User talk:Timtrent/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Good Afternoon Fiddle Faddle

I hope this finds you well. I have tried to resubmit my article for creation with no luck. I have tried to incorporate all of the editors advice, but some of the advice contradicts. I am going to start from scratch this weekend.. but before I do.. is there anything here that is wiki worthy? It seems from other comments, no.

Thank you in advance and have a great rest of the week

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

PattiMoly99 (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@PattiMoly99: I can see why the latest reviewer, Kikichugirl, gave that opinion. It feels very much like the organisation setting out its stall for future business. The question that needs to be asked is "How will this fare in this state, if accepted?"

My thoughts are that it is likely to be nominated for a deletion discussion as promotional, and may well fail that discussion. If so then it is hard, sometimes impossible, to re-create it. Equally, defending a deletion discussion is emotionally stressful and likely to get you in to a Wiki-disaster as an editor. I've seen it happen too often. My advice is to work with the review process, to discuss the matter with the latest reviewer(s) and to follow their advice. Your objective is to create an article, not a complete article.

If we believe that there is no better than a 60% probability of surviving a deletion discussion we push the draft back to the creating editor for further work. Editing for Wikipedia is simple, but it is not easy. Writing here is the toughest writing you will ever do. Your job is to enjoy it.

One thing that militates against acceptance is the inline urls that you have in the text. All inline links must be removed, please, and turned into references if appropriate, Wikilinks, or external links in a section so named. See Wikipedia:External links Fiddle Faddle 20:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello again! Thank you so much for your feedback. I am in the process, actually right now, of removing those inline links and turning them into references. :) Hard, emotionally stressful? Yes!! :) Printing your feedback and off I go to wiki land of re-writing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PattiMoly99 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Re your comments, etc. for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anne_Seisen_Saunders

Hi,

Ah, good, you got a break from all of this... so did I!

I think I've gotten all the inline links removed. Am I right, that does not include the footnote or reference numbering?

I know I'm short on external references... She certainly isn't as well known as some Zen Abbots. However, it's unlikely that there will be challenges. Am working to find more.

In the Zen Buddhist Tradition in America, Abbots and others are referred to by their Buddhist names, rather than their surname. For example, Enkyo Pat Ohara (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enkyo_Pat_O%27Hara) is known as Enkyo, her Buddhist name, rather than O'Hara as would be typical in American Journalism. Similarly, John Daido Loori (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Daido_Loori) is also known more often by his Buddhist name, Diado. Hence when I refer to Anne Seisen Saunders I use Seisen rather than her surname... does that make sense and am I okay to continue?

I'm about half way through a major rewrite... more tomorrow.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annew43 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Annew43: Correct. References 'appear' to be inline, but actually gather at the end. With names, the common name will take precedence. This is a small thing, since pages can be moved to new names at any time Fiddle Faddle 11:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Username block

Hello, Tim. I agree with almost all of what you said at User talk:Acorn Publications, but there is one point where I think you are mistaken. The blocking administrator chose to give only a username-block, which means that the editor was free to continue editing, as long as he or she did not use that username; this means that IP editing was not block-evasion. Personally, I would not have given a username-block, and I have now changed the block, but we can't blame the editor for editing without logging in, under the circumstances. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair comment, JamesBWatson Were I an admin I would have checked more deeply. Fiddle Faddle 10:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

If it's of any interest to you, I never use username blocks. 99% of them are given to promotional editors, and it is, in my opinion, totally unhelpful to tell them that the username is the only reason for the block, when it clearly is not the only reason. Doing so tells them that it's perfectly acceptable to go on editing in the same promotional way they have been doing, so long as they use a username which hides their conflict of interest, so we don't know about it. Why anyone would think that is a good idea I can't imagine, but loads of admins do. The other 1% of username blocks are good-faith new editors, who have done nothing wrong except that they didn't know about some aspect of the username policy, such as that a username can't end in "bot", or whatever. In that case, why bite the newcomer by blocking them, instead of just giving them a friendly message explaining the problem, and asking them to change their username? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Until today I had given this matter no thought. Now you point it out it is plain as a pikestaff. Thank you. If I am ever unwise enough to apply for adminship successfully I will act in the same way.

I like your contribution to the AFD on the stairlift folk. I often do a full reference analysis and have taken to placing it in my !vote at AFD when necessary. This time I was busy with real life. I have placed a further note on the COI editor's talk page. I think they are not an asset. Your mileage may vary. Fiddle Faddle 11:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

IP 80.193.74.227 and Acorn Mobility

Hello. The IP definitely has a conflict of interest on Acorn Mobility since the hostname of the IP is "ms.acornstairlifts.co.uk", clearly showing that it's a company employee doing the editing. Thomas.W ^talk 08:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed it has. It is also evading a block, but has not edited for a while. Thank you Thomas.W Fiddle Faddle 08:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Tyler Print Institute

{{Admin help}} Please look at this AFD which has reached a conclusion. I am not competent to perform the process follow through. It needs speedy closure and removal of the AfD banners from the draft. Fiddle Faddle 10:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. Favonian (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Acorn

I don't know if you have noticed but Bretthuk72 is the same user as Acorn Publications, they've just had a name change. Thomas.W ^talk 19:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed I have. I helped to facilitate that name change, but I never object to being given information like this. Fiddle Faddle 19:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Please correct the incorrect information

I'm concerned by you erasing the corrections I made. The information you quoted from Bart Plantenga's book, "Yodel In HiFi" is incorrect! Even though Bart and I are friends, I called him out on this because he didn't forward me a copy of the final draft as promised. He was rushing to meet the publication deadline.

1. "No.1 Black Yodelin' Trucker" is Bart's creation. Please remove this! a. I have always been know as "Country Music's No.1 Black Yodeler" and the short version, "Black Yodel No.1."

2. Bart's passage about DIY tapes is incorrect. He goes on to confuse this with me recording song DEMOS [to be worked out later] in my truck. a. I did my 1st recording session in 1981 at Globe Recording Studio in Nashville, and released a 45-rpm single. b. My "Mike Johnson's Guitar Songs Vol.1" in 1983 is the ONLY D.I.Y. cassette I produced. c. All other cassette releases were Nashville recorded and produced.

3. I created Pata del Lobo Music Publishing in 1982, Roughshod Records, You and Me Music, and You and Me Records in 1987.

4. Roughshod Records released its 49th and 50th CDs on 15 November 2014

5. You and Me Records released its 1st CD on 14 December 2014

6. Why are the links to the National Traditional Country Music Association pages and the Library of Congress Recorded Sound Reference Center underlined in red as non-existent? These sites do exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Yodel No.1 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Black Yodel No.1: I have erased nothing. I see from your own talk page that I tried to help you once before and you were unpleasantly rude. Your behaviour then does not commend you to me and I have no interest in acting on the material above. Deal with the editor who did whatever you think has been done so unfairly, or place your concerns on the article talk page. Fiddle Faddle 21:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

If you feel threatened by words you've taken out of context, you're a real mental midget. Crawl back under your rock and let Matthew handle his own mess. And don't bother contacting me again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Yodel No.1 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 12 July

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 Draft:The Right Stuff (dating web site) page, your edit caused a cite 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) 00:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

03:37:51, 13 July 2015 review of submission by 14.97.127.108

• 14.97.127.108 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:GIBSS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All sources are independent and verifiable. The you tube videos are created by the organizers of the award and not by the recepients. Print sources are not PR material but print written about GIBSS. There are more than 100 articles written about GIBSS on the web by independent verifiable sources. You may google "GIBSS Geothermal" and see for yourself.

