User talk:Timtrent/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Unrest (video game) submission

You rejected the article I submitted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Unrest_(video_game) because the "references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability". It is suggested that I add more sources. Not including the game's own website / Kickstarter page, I have used 7 different articles as sources; all of them from different gaming news sites; and they seem to meet wikipedia's guidelines for being good sources. The thing is, there are many wikipedia articles about upcoming indie video games with far fewer references... (see: Satellite Reign, Darkest Dungeon, , Exogenesis: Perils of Rebirth, Project Phoenix for examples). So I'm left wondering why this game's notability remains in question while other indie games were deemed notable with a couple of sources? How many more articles does this article need to make the subject notable? It just seems very subjective to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devetter (talk • contribs) 04:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Devetter: I understand how you are concerned that other articles may be live when the one you created is not yet. The answer is one of those oddities of Wikipedia, in that all articles are independent of other articles, and no precedent is ever set by one for another. I have a firm opinion that it is a rare item indeed that can have an article heralding its future release. Other editors differ in that view, and there are differences across Wikipedia for articles in different spheres. My view is that Unrest is not one of those rare items that warrants a pre-release article. I would have treated the other games in a similar manner had I been privileged to review articles on them at that phase in their development and market acceptance. I view pre-release articles heralding great but as yet unfulfilled dreams for an item as PR material, trade puffery and fandom. For me it would take a review in a very substantial WP:RS to alter that opinion.

You will note the comment under the box declining the article, and the closeness of the date, I hope. For me (this is all my own opinion, factored by policies, procedures, consensuses etc) that is the watershed after which this item may attain notability.

I hope this helps you to see where my thinking is running.

You have no need to agree with me. Mine is but a single opinion, and I will guarantee that I may not be correct. If you still disagree strongly please ask, perhaps at the Teahouse, perhaps elsewhere, for other eyes on your submission, and, after taking their opinions as well, resubmit for approval with or without further work at your discretion.

It took me a while to find your question, by the way. It is customary to append comments to the foot of the talk page, so I have moved it to the current foot. That way the danger of your question being missed is minimised. Fiddle Faddle 06:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!!

Thank you, Timtrent! I appreciate your time! Tlinse (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles For Creation - Accepting Submissions

Hello Timtrent,

Recently, I came across an AfC submission and saw that you have declined the article twice already. Although I do agree with the decline, I do not understand why you said "This is very close to being an article." In my opinion, it is very far away from being one. See my response:

"To be honest, I'm surprised that Timtrent was close to accepting this article. Please highlight the notability of the subject. Also, follow Wikipedia's article formatting guidelines. In addition, please incorporate a much more neutral tone, as the article currently reads more like an advertisement. Thank you."

Here is the link to the submission: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/DailyFX

I would like to follow up with you on this issue, as I feel it is an important article-reviewing matter. Please leave me a talkback on my talk page when you respond to my message here in case I forget to check. Thank you. --JustBerry (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@JustBerry: Your opinion and mine obviously differ. It is perfectly fine that our opinions differ, nor should it ever be a matter of surprise for you. We are two different editors. So, let us assume that I had accepted the article and you would have declined it. This would not matter to the smallest degree, since any issues that you felt had not been addressed could be addressed then and by a far wider community. Thus, however important you may feel it to be, the remedy is simple, swift, and community based.

The way to handle this is not the way you have done. " To be honest, I'm surprised that Timtrent was close to accepting this article." is a somewhat unpleasant and points scoring comment. "I disagree with the previous reviewer" is the better way of saying this. Disagree with me with pleasure. If we look at the phrase "To be honest" means that all other comments made are not honest, for, this time, you are being honest.

Posting it again here seems as if your intention is to have a go at me. What you needed to say was along the line of "Your reviews interested me. I have a different opinion and wonder if we might discuss it?" And we can discuss it, if it means so very much to you. You need, however, to understand that you have already set the discussion, if it be a discussion rather than a lecture, against all of your points by your tone. Perhaps you did not intend that. Perhaps you expected in some way that I woudl take notice of your obvious superiority of analysis, even of intellect, (as expressed in your declaration of surprise) and realise at once how your view should prevail.

There is no article reviewing matter that cannot be handled after even an enormous error by the community as a whole even if an enormouys error arrives in the main article space.

Your ball, I believe. Perhaps you should play it after you have edited your comment on the article in question to be substantially less combative. Fiddle Faddle 06:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Clearly, my wording lacked a degree of respect, which I understand and apologize about. Our opinions were so different; I was just shocked, that's all. I truly thought it violated Wikipedia:G11#G11. I look forward to hearing your insight on what made you accept this article - seriously, I may be missing something. --JustBerry (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: In addition, I have updated the article we are discussing with a new comment for the submitting user to look at. JustBerry (talk) 10:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@JustBerry: I have no issue at all with disagreeing with you. One, the other, or neither of us may be correct. Thank you for your further thoughts and apology, which I accept. One editor's G11 is another editors acceptable article. Another day we may be at the opposite ends of the spectrum but standing in the opposite positions. It is the way of the world. Why so many of us agree so often is the thing that astounds me. Vive la difference!

By the way, it seems that my adding a further comment to the article just now destroyed your strike through. I am not going to interfere with it. Fiddle Faddle 11:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Okay, I am glad we had a chance to present our thoughts on this artcle to the submitting user. No problems about the strikethrough, I have fixed the template. On your note about a third editor reviewing the article, may I invite other editors to review the article? --JustBerry (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@JustBerry: Please go right ahead. Would that all conflicts were solved this easily. Fiddle Faddle 14:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Okay, I think at this point, Huon has already responded, saying that two editor opinions is sufficient for article submission re-writing. I enjoyed talking with you; I think we should just leave the article - we have done our parts as editors! Please feel free to ping me/leave a message on my talk page if you want to talk about anything else. I will be putting the done tag on this conversation for your convenience :) --JustBerry (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Defense Acquisition Program Administration(DAPA)

The article has been successfully created by your review/tagging. I really do appreciate your help. Judeyoungw (talk) 09:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

A little weak

I'm in complete agreement with you on the issue at hand, but it's a somewhat weak argument to tell people that if their work was notable someone would have already created an article on it. There's lots of potentially notable stuff we don't have articles on yet. Gigs (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I did mention I was somewhat tetchy Fiddle Faddle 20:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

References were not up to par

Hi there, thank you so much for looking over my article. I've updated it with more notable and reputable references. Can you please stop by and take a look at them when you have a moment? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:VT_M%C3%84K Thanks again for your help!

SimSoftRules (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@SimSoftRules: one of the strongest points of the reviewer system is that we try very hard never to review the same article more than once if we can help it. In that way the acceptance of an article is strengthened. May I suggest that, after the significant work you have done, work I appreciate, you resubmit it and see what other reviewers have to say? Fiddle Faddle 23:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

New article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Ratinoff - can I remove tags if I addressed them?

Thanks for your help in getting my article up and running!

I addressed most of the issues in the tags (still need a better reference for the consulting attorney to the Mexican consulate portion), so is it OK to remove those tags or am I supposed to leave them up for some reason? I removed the header "notable cases" and combined that section with "civil practice", added a link back from Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff and added this to the lawyers category. I will continue to update with more relevant sources as they appear.

Appreciate your help! Taryndejesus (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@Taryndejesus: If you are sure you have addressed issues it is always right to remove tags. We are all 100% responsible for our own work, something unusual in life, normal here. It takes a bit of getting used to! Fiddle Faddle 06:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference Advice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Murgitroyd_%26_Company The note that you left about the organisation being "somewhat ordinary" I find a little odd. Particularly when, on searching similar organisations on Wikipedia, their pages don't seem to be any more notable than the one I am writing about e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mewburn_Ellis. However, I appreciate everyone is entitled to an opinion. I am very new to this (first article) and I find such flippant and unhelpful comments very off-putting.

