Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

Just wanted to thank you for publishing my page and sticking up for me in general. I know some parts of my article need more citation- but as you can see, this is a genuine phenomenon (the transphobia against trans men) that suffers from being under-studied, which makes citations hard. Do you think renaming the page to prejudice against trans men instead would help? Thanks again for all your help Vulture (a.k.a. Transandrosupport) (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Transandrosupport While Id love to say it is you I am sticking up for, I'm, really sticking up for your work. And there is more to do. Work hard, now, to edit it into better shape, so find sources that meet Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything and make damned sure it stays published.

Now, I'd say this to any editor about any article, make no mistake but I do have a partial understanding of some trans issues, second hand, via a cousin who is m2f and suffered at the well meaning hands of her family who failed to have a clue about even the smallest portion of what she was going through Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I've moved the article back to draft space on Cullen's recommendation at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Advice on reliable sources. Transandrosupport, please don't take this as a sign of any hostility on my part; I just think we need to fix some major issues with the article before it's safe as a published article. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry NO hostility found on my part. This is what consensus is all about. Our opinions differ, which is perfectly acceptable, and the article, now draft again, is preserved to fight another day. That would not be the case had my opinion been tested at AfD and been found wanting.

@Transandrosupport There is a good rationale behind this. Had the article been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion it would then have been very hard indeed to re-create it. Rules prevent it unless the article (new) is very different from the old. So take this in good spirit, please, though it will feel disappointing initially Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me I feel like I got a little but out of my depth yesterday and what with my edit crashing and me loosing all my sources, I've re-added them in and now there's not a single part of the article that is uncited. I really hope that if I resubmit it, it remedies the page. Thank you for taking the time to preserve my work so it doesn't get deleted. Vulture (a.k.a. Transandrosupport) (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I have revamped the article to improve clarity, balance and flow. Please note there exists confusion over how the name of the village is spelled.

In official records the village is named MAHIL GAILA and not MAHAL GEHLA, to wit: 1. Pin code: https://pincode.net.in/PUNJAB/NAWANSHAHR/M/MAHIL_GAILAN; https://www.mapsofindia.com/pincode/india/punjab/nawanshahr/mahil-gailan.html 2. School names: https://schools.org.in/nawanshahr/03060308102/gsss-mahil-gaila.html; https://www.studyapt.com/school-gsss-mahil-gaila-nawanshahr-pb 3. https://in.top10place.com/mahil-gailan-1753241655.html

References provided under article MAHAL GEHLA are incorrect and or incomplete, to wit: Reference #1 - "Mahal Gehla Population per Census India" – provides details not on Mahal Gehla but the village Kanaun in Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar. Reference #3 - "List of Sarpanches of Gram Panchayats in SBS Nagar district" – scroll down under column Sr. No. to #266 which names Charanjit Pal Sarpanch and the village under column nam of Gram Panchayat is recorded as Mahil Gahlan. Note first name of village is recorded as MAHIL and not as MAHAL. Section titled EDUCATION adds nothing noteworthy about the village. It merely lists educational institutions near by the village. My recommendation is that relevant information from the article MAHAL GEHLA be incorporated in the draft Mahil Gaila.

S TallimS Tallim (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@S Tallim you need, as you are, to discuss it there. Anything you say here will not contribute to the consensus that must be formed. Me? I have no opinion. Either direction is fine Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 18:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The article on MAHAL GEHLA provides not an iota of information on the history of how the village came about and who were the founding fathers. It merely provides some demographics from a Census on number of houses and population of the village.

At which forum of Wikipedia should I raise and discuss this matter to obtain a consensus on how to combine the two articles.

S TallimS Tallim (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@S Tallim Talk:Mahal Gehla Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

In its preamble the article states that “It is located 1.4 kilometres (0.87mi) away from sub post office Mahil Gailan”. This in itself is very confusing as it does not explain relationship between village Mahal Gehla and its post office named Mahil Gailan. There appear to be two villages, one named MAHIL GAILA and the other MAHAL GEHLA (can be seen on a Google map. In Google search window type Mahil Gaila Vs Mahal Gehla)

The article is divided into three basic groups (Demography, Education and Transport).

Under Demography the article refers to the Census report to provide data on number of houses, population, gender, people classified as scheduled class.

Under Education it lists colleges and education institutions that are “nearby” the village. The list includes secondary schools that are nearby BUT does not include the one serving the village named GSS Mahil Gaila.

Under Transport it lists Khatkar Kalan Jhandaji as the “nearest train station”. This, too, is incorrect since the nearest railway station is at Banga.

I suggest that the article should be named MAHIL GAILA and that the census data from the existing article MAHAL GEHLA be incorporated into it. History of the village and its founding fathers is what describes a village not just census information.

S TALLIMS Tallim (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@S Tallim please do not argue the case here. Argue the case at the relevant talk page and build consensus there. All I did was accept your draft and then find there appeared to be an identical article with the alternate name. Wikipedia:Teahouse would be a good place to ask for help, too Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies for arguing the case here rather that at the relevant talk page. I have now just done that. S TALLIMS Tallim (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@S Tallim I am only concerned that your words are wasted here. They are not wasted in the correct place. No apology is required Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry we clashed on the border line pass/fail of Yun Tu Hai Pyar Bohut I went with pass. Theroadislong (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Theroadislong I think both of us have valid reasons for our thoughts. Since we can each justify our thinking I am perferctly content. Thank you for the note, though, It makes a difference. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts keeping the AfC backlog drive leaderboard updated! Enterprisey (talk!) 07:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey Yummy! I like pie! Thank you Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Xfemi (talk · contribs)
  • User:Xfemi ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I request your assistance , I have removed the copyrighted lines and used my own words. How do i make it sound neutral. Please assist