14.97.127.108 (talk) 03:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Please feel free to reject any advice you are given unless you would like the draft to be accepted, in which case you ought to take it. Fiddle Faddle 07:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I would like to take the advice but I don't understand what needs to be done. All sources are independent. You claim that they are not independent is incorrect. Please suggest specific inputs. I am open to your advice and suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.97.127.108 (talk) 08:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

All references are independent. Can you guide me on which references are PR material and not independent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.97.127.108 (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your inputs. I appreciate your specific feedback. I shall remove the references and replace them with stronger references or remove them completely if there aren't any stronger references. Thank you very much for taking the time to give me specific direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.97.127.108 (talk) 08:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

10:00:13, 13 July 2015 review of submission by Panamachannel

• Panamachannel (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Fyodor Pavlov-Andreevich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm requesting a re-review of this article because, although it was rejected because of the lack of reliable sources, all of the sources are reliable and have been double checked. I don't understand what exactly needs to be changed and would like specific examples of what is wrong with the sources in the article.Panamachannel (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Panamachannel (talk) 10:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Panamachannel (talk) 10:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Panamachannel (talk) 10:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you make use of the Articles For Creation Help Desk. My opinion is as unchanged as is your draft. Further, the reference style is unclear with some sort of dual numbering scheme.

Please read and understand WP:RS and read WP:42 Fiddle Faddle 10:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

With regard, too, to your need for specifics, I have already given you the links you must follow to find out what to do. There is a great deal of work to be done. At the very least the inline urls must go. Doing the same that one has always done and expecting different results is the path to insanity. Fiddle Faddle 10:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

19:05:09, 13 July 2015 review of submission by 73.38.59.62

• 73.38.59.62 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The Right Stuff (dating web site) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks for your review of The Right Stuff. I am puzzled by your concern for reliance on "primary sources" in two respects --

(a) The "notability" guidelines only require reliance secondary sources; there is no mention of a penalty for redundant citation to the web site itself as a confirmatory source (especially for information that changes). Most (but not all) of the cites to the site itself were confirmatory, redundant with a cite to an external independent source.

(b) Most of the cites to the primary source, the web site itself, were for facts like current fees, rules, etc. -- for which the web site itself is the only authoritative source. I understand why it makes no sense to cite to the web site for "we are the best xyz" or "we have a worldwide reputation for excellence" or other opinion issues. But for the rules under which the site operates? Isn't the site the best source for that?

It appears to me that pedantically consistent over-observance of a rule has become the hobgoblin of the goal.

Nonetheless, I cut all but one cite to the primary source web site (a sentence that states the current number of members), which resulted in removal of a sentence or two for which the web site was the only known support.

Thanks for the re-review.

David

73.38.59.62 (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I will go and look at it, and, if you have resubmitted it, give you my best opinion.

Please read, if you have not, WP:PRIMARY. Matters like fees and so forth tend to be best obtained for the site itself rather than stated in an article.

Always remember that each reviewer gives their own opinion within our rules and guidelines. We do not all necessarily have the exact same interpretation. Fiddle Faddle 19:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Help with my recently rejected submission

Hi Timtrent, You recently rejected my newly submitted Article for Creation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Entermedia_(2)) and said it's "not adequately supported by reliable sources". I have many references to the company's website and two from independent sources. Is there a minimum requirements of 3 independent sources? Could you please provide me with some metrics that would help me gather the proper reliable sources? I appreciate your help. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brotherbees (talk • contribs) 20:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You have stated the problem. We deprecate many references to the org;s own web site. Please see WP:PRIMARY

The other sources are not significant coverage, they are simply catalogue entries

I have not rejected it. I have pushed it back to you for further work. Fiddle Faddle 20:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ginzberg

Consistent practice here is that a NYT editorial obit at least in the 20th/21st century is proof of notability. The only ones ever seriously challenged have been society figures from the period when the NYT covered NY high society in detail, and even these were kept. It's of course necessary to check it isn't copyvio, and this article needsa cross check on the claim to co-invention. DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment on references on Dinner Rituals

Hi Timtrent, For the references, all of them are available online. Do you mean by adding the link into the references would make it better? I'm using MLA citations so it doesn't include the link. Let me know. Thanks, Ashxie126 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashxie126 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

That is precisely what I mean. Yes. we have very suitable templates for this. Please read WP:CITE and WP:REFB. Fiddle Faddle 17:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Timtrent, I added a link to every reference. Does it look better now?

Also, I previously received comments that the article reads like an essay, which is not what Wikipedia is looking for. I edited with more formal language, lists, and notable findings. Could you also check on that?

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

Thanks! Ashxie126 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashxie126 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I am not a good person to ask. When we look at an article for too long we become biased in favour of or against it, and are unable to see, sometimes, whether the changes have been beneficial. The obvious changes to the references I applaud. I am unable, though, to see it as different from my initial view that it is referenced WP:OR and thus an essay.. May I suggest a request at the Articles for Creation Helpdesk? There is a link to it, perhaps on the draft, perhaps on your talk page (I forget which).

I am unable to form a new judgement on it, referencing style apart, so am the wrong person to ask. Fiddle Faddle 17:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I declined it once more, and left a detailed comment. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Request on 11:20:22, 21 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Chints247

• Chints247 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Abhijit Joshi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

You recently edited the article for new creation at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Abhijit_Joshi. You also left a message stating "Pretty much every lawyer who has been practicing for long enough has this kind of generic coverage. Nothing I see here renders him notable in WIkipedia's sense". I am a believer and follower of sir abhijit. He is undoubtedly the best lawyer for my case references and has also won a series of awards. He is also a well known personality in the field. I don't see any reason for him being not notable to be added to wikipedia.

Can you help me out with this? Any particular section/para I need to edit or remove? I have tried to find the best citations available of public domain. Request you to assist me with the same Chints247 (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Chints247 (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Chints247: If he is the 'best lawyer for your case', you appear to have a conflict of interest and thus are probably not the best person to write his biography.

Lawyers attracts passing mentions because they exist as counsel in the cases they work on. This is an occupational hazard rather than inherent notability. A lawyer is not notable because of a high profile case in the same manner that a taxi driver is not notable because they carried a high profile defendant. For the taxi driver to be notable he or she must have other attributes than their taxi driving which render them notable.

Awards are indicators of notability is they are notable awards themselves. "Best Taxi Driver in Epsom" is an award of no value. "Best Taxi Driver in London" might be notable.

Entries in (eg) Chambers are self written. Lawyers write these themselves to get work. Chambers tries to validate the submissions, but, and this is fundamental, people like me, a no account nobody who have once worked with the lawyer and are doing him a favour, are often used as referees. I Know. I have been one!!

