Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Hi Timtrent, this is to inform you that I've opened a discussion on your copy-edit request for User:AspieNo1/sandbox here. Please feel free to add your thoughts to the discussion. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I received your message regarding the article on Kira Tozer. I was going to add references and more info on the article today, but unfortunately, it got deleted before I even had the chance. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

WIth Wikipedia, when articles are light in the necessary details, time is not on the editor's side I'm afraid. If you beleive that she passes WP:GNG (please read and understand it) ,then create it and work on it in your own sandbox, and make sure it will survive before using the move command (tab rack at the top) to move it to main article namespace :) Fiddle Faddle 18:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Re this, your early efforts to organize the discussion's parameters are noted and appreciated. I really don't think there's a problem with a bit of digression at this point, though. The question has been answered, with even the party who added the disputed content now opposing inclusion (at least for now), and I'd personally rather contribute a few heavily indented asides than get drawn into a new discussion that, given one of the participants and the topic, is unlikely to be productive. "Debating points"? No. Concise rebuttal of drivel is more like it. Sorry if I helped contaminate the purity of the thread, but it wouldn't be Wikipedia if all of our threads were squeaky-clean! Rivertorch (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought long about how to phrase "Debating Points". I reckon it was the best way of being neutral :) I just thought I'd prove that I can be a pedantic bastard, you know. Fiddle Faddle 22:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Timtrent, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Cloudbakers, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I might have been a total ass-hat, and you are possibly mightily and justifiably off-pissed with me. And I do this for free! Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Me too :). As I said, Life;s too short :) Fiddle Faddle 16:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Screen shot of Thames Measurement page.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I renominated it. Perhaps you can explain further at the AfD why you withdrew your just previous nomination., because I just don;t see it. DGG ( talk ) 15:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I considered the Community Newswire item sufficient to withdraw. With hindsight I am probably incorrect, but I choose to remain neutral on the article now. I am biased towards it because I feel it ought to be notable so cannot give an impartial opinion. Fiddle Faddle 15:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from creating articles containing plagiarized content.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Bray (talk • contribs) 23:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

note: To find out about this you need to read the accusing editor's edit history. This is retaliation for my flagging 'his' article as an attack page or unsourced BLP Fiddle Faddle 07:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Obviously you did not even read the article before petitioning Wikipedia to delete it as "Threatening..." The article is not even remotely "threatening". It simply details a man I admire greatly for his courage to change and become a prominent web developer and pillar in his community. That he came from such a pitiful background rife with drug and alcohol abuse, street life, prison and gang violence, to become a successful web Developer at a prominent Los Angeles corporation, a loving and devoted husband and father, a volunteer in his church and a contributing member of society says a lot. The article is not only informative, but inspiring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Bray (talk • contribs) 23:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I have left you a more detailed, nay friendly, reply on your own talk page. It involves resetting the clock and starting afresh with your editing career here. Fiddle Faddle 07:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Please would someone who knowns about this bot let me know what its current status is? Its contributions page shows that it has not made any since 11 September 2013, and its owner doesn't seem to respond to talk page messages. As we can see, no talk page archival has happened here for that period. Fiddle Faddle 14:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hey there Timtrent. You want to post on User talk:Misza13, which it seems you have already done. If you wait patiently, I'm sure Redrose64 or John of Reading will respond to your question. I'm wondering if the bot was blocked for some reason or if it is having https issues or something. I'm sure one of them will figure it out though and reply. :) Technical 13 (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's not archived mine either. The owner Misza13 hasn't been seen since 22nd May 2013, so that could be why they're not responding. Misza13 doesn't have email activated, and the bot's not blocked, so far as I can see. Peridon (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks both. No-one will die if the bot doesn't archive for a while, so I guess waiting and seeing is the best bet. Fiddle Faddle 16:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure, appreciate you pointing it out. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Fiddle Faddle 15:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, deletion, not copyediting, is the remedy for Italian Apocalyptic Cult "Rosary Prayer Group”. Thank you.-- DThomsen8 (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I left it a decent length of time to see if the originator cared enough. If it is notable that is concealed among so much stuff I can't see it. To me it looks like a copy and paste job, but from where? Fiddle Faddle 14:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	Things do get better. It helped me, although the context of your video is different to my present life problems, it was still affirming, positive. Your attempt to reach out to someone in obvious distress touched me. A mensch as we say :) Happy editing!. Irondome (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

