User talk:Timtrent/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 10

Berkshire WikiProject invitation

Hello, Timtrent/Archive 6! I'd like to invite you to join the Berkshire WikiProject. It's a user-group dedicated to improving the overall quality of all Berkshire-related content. There is a discussion page for sharing ideas as well as developing and getting tips on improving articles. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of members.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We hope to be working with you in the future!

Seaserpent85 01:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


FYI, I consider ANY unwanted changes to the userspace with my name (since I can't say "my userspace") to be vandalism. Vandlism is against WIkipedia POLICY - it's not a guideline, so how did I bereka my own rules?? Idiot. I know we didn't start off on the right foot today, but I did aplogize for it. Yet you insisted on redacting my userspace, like I was a common vandal, wtihout even the courtesy to appraoch me first liek a real adult would. If the wiki-break notice is a personal attack on my paer, then I'm sorry your feelings were hurt. I've had it today with people protecting the real vandals and abusers, then going after me like I'm worse than the vandals. Well, I've had it with idoits like you. And you really are stupid for nominating the largest airlines list. THere, now THAT was a REAL personal attack. GO get me blocked if you wish, but I'm gone from WIkipedia anyway. THought I may come back as an IP, since they get more respect than regular users from the likes of morons like you! - —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I have absolutely no idea what this is about, who this user is, or anything else about it. I did make some technical edits some time ago to this template, but that can't be it, surely? So anyone who can shed any light on this please do so. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfourtunately, I know EXACTLY what that is about. Thanks for the notice on my talk page. These are the actions of a Wikistalker that has been harrassing me and others who associate with me in any way since July 2007. Under Wikipedia rules, while these actions are not "officially allowed", Jimbo Wales will do nothing to change Wikipeida if it interferes with his stated religion belief of "open editing" at all costs. Also unforutunately, you are part of the cost. I'm sorry you were involved in this way, but there is absolutely nothing that can be done to stop people like this, and the stalkers know it. I'll do what I can to get an admin to clean up the mess. Thanks for the alert. - BillCJ (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
As they say, Bill, shit happens. The best thing one can do with a mess like this is to document it and leave it, well documented, in plain sight. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I need to contact you privately. Can we work out a way? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought "email this user" was enabled. It is now :) That should work. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Eling Tide Mill

Thanks for sorting out the formatting of the references - yes, I like the way Wikipedia entries can constantly improve. I'd mentioned Southampton to explain why I was referring to a book with Southampton (not Eling) in its title, but I certainly don't have strong views about including it. Northernhenge (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:note RE: Spam

I want to apologize if I have given you some concern regard links to Please know I have not posted them in the context of spam under any circumstances.

I am seriously concerned about ship source pollution and want persons who are researching such matters, like seafarers, of which I am one, to note that there is a method to help end this epidemic that's destroying our oceans.

Please email me at to discuss further as I will be glad to amplify my concerns. Perhaps then you won't consider these links as spam.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reportpol (talkcontribs)

WP:NOT a soapbox. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi Tim,

Just thought you might like to have a look at the TSW and PSW userboxes - there on my user page!

Also, would you mind filling in the appropriate info at Image:PlaneSpottingWorld logo.png and Image:TrainSpottingWorld logo.png - I tried my best!


BG7 16:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask a passing friendly giant to help. I have done my best and also failed 22:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Eling Tide Mill

Hi Tim.

On 19th October 2007, you made an edit to this article, changing the text from:

It is the sole remaining tide mill in the UK, with a pair of independent waterwheels designed to drive a millstone each.


It is the sole remaining tide mill in the UK which has a pair of independent waterwheels designed to drive a millstone each.

thus changing the meaning rather.

Other articles (eg. Tide mill) say that Eling is the only working tide mill in the UK, irrespective of wheel configuration, thus agreeing with the first meaning. I'm wondering if this change in meaning was deliberate. -- Chris j wood (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The configiration is that it has a pair of waterwheels. Each of those wheels drives (drove) a single pair of stones. It may be beneficial, if you are correct about it being the sole remaining tide mill (of any sort), to make it even clearer. Go for it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of King George V Playing Fields (County Antrim)

I have nominated List of King George V Playing Fields (County Antrim), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of King George V Playing Fields (County Antrim). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Chailey Heritage Marine Hospital

