Thank you TT for taking time to edit and comment on this draft page, and for sending link to guidance for academic 'notability' which I will certainly seek to follow for any other similar page I try to draft (part of a mini-project of mine I dreamed up to try to raise the visibility of scholars across music/media/cultural studies). V helpful!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Matthew_Worley Adam gardener (talk) 08:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Adam gardener It is a useful and laudable mini-project. Go to it with a will. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey Fiddle Faddle, Would these 3 sources meet the "significant coverage" criteria for a page about the company "OilX"? You gave a lot of great advice in your last review and was wondering if you could help. Thanks.

https://tech.eu/2020/02/24/oilx-2-million

https://www.forbes.com/sites/yiannismouratidis/2019/04/10/how-ai-could-make-the-life-of-oil-traders-easier/?sh=21109276546e

https://now.asharq.com/program/17/%D9%85%D8%A4%D8%B4%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%82/1411093/%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%84-%D9%83%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B3%D8%A8%D9%8A-%D8%A3%D9%88%D8%A8%D9%83-%D8%A8%D9%84%D8%B3-%D8%B6%D8%AE%D8%AA-%D9%83%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%86%D9%81%D8%B7-%D8%A3%D9%82%D9%84-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AA%D9%81%D9%82-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%87?t=384.507462&utm_content=213321527&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&hss_channel=tw-913708849894445056

~~~MaximusBurticus~~~ MaximusBurticus (talk) 11:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@MaximusBurticus None of them. Each is a PR piece 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. One last question. Just curious, I have been using Rystad Energy's page as a point of reference and they have these sources:

https://finansavisen.no/nyheter/bors/2020/05/26/7531510/sjefstrateg-det-ser-veldig-bra-ut-akkurat-na

https://www.rystadenergy.com/contact/

What make's the Rystad finasavisen interview any less PR than this OilX asharq interview: https://now.asharq.com/program/17/%D9%85%D8%A4%D8%B4%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%82/1404215/%D9%81%D9%84%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%AB%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D9%8A%D9%86-%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%A8-%D9%83%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D9%88%D9%85%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%83%D9%85-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A3%D8%B3%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D9%81%D8%B7-%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A7

Also, would the page be able to include a contact page like Rystad: https://www.oilx.co/contact

or even a projection like this: https://www.oilx.co/news/saudi-arabia-impact-assessment similar to Rystad's: "Slowing down as electric vehicles accelerate, oil demand set to peak at 101.6 million bpd in 2026" on their page.

I really appreciate you taking the time to look at this!

~~~MaximusBurticus~~~ MaximusBurticus (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@MaximusBurticus No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy. You may have identified an article that ought not to be present. I w8lol look at unit and my suggest it be improved or removed.

Consider "Contact us" pages. There are pure advertising links 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:CIR? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

or not --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra That is more cryptic than I can decipher. The diff is weird, full of archive.org material? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra I'm seeing PR pieces also placed in the wayback machine. What I dislike are PR sources. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra I've flagged them with {{primary source inline}}. Bitty ity was poor before, too. I must be being dense this evening! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

😥 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra Sorry, it's been a long, hot day, and I can't work out whether this editor is competent or not. They seem to have found a bot that does clever stuff, does that make them competent? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. maybe. The spectre of UPE just won't go away. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra They are editing in places where UPE rears its head, but that is all of India anyway. Hathway seems to be a potentially notable business, but if so why isn't the article better. I don't think this is the hook to hang the UPE hat on, though. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra I have, howebverm looked at User:InternetArchiveBot, and am wondering, if this is what they are using, just how they have access to use it. Something feels not quite right 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

That is a tantalizing question --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Great Page! Ianawr (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. Thank you for your review my article.

As you may know, we need to cite the original texts in order to define the concepts. How is it possible to use others when you talk about the text itself? I checked Michal Halliday for instance in Wikipedia. As you may see this is the way you do in Wikipedia. So would you please help me? Shima1447 (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Shima1447 Please out a new section heading above your text here. And link to the item you want to talk about as instructed. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I've put the section header there myself. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I have gone back in the latest revision and found multiple additional citations that are not wp:userg, added them accordingly. Please let me know if any more work must be done. WhichUserAmI 12:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@WhichUserAmI It's still an advert for a non notable web entity. Please read WP:42 for the reference issues 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Removed content that could not be verified by an impartial, reliable source, rewrote to more strongly reinforce NPOV and avoid sounding like an advertisement. WhichUserAmI 13:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@WhichUserAmI I see you have resubmitted it for review. Another reviewer will review it in due course. It is certainly improved. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I have not yet resubmitted it, yet, but would you say this is enough? If not, I fail to understand how ten differentiated citations are still not considered notable enough. Absolutely understood the bit about YouTube not being allowed, and removing hyperlinks. But non-notability? Still? Disrupt has millions of subscribers and has made global news, I believe that does indeed descrive notability in a nutshell and that I have done a decent job of establishing that notability through the use of nearly a dozen citations to different publications. WhichUserAmI 11:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@WhichUserAmI The next reviewer will offer their opinion. Millions of subscribers are surprisingly irrelevant. All that is relevant is what other independent reliable sources say about the entity. That coverage must be significant. In practice that means three or more papragraphs.

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. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, You have review my article on Rachel Watkyn. The photos has taken by a photographer and paid for so i have full copy right of the image. Furthermore, I have removed items about her two companies but I am unsure how to proceed now to make it more creditable. Would you be able to help. KRobertsTBC (talk) 12:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@KRobertsTBC Copyright is handled by Wikimedia Commons. Please use c:COM:VRT. Wikipedia has no interest im images.