Perhaps you see, now, why the references in your draft may not be as useful as you hope. What you need to do is to look first for good references. (For a living person we have a high 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, and is significant coverage). Once you have those references you need to write the article from what the references tell you. It is by the quality of the references that the draft and the possible article is judged. Lawyers have to be much more than just lawyers to make the cut. I hope you can show that this gentleman is. Fiddle Faddle 12:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

thanks so much

for your specific suggestions about fixing my Biography on Tamara Champlin so it will fit in your guidelines. I will work at trimming down, minimizing links and just noting the highlights of her career that are the most important and relevant. so appreciate your detailed critique. my thanks and gratitude Paulhus15 (talk) 10:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Paulhus15: Almost always a shorter article or draft is better. Aim for dull-but-worthy and very much to the point. Remember, too, that we write for the reader. Use of tidy paragraphs and shortish sentences make the reader feel invited in. I'm glad you found the advice helpful. Always remember that advice is to be understood, questioned if necessary, and then accepted or rejected with a good heart.

I have no idea whether she passes WP:MUSIC and I tend not to review music articles, but I gave you my thought son this one because it prevented me from seeing whether she passed! After the edits others will be better able to judge. BUT, run the WP:MUSIC rules over her before doing too much work. It would be awful to do the work to discover she was a fail. Fiddle Faddle 12:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

You made several very helpful comments on Draft:Tamara Champlin but there are a couple that I want to quibble with:

• You wrote: "Name. Only the first iteration requires her full name. Please refer to her by surname thereafter"

  Normally this is sound advice, but in this particular case Champlin's husband and co-performer Bill Champlin is frequently mentioned, often in the same sentence or paragaph as Tamara Champlin. In such cases referring to her only as "Champlin" is, in my view, potentially confusing

• You wrote: " 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, and is significant coverage."

  I think this is overstating things. In particular it ignores the legitimate use of WP:PRIMARY and WP:SELFPUB sources. To be sure these do not contribute to notability at all, and notability is normally the main issue when reviewing a draft. But that can be use to support particular matters of fact, or for the subjects opinions. Secondly, specific facts can and often should be supported by sources that do not include significant coverage. In particular, in a music article, a track listing will frequently be supported by a cite to Allmusic or a similar source, which is highly reliable, but may have nothing but the release and track info for a given album, which is not significant coverage. This does little for the WP:GNG, although it will contribute to some of the WP:MUSIC criteria.

By the way it is my view that Tamara Champlin easily passes WP:MUSIC on several counts. I first encountered this draft in response to a Teahouse request, IIRC. DES ^(talk) 13:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@DESiegel: I am always happy to be quibbled with. I ask for the stars with references and am happy with the moon when we miss the stars. In an ideal world we would have ideal references. WP:PRIMARY can be hard to explain and is very useful. If you would guide our friend though this minefield I think you will earn their gratitude. I take your point on surname in this article. I had missed the similar surnamed person. Thank you for confirming she passes the music criteria. That saves work being done for no good reason. Fiddle Faddle 14:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

duplicate submissions

all i did was add references and reload the article. I added three and only one reference is showing. Why? And how do the articles become duplicates instead of just replacing the older version?

Dadquixote (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

References:

1. A. CHINMAYA, A., & VARGO, J.W. (1979). IMPROVING COMMUNICATION: THE IDEAS OF JOHN WALLEN. John Abhott College and the University of Alberta. 2. Crosby, G. (2015). Fight, Flight, Freeze: Taming Your Reptilian Brain and other Practical Approaches to Self-Improvement. Seattle, WA: CrosbyOD Publishing. 3. Wallen, J.L. (1964). The Interpersonal Gap. Unpublished.

I am afraid I have no idea. I suspect you lost track of where you were editing what. You seem to have created two versions of the same draft, in two different places. Looking at the HISTORY tab in each will help you to unravel this. So, choose one and work there, and only there. I suggest Draft:The Interpersonal Gap since it seems to be the one that is favoured by other reviewers. Fiddle Faddle 21:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

You Deserve a Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		messageRon Jay (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear Timtrent - This is for all your efforts!! Ron Jay (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Jacksepticeye article

I do not appreciate you nominating the Jacksepticeye article for deletion. It had an earlier AfD and the result from that one was Keep. It'll be the exact same response this time too. Stop trying. Kamran Mackey (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

So let consensus run and do not bother me ever again. Fiddle Faddle 09:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Face Recognition

Petersendo (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)PeterSendo

An article of mine entitled "Face Recognition" has just been removed from Wikipedia. My full name is Peter Sendonaris and I AM the original author of this dissertation, which awarded me an "MSc" in "AI & Intelligent Systems" with Distinction. The reasons for removal - (1) That I have plagerised the material without the owners permission. (2) I am a fraud. (3) I have broken the submission guidelines. I have never been so insulted and will never submit any more articles to Wikipedia. Just have to wait for the book to come out and pay for it.

@Petersendo: I am sure you have been insulted far better than by having your copyright protected. Please be aware that no-one knows who you are, and that the submission of copyright material is bound by strict rules. See WP:Donating copyright material which explains in detail what you must do.

That material was also unsuitable for Wikipedia, which is not a place to publish your own work. Please read WP:ACADEME. You may also not use Wikipedia to establish your reputation, something you appear to have been attempting by positing this ill formatted and ill judged article. It would not have passed our acceptance criteria anyway. It seems you may have been using it to pre-publicise the book you refer to. That is wholly invalid.

While it is a shame that you have reacted in this manner, Wikipedia as an entity has no interest in this reaction, nor do I as the editor who proposed this material for deletion. An administrator agreed with me and it was deleted.

If you believe you have useful material that is suitable for Wikipedia, and that is properly referenced, should you reconsider your position please go ahead and offer it to us. Fiddle Faddle 13:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

14:30:17, 22 July 2015 review of submission by Mark lamoureux

• Mark lamoureux (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Basil King (painter and poet) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mark lamoureux (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying that the New York Times, Penn State and the New York Council for the Humanities are not reliable sources?

Basil King is the last living person to have attended Black Mountain College, the legendary institution that spawned nearly all of the mid-century Amreican avant-garde, including Franz Kline, Charles Olson, John Wieners and others. There are extensive articles for individuals with far fewer credentials than Basil King.

The information concerning the paintings comes from THE ARTIST HIMSELF, ergo a primary source--and an acceptable one for doctoral dissertations and curatorial provenance research. I should think that it would also be acceptable to Wikipedia.

The way you have phrased this you obviously know best. I am particularly drawn to your use of capital letters. Please continue to plough your own furrow. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. I have no further interest in this one, solely because of what I perceive to be your attitude. Fiddle Faddle 14:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Tamara Champlin

I moved this to mainspace over the old redirect. You can safely finish the AfC close. DES ^(talk) 22:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Half cool! The AFCH script will not work in main namespace. I will go in and tidy manually Fiddle Faddle 22:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	my sincere thanks! Paulhus15 (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Now get on and enjoy editing Wikipedia are a rather bizarre and engrossing hobby. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle 22:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Request on 04:33:42, 23 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Nancy Sudheer

• Nancy Sudheer (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Saleh Al Abdooli CEO Etisalat UAE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i have been trying to submit the profile since a month, this reason was brought up, changes were made, then there was the problem with the sources, these are reliable sources from UAE which you are not aware of, and then my account was of conflict of interest, this is the CEO of one of the leading companies in the middle east, how can it not be notable, do we have to make a donation to wikipedia to get this uploaded please let me know

Nancy Sudheer (talk) 04:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Nancy Sudheer:Why is a CEO inherently notable? What is there about him apart form his job that sets him apart form other men? We do not inherit notability form our work.

