User talk:Timtrent

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 7:48 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.

Citations and Links questions

Thanks for your helpful info. I have a few questions about citations. If the artist has a PDF of a historical news article (that isn't available elsewhere online for viewing), should I link to it? Also, my references section shows the links after the title, whereas in other Wiki articles the text is a hyperlink and it looks much cleaner. Am I formatting it wrong? I've been using the citation templates. Thanks in advance - still new at this, but really looking forward to being a part of the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artistsfriend (talk • contribs) 18:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Artistsfriend: It took me a moment to find Draft:Jan Wurm and to work out your question. If you are using (eg) {{Cite web}} it sorts the order out for you. I commend this template series to you. I used them all the time. Do not worry about any order.

Where there is a pdf of a source, and it is an independent source, but on (eg) the subject;s web site I see every reason to cite it. The details of everything the citation are to relate to the material and only the url relates to the subject's web site.

I think, though, that you used a parameter i choose not to use. I looked at a couple of your references at random and made this edit. Do you see the difference? I have never used the parameter "website=..." preferring to replace it with "url=..." I must imvestigate this. I shall now, below, using only very restricted parameters.

• This is the website parameter: {{Cite web|title=Are Smartphones Endangering Security? |website=http://complianceandprivacy.com/News-Wick-Hill-smartphone-security-risk.html}}
  produces
  "Are Smartphones Endangering Security?". http://complianceandprivacy.com/News-Wick-Hill-smartphone-security-risk.html. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)
• This is the url parameter: {{Cite web|title=Are Smartphones Endangering Security? |url=http://complianceandprivacy.com/News-Wick-Hill-smartphone-security-risk.html}}
  produces
  "Are Smartphones Endangering Security?".

I prefer the url=parameter, It is cleaner. This is a personal preference and I shall not be at all upset if you revert my edit to the article.

Have I answered all your questions? I got carried away! Fiddle Faddle 20:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! You answered all of my questions - what a great resource! Artistsfriend (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Cantata++ article

Hello Timtrent, I just wanted to inform you, that i did "undo" your deletion of "the mode of operation" in the Cantata++ article. I worked on the article this night and found some new references which are, in my opinion, useful and good sources. Maybe you could have a look on it and tell me what you're thinking about it. The thing is, that the mode of operation is an important part of the software, so I would not like to kick it out. I may work on it again, but if you CAN agree with me, maybe you could let it just for now. ...It's a little mess at this moment, because I worked hard on the article and now it's going to be deleted, so I'm still working and correcting it. Please be patient with me ;-). Best regards, QARon (talk) 13:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC) .

@QARon: I will look. :) Fiddle Faddle 18:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@QARon: I have strong hopes that this will be returned to Draft:. if you suggested this at the deletion discussion it woudl be a useful move. If I reviewed it as a draft today I would be unable to accept it. I want you to have the time to edit it at leisure. THat I do not beliebe it is notable does not affect my desire to see you have good treatment. Fiddle Faddle 19:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, on top of the article there is written a note that it includes some "Bare URLs". I tried to understand what that means but I'm not sure whether I did understand. The article just had some URLs for reference with no further description of them. I added the description and also the date of calling the website. Does this now meet the notabilities? Or what do I have to do exactly? Maybe you can have a look at it. I would appreciate a short comment about to give me some "instructions". Thanks! QARon (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done I think it was historic and left by accident. Fiddle Faddle 08:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

½ move

Who said "it will be essential that this talk page, containing the attribution, is moved to the main [for main read talk:!] namespace when the article is accepted"? So why wasn't it moved? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be a known bug in the acceptance script. It filled out a load of stuff on the new talk page without moving the old. Did we end up with the right material there in the end? I thought I'd done a copy and paste but may have failed. Fiddle Faddle 19:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

My point was that you did a copy&paste of the talk page when you should have done a move. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

And it's a good point, but the situation was more complex than that, the new talk page having been created imperfectly by the script that accepts articles, but without reference to prior content. Fiddle Faddle 11:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