You are a paid editor (0.99 probability). This is an amateur project. I am not paid. I have no interest in helping you get paid, it benefits me nothing and you a lot. You want the article, here, then is it up to you 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not a paid editor I am an assistant in an office. when i looked at other articles they have photos so i thought i was the way to do it. For fun I help peoples websites look nice and i thought it would be fun to write and article on here as I have never done it before. Thanks for getting back to me. KRobertsTBC (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@KRobertsTBC By definition you receive a financial reward form your employer, broadly construed. You are thus subject to WP:PAID. You draw pay from your employer, and you are writing about your employer. Ergo, you are paid to write this draft. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Navin J. Manjooran, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Navin J. Manjooran until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Timtrent. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:WeForThem, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The Needles (Disambiguation) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#The Needles (Disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for reviewing over Draft:HTwins.net! If you could, I would love some help topic-specific help on how to meet the notability guidelines. Looking forward to talking :) DreamyDude20042 (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@DreamyDude20042 I can do a ;little better. Please read this essay, one of a number on article creation, and look at the process within it. We need to start with references, ones that pass WP:42.

If you can't find useful references then your quest is a non starter.

If you can find them, be selective about what you say. Your objective is simply to get a draft accepted. It doesn't need to be perfect, nor even complete, but it must be well referenced. That means quality, not quantity. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Saw your edit summary about being tired so here is a cup of tea for you. Although some rest is likely to better solution. :) S0091 (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@S0091 Having corrected my mistake, I have enjoyed your tea, and am taking a rest 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LexLen, didn't look like a sock, but definitely a COI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish I agree that it never quite looked like a sock, but well worth an SPI to check. There is something awry here, though 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeskProto (The Non-Machinist's Cam). Whatever opinion you choose to express there, should you so choose, will be welcome 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	For multiple nominations for deletion of articles when the originators tried to move war them from draft space into article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Thank you, Robert. It's an unrewarding task, so your reward is lovely 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, you reviewed an article I submitted Draft:Mike_Robbins and rejected it for sounding like an advertisement. Is it possible to give a little more information on which sentences make it sound like an advertisement? I spent about a week going through this article, verifying all the source pieces and removing anything that didn't have a source at all, or where it was not acceptable. The sources seem to me to all be very strong and valid. I don't see that any of the content sounds like an advertisement, the language is neutral and everything is cited. The Economist, New York Times, Washington Post, NPR, Forbes, Investors Business Daily, NJ Family, Harvard Business Review are valid and strong sources. I'm just trying to understand the real problems in the article since it's not really clear. Thank you. ItsMeAidan (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@ItsMeAidan I'll find it very hard to speak of sentences which are promotional. The issue is that the entire article is an advert. It s like a poster to advertise Robbins and his speaking sessions.

I have not rejected it. I have declined it, pushing it back to you for further work. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

User:ItsMeAidan - A reviewer has no obligation to rewrite a draft for its submitter so as to be more neutral. You may ask for advice about a draft at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

User:ItsMeAidan - If you are being paid, and you ask a volunteer to help rewrite your draft so that it does not read as if you are being paid, maybe you aren't earning your pay from your client. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you for your feedback on the article. I made changes to it and have submitted it again. Look forward to your feedback and approval.

Peeyush Peeyush Dubey (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Peeyush Dubey I almost never review drafts mire than once 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks so much for reviewing the 2026 South Australian election draft. I'd like to invite you to discuss the decision to reject the article on its talk page. Thanks again. -DilatoryRevolution (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@DilatoryRevolution  Done 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

There are very few reasons that I will remove an editors' input into any talk page, but am happy to do so for specific ones. Can I ask what the point was ( a translation?) in the section you have deleted which led to your decission. Thanks, Edmund Patrick – confer 07:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Edmund Patrick I agree with you. The editor's input, if I remember correctly, was entirely unrelated to the topic of the article and appeared to be a declaration of love of some sort (I used Google Translate). The original is available in the page history and you may disagree with my actions. If I have acted in error please feel free to revert. I appreciate your asking me about it 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, you rejected my draft and said that there are no reliable sources in the country where this artist lives, on several sites they published his biography and other information that I used as a source... I mean your reliable source. I don't know, can you explain? Shirin1988 (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Shirin1988 Please confirm that you have read the big pink decline box (not reject, decline) on the article and the duplicated message on your talk page. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I did not understand how to confirm? Shirin1988 (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Shirin1988 by "confirm" I mean "tell me, here." 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Faddle user, I saw your message to reject my draft, can you help me more? Shirin1988 (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Shirin1988 The messages tell you with precision what is required. Unless you confirm that you have read them instead of just seeing them I cannot help you further. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I read them carefully. You said reliable sources. Are the sites that reported about this artist and created a biography not reliable???? Shirin1988 (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Shirin1988 I will try once more. If English is not your first language may I suggest https://translate.google.com

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.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Your references are not useful. You may not use google searches, Spotify, YouTube, etc etc. These must be removed please

I find it very difficult to work out how to explakin this to you any better unless you tell me with precision what you do not understand.

I am assuming you speak Persian, so Google Translated text is below:

• این ارسال به اندازه کافی توسط منابع معتبر پشتیبانی نمی شود. به منابع موثق نیاز است تا بتوان اطلاعات را تایید کرد. اگر در مورد ارجاع به کمک نیاز دارید، لطفاً به Referencing برای مبتدیان و استناد به منابع مراجعه کنید.
• ارجاعات این ارسال نشان نمی‌دهد که موضوع واجد شرایط یک مقاله ویکی‌پدیا است - یعنی پوشش قابل توجهی (نه فقط اشاره‌های گذرا) در مورد موضوع در منابع منتشر شده، قابل اعتماد و ثانویه مستقل از موضوع نشان نمی‌دهد (به دستورالعمل‌ها مراجعه کنید). در مورد توجه موضوعات مرتبط با موسیقی). قبل از ارسال مجدد، منابع دیگری که این معیارها را برآورده می کنند باید اضافه شوند (به راهنمایی فنی مراجعه کنید و در مورد اشتباهاتی که باید در هنگام پرداختن به این موضوع اجتناب کنید، یاد بگیرید). اگر هیچ مرجع دیگری وجود نداشته باشد، موضوع برای ویکی‌پدیا مناسب نیست.
• مراجع شما مفید نیستند. شما نمی توانید از جستجوهای گوگل، Spotify، YouTube و غیره استفاده کنید. لطفاً این موارد باید حذف شوند

