User talk:Timtrent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Fiddle Faddle)
Jump to: navigation, search
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 9:17 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.

23:13:03, 25 August 2015 review of submission by Mollog[edit]

Hi Timtrent, I'm a little confused by your notes. Circus Remedy has been active since 2006 so it is definitely not too soon. As noted in the national Parent & Child Magazine article, Where Stars Align, it was founded by well known writer/ actor/ director Anthony Lucero (Pump Up the Volume, Loved), ER actress Christine Harnos and well known movement coach and long time Cirque du Soleil Star Terry Notary ( Further, Circus Remedy collaborates with both Paul Newman's Hole in the Wall Camp and Amma's orphanages and hospitals in India. 60 visits in the circus outreach world is, in fact, a lot of visits as taking a circus around the world is a costly venture. It is a unique outreach program and is not comparable to visits from non profits outside the circus world. Circus Remedy is widely recognized in the circus world as a leading outreach organization. Further, the press we listed covers the west coast (Malibu Times after visits to Malibu schools with a program bridging children in hospitals with elementary school kids), the east coast (Indy East End covering an event at one of the more prominent theaters in New York - Guild Hall) and national media (Parent & Child Magazine in an article about celebrities and non-profits). There is far more press and countless videos available on youtube, etc. I urge you to investigate further or to let me know what exactly you might need that might satisfy 'notable' criterion and/ or what you consider non-local coverage as it seems we have more than satisfied those requests already. This will be our 10th year bringing the top circus performers in the world (Cirque du Soleil, Moscow Circus, etc.) to ailing children worldwide. I think that would qualify as firmly established. Please visit their website at for more background.

I very much appreciate your consideration.

Mollog (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

It's really simple. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Not youtube except in very rare circumstances. We care about IT, not the founders. Please find references about it and you stand a good chance. Fiddle Faddle 23:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


@Timtrent: Hi!

I came across your profile and notice that you seem quite welcoming to newbies, so I thought I should reach out.

Not sure if you have ever seen the University Canada West article - there are only of couple of editors actively contributing to the entry and we believe the article as a whole would benefit from different point of views. You don’t necessarily need to be familiar with the subject, but your input on whether the article is up to scratch would be very helpful already.

I have a professional connection to the subject (and have recently created a COI profile), but my goal is to work with the community to improve the overall quality of the article and ensure it is neutral and factual. While I have in the past contributed to Wikipedia on a voluntary basis, the last few months have been a massive learning curve – not just about the Wikipedia guidelines, but also about diplomacy, argumentation, negotiation, etc.

I have invited a few other editors with similar interests to join the discussion as I’m currently seeking feedback on the draft for a potential History section (available here). If you’re interested, your help and any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandDude (talkcontribs) 12:35, 27 August 2015‎

@BrandDude: It will be a pleasure, but I cannot give it any attention until after 16 September. Fiddle Faddle 12:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
@Timtrent:Thanks very much. Your help will be really appreciated and I look forward to it. BrandDude (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Request on 14:46:58, 27 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by SLBloom[edit]

I received an email from no-reply-notifications that an editor named Fuhghettaboutit left me a new message but I am not seeing it when I click on View Message. (I find the name unprofessional and offensive, by the way.) Your editorial staff is making this important submission nearly impossible. Obviously no one is aware of the decline of classical music, particularly orchestral music in America and is cavalier about the opportunity to detail the bio of one musician who experienced birth through decline. It's very troubling. Facts are not biography; biography is the story of a human life by most definitions, placed in a continuum of the era in which it was lived.

SLBloom (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@SLBloom: What are you asking me? I have no interest in any comments about another editor, by the way. Please restrict yourself to questions about your draft. I see you have not actioned my comments. Why not?. Fiddle Faddle 16:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
You can always check what was done in any edit by looking at a page history. In this case if you had you would have seen that I made this edit to your talk page, taking it out of a category it did not belong in. I'd love to hear exactly what possible basis you could have for objecting to my username. Meanwhile, you may not maintain a website claiming non-free copyright over the text of the draft. You will need to release that content by posting at the bottom something not unlike:
The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). Otherwise, the draft will have to be deleted.
Please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Also some of the opening of the draft is directly taken from this dissertation, and has accordingly been removed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Mr Faddle,

My question for you today is to ask that you pass along to Mr. Fuhghettaboutit that I am not able to see his comment.

I have answered your question to me. Important bios are not written in the style of courses for horses, as flat as possible. Who are our great biographers in your opinion? Doris Kerns Goodwin? David McCullough? Do you treat them as you are treating me? Very troubling if you do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SLBloom (talkcontribs) 01:17, 28 August 2015‎