13:10:23, 8 July 2014 review of submission by Ankitsjain1

The article currently under Henry Dunay is about the man, but this submission clearly states that this is about the company. We chose this route because both Salvatore Ferragamo (the man) and Salvatore Ferragamo (the brand and company founded by Salvatore Ferragamo) also have separate wiki pages. Could you please have another look and let me know your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitsjain1 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I think my opinion stands. You need other eyes on this Fiddle Faddle 20:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Richard Pine draft

Dear Timtrent. For some reason my previous message sent a few minutes back has disappeared from your talk page. I think there is some progress getting the Richard Pine draft improved. My apologies if a message of this kind has already appeared. I wanted to ask you if there is still an issue of 'tone' or an implication that I've got 'promotion' in mind. You say it's difficult to define these things but going back over other articles written by me I find it difficult to see how my prose style differs in the Pine draft from others by me on Wiki - Denys Rayner. Black Patch Park, Jack Hargreaves. Give me an actual example in the draft - just one phrase would help. This subject has a publication list of considerable length all but one now linked, and I have added citations to two references. Can't we get this draft floated on Wiki so that it can run the gauntlet of more public attention and your continued overview? Pine is a reclusive man with what seems to me on the basis of his publications and reviews of his work to have made a significant contribution to Irish letters as well as founding the Durrell School of Corfu. I also wanted to ask you about disambiguation as there are several other Richard Pines and another called Richard Pine-Coffin. How do you do disambiguation? Can you apply it in connection with a draft article? Simon Baddeley (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Simon

@Sibadd: I think it is the career section. It feels like his CV, and needs, somehow, to be different. I am rather tired tonight and may not be making any sense.

Disambiguation is reasonably simple, easier to do than describe. There is no Richard Pine at present, so no real need yet

You may have to face the fact that Pine is WP:NPF unless you can locate more references, I fear. Fiddle Faddle 21:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I have dug out a letter about, and to, Pine by the late Nobel prize-winning poet Seamus Heaney and am working on making this handwritten letter citable. I'm wondering if the fact that Pine's repute in Ireland may be obscuring his notability. Google "Richard Pine" + "Irish literature" Richard Pine and Irish Literature or "richard pine" + "brian friel" Richard Pine + Brian Friel See how many hits you get. Prolific in Ireland - in letters, theatre and music and known further afield for his critical work on Gerald and Lawrence Durrell. I'll work on the career section. Simon Baddeley (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sibadd: It looks as if you will have sufficient to work with. The one area that worries me is if Pine wishes not to have a page. Generally such requests are considered and acceded to unless there is a very big reason not to. I can;t find chapter and verse on this, but it is a strong impression I have. Asking a question about that somewhere like WP:BLPN may be worthwhle. Fiddle Faddle 23:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Richard Pine draft - request for advice on correct citation

Timtrent hi. Can you look at my attempts to cite, as a reference on my draft about Richard Pine, the personal letter to him from Seamus Heaney and advise on improvement? BTW, I now have verbal permission from the subject to create a Wiki article about him. How about publishing the submission and letting me go on working on this as with Aristeidis Metallinos? (:)) You can always delete some or all of it if it fails to come up to standard. Simon Baddeley (talk) 11:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Fiddle Faddle 17:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Image Studio Lite AfC

Timtrent,

About a month ago, you rejected my AfC submission for Image Studio Lite and posted comments on my talk page. Per the instructions at the top of your talk page, I left a reply to these comments on my page. However, I have not heard anything back.

Could you please let me know if you will be able to help answer the questions I posted?

If so, I think we are on the same "page" that it would be best to contain this thread to my talk page after this. Thanks for your time.