You recently declined my article on the basis that the references were not suitable and I would be very grateful of some advice from a seasoned writer and checker of articles on how to rectify this. I have read and re-read the various Wikipedia pages on reliable sources etc and have looked at other pages to see how their references differ but my article is still being declined despite amendments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MurgitroydBDGroup (talk • contribs) 14:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@MurgitroydBDGroup: References must be significant coverage in WP:RS. Directories do not achieve this at all, the merely give evidence that a thing exists. We need to see what others have said about the organisation, not what it says about itself. Directory entries tend to be self created by the organisation..

I did not say t was ordinary. I said it was presented as somewhat ordinary. The difference is quite large. One essay that may help you is User:Timtrent/A good article which gives you a serious background on article creation.

Develop a thicker skin. Mine is so thick that I don't give a damn when you describe my review comments as flippant, but you may think yourself lucky that I have even bothered to answer you after that. Note. also, that other poor articles are not a reason to accept a poor one. You seem to be involved in WP:COI editing, and need to stop doing that anyway. Fiddle Faddle 15:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

New article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Ratinoff - can I remove tags if I addressed them?

Thanks for your help in getting my article up and running!

I addressed most of the issues in the tags (still need a better reference for the consulting attorney to the Mexican consulate portion), so is it OK to remove those tags or am I supposed to leave them up for some reason? I removed the header "notable cases" and combined that section with "civil practice", added a link back from Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff and added this to the lawyers category. I will continue to update with more relevant sources as they appear.

Appreciate your help! Taryndejesus (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@Taryndejesus: If you are sure you have addressed issues it is always right to remove tags. We are all 100% responsible for our own work, something unusual in life, normal here. It takes a bit of getting used to! Fiddle Faddle 06:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Reliable References

Timtrent:

I am so sorry - I inadvertently submitted the following under someone else's section. I am new to this (not an expert). My sincerest apologies to all. Chschurch2014 (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Craig Brown

Dear Timtrent:

Thank you for your review and response regarding the article for submission/creation for Christ Holy Sanctified Church (CHSC). Initially I was somewhat disappointed, but after a few moments, I am basically confused to your comments that the article does not have "reliable" sources.

It is true that a good portion of the information is from the organization's archives; however, there are other sources from reliable third parties such as published books, journals, artifacts housed at the the Center for Urban Black Studies in (Berkeley, California), newspaper articles, etc. that were published without any interest/influence from CHSC. I also reviewed other like (Pentecostal) organizations on Wikipedia and found they too have very few, if any, "reliable" sources. In fact, the organization in which CHSC separated from in the early 1900s has little, if any third party sources and their article has been published/accepted on Wikipedia. Of course, you would know this as you have done your research. I won't start giving you a list of other organizations unless you feel it would be advantageous to your review for comparison.

I feel strongly about having this article published and I will, at the recommendation of Wikipedia, begin a dialogue/chat with the Help Desk. I know that you and the other reviewers have thousands of articles on your plate and your comments and suggestions in helping getting this article approved are very appreciated. However, as I stated earlier, I am confused as to how other organizations have their articles published with fewer or no "reliable" sources.

Thank you and I trust my response is value added in bringing this to a -positive resolve.

Warmest regards, Chschurch2014 (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Craig Brown

@Chschurch2014: With the article in this state it will not ever go live. Note that we also deprecate conflicts of interest. Read WP:RS regarding reliable sources, please, and understand it. The positive resolution will be when you tear down the puffery in the article and stick to facts. I do not say this to deprecate nor denigrate the church, nor your work, You just need to understand Wikipedia and what it requires. Your string feelings will achieve your goal, once you work out what the article needs, something you have strong cue for. Fiddle Faddle 20:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Just had lots of dialogue with the folks in chat - interesting. I am creating a new user so as not to confuse anyone on who I am with respect to the organization. I was unaware that the user - chschurch2014 - was not allowed. One of the chat persons said I was "tagged" for submitting the article and that I may have violated copyright rules? I will perform due diligence to make certain all of the third party references are in tact. I was a little deflated today but I am not one to quit. I just needed to know where the lines in the sand are. The article was created as a "jump start" to what was to be a forum for many other contributions and not as self-promoting or biased. As I am half the age of the organization, my intent was (and still is) to make aware the many world-wide contributions the organization has had to neo-Pentecostalism as, not only recorded internally but, recorded, published, and archived by others outside of the organization. I inferred some of the comments made in the chat-room of being (simi) self-promoting or hiding behind a name that was ultimately referencing the organization but all I was inquiring on was how to get the article submitted. Anyway, forward we march.

Thank you, Timtrent. BTW, my new user name is "jdtimberland" - my name is Craig Brown; I am a US Citizen and live in Los Angeles, CA. I am not a terrorist and I pay my taxes (smile - just a little humor).

Chschurch2014 (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Craig Edwin Brown, the 8th Presiding Bishop and President of CHSC.

@Chschurch2014: Hi Craig. Looking forward to your editing under your new username. Wikipedia has many rules. Everyone is expcect to know them from the get go. This is, of course, impossible. So we learn as fast as we can and even experienced editors make mistakes. Those who make big errors at the start usually turn into our best editors.

If you read up on WP:COPYRIGHTS you will see that you are, with the permission of the copyright owner, able to use copyright material that has been released to Wikipedia and beyiond. Be aware that this is a major step since it grants a perpetual licence to use the material and for it to be published under WIkipedia;s licencing, licencing which allows onwards usage. But, please be clear, the tone of many organisation's copyright material is not often "Wikipedia suitable" (0.9 probability)

This is not a gentle place. The encyclopaedia anyone can edit is also a very challenging place to work. The hardest part is being able to write about something you are associated with in a neutral manner. It can be done, but it is hard as can be to achieve. Being deflated is upsetting for you and for me. We, I, do our, my, best to review articles to a high standard, but we are short of time and with a woefully huge backlog. A good review will pretty much only contain criticisms and negative aspects that have been found. After all, it is these that require correction. So please take my and other reviewers' comments seriously, but never, not ever, personally

The only thing to take personally on WIkipedia is praise.

That needed a new line, just to say it clearly.

Now, to work. Remove the (potential) copyright violations at once. I have moved the article to the Draft: namespace which will open up the Talk page. There is an automatic redirect, so you will still find it easily from the old title. If you wish, instead of tearing down the copyright violations (the Church website makes no mention of copyright so the wording is, de facto, copyright) follow the process to submit a request to Wikipedia via WP:OTRS and deploy {{OTRS pending}} on the talk page. Do follow 100% of the instructions

When you submit the article again for acceptance/review my hope is that another reviewer still will review it for you. This gives the best advice to you, even if that advice can sometimes be hard to receive. If you ask me to specifically I will review it again, but I often feel I stand too close to review the same article twice and be effective. Did I suggest you read User:Timtrent/A good article? I can't recall, but it is a useful read.

May I offer one piece of advice? It is the hardest to achieve when one is involved with the organisation itself. I challenge you to achieve it. "Less truly is more with articles on WIkipedia." Be ruthless and cut, cut, cut. then cut again. Ot is the only way to achieve WP:NPOV with an article of this nature and with this current content. The people you have been chatting to for help will confirm that (0.9 probability). Good luck and good editing. Fiddle Faddle 22:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way, while I understand that you mention other articles as being lacking in their sources, that is an argument for improving those, not for lowering the quality of yours. It is a strange fact that all Wikipedia articles stand alone on their own merits. No article is allowed to set a precedent for any other. Fiddle Faddle 22:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Timtrent - First, please know that I am truly grateful to you for your candor. You are a professional at what you do, as I am at what I do; therefore, you demand the highest standards, regardless of who enters into the arena. Please know, the reason I did not consider the information I submitted as copyright infringement is because, 7, 10, 12 years ago - before I was in the position with the organization I presently am, I wrote/edited the information that I presented for other organization publications/presentations including work on my research projects and thesis on denomination/organization polity for other religious groups. And other articles regarding the organization are compiled from other sources, which I have cited - hopefully correctly for Wikipedia. So, it was somewhat awkward hearing that I was perhaps violating my own essays/thesis.