Xfemi (talk) 10:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Xfemi you write dull-but-worthy text and you back that with references that meet our needs. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are 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. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey, you left a message staking that I am not complying with Wikipedia's paid editing disclosure requirements. I am not being paid to write the Wikipedia page, nor do I work for the company. I hold some $HANU in my wallet and am an active member in the community, and if that's a COI, then I can state it, but I'm not being paid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavinburtt (talk • contribs) 16:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Gavinburtt At some location you spoke of "Our website". This prompted the question. Please answer it at the location it was asked. It is a simple declaration, no more and no less. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and responded on my talk page where it was first addressed. As for the word "our", I certainly didn't write that on purpose (nor do I see it anywhere in the draft). It's possible that it slipped in when I was relaying the information from their roadmap (and they had it written as "our website"); simple mistake as I was very tired when I wrote it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavinburtt (talk • contribs) 03:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Please see the talk page for this article. ThanksMikeVdP (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@MikeVdP I have looked but do not understand why you wished me to do so Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 06:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

A number of changes have been made in efforts to make it more readable. Some notes are at the bottom of the talk page for the article. These, especially, relate to bullets / tables. Feedback solicited. Thanks.MikeVdP (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@MikeVdP I m still having trouble with readability. Perhaps you need other eyes than mine? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

That was an excellent reply you gave to User:Gavinburtt declining his submission. Thank you. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• SMCA64 (talk · contribs)
  • User:SMCA64/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear reviewers, The draft submitted by me has not been reviewed for over 20 days. I have no update on the same draft.

SMCA64 (talk) 07:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@SMCA64 It has not been submitted. Nor has Draft:Balaji Guttula

Please choose which you will submit and submit only one of them Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi there,

Please review this article and share the areas of updates for this to get published.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Phanindra_Gollapalli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gvrpkumar (talk • contribs) 13:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Gvrpkumar It seems there is no need for me to do anything.

Please sign your posts. It really pisses me off having too go and sort out signatures Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

		The Guidance Barnstar
		for your patient support of a new AfC reviewer --Doric Loon (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Doric Loon I honestly never realised you were new at it. Thank you Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 12:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I did what you requested. No responses from anyone. Where do we go now. S TallimS Tallim (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@S Tallim with no response for whatever you deem to be a reasonable period (and I think that period has elapsed here) it seems that you have implied approval to proceed. It's wise to document what you are doing on the talk page of the article you are modifying if the changes are large in nature. Be mindful of any opposition. We have a "rule" expressed in this: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. By starting the discussion early you show good faith. You may now make bold edits. If reverted, you are duty bound to discuss them, or at least to attempt the discussion. In this manner we build consensus.

Consensus is an odd thing. I fight hard for what I believe to be correct until consensus is reached. Then I abide by that consensus whether I agree with it or not. Consensus is not "correct" but is the will of the community. Often the will of the community is also correct, but not always. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi there,

Thanks for your patience in returning to Draft:Manscaped - if you have a little more patience, I have a couple of questions.

Do the Bloomberg articles count as secondary sources, as news reporting? Or do you view these as interviews, based on the fact that the journalists used interviews to establish the facts underlying their reporting? I'm increasingly worried that I'm just getting lost in the semantics of these definitions - in my mind, multiple paragraphs in a Bloomberg piece = multiple paragraphs in a secondary source.

Secondly, is it not allowed to include information about a company's partnerships? In my mind, such information provides context about the breadth and depth of a company's activities, and thus offers support to the article as a whole in terms of notability. Is this not correct? Iskandar_323 Talk 8:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Iskandar 323: Bloomberg is variable. By no means all its stories are journalism. Quite often it regurgitates PR pieces (it is a news aggregation service among its other roles). The judgement is a fine one, but the distinction is there when one knows what to look for. In my working life I fed organisations such as Bloomberg with PR pieces. Forbes is another such outlet, only less credible tham Bloomberg. Interviews with people create reportage on what people wish to say. The distinction is whether it is reportage about it or is of it. Example: 'Fred CEO told us that his corporation was highly successful' is reported speech, but pure primary source. But add 'Our researches showed this to have been the case om 2011 through 2019, but that it fell into serious decline in 2021' adds commentary about the corporation.

Wiklipedia can report both. The initial part is effectively primary because it says what Fred CEO said (no use for notability). The additional part makes it secondrary, because the journalist is speaking about Fred CEo's coropration, and is useful for notability.

You then have to determine whether the media outlets is inherently reliable. The UK's Daily Mail is not. Firbes can be under certain conditions

Include information about partnerships with pleasure, but they cannot and do not add value to its notability. Wikipedia is much more imterested in a reliable source stating that it has noted that Fred CEO's corp has been parrtnered with Huge Corp (with some commentary about the partnership that the journalist has reseraerched) than in either Fred CEo's corpo or Huge Corp's PR material on the partnership.

Long lists of partners show that one is grasping at notability straws. Better is statingt "Among the many business partners of Fred CEO's corp is Reliable Corp" with a citation about the partnership that adds value to notability (ie not a PR piece). If I explain that in detail I risk boring you because it is a repeat.

Feel free to keep asking. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent: From what you've said, I believe both of the Bloomberg articles I have now cited are secondary sources, as they explicitly rule out having received any direct comment from the companies in question. I've also stripped out all company websites and anything that appeared to be (as far as I could tell), any form of direct press release. There's also now a CNBC source, though I can't see CNBC in the WP:RS/PS list (surprised by this and note sure why), and I've substantially rewritten, re-ordered and re-prioritised the entire article. Is there any chance you can take another look and let me know if it's still obviously lacking? I would re-submit it, but some editors seem to be losing patience with the draft precisely because I keep re-submitting it, even though I have attempted to address any provided feedback in good faith each and every time. Iskandar_323 Talk 12:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Iskandar 323 please seeDraft talk:Manscaped for my analysis of the sources used. You may disagree.

I do not think the draft should be deleted and have said so. But I would not accept it with thisspurcing, and I feel an article in this state would be deleted.

I cannot see notability that is proven by this set of references.