Sam at LI-COR (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sam at LI-COR: Ah, I see the concern. When we welcome (etc) we tend not to anticipate a reply. My list of watched pages expanded to enormous during June. We had a drive to clear the backlog of draft articles. Your reply was lost in that welter of acvity. I think I reviewed some 1100 drafts during June. When we review we anticipate that folk will edit and resubmit. My apologies for not visiting your talk page further. I have read and understand all your comments there. I see them as valid. The issue, though, is whether the Wikipedia community can understand this from the article alone. The draft/submit/edit/resubmit process is intended to ease your way into the creation of an article. The process can be annoying, aggravating, much else, but it is less of these descriptive words that facing a deletion discussion. Our objective is to push back until we feel an article has a 60% pr better chance of surviving WP:AFD, an unpleasant experience when one's first born child (article) is the target

iIn the light (no pun intended) of t hat my comment when I reviewed the article stands. You need it to be bomb proof. Today it just isn't. Your COI is fine, open and transparent, but that very transparency means that you have to work harder.

I don't want to add this to your talk page because I suspect it may prejudice others against the article. Does that make sense? Fiddle Faddle 17:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Thanks for the rapid fire reply.

I understand your comments about the article, and I am in no way attempting to refute them. What I am trying to do is get some guidance from an experienced Wikipedia editor on how to resolve a major conundrum. Any help you can provide on the following is greatly appreciated:

No primary sources can exist for the operation of this program other than my company’s documentation. However, this does not mean the Lite Sfw is not notable, as I mentioned there are 10K users and many journal publications cite it.

So, how can I prove notability using these journal publications? The solution I proposed is to add a section outlining the ways IS Lite has been used by the scientific community. References could then be moved from “Further reading” to the actual “References section”. But, the problem remains that I can’t add inline non-company sources for the sections of this article that talk about how the thing works!

Do you have thoughts on this? Thanks again.

Sam at LI-COR (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sam at LI-COR: I wonder, do you have this arse backwards? We need non primary sources. If you have these a-plenty there ought to be no issue? Sorry, I'm tired, so I may be missing something? I have been known to be a bear of very little brain! Fiddle Faddle 20:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Sorry, I'm seeing two different scenarios here. Let me see if I can break this down. 1) For the operation of the software, wouldn't company documentation be the only useful reference? For example, I base my claim on the references mentioned in the "Overview" and "Components" sections of Autodesk Maya's wiki page. These are references to their support material. The overview and components sections of this page are essentially what I have now in the IS lite article. 2) To establish notability for the software and its applications from non-primary references, would it be sufficient for me to add a section that outlines its uses and extensively reference journal publications? Or, would I still be turned down because I didn't reference non-primary sources for the sections of the article that talk about the operation of the software. Phew. Thanks for you help. Sam at LI-COR (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sam at LI-COR: I am getting there. OK:

1. Operation of software. Bizarrely Wikipedia doesn't much care how the thing operates. It only cares whether it passed WP:N backed by WP:V in WP:RS. Wisely you will ask why. There is no answer save that it is so, and that folk can fid out how it works form your own web site. Then you will ask why other articles do not set a precedent. There, there is an answer. It os because other articles may be low quality and using them to set a precedent lowers the quality further and we tend to Idiocracy
2. My view is that you have it correct, it is precisely what is required. "We require references from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42"

Now you may and can reference primary sources, but I view this as unwise since you are a single purpose COI account. In order to get this accepted you must stay as hands off as you can and ensure your text is "Dull but worthy". However, having given you all this 'tantamount to a review' advice I need to leave it to others to review it. I doubt their opinions will differ from mine, but they might. Your job is to persevere, making a duller and duller article until either you die of boredom or it is accepted, or, probably, both. By the way, once you have answered for yourself the question "Why should this thing have an article?" you are more than half way there, both in terms of COI and in ordinary article creation. And our job at review stage is to ensure any possibility of advertising is ripped away, so "For product promotion" tends to be an unsuitabel answer Fiddle Faddle 21:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Thanks for being patient. This issue is subtle, but I sense we're on the same wavelength now! So, let's say I still believe that the most useful article for the wiki community would include the stuff about the software's operation. Would adding the "Uses" section I referred to earlier move me closer to the 60% chance of passing mark? By the way, I'm not sure when this stopped being about writing an article and starting being about my moral prerogative to halt the fall of civilization into Idiocracy, but I can assure you I will bear this burden with honor... Sam at LI-COR (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sam at LI-COR: I'm not sure I am going to answer your precise question, but I am going to make a pragmatic suggestion based upon "If in doubt leave it out" to slim the draft down to a state where it can and will be easy to accept, rather than adding other material which may not have the benefit of the precise style of referencing we need. That is stage 1.