Hi! I am attempting to sort out the Newhaven, East Sussex article, and have come across the above hospital. Following back from the reference within a connected article (Tide Mills, East Sussex, it soon became obvious what a tortured series of articles told the story of Grace Timmins and her philanthropic work! I found myself travelling trhrough Chailey Heritage and then to Chailey Heritage Marine Hospital; there is also the Guild of Play and the Guild of Poor Brave Things. I see that you have made some changes to one of the articles, but is does seem an important subject, so I wondered why it needed all those articles? I am sure you would agree! Peter Shearan (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"Need" is an interesting word. I think the various topics cover so much ground that each article is expandable into a very much more complete article, so I would say that, while the current articles may have insufficient detail, they are they type of article that a casual surfer would probably search for and expect or hope to see.
That doesn't mean that I hold an intransigent view on the concept of consolidating where appropriate, but I would expect editors to be able to achieve that by using redirects rather than nominating for deletion. I either created or added to a number of those articles in the fond hope that "a start is needed, and others will follow" and so it proves.
It was not just Grace Timmins, of course, but a great many others who passed through and shared her vision. They linked into the West London Methodist Mission, and a whole slew of suffragettes and suffragists. And the Guilds of brave things and of play are very different beasts and warrant their own articles.
I can see why you hope to rationalise in some way. I could not see how to achieve that, and I can see the challenge that you are facing. I would say "remember that part of the fun of WP is following strange hyperlinks, and also that disk space is very cheap."
Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Images at WP:PUI

I have listed two images you uploaded at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 August 24, Image:Tony Klitz Guardsmen 1977.jpg and Image:Tony Klitz circa 1958 St Mary Le Bow, London.jpg. The problem with these images is that while the photograph may be GFDL, the painting itself is not. You can comment at the log page linked above if there is reason to believe it might be. Thanks. Chick Bowen 21:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The UK Houses of Parliament were designed by an architect. Does that mean I violate his copyright if I upload a photograph of them? This is barking mad. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice


As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Fish Information and Services

I completely agree. Deleting an article is not the Wikipedia way. The article must be improved in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines and has to become more encyclopedic. The SPAM issue is not somthing that I brought up, this was the person who submited the article for deletion, I think that this issue is irrelavent and unfounded.

Spindoctor69 (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, deleting articles about non notable items is wholly valid. It is up to the people who work within the article to assert the notability of the thing about which the article is written. No amount of rhetoric will save an article, instead the article must be rescued. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)



I think Allied Pickfords Australia should be merged into Australia is what I meant by my comment. See Allied Pickfords Australia talkpage for more details. But I must admit I'm not clear on the deletion process.


Incrediblehunk (talk) 13:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The simplest way is to be bold, merge it yourself and then set Allied Pickfords Australia as a redirect to Pickfords. If that is not liked someone will undo it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Refs preview

A little hint. While editing refs in a section, just pop in a temporary "{{reflist}}" at the end and you can preview them locally...but don't forget to remove it again, or you'll give away your secret! -- EdJogg (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course! Tks Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


Appreciate if you didn't do this again. WP:BLANKING. "Repeatedly restoring warnings does nothing but antagonize users, and can encourage further disruption"Dark talk 09:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest in this discussion. The user seems to be disruptive and does not seem to be learning anything from other people's reaction. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Possibly because of a miscommunication between those involved. A more personal explanation of Wikipedia's policies might generate a more positive response. —Dark talk 10:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Then, since you appear to have infinite patience, please explain it to the user. How hard can it possibly be to understand the talk page of the disputed article? A user who gets retaliatory in a huge flurry tends to need more than gentle explanations. I will not be taking this user under my wing. Others yes, this one, no. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Please remove this tag immediately.

You placed this tag on the page I created around Project E

{{Tl:Db-reason|Despite looking plausible, no trace in Google, and thus likely to be a hoax}}

Despite not having in all probabilty looked at the reference.

You therefore have no basis whatsover for this assertion. If you look on Google as the ultimate reference, God help you.

Soarhead77 (talk) 10:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't jump up and down and yell at me over this, please. Instead enhance your article to assert the notability and you will save it. Follow the instructions in the template rather than wasting your time on my talk page with invective. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft Office 98 Macintosh Edition

I added some references to Microsoft Office 98 Macintosh Edition, and I think they are enough to prove that it is notable. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft Office 98 Macintosh Edition. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It may be notable, and you have added good references, but it does not, in my view, deserve a separate article. That is why I have taken it to AfD. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Claudia Russo

I'm neither one way nor the other, actually - it just seems a bit odd to prod one for speedying and not the rest. I'd look into it more, but I'm lazy. :-) --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 19:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was considering the other 66. It just seemed like a lot of work if th eone I nominated stayed. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Point taken. Just letting you know I have no particular deeply-held feelings on the subject. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 20:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


that article *might* end up at transgendered people who were murdered on wheels. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

love it! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

inportant articles

i suck coq —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy&jord22 (talkcontribs) 12:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

How nice. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

My Entry US Army Reserve RRC

Hi. Greetings form Surrey :). I think I did what you asked on my update to the page. Let me know if it's good. As you can probably tell I am new to all of this. It's a work in progress which will take a while editing the page as well as linking and expanding. Thanks! Usernamewastaken (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Its a good start. I'll add something to your talk page that may be of use. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the article. I'll have a go through it and go from there. TTFN. Usernamewastaken (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ships

