t., Please continue to improve it while waiting for the next review. I do not often re-revoew drafts. Several sets of eyes give a better end result. Fiddle Faddle 21:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

my submission for Otto Kuhni

I am new to wiki having difficulty understanding instructions My father is a well known retired illustrator he is 88 years old I am not meaning to post a resume for him He certainly doesn't need that many of his illustrator friends are listed on wiki (peter max for example) His hot wheels designs alone qualify him let alone Hall of Fame induction Google him please I know you must be crazy busy I have only posted facts readily avail from other sources online no personal feelings or opinions I have edited my first submission to follow your format for other illustrators Please assist me

Alkuhni (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)alkuhniAlkuhni (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alkuhni: I think you would benefit from having a mentor. If you agree, please visit WP:CO-OP and make a request.
At the same time, read WP:YFA which may help the mists to clear. Your father may be notable, but it is up to you to verify that with references. The item you produced looked very much like a resumé, something we do not allow. Fiddle Faddle 14:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

00:51:48, 13 May 2015 review of submission by Dabraham


I've added text to explain to people not familiar with web technologies why JWS is important. I've also linked to a number of articles within wikipedia regarding relevant concepts.

If there's some concept that isn't getting across, please let me know what you're not getting and I'll see if I can explain it better.

Thank you very much.

Dabraham (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timtrent&oldid=662084972"