Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Hi Tim, I was chasing off wikipedia a blacklisted website which was popped up in my watchlist by a bot, and run into rat's nest of "metaspammers" which tried to promote in wikipedia their spamming systems under innocent names which use the word "notification" in the articles. As part of dealing with them, I put a {{prod}} tag on Draft:Mass notification system, you declined 4+ months ago, but is shows a big red notice Please use PROD only on articles . So, how do we delete this kind of drafts? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Staszek Lem. We use CSD if appropriate, otherwise MfD. Is this a WP:ANI thing, too? Fiddle Faddle 21:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see it is ANI case yet, because so far I saw only old edits by various redlinked accounts. e.g. one good spammer magnet was "Notification system". with lots of editors whose contributions are to be checked. I am almost feeling sorry to close this flytrap by turning it into a redirect. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Timtrent,

I request you to review the below updated article & let me know where I am not comply with 'Reliable Source' or 'Secondary Source' definitions of Wikipedia.

Rajcurator (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Each of your references is inappropriate. None is significant coverage. One is a government list, at least two are passing mentions. I forget what the fourth is. I know it is invalid

There are many companies in the world. Simple existence is not sufficient to get a listing in Wikipedia. WP:CORP must be passed

Reviews are performed on the draft itself. Please do not paste draft material to talk pages. Fiddle Faddle 06:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the tips on [Edward_Gabriel_Andrè_Barrett].

I've made the appropriate changes (I hope) . May I resubmit the page for discussion?

User:EdwardMauri — Preceding undated comment added 07:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Always another reviewer will look at it. I try not to re-review drafts. Fiddle Faddle 07:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, This is my Draft, You are more then welcome to take a look, a let me know what you think, Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Medford_Knife_and_Tool_-_M.K.T#Products Eytankey (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Eytankey: From my persecutive this is a far tighter and less advertorial article than the one which was deleted. I have not checked the references. I'm glad you have kept it entirely about the org, and avoided the owner's ethos, because that hindered the article.

One important question is the picture. Who is the photographer? There is no camera data, and most folk on Commons tend to require OTRS submissions to assert and release the picture to and beyond Commons. It is also important that the logo is allowed.

However, these are small issues, and the final ones you need to consider. I suggest submission for review, a process I will recuse myself from because I became involved with the prior draft.

The final hurdle, assuming it passes review, is that it is sufficiently different form the deleted article to allow it to remain as an article (we have a rule for instant deletion of re-created overly similar articles). I suggest most strongly that you do not move it to main namespace yourself. Get the Blades project editor involved in the review. I forget who they are, but I am sure you remember. Fiddle Faddle 16:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast response, what it the "main namespace "? Eytankey (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Eytankey: "Main namespace" is our jargon for "A real, accepted article" Fiddle Faddle 21:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, "Medford knife and tool" is mentioned in those articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_knife and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_knife, you think it might change something? thanks Eytankey (talk) 08:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Eytankey: I am afraid not. Wikipedia is not, of itself, any use of any description to show notability. WP:CIRCULAR is what we tell folk who go a step further and think it may serve as a reference. I know you don't think that at all. Your problem is showing how this company with excellent products passes WP:CORP from things external to Wikipedia. I think it is a matter of searching with diligence for better references and potentially for accepting that it may not yet be time for the article. Fiddle Faddle 08:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Imasku (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kendall Ward Band ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Imasku (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

First it is the KENDALL WALL BAND NOT KENDALL WARD BAND. PLEASE DELETE ARTICLE. I HAVE PROVIDED RELIABLE SOURCES THAT ARE THIRD PARTY. I HAVE ALREADY STATED THE FORMULA IS NOT WORKING PROPERLY TO LIST THOSE.

You seem to have hit the caps lock key. I ignore people who shout online. Fiddle Faddle 07:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• 24.34.106.226 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Exact Sciences ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Timtrent,

Thank you so much for taking the time to review our article on Exact Sciences and for your feedback. We are eager to edit the article to meet Wikipedia's requirements and have done our best to respond to all the feedback provided us by reviewers to date. We want to get this right so I'm hoping to get some additional insight from you, if possible, on what the issues with our article might be.

In our earlier drafts, we provided numerous third-party, published sources that are unrelated to the company as validation of the information in our article (these included the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the American Cancer Society, The New England Journal of Medicine (a peer-reviewed scientific journal), as well as several local, regional and national media articles). I have included this original version, with the references, below so you could easily see what we did. The feedback from other reviewers was that the article was too promotional. In the next version, we tried to pull back on anything that we thought could be considered promotional, but still included some of these important references. The next reviewer indicated that the article was then too much like an essay. In our third attempt, the one you reviewed, we tried to pare down the entire article in the hopes that if we stuck to the most basic facts about the company, that might past muster, but it seems that now we've removed too much of the "meat" of the article.

In working to revise our article, we took a look at the Wikipedia pages of several other companies in the healthcare industry, including Hologic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hologic) and Epocrates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epocrates) and feel that much of the information they provide in terms of background on the company, its leadership/management team, introduction to its products and other information is similar to what we wrote for Exact Sciences.

One thing I did notice is that some of the media articles these pages refer to are national business publications (such as Forbes, U.S. News, etc.). These are all publications that have published stories about Exact Sciences and/or its products. Would including some of these references be helpful?

Is there any additional guidance you might be able to provide as we work on a new version of our article for review?

Again, thank you so much for your review and we very much appreciate any additional insights you could offer -- we are committed to getting this right!

Best, Marisa

24.34.106.226 (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I am concerned about your use of "our". Are you part of this corporation?