Why are there sources "I am not aware of"? WP:BURDEN makes it down to you to make all readers aware

Why does he want a wikipedia article about him? And Why are you writing it since you have a WP:COI?

What a disgusting thing to suggest "Do we have to make a donation?" Is this normal where you live? Baksheesh does not exist here. Donate with pleasure but know that it will never and can never have any bearing on the existence or otherwise of articles about this man or his org. Fiddle Faddle 09:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

I dont understand there are so many of CEO profiles which are just basic and just about their work, does not even have so much of information and are on wikipedia, on the sources, these legitimate sources from the country being read across the region, therefore they are good references, 2 of the arabic newspapers belong to the publishing house which is connected to the government, Gulf News, is the leading english newspaper in UAE been in existence since the the time the country was in existent

The CEO is listed on bloomberg, like so many other CEOs I have seen, even that is not a legitimate source !!!!!

Trends MENA, one of the well read business magazines being again published by a publishing house specialising in B2B publications

the press release and link from TRA, which is the telecom regulatory authority of the country, again that is not a legitimate source !!!!!

the link to from the FTTH council, which is the council studying fiber connectivity in the region is not legitimate!!!!!!

Thanks for your comments Timtrent

Nancy

@Nancy Sudheer: No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy.

I am not interested in further dealings with you, nor in offering you or anyone connected with you any further assistance. You have effectively offered to bribe Wikipedia in your first message to me. Please do not contact me again. Fiddle Faddle 10:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rockville_2069:_A_Rock_Musical

Hi and thanks so much for the pointers, especially the reliable source database (www.highbeam.com). I have edited and resubmitted the article accordingly and hopefully this will get the article over the finish line.

Regards, PlayDough23

I hope so. I try hard not to re-revioew. We always get a better result when more pairs of eyes look at a submission. Fiddle Faddle 10:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	thank you! Paulhus15 (talk) 10:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't thank you enough for your suggestions, your corrections, input and help with the format of the biography. Paulhus15 (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Paulhus15: Improving things is always pleasure. Helping someone else learn how to improve them is even better. Fiddle Faddle 19:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I was just about to tackle the ref list tonite and noticed most if not all had been cited. I can't thank you and Mr Siegel enough for all the help and encouragement. Paulhus15 (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Paulhus15: The best way to thank us is to enjoy this as a new and rather engrossing hobby, to learn your trade here and to pass your knowledge on to others who need help. Fiddle Faddle 20:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't thank you enough. she will be so happy and proud to be here Paulhus15 (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It can be a two edged sword, but most folk are happy. Mike Johnson (yodeler) is unhappy to be here because the article is not what he wanted. Fiddle Faddle 22:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

thank you for your comment. Unsure where the bio is present tense. Just took the term "recently" out and want to make sure its how you want it. feel free to correct or direct me what to do. thanks always for your efforts and help here. so appreciated. Paulhus15 (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Paulhus15: It is the "would" which is future tense subjunctive mood. Possibly you can't see the would for the trees . It appears in multiple places, though, Fiddle Faddle 10:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I corrected all but will re- review after work. when i have it corrected to wiki standards, could you please remove the statement at the top? I am so appreciative always for your expertise and kindness Paulhus15 (talk) 10:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Paulhus15: when you have done it please feel free to remove the banner yourself. Any editor acting in good faith may remove almost any banner. Fiddle Faddle 10:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

thanks so much. I did not want to ever offend you or remove anything you correct or do since I have total respect for your work and opinion. Paulhus15 (talk) 10:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Paulhus15: Your opinion is as valuable as mine. I simply have longer time served here. I have been known to be wrong, and quite often, too. I am not ashamed to have been, either, because I learn Fiddle Faddle 10:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

thanks so much but I am still learning and trying to do everything correctly. I am off line for the day. I think I corrected everything so removed the statement. I will re-check later today. thank you again for your kind words and encouragement Paulhus15 (talk) 10:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Request on 10:18:38, 24 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Nebnko

• Nebnko (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Johnstone Chikwanda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks for your review. I am not sure which of the references are unverifiable. May you assist point out?

Nebnko (talk) 10:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

That information is on the draft as a comment. Please confirm that you have read that comment if you require further assistance. Fiddle Faddle 10:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I have seen the comment, made changes as suggested and re-submitted. Thanks.

@Nebnko: Thank you. Another reviewer will look at it next. Fiddle Faddle 10:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Portsmouth Historic Dockyard...

... is now free. I actually do have access to the AFC helper, but since I wasn't sure what additional actions you wanted to take, I've left it for you to move the draft. All the best, Yunshui ^雲_水 12:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks. No real additional things, but it tidies all away neatly. Fiddle Faddle 12:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Might want to review that image that's just been added; I'm pretty sure the claim of fair use doesn't hold up (how hard is it for someone to go down the docks and take a photo?). Would check it out myself, but I'm going offline for a bit. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Yunshui: always happy to nuke stuff like that Fiddle Faddle 14:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Outside my expertise. I suspect the file upload police will get to it soon enough, though Fiddle Faddle 14:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

SignPost

Hi Timtrent. I offered to help the Signpost put together something on paid editing. The idea was to avoid editors that have strong opinions and have already been very vocal; to instead find editors that have experience with it, but maybe don't have such extreme views and haven't been heard before. I was wondering if you would be game for it. CorporateM (Talk) 13:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: Let me know what you have in mind. I am in favour of all editing that is good unbiased editing, paid or unpaid. I simply ask that paid editing be disclosed. Fiddle Faddle 13:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

They said either interview style or "forum style", but I don't understand what they mean by forum style.

I was thinking if we ask everyone two questions and ask them to provide a one paragraph response each.

Like this: "What do you think is the net effect (positive or negative) of corporate participation on Wikipedia? What do you think should be done to improve how we handle it?

paragraph 1 (answering the first question)

paragraph 2 (answering the second question)

Thoughts? CorporateM (Talk) 13:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: I think the two paragraphs approach is good. I would add "Please limit your response to (number to be decided upon) words per question. Anything longer than that cannot be included."

I wonder if "Corporate Participation" is a phrase folk will recognise, or if it needs to be spelled out to them. Fiddle Faddle 13:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

---

@CorporateM:

Specimen answers

What do you think is the net effect (positive or negative) of corporate participation (paid editing) on Wikipedia?

If the edits are impartial, neutral and do not seek to pervert Wikipedia and its articles and have no WP:OWN connotations, either of edits or of articles, then I applaud all good quality edits and deprecate all poor quality ones, exactly as I do with amateur editing

What do you think should be done to improve how we handle it

The challenge is to enforce it. I favour the commercial editor declaring their interest(s) on their user page and their deploying {{Connected contributor}} with all parameters filled out on the talk page of each article they contribute to in their commercial persona. I do not support separate accounts for commercial and non commercial use unless they are properly declared on the user pages concerned. I favour strong but not draconian enforcement of declarations as a matter of policy.