Please tell me, why is the corporation's having an article seemingly so important toyoui? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent Thanks for this table - it's really useful and makes thing much clearer, including, to my chagrin, the four sources that I clearly screwed the links up for. Originally, I was just filling in what I saw as an encyclopedic gap for what is quite a large and well-publicised company. Now, I'm motivated primarily by the desire to understand and properly implement a chain of references that establish notability for the evidently much higher bar set by Wikipedia for active companies, since it's clearly something of a fine art, but I might be falling victim to the sunk cost fallacy. Iskandar_323 Talk 7:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Iskandar 323 This fallacy is why my suggestion to start from the ground up will be useful. Try for excellen e in referencing, then write the story form the referencves. Make it very tightly written and as brief as possible whuile saying what you want to say. Make excellence your passion, not Manscaped, and you wil be at the start if a great and interesting hobby. WP:THREE may be of some use here. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent Well it wouldn't be a fallacy if people didn't fall for it, but I'm also not sure what I would do particularly differently if I rewrote the piece from scratch. I now think I broadly understand notability from a Wikipedia perspective in terms of its qualifications, and I've now also found a WSJ source, so there are now Bloomberg (x2), WSJ, Forbes and CNBC sources all in support of the article (providing what I feel is a rich and substantial body of evidence even if a couple of those are considered as only partially counting towards notability). I've also removed a further three of the sources that performed particularly badly in your fair assessment (both for this and because they were perhaps a tad tangential), but by my reckoning, what is left, is a fairly bare bones, factual, supported and credible summary of the company and its activities. To include much less would be turn it into a rather pointless and uninformative nib. Or maybe I'm still just barking up the wrong tree? Incidentally, I'd just like to say thanks for your assistance and the time you've spent providing it. You've been by far the most helpful and supportive Wikipedia editor that I've encountered to date, and the one who's provided by far the most tangible, informative feedback. Iskandar_323 Talk 9:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Iskandar 323 I'm pleased to have been able to be of some help. I am now standing too close to your draft to be objectve, so will wish you genuinely well for thsi draft, and hope you will write others and edit existing articles. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Dear Fiddle Faddle, You left a comment on the Draft:Edmond J. Safra Foundation some time ago. Since then, I made some changes, trying to implement WP:MOS as you recommended at the time. I was wondering if you could take a quick look at it and tell me what improvements I could still make. Thank you very much for your help! --TychéS19 (talk) 08:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@TychéS19 I am a volunteer. You are paid. Why on earth should I spend any time helping you to earn money? You are paid to learn your trade, so learn it. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tintrent, I have been working to create an article for C-Change Conversations. In your review, you stated that your impression is that I am a paid editor and that I need to broadcast this, however, this is not the case so I am unsure what to do next. If you could please tell me how to fix this and what I need to do next, that would be much appreciated. Thanks and I look forward to hearing back from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamcchange (talk • contribs) 13:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Pamcchange first, please consider the damned great notice when you edit my talk page requesting you to sign your posts. It's not hard.

Second, your user name suggests you are part of C Change. This is highly suggestive of paid editing, broadly construed. This is emphasised by the fact that you say I have been working to create an article for C-Change Conversations. I would have expected you to say about, not for

Third, you need to make a formal declaration after thinking hard about the definition, on your own talk page. Mine is irrelevant to the conversation Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi again Timtrent. My apologies about signing the post, I am new to Wikipedia and still learning. I am not being paid at C-Change-Conversations, I am a volunteer and took the initiative of creating this page for them. I am still unclear about where I need to post this and what I need to say about being unpaid. I used the help chat and was told that I needed to message you again since you are the one who posted the warnings. Could you please help me resolve this? Pamcchange (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Pamcchange make the declaration on your talk page as a reply to the message. However, we interpret paid editing very broadly. If you are a volunteer for the organisation you have at the very least a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

There is no need for a new heading each time. I am about to remove the new heading you have added here. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

That this was approved and twice kept is almost unbelievable. Normally in such cases I add the article to my hopeless file, but this is the worst of the sort I've seen kept . Any ideas how to handle it?. I'm very reluctant to fix it myself, ref by ref, and puffery by puffery; the alternative is to wait a year and try again. I madea notefor ref on the article talk p. DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@DGG I think it sucks, but the alleged wisdom of crowds has spoken, at least for the moment. I think it will be deletable in a few more months Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 06:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@DGG if I could be bothered I'd rip it apart and rebuild it, but the creating editor has not endeared themselves to me by their later actions at ANI Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

exactly. If notable people would request articles, someone might actually write them-- in many fields a bio is easy enough. But how to get his first organized and then communicated is beyond us.I've suggested several times to everyone I could reach at the wmf that if they have a communication department, this is what they should be communicating. But as they don;t seen to understand why we have `an encyclopedia is about, they've never shown the least interest. DGG ( talk ) 08:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@DGG writing a bio is dead easy, assuming worthwhile references exist. I've written many. The trick is to keep it short, even almost abrupt, and let others add the flesh later. One of my shortest is Elsie Reasoner Ralph, a significant and notable lady, but with not much about her except the small amounts I've found.

WMF is WMF. I find them to be impenetrable, ineffable, even. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Timtrent. I initiated an article on Wikipedia, Tea_dance_(gay_event). I got a notice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Greg_Dahlen#Your_draft_article,_Draft:Tea_dances_(gay_event) 12 October 2020 that it had been deleted for inactivity. Yet I think on 20 July 2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tea_dance_(gay_event)&oldid=1034523562, you moved the draft article into the mainspace. So I'm wondering if it was deleted in 2020, how you saw it to move it into the mainspace in 2021. Trying to learn more about how Wikipedia works. Greg Dahlen (talk) 12:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Greg Dahlen The honest answer is that I have no idea, but the article is present, which is, really, all either of us need to care about. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 12:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

	The Articles for Creation Barnstar & The Teamwork Barnstar
	Congratulations! You have earned The Articles for Creation Barnstar and The Teamwork Barnstar for reviewing an outstanding 334 drafts and doing 67 re-reviews during the WikiProject Articles for creation July 2021 Backlog Drive. Also, well done for scoring 5th place overall. Thank you for your work to improve Wikipedia! On behalf of WikiProject Articles for Creation, Enterprisey (talk!) 00:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MasterworkDraft:Masterwork

21:27:20, 7 September 2021 review of submission by Masterwork Masterwork (talk · contribs) (TB) Draft:Masterwork (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

REVISED IN THE LIGHT OF COMMENTS AND REMOVAL OF COPYRIGHT MATERIAL

Masterwork (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Masterwork The draft has been rejected and will not proceed further FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 22:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC) 22:39:23, 7 September 2021 review of submission by Masterwork Masterwork (talk · contribs) (TB) Draft:Masterwork (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you please tell me EXACTLY what is wrong about this entry, and why is has been removed? What grounds have for making the claim "This draft is a copy, without attribution, of Draft:Karl Fiorini." This draft, revised, is simply based on the same basic entry I have always submitted. My patience is becoming tested.