To create a worthwhile article you need to take the following steps:

• Ignore all other articles unless they are in the WP:GA list. Those are articles that meet our needs very well indeed.
• Look for references, which are defined as follows: 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.
• Take facts from those references and marshal them onto the order that makes the most sense for the article.
• Write the article using the references to cite those facts
• Ensure that nothing in your tone could be considered promotional

That, put simply, is all you have to do. If you do that correctly then your article simply needs to pass WP:CORP (in this case) and it is immediately suitable for Wikipedia Fiddle Faddle 07:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for working and sorting this M.K.T issue with me

Eytankey (talk) 09:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I wish I felt as if I deserved the kitten, Eytankey. All I seem to be doing is pushing the draft back to you, though I do it with good intent. What I wish is that I could wave a magic wand for you and make the sources needed for notability appear before your eyes. Thank you form an undeserving fellow Wikipedian. Fiddle Faddle 19:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand where you come from, It is clear to me that this is constructive criticism and not an attempt to thwart the article Eytankey (talk) 07:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I can help here and there, but the paying jobs take precedence over wiki. You're not going to see CNN, NYT or the Guardian write about MKT. The reliable sources will come from the publications dedicated to knives, guns, etc. I'll look around and see what else I can come up with, but my time for this is limited as I have 8 print pieces due by September 1 and three times that much in online writing due by then. Wish I could throw more time into this one, but it is what it is. The rocking horse shit cracked me up, thanks for the chuckle...hadn't heard that term in years!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Searson: I agree totally about the sources. The references are only likely to be in specialist or in trade press. The problem with trade press is that it is so hungry for articles that it often takes press releases verbatim and adds no value to them. Help here and there is fine. Apart from a 'boy's curiosity' with knives and liking the look of the Medford product I have no expertise in the area. I like using good knives for cooking, and have a couple of fine Japanese chef's knives, but that is where my expertise, such as it is, ends. Fiddle Faddle 06:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Searson: thank you for the help, I'll keep looking for more, I saw you added another source, @Timtrent: you think it will help? BTW for how long does the draft stay? is it time limited? I think my next article will be on RMJ Eytankey (talk) 07:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Eytankey: Drafts remains for 6 months after the most recent edit, and are "refundable" even if they are deleted. You need have no fears. I have not looked at the latest source, but I counsel patience. The article needs substantial sourcing or it will face summary deletion, and the next round will be harder to achieve after that. So bide your time and keep looking for excellence in sourcing.

We need two excellent sources for it to stay, but, because it has been deleted once, I recommend several more, each citing a single fact. 27 sources citing the same fact fails (WP:CITEKILL explains that far better than I can) Fiddle Faddle 07:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

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

74.124.171.179 (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, can you please tell me how to change the title of the article, I can't seem to figure it out!

Also, I would like to add some photos to the article. Would it be ok to submit them if I give credit to the source or is that illegal? Thanks, JOhn ----

At the head of the page is the "More" tab with a down arrow. that down arrow leads to a "Move" function and that renames the page.

To upload a picture you must have permission to upload it or to be the copyright owner. I suggest pictures are the final thing to add. WP:Donating copyright material will help you, though it is complex. Fiddle Faddle 07:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, anonymous editors cannot move articles. I just realised that. Ask me and I can move it to the new title. Fiddle Faddle 12:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Good Morning Sir,

I received a decline on my submission and I am unclear as to what needs to be done to correct the problem. Its says decline for inline citations, I read a bunch of the support material and I apologies for not understanding so I am hoping you could help.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:David_R._Paolo

Thank you Tony Blueliner99 (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Blueliner99: I have been away, so am not ignoring you. This will work better if you have specific questions. First, though, please confirm that you have read my detailed notes on the draft itself which I left when I pushed it back to you. Fiddle Faddle 13:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Burma (Myanmar) which affects the recently renamed page Myanmar. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Sawol (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done Fiddle Faddle 13:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tim; much thanks for providing extensive notes in the copy-edit template here; I found them very helpful whilst doing the c/e and your time and effort were not wasted. :-) I hope you find the article improved. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Baffle gab: Sometimes we get it right . I would have done the work myself but felt out of my depth. I have taken to leaving increasingly helpful comments in those templates. I hate drive by tagging. Fiddle Faddle 06:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Mollog (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Circus Remedy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Timtrent, I'm a little confused by your notes. Circus Remedy has been active since 2006 so it is definitely not too soon. As noted in the national Parent & Child Magazine article, Where Stars Align, it was founded by well known writer/ actor/ director Anthony Lucero (Pump Up the Volume, Loved), ER actress Christine Harnos and well known movement coach and long time Cirque du Soleil Star Terry Notary (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1024953/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1). Further, Circus Remedy collaborates with both Paul Newman's Hole in the Wall Camp and Amma's orphanages and hospitals in India. 60 visits in the circus outreach world is, in fact, a lot of visits as taking a circus around the world is a costly venture. It is a unique outreach program and is not comparable to visits from non profits outside the circus world. Circus Remedy is widely recognized in the circus world as a leading outreach organization. Further, the press we listed covers the west coast (Malibu Times after visits to Malibu schools with a program bridging children in hospitals with elementary school kids), the east coast (Indy East End covering an event at one of the more prominent theaters in New York - Guild Hall) and national media (Parent & Child Magazine in an article about celebrities and non-profits). There is far more press and countless videos available on youtube, etc. I urge you to investigate further or to let me know what exactly you might need that might satisfy 'notable' criterion and/ or what you consider non-local coverage as it seems we have more than satisfied those requests already. This will be our 10th year bringing the top circus performers in the world (Cirque du Soleil, Moscow Circus, etc.) to ailing children worldwide. I think that would qualify as firmly established. Please visit their website at www.circusremedy.org for more background.

I very much appreciate your consideration.

Mollog (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

It's really simple. 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. Not youtube except in very rare circumstances. We care about IT, not the founders. Please find references about it and you stand a good chance. Fiddle Faddle 23:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Hi!

I came across your profile and notice that you seem quite welcoming to newbies, so I thought I should reach out.

Not sure if you have ever seen the University Canada West article - there are only of couple of editors actively contributing to the entry and we believe the article as a whole would benefit from different point of views. You don’t necessarily need to be familiar with the subject, but your input on whether the article is up to scratch would be very helpful already.

I have a professional connection to the subject (and have recently created a COI profile), but my goal is to work with the community to improve the overall quality of the article and ensure it is neutral and factual. While I have in the past contributed to Wikipedia on a voluntary basis, the last few months have been a massive learning curve – not just about the Wikipedia guidelines, but also about diplomacy, argumentation, negotiation, etc.

