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 3:31 AM 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.

Larry Geller[edit]

Hi Tim - I completed shortened my article on Larry Geller and resubmitted today (11/10/15). I was trying to find help and think I came across a way to request help from you or anyone from Wiki to help edit my article to get it through. I'm so frustrated as I submitted in May and here it is November and I'm still messing with this. I shorted it and put in so many references to books, TV, etc who talked about Larry. When I sent it today, I got reply from Primefac who rejected saying he already responded in June. I feel I'm going in circles. Can you pull up what I submitted today and see if it meets the guidelines? Is there a way to submit to someone there who can edit to get it posted? Please let me know. Please HELP! THANKS!

Chris Coffey

Chris Coffey 18:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keshakoko1 (talkcontribs)

Chris, I will not phone nor email you, and i have deleted that information from public view. I am not exactly certain if I reviewed that which you submitted today. Please link to it for me. I want to be sure I give you absolutely relevant help. Fiddle Faddle 18:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
@Keshakoko1: Starting to see what happened. This version] of your talk page contains what you believe you submitted today. You ought to have edited Draft:Larry Geller with that information. May I suggest that you do that, after which I will have a look at it. But please take note of the comment I put there, too.
Don;t use your talk page to create drafts, it is guaranteed to fail. I'll be happy to guide you through our processes. You need a calm and quiet attitude and we will follow this thread to wherever it leads. Fiddle Faddle 18:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Tim - I just sent you article I posted today and clicked SAVE PAGE and it goes to "Page Cannot be Displayed"??? It flipped me out and has several times. Is there a way I can send you the article so you can see it and let me know WHY it's not getting through. I shorted it a lot from back in May but not sure what is going on. I need your help desperately - PLEASE. Thanks!