I hope this is more helpful 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

On the one hand, it is true that reviewers will not review a previously declined or rejected request on demand. On the other hand, I will sometimes look at re-review requests that appear to be tendentious to see whether there is a problem. In this case, I see that drafts and articles on this unreleased film have been tendentiously entered into article space and submitted for review in draft space for two years. The editor has been warned. Thank you for cautioning the user. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Over at afchelp, you mentioned "living operons". It was probably a typo, but the more I think about it, the more I like this word. We all operate in, and operate on, this world, so "living operons" makes perfect sense. (Smile) David10244 (talk) 07:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@David10244 Good lord! and I love it! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• Grimm au (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Rossin Steel Bicycles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rossin_Steel_Bicycles

Hi and thank you for reviewing the very early draft of this article. I appreciate the feedback you provided.

I am seeking to document a topic where almost no verifiable information exists in the public domain and certainly not on Wikipedia. My objective is to gather information on models of bicycles so that research can commence in earnest and this should generate a chronology and then articles for the individual bicycles. The Ferrari page is the model for this.

In addition, there is only one remaining source alive for much of the information required so one source for any verification. I am attempting to assemble as much as what is reliably known (from catalogs, press information, other internet sources) so it can be verified. This is the initial purpose of the draft article.

I expect this process to take many months before there is an article worthy of submitting for an approval. Also I am learning about the need to tag properly, cite where possible (little of what I need exists on Wikipedia already), copyright and licensing and so forth. I am happy to take guidance on all these things so the article is of good quality and conforms to standards.

I am reading the various articles on how things should be done and will no doubt get there in time.

My questions:

Is this the right approach? Is there a better approach?

Appreciate your time and assistance.

Grimm au (talk) 03:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@Grimm au Where the sources are absent or scarce then there is a problem. The project is laudable, but may be impossible.

You would benefit from reading this essay, which has a process to seek to guarantee success if success is possible at all. I suggest you hold off on submitting any draft until you are certain sure that it is likely to be accepted. The references you need are all external to Wikipedia. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Noted, thank you. Grimm au (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE Surojit mondal memes (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC) Respected Mr/Mrs Timtrent, I don't understand why you suddenly deleted my article without notifying me earlier.I spent over a week collecting all the informations and you just deleted all my efforts. I wanted to add the information of a old, notable school from our area with a rich historical background in the Wikipedia, and you just didn't even cared to notify me and give me some time to improve the article...is this what written in the privacy policy...that don't give an editor to improve an article, just delete it...and moreover you want me to add my camera details on my photo, thats going to published in a public domain...o comeon...nobody does that...and you talk about copyrighted material, yeah few lines are copied I admit but its required to express the topic...please revert my article and give me chance to improve it...Looking forward for your positive reply...

@Surojit mondal memes As stated, it was a copyright violation. I simply said it should be deleted. Please take up your obvious unhappiness with the administrator who deleted it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@Surojit mondal memes Anything relating to yogur file uploads should be handled om Wikimedia Commons. I suggest you read c:COM:VRT.

Here and there, your job is to get it right 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, first of all thank you for reviewing my recent submission. (I am new and apologize if this message is not formatted with the link to the article, I hope my username leads you to the draft and correct article, a biography of John Farrington. If I can make it easier for you please do tell me how.) I understand the reason for declining is "bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines" which in review does make sense to me now. However before I address the issue I want to be sure I understand correctly and would appreciate your time once more.

The subject, John Farrington, gave his name to a foundation that has grown and evolved over almost 120 years, and while the foundation still bears his name, information about the person has become scant, especially as none seems to have made it to the Internet. Even the foundation web site had dropped the info and had to be reminded recently. I have no personal connection with the foundation and I became aware of it only because we happened to move to a house not far and few people knew anything about the person who bequethed the land etc. so I took it upon myself to track down his basic info from public sources. I intend to add more as time allows by searching through undigitized records in nearby historical societies too, and I believe there are others who also want to document this bit of local history and philanthropy.

My question is: Would adding information that "Mr. Farrington is notable for being the originator of a successful foundation still in continuous operation for almost 120 years having served thousands of children from disadvantaged backgrounds, etc etc" address the notability requirement?

Thank you in advance for your time and any pointers you may have for me once again.

(PS. This is no defense, but I see plenty self serving who-is-who type of biographies of people and firms marketing their names and such that seem to have passed the notability criteria. Obviously this is an important criterion. Should those be flagged?) Publicius2022 (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@Publicius2022 Link, please 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Charles F. Farrington Publicius2022 (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@Publicius2022 I apologise. I miskeyed. One of your references is a 404 error and https://ancestors.familysearch.org/en/2M58-H4D/charles-f-farrington-1837-1907 cannot be used to verify notability. I shoudl have chosen another option, but I would still have declined it. I am about to annotate the draft thus. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@Publicius2022 Oh, rubbish biographies should alwsys be flagged as such, anything that fails our notability criteria should be flagged. We have a huge number of articles but a finite pool of folk who root out the poor stuff. The review process was intended to address that wuth new material, but some of our older articles are appalling.