I have invited a few other editors with similar interests to join the discussion as I’m currently seeking feedback on the draft for a potential History section (available here). If you’re interested, your help and any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandDude (talk • contribs) 12:35, 27 August 2015‎

@BrandDude: It will be a pleasure, but I cannot give it any attention until after 16 September. Fiddle Faddle 12:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent:Thanks very much. Your help will be really appreciated and I look forward to it. BrandDude (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Timtrent, you once before[1] approved a start-class article of mine, which had sufficient refs but needed -- shall we say -- some significant aesthetic improvements.  ;-)     If you happen to feel like doing so again, please see this guy who has some coverage for his role as NH rep, and a bit as a town selectman, plus a newer coverage-burst from his participation in Kasich'16. As a state rep, he also quasi-inherently satisfies WP:NPOL, and his recent appointment (to majority-leader-role) by the speaker, of course gives him an added boost. I've added him to the AfC queue today, so if you are busy, or simply prefer to let the article wait in line, I am 100% okay with that approach as well.

  Also, please note that some existing mainspace articles have redlinks to the chosen title "Jack_Flanagan_(New_Hampshire_politician)" ... and that there is an Aussie politician by that same name at Jack Flanagan. I've assumed hatnotes will still be used, since there are only three articles at the moment, but disambig-page might also be wiki-proper at some point. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I fear my skills with politicians are severely restricted. Have you checked WP:POLITICIAN? Fiddle Faddle 16:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, Flanagan qualifies, WP:NPOL that I linked to is the same as WP:POLITICIAN that you linked to. Criteria#1: "Politicians... [who are elected] members... of a ...state... legislature." Criteria#2 basically talks about mayors and sheriffs that meet WP:GNG (state legislature candidates like Flanagan are *elected* locally but *serve* in a statewide body so they are not 'local' candidates in the sense used at that guideline), and criteria#3 talks about unelected candidates (again not applicable to Flanagan) who meet WP:GNG despite not passing WP:POLITICIAN criteria#1. Flanagan is an elected member of a state legislature as of 2010, so he passes criteria#1. Like with high-schools, this is one of the quasi-inherently-wiki-notable rules, intended to entice beginning editors to write an article about their local state rep, which cannot easily be deleted even when the rep may have little beyond local-newspaper-coverage. Flanagan's not my rep, I found him whilst revising the endorsements-page for Kasich'16, which claimed he (Flanagan) was the Majority Leader of the NH lower chamber... and since that turned out to be true, Flanagan *was* appointed 2nd-in-command of the NH lower chamber just recently, I figured we better turn his redlink blue.

    In any case, besides passing WP:NPOL under criteria#1, methinks Flanagan actually also legitimately passes WP:GNG, since he was a town selectman (kinda like the "town legislature" where the mayor is kinda like the "town president" and the sheriff is kinda like the "town military-general"), with a few local-newspaper hits from that experience, and this past summer got a coverage-burst for his endorsement of Kasich. If you haven't heard about this particular aspect of the weird ways of USA politics, during presidential elections the endorsements from state legislators living in the relatively tiny states of Iowa and New Hampshire are especially coveted by presidential candidates, because those two states are caucus#1 and primary#1 (respectively) during the presidential nominating process, so doing well in either or both of those states is considered a stepping-stone along the way to the nomination for the presidency, as well as a good way to get press-coverage. Not sure if any of that makes sense, or if you are now more confused than ever.  ;-)

    In a nutshell, Flanagan does satisfy criteria#1 of WP:POLITICIAN, and furthermore, methinks he satisfies the usual wiki-tradition of three coverage-bursts: local coverage for his role as state rep and town selectman, broader coverage for his more prominent role as up-and-coming lower house majority leader, plus finally some recent (and reasonably in-depth ... depending on how you feel about quotations-from-the-mouth-of-the-BLP-themselves) coverage about Flanagan's endorsement of one of the presidential nomination contenders. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Under those circumstances it ought to be a clear acceptance on submission. I do avoid reviewing material outside my competence if I can. Fiddle Faddle 18:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Gotcha, no problemo. Thanks, and talk to you later, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Good luck. Fiddle Faddle 19:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• SLBloom (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Robert Bloom (2) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I received an email from no-reply-notifications that an editor named Fuhghettaboutit left me a new message but I am not seeing it when I click on View Message. (I find the name unprofessional and offensive, by the way.) Your editorial staff is making this important submission nearly impossible. Obviously no one is aware of the decline of classical music, particularly orchestral music in America and is cavalier about the opportunity to detail the bio of one musician who experienced birth through decline. It's very troubling. Facts are not biography; biography is the story of a human life by most definitions, placed in a continuum of the era in which it was lived.

SLBloom (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@SLBloom: What are you asking me? I have no interest in any comments about another editor, by the way. Please restrict yourself to questions about your draft. I see you have not actioned my comments. Why not?. Fiddle Faddle 16:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

You can always check what was done in any edit by looking at a page history. In this case if you had you would have seen that I made this edit to your talk page, taking it out of a category it did not belong in. I'd love to hear exactly what possible basis you could have for objecting to my username. Meanwhile, you may not maintain a website claiming non-free copyright over the text of the draft. You will need to release that content by posting at the bottom something not unlike:

The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). Otherwise, the draft will have to be deleted.

Please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Also some of the opening of the draft is directly taken from this dissertation, and has accordingly been removed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Mr Faddle,

My question for you today is to ask that you pass along to Mr. Fuhghettaboutit that I am not able to see his comment.

I have answered your question to me. Important bios are not written in the style of courses for horses, as flat as possible. Who are our great biographers in your opinion? Doris Kerns Goodwin? David McCullough? Do you treat them as you are treating me? Very troubling if you do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SLBloom (talk • contribs) 01:17, 28 August 2015‎

@SLBloom: If you write for Wikipedia then you write for Wikipedia. We have a particular style and will not bend to your will. Nor will we bend for some imagined slight. I am also not your messenger boy. If you have something to ask another user, ask that other user.

Whining does not endear you to me. I doubt it helps you in your chosen field, either. If you want help then it behoves you to ask for it well.

Either do the work required or not, Wikipedia does not care either way.

