User talk:Timtrent/Archive 19

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 15 ← Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 → Archive 25

09:35:31, 29 June 2014 review of submission by Ubmaurya


ubmaurya 09:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This article does not contains any copy righted material. This is my own NGO and legally registered with Government of Uttar Pradesh, India.

@Ubmaurya: You misunderstand copyright. I have left material on your talk page to explain. Fiddle Faddle 09:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Then please create this article, Shanti Nandan Bauddha Welfare society I will provide all information, registration certificate, pan card and project details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubmaurya (talk • contribs) 14:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ubmaurya: I will not. I have no interest in doing so. I only create articles that interest me, and do it when I want to. Wikipedia is a site where you create the articles you want to see. Fiddle Faddle 14:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Submission Rejection

Hi Timtrent, thank you for your review. I understood that most of my references in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:QNAP_Systems,_Inc. are about the products not the company as you pointed out. I would like to know how I can improve because this is the fact--we do have lots of news/media talking about our products, but not much on the company. However, we are one of the major & notable players in this industry (and I noticed other brands also have similar structure as ours but still accepted by wikipedia); also mentioned in several wikipages labeling us as "large NAS manufacturers". " Are there any tips or directions I can work on to make this page online? Please kindly advise. Thank you very much! Bondachs (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bondachs: I'm wondering how to advise you better than I have. Please never compare an article on one org with an article on another org. The objective is to increase the standard of the articles, always a good thing. If we used other poor articles as a precedent the standard would lower. Idiocracy is a great illustrator of this. The submit/review process is meant to seek to ensure that an article is not vulnerable to deletion.
The tips are simple, basic, even. We need references as I've stated, showing notability, and the article will leap into the main article space. But they must be about the corporation. User:timtrent/A good article may help a little. Fiddle Faddle 16:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

17:57:52, 30 June 2014 review of submission by Kirankkadam


Hi Timtrent,

This is regarding my draft article on Meghna Patel Please help me to understand what more I need to add to my article to get your approval. I have added citations linking to youtube is there any other source you would like me to add.

Thanks, Kiran


Kirankkadam (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kirankkadam: The comments you need are all at the article, where I have added on emore. I doubt the lady;s notability. Just getting your kit off is not notability for more than one event. WP:BLP1E applies to her. Fiddle Faddle 18:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

21:37:28, 30 June 2014 review of submission by Tgweeze


I'm trying to cite the two sentences in the second paragraph and am having trouble linking the [cite] at the end of the sentence to the [1], [2] at the bottom under references. I have all the news articles properly filled out under the "named references/cite news" template, but when I click on the [1] or [2] nothing happens. Can you help? Thanks

Tgweeze (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done. This diff] shows you what I did. Ignore my replacing ''' with ==. That was something I did as well. Pleasure to be of help. Fiddle Faddle 21:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

22:07:40, 30 June 2014 review of submission by 204.16.157.10


Reply

204.16.157.10 (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC) Ah yes--I do see now! Sorry, not used to the Wikipedia interface. I based the article pretty closely on those of other tech consultancies and tried to make it as unbiased as possible. I didn't say anything remotely subjective--just the facts. Is there a way to make it more encyclopedia-appropriate?

Never base anything on any other article. Aim higher! The primary thing is references. Find cracking good ones, then wrote your article around what they say. Remember the golden rule, all of which apply. They must be:
  • significant coverage, and
  • about the entity, and
  • in WP:RS
Any other references fail and must go.
Make sure you write "Dull but worthy" material based on the facts others would like to read, not trade puffery you would like them to read.
Be prepared for the fact that it may not be a notable entity. Not every org merits an article. If it doesn't now, if it is any good it will at some point.
By the way, registering an account is useful. Just don;t make it look like a corporation. It grants extra privileges. You'll like it. Fiddle Faddle 22:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.16.157.10 (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

REPLY (not sure if this is how to do this)

Got it! Thanks for your help, and sorry about the mix up. I'll try to improve it.

I am sure you will achieve it. Fiddle Faddle 22:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for Authors Road help

Thanks for your kind and supportive comments about my first pathetic efforts at posting. I've followed the directions as best I could, and edited as best I might in the hope my piece on The Authors Road meets muster. I look forward to the next round.

George GHMason12 (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@GHMason12: Please do not run yourself down like that. When we start here we do our best. Our best improves as we learn. Another reviewer will do the next review. I try very hard not to re-review because other eyes are important to get the best possible end result. Fiddle Faddle 07:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Fooled myself. I see I was not the reviewer! I shall have a look when you next submit it. BNut I am reinstating the review history. We leave that for all reviewers to see, plus ity has the resubmit button! Fiddle Faddle 07:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Your comments

Thank you very much for helping me with my first article. I will definitely use your suggestions. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slyvs (talk • contribs) 01:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Slyvs: I have added some more on the article itself, and given you a good head start. Fiddle Faddle 07:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

12:52:23, 28 June 2014 review of submission by Neelythecostars


Asking for a re-review because per the composers verification standards listed in wiki, we qualify. We've been music producers/writers on several gold/platinum selling albums (3LW's 3LW, Sisqo's Unleash The Dragon and more. We're cited all over wikipedia for all productions included in the very extensive discography. We included the article from the Hollywood reporter making reference to our partnership with Troy Carter (Lady Gaga's ex manager) forming Atom Factory Music Licensing, verifying our music production status. We also included an article from billboard magazine August 13, 2005 issue, where they interviewed us. Not sure of how to provide better reliable sources than those digitally. Music Production credit's (i.e Produced by The Co-Stars) aren't very accessible online. Should be fair to estimate via the reliable sources provided and the amount pages showing us as music producers inside wiki. Not sure if you were confused because we labeled the page as The Co-Stars Ent., Inc (our complete legal corporation name)? If so, we can just use The Co-Stars for the wikipedia page, if that's more verifyable.