Stage 2 is to wait, perhaps weeks, perhaps months, and use the (now accepted) article's talk page to seek to build consensus for other material. There are two types, a true consensus and a nemine contradicet consensus.

Stage 3 is to add, little by little, the material you have built consensus on, assuming you have, to the article, as well referenced as you are able

This means that you will be gradually building the article into the form you believe is best while allowing others to both edit it and to agree/disagree with you.

So, I haven't answered you directly. The question is, is this the answer to a better question?

It is an excellent movie, albeit bizarre. Fiddle Faddle 14:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: I think your answer is the answer to a question I may have been subconsciously trying to avoid. All the material I have included is useful, but it may not be possible to get it to pass as an article. Your statement "...slim the draft down to a state where it can and will be easy to accept, rather than adding other material which may not have the benefit of the precise style of referencing we need." pretty much sums up my next move. I will remove much of the content that has only primary references, with the intend to consensus it in later, and liberally sprinkle in uses that have non-primary sources. The transformation won't be overnight, but I'll ping you when I've resubmitted the thing, just as an FYI. I appreciate your help with this, advice from an 8+ year wiki editor is what I needed to proceed with this article. Thanks, Sam at LI-COR (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sam at LI-COR: I have the knack of finding the correct question to answer, once I can see the wood from the trees. I also have an eye for what works and does not work in getting articles accepted.

One thing that will need to happen once the article is accepted is that you will need to be as transparent as now with your COI status. Editing an article in the main namespace as a COI editor is tough. You will need to use the talk page and a template to request the edits you believe are valid. Make a note of {{Request edit}} and the way to use it. Fiddle Faddle 20:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: I will definitely continue to be transparent about my associations. It is better for me and the wiki community that I'm honest about who I am. I'll definitely learn to use the Request edit template. Thanks for the advice. Sam at LI-COR (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

From Aron Barbey

Thanks for your helpful comments Timtrent. Please let me know if the latest draft is acceptable.

Aron barbey (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Aron barbey: What I think should happen is that another reviewer's eyes should examine the draft. I try not to re-review articles unless ether not all my suggestions have been followed and it is an obvious omission, or unless significant editing has taken place. Fiddle Faddle 17:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds great, thanks!

Aron barbey (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Timtrent for your latest suggestion about referencing. I have removed some of the references and hope this is an improvement. Please let me know if I can be helpful and thanks again for suggestions!

Aron barbey (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Scaled Agile Framework

Please tell me exactly how many sources you require. I have witnessed numerous Wiki pages with much, much less. This is a globally adopted Project Management Framework, so I am not sure what is the issue. If you could be very explicit, I would appreciate the direction. Thank you.Betchplus (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Betchplus: Please tell me exactly how many facts you assert in the article?

It helps if you link to the article you want me to look at. It seems to be Draft:Scaled agile framework

Other articles do not ever set a precedent. If you write a decent article with good referencing it will survive as an article without deletion. Our objective is for articles we accept to survive.

Pretty much nothing in your draft is referenced. We require references for the facts you assert. This is a globally adopted Wikipedia requirement, so I am not sure what is the issue.