Do not open new sections on my talk page. Use the old section unless that has been archived, and remember to sign your messages. Fiddle Faddle 07:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

User:SLBloom, wikipedia is really an encyclopedia, and is supposed to be as flat as possible: boring, cold, hard, dry, facts -- followed by more facts. If you want great biographies, try amazon.com's bookstore, which carries David McCullough. Everybody that edits wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, is treated in exactly the same egalitarian fashion to the maximum extent possible: people that contribute encyclopedic content, and follow the wiki-rules as listed here at WP:5, are praised to the skies, and helped get their work done, because their work is helping improve wikipedia. But wikipedia is not a website like any other; arguing with other wikipedians here (yourself very much included in that group) will not help achieve your goal. And of course, if your goal is to write an Important Bio Of Greatness, then probably you need to find a publication more conducive to that goal, such as the publishers that work with David McCullough (his most recent one on the Wright Brothers was in association with Simon & Schuster), rather than try to convert wikipedia from a just-the-facts website, into a website where great biographical material, full of poetic license, is appropriate. If you want to leave a message for Fuhghettaboutit, you can click here, User_talk:Fuhghettaboutit, click 'new section' at the top, enter in a polite message (see WP:NICE which is mandatory on wikipedia) saying what your question or issue is, then click save. Hope this helps, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Timtrent (also sometimes known as "Mr. Faddle" it seems), I've left a bangvote over at the appropriate MfD, and should the draft be mainspaced, I would be happy to stubify it based on the available online obit. Please ping my talkpage, if such occurs, and no classical-wikiproject member shows up to do the necessary pruning, I'll do it in their stead. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Chy syl (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:TeachPitch ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Timtrent - thanks for looking into the article that I submitted earlier. Thank you as well for sharing the feedback on the notability of the articles I used in reference to TeachPitch. Just to clarify, is it the actual objective verifiability of the sources used that are questionable? Or is it the way in which they are used in the actual article? Thanks again! Chy syl Chy syl (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Chy syl (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Chy syl: The problem with the draft is that you have not used references in any way that is meaningful. This means we can't determine that it is notable. WP:REFB will help you with that. A reference itself must comply with the criteria I showed you on the draft itself. I can;t be more help at present because I am heading on vacation for a couple of weeks, but you can ask for more help at the Articles for Creation Help Desk. Fiddle Faddle 17:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Timtrent, I hope that all is well your side. You have declined my draft previously and stated the below problem. Submission declined on 22 July 2015 by Timtrent (talk). This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. Declined by Timtrent 40 days ago.

I have addressed the issue and found sources through the "Find sources" links as provided by Wikipedia. But even after all the source changes reviewers still bring up the issue of the article is "lacking in sources". I have cited reliable sources in the article and the sources listed are from independent broadcasters and publications. I am at a dead end and not sure how or why the provided sources are not reliable or the draft is "lacking in sources".

Please could you advise within your opinion that I have addressed your concern of reliable resources, if not I would appreciate your feedback on the problem at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.229.23.249 (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I am on vacation. I suggest you use the Articles for Creation Help desk. In addition the formats of the double column areas are incorrect. Fiddle Faddle 06:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You can also, if you wish, ask questions at #wikipedia-en-help ^connect about your draft, the volunteers there can help you look over your sources. Same goes for WP:TEAHOUSE, although that is more of a general-help-forum. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

(formerly, section-header also included: Delete, a handful of minor roles, but doesn't come close to WP:NACTOR in my view. I'm sympathetic to the argument that it's usually harder to find written information on Indian topics than Western ones, but wh... [snipped by mediawiki limitation].... But no worries comment-body repeats exact same pasted info.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atul_Srivastava

Delete, a handful of minor roles, but doesn't come close to WP:NACTOR in my view. I'm sympathetic to the argument that it's usually harder to find written information on Indian topics than Western ones, but when it's a BLP we're talking about, caution is called for. Subject must have played minor and supporting roles in various films and TV shows, but fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Mentioned only in passing in cited media articles (which themselves are mostly second-tier sources), and I couldn't locate anything more comprehensive.David 16:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManishSrivastava1 (talk • contribs)

Why have you posted this here? Fiddle Faddle 06:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe I set a bad example with my OtherParent request (out of AfC now), and thus ManishSrivastava1 seems to be canvassing you for an AfD bangvote. They recently attempted to change from the AfD tag to the PROD tag, and have also sent Yobot a message on their bot-talkpage.[2] Obviously, this actor must be deleted immediately! The same last name is a coincidence with no bearing! The non-wikilinked mention of WP:NACTOR, in combination with the sinebot autosig, and the "David" thing near the end, also makes me wonder if the comment-prose itself is a cut-n-paste from someplace... though it could be a nickname, or perhaps, the username is a nickname. (Some people pick the strangest usernames.  ;-)     I'll try to leave a note for User_talk:ManishSrivastava1 to explain they should stop. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear Fiddle Faddle

I note your warm welcome as a Wikipedia editor recently. I have just been unpleasantly surprised by another Wiki editor "Duffbeer..." something or other who seems determined to have my entry Tania Peitzker deleted. Note he also wrongly accused me of "attacking other editors" when I defended my entry. I did not do so in any way, shape or form.

I have had the archive and librarians of the University of Queensland defend my reputation by resubmitting the source for the "Tania Peitzker Collection" of my papers, academic work and literary manuscripts this week.

Furthermore, every single claim can be substantiated through the independent sources I have provided. The critic "Duffbeer" is not willing to recognise the media interviews done and published by independent, reliable sources - long established, mainstream press and publishing houses in the UK!

Could you please review this as I feel unduly attacked and the editor trying to have my entry deleted is not properly recognising the independent neutral sources that have been provided. I am an acknowledged academic after all so I do appreciate how to document texts correctly and objectively.

Would you mind also adding these additional citations for all the claims made in the entry about me?

• velmai http://www.crowdcube.com/2014/ we were one of the companies which underwent 100% Due Diligence through CrowdCube which has everything about velmai, myownreporter and viledge documented and permanently archived, see the video here https://vimeo.com/107238615

• no less than 4 interviews in established mainstream media in 2014:

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent-business/county-news/simplicity-the-secret-to-getting-27659/

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent-business/county-news/ibutcher-to-raise-the-steaks-24647/

http://www.specialityfoodmagazine.com/content/news/farm_shop_to_install_artificially_intelligent_bot

http://www.insidermedia.com/insider/south-west/126379-/

• and about the kik deal, we published that info on the BBC FB yesterday https://www.facebook.com/BBCR2/posts/400522543479357

• on my rep as businesswoman http://www.womenonboards.co.uk/my/profile/view?pid=17758 and https://www.facebook.com/224944327547104/photos/pcb.957108107664052/957105817664281/?type=1&theater

• and best of all on bloomberg and standard & poors http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=289361815&privcapId=275393806