Neelythecostars (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@Neelythecostars: I refer you to my comment made when I declined the article. If you want a re-review then resubmit it, but do the work requested, please. You have not cited anything, you have left a stream of inline links. They are not the same thing. Fiddle Faddle 12:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you sooo much! Can you possibly check the changes I made? I think I may have solved the problems after going to the links you provided.. Thanks again!!!!!! So helpful!!!!!

I can see that you have solved the issue I pointed out. I try not to review Music articles for more than basis issues because I do not consider myself competent to do in depth reviews in this area. Good catch. From my perspective, well done. Let's let a music specialist take a look now. Fiddle Faddle 08:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Message from Patriarch2013

Dear Timtrent,

I appreciate your comments regarding the deficiencies you found in the draft article. However, your comments and suggestions, like all those I have received during the considerable amount of time I have spent attainmenting top place this article, are mutually contradictory. I have stripped out and modified all text with even the slightest hint of marketing tone, as was requested in previous critiques. I have removed all references that were not from legitimate, respected, independent and well-established sources. Now even that is not enough. I'm sorry you don't know what the company does, but your particular lack of recognition is irrelevant. All terms of art are cross linked to other Wikipedia articles. It is beyond imagining that any reader, coming upon this article by chance, would care one wit that the purpose and nature of eFront software was not immediately understandable. Only those readers with knowledge of and interest in the industry will have any use for the content of the article.

Suppose I altered the opening paragraph to read "eFront Financial Solutions is a software provider for the alternative investments and risk management areas of the financial services industry[1]. Its web-based software products automate many accounting, management and operational functions of private equity, venture capital and other alternative investment management firms. It was founded in 1999 and now serves more than 700 customers in 40 countries from offices in North America, South America, the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Australia." Would that be acceptable? Even if it is, I am still left with the problem of providing acceptable references. Unfortunately, the references I chose are the only ones that meet the requirements. I have no other to offer at this time and, as I said earlier, all are from established and independent sources. True, they are industry-specific sources, but that would be the case with nearly all companies, especially privately-held companies, not listed in the Fortune 1000.

So please, before I give in to frustration and abandon Wikipedia completely, tell me what I really need to do to have this article approved!

Thank you,

Patriarch2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriarch2013 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Patriarch2013: Minor moan. PLEASE use a section when you start a brand new conversation on a talk page. I had to work out where your message started and the prior one finished, and please link to your article. I have found Draft:EFront Financial Solutions and thus assume it to be this one.
I have looked at the prior reviews. They and I seem to be in accord. Thus I am having trouble with understanding what is mutually contradictory. But let us leave that behind. It is no longer relevant. We move forward now
The thing you may have to accept, even after your sterling efforts, is that if references cannot be found which are:
  • ' 'Significant coverage, and
  • About the organisation, and
  • Independent of it, and
  • in WP:RS
then you have to conclude that I am mistaken and the organisation is not [[WP:N}] notable in a Wikipedia sense, at least today. WIth your references, examine them minutely. If you are satisfied that they make the grade, then I will accept the article, despite my feeling it to be vulnerable. But you are as grown up as am I, and can take it if the article is nominated for deletion, something I hope will not happen. My next paragraph on your alternate first para tips my scales in its favour
Your alternate first paragraph tells me with precision what it does. Please understand that whether in real life I know or can research what it makes and sells is unimportant. When I review an article I speak as an ordinary reader when I say that I do not know. Now, from the new paragraph, yes, I know.
So resubmit after makng that change, and tell me here that you have done so. I will accept it and we will both be happy. Deal? Fiddle Faddle 19:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you so much, that was a huge help. You are awesome.

Tgweeze (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tgweeze: I like kittens. Thank you.
Like everything in Wikipedia it is easy if you know how. Now I am pleased that you do. Write and edit many articles and have fun. Itls an engrossing hobby. Fiddle Faddle 20:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

21:21:55, 1 July 2014 review of submission by Kendrafutcher


How can I find my submission with your feedback on it? I Can't find it anywhere… please advise. thanks. Kendrafutcher (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Kendrafutcher (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kendrafutcher: Did you click the link on your talk page that directs you to User:Kendrafutcher/Woodford Investment Management, a blank submission? I am not sure why you submitted a blank draft, and I'd love to know what happened. We get a large number of these and are wondering why. I can't imagine that you meant to do it? Fiddle Faddle 21:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

09:00:12, 1 July 2014 review of submission by Rupert4471


Rupert4471 (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

I must have submitted the page twice by mistake. But when I click on the link to the other submission, the page is blank. So what to do now? No news yet from anyone... Thanks for your help.

Rupert4471 (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Rupert4471

@Rupert4471: I'm confused. I see User:Rupert4471/sandbox which is a duplicate of Draft:Ulf Langheinrich, and both appear when I click them. Is this what you are talking about? Once I have it right in my mind I will help you all I am able to. Fiddle Faddle 10:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply. I am pretty sure to be the author of both articles. Do you see an IP address for Draft:Ulf Langheinrich ? This first one hasn't been reviewed yet and now the situation seems to be blocked because of my mistake. Anyway I cannot see the content of Draft:Ulf Langheinrich because it is empty. Strange... isn't it possible to remove the first to go ahead? Thanks again for your help. Rupert4471 (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Rupert4471


Sorry I can see now the content of the page Draft:Ulf Langheinrich ... this is my first version without references. The second article submitted includes references. This is the most updated. Can you review this instead of the first one? Thank you Rupert4471 (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Rupert4471

@Rupert4471: Please state absolutely clearly which one you wish to proceed with in an answer to this question. I will then make arrangements to withdraw the incorrect one. I want it clear as can be, please. Fiddle Faddle 19:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, User:Rupert4471/sandbox is the correct one because the most updated as I said. But I would like to make sure the title of the article will be "Ulf Langheinrich" on wikipedia. Is it well the title? I am confused. Thanks in advance, Rupert4471 (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Rupert4471

@Rupert4471: I have started the process by asking for the version in the way to be deleted. Then we can move the sandbox into the place where the deleted draft was. Names can always be changed, but the one you request sounds perfect. If I were an admin I could have done it all, now, but the delay is not important. Fiddle Faddle 12:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much!!! Rupert4471 (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Rupert4471