No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, for concrete and rapid responses, much appreciated. Publicius2022 (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@Publicius2022 Errors are easy to make, and easy to solve. I want every draft I review to succeed. Yours is very close. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for working AfC. I do understand your response to the AfC submission, but I think you may have missed some things. There was a DRV on this quite recently and the new sources were discussed. There are at least two very strong sources that were not at the AfD. That's why I submitted it for review. Those were discussed at the DRV. And while there wasn't 100% agreement that they overcome WP:N issues, there is no doubt in my mind they do. I've not (to the best of my memory) ever edited the article, I just think it's over the bar enough that it's ready and any further discussion can happen at AfD if someone feels otherwise. If you disagree, could you be a bit more specific as to what is wrong with those new sources. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@Hobit Link please 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

[1] is the DRV. Hobit (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@Hobit What is your desired outcome? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Having the article in mainspace. Sources, especially including the recent Playboy article, are well over the bar at this point. IMO WP:N is easily met. If someone wants to send it to AfD, I don't see how it isn't kept. Hobit (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@Hobit You need an admin to move it. There's a redirect in the way 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks. Is there a standard noticeboard for such a request?

Please leave this garbage article where it is, and finally - FINALLY - let it die. A tiny coterie of users has been agitating for this borderline porno starlet for years to get an article. The decline was right. Zaathras (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I believe you are correct, but the sources are now over the WP:N bar. I do get a bit frustrated that the very few porn folks who do meet WP:N have so much resistance to actually having articles. I'm unsure if it's because of all the (badly attempted) spam in the porn field or if it's because of a bias wrt the topic. Probably a mix of the two. But it happens a lot. Hobit (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@Hobit @Zaathras I can't do anything with it anyway. If I had accepted it I would have sent it to AfD as my next act. I don't care whether she has an article or not. If she passes the notability criteria then it can be one, if not, then not.

Hobit, you just need a friendly admin. I'm sure there is a category listing them. They are perfectly able to decide not to accede to a request.

Zaathras I have sympathy with your view, though I suggest you choose the mantra of "I care... But not that much." It simplifies one's life.

Since I can do no more here may I ask you to continue this discussion at a different venue, please? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, you reviewed my draft and declined it, however I feel the reason it was declined was partly due to lack of understanding of the topic.

here is the draft in question: Draft:KC Supreme

You said: '"Candilora has to be notable in his own right. "Since then, Supreme has become a Multi-Platinum Producer with numerous Billboard #1 awards, his production credits include Lil Uzi Vert, Future, Juice Wrld, Lil Tecca, Rich The Kid, Chris Brown, T-Pain, Trippie Redd, Kevin Gates, Megan Thee Stallion, YK Osiris, Rico Nasty, Lil Tjay, 24kGoldn, Quando Rondo, Fredo Bang, Iann Dior, YNW Melly, blackbear, Summer Walker, Don Toliver, Lil Skies & many more[17]. Some of his other notable records include, T-Pain ft. Chris Brown "Wake Up Dead"[18], Lil Tecca ft. Lil Tjay "All Star", Trippie Redd "Til The End Of Time"." is a swathe of people who are notable, presumably, but he cannot inherit notability from doing things with them."

I think you are misunderstanding that Candilora is a Music Producer and not an artist himself. In music songs are 50/50 with half the work being done by the producer and half the work being done by the artist. This list is referencing artists that he has collaborated with, meaning they created a song together that was put out with both their names on the credits. As well as some direct reference to notable songs that Candilora produced. How else does a producer become notable in his own right besides by producing for major artists that are notable to the world? How else does a music producer become notable enough for a Wikipedia page besides having created platinum records, songs that went #1 on very notable reputable charts and other awards of the sort? Unfortunately, in the music world producers do not receive the same level of nobility and recognition in the same way artists do. So, I don't think it's fair to compare the notability of an artist with a producer, when this person is very fully qualified in their own category and field. I don't understand what a music producer would have to do and what you expect their page to look like besides listing songs they have produced, and notable artists they have produced for. Unfortunately, the notability of a producer is directly hinged on what songs they have produced and what artists they have produced for.

I also dare reference some other music producers that are even directly associated with Supreme that have Wikipedia articles that look very similar in notability and structure.

Such as Nick Mira, Taz Taylor (record producer), Cardiak, Scoop DeVille etc

Would love to discuss and debate it further if you are open.

166.70.242.243 (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Daniel

I suggest you create an account.

If you are certain I have misunderstood then feel free to resubmit for review. Someone else will review it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you help me understand why other articles in the niche have been approved and my draft has not?

What do these pages have that mine does not?

genuinely trying to learn.

KBeaZy CashMoneyAP 166.70.242.243 (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See other stuff exists. Theroadislong (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but I was merely using it as a baseline example to counter why the article was declined. example: Declined because lack of credible sources, but clearly other articles have been approved with way less sources, accolades etc. Only arguing that for this niche, there is only so much notability to be given, since artists are the forward-facing names that receive notability. Unfortunately producers do not get the same love and attention, but in their own right and within their own niche this is as notable as any, if not MORE notable than other articles in this niche. using the other articles just to help showcase my argument. Thats why I am asking it gets reviewed fairly considering these factors. 166.70.242.243 (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, if you feel wronged or slighted, submit it for review again. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I did and it was declined immediately because they claimed I didn't fix the things you requested (clearly, they did not see this convo). 166.70.242.243 (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

They gave you an unvarnished opinion. Perhaps you are marching to a different drummer. 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. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect on the unvarnished opinion as they were declining solely based off the input you had gave, not even taking time to review the article because of accepting your prior review.

That is why I am coming back to speak to you... My further submissions will be explicitly biased towards declination for this reason. I'm guessing you have no further interest in helping me or trying to understand to admit the mistakes in the reasons you had declined for.