---

Is that what you envisage? Fiddle Faddle 13:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Close, but I meant more like this CorporateM (Talk) 15:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: Go for it. I like that. If you need any additional material from me or help please let me know. It's your baby so I will let you be the one to make the running. My answers stand, I think. Fiddle Faddle 15:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Dinesh

Hi Timtrent.. Thanks for giving your valuable time .. As guided to me, I have just studied Primary and Secondary sources. And I have learnt that Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. Whereas a secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event.

Well, I have given many a references for Casting Director Mr. Dinesh Soi's article which include Wikipedia and articles on websites which have been taken from some other website where it originally existed. Then verified, modified and finally published. Examples are articles on top websites like tvtalks.in and www.nettv4u.com which have been taken by them from Tellychakkar.com and Wikipedia, where the information originated.

Still, if I am wrong, amend me. If there is still any hindrance in getting the article published, please let me know.

Its really been a great learning process. Thanks Sonam R Thakur (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia may not be a reference. Please read WP:CIRCULAR. You also need to read WP:42 Your references may not be just any old thing, but must meet our very stringent requirements. Fiddle Faddle 22:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Cookie

Jothebulb has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Thank you very much for taking the time to assist with the Sunbury Skiff Club page. References added & article re-submitted.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

For which much thanks. Fiddle Faddle 08:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

09:30:47, 25 July 2015 review of submission by SabHan

• SabHan (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Scheherazade Safla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

SabHan (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

This is my reference: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lukwesa_Burak

No it is not. It is a wikipedia article. If you meant it is a precedent for yours, no it isn't. No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy Fiddle Faddle 15:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Request on 21:12:32, 25 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Jsmetz

• Jsmetz (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Bogus maps of the 50 states of the United States of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I appreciate your quick response to my draft article on Bogus maps of the 50 states. Obviously the point I was trying to make about the problems caused by the extensive publication of US maps with bogus geography is not going to work as an article in Wikipedia, at least in its present form.

In my view, the problem is serious enough for consideration as a Wikipedia article because these proliferating maps show up across the nation in most print and digital media outlets, in many scholarly papers, and, probably, in many school textbooks. Because of this false geography I doubt if a majority of Americans, if polled, will remember that Alaska and Hawaii are states of the United States, and that they are located far to the Northwest and Southwest of the US West Coast.

Prior to writing my article I tried to find other articles on the same topic, and did come up with the Washington Post article that I referenced. There does not appear to be anything even remotely associated with the topic in Wikipedia.

If such an article exists under something like map-based propaganda, or map based sales brochures, I'd be happy to check it out and perhaps add some comments to it. I don't need to be an original author on an article, but if a relevant Wikipedia article exists I would like to help get the information out into the world somehow.

All feedback will be appreciated.

Jsmetz (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jsmetz: the problem you face is that Wikipedia reports on things and may not create WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, so I have no idea quite how you are to achieve this. Fiddle Faddle 21:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

15:50:10, 26 July 2015 review of submission by 182.237.183.187

• 182.237.183.187 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:GIBSS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All references are major dailies and news sites in India such as India today, Fortune India, Rediff, Business today and others. Can you please guide me on what is not reliable? I have done so much work on this article which shall help the geothermal space in India.

182.237.183.187 (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Did you go to the draft and read what I wrote there? The quality has improved. I am complaining of WP:CITEKILL. Fiddle Faddle 15:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

17:12:31, 26 July 2015 review of submission by 182.237.183.187

• 182.237.183.187 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:GIBSS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you so much for your guidance. I have made the changes as per your guidance. All references are also notable and independent from leading indian dailies and news papers like economic times, Business today, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), Government of India and others. This entry will really contribute to the geothermal space that is currently developing in India.

182.237.183.187 (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kushal Awatarsing.

Hello, Timtrent. The User:Kushal B.Awatarsing was created because I had forgotten the password for kushalawa and was not done intentionally. I apologise for any inconvenience caused and promise not to do so again. Thank You for your comprehension. I really look forward to help me with my article. Thank you again Timtrent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushal B. Awatarsing (talk • contribs) 17:16, 26 July 2015‎

Please refer to the sock puppet investigation. WP:DUCK means I do not trust any assurance you make. Fiddle Faddle 17:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay I'll keep that in mind and make sure this doesn't happen again. I am still learning how to edit wikipedia and it's a bit difficult for me to understand the Editing codes. It will be really great if you could please help or give any comments and suggestion in improving my Article . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushal B. Awatarsing (talk • contribs) 17:31, 26 July 2015‎

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Congrats Timtrent. You really deserve this. Kushal B. Awatarsing (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Going with the Pitch

Hello Timtrent, thank you for your note today. I apologize that the "large and unexpected copyright banner in the middle of the draft" was still there. This is my first time trying to create content on Wikipedia and it is a bit of a learning curve. I updated the site "Going with the Pitch" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Going_with_the_Pitch, but I do realize that there needs to be more clarification with the image. I tried now to list the reasons why I think the image is Ok to be used, but am not sure now how it needs to be reviewed.

=== Fair use in Going with the Pitch ===Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws, and the stricter requirements of Wikipedia's non-free content policies, because:# The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic.# It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.

Are you able to guide me on the best way to proceed. My first battle is getting the image Ok'd. Then I can circle back to getting the content acceptable for Wikipedia. Many thanks for your time.

Ken

May I suggest that the image is the final element. You do need to go to the image upload page to correct the licencing, and I am not an expert in the field. To find more I suggest you deploy {{helpme}} on your own talk page and ask for the help you need to make the right declaration. I have never found this an easy path to walk. Do not despair if the image is deleted before the article is ready. If and when the draft is approved the image may be re-uploaded. A Fair Use declaration is not appropriate for anything other than a main namespace article, which is why I suggest you delay that aspect.

I have tidied the draft. I suggest you resubmit it for review as it stands now, and see what suggestions folk make. Books are not a field I specialise in so I can only give generic advice, which is always to strengthen referencing, removing references that do not meet our requirements. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Fiddle Faddle 09:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Timtrent, thanks for taking the time to respond back. I will put the image portion on delay as you suggest and resubmit my page without the image content. Once I hear back from the reviewer, hopefully it will give me a better idea on how to proceed.

• • • (I tried to resubmit after taking out the image but I can no longer find a button to resubmit the article for review. Do you know where/how I do this for a second review?)

Ken — Preceding unsigned comment added by KJacobi1121 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 27 July 2015‎

I have solved that for you. Fiddle Faddle 07:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

13:26:50, 27 July 2015 review of submission by 71.68.124.112

• 71.68.124.112 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:EIA-649 National Consensus Standard for Configuration Management (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A specific "nation" did not write this standard. It's title is the "National Consensus Standard for Configuration Management" was given to it by the Electronic Industries Alliance’s (EIA) G-33 Committee on Data and Configuration Management (mentioned in the "EIA-649 History & Name Changes" section and "EIA-649's International Standardization" section). "EIA-649 is considered to have International Standardization implication, as determined by EIA (Electronic Industries Alliance)[15] and TechAmerica.[2] EIA-649 is an internationally recognized consensus standard" ("EIA-649's International Standardization" section). Does that help explain it? Both EIA & TechAmerica are US-based organizations (which can be found on their linked wikipedia pages) - I can add that to this page as well if needed.