Masterwork (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masterwork

User:Masterwork - If your patience is being tested, perhaps you should find a different publication medium than Wikipedia, because in Wikipedia, there is no deadline. You are testing the patience of the reviewers. You copied Draft:Karl Fiorini without attribution from User:AVM46. If you are also User:AVM46, then you need to declare the fact that you have been using multiple accounts. Are you User:AVM46? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Masterwork My colleague, Robert McClenon, has said all that is required isn reply to you. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tim. Thanks for your contribution to the Shaurya Doval AfD. As the reviewer who moved the draft into mainspace, and having done so mindful of the previous AfDs and the feedback left in the DRV, I feel a heightened sense of responsibility. Despite what has been written in the AfD I stand by my belief that he passes GNG, and thus the following quote from WP:NOTINHERITED applies: "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG". As our assessment differs it would be great if you could review my work at Talk:Shaurya_Doval#Notability_assessment and point out where you think my assessment of SIGCOV is flawed, focussing on the six sources which I believe do count towards GNG. Originally I thought 10 counted, but I have changed my mind on four. Thanks! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Curb Safe Charmer I will make the time to look hard at your work later today. I find this a a very hard one to assess. With AFC eyes on it I see it as a valid acceptance because it is (in my view) borderline, and borderline articles are worthy of community scrutiny. If I remove AFC goggles I find it much harder. So I will re-open my mind and look with fresh eyes. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Curb Safe Charmer: I find I am not content with "seat of Uttarakhand.[9][10][11][12][13]" - WP:CITEKILL. Out of courtesy to you I will look at each of those references, though would wish that only the best was selected. A fact asserted, once verified in a reliable source, is verified. More is gilding the lily.

I agree with your assessment on those that do not add to GNG

Of those that remain, I agree with the outcome of your assessment of https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/how-national-security-advisor-ajit-dovals-son-shaurya-reinvented-himself-into-a-key-policy-player/articleshow/48322773.cms?from=mdr but for different rerasons. I mistrust sources that do not quote sources.

I disagree over https://thewire.in/politics/exclusive-think-tank-run-nsa-ajit-dovals-son-conflict-interest-writ-large becaise it feels to me to be about the think tank rtather than aabout the man. I woiudsl be happy to see this as a reference for the org, but not the person.

I disagree over https://indianexpress.com/article/india/nsa-ajit-dovals-son-attends-bjp-state-meet-triggers-talk-of-joining-politics-4990647/ which is very much a speculative will he/won't he piece rather that extensibve coverage

I disagree over https://www.jansatta.com/rajya/uttarakhand/dehradun/national-security-advisor-ajit-doval-son-shaurya-doval-planning-to-contest-election-in-2019-from-uttarakhand/699561/ which reads to me as a simple statemenbt by the subgject with a small comment about him by A N Other

I am uncertain about https://www.hindustantimes.com/dehradun/shurya-doval-signals-entry-into-active-politics-from-uttarakhand/story-fGgNoFCmbAvDdCTN9m3jZM.html and feel it to be borderline. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt in that case, but it does feel like another will he/won't he piece, albeit better developed than the preceding one

I disagree over https://caravanmagazine.in/business/ajit-doval-sons-cayman-islands-hedge-fund-vivek-shaurya which seems to be about his kid brother in the greates part, with the subject meriting very little cover himself.

I am on the fence over https://indianexpress.com/article/india/nsa-ajit-dovals-son-shauryas-move-from-power-hub-to-base-at-home-uttarakhand-garhwal-5240603/ It contains a great deal of personal commntary by the subject (which cannot aid GNG), balanced by commentary about him. My AFC hat says this fails, thus so does my AfD hat

I may have missed some out by accident. If so then it was a sin of omission, not something I thought to do. If yoiu feel it useful you are welcome to copy this commentary to wheresoever you wish. Like you I can be persuaded by good arguments. These are my arguments to seek to persuade you that you may be being overly generous with some of your assessments.

I do not pretend to be correct. I just have my opinion to go on when comparing the referendces with what I believe we need to show that the article should be kept. I am not yet persuaded to change my revised AfD opinion. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi I notice you declined a creation for an article for the above event. You cited that it did not seem like a notable tournament because six players took part and got paid. This was an Invitational non-ranking event everyone gets paid in a non-ranking event which can have any amount of players from 2, 4,6 and 8 etc. This event was actually a pre cursor to the German Masters which World Snooker created as a ranking event soon after the success of this event. You have to remember in 2008 there was nowhere near the amount of tournaments there is now. Ronnie O'Sullivan won a €10,000 first prize which was actually more than the players that won the minor ranking PTC events which were started in 2010. Just to say a professional non-ranking event can be contested by just two players, please check out the 1990 Centenary Challenge when Stephen Hendry played Steve Davis for the title and that has been recognised by Wikipedia. Also one of the biggest tournaments on the calender at the moment is the tour championship where only 8 players qualify for the event.Will you pass this event to be created please ?. Kind Regards 178.167.245.239 (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

No.

If you resubmit it, assuming you have not, then someone else will review it.

I can't be bothered even to look at it because you could not be bothered to link to it, despite the damned great notice telling you to do so. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry what do you mean by "you could not be bothered to link to it". What does that mean I just hit the submit button ?. To be honest I only edit articles I know nothing about their creation. I did do anything until I asked you the question ok ?. So do I just need to resubmit it ?. Would you be happy enough for someone else to review it so, if it is resubmitted ?. Thank you for your time and your help in replying to me. Regards 31.200.163.217 (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Read the notice at the top of the page where you leave comments, also at the top of this page. I'm not going to try and track this draft down.