But, you have shinned a light in that, there are so many able, qualified individuals that perhaps should write the article from a more "distant" point of view. I would want to know that, however the article is presented, whether I "jump-start" and clean up the "puffery" (is that what I was told - smile?), and that we will not be looking over our shoulders; we don't want to be in the category of those, as you have stated, "Lacking in their sources," or "Lowering the quality." I think I understand how other articles I referenced perhaps made it through Wikipedia in that, once the article was initially approved, other editors (users?) contributed, from their viewpoint, or perhaps they copied from published material, manuals, etc.

Again, thank you for your time and I do feel rejuvenated after reading your responses. Even with your busy schedule, you took the time to walk with me through this. We will make this work according to the standards/polices that are in place and, if anything was done unknowingly to violate those policies, consider them as rookie mistakes. I think you would agree, Wikipedia has a maze of "dos and don'ts" and how to, when to...Personally, I get lost navigating through all of the links and pages. We'll brush ourselves of and get right back on the horse under the new username.

Take care, my friend. We'll check in with you every now and again.

Best regards, Chschurch2014 (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Craig Brown (the writer "formerly known as chschurch2014")

@Chschurch2014: I'm glad your spirits are improved. At any time you need help there are editors who monitor the "queue for help" here. All you need to do is to place {{Helpme}} on your talk page, link to the article (if any) you need help with, and ask your precise question. In a surprisingly short time you will receive an answer.

Copyright is interesting. As the writer of words, even the words you have written to me here, you have, at once, de facto, created their copyright status. Pressing 'save page' grants Wikipedia the licence to use them on its own terms. See just above that button: "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution." When you wrote words published on the church website their copyright status is yours. It is probable that your spirit of generosity towards the church meant you never entered into an explicit licencing agreement with the body. We do not do that when we work out of altruism. Thus it may be that you have granted an irrevocable licence to the church (while retaining your copyright) or it may be that you have donated your copyright to the church. Your local laws are the arbiter of that.

Wikipedia must assume two things:

1. The site on which the words appear is the copyright owner unless stated differently (words created are always copyright even if never published. A child's private diary is copyright of that child)
2. Because we do not and can not know who you are, that you are 'just anybody' and have no right to licence copyright material to Wikipedia

Thus the OTRS system was created, for folk to be able to donate copyright material, and to prove that it has been done by the (apparent) copyright owner.

There are two hurdles to step over for an article to be accepted into Wikipedia.

• Notability, which must exist, though is sometimes hard to define. Is a church notable? Some are awful, such as the Westboro Baptist Church, but they are notable. I have a friend who has a church in his front parlour, and holds gatherings every Monday. He is a good man. His church is not notable.
• Verifiability, something that is much easier to define, because it is established by the seeing and referencing of significant independent coverage in reliable sources. A very few Primary Sources are allowed to verify matters that can not appear in other sources, but this is still deprecated, because references are intended to demonstrate notability. If a fact cannot have a reference in reliable sources, is it a fact to include?

If your article is about an organisation that meets these two remarkably stringent criteria, not only will it be accepted, it will be likely to survive even being nominated for future deletion. This is why we suggest that new editors opt for the WP:AFC route - to jump those hurdles before someone suggests summary deletion. It is far better to fight the positive battle for acceptance than to need to defend against deletion.

I take time when an editor challenges me and a review. It is important to do so. Others differ in their approach. I'm glad you asked me to clarify things. I hope I have, at least somewhat, achieved that. Fiddle Faddle 08:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Timtrent, You are the "master" - I am the student. I have some more research to do on Wikipedia's library of help articles, such as copyright and AFC. I know, without a doubt, that we will meet "verifiability" and "notability" and, as you said, it's best to jump these hurdles now rather than worrying about surviving a summary deletion later on. Honestly, it was rather interesting in the chat because it seemed as if I was a lawyer going before the Supreme Court attempting to defend a case. I didn't feel disrespectfully attacked, but a couple of the editors let me know (in so many words) that I was in "their world". But, I'm a big boy - I enjoyed the dialogue; they weren't as thorough in the explanations are you were. They were a tiny bit, "curt" - but I understand.

You gave a great lesson regarding copyrighted material and, yes, I basically donated my written material to the organization without knowledge. But that's okay. One thing is for sure, I will really review referencing to make certain I have everything properly formatted. I know the basic MLA format but I admit, I may have been a tad bit lazy - I used other articles on Wikipedia (no excuse) versus following the guidelines.

Now Tim, one last thing: why are you so hard on Westboro and your friend's parlor church? I had to pick myself off of the floor you are hilarious.

Be safe

Chschurch2014 (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)jdtimberland (Craig Brown/chschurch2014)

@Chschurch2014: I am but a couple of pages ahead of you in the manual, my friend. I call you that because that is how I perceive you. One may never have too many friends. I do not embrace religion, but I respect those who do, with the caveat that they must also be what is generally accepted as a decent person.

As you have seen, quality of referencing is vital. We have all the time in the world for the article to be improved. You need to treat Wikipedia as the least important part of your life, and work gently yet diligently on the article.

Ah, the Phiendish Phelps clan is self evident. To be fair, it is great to know where the bigots live. One would really have to invent them if they did not exist already.They are, at least, true to their misguided principles. I, by contrast, take heart from those who say that their god never makes mistakes. If that is the truth then every human being is as their god intended. I rather wish certain people had not been made they way they were, and that Herr and Frau Hitler had not decided it was a great idea to make a baby, but that is what they did, and many folk died. Who could be hard on a man whose sabbath seems to be on a monday! He is a little on the batshit crazy side of the line, but he's a decent man at the same time. Don't get me started on scientologists, though!

I am pretty sure that your church meets the notability and verifiability criteria. The hurdle you face then is the tone. This is why I suggest a severe pruning as well. Fiddle Faddle 22:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Message from UeharaKaori

Dear Timtrent,

Thank you for reviewing my article and Im new here. Can I just delete all the items that you did not approve and left all the approved information in order to get approved easier? Since I don't know how I can retrieve all the information or where to find it because some of the information might be too old. Please advise.

Take care,

Kaori — Preceding unsigned comment added by UeharaKaori (talk • contribs) 22:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Timtrent,

Can I send all the newspaper/articles to you to get approval for my article? It is because most of them are in Chinese newspapers but I am not sure you can retrieve those newspapers or not. On the internet, most of them are from YouTube videos. Please advise.

Take care,

UeharaKaori P.S. About the article: Dan Liu — Preceding unsigned comment added by UeharaKaori (talk • contribs) 22:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@UeharaKaori: Please send me no references. This is teaching you to fish instead of giving you a fish. Please remove the Youtube references, and please attempt to replace them with WP:RS references. You need to read up on the topic, understand it, and then use that knowledge to improve your referencing

I suggest you read User:Timtrent/A good article to get to grips with some of the things that you need to achieve

I am not the sole arbiter of acceptance we are many. Please ask others. Their opinions and mine will differ, though be similar. Consult widely. If you need help the very best can be foiund by deploying {{Helpme}} on your own talk page, linking to the draft article and asking your question. ANother great place is the Teahouse. WP:Teahouse will get you there. Fiddle Faddle 22:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Timtrent! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by UeharaKaori (talk • contribs) 23:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what to do!