I perceive your message to me as aggressive. If you actually wish for help please ameliorate your tone. Fiddle Faddle 12:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The last intention I have is to be aggressive. However, I have been trying to get this article back online for 5 days now, while receiving one ambiguous response after another. As a member of the technology world, it just should not be this difficult to post an article to help the public. If I sounded aggressive it was not my intention, it is nothing but frustration concerning many indirect answers that appear to be very subjective. If you could give me an exact number, it would be very appreciated, since I can't use other sites as a standard. Thank you and I appreciate the prompt response. Betchplus (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Betchplus: It did sound aggressive, though I appreciate your frustration. I have given you an exact answer, and it is under your control. Every substantive fact you assert requires a reference, ideally a citation. If you can't find the reference lose the fact. This is a direct and unambiguous answer. We need to see significant coverage of the topic, independent of it, and it must be in WP:RS. You mention time. Nothing is important enough to rush. Wikipedia is not essential to any organisation's business, so you can take your time and create something that will survive Wikipedia's community scrutiny. If there is a deletion discussion about the article in the future and it does not survive the probability of re-creating it with success is remote. We try very hard to review that pants off drafts to avoid this potential outcome. Defending against deletion is many times harder than working with multiple reviewers. WE want the article to succeed. At a deletion discussion the reverse is true. Fiddle Faddle 12:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me start by apologizing, because I realize many of you are trying to help. I think it is those individuals, that have been somewhat insulting to my valid questions, have tried my patience. There are many of us who have a lot to contribute to Wiki, but not a lot of time. I have found that I am having to become a Wiki Expert to just submit an Article that I believe will help many, many IT professionals. In the end, I do appreciate all of you who are trying to assist in a positive manner, and hope those, who are less than helpful and derogatory, are somehow re-trained to help, not hinder the site and the contributors.Betchplus (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Betchplus: I think the real issue is that those of us who review are, in our way, experts. And, as experts, we are not always crystal clear to those who need our expertise to be easy to digest. We have a jargon, one we become used to. So do you. WHen you and I speak jargon to each other sense and intelligibility go out of the window. If I have done this, I apologise. It was by accident.

Let me try to be very clear, though there is a risk of my seeming patronising. There is no intent to patronise.

• If you assert a substantive fact "W was invented by Y" that is not a self evident fact like "Water is wet", then it needs a reference
• If you have an award, or other significant achievement, then it needs a reference
• If you have n acquisition (etc) then it needs a reference
• Ideally, since this is not a biography of a living person, references should be as citations. WP:REFB is a great help here

That pretty much handles what a reference is needed for. I think you are pretty clear on the definition of a reference, too, independent, significant and reliable.

Wikipedia can be a pain in the fundament. It's easy to edit, not simple. It's easy to create an article, but actually difficult, too. You have to know the minutiae of the policies, guidelines and rules, and you will come up against idiots. IT;s the alleged wisdom of crowds, a delightful and horrible concept at the same time.

Can we train people? I wish we could. Anyone can edit here, and everyone's opinion is worth as much as mine, yours, his or hers. No-one's i charge, etc etc etc.

Now, have I been clear enough or do you need more information? Fiddle Faddle 13:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Its a start, thank you!Betchplus (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Richard Pine

Hi Timtrent. You trusted the article on Richard Pine for publication on my assurance of further work on tone and citations. How do you think it is coming along? I'm relieved that Richard Pine is himself happy for this to proceed. Indeed has been helping me dig out missing citations, several of which have now been added. Do you think the article needs disambiguation given the entry on Richard Pine-Coffin Simon Baddeley (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it stands a good chance, now, of remaining unchallenged. Ignore disambiguation, etc, unless you want to create such a page. If you do, look at any other name based disambig page and create a new page Richard Pine (disambiguation in precisely that format, and just do it. Fiddle Faddle 16:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

22:42:00, 11 July 2014 review of submission by Sherazkhan1988

• Sherazkhan1988 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sikandar Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Respected Sir/Madam, I am writing the autobiography of my father (Brigadier Sikandar Khan) and all the information in the article is first hand knowledge that I personally have about my father. I did not refer to any outside source and I did not get any information from any outside source. The references that I have used in the autobiography of my father are just for the sole purpose of letting the readers know what he educational institutions he went to and to define the terms used in the autobiography.

Kindly, review it again and let me know if any more changes are required.

Thanking you in advance.

Regards,

Sheraz Khan.

Sherazkhan1988 (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You require external references. For a simple biography you need to use wordpress, blogspot or any number of free websites. Wikipedia is only interested in people with full referencing and whop pass WP:GNG Fiddle Faddle 22:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Got it. I will resubmit it with external references.

Thank You.