If you feel justified, then so be it. 166.70.242.243 (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Why not visit the AFC Help desk and ask there? You are the one certain that I have made mistakes. If I agreed with you then we would both be wrong. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello Timtrent,

Will this article be deleted? Please tell me if there is any reason for deleting this article.

Thank you,

Purnendu Bhowmik Shuvro Purnendu Bhowmik Shuvro (talk) 08:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Purnendu Bhowmik Shuvro It seems possible, yes. I have left my opinion on the discussion. You are entitled to leave your opinion as well. Please do so there. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Timtrent. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 18:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

As I mention at the AFC talk page, I've found an article (1978 in Cambodia) that might be a valid candidate for deletion. The article only has 2 things on it, being 2 people that were in the respective roles at the time. Otherwise, according to the article, nothing happened in Cambodia in 1978. What do you think? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf You've chosen a difficult one. Cambodia was pretty much a closed country in that period, so, while stuff may have been happening, that will not have leaked beyond its borders. The question is "Does that mean it ought to be deleted?"

Intellectually, I think you are correct and it would be a valid deletion discussion, but I know that this AfD will be answered emotionally if proposed, and it will be kept.

My advice, therefore, would be to walk quietly away from this one. I made a very similar nomination in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunday Times Rich List 1989 where I was certain I was correct, but the community decided otherwise. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I do have pretty broad shoulders! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

If the AFD didn't have any discussion then doesn't it get soft deleted? Gotcha. I"m just trying to find articles that might be valid deletion candidates by using Special:Random. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf No consensus = Keep, yes

A better approach might be to scan pages for current AfDs to see which you might add value to. No-one much cares about whether you've nominated pne. They're about your participation. Go to WP:AFD and look at current discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh and no participation = no consensus 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Really? That's not been what I've been told. In fact WP:SOFTDELETE says this: "If a deletion discussion receives minimal participation, the article may be deleted." ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf While it may be deleted, and thus treated as an expired PROD, it seems to be a rarity. But different closers take different views 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I've see it often but I guess i Haven't been that active in AFD. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

I am obviously new to wiki editing but desire to post one of my older article I have authored from the paraglide and argunner.com. I own the copyrights. I am a legit author of books and articles for numerous publiscations and amazon. How can i proceed? I may have a few other article I wish to publish on wiki in the near tern future as well. Thanks for any quick repsonse Tim.

Very respectfully,

Moon Mullins IAMSPARTAKiller (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@IAMSPARTAKiller See WP:donating copyright materials. However, Wikipedia is not a news organ so I predict failure 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I would like you to tell me specifically what to do to accept my article about the artist "Rodezel" I have searched many sources and I have chosen the most viable since there is not much information about him Theluisgame (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Theluisgame You have stated the problem. You seem to have started by writing the draft and then seeking references. There are several paragraphs without a single reference.

You should work the other way around. Find the references, use them as the basis for a storyboard, and then write the draft.

Your choice is to discard a load of text and stick to that which can be referenced (read WP:42 or to find references to cite the facts you assert in your draft. Your objective should be the bare minimum to prove that he passes WP:NMUSICIAN. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Just a note that [2] is coming close to WP:OUTING. Doesn't mean it's not a useful piece of evidence about the editor's need to comply with certain policies. And the user did seem to confirm it was authentic. But it's best not to post that sort of thing pre-emptively on-wiki. Arbcom is probably the current place we should be sending that sort of detail. DMacks (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@DMacks I felt it was close but likely acceptable. If you disagree I can ask for it to be redacted. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth pursuing (at the line, but wasn't sure if it was over it). I chatted with a functionary who also didn't think it needed to be hidden. Hopefully this user's situation will get resolved. DMacks (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@DMacks I appreciate your thoughtful advice very much, both to me and the editor concerned. I see you have had a longer conversation with them on their talk page. We can both see why they think as they do, of course. I think we both despise those who prey on companies wishing to have a presence here, and we both know that they pick up declines of drafts.

I hope their evidence is well presented and we block another few UPE folk.

For my own part I will use extra care in the area you suggest. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Timtrent. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 17:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Sir, could you please kindly review the edits that I have made for this article ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mingalar_Parahita Many thanks. - Maurice Moemaurris (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Moemaurris I do not review drafts on request 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello dear. Hope your doing well.? I need your help please sir? Can you please review this Draft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Navia_Lx_Rapper# 197.231.239.113 (talk) 05:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not review drafts on request 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I, Ronald Baecker, am the author of this piece, although I had help from some students. RoneldBaecker is now the designated author after a request, but I now realize that there may be confusion because I, Ronald Baecker, also have a Wikipedia page. What to you suggest? I am preparing a detailed reply to the first of your two major issues. 2600:4041:79C2:6200:B40B:5181:FFCA:37CB (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Your own article Ronald Baecker has problems too! Theroadislong (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear Anonymous editor, I, 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦, have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, nor a clue about why I should care. Why are you messaging me, and what are you messaging me about?

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Theroadislong not least of which is a copyright violation as the profile picture (0.95 probability) uploaded there by an editor who has a name that reminds me of Computers&Society, and inserted into the article here by an IP editor. Someone seems to be very careless about editing while logged out, using multiple accounts on different projects, and COI

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The profile picture is owned by Ronald Baecker, who grants permission for it to be displayed on Wikipedia. RonaldBaecker (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@RonaldBaecker This is the English Language Wikipedia. Pictures are dealt with on Wikimedia Commons. You must present your right to licence the picture there. Note the facts about ownership of copyright

It is a picture of the uploader, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via c:COM:VRT

There is no point in raising the topic on the English Language Wikipedia. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I will deal with this concern on the Wikipedia Commons. RonaldBaecker (talk) 14:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@RonaldBaecker It can feel a little arcane, but the two entities are kept separate for a reason. Wikimedia Commons may only have freely licensed works, and is patrolled very tightly indeed in order to protect intellectual property rights.