Chris Coffey 18:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC) Chris Coffey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keshakoko1 (talkcontribs) 18:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Keshakoko1: I have no idea of the process you went through now that failed. So, why don't we just start quietly and gently to move this draft forwards. Let me give you some steps:
  1. Go to Draft:Larry Geller
  2. Edit it to enable your new material to be presented
  3. Save it, and inspect it for layout
  4. Go through the layout and correct any layout errors
  5. Let me know when you are ready for me to look at it
  6. Bear in mind I am human and eat, sleep, and do other things. My replies may not be immediate. Face-smile.svg
If it is in my power to assist then I will assist. My opinions are just that, opinions. I may not be correct. Always remember that. Fiddle Faddle 18:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
@Keshakoko1: Was I unclear in some manner? Those steps, above this line, ^^^^^^^^^^, those are the ones we will follow. Please never paste draft articles into my talk page, I will always delete them unread. If you want my help we do it the correct way. Or we don't do it at all. Fiddle Faddle 19:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
@Keshakoko1: Ok, this is slightly better, but it is not going to fly. User:Keshakoko1/sandbox/Larry Geller is not Draft:Larry Geller. It also has not been submitted, which is just as well. It will not pass in this state. The format is not right, and we do not even bother to review unreadable drafts. Who would?
Is there a reason why you seem unwilling to follow the steps I have laid down for you? I have told you I will help you, but only when you follow those steps. Otherwise you are on your own. Abandon User:Keshakoko1/sandbox/Larry Geller, blank it, and edit Draft:Larry Geller, but do it well. Fiddle Faddle 20:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I removed a copyvio paragraph, but I think enough sources exist for this to be mainspaced, either as a standalone-article or as a new subsection of the extant Memphis_Mafia article. Best, (talk) 09:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The sources are probably fine, but the citations, which are important, do not exist. And the gentleman who wishes it to go live seems to have gone away for now Fiddle Faddle 09:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
In the colonies, sometimes Chris is short for Christine/similar, so might well be a genteel woman. I assume you are talking about inline citations? Agreed, but the alternative is just to create a short stup, and then build it up from there -- and indeed, such a suggestion was made by User:Keshakoko1 below. But instead of {{tl|db-author]} which will junk my source-lists and your afc-comments, better to just blank the body-prose, in the existing draft-article, right? (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
One issue seems to be getting Chris to pause long enough to listen and understand the process. There is more haste here than productive work. The draft went ages ago. Fiddle Faddle 23:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree that is an issue, but what do you mean by "went"?   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Chris seems to be back. Please see User talk:Keshakoko1#Help_me.21 and User talk:Jeff G.#Question_to_Jeff_G. for details.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
"Back" is a relative terem, Jeff G.. He came, asked how to delete, flagged for deletion, and went. I view the deletion of Draft:Larry Geller as a mis-deletion and have mentioned this, without strong feelings either way, on Nawlinwiki's talk page. I'm not sure Chris is yet ready to work with folk. Fiddle Faddle 13:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure of that either, now that you bring it up. Chris mentioned being "confused" in a section below.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I think Chris runs too fast to watch where his feet are heading, Jeff G.. Or, perhaps my instructions higher up in this thread were hard to understand? Please give me a verdict on those, telling me clearly if I am in error. I shall learn from that if I am wrong. In any case, if you ask NW to undelete I am sure they will. I see the draft as potential passing WP:BIO with just the referencing to bolt into place. Fiddle Faddle 14:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Your instructions are not wrong, and indeed, are more clear than I usually manage.  :-)     Short and to the point. But as you can see from the original posting, wherein she-or-he asks specifically for: "help edit my article to get it through" / "I'm so frustrated... I'm still messing with this" / "someone there who can edit to get it posted" ... this is a case of somebody who is interested purely in getting the article mainspaced, and nothing more. They don't plan to become a wikipedian. They don't really want to do more work. And most especially, they don't want to learn the wiki-jargon, they don't want to read our volumnious yet still strangely ambiguous wiki-laws, and they don't want to get practice navigating our byzantine wiki-bureaucracy.