Restored the article, it is back at AfD. Cirt (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The Ex Box Boys

Hi I am new to this. I was asked by Phil Fisher (creator of the Ex box boys) to write this article for him. He has approved it, yet for some reason Wikipedia does not. What can I do to keep this article on permanently? How can I fix this? Please help. I am finding this system a bit confusing..--Jenny Blaze (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is very different from (eg) a site where one may place fan descriptions or press releases. The article needs to show that the band IS notable and it needs to assert that notability. The message I left ion your talk page is one key thing to help you.
It doesn't matter that the band has or has not approved it I'm afraid. What matters is whether they are suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. I happen to think they are, others disagree. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Fiddle Faddle, Thank you for your help. I am still not sure I understood right, but have added more links to different websites concerning the ex box boys. Will this make a difference? And if people still disagree about The Ex Box Boys deserving an article in wikipedia, is there an administrator I could contact? If I don´t get this published, that is two weeks of work gone with no pay, so please understand my determination. Regards, Jenny —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenny Blaze (talkcontribs) 15:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand the problem. This is a baptism of fire for you. I think you also have a basic misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works.
  • Admins: yes there are more than you can shake a stick at. You can even contact Jimbo Wales, the founder. What you will find is that each person here has one voice with one weight. No individual's word holds sway. Being an admin is a duty that carries no extra rights at all. Thus Wikipedia is anarchy in so many ways.
  • Consensus: Articles stay or go by consensus. You have as much right to question my work as I do yours. We each have the right to propose articles for deletion or for recognition of excellence. The articles must of themselves be notable.
  • If your article is deleted: you have the option of recreating a better article, or of asking for a deletion review.
To return to your immediate problem: The band has to be notable and you have to find sources that meet the guidelines for notable bands. Youtube, myspacem, facebook, blogs etc are all useless to you. No-one cares about self published sources in an encyclopaedia. That is the challenge, it is an encyclopaedia, not a directory.
Even when you are successful in making an article stick, you have no rights of any description over it. Any editor may make changes at any time. the changes have to be good, and the community decides by leaving them there or by editing them further whether they are valid. Wikipedia is a really tough place. Really tough.
I know I've made you more unhappy rather than reassured you. This is how the place works. It does not create notability, it records it. To make the cut the band has to be notable already. My view is "borderline", others have a different view. Your job is to assert that notability. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sandeep Unnikrishnan

No need to say sorry. :) I understand what you said in AfD discussion. But now I wonder why pages like Matt Maupin, Henry Evans Maude are appearing in enwiki. I have to check whether I'll be able to put up some more references to Sandeep Unnikrishnan. May be need one more day to get the newspaper tomorrow. That's why the delay in reply. But I am not arguing for maintaining the article in wiki. If it does not meet the notability criteria, it should be deleted. :) --Sidharthan (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I see a case in point for an article on the biography of this army major on account of the interest in this persons life that is already showing up in blogging circuits and media. The article as it stands may not sufficient. Effort and research is needed to establish all facts about his contribution in the current event and in events before. Articles should not be made Afd so soon after their creation. Others haven't even got a chance to review it yet.Indoresearch (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Articles may be nominated for deletion at any time. Blogs are not reliable sources. WP:NOTNEWS refers. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


Inquiry - really confused and new, is there a way to discuss this elsewhere, be it email or sort of a pm of sorts Mr. Trent? Thanks!

visit us at for more information and research materials pertaining to CTSI (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It would help if I had any idea what you were confused about. You might like to look at WP:COI though. That may answer all that you need to know. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Rachel Shanley

In future when patrolling new pages could you click the little link at the bottom right of the page and mark it as patrolled? That way it removes it from Special:newpages and other patrollers don't need to trawl through pages that have already been checked. Ironholds (talk) 10:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a mod that Twinkle requires. Or I assume it is. In fact it usually says that it has marked it as patrolled. But it also seems not always to be consistent. Perhaps you would like, since you seem to know more about the patrolled status than I do, to take this up with the guy who created twinkle? I see no issue with asking, but I have less, presumably, experience than you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Bjorn-Andresen-The-Boy-Cover-by-David-Bailey-1970.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Bjorn-Andresen-The-Boy-Cover-by-David-Bailey-1970.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 05:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

In general a fair use is a fair use if the image and its use is limited to a controlled set of articles. If you feel that the use of this image in four articles:
  • The photographer
  • The author of the book
  • The subject of the photograph
  • The book itself
is outside our fair use rationale, please justify this before tagging the image for deletion
I am placing this note on the image talk page. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks better, thanks. Cirt (talk) 07:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


Please, check my answer to your deletion mark. Thanks, Editor br (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Response from RekonDog

Huh, didn't know anyone notices all the new stuff that appears on Wiki. Yea, I read a lot and after the past 8 months of doing research on the past of one my units I served with in the Marines. I spent way too much time and money just to write a history book on my fav company's past. But I like contributing to wiki, so here it is...