As I said If you resubmit it, assuming you have not, then someone else will review it.

I almost never review drafts more than once Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Read the notice at the top of which page please ?. Is it the draft page where the submission was declined ?. I'm sorry if this is a silly question but I don't see a comments section there. I think I will get someone on here to help me with this. Regards 31.200.163.217 (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

This page. Look up ^^^^^^^^ Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

But what do you want me to look up too what section ?. regards 178.167.192.240 (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Why not try the top of the page. I am not going to re-review this piece. Period. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Kawsarkhan24 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Kawsarkhan24/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please can you help me find out the exact incorrect informations that should be changed. This article is not an advertisement of a person. This Author’s biography will be read by many person as we found that his name is suggested by Google search Autocomplete (Kawsar Khan Sydney) which reflect the people’s interests on this person. Please consider suggesting how this BLP should be written.

Kawsarkhan24 (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kawsarkhan24 I have no interest in what Google may or may not say. It has no relevance to Wikipedia. We are concerned about his passing Wikipedia:Notability (people). I have left you a further comment on the draft. Please see Wikipedia:NOTLINKEDIN Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reviewing my page and for letting me know why you decided to decline it. I was hoping you could clarify for me, if possible, why my sources were not up to snuff to establish notability. I thought that the Reuters article, Health Policy article, and Radio World article established notability independently from the organization, and when I looked at similar (size, scope, etc.) organizations' Wikipedia pages, like Farm Radio's page, they seemed to have less sources that didn't seem to be independent of themselves. I'm certainly not trying to have their page scrutinized in any way, I'm just wondering where I departed from their success. Maybe I misunderstood and there wasn't a problem with the sources but with how I used them? Or maybe I didn't establish the notability enough in the article itself? Just looking for more explanation since I'm pretty new to Wikipedia. Thank you again for the review and any advice you have.Noahpdoty (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Noahpdoty the only issue that I have is that, sources notwithstanding, you have not demonstrated notability in a Wikipedia sense. Manyorganisations receive press coverage. Passing Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) is far harder than just existing.

Never compare one article with another on Wikipedia. No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy. We have a great many articles that slip through the net. Often the highlighting of them demonstrates that they do not qualify and they are discussed for deletion.

You may find this essay helpful. It is one of many on article creation. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Timtrent, I added more sources and made some other changes to the page. If you have a chance, could you take a look at it again sometime and let me know what you think?Noahpdoty (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Noahpdoty I try very hard never to review a topic more than once. The more eyes you get on a draft the better the end result. I'm gad you've improved the article. Remember that we major on the quality of the references, not the quantity Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

[Sherif] I've fixed all the issues, Please submit the draft or mention the changes required if anything needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkvu (talk • contribs) 17:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tinkvu No, you have not. It is submitted, not by me. It is also nominated for some form of deletion, by you. I have no idea what you have in mind here. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Have re written the draft request you kindly help in approving article please let me know if i need to change any other things https://www.filmibeat.com/celebs/maasthi-upparahalli/biography.html even this page has been edited they have copied the content which i have written — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70mmreels (talk • contribs) 03:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@70mmreels I do not review drafts more than once except in very special circumstances of my own choosing. Others will review your submission. Do not forget to sign your posts Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Sir i moved this page by mistake i wil follow the process shell i move the article to draft [[1]] 70mmreels (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@70mmreels No, do not move it again. It is very hard to move an article "by mistake" though.

Improve the article and it may survive the deletion discussion Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I have added few references from local print media also i am trying best to improve the article 70mmreels (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I've fixed the issues mentioned. Added details to my User's page, Cited inline with references and it's ready to be oved into Article. Please check it once you come online. [Sherif]

You need to submit the draft for review Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

It’s been a long while I’ve interacted nor checked up on you, I’m sorry about that double T. Real life has been hectic following my promotion at work, I’ve been inconsistent with editing here. once again sorry about that. I hope this message reaches you in good health Timtrent. Celestina007 (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Promotion is always good and often hectic. I’m waiting for my computer to download its backup. It was wiped during repair, so I’m on my phone and finding the interface very unfamiliar. Not even sure I’m logged in! Glad you’re well Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 18:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

lol I find you desktop users weird, whilst desktop users find we mobile users weird. Ask El_C, it literally frustrates him, Lmao. I’m glad you are in good health. Remember to always keep safe. Celestina007 (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Timrent,

Months ago you rejected the article on Gústi B. You said it needed more credible sources so I have updated the article and included a lot of citations(articles) to real, established news papers in Iceland on the subject.

Here is the new draft! Hope you will be happy with what I have done!

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

User:Gudjonari 01:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gudjonari The review process has worked as designed, my friend. I reviewed and pushed the draft back to you for work. You worked and resubmitted it. A different reviewer has accepted it. In this process everyone wins. I'm glad it has been accepted. Well done. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that more references need to be added, and will try to correct. this may be difficult being that most of the references i found online are primary sources and there arent too many secondary sources. I don't think that the article should be merged with human brain project being that BrainScaleS is an actively evolving project (many iterations of the computer are being developed) and also SpiNNaker has its own article so i wanted BrainScaleS to have one also.

I'll let you know when I've corrected the issues. RJJ4y7 (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@RJJ4y7 Referencing will be an issue, in that case, and may be insurmountable for the present. There is nothing wrong with finding the draft a home inside another article, later seeking consensus to split it into a free-standing article if that is the set of circumstances you face Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I thought I updated that with recent things, but not seeing it. More fail....

Nothing may have happened here, but the lingering goes on elsewhere.

It looks like the "Site Reliability Engineering" article came back. And yea, quite the "Good deed not gone unpunished".

I put in for Refund, waiting on that.

I know you offered to help the original author, but he's thrown his hands up and walked away. If I'm going to try to right this, I need to take it over. I'm terrible, I failed "Intro to college level writing" all 5 semesters I attended between 2 colleges. Would that offer be open to me too? I definitely will read the essay, but I'm going to need whatever help you'd be willing to provide if any.