I can remove the "What are Standards" & "What is Configuration Management" sections. I only included those because the last reviewer said there wasn't enough context to understand this subject.

Could you provide me with a better idea of what is needed to make this article more understandable / approved? It's hard for me to know what's missing since I know this topic so well.

Thanks!!

71.68.124.112 (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

As long as you link to relevant sections then the background material is not required. Context is more in the wording you use than in the background material you put in.

Now, obviously I am confused ability 'national' vs 'international', so that is a matter to clear up in the lead paragraph. I need to know what I am about to read before I read it. Wrote the opening section for an idiot. If it helps, pretend I am one . We are looking for clarity at the head, clarity tat is allowed to become more opaque as the article gets into detail Fiddle Faddle 14:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

TouchCommerce

Dear Timtrent, You recently reviewed my TouchCommerce submission and let me know that there are "regurgitated" press releases that need to be removed. With removal of such items, and a shorter list of references, can I expect to be listed? I have referred to competitors' pages currently listed, and I'm at a bit of a loss for why I cannot get listed. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoho_Office_Suite 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ManageEngine minimal! Tiny! 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comm100 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiveOps

Thank you for your time and comments.

Sophie Lonsky

No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy, so please never seek to compare them. You may have highlighted poor articles that require deletion.

The acceptance of your draft depends on whether it is like to be nominated for deletion almost at once. Al you can do is the best you can and produce top quality work with top quality sources.

I'm sorry not to be able to give you a definite answer. Fiddle Faddle 18:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

random heading

Thank you for your comments yesterday. The reason I said I had removed half the article was that there were comments by one reviewer that my narrative contained controversial statements. I am down now to just the bare facts and I do believe every statement is appropriately referenced. The other thing you said was that I had not submitted my article to be reviewed again. Any time I edit my article, it is of course in the hopes that it will be reviewed and finally accepted. I hope I am clicking on the right place when I click on "Save". Would this not automatically constitute submitting it for a review and finally, acceptance?

A few things:

1. Please separate your stuff from other people's stuff with a heading. Future communication is to be within that a heading
2. Please use ~~~~ to sign your messages
3. Saving and submitting are two different things. One saves your work in progress. The other is an active submission. There is a button in the pretty pink box at the head to submit work
4. Please link to the article you want me to look at. Fiddle Faddle 11:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Help Desk comment

I left a reply back on the Help section. Thanks for taking the time to look and reply first, by the way. Dodgetherocks (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Request on 16:07:33, 28 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by SarahPowellLoving

• SarahPowellLoving (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Oxford Vaccine Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm a bit confused. I wrote a substantial revision of the Wikipedia page on Oxford Vaccine Group and posted it as a draft on my user page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Oxford_Vaccine_Group (which was what I was advised to do by an experienced Wikipedia user). I then asked for it to be looked at and approved, because I work for Oxford Vaccine Group and therefore have a conflict of interest in editing this page. My edit has now been declined because I obiously made it look as if I was trying to create a separate page for Oxford Vaccine Group, but I don't really know what I've done wrong or how I get someone to look at it as an edit rather than as a whole new page. Apologies, I am very new to this.

SarahPowellLoving (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

SarahPowellLoving (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@SarahPowellLoving: Submitting it for review, if that was advised, is an error of advice. The WP:AFC scheme is not intended to be used in this manner.

What you need to do is to engage with editors on the actual article talk page, stating what you wish to achieve, and who you are. You need to deploy {{Request edit}} in that section, and link to your draft.

This has the effect of asking the editors who are interested to choose to accept your revisions. This choice may be to accept all, some, or none. Your role in that is to discuss, but otherwise to stand and watch. You need to state with clarity why you wish the changes to be made, and what is not correct about the original article. Fiddle Faddle 17:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Strike Through

Hello, I noticed your comment on this Afd. Generally speaking, striking comments to me signifies that the user is trying to casually hide something away from everyone else. I was only trying to avoid that assumption. Please don't take it as being ambigous. Thanks for your understanding. Aerospeed (Talk) 01:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

afc etc

You've been giving me some hard ones. That's fine--it's much more interesting to do these than most of the other things I do here. I notice that afc comments tend to focus on the unimportant (I'm not referring to yours--especially in past years, the beginners who worked there tended to do this almost exclusively.) . I try to focus on the underlying notability and what would be necessary to show it. If it's there, I try to find ways to accept the article, and if not, then I try to discourage continuing. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@DGG: Ah, my friend, if they were easy I could probably handle them myself. What I like best is that we, neither of whom know each other, can work as some sort of quasi team, and get new contributors some definitive help. With academics I can handle the obvious, if, of course, they are obvious to me! It is the awkward ones that I can;t seem to get to grips with. But I know many of my own limitations, luckily.

I'm sure they won't all be as hard as some of these, but they are for me. Fiddle Faddle 07:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Emmanuel “Manny” Mijares

Thanks so much for your quick response at the Help Desk. I have added a new substantial reference from a reliable source in the first section of the submission. Turns out, this producer is a multi-platinum producer as listed by prweb.

WikiisAwesome said "when you go to add inline citations, also make sure that you remove the external links from the body of the text."

Can you please explain this to me?

Regards, MacMason

There is a problem. It is a very rare article indeed that uses PRWeb as a reference because it is simply a host for press releases. Those are self serving and self generated pieces of PR material. You will want to rethink that. PRWeb is not, generally WP:RS.

The best advice I can give on the external links is to read Wikipedia:External links. Areas where you simply link to a record company are a bog no-no. IT makes Wikipedia look like a link farm, something we avoid by other mechanisms, but has bad connotations. An example is "2013, Manny Mijares founded the Changing Fate Foundation" where the highlighted section s a link we do not want, as opposed to a reference. Fiddle Faddle 18:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Excellent suggestions & information, thanks again. I have adjusted and re-submitted the page Draft:Emmanuel “Manny” Mijares, please have a look. I removed an entire section which was "link-heavy" and now the only external links are the ones created by the Wikipedia Help Shortcuts bar (which I am assuming is ok as it is a Wikipedia tool). Also, I agree with you on the PRWeb as a possible bad reference, however I visited their website and on their Editorial Guidelines page it states "PRWeb requires a clear news source be identified in the headline." In my case that would be Billboard Magazine. 16:39 28 July, 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacMason (talk • contribs) 23:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@MacMaso: All the PRWeb thing does is says that the originator must be identified, I fear. What it des not do is to render the release as independent coverage, nor does it make it a WP:RS. One submits to PRWeb rather in the same manner one submits to Wikipedia. One sends the release into one's account and it is reproduced, verbatim. Thus, unless it passes WP:PRIMARY and/or WP:SELFPUB's conditions, itt will always fail. I would err on the side of caution, and then resubmit. I am not competent to make WP:MUSIC judgements so will not make a formal review. Fiddle Faddle 07:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for advice on you tube Eytankey (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