I wouldn't know jack about adding it to categories and the other extra stuff you mentioned, I just type and clean up a few articles. I'm fairly new and I keep things simple. I submit my portion and allow everyone else to fix my grammatical errors and the extra add-ons like categories and such. Be my guest to add those if you like, or give me a quick, brief set of instructions on how and I do it instead (it'll help me learn).

P.S. Oh, if you think there are some military articles that may need some extra info, I might have the references and add them. Let me know.RekonDog (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Pace-Finletter MOU 1952

I noticed that you seem to be paying attention to the article I'm writing, Pace-Finletter MOU 1952. I'm struggling with a better way to do the introduction. (1) Do you have any suggestions re the intro? -also- (2) Any additional comments about fleshing out the Background? LP-mn (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I fixed the intro of Pace-Finletter MOU 1952, but I'd welcome your advise re fixing the Background section. LP-mn (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you have done a good job. My interest is in article quality rather than this article per se. I have no expertise in the subject area I fear, so am unable to make content suggestions, for which I apologise. If you look at {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} (etc) you may enhance your referencing beyond your wildest dreams.
I have a concern about "shorthand" in the article title. MOU vs Memorandum of Understanding. This can be solved with a moved from the short to the long title which will create a redirect automatically.
I think most people would also like to see the full name of the MOU in bold in the intro. This is WP style, but not mandatory. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the last 2/3rds of your suggestions are currently beyond my coding ability. I'll try to look into them in the days to come. In the mean time, if you have further suggestions (or links for more help), please speak up! Thanks, LP-mn (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

moving an article: There is, or ought to be a tab named "move", which will work very well. An alternative is to place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask the question you would like help with. Kind folks drop by and take you by thye hand and lead you towards enlightenment :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Layout assistance required


Please look at {{MMFF}} which I created earlier. I cannot make the hard line breaks in list 1 go away. I've no idea why they are there, and no desire for them. I'd love it if they could be made to vanish by magic. Mediawiki line breaks are a mystery! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You had hard breaks between each of the years. To remove them, I just backspaced until each entry was touching the prior and spaced forward one (not using return/enter but the space bar). Is the template displaying as you wanted it to now?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
And I thought I'd tried that! Very many thanks. It is as I hoped it would be when I stafrted. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

MMFF template

Good work helping us expand on Southeast Asian cinema! However, just wanted to give you a heads up that I've deleted the winners portion of the template. Festival navigational templates are designed for articles on individual years, and should not be used for linking to the award winners. (See most of our festival and awards templates for guidance on each.) Furthermore, the linking to titles via the year is generally frowned upon in standard text, much less in a template where the link can be easily construed to be for an article on that year's award itself. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, when adding {{Film}} to the talk page, please delete any unused parameters before saving your edit, as they unduly enlarge the page size and can be cumbersome to trawl through for future editors. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I feel very pleased now that I bothered at all. It was kind of you to delete all of that without any discussion. Thank you very much. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way, but I've explained my reasoning above. It's always disappointing to have something that one spent time on deleted, but if you want to discuss the matter with regard to reasons besides effort expended, I'm happy to. Regards, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
You should never use the phrase "I am sorry...., but" because that is plain aggressively rude. It means "I look as if I am sorry, but I am not sorry at all." I find that phraseology pompous and arrogant. You may wish to reconsider it. I find your draconian edit without any attempt to discuss this onthe template talk page to be high handed. I find your pseudo-apology to be unpleasant. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
If you can't even assume the pretense of good faith, I don't really think that this requires any further response. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I was not aware that you were pretending good faith. Interesting. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Rose Mary Crawshay Prize


Please could a very nice person look at Rose Mary Crawshay Prize and tell me how I might make the ISBN column less obtrusive? It is meant to be an adjunct, not dominate the article itself! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look too bad. It's about as narrow as it can get. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 16:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering about a simple method of "smallening" the text for the entire column. That might move it from "not to bad" to "pleasant" :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Put <small> at the beginning and </small> at the end? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 17:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
If all else fails! I was wondering if there was a style one could apply to the column (and how to apply it!)

fyi, definition of barrack room lawyering from Talk:Binomial_regression

You wrote in this edit, "Instead of barrack room lawyering, why not enhance the article." The definition of, "barrack room lawyering" can be found at this link and is generally talking when you don't know what you are talking about. I might ask you follow your own advice. On this talk where you strongly disagree with making it a redirect you have written in this edit that you, "have no idea what BR is (and no interest in the topic as a topic)."