@Irondome: I see your barnstar and return the chaste hug of a stranger to you, that it may do for you whatever you need it to do. I am grateful for your kind thoughts. Fiddle Faddle 23:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

{{Adminhelpme}}

I see from Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=Timtrent that I am 'autopatrolled'. I am slightly bemused, though, that pages I edit suddenly have started to have flags at the foot that they need to be marked as patrolled. Am I now completely insane? I though I was only slightly barmy! Fiddle Faddle 10:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, that seems to be unlinkable. No idea now how to explain any better! Fiddle Faddle 10:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Try https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=Timtrent Fiddle Faddle 10:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hi there! You don't need an admin for this. WP:autopatrolled says, "The autopatrolled (formerly autoreviewer) user right is intended to reduce the workload of new page patrollers and causes articles created by autopatrolled users to be automatically marked as patrolled. It means that the user can be trusted not to submit inappropriate material, deliberately or otherwise, and that the user submits new material often enough that it is more efficient to mark it all as approved preemptively." So, all pages created by you won't have that [Mark as reviewed] at the bottom. This doesn't mean that every page that you edit will automatically be marked as patrolled.  :) Technical 13 (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Wow, the arcane workings of MediaWIki! Thank you, sir! Fiddle Faddle 17:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tim,

Thanks for flagging the various issues with Molecular diagnostics, as well as the work you've done on it. I think I've resolved the issues you've flagged.

Rather than review the "multiple issues" template myself, I'd appreciate it if you could give the page a second pair of eyes and remove it (or let me know if you don't think I've fixed everything).

There's room for improvement, but it'd be good to know it's saved from being a deletion candidate :).

Cheers,

Ian Ian McDonald (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Awesome job. I could see that it had potential, but I was wholly unable to approach the task. Fiddle Faddle 21:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Timtrent, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of The X-Seaman's Institute, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7: If the band has multiple albums on the Folkways label, it passes notability. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

How kind of you to let me know. Do you anticipate making improvements to that article yourself? Fiddle Faddle 16:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Seems it went G11 anyway. Fiddle Faddle 23:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

What does that Notification, i got "[[[No page]]] was reviewed by Timtrent" mean? --Itu (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Beats me. Is this a quiz? If so I lose. What's the answer? Fiddle Faddle 23:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Fiddle Faddle,

I only created and started writing this article about an hour ago and had just stopped for lunch. I am flabbergasted that you have already marked it for deletion. I take it you have done some thorough research on Mr Brind!