  They just want somebody to do the *rest* of the work for them. In such cases, sometimes it helps to try and teach them to fish, but in other cases you can direct them to WP:REQUEST#Music, where they can try their luck, in finding somebody willing to do the work for them. (Might actually work in this specific case, since sources do seem to exist. Also, is there a WP:ELVIS? Seems there is. That would be another place to offer Chris, as a venue where they might seek an interested sure-I-will-do-the-rest-of-the-work-for-you type of person.) But at the end of the day, the steps you put down are the steps that *will* invariably result in success, and generally speaking there is no short-cut which will lead to such success. Attention to detail, learning what one is taught, and working with folks rather than seeking them to work for you, is good advice on wikipedia, and I dare say in life. Chris is in a hurry to get through the wiki-bureaucracy, and fortunately or unfortunately, in 2015 the wiki-bureaucracy simply cannot be hurried. (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── had to outdent because I lost count of the : things. Undeletion has been requested. I think the deletion was invalid because of the criteria chosen. Pedantic? Me? Fiddle Faddle 21:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Poor pedantic fiddle faddle, extra elvis passive paddle, talkpage trouble sources slashed, refund requested sunshine a'last!  :-)     Promise I won't do that often. Well, too often. I have requested that NawlinWiki also restore the draft_talk, which is whereupon I placed my own refs that I scrounged up. If Chris doth return, prolly we can just give her some leeway to be confused, since now her article has been deleted and undeleted in five places, by my count.  :-)     p.s. In other news, I am growing more hopeful that you and the other arb-candidates will yet make a splash, of a least a tiny sort. There will likely be some final self-noms in the remaining 24 hour window, after which we can more realistically assess the betting odds. If you wish, I'm happy to try and organize some kind of arb-klatch of candidates and former/sitting folks, to get some pre-emptive knowledge transfer channels up and running. Are you enjoying the proceedings, as best as you may, so far? (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I am hopeful that Larry will hit main namespace before Chris returns from wherever it is they have gone. It needs some ex-cite-ability and then I would view it as probably ready
The AC proceedings are very strange. Enjoyable? somewhat. Amusing? As a pleasant diversion. Are the questions good? Some. Others, thankfully not yet addressed to me, are tub thumping, and at least one questioner should stand for election!
I think we will not make a splash. The RfC on admin tools et al seems certain to scupper the non admins because of general prejudice other for or against a demographic, and it ain't the ladies it's agin. I may have to oppose myself on that basis. I anticipate a further 5 or so nominations before the deadline. It's a pity we had one vaporise an hour or three ago.
The voter guides are interesting. I do wonder if there is any point, but I suppose folk do read them before making up their minds. All we have is a beauty pageant, really.
What never ceases to amaze me is the self imposed and invented ludicrous bureaucracy. We started with a blank canvass and we (not me, honest, guv) created a behemoth to hamstring ourselves. All we need is WP:N and WP:V and WP:RS and we are there. So let us create administrators, bureaucrats (why does no-one ever moan about them?), functionaries, Stewards, clerks, monks, priests, bishops, queens (some of whom stamp their feet), check user's, check socks, checked shirts, arbitrators (who do very little arbitration, if any)?? The list is ever growing and endless.
Oh yes, please do that very infrequently. Face-wink.svg Fiddle Faddle 23:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll do my best to restrain myself. Sometimes it just comes a-bursting out. You have stiff competition in the non-admin category; besides my wiki-friend User:Samtar, you must now face the musical Usr:NE_Ent. (Betcha wish now that you had promised to sing the NDA in your statement, hmm? Sorry fiddleFaddle, but you've been scooped!  :-)    
  In any case, the arbcom elections are definitely not a beauty pageant, although they are inevitably somewhat of a clique-popularity-contest... people are more likely to bangSupport folks they agree with, than not. But the quasi-approval_voting system of arb-elections is very sound, it permits as many candidates to run as WP:NOTPAPER permits, and simultaneously, the voter-guides in aggregate provide a way to influence the bangvotes of other arb-voters. The outcome is reasonably strong. The problem is not the election-system, but the broader difficulty: wikipedia has these intractable disputes.
  Meanwhile, back at the ranch, there are people stuck in the AfC queue for months and months, who just wanna learn how to get around our crazy 2001-era website technology, learn how to get past our ever-growing WP:PAG and the associated wiki-jargon, and geneally contribute to the encyclopedia as amateurs rather than ten-year-volunteers. Back in 2005, this was permitted. By 2010 it was very much frowned upon. In 2015 it is basically impossible. Nobody said life was easy, I suppose! Let alone wiki-life, such as it is.
  But yes, with any luck, Jeff and myself will have whipped Larry-the-BLP-article into some kind of presentable form, and mainspaced it, so that we can avoid the perils of userspace/draftspace/drafttalk/afcTemplates/etc which are so befuddling to the uninitiated. Or well, even to the initiated, often enough... you were able to get your arb-candidacy-statement properly done, whereas the good User:Drmies was flubbersplagasted to the max, and had to call for help from the competition.  ;-)     I wish you all luck at "winning" an arb-seat, but implore you to remember the trifecta if at all possible. As User:DGG once implied, it is on arbcom that IAR is needed most, because it is arbcom that gets the most intractable dramafests, handed to them on an often-dirty platter. Best, (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break (heh)[edit]