Draft:InGiustizia La Parola al Popolo

Hi Tim. The reason I pinged you here was basically to say go ahead and decline it now. (I've examined the refs in detail). I don't have access to the AFC script. Otherwise, I'd do it myself. The links in Italian were for the benefit of the IP. Basically, within 3 days of the article being salted and the creator and his IP socks blocked at the Italian WP, he came over here to try it on. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Voceditenore: I will do so after I return from the shops. If you like you can use {{Afc comment}} to place your thoughts there, and I will do the business end on my return? Fiddle Faddle 17:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
AfC Comment duly left. :) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar thingy

The Articles for Creation barnstar
For your tireless work at AFC and AFCH.--ukexpat (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you ukexpat. It is the things out of the blue like this that mean a lot. Fiddle Faddle 20:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

19:08:32, 29 June 2014 review of submission by SongsforLulu


Dear Timtrent, I've removed the two categories as you suggested. With regard to the multiple references, I put them at the end of the sentence but they don't just refer to Columbia University for example. They refer to the whole list of organisations. Please check the references, you will find that they are all necessary because each of them refers to one or more (but not all) organisations in the list). I'm resubmitting the article, I can't find a way of contacting you directly. Thank you. Lulu 19:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@SongsforLulu: You have achieved contacting me directly . Those categories remain present, you know. We'll let the next reviewer have a detailed look at the references. I try not to re-review articles unless many edits have taken place or the issues are blindingly obvious. The citation issue is subtle. My advice on legibility stands, but I appreciate the point you have made. Fiddle Faddle 19:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tim,

Hope I'm putting this in the right place. I've read your response about stating in the article's personal section that Mr Weisbrodt is gay and link my reference to this. However I've decided that I'd rather remove the sexuality categories instead (Gay men and LGBT people from Germany). I've now done that so I hope you can give my article the go ahead. I've also just had confirmation that the photos' permission emails are being arranged. Thank you.

Lulu 10:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SongsforLulu (talk • contribs)

Accepted good decision to omit. Sexuality is such a small part of one's life. Fiddle Faddle 11:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Message from LauraMcAliley

Hi Timetrent. I am responding to the message you left me in the Teahouse yesterday titled "Reliable Sources" as well as the input you provided on this page that I am working to get published: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/GCFLearnFree.org

First, thank you for your kind note in The Teahouse. I did not see the additional guidance you left on the page. I've read the WS:RS page and gained some good insight. I wonder if I can clarify the sources with you before I edit again.

Based on the article I read, I believe that these sources should be removed. Correct?

  • Yates, Emma. "Review of www.GCFLearnFree.org". YouTube Video. Emma Yates. Retrieved 2 January 2014.
  • Williams, Mary Eileen. "Job Search 50: The Simple Phrase That Packs A Wallop!". HuffingtonPost.com. Retrieved 2 January 2014.

Also, there was a recent feature of the page subject on a TV news program. This would be an acceptable source addition, correct? http://www.wncn.com/video?clipId=10181442&autostart=true

Again, I appreciate your help. If there is anything else you see that would keep this from being published, please let me know. I'm learning a lot in the process and am thankful for your patience. 18:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)LauraMcAliley (talk)

Hi Timetrent. I am responding to the message you left me in the Teahouse yesterday titled "Reliable Sources" as well as the input you provided on this page that I am working to get published: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/GCFLearnFree.org

First, thank you for your kind note in The Teahouse. I did not see the additional guidance you left on the page. I've read the WS:RS page and gained some good insight. I wonder if I can clarify the sources with you before I edit again.

Based on the article I read, I believe that these sources should be removed. Correct?

  • Yates, Emma. "Review of www.GCFLearnFree.org". YouTube Video. Emma Yates. Retrieved 2 January 2014.
  • Williams, Mary Eileen. "Job Search 50: The Simple Phrase That Packs A Wallop!". HuffingtonPost.com. Retrieved 2 January 2014.

Also, there was a recent feature of the page subject on a TV news program. This would be an acceptable source addition, correct? http://www.wncn.com/video?clipId=10181442&autostart=true

Again, I appreciate your help. If there is anything else you see that would keep this from being published, please let me know. I'm learning a lot in the process and am thankful for your patience. 18:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)LauraMcAliley (talk)

@LauraMcAliley: Minor moan. PLEASE use a section when you start a brand new conversation on a talk page. I had to work out where your message started and the prior one finished. Thank you for linking to your article.
Giggles. So good a question you posted it twice! No matter!
You are correct about the references to remove. Replace them if you can with others
The broadcast media references is interesting. It does have the challenge that it is an interview OF the GCLF man , thus is very much a primary source. You must judge whether it is appropriate to use. I would choose not to use it as a reference, but I would deploy it in an External Links section. It is very much a borderline reference, but is a valid external link. There is, however, a way of finding out for sure. Ask a question at WP:RSN. Don;t forget to give it a heading there. I suggest "Please check this WNCN link for me" and text of "I wish to use this linj as a reference for my draft article. (link to it). I have been advised that it is borderline, and to come here to ask for the opinion of experienced editors" and see how it goes. I predict a split verdict.