Aghast! Gomach (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

This is precisely why you should not create articles before you are ready. Use your user space or the WP:AFC process. This chap has no real notability in the Wikipedia sense. He liked wine and was employed by Waitrose. I was pretty good at my jpb too. I note that I do not merit an article here. Fiddle Faddle 22:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Having looked on your talk page I see you have used that route a lot. Surely that ought to have guided you on the way of researching an article before unleashing it into the wild? Please read and understand WP:GNG. Fiddle Faddle 23:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi again Fiddle Faddle, should the request for copy-edit to Molecular diagnostics be archived and removed from the list? Who should I credit for the copy-edit—you or another editor? Usually the copy-editing editor declares the copy-edit done, not the requester. Meanwhilst I'll pop a note on the request page to tell others that clarity is being sought. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not really sure, but not me! The other editor picked it up and ran with it independently of the GOCE request. So, I guess, you be the judge? Maybe invite them to play with the GOCE? If you feel the eventual result is good enough please judge archival or further polishing. It has gone from awful mess to decent article. Could it go further still? Fiddle Faddle 00:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying; I think it could do with more work, but perhaps that's beyond the GOCE remit. The header is rather sparse and doesn't really explain the subject to the lay-reader; the article certainly could do with being clearer and more reader-friendly. It's a huge improvement on the older version though; Drianmcdonald seems to be an expert in the field—a GOCE invitiation is on the way. Perhaps he is intending to expand the article further, which would render a c/e pointless atm. We can decline the copy-edit on those grounds, or you may withdraw the request if you think there's not much we can do at the moment. I'll see whether Drianmcdonald replies and take it from there. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You make a sound judgment about the article as it was and as it is today. My nominating it was to take what was 'obviously' a deserving topic form disaster to acceptable. If you chaps can make it glorious that would be a wonderful bonus. Fiddle Faddle 08:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your opinion of the article now. What needs doing before asking for a GA review? BTW, I'm not as much of an expert in the field as Baffle flatters me to suggest (I have a PhD in the broad area of molecular biology, but nothing to do with medical tests) Ian McDonald (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I have never taken an article to GA status. All I can say is that it looks fine, but that is a useless opinion. There used to be a tool to do a machine scan to spot obvious things, but I'm blowed if I can find it. It;s meant to be at the top of my page when I edit an article! Go figure! All I can suggest is to look at WP:Review and see what that suggests. Fiddle Faddle 20:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The "Types" section is completely unreferenced. If one of you can fix that, then I would say just go right ahead and nominate it. GA does not require anywhere near the level of perfection that FA does.

Automated checks, like the one that looks for wikilinks to disambiguation pages, will often be run by the reviewer themselves. And of course the reviewer will then normally give the nominator time to fix those and any other issues.

It's always nice to bring an article to GA - in some ways it's a more important milestone than FA, because a GA article is the sort of acceptable quality that more of the encyclopedia needs to be, whereas FA is material of outstanding and amazing quality that is really of use as a showcase for theoretical "perfect". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Removed 'types' entirely (I think it added nothing) and submitted. Thank you for the help and suggestions :). The disambiguation bot had already run. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drianmcdonald (talk • contribs) 21:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for CSDing this bit of fluff. I don't think it's an A7, though, since their claim to notability is acting. I've replaced the CSD tag with a BLP prod, since it's essentially unsourced (neither IMdB not Twitter are RSs). All the best, Miniapolis 16:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I am content with that. Good catch. Fiddle Faddle 16:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and appreciate your juster, but at the end of the day it really should just be a matter of common courtesy in regards to deletion request, mandatory regulations would be a nice but a carrot is always preferable to resorting to sticks and stones

In regards to articles of living person, thats a real quagmire, I don't quite have a full grasp of every regulation and how they apply here so again just my impression. Mainstream artists/figures may have a team of publicists or ghost writers or admirers that can help generate reference material, but ironical to a large extent most of the information will have to ultimately come the living person themselves as they themselves would be the first source. Translations or accounts by a third parties which is deemed more preferable would seem to me even more subjective, biased in a particular direction and one step removed from the original source, And I get the impression the not so mainstream artists/figures don't usually have that sort of luxury except from their actual existence of their body of works.

As far as notability goes, I couldn't agree with you more, however, does it really matter and should that override the simple availability of information to the public, A simple caterpillar or a bug (although not considered a living person) may not be all that notability to many people so should that preclude a description of what a bug or a caterpillar is and does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.141.211 (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not just the living people that need to be notable, I fear. Your bug also need to be notable. IT is a constant source of annoyance to me and many others that a double standard is held. And football p;ayer who has been on the pitch in a certain level game for even a single second is deemed notable. Many worthy academics are judged not to be notable. Musicians are held to a different standard again.

I view Wikipedia as an interesting social experiment. It also happens to be a reasonably decent encyclopaedia. A work of reference it is not.