A total pleasure. I suspect removal of the man's views form the draft on his corp will aid acceptance. At present they seem to hinder it. Fiddle Faddle 17:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

random heading 2

please tell me the LINES IN MY Sandbox, those should be removed to make it acceptable??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakshitha Chathuranga Wikramage (talk • contribs) 18:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Lakshitha Chathuranga Wikramage: It seems to me that all of them should be. Wikipedia is not a place for you to post your resumé. You are not notable in the wikipedia sense of the word. Fiddle Faddle 18:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

23:52:22, 29 July 2015 review of submission by 74.124.171.179

• 74.124.171.179 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:DePauw Fire Company/Putnam County Operation Life (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

74.124.171.179 (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't know what "needs to be flatter" means exactly. Also, this is not a "cut and paste" submission. I wrote it myself on WORD after reviewing online references and it is completely original. More specific feedback on what you don[t like about the article would be helpful for me to revise it up to the required standards. Thanks. 74.124.171.179 (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

That explains why it feels copied and pasted. Please read WP:CITE and WP:REFB and use our reference scheme, which is automagic.

Flatter = Dull-but-worthy. You have written a magazine article, but you need an encyclopaedia article

It's worth adding a section heading or two, and also considering the fact that this appears to be about two different organisations, one of which transmuted into the other. Perhaps write about the current org with the prior org as history. Fiddle Faddle 00:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

I appreciate the suggestions and tips. I've been updating a few other wiki pages as well getting a better understanding of how everything flows.

Keep up the good work.

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snagle77 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

15:13:38, 30 July 2015 review of submission by Jaimittal87

• Jaimittal87 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:EquipNet Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Jaimittal87 (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear Timtrent,

Can you please demonstrate the 'errors' that had prevented the article from being accepted to Wikipedia?

Thank you

Please confirm that you have read the detailed message on the draft itself that has been there since I declined it, and then ask specific questions. Fiddle Faddle 16:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Timtrent,

I am very sorry that I must have seemed rude. I was nit trying to be. frustrated would be more like it because been my color here in the good old USA can get you killed and things are always placed in ones way no matter who you are or what you do. I simply am not a computer literate person and with 14 children,and 12 grandchildren and being Seminole Indian( black north american Indian)somebody like the Federal Government here is always trying to kill us. Or at least stop us from progressing. I just thought that that since I was not Bacon or More I was being harassed.I still don't know how or what I needed to do to be included on this site. I wish you and your family many blessing always and I invite you into my circle as family. My Wife is Lakota-Hunk-papa and the great grand daughter of Siting Bull. I am the Great grand Son of Chief Osceola Seminole. This only means one thing to us. We are hated by White's here in this country and we are poor. Art is a gift I have and it is our only way out to freedom. I ask for your forgiveness of my technical ignorance of this talking box and maybe you would be willing to help me brother? Most great peace to you and yours always and may beauty follow you always. PS. 150 articles is no small feat. You must be very intelligent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.249.122 (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

You still need to ask specific questions. I cannot answer generalities. I have no interest in your race, colour, creed, ethnicity, sexual orientation, height, weight or any other matter, just the quality of your writing. Fiddle Faddle 08:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Warner/Chappell Production Music Article

Hi! The Warner/Chappell Production Music article can not be merged into the Warner/Chappell article because they are two seperate companies. Though Warner/Chappell does own Warner/Chappell Production Music, they do two completely seperate things. Warner/Chappell Production Music is a production music company that produces music for T.V. news, film trailers, advertisements, and video games. They are located in a completely different building than Warner/Chappell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Warner/Chappell_Production_Music

Ashleighann93 (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ashleighann93: You need to ensure that they are differentiated in the draft.

I have worked for many corporations which have multiple buildings, by the way. Fiddle Faddle 08:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

02:29:18, 31 July 2015 review of submission by 118.107.128.14

• 118.107.128.14 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ghulam Ghous 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

118.107.128.14 (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear reviewer,

First thing is that i am working on this raft from a year.I was just being told that i need to improve my references for couple of months and now you are saying that draft is not suitable for wikipedia. Dont you think editors statements are controversial.And now i will justify my point of view.Dr Ghulam Ghous is known as Pakistan's best researcher and a teacher.Who is serving now as a vice chancellor of UMSIT. He was awarded with presidential scholarship for his academics. People.People wants to Know about him,what actually he has done.Search Google you will get thousand of educational websites,blogs about him.Thats editors problems who are not reading the damn draft and just rejecting it without fully reading it.

Dear reviewer,

First thing is that i am working on this raft from a year.I was just being told that i need to improve my references for couple of months and now you are saying that draft is not suitable for wikipedia. Dont you think editors statements are controversial.And now i will justify my point of view.Dr Ghulam Ghous is known as Pakistan's best researcher and a teacher.Who is serving now as a vice chancellor of UMSIT. He was awarded with presidential scholarship for his academics. People.People wants to Know about him,what actually he has done.Search Google you will get thousand of educational websites,blogs about him.Thats editors problems who are not reading the damn draft and just rejecting it without fully reading it.

Please look into it and boost the writers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk:Ghulam_Ghous_2&action=edit&redlink=1

With Regards, Waji Ahmed

Yes but it looks like a Resumé. Wikipedia is not a place for you to post your resumé. Fiddle Faddle 08:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

QUESTIONS ON GENERAL EDITING

Hello sir, and thank you for your advices. I had re written an article on wikipedia which had multiple issues related with it. The article was last assessed in 2012. I want it to be assessed once again. Whom to contact for that? this is that article ( re written completely by me :D ) AIPMT And I want to find more such articles which need General Editing like expansion, referencing, reviewing and spelling and grammar check. Where to find them?

Also, can i be an assessor myself, to rate some important articles as A class or above? And sir, how can i make my own "workgroup" on wikipedia?

I anticipate you will answer everything that i ask :D thanks. Red Pen (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I suggest WP:Teahouse will be a great place to ask this question and receive many opinions. Fiddle Faddle 08:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Red Pen (talk) 08:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for advice on 28th July

Thanks, that's really helpful.

92.11.47.117 (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Akhtar Raza Khan

Your Review on Draft:Akhtar Raza Khan is still in progress.It has been more than 24 hours.Can you move the draft to an article soon? Thanks.....Ejaz92 (talk) 11:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ejaz92: Please see my comment there. You will be better discussing this with the editor I pinged. Marking it as under review is simply procedural. Fiddle Faddle 12:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

American College of Mohs Surgery

Good afternoon Timtrent,

I wanted to follow-up with you when you have a chance about where the hangups in this article are around the sources. I'm concerned about self-referencing being considered (possibly too heavily) as there is much information contained in the Mohs organization's website (http://www.skincancermohssurgery.org/) that makes mention of the College (http://www.mohscollege.org/). Is there an issue with these sources particularly? The Mohs procedure is widely known throughout the skin cancer community, and the College particularly for helping train new surgeons to the practice, so I guess any other suggestions you have about the line between reliable and tertiary in the current version would be very helpful. Thanks!