Can you help me out by explaining why you are commenting on this page? I really am curious. PDBailey (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I am commenting because I have the right to comment. There is absolutely no reason for me to justify this to you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


Happy New Year! I haven't been active on Wikipedia (due to RSI in my thumbs!) but I do intend to create an article on Austin de Lone, the musician. When I eventually do, I shall be in touch! I do hope all is well and you are creating lots of interesting entries. Cheers! Frances lynn (talk) 06:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Frances, Just having fun, sometimes here and sometimes not. Glad you are coming back to create more articles. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Fiddle Faddle, I've been absent from Wikipedia for so long, I can't even remember who is my Wikipedia 'guide'. Can't locate hs (or her?!) name on my History page. (How would I find out?!). I would like to start creating a page on Austin de Lone.I think he would be a good subject to do. His base is in Mill Valley, California. He is a very prolific musician. He was the director of a festival called "The Bammies" (for about twelve years). He got honoured by the Mill Valley authorities last year. He reworks band for a living. He is also a prolific songwriter - his songs have been covered by well-known artistes - he has played with (practically) every famous musician in the Music Industry .... he even wrote an award winning campaign for Levis. He is 'respected'in the Music Industry: he is friends and works with musicians like Elvis Costello blah blah! I think he would be a good one to do .... I would like to start creating a page for him, and must now try to find your notes which really helped me to create the Ritz page. It would be quite an ambitious job as he has been so prolific - if I could start it off - then I could take my time Frances lynn (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I fear I can't remember. But you could always either fly solo or as for another one. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame I can't have you! I'm not ready to 'fly' completely solo yet - so shall try and get another one. To save me time, could you be so kind as to supply the link as to how to get another one! I have really forgotten everything - sorry! Frances lynn (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd offer if I could be sure of being here reliably. The best approach is to place {{helpme}} on your talk page with the request for guidance towards a mentor/guide there (stated simply and clearly). The main thing to remember is notability plus verifiability makes an article that will stand the test of time. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Castle Hotel, Halton

Hi there -- I was one of the FL reviewers that suggested the creation of this article, which is actually grade II*, not grade II. I've worked extensively with Peter I. Vardy on the Cheshire Wikiproject in the past, and can assure you that the article was not created as an advertisement for the pub. Peter has created many hundreds of article on listed properties in Cheshire and elsewhere. I'm willing to put it on my watchlist to make sure it doesn't get taken over for advertising purposes.

I personally don't mind whether or not this particular AfD runs the full course, but it isn't a great test case for the automatic notabiity of grade II listing -- if you do find a suitable test case and take it to AfD, I'd be obliged if you'd notify me, as I'd be very interested in the discussion. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I missed the "*", mea culpa. Ordinary G2, I'm sure you will agree, are unlikely to be notable. We'll let this one run its course I think. Our community usually makes wise decisions. And I will most certainty do my very best to remember you if I find a "plain old G2" Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm on the fence on Grade II. On the one hand, I think it does actually meet our notability and verifiability requirements, and I'm chary of deleting good-faith contributions which do meet these -- excluding the obvious problem with articles that exist to promote commercial concerns, and even those can usually be salvaged. On the other hand, I don't think the creation of thousands of tiny hard-to-improve stubs is of merit to the project, and there are privacy issues given that Wikipedia is far more googleable than Images of England. On the Cheshire project, we've largely gone with lists for grade II, unless there are substantive other sources available, which I think is a rational compromise. As I recall, I've only created one article on a grade II building, and that has received substantial news coverage. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

re: I think all one can say ....

Distinguished by the novel collocation of particulars, but it had to be done. Your servant. --Rrburke(talk) 15:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

John Dean Alfone - what's your take on this?

Please could you look at this and tell me what you think: John Dean Alfone To me it's a speedy deletion candidate and I tagged it so, but this was reverted. I've explained my reasons fully on the talk page. I honestly can't see why anyone would think otherwise, but am prepared to consider or defer to another's judgement. Many thanks Astral Highway (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why you are asking me. I will form a view if the article interests me, but I don't generally respond when asked to visit a deletion discussion. Don't take that personally, I just make it a personal rule. If you feel strongly and the PROD is contested I suggest you take it to AfD and a consensus will form. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

hi again. I see that it may have appeared odd for me to ask you, but I did so because I wanted some neutral input and had just spotted your name in an intervention I agreed with on a 'history' log, so that was random enough for my purposes. Equally, I hope you won't be affronted by this off-beat logic and I certainly respect your reply. It's not so much the destiny of this page that concerns me, as working out some general rules on when it's appropriate to strongly assert SD and when to go AfD. I've had comments suggesting boldness on SD and others suggesting caution and preferring AfD. On the other hand, AfD, particularly for a new article, seems to cause enldess headaches and 'Wikkilawyering.' Cheers,Astral Highway (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The AfD process gives 5 days of grace for a new article to be enhanced. So it seems to me that it can be proposed at once if it is felt necessary. I have often done so when SD seems unavailable. I truly do not care about wikilawyering. Such people tend to have their own presence in the forefront of their minds and "probably want to be admins". I, by contrast, have so far refused nomination for admin and will continue to do so :) I tend to be a lone wolf, and have no interest in anything except the finished product in terms of the rather arcane discussions some folk get in to.
Not at all offended by your logic. I am a team player (a paradox), but only on article creation and improvement. Also, not that this applies to you, I will track idiocy down and try to root it out. Interestingly, sometimes idiots defend idiocy to the death. Perhaps we are heading for Idiocracy after all. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