Different Wikipedias sometimes have different rules 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful comments, which we only became aware of in the last few days. We are preparing a detailed response. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Computers_and_society - Computers&Society

~~~~ Computers&Society (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Computers&Society You appear to have been blocked 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

You raise 2 issues, asserting that the submission errs in calling "Computers and Society" an academic discipline, and that the submission is an essay and not an encyclopedia article.

                                                       

With respect to the first issue, you write:

"Computers and society is an academic discipline" is the start of this draft, but is it? Where do I go to study it? Where to I get a degree in it? ... Perhaps it is, but where are the boundaries of this putative discipline? Where are the rules, where are the Professors of the Foo Chair of Computers and Society?"

                                                                                                                :

Examples of books (there are dozens that could be included in the reading list for a course):

Gotlieb, C.C. and Borodin, A. (1973). Social Issues in Computing. Academic Press. This was the first Computers and Society textbook.

Kling, R. (1996). Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices (2nd Ed.). Morgan Kaufman.

Baase, S. and Henry, T. (2017). A Gift of Fire: Social, Legal and Ethical Issues for Computing Technology (5th Ed.). Pearson.

Baecker, R. (2019). Computers and Society: Modern Perspectives. Oxford University Press.

Typical examples of courses and professors (There are likely close to 1000 worldwide):

University of Toronto CSC 300, Computers and Society: Professors Graeme Hirst, Ishtiaque Ahmed

Columbia University COMS W3410, Computers and Society. Professors Steve Bellovin, Ronald Baecker

University of North Carolina, INLS 384, Information and Computer Ethics. Professor C. Dianne Martin

University of Washington, INFO 350, Information Ethics and Policy. Professor Melanie Walsh

University College Dublin, IS 30370, Digital Media Ethics. Professor Professor Marguerite Berry

University of Technology of Compiègne, SOC I3320, Technology and Society, Professor Karina Jeandel

Universitat Politecnika of Catalunya, ASMI 270162, Social and Environmental Issues of Information Technology, Professor Maria Guerrero

Tokyo Institute of Technology, IEE D435, Computers in Society. Professor Katie Seaborn.

Special interest groups in the professional societies of computing and electrical engineering

SIGCAS is the Special Interest Group within the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) that addresses the social and ethical consequences of widespread computer usage.

SSIT (Society on Social Implications of Technology) is a special interest group within the IEEE (Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers).

Both publish magazines.

The subject has boundaries with computer science, information studies, science and technology studies, sociology, politics, law, and ethics.

With respect to the second issue, you write:

"This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner."

The article was planned and written to be an encyclopedic summary of information as detailed in 50 authoritative books by respected academics and investigative journalists. I believe it is written from a neutral point of view. I respectfully request that you point out the sections or statements that concern you.

Thank you. RonaldBaecker (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@RonaldBaecker I fear I am concerned about the entirety. You have not told me where I might study this putative course, though you have given me a reading list and used the subjunctive, "Could". So, is it a course? Where can I study it?

And yet I view it as WP:OR, perhaps WP:SYNTH

You are an academic and are probably used to a different drafting technique. You may, you should, break new ground in your work.

We are an encyclopaedia. We may not break new ground. We may only record what is reported in reliable secondary sources. We are a tertiary vehicle. It's not easy to move form Academe, where research is the norm, to Encyclopaedia, where reportage is the norm. Worse, discovering the different e can be quite a brutal shock. It's hard to lessen that shock

In the interests of brevity, perhaps reading this essay will assist you. It shows a methodology for the creation of articles here. As a scientist you will appreciate working from principles. Our principles are that referencing is the foundation for any article and must come first 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

It is not a putative are hundreds of such courses.

Typical examples of courses and professors (There are likely close to 1000 worldwide):

University of Toronto CSC 300, Computers and Society: Professors Graeme Hirst, Ishtiaque Ahmed

Columbia University COMS W3410, Computers and Society. Professors Steve Bellovin, Ronald Baecker

University of North Carolina, INLS 384, Information and Computer Ethics. Professor C. Dianne Martin

University of Washington, INFO 350, Information Ethics and Policy. Professor Melanie Walsh

University College Dublin, IS 30370, Digital Media Ethics. Professor Professor Marguerite Berry

University of Technology of Compiègne, SOC I3320, Technology and Society, Professor Karina Jeandel

Universitat Politecnika of Catalunya, ASMI 270162, Social and Environmental Issues of Information Technology, Professor Maria Guerrero

Tokyo Institute of Technology, IEE D435, Computers in Society. Professor Katie Seaborn.

They go by a variety of names, but they deal with common material. I could send you many more.

The article is not drafting new ground. It is presenting the discipline by citing important books and by linking to several hundred existing wikipedia pages that each cover a small fraction of the discipline. RonaldBaecker (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the typo. The first sentence should have read ... "It is not a putative course. There are hundreds of such courses."

I will read the essay you cite. RonaldBaecker (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@RonaldBaecker The world here is so vastly different from your academic life I fear you will find it alien. If you treat Wikipedia as a whole new area to research then I believe you will enjoy it. I have always said that "If you can write for Wikipedia, then you can write for any discipline"

I find the dull-but-worthy and always-cited style has improved marketing copy, fiction, and other areas. Ah what, Marketing is often fiction!

Please take your time to get to know us. Wikipedia is a rewarding hobby, but a tough mistress. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I worked hard on this article for several months and do not find the world alien. In fact, I have written extensively in my books about Wikipedia as a notable achievement. But so is the field of Computers and Society a notable achievement, first identified as such in the Gotlieb & Borodin book published 49 years ago and with the course that Prof. Gotlieb created and taught for over 40 years at the University of Toronto, a course which is now taken by hundreds of students a year.