Should information override notability? Probably. But it does not. Fiddle Faddle 21:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

ok so what your saying its an arbitrary cut of point made by the rule makers that determine if your in or out, bit like anything under 50% is considered a fail and 50% and above considered a pass

and in that case just out of curiosity what is the benchmark for musicians, filmmakers and lets not forget bugs

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.141.211 (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC) 

Except sometimes it;s 35%, other times more like 90%, yes. As I've said, Wikipedia has many faults.

The individual benchmarks are set out somewhere arcane. The issue is that self published youtube channels, while showing a body of work, are self published, hence not WP:RS. And it doesn't help if fans publish the material on their Youtube channels ether. Wikipedia is run by the alleged wisdom of crowds. Often that works. Sometimes it just plain creates ridiculous anomalies. What I try to do is adhere to the most stringent of that described at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons which ought to be enough, then some bloke who kicks a ball or hits it with a bat gets through on a lower standard. Wikipedia:Notability (people) will show you the individual areas Fiddle Faddle 22:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

ok cool so what your saying definitely no need for hanging onto a wiki account — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.141.211 (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It's only worth hanging on to an account if you are going to amuse yourself with Wikipedia. It's a pleasant pastime, but never to be taken seriously. Equally it isn't worth losing sleep over having an account which you used once or twice. Frankly I would log in as yourself again, blank the user page and the talk page, log out and forget that your experience here was less than agreeable. If you blank them I'll set it up so those user and talk pages are deleted. The contribution history will stay, but that is all.

In the future, if you ever want to, you can log in to it again and use it, but you have no need to. Anonymous use is just as valid.

Treat the experience here as one that was not something you wish to have again, and consign it to the trash can of history, not giving t even a moment's thought.

And, when you have made your reputation in a Wikipedia sense, someone will write a decent article about you. We may both be dead before it happens, though. Fiddle Faddle 22:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

its cool, the main idea for deleting is not be even be tempted by amusing myself, life far to short and too many other things to do just imagine if they done it the first time, we both could have been doing something far more interesting, but nevertheless appreciate your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.141.211 (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I like meeting new folk. For me this is interesting. Yeah, I know, I should get out more! Fiddle Faddle 22:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

it cool nice to meet you too, but still it would be a close finish between debating wiki regulations verse getting drunk or getting laid hmm tough choice lol : )

and keep on asking for user account deletion you never know they may just do it if you ask enough times , although most like for the reason of just to getting rid of you lol :)

[1— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.141.211 (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

True, that! Fiddle Faddle 23:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tim - you might have noticed I have been removing a bunch of BLPPRODs you added to articles. Please be more careful - all of them were referenced prior to you adding the tag. GiantSnowman 08:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

We obviously have different views about what is and is not WP:RS. Are you 100% certain that those you removed had RS references? Fiddle Faddle 09:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I have just been through a good sample of my PROD log and looked at BLPPRODs issued. I have only looked at articles that have not been deleted, naturally, but you do not appear in the edit history there at all. I am mildly perplexed, though not enormously. I shall be most happy if you choose to elaborate. Fiddle Faddle 09:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

FInally I found one. Matthew Saville (actor) where the only references in it are not to reliable sources, but are to IMDB and to primary sources. I disagree strongly with your BLPPROD removal in areas like this. It is not even a matter of interpretation here. I think you must be making an incorrect assumption that IMDB is RS and that his management company, who are selling him, are RS, too. I am reverting your BLPPROD removal here on that basis. Fiddle Faddle 09:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

IMDB is fine as an external link per this - but not as an in-line cite. Therefore to say these articles are 'unsourced BLPs' is patently false. GiantSnowman 10:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