Hi I had submitted an afc called National centre For Excellence but for the past 2 consecutive attempts the problem was " Not reliable sources ". I have surfed the net for reliable source for my afc and i have listed all of the ones I got. Help please. link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/National_Centre_For_Excellence Thank you, Sincerely, Rahul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulmdinesh (talk • contribs) 10:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Rahulmdinesh: The internet is not the only source. However, since this is a current organisation it is likely, if it is notable, that sources of information exist. Please read User:Timtrent/A good article to start to get information about what you need to do. The organisation needs to have had significant independent coverage in WP:RS in order to pass Wikipedia's notability threshold, so you need to research these sources. There is, or ought to be, a find sources link on one of the boxes that declined the article. No sources = no notability

Asking for help at WP:Teahouse is an excellent approach. May I suggest that you do that after you have followed my advice in my previous paragraph. It is always better to ask a question when one understands the things that are required. Another way of getting help, usually for specific technical things, is to deploy {{Helpme}} on your own talk page, link to the article you need help with below the Helpme item and ask the question, the precise question, you would like answered. Surprisingly quickly a knowledgeable editor will answer you. Fiddle Faddle 10:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Rahulmdinesh: My only reservation with the AFC "due process" is that secondary schools/high schools (which this is) are generally considered notable. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC).

MFD The Patriach (etc)

User Louise Goueffic/ Hello TimTrent, This is the message sent by AlexYiefling "Delete - The article is unsalvageable. This is for four reasons: (1) It's self-promotion of an idea whose sole notability is due to the author's own publication. (2) It's not written in anything resembling encyclopedic style, and the author's many, many edits to it show no sign of getting it any closer. (3) It's not about any actual thing external to the author's own esoteric conception of feminism. (4) Much of it is positively disprovable, especially the bits about etymology. I am insufficient of an expert to rebut other parts of it, but the author appears excessively fond of word games of the kind that would recast 'history' as 'herstory', in apparent ignorance of the fact that the 'histor-' stem long predates 'his' as a possessive pronoun. I endorse the opinion given recently on Twitter - I forget by whom, alas - that such tricksy language games are deeply colonialist, treating the entire world as though it speaks, and has always spoken, modern English. The author in this case is so afraid of the word 'woman' that she uses the neologism 'fem' instead throughout. This just isn't the way anyone - even other feminist authors - uses the English language. I'm all for critiques of patriarchy, but (A) this one is just dreadful and (B) this is an encyclopedia, not a blog or a publishing house. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)"

1, I fail to see the "self-promotion" I don't "sell" books. I am an educator. I have a profound passion for facts. 2, I write in as neutral a voice as possible and try to write in the encyclopedic style. 3, This is not even a "feminist" article, let alone esoteric. It is about names - all external. 4, Disprovable: much of it is self-evident, much of it is about logic, much is about 'what's right' etc. It is not a "word game" ALL, 100% of the names discussed are in dictionaries. 5, He isolated 'history' to make a nonsensical comment - the accusation of colonialism! 6, I show, not tell, that (wo) man is a false name 7, I show, not tell, that "fem" was a name before long before woman was coined, it is not a neologism Woman is the "neologism"! In fact, all symbols started off as "neologisms" He shows me that he has no knowledge of what 'language' really is. There is so much bad attitude towards what is in my article that I suspect his motives. This is not a comment or critique, it is an attack because he does not like what is being discussed. I always accept any and all good criticism. LouiseGouefficLouise Goueffic (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Louise Goueffic: Now the article is listed for deletion discussion it is very important that you comment there, ay the deletion discussion. Commenting to me is interesting, but not relevant to the draft's success of failure to be retained. When you comment there you need to treat it with complete focus. Focus on the areas where the nomination and the comments state that the article lacks things. Comment by comparing what you have done to procedures, policies and guidelines. Above all, do not attack other editors. His motives are his motives Your motives are your motives, my motives are my motives, but criticising them is not ever going to achieve a positive result for you.

Now, allow me to address your numbered points before, I hope, you recreate the same discussion in the MFD discussion and get shot down:

1, I fail to see the "self-promotion" I don't "sell" books. I am an educator. I have a profound passion for facts.
>You have a huge conflict of interest It is thus self promotion. You are selling yourself as educator.

2, I write in as neutral a voice as possible and try to write in the encyclopedic style.
>Perhaps, but it is still not appropriate for Wikipedia

3, This is not even a "feminist" article, let alone esoteric. It is about names - all external.
> No-one cares. We care about WP:N. This appears to have none

4, Disprovable: much of it is self-evident, much of it is about logic, much is about 'what's right' etc. It is not a "word game" ALL, 100% of the names discussed are in dictionaries.
> I have no idea what you are talking about. However, your article is so off course as to be unsalvageable

5, He isolated 'history' to make a nonsensical comment - the accusation of colonialism!
> So what? You even misunderstand mothering and fathering.

6, I show, not tell, that (wo) man is a false name
> It is not for you to show, nor to tell. Wikipedia does not care

7, I show, not tell, that "fem" was a name before long before woman was coined, it is not a neologism Woman is the "neologism"! In fact, all symbols started off as "neologisms"
> See my answer to 6, above.

You are using Wikipedia incorrectly in my view and in other people's view, and you do not take input on board (evidence is your continuing to plough your lone furrow despite advaice). Please desist.

Please do not blast a comment at the head of my talk page. When you need to make a new section please make a new section.

Now, please visit and contribute to the deletion discussion. My talk page is not the place becaiuse it will have no effect at all. Fiddle Faddle 17:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Is it ok now?

Hi Timtrent,

I have resubmitted my Afc 'National centre for excellence'. Please do check it and i have tried putting all the Times of India articles in the sources main.

Thank you, Sincerely, Rahul

@Rahulmdinesh: May I please suggest that you read WP:CITE and give every fact you assert in the article a reference? Do that even while waiting for a review I will stand back form this article myself. we try not to review the same article twice. Fiddle Faddle 13:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Brendan O'Sullivan

Hello, I hope I am writing this in the right place? Thanks for looking over my article, it is my first one so I am grateful for the help. I can find references needed from very prolific university journals etc, but these are to his papers. What other references would be needed? I thought these references are fine because they are independent academic websites. Could you give me some guidance please? Thanks!Kelmoo (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@Kelmoo: Never forget to link to your article when you want help, please. Draft:Brendan O'Sullivan is the one. I think.

Let me try to advise you. The gentleman's work is important, of course it is, but it does not confer notability on him. The paradox is that, without his work he would not be notable. What we have to do is to ensure that any papers we may use are published in peer reviewed journals. Academic websites are interesting, but not, of themselves, sufficient, unless they are the site of the peer reviewed journal. With me so far?

There is a document you need to read. It expresses it far better than I can. Wikipedia:Notability (academics) is the one. The acceptance criteria are very strict. One could make an argument that they are too strict when any footballer who has broken wind may be included here, but that is what we have to work with. If my words disagree with Wikipedia:Notability (academics), that document prevails.

It's also worth reading User:Timtrent/A good article for general hints and tips. Fiddle Faddle 16:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes that is the article. I do understand what you are saying however, the subject was the National Head of the National Health and Medical Research Council’s (NHMRC) Neuroimaging Consortium (1994-1998 - which is one aspect of notability and clearly states his expertise. The paper "Positron-emission tomography studies of cross-modality inhibition in selective attentional tasks: closing the "mind's eye" shows he (and colleagues) were first in the world to make links and proving that visual attention is impaired when doing other attention-competing tasks. This is groundbreaking and the paper was referenced across the world in many other papers by leading neurologists. I am just a little confused as to why exactly this is insufficient? I understand the paradox you mention but surely the fact his work has been highlighted by others and used as a benchmark that his work is important to many. Shall I just provide more links under References?