Sherazkhan1988 (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Inline references aren't required for new articles

Hi Timtrent. I am happy to see you reviewing articles. I noticed that you declined this article, Draft:Jan Wurm, on June 25 with this comment:

For a living person we have a higher standard of referencing. Every fact you assert requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS. P:ease examine your referencing to ensure it complies with these tough criteria

Inline references are required only for direct quotes and, for living people, in a only few other special cases. Everything does not need a reference. Only the notability references need to be independent of the person. As Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions says:

1. Avoid declining an article because it correctly uses general references to support some or all of the material. The content and sourcing policies require inline citations for only four specific types of material, most commonly direct quotations and contentious material (whether negative, positive, or neutral) about living persons.

Except for direct quotes, in most cases new editors don't need to learn anything about putting in inline citations before their article is accepted. Of course those citations will be needed to improve the quality of the article. Happy reviewing. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

You will find a number more. Having seen but not contributed to the conversation on this you started elsewhere I modified some time ago the message I use to reflect that better. Fiddle Faddle 06:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I had assumed that they were needed, but found out I was wrong a while ago on AfC talk. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

18:19:39, 13 July 2014 review of submission by Didgeri

• Didgeri (talk · contribs)
  • User:Didgeri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The article created is for a notable person and has valid citation and references.Article is quite neutral. Please let me know the exact the reason because of which article has not be created.

Didgeri (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Anup,

I submitted a article with subject Ajay Data(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ajay_Data). Inspite of the fact that all the references were quite valid, it had been declined. Could you please help me out. It has been reviewed by someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Didgeri (talk • contribs) 18:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

That is just it. I have declined it with a comment telling you why, pn the basis that the referencing is not valid. On general people use this route b because they wish to learn how to create viable articles, so I hope you will read and understand the comment left on Draft:Ajay Data. If there are things you do not understand when you have read the comment in detail please ask me again.

I have no idea who Anup is. It is not I. Fiddle Faddle 19:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

attempted article on John Todd Ferrier

Hi there, fiddlefaddle/ Tim Trent,

Thanks for your comments on my attempted article on John Todd Ferrier:

" Comment: For a living person we have a higher standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS. Since the gentleman is not living one could argue that our standards should differ, and they do. references are required rather than the extra mile of citations, but that is the sole difference. "WIth the book, please use {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help) to avoid the spam link to Amazon, assuming it genuinely meets the reference criteria. Fiddle Faddle 08:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)"

I believe JTFerrier is notable for reasons already implied in my text (influence through 'The Order of the Cross' etc) and the links to other articles as well as the explicit list of published ISBNs...

So, how much more do I need to get this up to an acceptable standard? Will using /cite book/ suffice?

Thanks, -Nick

I have looked again at Draft:John Todd Ferrier to see the list of books. If these are all written by Ferrier that is nice but they are no sort of reference because they are his work. Let me try to explain. If he manufactured vacuum cleaners, the cleaners would be his work. A vacuum cleaner could not be a reference for him, simply because it is the product he makes. So it is with writings. However, a review of his work by others tends to be a review of him.

This will sound harsh, but your belief, and, indeed, my belief, that a chap is notable does nto make t so. We have to Verify that notability with significantcoverage, independent of him, and in WP:RS. WIth this article there is substantial work to do in irder to do that. But it is doable, and it;s enjoyable doing it, rather like a game of intellectual chess. So go to it with a will.

Oh. you sign talk page messages with ~~~~ which turn automagically to your signature. Fiddle Faddle 15:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tim and Yadsalohcin. On your draft, I've left some much better sources for you to use than the ones you had, some comments on how to improve this draft to a minimum encyclopedic standard, and a caution about copying or closely paraphrasing from other websites. Hope it will be of help. Best Voceditenore (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Vasile Baghiu change

FYI: [1]. If you disagree please feel free to undo, but try to undo to a version that shows your comment. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Did I screw up? I have been known to. Never be afraid to correct me, and never be afraid to spoon feed me if I have got it wrong and you think I need it Fiddle Faddle 21:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)