Reshplicate (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your input. Sorry you felt the page should be deleted. I would like to try to make additions to keep Reflexive Human Science going, as suggested in your message. I could for example add Velmans, Max. Reflexive Sciencee of Consciousness to refrences, but I cannot any longer find the page to edit it. To me this - reflexive human science - is now an important and growing differentiation.

Reshplicate (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC) Reshplicate

The page was deleted, but I am sure that, if you approach the admin who deleted it, a copy can be emailed to you. The key thing is that it is notable and verifiable. I'll drop some thoughts onto your talk page in a

People Skipped From the British Throne

I just want to help split Line of Succession to the British Throne like people are discussing yet not doing. Some people didn't want to get rid of the skipped entries. That's why I made this article, also I have not put in the rafs and all peole yet. Please wait! Have a good day. Also, I couldn't think of a title, you could change the title. Right?What!?Why?Who? (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I simply do not find it a valid article. The AfD process tales five days, so please argue your case for retention. Nomination does not always lead to deletion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


I'm not sure how things became so heated in the baked goods section. Hopefully we can move forward with a more cooperative and collaborative approach. Sometimes comments don't come across as intended over the internet, so I think a lot of the problem may be based on misunderstandings. In my experience Warrington has been pretty responsive to input and is happy to work on improving articles. He seems to feel that every time he responded to your suggestions you issued new criticisms, and based on this perception he became frustrated. I understand there are differences over how to present some of the information, but I think those can be worked out. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you are right. I truly have no interest in personalities. I am perfectly prepared to work with Warrington provided this strangeness evaporates, though emotionally I feel I am due an apology. The accusation is somewhat bizarre and offensive and I do feel that truly needs to be cleared up.
Amazing that we are now in "The Great Apfeltrudel War of 2009" which probably warrants an article in its own right. Do you think it woudl be encyclopaedic, and should I write it, or would that be COI?
It's a very pleasant pie, but that is all it is. I think the article per se could do with a third eye. I really don't feel I should edit it, at least at present. Any uninvolved editor would do a decent job with it, I think. It really ought to be taken apart and rewritten from the top to the bottom.
The additional criticisms are my own opinion. I may be wrong. That's Ok, because we are a community and we can do, redo and undo anything at all. I simply feel it is heading from being an adequate article to being a rather poor article.
I obviously caught a sensitive soul on a bad day. But Wikipedia was ever thus.
Thank you for lending an ear. I am truly not hostile to Warrington, I simply feel I ought not to go anywhere near them for my own peace of mind at present. But do let's get rid of this bizarre accusation, please, somehow. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Understood. Thank you for your good efforts. You missed the great Kishka (food)/ Kishka (Jewish food) war of 2008. The one article became two, and things have been mostly quiet since. But food is a very serious matter indeed. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I missed a Jewish Food War? Did it last the requisite 6 days? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Good one. The conflict definitely inflicted some painful kicks to our kishkes. We never resolved "Who Stole the Kishka?", but giving each side their own sausage seemed to dissipate the dispute. When it all ended there was a lot of dancing, mostly of the polka variety. The Jewish side was particularly relieved that no blood was shed, apparently even a little blood ruins a kishke... ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Probably wisest not to serve it with a glass of cold milk! Ah wait... One sort can be and the other sort can't. And you have to be so careful of the source of your schmaltz! Well, no wonder there was a war. You cannot have kosher and non kosher prepared in the same article! It's like kitchens!! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I even tried to invoke King Solomon in asking for the kishka to remain whole. But in the end, we accepted a brotherhood of fraternal twins and resolved that the sibling rivalry was such that they should remain apart. Oy, what a lot of kvetching over some sausage. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for letting me know Timtrent, I plan to work on that article and maybe get it more up to scratch. I had to leave it in a hurry you see. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Explanation Required

You deleted

Maybe there was continuous 7 day week was used prior to 586BCE or maybe the 7 day week as used by Babylonia, unfortunately what was used before this time is uncertain.