In terms of the Academic:Criteria he meets many of those especially 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 (Patron of the Australian Tinnitus Association). It states you only need to meet one of those criteria. Surely being National Head of the NHMRC is quite a substantial appointment and underlines his expertise in his subject matter and its impact on science? Is it purely references that are needed as further proof? Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelmoo (talk • contribs)

You have it with precision. We need the references because that is how WIkipedia works. Fiddle Faddle 17:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way Kelmoo, if that paper is so important it is worthy of an article in its own right. Want to give it a go? Before you do, read WP:ACADEME to see how weird Wikipedia can be. Ah wait, you knew that already! Fiddle Faddle 17:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

That is actually a great idea. I will go and further source and get to work. Thanks for your help, appreciated Kelmoo (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Also, I have a list of verified peer reviewed citations here on Google Scholar in which his work has been published and reviewed. Would all of these need to be cited under the References section? Thanks again: http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-qWopdEAAAAJ&hl=en Kelmoo (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@Kelmoo: I suggest you ask at, for example, WP:Teahouse about the depth of referencing required. My opinion is that a single good, solid reference is perfectly adequate for each fact otherwise one can get WP:CITEKILL (Don't we have a lot of silly rules!). Other editors differ. Wikipedians all have a voice. All of us have equal weight, and I think we are at the stage when a few more opinions, even one more, are better than just mine. It's not my being slope shouldered, but it is my being a consensus of one. Fiddle Faddle 22:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help, I will check out the Teahouse and learn more - there is a lot of work involved! But quite fun actually, learning a lot about Wiki having been a user it is nice to start to contribute - hopefully! cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelmoo (talk • contribs) 00:35, 30 May 2014‎

Re Breton

Hello TimTrent My dad was born in Brittany. My last name is Breton! The computer does not allow me to put the trema on the e in Goueffic Louise Goueffic Louise Goueffic (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Then I suspect you should be somewhat more aware of the events of 1066 and the languages of Cornwall, Wales, Brittany, and the place we tend to call England :) Fiddle Faddle 18:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Lincoln Hospital

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Lincoln_Hospital Hello Timtrent, I removed the second version of the article on the article for submission page. What was wrong with the references? I think there was a comment about that but I accidentally removed it. Larson13k (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larson13k (talk • contribs) 19:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

@Larson13k: I saw you had removed it. Thank you. If you look at the article history you will see all previous versions displayed. I'm just about to pop over and look.

Please, when yo leave me a message, if it is a new topic, use a new section. I had to hunt for your message. No harm no foul Fiddle Faddle 22:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

@Larson13k: I have enjoyed accepting the article. There is work required by one of our admins before it goes live because something is in the way. I have asked the admin who does the stuff I do not have the technical power to do if they would do the following, too: "Please will the admin who facilitates this move mark this article as the merge target from Lincoln Community Health Center and mark it as the merge source." You may choose to do this work yourself, of course, the merge, I mean. If you have no idea what to do, use {{Helpme}} on your own talk page, and ask for help in merging the two articles. Fiddle Faddle 22:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Old article

Any thoughts on User_talk:MBisanz#SwissCommunity.org_-_Deletion_Review? Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@MBisanz: I came to your talk page, wishing to comment. I imagine you came here because I was involved in some manner in the deletion, but I cannot recall the article at all, nor can I read sufficient German to determine anything from the links that have been provided. MIght I suggest that a pragmatic suggestion might be to suggest the Draft: userspace to the editor, and the AfC submission route? Fiddle Faddle 07:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for the advice. MBisanz ^talk 14:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 1 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Norman Lloyd - Composer and Teacher page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Fiddle Faddle 07:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Spelling

You might want to change the typo in the first sentence in the box at the top. I am not certain I could do it right. SovalValtos (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I rather liked it Fiddle Faddle 13:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

But perhaps not ACO Automobile Club de l'Ouest or Association of Cricket Officials!SovalValtos (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Carlos Dews

Hello, I have some questions about your notes for declining the article. First, in my attempt to insert wikilinks, I put them in the references too. In any book listed as a reference, where editors or article titles are linked, that is not the reference -- they are linked in a similar manor to the books that are in the subject's bibliography. If that is the clutter mentioned, I will certainly remove. The "huge list of papers (etc) written by the subject" is a portion of his work. He is a Carson McCullers expert, that Oprah's book club recognized, and I was showing his output specific to McCullers. It seemed to me that when editors of university press books wanted a chapter about her, they asked Dews to write it. I wikilinked the editors and presses. I thought that showing noted academics went to him for her coverage would help indicate his own notability. Also, I did not realize the inline links were not appropriate. Thank you. Oldbeeg (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure of the questions you are asking me. I will answer what I can and let you re-ask the rest, perhaps in different words.

Indeed the list is a portion of his work, but one does not need to catalogue it in the article. It is quite sufficient to have a reference to indices to his work. We attempt to reduce material that we simply do not need. If we discount that, what are you asking me? Fiddle Faddle 11:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

My being a newbie at article writing is showing: what are indices? Can I use his CV for that? I found the chapters/articles while researching the subject. Shouldn't the work (Carson McCullers scholarship) that makes him notable, at least to me, be listed? Oldbeeg (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

'Indices' is the plural of 'index', thus indices are places where his work is listed. His CV can not be used because it is not WP:RS. I do understand why you wish to list his work, but imagine if he made vacuum cleaners. You would not list every model he made. Instead you would say he was a manufacturer of vacuum cleaners, and use a reference to show the vacuum cleaners he made.

The overall objective is a streamlined yet complete article. Streamlining is good because it welcomes the ordinary reader in. Complete is obviusly good. But there are ways of being complete without compromising the streamlining. That is what I am suggesting to you. Wikipedia is not a directory of all a person's papers, but it can show you where to find them. Fiddle Faddle 13:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I don't express myself better. I understand that 'indices' is 'index' plural, but what resources do I use to look for them? His CV is the only place I've seen a listing. Oldbeeg (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You probably need the help of someone used to performing academic research. This search shows a whole slew of papers.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL may help

Asking for help at the Articles for Creation Helpdesk may also bear fruit to get you the full advice you need. Fiddle Faddle 14:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm off to see the "wizard"! Oldbeeg (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Reliable References Question

Thank you for reviewing my article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ChristinaIpavec&oldid=609075909). I have pulled together an updated list of references based on the guidelines you mentioned. Would you be willing to review the sources before I edit and resubmit?

Thank you for your help!

ChristinaIpavec (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@ChristinaIpavec: It is always preferable for a different reviewer, plus it's midnight here. May I suggest you ask, for example, at WP:Teahouse? Fiddle Faddle 23:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@ChristinaIpavec: There is a better place to ask. Please look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk. You may wonder why I gave so much help to the chap above and am asking you to help yourself. The answer is that it is time. I lack time at present and want you to have a faster answer than I can give you. Fiddle Faddle 08:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Great, thank you!

ChristinaIpavec (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Integers:_Combinatorial_Number_Theory_(journal)

Hi, you stated that this article did not have reliable sources; therefore, you declined this article.

Before We started this page, we had permission from the managing editor Dr.Bruce Landman. He sent us information about this journal by emails, so all information were based on his mails and the sites which we had stated on the reference part.

we had Dr.Landman approved this wiki page before submitting.

Please tell us how could we edited this page in order to pass your wiki reviewed. How could we stated the reference if the information is from the editor emails ?

About this list of people on the wiki page, I will remove it later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jen.chang118 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jen.chang118: Emails are useless as references, I'm afraid. You need to show significant coverage independent of the topic in reliable sources. Dr Landman is connected with the journal and is not in any manner a reference for it. The journal is ether notable or it is not. I suggest you visit this page and ask there how to do what you need to do. Please do not forget to link to the article you wish for help with. Fiddle Faddle 22:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

costurk

hi thank you for your additional comment on my article. I did add some more proper WP:RS sources. Hope this time it will be okay. cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Costurk (talk • contribs) 05:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Costurk: I've left an additional comment on the article, but I have not reviewed it because I would decline it at present. If you don't understand my comment please come back here and ask. I really want this article to have a chance. Fiddle Faddle 07:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a quick thank you for reviewing the draft page for the "International Society for Autonomic Neuroscience"; you rejected it, but entirely fairly. I've fixed the problem links and will resubmit! Cheers. Klbrain (talk) 11:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

S R Salter House

Hi timtrent You rejected my article on SR salter house because quote "it is 3 articles in 1" on a house , an architect and a construction method. The point of the article is precisely that : the house is one of the few remaining in Australia built by griffin and it is highly likely the only one remaining built using his Knitlock construction method. There is already an existing page on griffin , which has a reference to the sr salter house so I deliberately kept information on griffin to a mimumum and referenced this page. I see little point in a separate page on Knitlock construction, when this is the only remaining structure built using this method(I can find no others in Australia and it was only ever used here. The house is of interest to architects ( it has tours through it ) and others, only because it was (a) built by griffin and (b) built using Knitlock .