BLPPROD requires WP:RS, thus the notice is valid and should remain. Please read the BLPPROD notice and process with care. It is not valid to remove BLPPROD notices from such articles as you have done with those I flagged with care.. Thank you for raising this interesting area with me. Fiddle Faddle 12:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Please don't patronise me, I am fully aware of how BLPPROD works. IMDB may not be deemed reliable per RS but it is deemed reliable per EL, as I have already shown; I will therefore not be deleting any BLPPRODs with an IMDB link on them, and I will remove whenever I come across them. GiantSnowman 12:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me as though you have proved that you do not understand how the system works. The BLPPROD notice is very specific. It speaks of WP:RS. Your declaration that you will remove them whenever you come across them looks like a declaration of war. I am not impressed. I had thought better of you than that. Please take a step back from this and consider your actions again. Fiddle Faddle 12:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it shows that you do not now now things work. External links are not governed by WP:RS, they are goverened by WP:EL - that's also based on practice. For example, I managed to get consensus at RSN that a certain website was unrelieble, and we have started removing it inline - but it was deemed acceptable to remain as an EL, much to my chagrin. Such is life. A BLP with an acceptable - even encouraged, given the existence of {{IMDB}} - external link cannot be considered unreferenced. Also stop being such a bloody drama queen with your "declaration of war" nonsense. GiantSnowman 12:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Since you asked on my talk page for my view, I drafted a reply to go there. However, it seems better to put it here, with the rest of the discussion on the question. In your post on my talk page you referred specifically to Colleen Davis, so my comments refer to that article, but similar remarks apply to most, if not all, of the other articles involved.

• Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people was created as a result of an extremely long and at times bitter debate, with a large number of incompatible opinions being expressed. What emerged out of the process was an attempt to make a compromise that would be at least tolerated by people on both sides of the argument. Nothing wrong with making a compromise, but in my opinion the particular compromise that came up is an inconsistent mess. To avoid having a BLP PROD placed, it is sufficient that it has any source at all, even a totally unreliable, biased, and blatantly dishonest one. However, once a valid BLP PROD has been placed on an unsourced article, the PROD may not be removed unless there is at least one reliable source. In my opinion, that is irrational, both because it is illogical to apply different standards in the two cases, and because it makes no sense (in my opinion) to attach any weight at all to a source which is known to be unreliable. I could write an article on somebody completely non-notable, such as myself, and source it to my Wikipedia user page. Of course, that is an unreliable source, and of no value at all, but it would be sufficient to prevent a BLP PROD being placed. However, no matter how stupid you or I think the policy is, that is the policy, as you will see if you read the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people, and so GiantSnowman was perfectly right in removing the BLP PROD, since whether the sources in the article are reliable or not is totally irrelevant.

• Although it is irrelevant to that particular issue, the question of whether the sources are reliable is, of course, relevant to other issues, such as the ordinary (not BLP) PROD that I placed. Firstly, there is IMDb. IMDb has been discussed many times, and it is clear that it is not a reliable source, as it is far too free in accepting user-submitted content. (Also, the mere existence of an IMDb page is no evidence of notability because IMDb is indiscriminate, accepting pages about virtually anyone who has ever been involved in making a film, even people taking a minor role in connection with an obscure film.) Secondly, the article has a reference to Colleen Davis's page on the web site of the company that manages her. Such a page is clearly not an independent source, and so it has no value whatsoever in establishing notability, but it is probably a reliable source, because it is unlikely that the company would lie about such details as what plays their clients have acted in. There is a lot of confusion among Wikipedia editors about the concept of a reliable source and the concept of an independent source. Non-independent sources may or may not be reliable: certain types of non-independent sources contain deliberate false claims about their subjects, but others are not just reliable, but far more reliable than any independent source. For example, a school's web site is likely to be a more reliable source for the head of the school than a newspaper report. There is no simple rule for when a non-independent source is reliable and when it isn't, and each case has to be considered with intelligence. In this case, I think an intelligent assessment says "Reliable? Yes. Independent? No."

• What is acceptable as an external link is a different matter entirely.