• on being chatbot expert https://www.chatbots.org/expert/tania_peitzker/28566/

• http://www.endole.co.uk/profile/6125202/tania-peitzker-lingham on my Company Director role in the UK and here http://lanyrd.com/profile/drtaniapeitzker/

• my doctorate https://publishup.uni-potsdam.de/opus4-ubp/files/12/peitzker.pdf

• on my writing as journo for Times Higher was cited by international study (quite a few actually) because of my contributions to the THE World Rankings of universities:

The Italian CIMEA (NARIC-ENIC) welcomes the reforms, while recognising that the higher education system in Italy is faced with a challenge implementing such a radical transformation. Their system currently has limited diversification in qualifications, rigid curricula, a very high drop-out rate, high graduate unemployment and limited internationalisation. They are changing an elite to a mass higher education system; moving from a centralised system to financial, organisational and curricular autonomy of institutions (CIMEA, 2004). This makes the reform all the more needed. In relation to the new world ranking of universities, Ince and Peitzker (2004) note that ‘perhaps the most striking feature of the European top 50 is the invisibility of southern Europe… This is ominous for these countries’ prospects in the continent-wide knowledge economy of which European and national planners dream.’ Italy is clearly taking this challenge seriously in the hope that, quite apart from international rankings, their number of graduates and their employability will increase, and their graduates’ age will decrease. This would lead to a considerable rise in productivity and fall in unemployment among young adults (CIMEA, 2004).

https://www.naric.org.uk/naric/documents/contributions/Comparative-Study-of-New-Bachelor-and-Masters-degrees-Germany-Italy-and-UK.pdf

• plus other articles cited in African and Swiss journals that I wrote originally for the Times Higher Education Supplement (now THE)

• am in the ranking of famous alumni of potsdam uni http://www.ranker.com/list/famous-university-of-potsdam-alumni-and-students/reference?var=2&utm_expid=16418821-142.-TnVog0iRH60mJdQFvMOxQ.1&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.co.uk

Thanks for your assistance,

best wishes, Tania Peitzker (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I am on vacation and unlikely to have the time to look at this. Your own work is unlikely to qualify as a reference. Tis is what I would put on the article if it were a draft about an academic, for example.

Let me try to explain. If s/he manufactured vacuum cleaners, the cleaners would be her/his work. A vacuum cleaner could not be a reference for her/him, simply because it is the product s/he makes. So it is with research. However, a review of her/his work by others tends to be a review of her/him and her/his methods, so is a reference, as is a peer reviewed paper a reference for her/his work. You may find WP:ACADEME of some use in seeing how Wikipedia and Academe differ hugely

I don;t have time to explain this further. 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. 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 16:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear Timtrent

We sincerely appreciate your feedback but please don't misunderstand us. We are not trying to create any promotional or advertising page. In the previous submission, we added so many references and citations as we received a comment stating that your article doesn't adequately show the subject's notability. Since we are new to Wikipedia, we do not have idea to create a page. For your reference, you can watch Mr. Maheshwari's videos. He has been doing inspirational seminars free of cost and has been considered as the role model of the Youth of India. We wish to create this page so that maximum youth can take inspiration from his life and can move ahead on the path of success. Therefore, kindly guide us how to proceed.

Best Regards Team, Sandeep Maheshwari — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeep mash (talk • contribs) 12:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The alleged references you added do not meet our needs. 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. 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.

I view this as an attempt to push the gentleman into the limelight. Wikipedia may not be used for this purpose. Many "inspirational speakers" try to push their profiles here. In addition you may not use the same account for more than one editor. Fiddle Faddle 12:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Eric Musgrave (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Don McCarthy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I have ensured all points made in this entry like to reliable sources such as newspaper articles. Please do advise me on anything else I need to do in order to have the page ready to go live.

Thanks,

Eric

I'm not quite sure what is going on with the errors at the foot of the page. You may need expert hep with that. I suggest you deploy {{Helpme}} on your talk page, link to the draft and say "Please help me sort the error messages out!" which is what I would do if it happened to me. Experts drop by remarkably quickly

I don't often re-review, always thinking other eyes produce a better result for you, so, when the oddity is sorted out, resubmit with pleasure. Fiddle Faddle 16:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your reply.The question is i can't access the page now.if i can access i can change the contents with new contents.How can i get through this??the Page is marked for immediate delete it means i cant edit it right?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkvisit (talk • contribs) 02:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You can use the WP:AFC process to create another page. The original one has been deleted. Fiddle Faddle 06:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Dear Timtrent I know that you considered our article for deletion and on 18.09.2015 it was deleted. So would you be so kind to tell me what was wrong in our article in order for me to understand and not to make such mistakes in my later articles. I would also like to know whether it is possible to restore the article after making all the necessary changes in it. Thank you in advance!!! Maria step (talk) 11:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC) Maria step

@Maria step: I remember very little about the article except from what I have said when I proposed it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AM Law Firm. I am afraid I review a very large number of articles.

What you hope to learn is whether A M Law Firm may be recreated one day. The answer is that it may.

Before considering re-creating it you need to be clear on the purpose of Wikipedia and the reason you wish to have an article about your employer. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It records the facts that others have reported, provided such reports meet our needs. These reports are used as references. We have very strict requirements for references. 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.

You should be aware that bad things are reported as well as good. Should A M Law Firm be found to have been reported as doing something inappropriate that will be recorded in due course in any Wikipedia article about them.

What purpose is there in an article on your employer in Wikipedia? You may not use us to list your achievements. Indeed, since you have a conflict of interest you are advised not to do anything at all in this putative article. You may not use us for PR purposes, nor to try to build or enhance your reputation.

If you insist on attempting to re-create the article be aware that any article that is essentially similar to the deleted article will be deleted on sight, with no discussion. Therefore the re-created article must be significantly different from the deleted one.

Since you have a conflict of interest you need to use the Articles for Creation method of creating a draft, then submitting the draft for review. You may not create an article on your employer in the main namespace directly. Nor may you pay others to do so. Nor may a paid editor do so.