Based on the above , the suggestion to break it Into 3 articles doesn't make sense, especially since there is already a griffin page. At best it could be broken into 2 pages - on the house and on Knitlock . Are you suggesting I remove all references to griffin ( except his existing page) and put exactly the same information on Knitlock in the article on a separate page?

If I do this is it then acceptable? And does it have to back of the queue again for review?

Thanks Hussein hopper — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huhopp (talk • contribs) 11:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Huhopp: What I was suggesting is that each article could and should be freestanding. I did not go into detail, but each would, naturally, wikilink to the others. It seems to me that you are missing a huge trick if you don't get more mileage out of the material and the sources that you have. Since there is already a Griffin page, so much the better, there is less to do. Do not remove references to Griffin, but consider simply using a Wikilink to his article, and expand that article with additional (referenced) material

My issue with it is that, for me as an ordinary reader, it was confusing. Now I am one reviewer only. I have been wrong before and will be wrong again. I don't think I'm wrong this time, but I would say that . My purpose in reviewing articles is to try to make those with potential even better and offer what I hope is decent advice, but please feel totally free to ask for other eyes on it. Fiddle Faddle 11:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Huhopp: You also asked "I don't understand the remark that it has no references - there are quite a few external links in the various sections - can you be more specific ?" I do wish you woudl make my life easier and have linked to the article.

External links leave the reader to go and do some digging. Please read WP:REFB to see what is needed.

WIth regard to "Do I go to the back of the queue" the answer is that there is no queue, just a huge swathe of submissions. We have a drive at present to cut that backlog to a few days' worth. That drive lasts for all of June. Fiddle Faddle 11:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi again

The external links section has links to recognized griffin society sites in the US and Australia , links to collections in the australian national and state libraries online - not sure then how this is "mine". I would have thought these were fair and reasonable after having read the "references link you refereed to ( thanks)

One or 2 articles I got from a well recognized australian architectural society ( the Robin Boyd society) , again impulse have thought this ok - they gave me an unpublished article by Robin Boyd (Australia's most famous late 20th c architect) with references to SR SALTER HOUSE -Again I would have thought thisis acceptable, take your other points re removing griffin stuff and Knitlock -will revise in next 24 hours-and re-submit -thanks for your assistance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huhopp (talk • contribs)

@Huhopp: Where we can turn an external link into a reference we should. Where we cannot, we cannot. Above all do not rush. Yes, I know you are impatient to see your work "in print" so to speak, but this is going to be online for the foreseeable future. Time we have in abundance. Spend most of the time you work on the article in considering what to do to make it superb. The review process (did I say this before?) is designed to try very hard to ensure that new editors' work not only sees the light of day but survives here without being nominated for deletion. WHat reviewers do, perhaps brutally, is to raise all the points that wouls be raised at a deletion discussion so that authors can pre-handle them and create something 'with legs'. You might find User:Timtrent/A good article of some small use.

Brutally? Well, Wikipedia is not a kind place, as I am sure you will discover if you play here long enough. DO play here long enough. Learning how to work in this crazy, often surreal, 'place' is a very useful real world lesson, too, about patience, not taking offence, and so much more. And the skill of writing neutral articles is a hard one to home.

By the way, have you noticed that I have created a section on this page for our discussion? When and if you reply, please do it as part of this thread. Unless, of course, we discuss something else and you need a new section Fiddle Faddle 13:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Neudesic page issues

Hello Timtrent,

Thanks so much for reviewing our article. I'd like to get a better sense of where our entry missed the mark for inclusion on Wikipedia. I was very careful in keeping the points made factual and cross referencing with verifiable links. Any insight you can provide is greatly appreciated. :)

Thanks in advance, schansler

Schansler (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Schansler (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Schansler: Linking to your article at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Neudesic, LLC would have been helpful. You missed the mark because your article is promotional. I don't really know how better to describe it, other than suggest you ask at WP:AFCH for further eyes. You need to be very neutral in an article on Wikipedia. The ratio of text to lists of wonderful achievements needs to be altered. We want to know about the company not a list of awards, please. Fiddle Faddle 17:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

inline URLs turned into references / Wikilinks / External links

Dear Timtrent,

Many thanks for review of the page for Herreshoff_12½_(keelboat).

I have, I hope, converted all the inline URLs properly.

I also edited the use of citations and the Bibliography extensively with exact page numbers that reference the Herreshoff 12½, except for the two references which have to wait for books to come in by InterLibrary Loan. This may be fast or could take two to three weeks.

Additionally, the major narrative is now formatted as a blockquote to indicate that it is a full quote from the source. This is with the author's permission - should this be specified with "reprinted with permission of the author" or some more preferred phrase?

And, I added two new Wikipedia links.

While I now see how helpful the addition of summaries for edits can be, I initially overlooked this practice, but will try to be more consistent.

There are several other Herreshoff One-Designs in need of Wikipedia pages, so I will be especially appreciative of any suggestions for further edits to this page since I will use it as a template for others.

The page is now resubmitted for review. Should I have waited for responses here first or is it best to have the conversation in the other interface?

Once again, many thanks!

All the bests,

ttrbbr (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ttrbbr: There is a technical problem. Read WP:OTRS and WP:COPYRIGHTS, and, if Nagy has donated his work to Wikipedia and beyond, let them know at once. I am not an expert in this field. But we have to get copyright correct. Without this the material will be deleted and remarkably quickly. The alternative is to rewrite fast and in your own words, using Nagy as a reference.

The inline URLS seem to have proliferated not vanished! They seriously need to go, and to turn into references.

OK, priorities: First, rewrite in your own words. Second get the referencing right, third resubmit (or you may manage to do this before someone has reviewed it. I am going to undo your submission for review to give you time No need! to undo! Phew! Fiddle Faddle 15:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: I have discussed a creative commons license, both Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike and Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs, with Steve Nagy but the class description does not have a specific copyright notice yet. Would a CC copyright on the original solve this problem? Rewriting the narrative myself is probably much less preferred. I will now go and try to get the inline URLs fixed. I 'think' I know how so will give one more try before I lean on you for more help. Thanks! ttrbbr (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ttrbbr: putting the right licence on the class site would be an EXCELLENT solution and elegant, too! Fiddle Faddle 15:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: I really have looked at the issue of "inline URLs" carefully but I'm still not clear on a fix - especially since you indicate that they've "proliferated" - yikes! and I don't even see how there are more than before... I thought the issue was with the links for Cape Cod Shipbuilding; Doughdish, Inc.; and Artisan Boatworks, so I added specific "external links". And then I thought it was because I link to pages specific to the 12½ but, if there are more now than before, I'm at a loss of how to fix. I'd be happy to remove any offending links while this becomes clearer, if that'll help. But, alas, please tell me which ones in addition to these? Direction to an explanation of my errors would be super appreciated. btw - I've contacted Steve Nagy. He and I are working on a solution to the copyright issue. And, I'll hope this post lists in the correct place. If not, I promise to work on "indenting" also. thanks! ttrbbr (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ttrbbr: Have a look now. This is a masterclass in references in different groups! {{Reflist}} will (may?) tell you how it is done! Now, get the licence sorted out, do your last titivating, and resubmit. I can't legitimately review it since I have edited it.

I was wrong about proliferated! What we do not allow is inline urls as urls. We love them as citations! These could not be references since they are simply builders. So I chose to show off rather, and let you see what can be done.