• The conclusion of all this is that the article does contain a reliable source (even though that source does nothing to suggest notability), and, even more importantly, that even if it didn't, your PRODs would have been invalid according to the (in my opinion stupid) policy, since an unreliable source is enough. However, the inability to use a BLP PROD does not make as much difference as you might think, because very often in such a case the article qualifies for speedy deletion under speedy deletion criterion A7, and if not there is nothing to prevent you from using an ordinary (non-BLP) PROD. Of course, an ordinary PROD maybe challenged, but it very often isn't. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your well-thought out reply, which echoes my own views on the matter, only expressed in a much better way. Basically, an IMDB external link is enough to make the article ineligible for BLPPROD - we may not agree with it, but that's how it currently us. For what it's worth Tim, I would support you adding a normal PROD to the article for notability concerns. GiantSnowman 12:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
• Thank you. With two opinions expressed I will consider this carefully. I do not promise to agree, but I will consider with care. Fiddle Faddle 14:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• This seems fundamental: "To avoid having a BLP PROD placed, it is sufficient that it has any source at all, even a totally unreliable, biased, and blatantly dishonest one." It also seems ludicrous. I have, however, read carefully the paragraph "A common source of confusion in application is the different treatment of presence of sources for placement of the tag, verses removal of the tag. The requirements can be summed up as: Only add a BLPPROD if there are no sources in any form that name the subject, but once (properly) placed, it can only be removed if a reliable source is added. This compromise avoids the need for judgement calls about reliability of sources for placement, and limits that issue to the far fewer instances, at the other end, where a source is actually added during the ten-day period.", and see it is so.

This means that I have learned something, however bizarre, about this insanely illogical policy. I can argue with the logic, yes, but I cannot argue with what the policy says today. And I can;t be bothered to try to change that for tomorrow.

I am incorrect in my past actions. I imagine I am not alone. I am not about to remove any BLPPRODS that I see that fall into this category, but will exercise more diligence with placing new ones myself. Fiddle Faddle 14:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The only reason that I don't try to get the policy changed is that such a huge number of people were against the policy existing at all, that they would be sure to come back in large numbers and oppose any such change, so that it would frankly be not worth the effort it would take. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I am substantially aware that there was a huge potential for bad feeling between decent editors to come out of my absolute and incorrect certainty that I was correct. How might we learn from this for other editors who form the same imperfect certainties that I formed? Is there scope for (dare I suggest) a gentle template pointing out the difference between initial BLPPROD nomination and the more stringent BLPPROD removal circumstances? I am in absolute agreement about not seeking to revisit the policy now. Fiddle Faddle 15:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

We should also bear WP:BEFORE in mind. GiantSnowman 15:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I have just come across the situation where an editor on the English WP was blocked, eventually twice, for promotion of his non notable self and his non notable business. The same editor has created the same slew of stuff on the German language WP. I don't have sufficient German to be able to understand the rules there, and certainly not to make a report.