Thanks, Tuc Tuctboh (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I’m struggling using phone at the moment. Not really able to help just now Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 18:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to hear. Is there something I might be able, some way, help with? Tuc / Tuctboh (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tuctboh I am now back online properly. I cannot recall the article per se, just its name. I'll offer you what help I am able. Let me know when it is refunded, please. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Given the hubbub, I'm hoping re-mentioning it won't open the can again - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_June_14#16:24:09.2C_14_June_2021_review_of_draft_by_Tuctboh

Looks like the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Production_Engineering_(software) page was refunded. After reading that article you previously pointed me to, where/what next? Thanks!! Tuctboh (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tuctboh I'm really not sure how to advise you because despite my refreshing my memory of the events, I am not sure what advice you seek. Please be as specific as you know how, ideally spoon feeding me. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

So I was referencing this part of your last reply. ″If your co-worker is interested in pursuing the draft I am happy to advise them. I have no subject knowledge, but I understand Wikipedia. This is a difficult place to edit. If one can write for Wikipedia one can write for anywhere. Experienced editors here are more than happy to guide new editors. We want new editors, and we want new articles. My first piece of advice will almost always be to read that essay."

I'm taking you up on any advising you might have available besides reading the essay (Which I will). Formats, citations, etc. I realize its a bit nebulous, but I'll take what I can get to try to get this back on track. If there is more you can do to help, again, definitely appreciated. Otherwise, I'll work on combining what the essay says, and take into account the comments on it, and go from there. Tnx for dealing with my prattling. 2620:10D:C091:480:0:0:1:764 (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tuctboh Please remember to log in before editing.

Are we talking about Draft:Production Engineering (software) as the candidate for help? At present the referencing is somewhat difficult, and the article lacks content.

As general advice, we require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are 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. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Timtrent, thank you for your suggestion on my article. I have edited and concerned texts. Requesting you to kindly have a look and approve. With Regards Trailukya (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Trailukya Someone else will review it next time. It does, however read like an advert. That will cause it to be pushed back to you again Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank You for taking the time in reviewing my submission. Trailukya (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Fiddle faddle, Thanks for your comments on my draft article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vroom42. I have put my paid status in as you kindly showed me. I will be editing it again this week, as my employer feels we may have enough new notable mentions. I doubt it. I don't want you to do anything, just letting you know what's happening. Thank you and to all in the wiki community that keep this great resource going, and to a high standard. Vroom42 (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Vroom42 I also think it unlikely, but, assuming you can find references to meet our needs, please go ahead.

We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are 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. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

It's tough when an employer requires the task to be done. If they believe that Wikipedia will enhance their corporate reputation they need to think again. Wikipedia adds no value to them. They must add value to Wikipedia. Passing WP:CORP does that. This will be a tough message for them to hear, and the messenger may be shot when delivering it, so I suggest you plod on, do what they ask, and let the draft run its course. All you can do is your best. You depend on excellence of referencing, something which may not exist yet. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey there, I submitted for inclusion this article: [[2]]

Please bear with me here, because I'm extremely new to this (I know it's obvious). Anyway, I was wondering if articles written in the peer reviewed journal, Clinical Trials, would be sufficient to document notability of this professional organization. Also and separately, is it possible to submit supporting documentation for notability without using it as a citation for the article? These may have coverage, but are not necessarily interesting facts to put into a wikipedia article.

Thanks, Lsmcdaniel (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Lsmcdaniel

@Lsmcdaniel In general terms a peer reviewed publication is considered to be a reliable source. However, this depends on whether it is a genuine review or a paid for review. You also need more than one good reference.

Since I don't review any draft more than one e except in exceptional circumstances I will not make a comment on the draft itself. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank You!!

BoyScoutish (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC) BoyScoutish

It appears that the version of the draftify script that you have automatically marks the draftified article as submitted. There are at least two versions of draftifying script, one of which submits, and one of which does not. I think that the latter, not marking it submitted, is better, but it is better to have any script that draftifies stuff than not to have one. Anyway, I have declined it a fourth time, and have given the originator a templated inquiry about conflict of interest, and a warning about disruption. If he submits it yet again, it may be rejected or sent to MFD. If it is moved to article space again, it definitely should go to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I think the version I use draftifies it in the state it was in. Thus Cervantes was already submitted, but was in article space, unless, of course, you know differently Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

You had a choice. Either of the choices that you identified would have been reasonable. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I have reported the author and the page to the COI noticeboard. Another editor has tagged the page for G11. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Thank you for the fyi. We will see what transpires Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The author says that they are not getting paid, and says that they said that somewhere. The article has been deleted as G11. Maybe that is the end of it, and maybe not. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I've been trying to school them to write a better one if one can be written. We'll see it soon enough Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

They misled you and took advantage of your assumption of good faith. They have recreated it in article space. I now don't believe that they were ever telling the truth about not being paid, but that is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I have no real idea. I do know they acted foolishly. I continue to take folk at face value unless they prove otherwise Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for checking my attempt at publishing an article on Tiemko

An empty link to Tiemko appears on Wikipedia on a list of Musea bands.

^[1]

The Internet has a lot of links to Tiemko though mainstream medias or musicologists have failed to learnt to know about this band.

It has a reference website ^[2]

There has been a copyright infringement alert because the original text of the article was pasted to http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=120764 but now i've edited that post and the should be no infringement issue.

Thanks again,

Jean-Marie Tschanz

Machinechance (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Machinechance It requires references Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

Maybe we're almost there, and only one link is missing

Will this link to ISNI acknowledged BnF do ?

^[1]

And I promise to remember and use it each time is needed,

Thanks again...

Jean-Marie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machinechance (talk • contribs) 23:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Machinechance A new heading is not required every time. Please just add your reply, if any, to the foot of a thread. Do not forget sign it, please.