It needs a little titivation. The indented {{quote}} stiff ought to be unindented. Remove the Quote template, and intrioduce some section headings, and move the current builders further up the article. Fiddle Faddle 17:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Many, many thanks! I will carefully look at the edits you've made and spend time working through the links/references you sent. I also just read your instructions regarding the "draft" status of the page. While I understand you cannot formally be the person to re-review, is it ok to request your opinion of my attempts to correct and improve this page? ttrbbr (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ttrbbr: I would accept this article as soon as the licencing is solved, based on the current state. Fiddle Faddle 17:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/user:GreenLips/Sandbox

Bill Haney

Golly, I clicked on the link where you said I would find my links and couldn't find them. Went to the next tab Upload Log for deleted files and it wasn't there either. I need to find them, copy their tag or name in order to properly link them in the article. Thank you for the explanation. Now, if you could just help me find them.....

GreenLips (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/user:GreenLips/Sandbox

Timtrent A person with your helpful spirit should sleep well, my friend. Please stay in contact. You're the best! Thanks! GreenLips (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Henry Dunay submission

Dear Timtrent, I apologize for writing here, but I am not sure how to have a discussion through Wikipedia with a reviewer. What I am struggling with is that Henry Dunay (the person) is no longer associated with the brand. While the person is certainly a major part of the brand, he is no longer allowed/capable of producing the kind of jewelry that the brand produces, and fans and those interested in the jewelry have nowhere to turn to (other than the company's website) to get a sense of the jewelry and its history. How do you think we could resolve this?

Sorry once again for writing here, but I am a novice when it comes to such things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitsjain1 (talk • contribs)

@Ankitsjain1: I see your point, of course I do. That is why I was careful to give my opinion and suggest you asked for other eyes upon it. These things are never cut and dried, and I have a healthy knowledge that I am capable of being wrong and quite often. What I suggest is that you have a public discussion of this on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Clickl the link, then start a new discussion and put your point as clearly as you have done here, and link to both articles

Be content to abide by the consensus that forms, and to query advice until you are ready to accept or reject it.

And this is precisely the place to ask me a question! Good to meet you. Never apologise for asking for help, not now, not ever. I'm just two pages ahead of you in the manual. Fiddle Faddle 17:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Review for Mike Claytor

Hi Timtrent,

Thank you for your feedback on my page for Michael Claytor. I have looked at your review and expanded the sourcing for the article, including both external and wikilinks. I think I have adequately demonstrated the notability of the subject, referencing five major state media sources, the Indiana Democratic Party, and the candidate's own campaign website. I'm hoping to make this page live as soon as possible, and I appreciate all your help! Thanks and best wishes,

Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjsmith5 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mjsmith5: Excellent. I try very hard not to review the same article twice. When you are sure it is ready please resubmit it. We have a drive on at present to clear the backlog lasting for all of June, so the review ought to come much sooner than before. Do note that his own web site is a primary source, and so, probably, is the IDP site. Fiddle Faddle 18:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Andrew P. Hayek

Hi Timtrent,

Thank you so much for your assistance and comments with the page for Andrew P. Hayek.

Can you please tell me which of my sources are not usable? I am learning as I go, and I sincerely appreciate your help.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andrew P. Hayek

Dancer88onpointe (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Dancer88onpointe

@Dancer88onpointe: Let me give you a couple of examples from the list:

• http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/content/HOM-212130/Disease-Management-Advisor-June-2008.html## is a news aggregation site that takes stories uncritically.
• http://www.beckersasc.com/news-analysis/surgical-care-affiliates-president-ceo-andrew-hayek-among-2014-aspen-institute-henry-crown-fellows.html is entirely similar

The thing you need to develop is the trick of recognising them, and what I want to do here is to start to give you the tools. You need to read WP:RS to see what is reliable, but you sometimes need to develop an instinct for wording (etc) that distinguishes a PR piece. When we search for references we have to be very selective. Fiddle Faddle 22:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Christophe Michalak may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | PLACE OF BIRTH = Senlis, Oise, France)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)  Done Fiddle Faddle 08:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Unleashed Tour

Hello,

Thank you for your feedback

regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Unleashed_tour, I at at a loss as to how I can add additional sources where I believe that six sources are already referenced and everything that is listed on the page has a source aligned to this, it is quite frustrating to see this page with many references rejected and other pages that are live with one or two at a max. I am very new to adding articles onto Wikipedia and used other articles as a template, but maybe this was not the way forward. I am sorry that you feel I am doing the 'bear minimum' here, but every time I have resubmitted I have added more sources and notability text to the article.

regards

fmfanuk

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmfanuk (talk • contribs) 10:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Fmfanuk: Thanks for coming here. I have no issue with your disagreeing with me, and I understand your frustration. I have been wrong before, may be wrong now, and will definitely be wrong in the future. The route forward is the Articles for Creation Help Desk and for you to ask for other eyes on the article. There ought to be a link on your own talk page or in one of the boxes where the article was declined. WIkipedia is a challenging place to work, the more so because you meet people with different opinions. All of us are right in our own minds, which is why we work by consensus. If another reviewer disagrees with me and accepts the article I am fine with that. Fiddle Faddle 10:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

By the way, it is not the quantity of the references that is the issue, it is the quality. PLease read my comment with care, look at WP:RS and change the quality. Fiddle Faddle 10:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, thank you again for the feedback, I have reviewed some other like pages from other bands and have made some slight adjustments again where I have added sourced background info on the tour, if you had a moment of time I would really value your additional comments, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmfanuk (talk • contribs) 10:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Fmfanuk: As a Fleetwood Mac fan of many years I want to accept this article. I hope you understand that. I try very hard not to re-review articles formally, but, informally, the problem for me is still the quality of the references. It must have been covered in WP:RS, surely?

Please never fall into the trap, not an obvious one, that 'other articles are the same so mine must be fine'. In the real world that works just fine. Wikipedia, not at all. I know that is aggravating to hear. Regrettably no article here sets a precedent for any other article. Each stands or falls on its own unique merits.

To solve my concern you need to look for significant coverage, independent of the band or the tour, that is about the tour, not the band, and that is in WP:RS. Ideally replace your existing references with new, but most certainly add new to old. Fiddle Faddle 11:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed WP:RS and adjusted the references and replaced most with 'respected' sources such as Billboard Magazine and BBC News. Is this moving this article along to being able to be published? thanks Fmfanuk (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Fmfanuk: This is a better approach. But the BBC article doesn't seem to mention the tour.This search will help you. Go down it and find the sources that pass WP:RS and use those. They really do need to mention the tour not just the band. Now I could do this whole thing for you, but I want to teach you to fish, not give you a fish, if you follow me. Fiddle Faddle 13:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the advise, I have replaced the BBC source with another that mentions about Christine McVie not being involved with this project, I will finalise and resubmit and hope that this is acceptable Fmfanuk (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC))

@Fmfanuk: That works fine for me, the resubmission. I won't review it myself, different eyes are always a good idea. You may find User:Timtrent/A good article of some use to you for the future. I'm glad I could b e of some use. Fiddle Faddle 15:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for reviewing my AfC List of Ben & Jerry's Flavors Timtrent. I agree with the consensus about my AfC not fitting Wikipedia's purpose and would like to withdraw my AfC for submission. Is it possible to keep the list in my sandbox permanently? If not I will work on finding another means of publishing the list on a private website. I am new to html and web design so I am hoping to find a way to duplicate the sortable wikipedia table where clicking on the contents list brings you directly to the flavor information below. I agree that the contents list is too long and will look for a way to make it collapsable. After collecting flavors for 14 years my desire was to create the most thorough, all-in-one-page, user-friendly table of flavors, but now I understand that wikipedia is not the proper place to showcase it. Thank you for your help Benandjerrysflavors (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Benandjerrysflavors: HTML is very different form Wiki Table Markup I fear. I recommend http://www.w3schools.com/ to give yourself a fighting chance. Yes, for now it can stay in your sandbox. You shoudl probably remove the Articles for Creation stuff and put a heading there "This is just my sandbox. It is NOT submitted as an article" Fiddle Faddle 16:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Confused

Timtrent, I'm confused. Why aren't articles by reporters for independent news organizations like Fortune, AdAge, etc., not considered reliable sources? I would appreciate it if you would look at all of my sources. The vast majority of the sources are independent news or independent organizations who have researched, interviewed, and vetted Ms. Styring.