And stated ld be removed as your reason. Not sure what the 'Id' means, but I'll assume idealogy. In which case how is that idealogy? I have searched everywhere to try and link these two systems of the Sumerian 4 x seven-day week plus a day or two, which was much earlier than the continuous seven-day week used by the Jews from 586BCE. Stating that something is uncertain is not ideology? I have seen many theories but no fact and that's why I state such. So explain why this should be deleted. --Pnb73 (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

For some reason the start of the summary was deleted. It should have read "maybe speculation should be removed" The irony will not be lost upon you Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

OK Tim, see where you are coming from. Thank you. I think the article needs to explain this though, but in a better way then.
I want to make it clear is that we do not know who created the continuous week we have today. While the earliest documentation we have is from the Jews, this was at the time their Kingdom fell to the Babylonian Empire. It could be a Babalonian or Jew evolution from the original Sumerian week with leap days. As yet no evidence can be found. And maybe never will.
Would love a suggestion or advice as you are more familiar with the rules. --Pnb73 (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The only real advice I have for you is to remember that you are writing an encyclopaedia, and that this differs markedly from any other type of report. It can be stated that "The exact derivation of x is currently (date) unkown", but even such a note is better with a citation to show that it is unknown rather than just a statement.
The problem we have is to distinguish between "an interesting article" and a fully encyclopaedic article. For good or ill, WP does not require "interesting articles", only ones that are suitable for an encylopaedia. When one has an abiding interest 8in a topic a good article is harder to write.
Imagine, therefore, that you are researching sources for every sentence that you write, not to synthesise research, but simply to cite the sources. It's not easy. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


Hi Tim Trent, I'm new to wiki so need a little advice and I'm hoping you can help, you added a COI on the littlenobody page I made. I think I have resolved the issue of the speedy delete and believe the article to be factual and not promotional but I don't know how to resolve the Conflict of interest. I understand that as the piece is about my/our animation projects a COI could be apparent but I tried very hard to be completely neutral, factual and included no future projects (promoting LN) or reviews (opinion based) I have added a Request to edit tag on my talk page, which if I understand correctly, someone could pick up and reword the article meaning it had more than one author resolving the COI. I was hoping that it might be possible for you to perhaps verify someone of the information on the page and fill my request for an edit. If this isn't possible any advice on the subject would be gratefully received. Kind regards k —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think what you might do is to deploy {{helpme}} on your talk page with your question there. It is challenging when, even if neutral, one places stuff on WP about one's own organisation Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Marcus Kaiser

See my note there. COI editing is not prohibited in WP, it's just a warning sign. DGG (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. But a guy suggesting that his CV is going up next is... Unusual. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Comsec Consulting

Finally a nice person. HEEEEELP ME. These admins are talking to me in this Wikipedia talk I'm not even understanding. I need help to understand what I need to do. They keep blocking me and sending me menacing messages - I'm not doing anything to be disruptive or purposely "breaching" guidelines. I'm just not aware of them. Please help me out. How can I go about fixing this? Shar1R (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to understand that, while your own feathers are ruffled, you have achieved angering a dragon. And that is the whole problem. Now I have no idea what Comsec Consulting is, whether it's notable, or anything about it. All I can see is that you have reacted to a baptism of fire in a perfectly normal manner, and that long term editors here have reacted against that in a normal manner.
That it is "normal" does not mean that it is right. It just means "that is how it is.
The simplest thing to do is to let it all blow over. It will. Pretty much everyone gets it badly wrong here at some point. As soon as you accept that this place works the way it works then you'll understand. People are fiercely jealous of independence here. They should be, and that is good. It;s an encyclopaedia, after all. It has to be neutral and as correct as possible.
But it will always be incomplete. Always.
And there will always be articles in it that are utter crap and don;t deserve to be here. Always.
I have no idea if Comsec deserves an article here or not. If an article is created, by you, by others, and if I see it, then I will judge it. Well, if I am interested enough. See how it works? If I judge it then my opinion is one opinion. I may make it known firmly (and I do) and without aggression (and I am not aggressive). I will then leave it to others to judge. But I will not use rhetoric (counter productive). Still with me?
So, how do you solve the challenge you have got yourself in the middle of?
I would say a large slice of humble pie, even if you do not feel emotionally that you need to eat it. Intellectually I'm sure you can see the value in it.
Ok, I can already feel that you may be getting a tad upset over that suggestion, but this is politics. Really. After all, the desired outcome is "Well, s/he had an outburst but understands how it works now and is sorry." followed by being a happy editor here.
I would go to the places where you have been somewhat strident and put a simple note like "My apologies. I reacted emotionally and that was over the top" and then walk firmly away from the conflict however strongly you feel righteous indignation. All you will do by not doing so is to associate Comsec with combat. Google has a good memory and all pages here are spidered.
You can even suggest that it would be appropriate to delete the stridency, but, and this is important, you have not done it because you are nervous that your doing so might be interpreted as vandalism, not contrition. Or that you will leave it a few hours and then delete the strident comments if no-one objects. Both of those are professional and show gravitas.
Then I would go and edit a few entirely unrelated articles, edit them well and with enthusiasm. Why? Well, to show that you have Wikipedia's interests at heart, not your own. And yes, editing Wikipedia is a wholly pointless activity, a complete waste of time and effort, and those of us who do it are weird! But it is also a relief from the pressures of the world.
And Comsec? Well it will not benefit much from an article here, nor will the lack of an article harm it. The links have "rel=nofollow" so sites can;t inherit (eg) page rank. Your site traffic will miss 30 visitors or so per day. But this visitors are likely to bounce anyway. And, if it merits an article (and I agree that many articles that are here already should go, by the way) then someone will create it in time.
Does this brain dump help? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the messages, they were really helpful. I'm not a child, and I get that I need to play the political game, at this point. I don't have a problem with that. I'll wait and let the whole story blow over, and then suck up when I need to. I just need help understanding this suggestion you put on my talk page. I don't understand how to go about this when the time is right.
1.ask for the original article to be userfied in your user space.
  • Who do I ask?? And how?
2.note that when I say "your" I mean the space allocated to you, but over which you have no rights of ownership
3.On your user talk page place helpme and underneath it ask if someone would please look over the userfied article and give you pointers within the manual of style (etc) here to make sure that it can survive if re-created
  • Who do I ask to look it over? The general public who encounter it?
4.make those edits, and ask that an uninvolved editor then re-creates the article with you acting as advisor. (this is the COI process)
(Sorry about the bullets. I couldn't seem to make the numbers work). Thanks.Shar1R (talk) 09:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Userfication. Nomrally you woudl ask the deleting admin. Since the page has been restored (only for review purposes) I have dropped a copy into yourt user space at User:Shar1R/Comsec temporary page
With regard to comments, usually the HELPME message brings a knowledgeable person with enough time to help
I'm sorry it came over as treating you as a child. That was not my intent :)
I'll have a look at the article myself, too. It reads very much like an advertg so i can see why it was deleted. I think a top to toe rewrite will be needed. It;s very hard to write an encyclopaedia when used to writing PR etc. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Comsec Consulting Ltd.