p.s. Who is the question-asker , that you though ought to run for arb-ness? The self-nom period is open another 18 2 hours or so, mayhap they could be nudged into running. Looking back over the past week, I see that I have marked down User:Casliber as a question-mark... they said something like, if enough other folks they liked were running, mayhap they would run for a third time? Will probably go leave them a note about the current crop, in which case. (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
My own view is that people with a substantial clean record who work on trying to improve other people's articles have an obligation to become arbs,admins because having the admin bit lets you do things yourself that you otherwise need to ask other people, and thus makes more work for arbsadmin people like me. And I say just the same about people who insist on remaining as IPs, for the sake of some imagined principle. The work involved in distinguishing them from the mass of IPs without clear records is a nuisance, and the work they must do in explaining themselves is not constructive.
I can't fairly comment on the election unless I do it in a more visible place, but, Timtrent, let me remind you of my own experience, that the intention to reform arbcom from the inside will be greatly diminished by the hostility it will encounter there. Some people could of course ignore the hostility but they would in turn be ignored. I'd have been entirely marginalized. One might think one could just do things by voting the right way without comment, but one can't. It takes not voting but persuasion, and you can't persuade if you're too stark in opposition. Thus such committees always co-opt the reformists into just ordinary bureaucratic people. To accomplish major change, it can be more effective to fight from outside. DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Understood, DGG. My intent is desiderata more than anything else. It is arbitration that I intend, and that between committee colleagues, too, if elected. Getting cross with folk seldom works. I do appreciate the complexities we have created for ourselves, not least the deity we have created in ArbCom. This ship can be turned slowly and steadily, not with a great lurch of the wheel. People who arrive at AC with a problem to be solved deserve quiet contemplation, and fairness. Ignoring the past completely, the good and the less good past together, they deserve the future, where less good improves and good strives for excellence.
Thank you, both of you, for your thoughts. I am looking forward with some interest to the outcome. I will neither be pleased nor displeased, elected or not. Fiddle Faddle 08:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, this is shaping up to be a good arb-election. Not everybody who I wanted to see run could be armtwisted (Bishzilla tried to get Newyorkbrad to run again), but several surprised me... including that Tim Trent person, about whom I was shocked, when they agreed to my Modest Proposal to run for arb.  :-)     Sometimes pleasing results do occur, here on the 'pedia. But yeah, no telling how well the election-outcome will be, at this point. Also, DGG has good advice; the major reforms I'm suggesting in my greenboxen, should not be your goals, because doing it from inside is likely too hard; from your answer, though, about intended to *arbitrate* as an arb, I think you will do fine. You are also persuasive, given time, and arbcom's offwiki efforts seem to be the primary timesink, so that too is in your favor. (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
User:DGG, did you mean to say admins, or arbs, in your first sentence? "...have an obligation to become arbs..." Since you are talking about having-the-bit, I'm guessing admin, but it was not clear enough for me to WP:SOFIXIT without asking first. p.s. On the societal obligation of anons to register, and then become admins-and-or-arbs, I accept no such imaginary obligation, just as you do not accept the imaginary principle of egalitarian omnidirectional kindness that I'm attempting to foment. Gravity is invisible, yet not imaginary; kindness is invisible, yet also not imaginary. If my fight was to alter gravity, you would have a point, but since kindness is a human-controlled phenomenon, I think we must differ, as I am philosophically committed to widening the bell curve, in the expected behavior of anons, as a means of reminding folks that WP:NICE applies to all, not just apparent regulars. (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
yes, my typo, I did mean admins, and I have corrected the text above. What I said only makes sense that way. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
My original interpretation was that you were talking about a hypothetical duty to run for arb-ship, among long-haul wikipedians. Which in some ways, there is a wiki-tradition of that sort, especially with arb-burnout as high as it is: sooner or later, either every long-haul wikipedian runs for arb, or we will run out of arbs! :-)     Until we can improve the vicious toll of the arb-election and especially the sitting-arb position, at least. Best, (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Gravity is highly visible. Ever watched snow?
Now watch an avalanche.
I am not there to change it. If I am elected, I am there to do a better job than those who went before, if I can. That is all. Change happens by the community forcing change. The committee's job is to work for the community. If I serve or not, when I am not serving, then I can consider change. I believe, however, that the committee itself as an entity is fine. It is the post holders who must work ever better to serve the community. Part of that is refusing to take on non intractable cases. Fiddle Faddle 22:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Snow falling, even avalanches, are only the (visible) effects of gravity. Gravity itself, the primordial force, is neither visible nor (arguably) tangible. Similarly, you can see the effect of kindness, but the platonic concept of kindness, is in some sense an "intangible force". See R. Buckminster Fuller :-) (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I rather think he was responsible for a load of balls
Forty minutes to run before we line up in breathless silence to await the starting gun. OT will be interesting to see what happens, the more so since I seem to have a horse in this race. I may have to declare total hatred for you, you know.
Have you considered the fact that the earth also rises a smidgen to meet the snowflake, under the force of gravity. On that basis, did the blue whale fall to earth or did the earth fall onto the blue whale? Fiddle Faddle 23:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
fwiw, I think the committee has sometimes been most effective when it leads the community. Interpretation by the committee has the same role as interpretation at Del Rev--it essentially makes the difference between merely written policy and actually enforced policy. There are many areas at WP where there's quite a difference, partially because our RfC system is susceptible to stonewalling by determined people--and to slow sneaky changes . This is why I rarely argue much in a policy discussion. It makes so little difference what we say, compared with what we do. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
What I can say for certain is that there is much to learn, and more than one person can know. The best one can hope to do is to absorb, digest and reflect learnings in one's own words to test understanding. There is every reason to answer a question with a question until one understands. Then one can interpret with a certain degree of clarity. Even if one interprets correctly one may not carry the day. Interpreting internally is very different from a committee interpreting on the community's behalf. That requires a different set of skills.
In the UK the senior courts set legal precedent by their interpretation of the law. That precedent, until upset or altered, again in ocurt, becomes binding upon future decisions in that area of law. Legal specialists will tell me that is simplistic, but it is sufficiently correct to serve here. Thus yesterday's judgement almost dictates how today's case will be judged. Is that what you mean, DGG, by leading the community? Fiddle Faddle 00:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Not really. The WP procedure has some analogues with a legal system, but it is very rough and the terms have very different practical meanings. The key difference is that any formal legal systems have a relatively stable way of making& enforcing legislation, and we do not. We make legislation-- and for every procedure except arb com--we make decisions, on the basis of whoever shows up to argue it. I know of no real analogies to this in any formal system. It's an extension of the informal pattern of a club of people, operating by whoever care enough to should longest and loudest.
I think of our goal as stability and some degree of consistency. For article content , where arb com will not rule directly, we have no way of making a final decision or a binding decision about anything at all. People can basically do as they please unless someone objects, and if they do the matter is determined ad hoc. If the people at the discussion want to follow precedent they can, and if they do not, then they need not. The procedure I know best is deletion discussions. What I normally argue for there is to have a certain degree of consistency, but within that, I use whatever argument I think will give the result I want for Wikipedia . If we always or almost do things in a certain way, then we should follow it, but it can always be argued at the individual discussion that the case is different, and alternatively that the precedent is wrong, or that a different rule applies, or that this should be an exception. Whatever people accept, is what happens. In a sense, precedents there have variable strength depending on the degree of acceptance. We always keep high schools, we usually keep large shopping malls, what we do about books and authors varies widely. How we should handle companies is much disputed, and it can depend on a combination of subjective judgements, the strength of supporters, and the chance attendance.Del Rev in practice only corrects obvious errors, --or those where a large group of supporters mobilize. I also know well discussions on reliable sources. I always argue that there is a continuum of reliability, and it depends on how they are used, with extreme cases having consistent precedent. For discussions on NPOV, anything goes.
For behavior, which is in the end the province of arb com, arb com again tries for consistency, but knows very well that most of its decisions are not all that soundly based. A good depends on the personal view of the individual arbs, and the sympathy they have with the individuals and with the issue. Most evidence of disruption an be equally argued as serious or not serious. Arb com is in any event dependent on the individual actions of individuals arbs for most enforcement, and there is an enormous first mover advantage for whoever cares most. Because of this, arb com in practice will often not make a decision because they know it will not be enforced, and if it gets too far ahead of the community here, it will be effectively ignored. It is no secret that I consider the whole situation totally unsatisfactory, but I do not object often, because I have nothing better to propose.
For procedure, it's another matter entirely. We cannot operate without consistent procedure, and this applies to all aspects. Here too custom has a part, but there has to be some definable and teachable way that people can go about doing things. I rarely support change here unless what we have is wholly dysfunctional, like AfC or NPP. I do not support changing rFa, because it works, more or less. I do not support changing the basic rules of arb com, for the same reason. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. That requires digestion. It gives a great deal of insight. Fiddle Faddle 09:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Commented out message?[edit]