Also, there are many articles on Wikipedia about individuals who are relevant leaders in their respective fields with very similar sources (articles about them, interviews with them, bios from speaking engagements or board appointments, etc.). Here are a couple examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristin_Luck and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Reid_(market_research)

I would appreciate it if you could explain to me the difference between my references about Kelley and these.

Thanks. SES6714 (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@SES6714: It is helpful to link to the article you are discussing. I had to work out what you were wanting to discuss.

We are not reviewing Kristin Luck, nor Angus Reid. We are reviewing Draft:Kelley Styring. WIkipedia does not use any article as a precedent for any other article. That may seem unreasonable until you understand that using articles as precedents produces a lowest common denominator Wikipedia. I can check those articles, yes. And, if they have the same referencing I will flag their references for attention

The article, as I said in my review, in the sample of references that I checked, is, with precision, exactly as I saw it. The italicised definition of what a reference is, that is what you need to attend to.

Anything Styring says in person, including an interview is not independent of her. She has said it. Anything that is a regurgitated press release or PR piece is not independent of her. Anything that is not in a WP:RS is inadmissible. And 100% of the sample I checked fell into one or more of those categories. Any fact you assert in the article must be backed by a reference that is an appropriate, admissible reference, or the fact must be removed.

The issue is that we are trying to build lasting quality. That is hard work. Finding good references is hard work. WP:AFC has the intention of seeking to ensure that an article is not vulnerable to deletion upon arrival as an article. Being asked for better references is far better than trying to defend in a deletion discussion. Being deleted hurts. Fiddle Faddle 07:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Multistable auditory perception

Hello Timtrent! I'm a bit confused as to why my article is getting denied submission; I realized that one of the sources was original research not published in a peer reviewed journal, so I removed all references to that resource. I'm unsure why the page is still being denied submission, do you think you can help me shine a light on the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heqiu (talk • contribs) 19:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Heqiu: I hoped I had given you a detailed answer at the draft. Please will you help me by refining your question? Fiddle Faddle 19:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Hi Tim, I really appreciate the speedy responses. The notice said weeks and you got to it in a matter of hours. That said, the question I have is, now that I've deleted all sources that aren't peer reviewed journals, is the only remaining problem that I need to prove that it is notable by including more references? 20:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Heqiu: What you need to do is somehow to show that it is notable, and the academic papers may do that. I tend to think they do not, as you can see. Are these sources peer reviewed? Can you demonstrate that? If so you are home free. Fiddle Faddle 20:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference checks for Aleya SenSharma

Hi Timtrent, I would like to thank you for getting to my notice about the reference articles. I have a few questions 1. You have mentioned 'I have sampled the references, not checked them all. 100% of my sample does not mention Aleya SenSharma.' I would like to inform you that I am married and my name before marriage was Aleya Sen and post marriage I am known as Aleya SenSharma. I have not mentioned about my spouse on the information table on wikipedia. If my name is an issue for the reference check, I would request you to reconsider as not all websites (references) will have my post marriage name. Also, if the name is not the issue and there is something else you in the references you would like to highlight, please let me know the references you did not find appropriate.

2. You have mentioned that I cannot write about myself. Do I need to request the page to be written under ' Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By profession ' OR some other area, please let me know. I trust you would help.

3. There is a 'Resubmit' tab on my page. Am I allowed to Resubmit the page after you have informed me of the references? or Do I follow point no. 2 Aleya sensharma (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@Aleya sensharma: The answer is that you will probably not enjoy submitting an autobiography for he simple reason that it will be edited to hell and back by every other editor who chooses, and you will discover that thing sin your life that you are not so happy about will appear in the public domain, even briefly, even if they are not referenced in WP:RS. You may also discover that you do not merit a Wikipedia article. So the route forward is up to you. We discourage it, but do not prohibit it. IT is almost never a positive experience for the author. You will also find it very difficult to wriote neutrally about yourself.

With regard to your name pre-marriage, if that is the name in references then you need to note in the articke, if yoiu have not, that you went by Sen and now SenSharma.

If you feel the article should be resubmitted, please do resubmit it, but think carefully before you do so about the positive and negative effects this experience will have for you. Fiddle Faddle 07:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Article to Wiki

Hello, I have decided not to contribute an article to Wikipedia. Since there is such a hatred of the feminine in the world it is too easy for mischief makers to vandalize the site by isolating terms connected to others that cannot be connected on Wiki due to length of article. And then I would not be able to correct it - COI Second, sites on Wiki have to be written by 'second' parties who have not put in 20 - 30 years examining and analyzing 10,000 names embedding male bias and have little knowledge of how the sum of names work to make the message of male superiority in divide to conquer ideology by which the whole species was damaged. Everyone is harmed in the language we use today.

I worked from January to May on this article. I got criticisms of COI, too essay-ish, slotted as "feminist", and assumed I was not a specialist in this specific area of language. I will prepare this work for a blog to put online. Blogs are as easily 'googled' as Wiki articles.

My work is not feminist. Feminism is a euphemistic put-down. In its final conclusions my whole work is in defense of reason, facts and truths needed to develop rational and moral society.LouiseGouefficLouise Goueffic (talk) 11:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@Louise Goueffic: That seems paranoid, ands also somewhat arrogant. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that has consensus based rules. Before trying to contribute an article here it seems sensible to have learned the rules. You did not and now you cry "Foul!l" when you drive a coach and horses through them. Still, you do seem to be the only one marching in step over this. Wikipedia is not academe, and you do not get to publish your work here. If it ever achieves notability then Wikipedia will report it. if not, then not. Fiddle Faddle 12:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/user:GreenLips/Sandbox

Timtrent. Thanks for reviewing. Are you telling me the sub jest "Bill Haney" is not worthy of appearing in Wiki? I some how doubt that was your intent considering all the news articles written about him and his publishing history. But, if that's the case please be clear and I won't waste my time or your any further. I had been getting reviews that had encouraged me NOT to give up because Bill Haney seemed notable. Please explain. Thank you. GreenLips (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@Greenlips: Your sandbox contained something that was NOT Bill Haney. It was some sort of message to no-one in particular. I've shown you where the article is on your own talk page. PLease just get on with editing and submitting that! I was actually helping you by removing the clutter and showing you were the article is! Fiddle Faddle 22:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

"Article with inline URLS"

Hi, Thanks for reviewing my article. In order not to make any new mistakes regarding linking, would you give me an example of what an inline URL looks like, as opposed to Wikilinks, external links and external references? Best regards Bramblebough — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bramblebough (talk • contribs) 17:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Timtrent, Thanks for revising my article. I think I now understand the problem of inline URL linking. The problem is that I tried to link to pages that are in Portuguese Wikipedia. I read the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Interlanguage_links and tried to link correctly but the links don't seem to weork correctly. Best regards

Bramblebough 18:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC) Bramblebough

Bramblebough 18:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bramblebough (talk • contribs)

@Bramblebough: Certainly. Wikipedia is an inline URL talk is a Wikilink. Linking between Wikipedias is posisble. Try placing {{Helpme}} on your own talk page and ask the question. Someone will drop by and help you remarkably soon. Fiddle Faddle 22:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Dayton Superior

Hello, you recently rejected my article. I would like clarification on why you rejected it. You said there were too many references from the organization itself. However what was being cited (the notable projects) is simply listing projects the company has been a part of. There should be nothing wrong with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daytonsuperior (talk • contribs) 03:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Daytonsuperior: If they are notable then they will be covered in places that are not the company's own material. We require sourcing from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. No such coverage means they are not notable. Fiddle Faddle 06:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)