Remember, we ALL want new articles here. The trick is getting them good enough to leap all the hurdles in their way. Fiddle Faddle 19:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@TimTrent: Your moan is understood, thanks for making it minor. My mistake. (i'm truly blushing) Also thank you for your candor and insight.
I will remove those sources and resubmit. Question -- if I cannot replace, will the article be sufficient with 6 sources?
I will also ask WP:RSN for input on the WNCN link.
I've leaped over a number of hurdles. I think we're nearing the end thanks to you! LauraMcAliley (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
@LauraMcAliley: The answer is that more references are good, provided the text remans legible and is not obscured by reference [1] [2] etc. Half a dozen vs 8 is no matter as long as the removed references are not for a material fact. Ok,that actually answers a question with a question, but, if I just answer it, the I give you a fish. I want you to run the fishing business instead! And, of course, to enjoy playing in this bizarre fishtank. Fiddle Faddle 21:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
@TimTrent: Got it. I'm all about entrepreneurship and bizarre fishtanks. I'll work on it a bit more. Last question. Can you review again once I make edits or does it have to go back into the proverbial pot and await another editor's review? Thanks again!LauraMcAliley (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
@LauraMcAliley: I was thinking of Forrest Gump and the prawn fishing business for some reason, too. Fish, Forrest, Fish! Ah well. I try only to re-review after a substantial change on the basis that more eyes are better in order to give an article the best possible chance, so resubmit at will. If it seems to take to long ping me and I'll take a look, though.
@TimTrent: Here's to fishing! It's edited and resubmitted. And, the reliable source note is up. Thanks for teaching. I've learned more from your input than anything else I've researched about Wikipedia. I'm very appreciative.LauraMcAliley (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
@LauraMcAliley: Have I sent you to User:Timtrent/A good article yet? it covers a lot of the basics. Thanks for the thanks :) Fiddle Faddle 14:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Synchronicity

Your decline comment on Draft:Susan_Lee_MacDonald was raised on AfC talk but it wasn't mentioned by name and you were not mentioned by name either. I happened to go look in the backlog for something to work on and I stumbled across it. Anyway we don't require every factual claim in a BLP to have a citation, much less an independent one. Maybe we should, but that's not what the policy is or the practice. Gigs (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed nor do we. But asking for it means we stand a chance of getting what we need. In the light of the comments I had already made some adjustments to the things I ask for. Fiddle Faddle 22:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

A recent AFC decline

Re: This AFC decline: Thanks for endorsing my June 24 decline. However, to answer your question: "Search engine optimization." Sigh.

[rant] I wish search engines would stop treating all Wikipedia articles as high-value pages/high-value links just because they are in Wikipedia. If they did that, then we would have a lot less SEO-driven article-creation of pages that don't belong. [/rant]. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Even with rel="nofollow" WIkipedia drives traffic. We are stuck with it, I fear. Rant away! Fiddle Faddle 19:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Message from Toby

Hi, Maggie has sent me a confirmation via email - hope its enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toby Lott (talk • contribs) 10:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Provided you submit it properly, then I suspect it will be. I have told you how, haven't I? Fiddle Faddle 10:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


Reg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Indiranagar_Sangeetha_Sabha

Hello Timtrent,

Good Morning, Need your support in order to improve the article that i have created. This is the article that i have created.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Indiranagar_Sangeetha_Sabha

It got declined by the reviwer and he has dropped the following message.

You can't copy and paste lines from sources. This is copyright infringement or at least plagiarism. You need to write articles using your own words. I will not tag your draft for deletion, but please do not resubmit it without removing every phrase that was copied from sources. Gigs (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC).

In one of the section "Activities" i have used the statistice which has been given in a relaible news paper article, as the reviwer said that it may leads to copyright infringment i removed that sentance and changed the entire section. I haven't submitted it again, as i want some other reviwer ti check it once.

I provided all the reliable sources according to the wiki norms.

Could you please review the article and let me know any changes are required so that i can submitt it again.

Thanks in Advance Anjali — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjali Reddy J (talk • contribs) 04:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Anjali Reddy J: My feeling is that you should ask Gigs, something I see you have done, and wait and see what they say. On the face if it the referencing looks acceptable, but I have just checked the first few, and I have not checked for copied and pasted material. There is obviously insufficient of that to mean the draft must be deleted on sight, but they have spotted sufficient to be concerned. Have you now removed it? Fiddle Faddle 06:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello Timtrent,

Thank you so much for spending time on reviewing the article. I have removed that line where i have mentioned about the statistics of the school(like number of students etc.,). I used that line as there is nothing much i can add in that line about figures and it is in the source itself which is a relable one. But, as per reviwers suggetion, i have removed that completly and now what ever there in the article i wrote in my own words, nothing from the source i copied and pasted. I tried to write in neautral tone only. I have messaged to Gigs, yet to get his response on that.

Thanks & Regards Anjali — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjali Reddy J (talk • contribs) 08:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Anjali Reddy J: I suggest, then, that you place a comment on the draft article above the ---- line in the following format:
{{Afc comment|1= ''Author comment'': replace these words with the words you wish to use}}
Every part of that is important, so copy and paste the line, then change only the place where you want your words to be. Fiddle Faddle 09:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Timtrent,

Thank you for your valuable suggestions, now i had added the comment part the way you suggested me, hope so now the reviewer will be satisfied with the changes i did for the article.

Thanks & Regards Anjali — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjali Reddy J (talk • contribs) 12:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Message from RobertStevensonJr

Hi TimTrent, thanks for your review of the Entelo, Inc. Draft. Per your recommendation, I have removed two of the sources that were 'regurgitated PR', and added one instance of coverage from a more reputable and independent source. All sources now include mention of the organization. RobertStevensonJr (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@RobertStevensonJr: Excellent news. I know it's a pain, but our objective is to seek to ensure that articles survive the hurly burly of WIkipedia. I try very hard not ro re-review drafts on the basis that other eyes create better articles, so forgive me if I stand aside. I will re-review it if the process takes over a week, though, so please do keep that in mind. Fiddle Faddle 19:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:K H Sahay from the Open Library.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:K H Sahay from the Open Library.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

½ move

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard Pine draft

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

@Sibadd: I think it is the career section. It feels like his CV, and needs, somehow, to be different. I am rather tired tonight and may not be making any sense.
Disambiguation is reasonably simple, easier to do than describe. There is no Richard Pine at present, so no real need yet
You may have to face the fact that Pine is WP:NPF unless you can locate more references, I fear. Fiddle Faddle 21:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Richard Pine draft - request for advice on correct citation