If you ask "Will this do?" then you do not understand referencing despite my telling you already. Please read WP:REFB and WP:CITE

We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are 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. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

So no, "this" will not do. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

These are two very different cases, but in both cases, the authors of the article became the problem and are working against any possibility of an accepted article. In both cases, I don't know if the subject is notable, and the originator is making it impossible for their own client. Yuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I find it fascinating when (presumably) a client commissions an article and the person commissioned cannot meet their (presumed) contract and receive payment because their client is not notable. The brouhaha that often ensues is amazing to behold.

The other area I find fascinating is a non notable autobiographer crying 'foul' at every available opportunity. You and I are more notable than many of those, and I am not at all!

Cervantes? Currently not notable, may be at some future time, likely will not be

Hood? Truly hard to be sure, hence AfD. The community will decide. Why an editor moved Hood to man space is beyond my understanding, but they did. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure that they aren't notable. They both may be. But their flacks are making it impossible for them to get neutral coverage. And the reason why the editor moved Hood to mainspace is not beyond my understanding. They just think that they can force their page into mainspace. Duh. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Hood's mover now has a paid editing warning from me. Oh yes, I know they wanted it to be an article. They fail to understand that deletion at AfD makes a futile article more difficult. And they did not tidy the [rude word redacted] thing up even when asked to do so. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 18:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

What rude word? A large engineering project for controlling the flow of water? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I was more along the lines of "Fire Trucking" Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 18:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

That activity sometimes results in bastards. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Nil illegitimi carborundum Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I apologize for not replying sooner. When I added the templates it was not under instruction, I was only curious and did not understand what I was doing. I know now not to do it, so it will not happen again. I am new to Wikipedia, so I am very ignorant when it comes to a lot of things that have to do with publishing articles, etc. I will be more mindful from now on.

KMUOS refers to the 'Kateb Maktub' project I am apart of as a translation student at the University of Sharjah. The goal of the project is to increase the number of articles published about Arab authors, and the course grade depends on the status of the article (whether or not it gets published). The reason I use this hashtag is to make it easier for my guide to find the articles I posted in relation to this project.

Mira Tageldin (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mira Tageldin: Thank you for replying. There is much to learn about editing Wikipedia. Translation alone is not sufficient, though the woprk you are doing is impressive. Please would you ask your guide to make themselves known to me. I will try to intriduce them to the correct resources to help those they are guiding to work smarter, not harder.

As an example, if this is an educational project, someone like Ian (Wiki Ed) will be a great person for them to know. They might not be the correct contact point, but they have a vast experience of knowing where to go! Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mira Tageldin: I recommend that you post a note at the Education Noticeboard where someone can put you in touch with people involved with the Education Program in Egypt. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that a redirect is in order. When the same editor submits the same article in both draft space and article space, my first question is whether there should be a mainspace article. If it isn't ready for mainspace, I write an AFD. An author who is determined to push an article into article space is likely to edit-war a redirect anyway, so an AFD is the proper forum. I think that we are in agreement. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon we don't usually differ a great deal. An AfD decision to redirect, while not bomb proof, goes a long way Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. It was really half-hearted because of the restrictive new hoops in place to put up new articles. Granted, people must be flooding Wikipedia during the pandemic but it's really off-putting.

I'm curious, you have an interesting box on your user page about holding multiple accounts. I clicked on "policy" and the "clean break" reason made me laugh. What editors have done this?--GrammySandwich (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@GrammySandwich I think what you think of as restrictive new hoops are really the community deciding some years ago that quality must be a major goal. We still have many tens of thousands of articles that would not pass today and they are being weeded out as folk find them. Notability criteria have toughened over time. An example is that a secondary educational establishment no longer gets a free pass and must pass real criteria there than 'It exists'. This has not been pandemic related at all, predating it by quite some time.

Do find a smidgen more material for Martinez. The next reviewer will wish to see that they pass WP:BIO, assuming they do. Take it as a challenge!

I know that the clean start is requested by a number of folk who have been foolish. Some of those go on to fail again. I favour it as a last chance b because it tends to work for the contrite but foolish editor. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes. So I use Template:twocopies for the purpose. You can too. McClenon mobile (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@McClenon mobile Thank you. I had not seen that before Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

To Whom This Concerns: I am kindly asking that you please restore the previous article that was written and approved By veteran Wikipedia members. I find it highly disrespectful and unprofessional to allow someone to delete a verified article with years of good standing due to the respected writer, that put in their time and research to provide quality content. To allow someone to delete all of this information in such away that threatens deletion of this article, is a violation in itself. I am also asking that the recent image added entitled HiddenFig, also remain. As this image is our property, and granted permission for usage was approved by the author. The image was taken in 2016 featuring the Movie, Hidden Figures, touching on racism against African American Women featuring the life of Katherine Johnson in the 1900’s. This is a factual image of the work that showcases the artist history in the industry. To have articles and images removed that touch on this subject, sets an undertone of racism within itself. Due to the fact that we have faced a series of harassment and mistreatment when providing legitimate information and factual images to this article. We are asking for fair treatment. To take this statement as a threat, would be unfair. Do to the fact that the threat of deletion and forum rallies have plagued this article for years. It's harassment. And perhaps Wikipedia:No legal threats should be aware of this problem. We ask that the on-going harassment of deletion come to an end immediately. We have ownership of the past approved articles. At this point raising attention to the mistreatment of our article in a public forum outside of your establishment will be our result, as it is highly disrespectful to allow such unfair treatment to continue. Immediate action needs to be taken to restore our article in it’s entirety. We are also asking that a lock be added to prevent any further abuse. Thank you. the page in mention Emunah La-Paz Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emunah_La-Paz (former article has been deleted. Please restore)

Reference

https://www.google.com/search?q=little+ant+productions&rlz=1C1CHNY_enUS643US643&oq=little+ant+productions&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j35i39j69i59j69i60l2.4315j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

https://www.hubbardsmallpresspublications.com/

https://frankfurtrights.com/Books?SelectedPageSize=20&OrderBy=1&HasRights=1&MainSearchBar=emunah+la-paz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhubbard (talk • contribs) 18:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Vhubbard When I saw the article it was not one that should remain here. I nominated it for deletion, a process that takes seven or more days for folk to discuss. You should make your case at the deletion discussion.