You have not responded to the facts I have sent you dealing with your belief that it is not an academic disci0line, for example, your question as to where you can study it. I have given 8 examples from 5 countries on 3 continents. I could give you many more examples. I would like to get this issue resolved before I review every word of the article in the light of the essay you referred me to. RonaldBaecker (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@RonaldBaecker I apologise for skating past that. Thank you for the examples. I was unable to find any in my simple search on the draft topic title. I am very much a generalist. I work on acceptance or push-back in m any different topics. My role is to accept a draft when I believe ity has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion discussion. Deletion discussions are held by generalists, too. That in reazes the risk of deletion

I did not find the Gottlieb course, for example.

Does the discipline have a more widely circulated title? Would that help? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Gotlieb is no longer alive. His course at the University of Toronto is CSC300 and is taught primarily by Prof. Ishtiaque Ahmed and has multiple sections with a few hundred students.

https;//www.cs.toronto.edu

CSC 300: Computer and Society (Fall 2021)

'Computer and Society' introduces a wide range of interconnections between computers and society. In this course, students will learn the basic values that ...]

====

I just searched Google for "Computers and Society" with the following results (with some detail omitted ... the urls were stripped when I pasted this in, so I have been forced to add them back in).

Note that the results include:

my Oxford University Press textbook and evidence that this is considered a discipline by Cambridge University Press

references to course or concentrations at MIT, CMU, Columbia, and a university in British Columbia

3 organizations or professional societies focused on research in the area: computers-society.org, ACM SIGCAS, and computers-and-society.com.

https;//computers-society.org

Computers and Society – Resources for Learning and ...

This website provide an evolving compendium of resources for those doing research on topics dealing with computers and society and computer ethics.

https;//www.cs.columbia.edu

COMS W3410: Computers and Society - CS @ Columbia

COMS W3410 — Computers and Society (Spring '18). Course Home · Lectures · Assignments · Essay Instructions Experimental calendar subscriptions for syllabus and ...

https://www.amazon.com

Computers and Society: Modern Perspectives - Amazon.com

Computers and Society: Modern Perspectives is a wide-ranging and comprehensive textbook that critically assesses the global technical achievements in ...

https://academic.oup.com

Computers and Society: Modern Perspectives - Oxford Academic

by RM Baecker · 2019 · Cited by 16 — Computers and Society: Modern Perspectives is a wide-ranging and comprehensive textbook that critically assesses the global technical ...

https://dl.acm.org

ACM SIGCAS COMPUTERS AND SOCIETY Home

SIGCAS brings together computer professionals, specialists in other fields, and the public-at-large to address concerns and raise awareness about the ...

https://www.computers-and-soceity.com

Computers and Society | Computing for Good

'Computers and Society: Computing for Good contains in-depth case studies with extensive, thought provoking end of chapter questions and is appropriate for a ...

https://www.cambirdge.org

Computing and Society - Cambridge University Press

Cambridge Core academic books, journals and resources for Computing and Society. ... Browse Computer Science: Computing and Society ...

https://shass.mit.edu

Computing and Society Concentration

The Computing and Society Concentration introduces students to critical thinking about computation and its technologies, enabling them to develop ...

https://opentextbs.org

Topic D: Common uses of computers in society

Computers are used in a variety of areas for entertainment purposes, such as videos, movies, television, music, photo editing, and art (for example, paintings, ...

https.//cups.cs.cmu.edu

Computers and Society

It will focus on a number of areas in which computers and information technology are having an impact on society including privacy, freedom of speech, ... RonaldBaecker (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@RonaldBaecker Very brief courtesy reply. Supper intervened, now sleep before travel back to the UK. I am unlikely to be online before Friday, but I think you do not need me to be. From all the foregoing some distillation os required plus references that meet the following:

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.

The key is about the subject, which I feel you should interpret as about the topic per se rather than about the courses in particular, though a sprinkling of those will do good. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and for your attention and thoughtfulness about this matter., and safe travels. I will assume that issue 1 has been dealt with and focus on the content — Issue 2.

One question ... no rush with the answer ... as I will need some time — perhaps several weeks as I have other activities — to deal with issue 2 ... do I do the editing in place on the unpublished Wikipedia page Draft: Computers and Society? And then tell you via this Chat that I have done so? RonaldBaecker (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@RonaldBaecker Just caught this before closing down.The issue 1 has been dealt with by intellectual conversation between us. It needs to be handled within the draft.

Yes, please edit the same draft. It provides full history and attribution. Please remember to leave the review history intact, because it is part of the audit track and is useful to other reviewers. The submission of multiple versions is seen as seeking to game the system. Perception is, as we know, reality.

I have no need for involvement after you resubmit in the fullness of time. Indeed other eyes are always better. I am now standing too close to the draft to give meaningful input, and our review scheme is intended to present a draft before any reviewer. I have but one opinion. Note, too, that I may be in error. Fresh eyes are intended to seek to remove review errors. And you can always ask at the articles for creation Helpdesk for guidance. I'll be happy to see the changes, but I am most unlikely to make a second formal review. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you again for your time and attention. I will proceed as you suggest. RonaldBaecker (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

These days, the Festschrift for Tausch is being handled by Springer Nature, with contributions by

Hartmut Elsenhans, Kuniber Raffer, Raimund Dietz, Manfred Fuchs, Manfred Steger, Fulvio Attina, Tessaleno Devezas , Hans-Heinrich Nolte, Russell Berman, Stanisław Obirek , Farid Hafez, Jose Aleman, Jacques Neriah, Hussein Solomon, Markus Reisner

Austrian Political Observer Austrian political observer (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Austrian political observer I have no idea what you are talking about 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 04:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Bit of a late inquiry about this, but can I ask you to reconsider your action at Draft:Lana Rhoades? The discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 October 8 established that the draft should be reviewed pretty much as normal, if not outright moved to mainspace (there was a decent amount of support for doing that, myself included). Leaving this to linger in draftspace because "it's been deleted before" therefore isn't really reflective of current community consensus. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Elli I find I cannot argue with what I have said there. However, you might achieve success by asking at the Articles For Creation Helpdesk. The only route I would take on this is the WP:IAR acceptance followed by WP:AFD, but that is just work creation in my view. Your view obviously differs, which is fine.

