Jump to content

User talk:Timtrent

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bliss Ajootian (talk | contribs) at 22:41, 18 July 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Messages for Fiddle Faddle and for Timtrent should be left here. This is the home account for Fiddle Faddle, which is both my nickname and my alternate account.
When you begin a new message section here, I will respond to it here. When I leave message on your Talk page, I will watch your page for your response. This maintains discussion threads and continuity. See Help:Talk page#How to keep a two-way conversation readable. If you want to use {{Talkback}} to alert me about messages elsewhere, please feel free to do so.
It is 9:16 AM where this user lives. If it's the middle of the night or during the working day they may well not be online

I do not remove personal attacks directed at me from this page. If you spot any, please do not remove them, even if vile, as they speak more against the attacker than against me.

In the event that what you seek is not here then it is archived (0.9 probability). While you are welcome to potter through the archives the meaning of life is not there.


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) .[reply]

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


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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Sounds great, thanks!

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks Timtrent, your comments are much appreciated!

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Thanks, you're the best!

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Got it. I will resubmit it with external references.

Thank You.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timtrent&oldid=617511262"