@SLBloom: If you write for Wikipedia then you write for Wikipedia. We have a particular style and will not bend to your will. Nor will we bend for some imagined slight. I am also not your messenger boy. If you have something to ask another user, ask that other user.
Whining does not endear you to me. I doubt it helps you in your chosen field, either. If you want help then it behoves you to ask for it well.
Either do the work required or not, Wikipedia does not care either way.
Do not open new sections on my talk page. Use the old section unless that has been archived, and remember to sign your messages. Fiddle Faddle 07:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
User:SLBloom, wikipedia is really an encyclopedia, and is supposed to be as flat as possible: boring, cold, hard, dry, facts -- followed by more facts. If you want great biographies, try's bookstore, which carries David McCullough. Everybody that edits wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, is treated in exactly the same egalitarian fashion to the maximum extent possible: people that contribute encyclopedic content, and follow the wiki-rules as listed here at WP:5, are praised to the skies, and helped get their work done, because their work is helping improve wikipedia. But wikipedia is not a website like any other; arguing with other wikipedians here (yourself very much included in that group) will not help achieve your goal. And of course, if your goal is to write an Important Bio Of Greatness, then probably you need to find a publication more conducive to that goal, such as the publishers that work with David McCullough (his most recent one on the Wright Brothers was in association with Simon & Schuster), rather than try to convert wikipedia from a just-the-facts website, into a website where great biographical material, full of poetic license, is appropriate. If you want to leave a message for Fuhghettaboutit, you can click here, User_talk:Fuhghettaboutit, click 'new section' at the top, enter in a polite message (see WP:NICE which is mandatory on wikipedia) saying what your question or issue is, then click save. Hope this helps, (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Timtrent (also sometimes known as "Mr. Faddle" it seems), I've left a bangvote over at the appropriate MfD, and should the draft be mainspaced, I would be happy to stubify it based on the available online obit. Please ping my talkpage, if such occurs, and no classical-wikiproject member shows up to do the necessary pruning, I'll do it in their stead. (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:OTHERPARENT request , w.r.t. Draft:Jack_Flanagan_(New_Hampshire_politician)[edit]

Hello Timtrent, you once before[1] approved a start-class article of mine, which had sufficient refs but needed -- shall we say -- some significant aesthetic improvements.  ;-)     If you happen to feel like doing so again, please see this guy who has some coverage for his role as NH rep, and a bit as a town selectman, plus a newer coverage-burst from his participation in Kasich'16. As a state rep, he also quasi-inherently satisfies WP:NPOL, and his recent appointment (to majority-leader-role) by the speaker, of course gives him an added boost. I've added him to the AfC queue today, so if you are busy, or simply prefer to let the article wait in line, I am 100% okay with that approach as well.

  Also, please note that some existing mainspace articles have redlinks to the chosen title "Jack_Flanagan_(New_Hampshire_politician)" ... and that there is an Aussie politician by that same name at Jack Flanagan. I've assumed hatnotes will still be used, since there are only three articles at the moment, but disambig-page might also be wiki-proper at some point. (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I fear my skills with politicians are severely restricted. Have you checked WP:POLITICIAN? Fiddle Faddle 16:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, Flanagan qualifies, WP:NPOL that I linked to is the same as WP:POLITICIAN that you linked to. Criteria#1: "Politicians... [who are elected] members... of a ...state... legislature." Criteria#2 basically talks about mayors and sheriffs that meet WP:GNG (state legislature candidates like Flanagan are *elected* locally but *serve* in a statewide body so they are not 'local' candidates in the sense used at that guideline), and criteria#3 talks about unelected candidates (again not applicable to Flanagan) who meet WP:GNG despite not passing WP:POLITICIAN criteria#1. Flanagan is an elected member of a state legislature as of 2010, so he passes criteria#1. Like with high-schools, this is one of the quasi-inherently-wiki-notable rules, intended to entice beginning editors to write an article about their local state rep, which cannot easily be deleted even when the rep may have little beyond local-newspaper-coverage. Flanagan's not my rep, I found him whilst revising the endorsements-page for Kasich'16, which claimed he (Flanagan) was the Majority Leader of the NH lower chamber... and since that turned out to be true, Flanagan *was* appointed 2nd-in-command of the NH lower chamber just recently, I figured we better turn his redlink blue.
    In any case, besides passing WP:NPOL under criteria#1, methinks Flanagan actually also legitimately passes WP:GNG, since he was a town selectman (kinda like the "town legislature" where the mayor is kinda like the "town president" and the sheriff is kinda like the "town military-general"), with a few local-newspaper hits from that experience, and this past summer got a coverage-burst for his endorsement of Kasich. If you haven't heard about this particular aspect of the weird ways of USA politics, during presidential elections the endorsements from state legislators living in the relatively tiny states of Iowa and New Hampshire are especially coveted by presidential candidates, because those two states are caucus#1 and primary#1 (respectively) during the presidential nominating process, so doing well in either or both of those states is considered a stepping-stone along the way to the nomination for the presidency, as well as a good way to get press-coverage. Not sure if any of that makes sense, or if you are now more confused than ever.  ;-)
    In a nutshell, Flanagan does satisfy criteria#1 of WP:POLITICIAN, and furthermore, methinks he satisfies the usual wiki-tradition of three coverage-bursts: local coverage for his role as state rep and town selectman, broader coverage for his more prominent role as up-and-coming lower house majority leader, plus finally some recent (and reasonably in-depth ... depending on how you feel about quotations-from-the-mouth-of-the-BLP-themselves) coverage about Flanagan's endorsement of one of the presidential nomination contenders. (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Under those circumstances it ought to be a clear acceptance on submission. I do avoid reviewing material outside my competence if I can. Fiddle Faddle 18:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Gotcha, no problemo. Thanks, and talk to you later, (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Good luck. Fiddle Faddle 19:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Request on 17:46:27, 30 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Chy syl[edit]

Hi Timtrent - thanks for looking into the article that I submitted earlier. Thank you as well for sharing the feedback on the notability of the articles I used in reference to TeachPitch. Just to clarify, is it the actual objective verifiability of the sources used that are questionable? Or is it the way in which they are used in the actual article? Thanks again! Chy syl Chy syl (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Chy syl (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Chy syl: The problem with the draft is that you have not used references in any way that is meaningful. This means we can't determine that it is notable. WP:REFB will help you with that. A reference itself must comply with the criteria I showed you on the draft itself. I can;t be more help at present because I am heading on vacation for a couple of weeks, but you can ask for more help at the Articles for Creation Help Desk. Fiddle Faddle 17:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)