Para que serve o link verde?

É para isso?

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruno Gonçalves Pirajá (talkcontribs) 13:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC) 
Eu não falo português. Eu tenho usado o Google Translate, a fim de criar thsi mensagem para você. Este é o Idioma Inglês Wikipedia, e yoiu deve usar tanto Inglês aqui e só criar artciles em Inglês. Fiddle Faddle 14:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

And it begins..[edit]

Well Tim, voting has begun and I've rushed to the booth and done my civic duty - good luck! Face-smile.svg samtar {t} 08:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Samtar: I'm not sure which way the luck needs to run, my friend. Thank you for the wishes. There are now two whole weeks of folk, presumably, asking more and more questions. Fiddle Faddle 08:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The worst bit is the two weeks after voting closes before the results are announced. It's painful. WormTT(talk) 09:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@Worm That Turned: To be fair, it is the entire process that is painful. We have taken glorious anarchy and created more regulations than the former USSR to codify freedom, and all because we have chosen to do so. We have imposed all sorts of levels and grades of folk where none are really required. These are the outcome of the glorious social experiment that is Wikipedia. We are in the ant hill. Somewhere outside it is a boy with a magnifying glass, and the sun is rising. Fiddle Faddle 09:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
In Soviet Russia, Wikipedia edits you!      :-)       It is funny, because it is true, as the other saying goes.... (talk) 10:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Timtrent I am somewhat conflicted, for I think you would make a great arbitrator but I would also hate to see you less active at AfC! Your kind welcome in April was one of the things that really encouraged me to dive in there. We will all have big shoes to fill. I wish you the best wherever this election takes you. /wia /tlk 14:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
You are very kind, Wikiisawesome, but you are filling big shoes there yourself. I think it is less likely that I am elected than you appear to fear. To make AfC ever better our newer reviewers need gentle encouragement to use more and more useful comments. Many so, some do not. Enjoy helping them move to become better, too.
Being elected is far less important to me than you might imagine. I am taking the election seriously and will take the duties seriously. But I have a healthy ambivalence to succeeding in the election or being pipped at the post. What interests me is that people think there is a potential for my being elected and are considering the paradox that an arb must be able to see everything but is not required to be an admin. My desire not to be an admin seems to be confusing some folk. They must vote as their heart tells them. Fiddle Faddle 16:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Larry Geller, verse seven , refrain[edit]

So at present Jeff_G. is pulling the weight in terms of the rewrite effort, and Chris the original draft-writer has appeared briefly to ask more questions (which I'm attempting to centralize on User_talk:Jeff_G. for the moment), then again gone quiet. I pinged a couple of WP:ELVIS folks, but don't think the ones I selected have yet responded. Jeff, are you feeling over-burdened with your efforts on Draft:Larry_Geller, and wish the rest of us wikipedians -- Chris very much included should they wish to become one -- would pitch in and help you raise the BLP-barn, as the old sayig does not go? WP:NORUSH applies, of course, but pinging in case you are wondering where everybody went. I have been too slothful and otherwise occupied to work on Elvis-expansion this past week, and FiddleFaddle is doing some strange thing elsewhere on the 'pedia. Is everybody happy at the speed of motion, is my question here? Should we mainspace the thing, and move the in-progress bits to article-talkpage, if others agree it passes WP:42 and is WP:NOTPROMOTIONal enough now to survive such a shift? Also ping Chris aka User:Keshakoko1, so they can know we too still care.  :-) (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I learned a long time ago that, when something goes well, it should not be interfered with. :). Jeff_G.'s heavy lifting is excellent. Apart from pruning the work space elements surely this is ready to roll?
The strange thing I am doing doesn't interfere much at present, though that process is mind numbing in the extreme. And they wonder why I will not submit to an RfA! Who needs the grief? Fiddle Faddle 21:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I never got a pingback from the two WP:ELVIS folks I tugged-at-the-elbow, partly to see if they wanted to work on the article, and partly to see if they thought this was a borderline case that ought to be up-merged into Memphis Mafia where it would get more eyeballs. From what I can tell, though, Geller was not actually part of the Memphis Mafia per se, but was an independent influence, so I say we are probably go for mainspace, unless Jeff_G. strenuously objects. (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I suggest tidying and acceptance. A little like a wedding vow. You may now kiss the hairdresser. Fiddle Faddle 00:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I've been busy with work (new job, want to make a good impression, etc.). I wanted to finish building the fully-referenced (upper) version before moving to mainspace, but what I have is probably good enough to stave off AfD. I should be able to work on it more on Sunday.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
It's now in mainspace at Larry Geller, but there is more work to be done.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: What an awesome piece of work. There is always more to be done, but I think you can look at this with pride. Have you ever submitted a "Did You Know"? Go to WP:TDYK and have a look. It's another arcane process. A hook like (off the top of my head) "...That Elvis's spiritual advisor was his hairdresser?" sounds anarchic enough to make the cut, pun intended. You should be the one to submit this, and you will get all the "glory". Do not delay submission, there is a time deadline for submission after the article hots main namespace. There is then a ludicrous delay before someone reviews and accepts it. Fiddle Faddle 08:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawal from ArbCom Elections 2015[edit]

You must cut down the largest tree in the forest... with... a... herring! Your poise in unforeseen withdrawal, is as strong as your honour would have been in the seat. Even should we ne'er meet again, I would still have been proud to say, that once I knew Mister Faddle o' the Pedia.  :-)     None may say what they future will hold, with any certainty, but here's to hoping that we have many happy encounters in this strange place, in times yet to come, Best wishes in your off-wiki stuff. Anyways, enough with eulogy. You will be sorely missed as an arb, and in your lessened time for on-wiki work, even more sorely missed with the ever-challenging AfC queue. But do as you must: be what you are, and be it in style! Best, (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