The edit history shows who has edited the article, please speak to them directly if you have any issues. You can see what they edited, with edit summaries

The picture on Commons is a separate issue and will be decided there. That decision may have been made already. You may not upload copyright material to Commons. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 18:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Vhubbard I note also that you appear to be making some form of threat. Please read Wikipedia:No legal threats in case that is your intention. You are also making accusations of racism. I will tell you once, and clearly, that I have no interest in race, and race played no part whatsoever in my decisions to nominate the article. I care only about article quality. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Dear Timtrent, wanted to drop a quick thanks for reviewing and approving Melik Shahnazar II - this was my first attempt of submitting a draft via a formal process, and the outcome was very satisfying. Thank you! Best wishes, --Armatura (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Armatura More power to your elbow. Please remember now to be the artic less father, not its mother. Fathers let go, mothers embrace closely. The new article will be edited by others now and you should really be a spectator rather than try to "own" it in any manner Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the parenting advice )) --Armatura (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, i am sorry, but i don't understand your comment ^[1] What do you mean? shall we correct something?Виктория Шмыговская (talk) 06:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Виктория Шмыговская I suggest you ask the OTRS team what has happened. These things do not normally take this long Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this note. I had looked, but initially failed to find that info. I agree that it's well worth petitioning for a change, having reviewed a number of articles. I do think edit summaries would be helpful to that, but IMO they are not strictly necessary. Please let me know if I can help. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth FA is hugely productive. In their early stages they were over-productiuve and created at least as much rubbish as good work. They are limited at present to having only(!) 20 concurrent AFC submissions, and has exceeded that by a huge margin. I've worked with them to get that down to 20. I left a note yesterday on their talk page appreciating that.

I've given them a suggestion in that note to work diligently rather than quickly and only produce the good stuff. After a few months of good track record to initiate an appeal. It was an ANI sanction, so track record will be important.

They specialise in the lesser known topics, not least of which are African Americans who have slipped out of sight, or have literally been whitewashed from history. I presume prejudice has achieved that, but I live in the UK where attitudes are different.

I hated the restrictions when I saw them first, but I think they walked into them by concentrating on quantity instead of quality. Once done, it was done. But they have not let it stop them. Not unreasonably they are upset about it.

I've watched quality increase. I think some AFC folk are hard on them because "It's FA AGAIN!" and that annoys me. Human nature, though, will always prevail.

I want to help them.It looks as though you do, too. So please read my note to them and agree with what you agree with. With their help we can get them to work this off. A downside is if they unleash their tremendous productivity into quantity again ignoring quality. That may result in a block. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tim, I wanted some advice about some concerns I have about the above subject. You (quite correctly in my view) moved it back into draftspace after it was published in mainspace. I've been watching this article for a while... or rather, these articles, because identical articles exist at Draft:Little Crush and Draft:Baby Goat. The author of the current draft has the same surname as the subject (unlikely to be a coincidence), and the major author of the other two versions is a SPA. I strongly suspect a COI and possible autobiography, and I don't know if the other versions have been created to try and circumvent the AfC process, in the hope that one of the three versions will be accepted. Should we leave the other two versions alone and hope they disappear in six months' time via a G13 speedy deletion, or is there a case for trying to remove them now and only have one version of this article to focus on?

For what it's worth, I don't believe this artist is notable yet – he's basically known for one event, writing a song about an Olympian from his home town, and all the serious coverage is local, nothing outside of Minnesota... even the Fox News and Yahoo sources are actually just local Minnesota versions of those websites, on closer inspection. Richard3120 (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Richard3120 When I meet situations like this I take the editors at face value, and am assertive and advisory. There comes a point when they reveal (often) UPE, reasonably often sockpuppetry and almost inevitably huge and overbearing ego!

I work on the simple basis that nothing is ever urgent, so WP:ROPE is useful. I often find myself in the middle of a brouhaha because I stick very politely and carefully to my guns.

What actual help woudl you like? I see one editor has screwed up one of the drafts already! Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Richard3120 Since there are a pair of editors (at least), how about starting an SPI? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Basically that... based on what you've just said, would you advise me to just do nothing and keep an eye on the drafts and see what happens? You're probably right, but I just wondered if it's getting too complicated with three drafts on the go. I don't think these are socks, it looks more like a meat farm, so maybe an SPI wouldn't help... I suspect the artist has roped his friends into helping trying to get his article published. Richard3120 (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I am just looking at an SPI. I hate folk using WP for spam! I'll let you know when it's lodged. Otherwise be absolutely friendly and advise them as if nothing is happening Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice and help – we'll see what happens. Richard3120 (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Richard3120 see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kayleyrae319 - feel free to add commentary to it of you feel appropriate Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Richard3120 and here we see it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kayleyrae319&oldid=1047074071 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Aha! Yes, it definitely looked like a concerted promotional attempt by several users to me. That particular editor above has created several other articles for Minnesota rappers, all of which are heavily sourced to local coverage or non-RS citations, but they all look more notable than this particular person. Richard3120 (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing to prevent your taking each to AfD. If I do that I tend to reference the SPI and the deleted paid declaration in the nomination.

You have good antennae. Oh, a great UPE ally is @Celestina007! They have a dogged determination on matters like this Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for everything. Richard3120 (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Richard3120 All in the hurly burly that is behind the scenes in Wikipedia. A pleasure to be of some small use Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

is back. Celestina007 (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007 What a true joy! Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007 the one below is interesting, too. Another small UPE farm Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello.You had said to me: "Please finish the job. Don't just move 'em, please tidy them up". Can you please explain how to do it? For example, in this article do I just delete the box at the top and bottom? Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_and_Anglo-Indian_Defence_Association

Anderson1970 (talk) 09:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Anderson1970 Broadly delete anything that is a Draft item (the AFC stuff) that obviously does not belong in an article, add anything such as categories that does belong in an article, and make out "look right" Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:Timtrent can you please review this Draft:Khattab Faleh Abdul Rahman Hussein — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnyx10 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not review on request Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked Sockpuppet of Khattab Lord Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (re Wiki Page Polisher). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)}}

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)