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

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

Citations and Links questions

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

@Artistsfriend: It took me a moment to find Draft:Jan Wurm and to work out your question. If you are using (eg) {{Cite web}} it sorts the order out for you. I commend this template series to you. I used them all the time. Do not worry about any order.
Where there is a pdf of a source, and it is an independent source, but on (eg) the subject;s web site I see every reason to cite it. The details of everything the citation are to relate to the material and only the url relates to the subject's web site.
I think, though, that you used a parameter i choose not to use. I looked at a couple of your references at random and made this edit. Do you see the difference? I have never used the parameter "website=..." preferring to replace it with "url=..." I must imvestigate this. I shall now, below, using only very restricted parameters.
  • This is the website parameter: {{Cite web|title=Are Smartphones Endangering Security? |website=http://complianceandprivacy.com/News-Wick-Hill-smartphone-security-risk.html}}
    produces
    "Are Smartphones Endangering Security?". http://complianceandprivacy.com/News-Wick-Hill-smartphone-security-risk.html. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)
  • This is the url parameter: {{Cite web|title=Are Smartphones Endangering Security? |url=http://complianceandprivacy.com/News-Wick-Hill-smartphone-security-risk.html}}
    produces
    "Are Smartphones Endangering Security?".
I prefer the url=parameter, It is cleaner. This is a personal preference and I shall not be at all upset if you revert my edit to the article.
Have I answered all your questions? I got carried away! Fiddle Faddle 20:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Scaled Agile Framework

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

@Betchplus: Please tell me exactly how many facts you assert in the article?
It helps if you link to the article you want me to look at. It seems to be Draft:Scaled agile framework
Other articles do not ever set a precedent. If you write a decent article with good referencing it will survive as an article without deletion. Our objective is for articles we accept to survive.
Pretty much nothing in your draft is referenced. We require references for the facts you assert. This is a globally adopted Wikipedia requirement, so I am not sure what is the issue.
I perceive your message to me as aggressive. If you actually wish for help please ameliorate your tone. Fiddle Faddle 12:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

@Betchplus: I think the real issue is that those of us who review are, in our way, experts. And, as experts, we are not always crystal clear to those who need our expertise to be easy to digest. We have a jargon, one we become used to. So do you. WHen you and I speak jargon to each other sense and intelligibility go out of the window. If I have done this, I apologise. It was by accident.
Let me try to be very clear, though there is a risk of my seeming patronising. There is no intent to patronise.
  • If you assert a substantive fact "W was invented by Y" that is not a self evident fact like "Water is wet", then it needs a reference
  • If you have an award, or other significant achievement, then it needs a reference
  • If you have n acquisition (etc) then it needs a reference
  • Ideally, since this is not a biography of a living person, references should be as citations. WP:REFB is a great help here
That pretty much handles what a reference is needed for. I think you are pretty clear on the definition of a reference, too, independent, significant and reliable.
Wikipedia can be a pain in the fundament. It's easy to edit, not simple. It's easy to create an article, but actually difficult, too. You have to know the minutiae of the policies, guidelines and rules, and you will come up against idiots. IT;s the alleged wisdom of crowds, a delightful and horrible concept at the same time.
Can we train people? I wish we could. Anyone can edit here, and everyone's opinion is worth as much as mine, yours, his or hers. No-one's i charge, etc etc etc.
Now, have I been clear enough or do you need more information? Fiddle Faddle 13:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Image Studio Lite AfC

Timtrent,

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

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

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

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

@Sam at LI-COR: Ah, I see the concern. When we welcome (etc) we tend not to anticipate a reply. My list of watched pages expanded to enormous during June. We had a drive to clear the backlog of draft articles. Your reply was lost in that welter of acvity. I think I reviewed some 1100 drafts during June. When we review we anticipate that folk will edit and resubmit. My apologies for not visiting your talk page further. I have read and understand all your comments there. I see them as valid. The issue, though, is whether the Wikipedia community can understand this from the article alone. The draft/submit/edit/resubmit process is intended to ease your way into the creation of an article. The process can be annoying, aggravating, much else, but it is less of these descriptive words that facing a deletion discussion. Our objective is to push back until we feel an article has a 60% pr better chance of surviving WP:AFD, an unpleasant experience when one's first born child (article) is the target
iIn the light (no pun intended) of t hat my comment when I reviewed the article stands. You need it to be bomb proof. Today it just isn't. Your COI is fine, open and transparent, but that very transparency means that you have to work harder.
I don't want to add this to your talk page because I suspect it may prejudice others against the article. Does that make sense? Fiddle Faddle 17:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Thanks for the rapid fire reply.

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

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

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

Do you have thoughts on this? Thanks again.

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

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

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

@Sam at LI-COR: I am getting there. OK:
  1. Operation of software. Bizarrely Wikipedia doesn't much care how the thing operates. It only cares whether it passed WP:N backed by WP:V in WP:RS. Wisely you will ask why. There is no answer save that it is so, and that folk can fid out how it works form your own web site. Then you will ask why other articles do not set a precedent. There, there is an answer. It os because other articles may be low quality and using them to set a precedent lowers the quality further and we tend to Idiocracy
  2. My view is that you have it correct, it is precisely what is required. "We require references from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42"
Now you may and can reference primary sources, but I view this as unwise since you are a single purpose COI account. In order to get this accepted you must stay as hands off as you can and ensure your text is "Dull but worthy". However, having given you all this 'tantamount to a review' advice I need to leave it to others to review it. I doubt their opinions will differ from mine, but they might. Your job is to persevere, making a duller and duller article until either you die of boredom or it is accepted, or, probably, both. By the way, once you have answered for yourself the question "Why should this thing have an article?" you are more than half way there, both in terms of COI and in ordinary article creation. And our job at review stage is to ensure any possibility of advertising is ripped away, so "For product promotion" tends to be an unsuitabel answer Fiddle Faddle 21:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