Equally, I can't see a relevant noticeboard to raise the topic here, so I am asking for an experienced admin to help me understand whether and how I should make a report there, the more so since I cannot correspond in German, or to tell me where and how to raise my concerns here. Fiddle Faddle 14:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia seems to have rather different rules regarding businesses - user names representing a business appear to be likely to get approval in a process I haven't gone into. Personally, I'd leave it to them to sort out. If you do want to, there's de:Wikipedia:Administratoren/Notizen (the German WP:AN). If you post in English, give a Google Translate version with it. It's not bad into and out of German. That way, the non-English speakers will get an idea of what's going on. But once again, I wouldn't bother. I'll leave the hrlpme up in case someone else wants to comment differently. Peridon (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not even going to try to figure out what dewiki's rules are regarding stuff like that. The good news is that almost every language Wikipedia maintains an "Embassy" for people to post in their own language and get help - and most of them keep a redirect at Wikipedia:Embassy, and a shortcut at "WP:EMBASSY" too, for easy finding. You can ask them your question in English and probably get a reasonably authoritative response. Their page is located at de:Wikipedia:Embassy, and I suggest posting there if you're concerned. —Darkwind (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I never knew about the embassy. Even f I now do nothing I have learned something of value. Fiddle Faddle 22:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tim! First of all thank you for your edits on the article Alankit Group & welcoming me to wikipedia! As visible on that article, it has got multiple issues which I intend to address. Best to my limited knowledge of wikipedia conventions, two of such issues viz. Advert & Use of Peacock terms appear due to use of the word 'leading' in the article, however it is not intended to be puffery as it is the name of the recognition given to the company by Dun & Bradstreet & thus those issues I believe may be removed. It would be a great help if you could guide me on how to remove those issues from the article. Thanks again! Jimmy 9126 (talk) 09:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The answer is to remove any element which a reasonable person could see as advertising. An example is that undue weight is given to the section on activities(etc) which appears to be touting for business. Whatever you look at in the article, "If in doubt, leave it out". Fiddle Faddle 10:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response! I will try & improve the article! Jimmy 9126 (talk) 11:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Since you were involved in the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by unusual attribute, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou Sir any Time you call me [blanked] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sankararamank (talk • contribs) 15:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I am simply happy to have helped you. I have removed your phone number for the same reason I was worried about your exposing your family too greatly. Fiddle Faddle 16:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tim, I've seen that you have put up a speedy deletion warning on the page Drawception, I am working on it could you please tell me why that was put up? The article will be useful and I will be editing, citing and expanding it with pictures and more. If you could please remove it? Thanks in advance, Gideon^{Wanna talk?} 15:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The answer is in the speedy deletion warning itself. I'm afraid that something being useful and being notable enough to have an article here are poles apart. Drawception is not even running yet, is it? So it has had no ability to become notable. I suggest you migrate your work to your user space as a page User:Gdcdigital/Drawception and work on it there in peace and quiet until it becomes notable. Then you can release it back into the wild.

My opinion may not be shared bny the admin who will decide eventually to delete or not. INdeed any passing editor may reverse my nomination, though the article creator may not. So we have checks and balances. I am not convinced that it is notable, so I will leave the notice present Fiddle Faddle

TIM! The games OUT! Its been out since 2012!!! It has to be notable now! Gideon^{Wanna talk?} 16:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The article speaks of beta. That is not release. If it passes WP:GNG then this has to be shown in the article. All the emotion in the world will not save it, but hard cited facts in the article ought to. I'm not unsympathetic. I'm simply keen on article quality. Fiddle Faddle 16:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The current consensus is no consensus. Moving along. Try again in a week, when sources aren't being written anymore? That would be wise, in my opinion. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

put simply, do not interfere with consensus building. Fiddle Faddle 12:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It's almost identical except that the references have now been correctly formatted. When I have time, I'll do some googling. Deb (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

@Deb: we seem to be no longer Edda-fied! Renouf was Renouf, and the eponymous editor displaced her playthings from her perambulator. Fiddle Faddle 22:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

:-) Deb (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

And maybe with a link to your account rather than just the date? :-) Dougweller (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOrgLj9lOwk got to love irony, Dougweller. Fiddle Faddle 16:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tim. Hope no Wikistress and all ok. An interesting deletion discussion I just stumbled upon, Bisexuality in the Arab world. Its a lonely and neglected article, but I am against deletion. Please see the discussion there, and my thoughts. WP:NOEFFORT has been deployed as a defence, which I think effective. Would this be of any interest to any LGBT projects you may know about? Basically, is it 1/ Relevant 2/Improvable/Viable. I would see it as some kind of kernal of a viable article discussing social/cultural experience of the LGBT community in that socio-religious enviroment. It may have potential. Any input over there would be welcome. I have left a note there that I have informed you. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC).