If you intend to edit Wikipedia as a hobby, editing in ways entirely unrelated to your employer, then this guide will help you. If your intention is to publicise your employer, then I suggest you walk away now, because it will only end in disappointment. Fiddle Faddle 12:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fiddle Faddle, Hope you had a great holiday:) Right before you left you had taken the time to look at the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:TeachPitch I submitted and you gave me lots of good tips on how to continue on the level of using external links and referencing to them. After your advice and retrieval of the sources I used then, I worked on the text and added more links, I resubmitted the article but then received similar comments on the use of the links and the referencing. Naturally I am committed to make this work and happy to work on the referencing. Can you give me some advice? I hate to ask as I know you must be very busy but any feedback you can give me on the article and (the notability of) its links would be massively appreciated. Many thanks! Chy syl (talk) 12:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Chy syl: It is rare that I re-review a draft, primarily because different sets of eyes give the best overall result. I suggest you ask Gparyani to elaborate on their review. One thing I see, a permissible thing, is poor stylistically. The set of references is all dumped at the end. As a matter of style they are better set out so that each cites a single fact you assert in the draft. This is not mandatory except in biographies or lengthy articles, but is a good habit to get into. Fiddle Faddle 13:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

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

HI, please help me determine the steps to change the title of the draft as a reviewer suggested. I cannot seem to find a way to edit the title; it appears outside of the edit box and does not have a button or any other mechanism to change the text that I can determine. Otherwise, I have revised the draft again per the feedback I received in the prior rejection. ----

If you register for an account you will be able, after a short period, to make a move yourself. Meanwhile, if you tell me the name you wish for, I will consider and make that change in your behalf. Fiddle Faddle 18:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• BCBADPHD (talk · contribs)
  • User:BCBADPHD/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, The article entitled Somnambulism Alert Dog was rejected because it appeared to come from a copyrighted source. I wrote the entire article myself using my own words and references over the past 24 hours. I am a scholar and professional writer who is interested in contributing to Wikipedia. Could you please let me know what portion if any is from a outside copyrighted source so I can remove or modify as appropriate. I did write the entire article on my own and saved it under "Drafts". I am new to how to have a article reviewed on Wikipedia and it appeared I needed to cut and paste it into the Sandbox to submit for review. If that is incorrect, I can submit the article another way. I read that typically 4 days has to elapse and 10 edits must be made before you can submit a draft article and if that is the case I can wait until that time elapses as well. Thank you

It has all the appearances of being copied and pasted form another source. Portions such as "Overview[edit source | edit] A Somnambulism" and "Sleep Medicine[edit source | edit] Traditional sleep m" and "See Also[edit source | edit] Assistance dog" and "Jump up ^ "Sleepwalking". Jump up ^ "Sleep Related Eating Disorder". " tell me that something unusual is happening, and that this has been copied from somewhere and pasted imperfectly.

I suggest you examine your text for these anomalies and consider how they came to be present. These are things that indicate to reviewers that all is not 100% correct.

From where did you cut and paste it into a sandbox? Where is the original source? Far better that we work out how to review that. Fiddle Faddle 21:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fiddle Faddle,

My article on Stephen Tsang, which was originally too closely paraphrased to its sources, has since been edited, and I would like to try again at submitting it. I thought I did this correctly, but perhaps was mistaken, as it looks like it's no longer in the queue for review. Why did you mark is as not being an AFC submission? How should I go about resubmitting it?

Thanks for your help. Justus727 (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Justus727: This is a technical thing. I'll try to explain.

• Stephen Tsang is an article, albeit one far to close to the original text. It is not a draft article, which would have been Draft:Stephen Tsang.
• Articles are those in what we call "The Main Namespace", which means they have no prefix ("Draft:" is a prefix)
• One cannot submit an article as an "Article for Creation" because it has already been created. Instead one must deal with it as an article, for good or ill, warts 'n all.
• Because of the copyright issue, you have created and are, I hope, editing Talk:Stephen Tsang/Temp which is a holding place for the paraphrasing to be ripped away, prior to your stating at Talk:Stephen Tsang that you have ripped out the paraphrasing
• After you do that, which I see you have, the process is (I think) that an admin drops by, checks that the copyright violation has been removed, and, if so, places the page you have worked on into the space the "bad article" occupied.
• There is no need to submit for review

In future you may wish to learn your trade by using the Articles for Creation (AfC) process, which is a process of

Create > Submit > receive feedback > edit to incorporate the feedback > resubmit (etc

I think you will enjoy the process far more than the one you are in right now. At present the process you are in is rather arcane, and is the one we used to have for every editor, new and experienced alike. The AfC process is designed to make learning our odd ways much easier.

Does that help to some degree? It;s rather hard to explain it in a way that makes easy reading. Fiddle Faddle 19:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Fiddle Faddle

That definitely helps! Thanks for clarifying. So at this point I should take up a sit-and-wait strategy until and admin reviews whether the copyright issues have been addressed?

Thanks for all your help!

Justus727 (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Justus727: There is nothing to lose and everything to gain from polishing the temporary article to ensure absolutely that it does not contain any content form elsewhere and is as good as you can make it.

If you are in any way impatient, once you are satisfied that the article is compliant (the burden is on your shoulders for this) you can ask for administrative help by placing {{Admin help}} on your own talk page, linking to the temp page, perhaps linking here, to this discussion to avoid restating things, and asking your question of a helpful passing admin. I am not 100% sure of the rest of the process since I have not been subject to it as it stands today. I was, once, a number of years ago, but the process was different. Fiddle Faddle 19:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Thanks for the advice, I appreciate it! Is there still a way to submit the article for the purpose of receiving feedback before officially submitting it for review by admins? I would welcome feedback on my revisions but am unsure of where to seek it out.Justus727 (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Justus727: Not one that I am aware of. But you could try the Teahouse. Fiddle Faddle 20:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Timtrent,

I've updated the STEAK Digital article based on your feedback - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:STEAK_Digital

Adding more notable information about the agency and removing sources that could be deemed as PR/Promotional.

Welcome to hear any further feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevo walker (talk • contribs) 11:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Excellent news. You need to remove the inline link per WP:External links and then resubmit. Another reviewer will look at it and give you feedback. Fiddle Faddle 15:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for changing the title, Tim. I am going to resubmit the article for review. John ----

I wish your draft the best of luck. Fiddle Faddle 06:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

No worries Bbb23, I saw your edit summary . You can either fill me in or ignore this ping. Either is fine with me. If you want to ignore a lot it feel free to delete this section here without further comment. Fiddle Faddle 14:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The revert was instinctive more than based on a concrete reason, although one possible reason is trolling, and another is WP:CIR. In any event, I didn't want it on my Talk page. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tim,

Thank you for your feedback on the Reid's article. I found it a challenge to balance the requirement for notability with the requirement that it not be advertorial.