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

@Sam at LI-COR: I'm not sure I am going to answer your precise question, but I am going to make a pragmatic suggestion based upon "If in doubt leave it out" to slim the draft down to a state where it can and will be easy to accept, rather than adding other material which may not have the benefit of the precise style of referencing we need. That is stage 1.
Stage 2 is to wait, perhaps weeks, perhaps months, and use the (now accepted) article's talk page to seek to build consensus for other material. There are two types, a true consensus and a nemine contradicet consensus.
Stage 3 is to add, little by little, the material you have built consensus on, assuming you have, to the article, as well referenced as you are able
This means that you will be gradually building the article into the form you believe is best while allowing others to both edit it and to agree/disagree with you.
So, I haven't answered you directly. The question is, is this the answer to a better question?
It is an excellent movie, albeit bizarre. Fiddle Faddle 14:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

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

@Sam at LI-COR: I have the knack of finding the correct question to answer, once I can see the wood from the trees. I also have an eye for what works and does not work in getting articles accepted.
One thing that will need to happen once the article is accepted is that you will need to be as transparent as now with your COI status. Editing an article in the main namespace as a COI editor is tough. You will need to use the talk page and a template to request the edits you believe are valid. Make a note of {{Request edit}} and the way to use it. Fiddle Faddle 20:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Cantata++ article

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

@QARon: I will look. :) Fiddle Faddle 18:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
@QARon: I have strong hopes that this will be returned to Draft:. if you suggested this at the deletion discussion it woudl be a useful move. If I reviewed it as a draft today I would be unable to accept it. I want you to have the time to edit it at leisure. THat I do not beliebe it is notable does not affect my desire to see you have good treatment. Fiddle Faddle 19:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


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

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

Richard Pine

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

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

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


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

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

Thanking you in advance.

Regards,

Sheraz Khan.

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

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

Got it. I will resubmit it with external references.

Thank You.

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

Inline references aren't required for new articles

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

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

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

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

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

You will find a number more. Having seen but not contributed to the conversation on this you started elsewhere I modified some time ago the message I use to reflect that better. Fiddle Faddle 06:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I had assumed that they were needed, but found out I was wrong a while ago on AfC talk. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

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


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

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

Hello Anup,

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

That is just it. I have declined it with a comment telling you why, pn the basis that the referencing is not valid. On general people use this route b because they wish to learn how to create viable articles, so I hope you will read and understand the comment left on Draft:Ajay Data. If there are things you do not understand when you have read the comment in detail please ask me again.
I have no idea who Anup is. It is not I. Fiddle Faddle 19:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

attempted article on John Todd Ferrier

Hi there, fiddlefaddle/ Tim Trent,

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

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

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

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

Thanks, -Nick

I have looked again at Draft:John Todd Ferrier to see the list of books. If these are all written by Ferrier that is nice but they are no sort of reference because they are his work. Let me try to explain. If he manufactured vacuum cleaners, the cleaners would be his work. A vacuum cleaner could not be a reference for him, simply because it is the product he makes. So it is with writings. However, a review of his work by others tends to be a review of him.
This will sound harsh, but your belief, and, indeed, my belief, that a chap is notable does nto make t so. We have to Verify that notability with significantcoverage, independent of him, and in WP:RS. WIth this article there is substantial work to do in irder to do that. But it is doable, and it;s enjoyable doing it, rather like a game of intellectual chess. So go to it with a will.
Oh. you sign talk page messages with ~~~~ which turn automagically to your signature. Fiddle Faddle 15:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Tim and Yadsalohcin. On your draft, I've left some much better sources for you to use than the ones you had, some comments on how to improve this draft to a minimum encyclopedic standard, and a caution about copying or closely paraphrasing from other websites. Hope it will be of help. Best Voceditenore (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

From Aron Barbey

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

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

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

Sounds great, thanks!

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

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

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

I am genuinely unsure. I will be interested in what the next reviewer has to say. I am now standing far too close to this draft to see the wood from the trees I fear. Fiddle Faddle 13:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Timtrent, your comments are much appreciated!

Aron barbey (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Timtrent! I am sorry to have accidentally removed the comments from my submission. I hope it is still under review and happy to update it further if necessary. Thanks!

Aron barbey (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Aron barbey: I have solved the problem, and it is correctly submitted. All things on WIkipedia can be solved. In this case the HISTORY tab is your friend. Fiddle Faddle 14:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, you're the best!

Aron barbey (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Bruno Chikly

Hello there,

I have edited my article Bruno Chikly based on your comments of June 27. It has been two weeks since I submitted it but I have not got any feedback. Could you please have a look and advise me about any issues?

Thanks for your help.

NomanZmprft (talk) 09:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that is because it is not currently submitted for review. I have taken your message as a desire for it to have been submitted, so will do this on your behalf. I;d prefer not to re-review it because I feel other eyes are required for a proper review. Fiddle Faddle 09:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

All of Me Album Webpage

Dear TimTrent / AKA Fiddle Faddle of the typo fame.

Thank-you! All is now explained. I shall endeavour to comply.

Please excuse my denseness and put it down to a combination of inexperience and difficulty dealing with an interface that isn't quite as straightforward as it might be (I'm assuming that this is by deliberate design).

Yours sincerely,

The Brain Coach The Brain Coach (talk) 11:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@The Brain Coach: The user interface sucks. It is antique, and seems to be immutable. When it was designed it was the first and only. Now it is simply the widest used. Bizarrely, people like it! Fiddle Faddle 17:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Invalid References

Hi,

Could you please tell me the references which are not valid, so that I can work upon them. Also aware me with other flaws if the draft ajay data has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Didgeri (talk • contribs) 15:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I fear I am too tired to do this today, and I have little time tomorrow. May I suggest instead that you look at the references with other eyes. Compare each with the comment I have placed at the head of the article, and make your own determination. You will get it right if you are strict. Fiddle Faddle 17:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Trade Point and XM

Hi Tim,

Thanks very much for your feedback on June 27. I took some time to reflect and go back to make edits as per your comments. For Trade Point, I did the following: [1] Removed all references pointing to Trade Point's own website to remove any bias. [2] Added ten (10) new external references with links to reputable industry websites discussing or reviewing Trade Point. [3] Added some new information under the history section. [4] Created a new section with external reviews I found on the web. [5] Fixed a red error in the references that was present in the previous version.