I've temporarily undeleted this, so people can review the article. - Mgm|(talk) 09:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Waffle War?

The waffle article is engaged in the early stages of what could be an interesting food battle. The latest edits and some discussion revolve around whether information about "Belgian waffles" should be removed or "clarified" which seems to mean scrubbed. The argument is that the term is an invention of Americans. The source looks to be Antwerpian though, which confuses me. And I'm just wondering why I can't find my Eggo waffles even mentioned in the article...

Does it matter whether they are made with baking powder or yeast? The difference is trivial in my experience, but like I said, I consider Eggo to be a major waffle manufacturing operation... ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even know that there was a Waffle War. The only time I rememebr eating a waffle was at a friend's house when I was 6 years old. Either his mother was a lousy cook or I was ill, but they were fatty and I threw up at once! I've not gone near a waffle since!
Will this be ironed out soon, or will we have to get the Waffle King to intervene? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
ROFLMAO, Ok, what IS an Eggo Waffle? 07:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
That is more waffle than anyone should have in a lifetime. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Wah ni qui wah

Wah ni qui wah is a native american legend from the cherokee tribe. There are currently 12 tribes linked under this legend. It is also a legend that leads to the white buffalo prophecy. It is a very important legend. The reason it is so short is because it was just a starting point. i was planning on adding to it as I learn more. I was also hoping that others would find it and add to it as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spidey6977 (talkcontribs) 18:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that you need to add a load of citations. So far it looks like either a hoax or original research. You also need to participate in the deletion discussion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


I couldn't find it online, but that header led me to believe it had been copied from a text. That starnge, implausible title gave me reason to suspect it in the first place. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree. I was thinking the selfsame thing. It looks like advertorial too. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

about afd

It was only a split (not my own writing) from the regular gramophone records article, as I saw the notice on the top of that article, so I took action. It would be better to rewrite my split instead of deleting it. --Newtown11 (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You may well be right. The whole thing is a bit of a mess, though interesting and informative. I suspect the original author(s) got a bit carried away. It needs a lot of sourcing to be a real article. AfD can also spur folk into rescuing an article, too. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

vandalism enquiry

Why is my page being vandalized? Thank you - user WyattStephens

it isnt, and it is not "your page". It is Wikipedia's page. The page is inappropriate and has been proposed for speedy deletion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't know Wikipedia already had the Kyle Franke. How do I make a new one about a golfer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WyattStephens (talkcontribs) 19:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You need the page to be notable and verifiable, verifiable. Your current edit is neither of the above. Is this Golfer well known? If so provided citations. Putting the tag {{helpme}} on your talk page and asking this question will get you someone with the skills to answer your question Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I got it now. Sorry to edit the page without references. Im going to add them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WyattStephens (talkcontribs) 19:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)