Etna805 (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Etna805: One of the issues I see is a great deal of use of sites that are the org itself or sources very closely allied to the org. You need to consider sources that are about it, not from it. Would you mind giving that some thought and then getting back to me?

The issue you face is that the procedure may be well known and reported on widely, but the association may not be. We may only record what others report. So finding those reports is important. Fiddle Faddle 07:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Request on 10:13:16, 4 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Awesomeguy78

• Awesomeguy78 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:TUD Sdn. Bhd. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Which lines or column, you think you need more references? Please advise

Awesomeguy78 (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Awesomeguy78: It is not a matter of more. It is a matter of references which meet the criteria for being references. It is hard to be more specific than I have on the draft. At least one of your references does not even mention TUD.

To reiterate: We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources.

It is perfectly reasonable for you not to understand the criteria, and I am happy to discuss each reference with you if you need me to. Fiddle Faddle 10:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Request on 10:51:20, 4 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Sandy1520

• Sandy1520 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Financial Software & Systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I had provided articles appeared in the news media as references. Can you please clarify why it is not accepted. It would help if you can give me an example, so that I can revise the article accordingly.

Sandy1520 (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sandy1520: I have responded on the draftFiddle Faddle

Invisalign

Would be interested in your opinion here. I setup an RFC a week ago, but the RFC hasn't attracted a single un-involved editor. @LindsayH: did comment on the same topic in the string above the RFC and Wuga was kind enough to provide an opinion after I pinged them. If you have time, most of the Request Edit in the string above could still be considered without edging on the controversial areas that are still under discussion. CorporateM (Talk) 01:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM:  Done I fear my opinion has not been given with any expertise in the area, but I have given an opinion. Fiddle Faddle 07:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I am, however, not awake enough yet to perform the balance of the requested edit. As you see, I even missed that element of your message here. Fiddle Faddle 07:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Request on 17:37:47, 7 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Imagineme302

• Imagineme302 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Imagineme302/sandbox/imagineme302 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I was just trying to create my userpage. I must have done it incorrectly. I may have to review the guidelines. I will be honest and say that this system could be confusing for first time users. Imagineme302 (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Imagineme302 (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Instead you created a sandbox and submitted it as an article. The clue is the tab named "User page". Go directly into that. Fiddle Faddle 21:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

NZ

• Rajcurator (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:N Z Seasonal Wear Pvt. Ltd. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

First of all thank you for reviewing my article & giving your feedback. I request you to inform me of which provided source (mentioned in my draft) is reliable as per Wikipedia. Do I need to modify the title of my draft to comply with mentioned sources? Any other information which helps me to comply it with Wikipedia's norms.

@Rajcurator: Part of the steep learning curve that WP:AFC helps you with is WP:BURDEN. I have looked at your first three references, and none of them qualify as meeting the very strict criteria we lay down. ON this experience I venture to suggest that the remainder are unlikely to qualify either. Please read WP:42 and comp[are your references against it. Fiddle Faddle 12:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

05:23:09, 10 August 2015 review of submission by Atif1122

• Atif1122 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:BANDAY FAIMLY (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

sir there is no history of banday's on wikipedia while it is very noble and respectable faimly of kashmir. sir the history i have written in article is from authentic sources.so please accept my article so the people would know about bandays

Atif1122 (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Atif1122: there are many families not on Wikipedia. My own is not. Why does this one qualify? Please see WP:GNG. Fiddle Faddle 12:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Grammar Edits

Morning Timtrent,

Thanks for the note, I didn't see your past message regarding letting it be. I was trying to work on the grammar and flow based on some of the more credited articles in the business section. I'll let it be and let the community fine tune it.

Cheers,

Be the article's father, never its mother. Fiddle Faddle 13:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

16:08:14, 10 August 2015 review of submission by Kendo1000

• Kendo1000 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Modern Wizard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Kendo1000 (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi I understand your view on the original article, I am attempting to explain the difference between what is accepted by the term 'wizard', 'medieval and Harry Potter' style description and bring it back to the original understanding when the word 'wizard' was used to refer to a 'wise person'

I use the 'artof modernwizardry.org' website as a ref for this, but wrestling the term wizard away from the 'fiction' writers of the last few hundred years is proving to be a difficult task, so it would be better to provide it as a new branch of wizardry so that people can begin to see that there is a differenee between the standard wizard of an ego driven spell casting figure who is likely to cause more harm than good, and provide an alternative viewpoint that refers to the ancient past when wizards were venerated as people who did good. Thus providing a balanced viewpoint between the very ancient and the rise of the 'dark ages' wizard.

can you suggest what I should do to provide to this, I am happy for the 'artofmodernwizardy.org' to be excluded from any reference providing the point can be provisioned correctly

Thank you Ken

@Kendo1000: The thing we require is referencing for what others have said. We cannot accept WP:OR however good it may be. Your own explanation is great for a different website, but cannot be used in Wikipedia. We can only report what others have recorded. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources.

Without these references you may have to face the fact that this interesting topic is outside our remit. Fiddle Faddle 21:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

CSD

Before asking speedy deletion, please execute due diligence and check the web. Taufiq Rafat is clearly notable pakistani poet. It is big problem of english wikipedia that national topics are very neglected. Please help to cover these gaping holes. - üser:Altenmann >t 17:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for you message. The article was poor enough to face speedy deletion. It is still. There is no obvious assertion of notability still. Fiddle Faddle 17:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree the page was close to none. I was talking about giving it a benefit of doubt and do some research. I agree that if a person is important enough, somebody will eventually write a decent article, and I would not say a word, if the subject were, say a yet another American underground musician or a brand new startup. However I am talking about extending some courtesy to topics for countries with poor outreach of wikipedia. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I treat all editors and all topics as equal. I do not make allowances for poor work. In this case we are looking at the outpourings from a contributing editor who seems unwilling or unable to understand our need for notability, and who is bombarding us with a series of trivial articles about nonentities. Fiddle Faddle 05:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

re: "bombarding" - I understand now. "as equal" - I don't say you shouldn't. I was talking about helping them become "equal". I am not coercing you to do this: we are all volunteers and we do with our free time what we want. Best wishes. - üser:Altenmann >t 14:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

A great place to help is WP:AFC, somewhere I spend a great deal of time as a reviewer. May I invite you to come and play? Fiddle Faddle 14:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with me or my luck? In exactly 1 hour (20:30-21:30) I declined 8 submissions and accepted none! What's your stats? - üser:Altenmann >t 04:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Regrettably we have a load of wholly atrocious submissions surrounding a few nuggets. Some folk will go on to edit and provide decent work. You might like to copy or plagiarise some of my extended rationales to help new editors at User:Timtrent/Reviewing which i use multiple paragraphs form, sometimes modified for circumstances. I am afraid your experience is wholly typical. This is a labour of love, is WP:AFC. You are likely to find th older submissions more intellectually challenging and more ready for acceptance. We work on the basis that we try very hard to accept drafts that have a 60% chance or better of not being subject immediately to a deletion process. What we have achieved is keeping much rubbish out of main namespace, and finding a good number of editors who actually want help. Fiddle Faddle 06:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)