Regarding the XM article, I understand you liked the last version I had prepared and saw that you did not make any requests for changes. Nevertheless, during my research I did find some additional information that could strengthen this article too; I thus added a new reviews version, plus three (3) additional external references.

I believe that both articles are much more solid now and trust that they can be published. I am resubmitting them both now so you can take a look.

Thanks a lot for your help as always.

Cmanoli (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Cmanoli: I try very hard not to re-review articles on the simple basis that I look too hard at the prior review points rather than the article itself. I hope you will forgive me for standing back and allowing other eyes to consider them both. This way you will get a better overall result, though it may take a little longer. Fiddle Faddle 21:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tim, thank you very much for your quick reply. I certainly understand and will be waiting for someone else to review the articles. Cmanoli (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Vasile Baghiu change

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

Did I screw up? I have been known to. Never be afraid to correct me, and never be afraid to spoon feed me if I have got it wrong and you think I need it Fiddle Faddle 21:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Screw up is a rather harsh word. I only noticed the page because annother user asked for advice about their review on the AFC talk page. In this revision notice how your review is effectively a blank. I'm not sure what was broken, but I tried using the {{diff}} template to help make your review show up. Also, because the diff link is to a specific time frame, you don't need to include a time on it. Hasteur (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
@Hasteur: I suspect a gremlin, given a drink after midnight. I can't work out what happened. But thank you for correcting it. I do check, honest! This one slipped through my own net. Fiddle Faddle 20:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

From Bliss Ajootian

Thanks Timtrent for your thoughts on my first Wikipedia article. I was pretty nervous about doing this so I appreciate your thoughtful rejection. I am writing about this lawyer because it was her brief that was different than other approaches in the gay marriage debate--a notable achievement--but I see the point that it appears to be her only major achievement, the way I wrote the article. Thanks! I will revise! Someone did Mary Bunoto already (which is good) right as I was doing Roberta Kaplan, but I believe no one yet has actually done a page for Edith Windsor, who nearly won Time Person of the Year in 2013. Would that fall under the same category as a person who is known for only one achievement? Thanks for your tips. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bliss Ajootian (talk • contribs) 22:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bliss Ajootian: I think, broadly, WP:BLP1E will apply, which is why I think the case has merit, but not the lawyer. Indeed the case has definite merit. Lawyers are, generally, as notable as taxicabs, which is what they are. The participants in a case? I thnuk the same applies, in general. Fiddle Faddle 22:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

14:42:29, 19 July 2014 review of submission by Badobird


Hi Timtrent, thank you for your help in reviewing my article. I have made the changes you listed. Will you please check to make sure it is ready for resubmission? I would really appreciate it. Hopefully, I did the references correctly this time!Badobird (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Badobird (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It appears ready for resubmission. I am having trouble seeing that she is inherently notable, so will not re-review it myself. Do work on that issue as you resubmit and while you wait for a review. Fiddle Faddle 17:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Sock Puppet

I do suspect it as a sock puppet User talk:Harshhussey.--Vin09 (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

As, as you see, do I. Fiddle Faddle 13:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Not sure, but just wanted to bring to your notice User:Harshu625, as both the sock and this user performed similar kind of edits on here, here today and here.--Vin09 (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@Vin09: feel free to add this to the sockpuppetry report I have made Fiddle Faddle 14:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Help

List of World XI Test wicket-keepers needs to be redirected to List of World XI Test cricketers, as there is only one match till now played and there is one wicket keeper, so no need for a separate page. I'm redirecting, kindly have your view.--Vin09 (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Vin09: Your argument appears valid provided you merge the information, such as it is, into the target article. Fiddle Faddle 14:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@Timtrent: There's something going on please have a look at this page--Vin09 (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@Vin09: There is. But I think what is happening is ignorance and some sort of panic. Whatever is happening, I suggest you stand back and watch it self combust. Fiddle Faddle 14:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Fine.--Vin09 (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@Vin09: My rationale is simple. We gain nothing by rushing, not ever. Watching, waiting, and picking up the pieces at the end of whatever is going on is 99.99% likely to be the best policy with pretty much any Wiki-Silliness. All we do as the good guys if we rush in is we get stressed. Stress is pointless since this is a hobby. I like my hobbies to be fun, not stressful, and I suspect you are the same. Fiddle Faddle 14:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I have learn't lot of things till now from experienced editors like you. All we do as the good guys if we rush in is we get stressed. Stress is pointless since this is a hobby. I like my hobbies to be fun, not stressful,, that was a very good point, I do follow your words--Vin09 (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC).
@Vin09: I am always learning, even after several years here. Once, early on, I felt it was desperately important to stop bad things happening now, fast. Now I realise that all we have to do is to select a historic revision and restore to it when the bad things have been stopped. No-one dies because of facts and other things on Wikipedia, whether they are correctly stated or incorrectly stated. Nothing is urgent. Our job is to do our best, but to do so with the minimum of effort and exertion. Let the bad guys waste effort and start to sweat. The good guys stay cool and drink freshly made lemonade in the shade. Fiddle Faddle 15:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Such statements really a very good learning for an editors who are willing to contribute to wiki. Thanks.--Vin09 (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Opinion

Kindly have your opinion here.--Vin09 (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done I differ from your opinion. EIther of us could be correct, but consensus will decide. Fiddle Faddle 15:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

AfC Reply

I use AfC to add my articles to mainspace because lot of editing like person data, categories, orphan check, wikiprojects can be easy added by AfC. :) But now I will move to mainspace myself bypassing AfC. Thank you for help and sorry for wasting your time. Regards Nizil (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Nizil Shah: It is not wasting my/our time. It is simply something that places undue scrutiny on your work. Thanks for understanding that this is not a criticism of you. Fiddle Faddle 17:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you..-Nizil (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

04:13:57, 21 July 2014 review of submission by Didgeri


Hi,

I have tried my best to make changes to my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ajay_Data. Please consider it for re-review.