Reid's is the first company in Canada to create these energy neutral homes. This has been covered in a variety of major independent sources, including CBC Radio 1, the Toronto Star, the Department of Natural Resources, and Metroland media. This would all seem to indicate notability. The difficulty is that when I note the evidence of this notability, it can start to look advertorial.

Can you give me a recommendation on how to make this more neutral sounding, while still demonstrating the notability to justify a Wikipedia article?

Thanks,

Graeme — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharsel84 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It can be hard. References verify notability. 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. With good references, only one per fact you assert, the tone may be almost totally flat. Aim for Dull-But-Worthy and you will get there, assuming they pass WP:CORP. Fiddle Faddle 18:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Timtrent,

Please see these pages, its about me and my parents. They are quiet famous.

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abigail_Jain

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Smita_Nair_Jain

3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rajiv_Jain

Regards

AbigailJain1992 (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@AbigailJain1992: Avoid editing articles on them directly, please. Drafts you may edit. You have a prima facie conflict of interest Fiddle Faddle 17:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Trust me ... that i never lie. i won't do all the cheating that going different computer, pretending new user name and editing all different pages mabout my family. I was told by my friend that you shouldn't do. They will delete it. I am a great follower of Mahatma Gandhi

There is no conflict of interest.

By definition, you have a WP:COI. You may edit the drafts. You are absolutely discouraged form editing any article to which you are connected that is not a draft. It matters not whether you lie or not,whether you are trustworthy or not. What matters is that you are unlikely to be objective because of the conflict of interest. Fiddle Faddle 17:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Calais1984 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Medical Error Action Group ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Calais 1984 Username Sorry "Reviewer" you've lost me. Finding it difficult to fathom your "unreliable sources" response. Some details are pre-internet availability, as previously mentioned in a help request I didn't receive an answer to. Each and every source cited is available in hard copy (as previously advised). How do you suggest it is done? Not everything is on the internet. You may like to expand of what sources are unreliable. If government press releases have been removed due to age, is that deemed "unreliable"? We have the hard copies; that's where we have obtained our reliable sources from. You have already advised us that we had too many footnotes, - fair enough with listing our publications - so what gives with "sources unreliable"? It's a Wikipedia page, isn't it? Doesn't that cover things pre-internet age? The required format for External Sources and Further Reading is what is difficult to work out how to do it. But I have looked at other Wikipedia pages and their External Sources and in identical format. So, over to you guys. It really is complicated trying to fathom Wiki it if one is not a computer nerd. PS: What is puzzling is that there is a Wikipedia page for Graeme Reeves which is full of inaccuracies from top to bottom and containing factually incorrect information. How did it get uploaded onto Wikipedia? It discredits Wikipedia.Calais1984 (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Calais1984 (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Calais1984 (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Calais1984: 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 answered the most important parts of your question. Sources do not need to be online, but they need to pass WP:RS. Reliability does not pass with age.

The word "we" concerns me. It implies that you are part of the organisation. Please see WP:COI and understand that those rules will apply very fully once the draft is accepted.

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

If by "over to you" you mean that it becomes someone else's job to make this draft acceptable, that may happen, but it is unlikely. It is down to you. So, if you have a precise, rifle targeted question about the comments I have left for you, please ask it. My answering a general and all encompassing question about life the universe and everything leads me to answer 42. Fiddle Faddle 06:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'm writing to users who have used the "coordinates missing" template in the last year. Could you please use the standard template "coord missing" instead? While the "coordinates missing" template is a redirect to the "coord missing" template, and thus works fine in articles, using "coord missing" directly makes a number of automated bot workflows work better by eliminating the overhead of having to track down the uses of "coordinates missing" to eliminate the redirects. Thanks, -- The Anome (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done will try my best to remember. Fiddle Faddle 12:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! -- The Anome (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Timtrent, I noticed your report on UAA for ChicagoFreelanceWriter - odd that they didn't see it as a username violation given it could be easily shared... Anyway! I recently reviewed their AfC and declined it due to lack of notability. I also reminded them to respond to your talk page messages, so hopefully that helps get the message across for you. Cheers. samtar ^(msg) 11:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Samtar. I have placed a report here. I only mind paid editing when it is not correctly disclosed. Fiddle Faddle 13:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

God damn, your pathetic rationales for deletion are coming back to bite you. Next time, put some effort into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.49.27 (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 166.176.56.20 (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I just want to drop by and give you a word of encouragement, this subject has been an absolute nightmare. If you run into any more GRG acolytes like this charming guy don't hesitate to take it to AE, and if you want help with anything in this area I'm more than happy to lend a hand. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: I appreciate the thought. Most of this is pure ordure and requires deletion. However we have idiocracy. I doubt any f my AfDs will succeed, so we have idiot fan boys devaluing Wikipedia because they enjoy trivia. This is Schott's Miscellany stuff. Fiddle Faddle 22:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

For some of the morse spectacular flameouts I've been involved in, check out the list I compiled at WP:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (2nd nomination). Some things just don't ever seem to change. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: All I can say is "Good Grief!" It often amazes me how little backwaters of Wikipedia attract the strongest adherents, those who have a special interpretation of WP:GNG and, by sheer bully power, get away with it. Consensus is often interpreted as a ballot in these areas and it feels like a no go area for wise admins since they always kick up a huge and illogical fuss. I think their approach is to make sure no-one wants to play own their part of the schoolyard. Fiddle Faddle 08:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: I would be grateful if you would look at the section below and the kind words of an editor affiliated with topics of longevity. I expect I have nominated some of their pet articles for deletion. Fiddle Faddle 15:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

		The Articles for Creation barnstar
		For your consistent work and helpful feedback, including at the Help Desk. It is usually a thankless job but today is hopefully the exception! /wia /tlk /cntrb 22:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, today is indeed the exception Fiddle Faddle 22:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to abuse of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeralean Talley, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sakari Momoi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misao Okawa, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethel Lang (supercentenarian) or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gertrude Weaver, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.--Inception2010 (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Any editor in good standing may propose any article for deletion at any time. I am grateful for your concern. I am heartily sick of seeing irrelevant material pushed onto Wikipedia by those who wish to turn it into Schott's Miscellany. If I see an article I believe does not meet our policies I will ask that it be deleted. Fiddle Faddle 15:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see this as abuse of the process at all, to gauge notability it sometimes takes a discussion. I probably wouldn't have thought to nominate Okawa's article for deletion, though I don't see how it's disruptive to do so, and the other ones are definitely borderline at best; AfD is for figuring out what to do in the borderline cases. I'll have a look at them myself and see what I make of it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