@Irondome: This is a challenging article to save, probably requiring someone who reads and can search in Arabic, and one who is neither biased for nor against bisexuality. With the likelihood of Islamic doctrinaire views in one such I am not sure whom to ask for help. I have done my limited best to give the article some breathing space, but my own search for references has proved to be fruitless so far. I will keep looking for references, but I am becoming acquainted with the brick wall. Fiddle Faddle 07:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I really appreciate your valuable and insightful input here Tim. Please excuse my chutzpah in pinging you, but I suspected you might have a view here. I hate losing potentially viable articles, and this one might just be salvagable and have a future as a cultural/artistic overview of the subject. Cheers mate Irondome (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Everyone needs a bit of chutzpah! I am not sure I have been particularly insightful, though. I suspect the article is too narrow in scope and should morph into a full LGBTQ article but let s save it first and then its future can go where it will go. From a pure policy viewpoint it is hard to save. It needs references and those are unavailable to my English reading brain. Fiddle Faddle 16:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the sources issue is a biggie. But if consensus can get beyond that bloody Wikilawyering phase and recognise its potential, we may have an original new take on a complex and multilayered subject. Thanks for pinging the LGBT project people. I sense this article drifted out of the WP convoy ages ago, and no one has been aware of its existence to actually work on it. I think a stay of execution is our best bet. Cheers Tim. Irondome (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Heartened by Warden's contribution I realised I had forgotten WP:Rescue, so have added it there, too. It;s refreshing to be on the same side of the argument as Warden. Fiddle Faddle 16:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

:) Irondome (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

@Irondome: It may well be retained Fiddle Faddle 22:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thats good news Tim. I have been watching the convo develop, and its like consensus is leaning that way. I aways thought it was viable. Some Real life stuff has made my editing pointy and strange past few days, so been gnoming and observing. I appreciste the ping mate. Cheers! Simon aka Irondome (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I still view it as borderline, but it is, I think, the correct side of the border. You have a real life? Wow!! Fiddle Faddle 22:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. And I wish it would piss off at the mo :/ Irondome (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm grateful :) Fiddle Faddle 07:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I know we have talked a few months earlier, but given the fact that I took a two-month semi-retirement back in August (and was blocked indefinitely at my request) due to stressful issues with Wikipedia (like dealing with long-term abusive editors such as Fladrif and other users, as well as being frustrated with Wikipedia's inabilities to deal with disruptive editors) and real life issues, I decided to come back here to help. FYI, since no discussion is taking place over the past couple of months, I propose that we should simply close the discussion at the Bullying template until a later time as consensus can change. The link is Template talk:Bullying#Close discussion?. I think we can invite Penbat and a couple of others from the Psychology WikiProject to get involved and help close the discussion. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I've beaten your note here to the draw and left a thought or so there already :) WIkipedia can be a perfectly foul site, so welcome home. Fiddle Faddle 18:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. And unfortunately, as Penbat said to me, he is "quite pissed off that quite a lot of stuff has been removed from the template and ideally [he] would want it returned to its original state (before Fladriff got involved) and certainly no more taken out. It only got raised as an issue when Fladriff & sock-puppet Star767 piled in." He unfortunately does not wish to get involved in Template talk:Bullying. Since consensus can change, I think we still need a new consensus to restore it to its original state before Fladrif's involvement. Objections? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I've started a new discussion here to see if we can get a new consensus regarding this matter. I also contacted Keithbob and KrakatoaKatie regarding this matter and see what can be done here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll drop by in a while. Penbat's opinion is as good as anyone's, so consensus needs to be built, I agree. Fiddle Faddle 09:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on DbNinja, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. V.vayer (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Very amusing. It has been. I placed it there. You created the article. What is the point that you are attempting to make? Fiddle Faddle 21:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Taking my first steps in wikipedia. This whole part got posted here from some shortcut i copy-pasted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V.vayer (talk • contribs) 21:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately your first steps appear to be ones of spamming your own company and its products, something that is not allowed. Fiddle Faddle 21:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with Timtrent on this one - DbNinja is plainly not notable as per the notability guideline of this website. UI1990 (talk) 06:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)