From where will I get a herring? Fiddle Faddle 00:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know thaaaaaAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaa.... (distant thud echos upwards) (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I have withdrawn, and left a succinct statement on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Timtrent/Statement. I am leaving this message here for those of you who watch my talk page and are interested in the progress of the election. If you have opposed me, that vote is not wasted. If you have supported me please consider revoting, offering your vote to a current candidate. Fiddle Faddle 07:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that Tim, I can only hope your real-world circumstances have changed for the better instead of anything worse.. You were a good runner, and you had my vote. samtar whisper 07:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
@Samtar: The change is neither better nor worse, I am pleased to say. It has simply removed the extra time I believed I had at the start of the elections. Thank you indeed for your support. I hope I would have been able to do it justice. I think I would, but the changes in my life mean that withdrawing is the only valid decision. Fiddle Faddle 07:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear it :) maybe next year? samtar whisper 08:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
@Samtar: It depends upon my circumstances. I will still not be an admin, and we may have changed the rules by then, who can say? Fiddle Faddle 08:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Who knows.. All I do know is ArbCom could benefit from some editors who, yes, are bound by process but can think in a new and out-of-the-box manner samtar whisper 08:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
@Samtar: The sad thing is that I believe some folk see serving on ArbCom as a matter of status, whereas the reverse is true. It is a labour, perhaps a duty, but the status is negligible. Others see the act of serving as a means of making a reform. Instead they will create a log jam. Dissenting opinions are fine, but need to be voiced well, and once. ArbCom is not a place to fillibuster.
The role is a tough one, not one to be taken on lightly. Looking at the candidate list, I think some have an incorrect view of the job. You did not. Fiddle Faddle 08:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Sad, you were one of my (rather few) hopes. All the best for you personally! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I think sometimes things are not meant to be. Always remember that I was not in any way a reforming candidate. If elected I would have been as much bound by process as any other. My decisions would have been based on what the situation required, no more and no less. I thank you for your support. I would have done my best had I been able to continue. Fiddle Faddle 07:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Accepted. I don't need a reforming candidate, someone fair and looking at evidence is just fine. I will not vote again, because I supported all those I could support, not enough to fill 9 seats anyway, but more than the 2 that Iridescent and Newyorkbrad feel you have to support ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh dear.I had already voted for you. Now I have to go and do my vote all over again ;) Never mind, the way some users (not candidates) appear to be possibly abusing the process you are probably better off out of it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
@Kudpung: You are very kind. Thank you. I suspect folk will always abuse processes, perhaps because it is 'fun' to do so. At least by withdrawing at this stage I have inconvenienced fewer folk than I would have done had I delayed still further. Fiddle Faddle 08:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear this Tim, as I don't mind saying I supported you. :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: I am sorry to be withdrawing. But I felt it was important to do so as soon as I determined things had altered to interfere sufficiently with the time required for the role to make my appointment valueless. If I had known this before voting started I would have withdrawn earlier. Thank you very much for your support. Fiddle Faddle 11:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Add me to the disappointed set. Arbcom needs people like you. But, real life is the real thing so I totally understand. All the best! --regentspark (comment) 15:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
@RegentsPark: Thank you. I am also disappointed. I think there was a very real possibility that I would have polled over 50% net of opposes. I would have preferred to stay in the race, and I hope I would have done a good job. The support has been truly heartening, and I think it comes from folk who know I was not in any way a protest nor reform candidate, just an editor with a reasonable depth and breadth of experience. It would have been wrong of me to stay in the race when things mean I cannot, now, devote the time required "just to see the result." I am vain, but not that vain! Fiddle Faddle 15:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't think of anything to add to what others have already said above, but I also was sorry to see you withdraw. Whatever else, I look forward to seeing you around as an editor. Best wishes, --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
@Tryptofish: Thank you. It was tempting not to withdraw, but it became important to do so. Having a potentially vacant place after the election would have been a bad decision on my part. It might also have suggested that non admins were unsuitable as candidates, something I think we agree to be incorrect. On that basis my staying in the poll would have been a negative benefit for the community. We need editors of the widest possible experience to serve on ArbCom. By no means all of those are admins as well, though many are. Fiddle Faddle 17:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • A pity. I also voted for you. Anyhow, all the best both on wiki and off. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 19:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
@Jbmurray: Thank you. I was overtaken by events, I am afraid. When that happens it is important to react at once. Delay leads to stress and stress is not what one requires of an absorbing hobby. Fiddle Faddle 19:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I just found out from Wikipediocracy. I'm sorry about it because I think you would have been great on the Committee - your answers were really impressive - but kudos for withdrawing at once, and I hope you will be able to run again in future. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
@Yngvadottir: I confess I have never been to ocracy. I would not even now where to start looking. Were they nice about me? Do I really want to know? Thank you for your comments about my answers. I was by no means electioneering. I speak my mind. Whether I stand again or not depends only on time commitments. I imagine some folk might hold my withdrawal against me should I do so, but the loss will be theirs. I hope we get a great committee who will cut through to the real issues in each submission and do so speedily. Fiddle Faddle 19:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
It's a strange site - some awful things get said, but there are present and past arbs among the active members. I refuse to join - I don't trust them with my personal details - so I don't know what is said in the non-public forums. In the public ones they were mainly puzzled about who you might be, since you aren't known from the drama boards '-) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
@Yngvadottir: I think I shall leave it out of my browsing. I am here because it is a pleasant pastime and because I think I can make it better while enjoying it. That sounds like a place that is a mixture of mud wrestling and a duck shoot. Fiddle Faddle 20:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I am a little worried about time commitments too. Take care Tim. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
@Drmies: I only became concerned when I realised things had changed to prevent my being able to do the role justice. I think the time one spends will always grow to fill the time one has available. I had always expected a sharp rise in work, but my life could not accommodate even a quarter of my estimate of the extra time suddenly. Should you be elected my only suggestion is to use a very sharp scalpel to cut away the surrounding clutter and only work with the core issues. Even if your colleagues do not do the same it does no good to get drawn into irrelevance and the strange verbosity that tends to surround the world of the 'official'. Say it once, say it well, and move ahead to the next issue. And do not forget to enjoy your regular editing here. Fiddle Faddle 19:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, this is disappointing, you were on my Support list. But it is wise to take seriously how much time the committee involves and you have to choose your priorities in life. I do hope you consider running again when real life settles down. Liz Read! Talk! 21:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Liz: I shall consider running again, Liz, yes. I am truly humbled by the support you and others have given me, and I thank you for it. I wish I'd known before voting opened that my time availability was changing or I would have withdrawn earlier. I was not going to relinquish the fun parts of the hobby that is Wikipedia. ArbCom was to be a difficult duty I was adding in order to try to give something extra back. Fiddle Faddle 21:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I have done a little studying of ArbCom and I don't believe there has been one year where at least one arbitrator didn't retire early. There is clearly more of a workload and friction in being an arbitrator that some candidates anticipate. Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I looked at what I predicted the time commitment to be when I thew my hat into the ring, then doubled it. I had that available then. Now I do not even have a fifth of it left. I expected potential vitriol. However well one thinks one has worded something there is always someone to misinterpret it, and no-one arrives at ArbCom as a "problem" without having an opinion, and a concern that all is resolved in their favour. Fiddle Faddle 22:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Vitriol eh? How's this: aarrgggghghh aaAAAArrrggghh rraaarrrgh... no wait. Give me a second. WWWwoooorrreaaarrrrrrGGGGGggghhhhhh! Take *that* for your vitriol, I say. Best, (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, 75.108, would you like an antacid? Fiddle Faddle 00:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