Didgeri (talk) 04:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I can see how hard you have tried, but your work has been in the wrong direction. I have left a very full comment on my review of the draft. I am now too close to the article to re-review it further. I will be looking at my review points rather than looking at the article as a whole. Fiddle Faddle 06:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

MACCNIPH - Pertaining to our artist Gangsta Leene /Tieo Panther Bear

We are coming to wikipedia - and creating an article about our Recording Artist: Gangsta Leene.

our article was denied due to some editing issues.

we were curious to what edits would allow it to become an acceptable article.

Our Artist: Gangsta Leene is a notable Public Figure and needs to have a biography page/article.

it's not for an Electronic Press Kit. An Electronic Press Kit - Requires All information available about an Artist. a page on wikipedia would be such a reference about our artist. we do in fact need an article to address information about our artist as he is a Public Figure.

thank you for your reply to our question TimTrent although you have failed to answer our question as to what editing our article needs to become an accepted article, thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MACCNIPH (talk • contribs)

This is very simple, and there is a comment on the draft to that effect:
  1. Fails WP:MUSIC
  2. The article is an advert
  3. You may not use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Get a web site instead.
  4. You have a conflict of interest
I answered your question very clearly before. I have answered it again now. Fiddle Faddle 06:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


Thank you for answering my question, it's because Wikipedia Music Failed.

this article is not an advertisement. this article is not promotion. this article is a slight conflict of interest due to the artist and I have a personal connection. and you did not answer my question clearly before, everyone can see that. however this time you have answered my question, thank you for your efforts. we at Native Savage Entertainment appreciate it. Good Day!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MACCNIPH (talk • contribs)

@MACCNIPH: The article is promotional and 100% conflict or interest, Period. And you are not polite, ether. Fiddle Faddle 15:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Scaled Agile Framework

Could you please tell me what you consider reliable sources? It seems to be quite subjective, so could you please tell me exactly what you need to see? Thank youBetchplus (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Betchplus: It is slightly subjective. First read WP:RS and measure your source against that general yardstick. Amy you have questions about, ask a precise question at WP:RSN, not forgetting to link to your draft when you ask the question, and to state the fact you intend the source to be a reference for. Fiddle Faddle 15:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, I did read the article concerning references. So, please let me know what exactly is your expectation, since there is a broad guideline, in which, numerous Wiki pages may not be meeting. This will ensure we are on the same page, so if there is an example you would like to use, I would be very interested in the feedback.

@Betchplus: Understood. It gets complicated. For example, Reuters can be a reliable source, but, when it simply acts as a new aggregator, it is not. The difference is material created by the media outlet as opposed to material regurgitated by it. The UK's Daily Mail, despite being mainstream media, is almost never a reliable source, but is, sometimes. The Huffington Post is, nowadays, almost always RS, but was not initially. Specialist computer magazines are RS when they write their own material, but not when simply carrying press releases.
You see how complex it gets, I am sure.
Learned papers are primary sources unless they have been peer reviewed, when they become reliable sources. I bet you wish I hadn't started, now.
So, what is our expectation? That you have done your best to eliminate that which most assuredly is not RS, and have an article which, if any member of the public looked at it, is viewed as authoritative, and will withstand being poked hard with a sharp stick, or hard scrutiny.
I recognise that I am both being as helpful as I am able and yet seeming not to be. And I have not addressed the myriad of truly awful articles that exist on Wikipedia. Let me address those. If we use them as a precedent then the overall quality will diminish fast. We will descend to idiocracy. Instead we flag these articles for improvement, often for deletion. You are as entitled to do this as amI or any other editor.
My expectation is that your draft is so good that no-one can say "This must be deleted" and win the day. And no, that is not helpful either. I am standing too close to your draft to be impartial now. I am involved, and thus need to recuse myself form reviewing it. I don't want to be biased for or against it. So your route forwards is twofold:
  • Ask at WP:AFCH for advice on sourcing, linking if you wish to this comment, but certainly linking to your draft
  • Consider deploying {{Helpme}} on your own talk page and asking for an editor experienced in Reliabel Sources to advise you with precision on the sources you have chosen and wish to use. Again, link to the draft
An additional route is to ask a question at WP:RSN
I know this is woolly as an answer, but it's the best I have. Fiddle Faddle 16:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Lol, I more than understand deteriorating into Idiocy, part that you mentioned. With that in mind, I want to be sure we are delivering high quality content to Wiki and to the public. If anyone can offer a definitive of which of the new references I added, does not work, it would be appreciated. The last thing I want to do is waste anyone's valuable time, including myself. Thank you!

@Betchplus: Ok, this is your references section:

Agile Software Requirements[1] probably fine

Scaling Software Agility: Best Practices for Large Enterprises[2] probably fine

41 Things You Need to Know about the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) - A blog. By definition unlikely to be RS

The Horror Of The Scaled Agile Framework - A blog. By definition unlikely to be RS

Foundations of the Scaled Agile Framework - Youtube is almost never RS

The Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) A Review - borderline, but ok in my view

SAFe Cracked - the right side of the border for me

SAFe in a Nutshell - A blog. By definition unlikely to be RS

On the Scaled Agile Framework - A blog. By definition unlikely to be RS

Enterprise Agility with Scaled Agile Framework - No idea, sorry

A Scaled Agile Framework Case Study - A blog. By definition unlikely to be RS

Scaled Agile Framework Applied - no idea

Scaled Agile Framework Release Planning - no idea

References

  1. ^ Leffingwell, Dean (2011). Agile Software Requirements, Addison-Wesley ISBN 0321635841.
  2. ^ Leffingwell, Dean (2011). Scaling Software Agility: Best Practices for Large Enterprises, Addison-Wesley ISBN 0321458192.

OK, that is the best I can do, but that is one opinion, and i have been wrong before, so you do need other opinions Fiddle Faddle 20:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Timtrent/Archive_19"