What amuses me is how hard people try to prevent processes and the use of them instead of investing their time in creating articles of quality. There will be a few old folk who deserve articles, but these are the exception. It does no harm whatsoever to seek to ensure that their adherents are required to discuss their pet articles and their notability. I find, in general, that notability is inversely proportional to the unpleasantness of the discussion and the adherents. Thank you The Blade of the Northern Lights for your wisdom. My motive is to seek community discussion. Fiddle Faddle 16:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

There are many many article that I personally consider trivial and non-notable that are in Wikipedia. These include thousands of articles on obscure athletes, cartoons, television show characters, etc., but I accept that they often do meet Wikipedia notability criteria even if I personally don't like them. Human longevity is the subject of considerable scientific research and people have been fascinated by longevity (not surprisingly since we all die) throughout written history. Many people around the world do want to find out about the oldest people who have ever lived, the oldest people who have ever lived in their country, or in their ethnic group. Since these individuals are an important source of scientific research and public interest, they certainly are appropriate encyclopedic entries when they satisfy WP:GNG and WP:BASIC.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I judge that they do not. That is why I proposed them at AfD. We differ. We do not have to agree. Fiddle Faddle 18:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Remember, as a community, we're allowed to ask the question of whether the subjects are truly notable. So while I personally feel that the articles do meet GNG, I also feel that it's a reasonable discussion to have—and it's not abuse of process to nominate the articles. —C.Fred (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you C.Fred. The mechanism I have proposed for this tiny subset of articles is designed for precisely that purpose. We each have an opinion, and the airing of that opinion and reaching formal consensus and abiding by is important, whether we agree with the outcome or not. I can say with clarity that the message that started this thread is one that I find truly offensive. Everything after that has simply been discussion, but that message is, in my view, unacceptable, and intended to stifle discussion by the very fact of its wording. Fiddle Faddle 18:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to find out what the wider community thinks, then fine, but that doesn't mean mindlessly going round nominating articles for deletion without good reason. Maybe try discussing things first. The Misao Okawa AfD should have given you the hint that well-sourced articles of world's oldest person titleholders are clearly good enough to keep, but you then went and nominated Jeralean Talley for deletion, who is a very similar example. At that point, your nominations start to waste other people's time. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. Fiddle Faddle 20:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Consensus can change but some outcomes at AfD never change. Bearian (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe I've corrected the problem that had you tag my "Kiesel Carvin Signature CC 275" inclusion on Craig Chaquico's Wikipedia page. I had surrounded inadvertently made it appear as a link to an article. So what I did is I went back in and figured out how to just state the name of his guitar without it linking to an article or Website, etc... which is what, I think you were objecting to? You felt this made it seem like an advertisement for Craig's guitar? It wasn't meant to be that; it was meant to just be information for the reader of his Wiki page. I believe I've resolved this concern. Please let me know if there is something else I've done which you object to. Thank you, PilotRock61 16:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PilotRock61 (talk • contribs)

All I remember is a single link in something that was not an article, with no other text. Do feel free to create a real article about this guitar if it is notable. Fiddle Faddle 18:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Keith White (disabled yachtsman), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gillingham and This Is London. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

		WikiProject Disability Barnstar
		For lauditory work on creating and curating Keith White (disabled yachtsman). LavaBaron (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you LavaBaron. I met Keith in the Harbour in Dartmouth, where I am one of the yacht taxi skippers. He asked, not unreasonably, for assistance mooring his yacht. The wind was blowing fit to bend the lampposts and a one armed single handed sailor on a 44 foot heavy yacht was always going to need a smidgen of help. I got chatting to him and found him totally self effacing, a man small in stature with the courage of a regiment of marines, working through his disability to achieve, or try to achieve the most extraordinary things, and all for charity.

I thought "This man deserves, nay has earned, a page here. As I researched him I found him to be more and more extraordinary. I hope my DYK nomination works. He deserves his moment on the front page, too. Fiddle Faddle 08:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Definitely an incredible story based on the article. I would have reviewed it myself but, since I've attracted a DYK stalker, I don't want them to follow me to it and sink it. So probably best for a rando to review it. LavaBaron (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@LavaBaron: Once we get the DYK out of the way, and his story warrants it, with one of my hooks or someone else's, I will ask the Guild of Copy Editors to look at making it a GA. I can write a half decent article. They know what is needed for GA.

I saw you had a stalker. Smile and nod and walk quietly away from the creature, trying not to disturb it. As a pedant myself I know life is too short to argue with pedants. We are always right. Fiddle Faddle 08:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I pruned Draft:Tim Sexton as you suggested. I cut down the name-droppy lists, but it's hard to get rid of some of the citations -- he's had a looooooooong career, and there's a lot that I needed to verify. (To be truly entertained, look at the dif -- writing this article has been a process of cutting, cutting, cutting, cutting.) Hoping that it works but always willing to edit again! And not just because I'm incredibly tired of this article and want to be done with it. Aaaarrrrrg. Thank you! JSFarman2 (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Update - the article was accepted by another reviewer! Clearly your advice was solid. Thank you again! Julie — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSFarman2 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@JSFarman2 and JSFarman: This is excellent news. The truism that 'less is more' almost always holds good when we hit an AFC acceptance barrier. I'm glad another reviewer appreciated your work too. We forget, sometimes, that our objective is to get a valid article into main namespace, not to create the best article we possibly can from the get go. Well done. Cutting back material is harder than adding it. Fiddle Faddle 17:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Always harder for me to write less. And cite less! And just one more thanks -- I definitely lost perspective - the pruning was necessary. JulieJSFarman (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@JSFarman: It is even harder to achieve when one is associated with the topic of the article. As is writing sufficient, and, indeed, judging the quality of the references. We become blinded either by the need to say too much or the need to adhere to the rules, and our normal ability to write a decent, neutral, factual, well referenced article deserts us. Fiddle Faddle 14:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)