"a good article"

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Thank you for quality articles such as Gender roles in non-heterosexual communities, beginning with Tide Mills, East Sussex, for teaching others what makes a basically good article, and for John Victim, for reviewing articles for creation and your pledge to old values, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

My friend, I am honoured. However, with the gender roles article I simply guided the contributing editor and squeezed a DYK out of it. They may still be aiming at GA for it and I think it is worthy of massaging into it. For my sins I have not looked. I'm happy to take the credit for the others, though Face-smile.svg Fiddle Faddle
I may look closer then, but believe that guiding others is possibly of even higher merit than writing in a quiet lonely corner. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I did a small search. this gives an indication of the way I worked with the contributing editor. There is some other material about it on that page as well. It looks very much as though they have gone on to contribute more and more, something I find very pleasing. I like to shine soft light into the lonely corners, and pour a cup of tea there occasionally. Fiddle Faddle 18:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The more hear you the more I will miss you on arbcom. I do both, I write some articles in my corner and others with others, especially Kafka. DYK that Wikipedia has an article, The Company of Heaven (of all titles) which was written by two editors who dislike infoboxes and me (thinking they are as useful as images, maps and graphs - which nobody seems to fight over) and therefore has a compromise of an infobox? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I happen to think that infoboxen are useful (which is why I would not have closed the discussion in your question). I have never understood the determination not to include them and the parts of the project that are against them, because I believe in a uniform look and feel across the entire edifice. But I also believe in only including things that are notable rather than giving a free ride to team sportsmen who have been on the pitch for a couple of seconds in a qualifying game, and not including some junior academics. Then there are folk who live to old age and are judged to be notable because they have dodged the coffin for long enough, but for no other reason.
What I've learned here is that one needs, sometimes, to walk quietly away from such things, trying hard not to disturb the creatures that inhabit those areas. At other times one tries to influence change. Often one fails. Sometimes one succeeds. I decided long ago not to care either way, to make my attempt, see what happened, and move on if I did not prevail. That is a recommendation I would love you to embrace with infoboxen. Fiddle Faddle 20:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, you are right, and I think more often than not I do that. I do my own and don't care about others - up to a certain point. You may know (or not) that the infoboxes case was requested because too many were reverted. It was at the time when infobox opera was new, I embraced it, others hated it. I made a list of infoboxes reverted (which possibly made me one of the suspects), counting 59, 17 of them operas. 16 of these operas have an infobox now ;) - They are all concise because the template is designed that way. I love the last example ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanksgiving. I added an infobox to Jauchzet Gott in allen Landen, BWV 51, on 4 September 2013. It was discussed (initiated by the author of Joseph), I was told because of that edit that AE is "not a fun place" (remember my question?), the box was reverted. I walked away then, but look forward to seeing it on the Main page on Thanksgiving Day, pictured ;) - If I've learned one thing it's patience. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Mini pumpkins.jpg
Shout for joy
I shall think of them henceforth as Turkeyboxen Fiddle Faddle 00:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually laughed, as the kids say, out loud at this one. But what to call the userboxen, then?  :-) (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

From LW1588[edit]

Appreciate your advise on the citation. Will revise my article. Thank you. Happy Thanksgiving!LW1588 (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Re Larry Geller[edit]

Tim - Awhile ago, you told me how to delete my article (which I did ONCE) just so I could submit a SHORT draft so I could get this through. I did say it was confusing (which it is) and I've been told by two other sources who worked with Wikipedia for years and they told me I'm not wrong. It is very difficult. This is WHY I opted to submit a short version.....which I have been messing with this since May. THEN, Jeff G. jumps in and reverses my delete and seemed nice enough to try and help get it through (along with others). I appreciated this and thought finally maybe this will be approved. But I get an email from you (the last one I've seen from anyone on 11/23/15.