The real route forwards is for someone to demonstrate that she passes (eg) WP:NACTOR (we appear not tp have WP:NPORNSTAR) and then resubmit.

It's not in draft because it's been deleted before. It's there because notability has not been demonstrated. Demonstrate it and it will be accepted. Not by me, though. Re-reviewing by me is very rare. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested in going more through the AfC process, but I don't see why an acceptance would be an IAR thing. The consensus at the DRV discussion was that this should be given a fair look at AfC, so saying that AfC should only accept this under the circumstances of IAR because of its previous deletions just doesn't make sense. The guideline she passes is WP:GNG, with multiple reliable sources providing significant coverage. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Elli AFC's role is to accept drafts that we view as having a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. I do not see it has having that chance, so will not accept it. Other reviewers may form a different view, which is fine.

There is nothing to prevent your moving it to mainspace yourself, but I predict deletion, either summary or via a fifth AfD. I have no interest in nominating it for either. I may or may not offer an opinion at AfD if it ends uo there 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Elli You will see (by being pinged) that I have asked for fresh eyes from other AFC reviewers on my decline and on the draft. This seems to me to be abundantly fair bith to your request and to the draft. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Yep, replied there. Thank you! Elli (talk | contribs) 18:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Elli I'm as happy to be proved incorrect as correct. I mind only about community consensus, and I am clear that AFC is a "consensus of one" when one reviews a draft. Thus I wish you a useful outcome for Wikipedia, which may or may not mean the draft becomes an article that stays undeleted. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I was commenting when you moved this; I have left the comment in place; there is not much information about the sign language in the draft and at least as much about the village itself. Maybe the subject should be the village – it may pass NPLACE that way. Eagleash (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Eagleash I wish Mediawiki software could handle some sort of stack of near simultaneous actions. I've put my Decline back. I know you would have done so had you seen it. It appears that everything happened at once there!

You make a good point regarding the village vs the language. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Aha... I never saw the decline even after I saw the page move; I was not of a mind to decline it straight away myself but wouldn't disagree on that point. I felt that as a populated area, it could pass – and thought the creator might want to edit the draft appropriately. See if they do (or not). Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Eagleash I never considered anything except the face value of the sign language for 34 hearing impaired people. You identified a potential route forwards. How do you fancy taking a crack at it yourself with a view to your changing its focus, assuming the creator takes no further part, or even if they do? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I have left a message at the creator's TP; see if they bite. If not, could have a crack at it but it's a bit out of my comfort zone(s) of F1, CPFC, ancient mariners and ref error messages. Sourcing is not too bad at all but might need more to get it past NPLACE. Eagleash (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Eagleash I think 80% of the articles I've created are outside my own comfort zone, if that helps at all 😇😈. I saw your message 👍. I hope they bite. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Eagleash Looking at the draft with a fresh mind today I think your concept can be achieved by swapping the place elements with the language elements of the existing article, increasing the place prose (if material exists) and referencing it, and performing a slight précis of the language elements.

The sole(!) challenge is that the references for the place are likely to be in Portuguese, thus harder to find.

I've left what I hope is an encouraging comment on the draft in agreement with yours 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I thought (briefly) would be the way forward. I did do a quick search for the village / area name at the time but did not find much. The very least needed would be some evidence of population. Eagleash (talk) 07:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Eagleash I've done a bit of preparatory work, sourced the population, added a couple of infoboxen, and left encouraging comments. I have a feeling this was a create-and-run draft though.

I reckon that there is enough notability to accept as the place, though co-ords would be pleasant.

Cena appears to have no ISO code, so is not hugely recognised as a language 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Eagleash I'm on a vacation at present, so not a lot of chance to do more to this one. Of course, I'm dropping you a masterful hint! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I know you get a reminder, but it's always pleasant to hear from you 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

That's nice to say - love your signature! We had a choir from Ukraine visiting, - pictured on my talk (in 2009 and 2022, both by me). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I was not ready to submit the draft and it was not ready to submit IAskWhatIsTrue (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft talk:Arabid slavery

THe pictures are AI generated they are not copyrighted in any way IAskWhatIsTrue (talk) 11:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

You can see on my talk page this Arabid admitted to submitting it prematurely IAskWhatIsTrue (talk) 11:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@IAskWhatIsTrue I can see that it was submitted by another editor.

With regard to the pictures, that is a matter at Wikimedia Commons. You will need to respond there. You will need to use c:COM:VRT to regularise the licensing 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Not entirely related, but there has been some discussion as to what the copyright status is on AI generated images. I think usually the website will state whether or not the images belong to the person who generated them or if they belong to the website (or program creators) itself. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf Only Wikimedia Commons can make the full judgement on thee, because that is where they have been uploaded. I have genuinely no idea so I have counselled the editor on their path forwards and nominated these files for deletion. As here, Commons has a dual key process for deletion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware that only Commons can make the full judgement. Just figured I'd tell you what I've heard (i think I saw a discussion on this on the Commons channel on Discord) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf If you look at my Commons contribution record you will see what I do there. I follow pictures in drafts through to Commons and weed out the imperfectly licenced. I have the advantage of a set of permissions there that allows me to use a batch tool. I had to be trusted with those permissions, naturally.

I see sorting pictures out as part pf AFC, though other reviewers may choose not to follow things to Commons 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)