I looked through the string and see a lot of "not so nice comments" being very judgmental saying I don't know the jargon and don't want to learn. Where is she or he? Etc etc etc. Comments saying probably we just give her some leeway to be confused???? Is this how the people at Wikipedia work? I wanted to submit something short and sweet and because they reversed it and now complaining about me, more and more time has passed. I still don't know whether it is in any condition to be submitted for approval? Some comments seem to mention me and then they seem to talk about something else (maybe this is his or her attempt to "confuse" me even more? Maybe it is enjoyable to them to try and mess with people - so sad. In the comments below, it seems it may be close but nothing is straight forward on this site. Could you speak in laymen's terms. I guess people get a kick out of speaking their own language and confusing people? I don't know. I'll copy and paste this to a few I know who have dealt with this in a professional manner. Here is some of the comments I saw:

"Poor pedantic fiddle faddle, extra elvis passive paddle, talkpage trouble sources slashed, refund requested sunshine a'last!  :-) Promise I won't do that often. Well, too often. I have requested that NawlinWiki also restore the draft_talk, which is whereupon I placed my own refs that I scrounged up. If Chris doth return, prolly we can just give her some leeway to be confused, since now her article has been deleted and undeleted in five places, by my count.  :-) p.s. In other news, I am growing more hopeful that you and the other arb-candidates will yet make a splash, of a least a tiny sort. There will likely be some final self-noms in the remaining 24 hour window, after which we can more realistically assess the betting odds. If you wish, I'm happy to try and organize some kind of arb-klatch of candidates and former/sitting folks, to get some pre-emptive knowledge transfer channels up and running. Are you enjoying the proceedings, as best as you may, so far? (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I am hopeful that Larry will hit main namespace before Chris returns from wherever it is they have gone. It needs some ex-cite-ability and then I would view it as probably readyThe AC proceedings are very strange. Enjoyable? somewhat. Amusing? As a pleasant diversion. Are the questions good? Some. Others, thankfully not yet addressed to me, are tub thumping, and at least one questioner should stand for election!I think we will not make a splash. The RfC on admin tools et al seems certain to scupper the non admins because of general prejudice other for or against a demographic, and it ain't the ladies it's agin. I may have to oppose myself on that basis. I anticipate a further 5 or so nominations before the deadline. It's a pity we had one vaporise an hour or three ago."


Chris Chris Coffey 20:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keshakoko1 (talkcontribs)

BTW - I am a female since people keep saying he or she. Not sure who referred to me as genteel woman?

Chris Chris Coffey 20:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keshakoko1 (talkcontribs)

@Keshakoko1: Hi Chris. I will try to remember that you are a lady. My apologies for my mistaken assumption. It is because the majority of folk here are male, which is regrettable. We need more ladies here. You make up 50% of the world, some say more, but far less of the pool of Wikipedia editors.
Ignore the babble. The thread became hijacked. I should have separated it, but did not do so. My talk page, so my apologies. Set it aside, disregard it and put it down the the banality of folk.
Let's look at Larry Geller. The article is in pretty good condition and exists. It is a real article, not requiring approval. You achieved it, albeit with Jeff G.'s help. There is no need for to to be reviewed, it has been Accepted
This is my basic message to you. I am going to post this and then add to it below. You do not need to read what is below, but I will still draw your attention to it. Fiddle Faddle 21:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
@Keshakoko1: Now the part you do not need to read. I will get a bit Wikipedia-technical. Do read the final para, though!
The deletion was not a correct action since more people than just you has edited the draft. Therefore we asked for it to be restored, and then we, or rather Jeff G. worked on it with the help of the anonymous editor 75.108. They got it onto such a good shape that to was accepted as an article. IN jargon this means "Moved to Main Namespace" or "Moved to Article space." These are jargon terms of which there are more than you can shake a stick at. see WP:Glossary and run!
We hoped you would enjoy joining in with the rescue of the draft, and take an active part in it. It was, after all, an article started by your inspiration. It looks as if you had no time to devote to it, or, perhaps, we had put you off. Let me apologise for that, too. I seem to be doing a lot of apologising.
I would have joined in to hep the other two, but I was occupied with standing in an election for our Arbitration Committee, an election I had to withdraw from for domestic reasons. I don't think I had much value to add, frankly, and I think the article is the better without my help. The babble in the thread was a set of blandishments about my candidacy. Again, please set those aside.
Is there anything left that I need to explain to you about this? Please ask. I will answer. Despite the confusion I try very hard to give good guidance, and try to make it easy to read. Fiddle Faddle 21:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi - THANKS SO MUCH and I'll try and send a THANKS to Jeff G. as well. I really appreciate all your help. According to your message, you said it's approved? I just did search for Larry Geller and I saw just a reference for Larry Geller under sandbox in Wikipedia - it took me to my sandbox about deletion? I'm not sure why this shows up when doing a search in Yahoo. I would think I could type his name and see the Wikipedia page? I think you said there wasn't anything left for me to do - is this right? Please let me know how anyone can search and pull up page.....or do I need to submit it? Please let me know. Thanks so much!

Take Care ~ Chris Chris Coffey 22:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keshakoko1 (talkcontribs)

@Keshakoko1:It is at Larry Geller. For external search engines we depend on them to index Wikipedia's pages, so those are unpredictable. Google does not yet pick him up at Wikipedia. That is life, I'm afraid. We can't influence Google.
You genuinely have nothing further to do to it. That doesn't mean you should not improve it if you wish, but the necessity is gone.
Would you like to learn more about editing Wikipedia, this time free from stress? Fiddle Faddle 22:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)