Hey! I just figured I'd check with you if you think I'd be fit to be an AFC reviewer. I've done some work at AFD (which I used to avoid because I would often just be a bit too lazy to actually search for sources because sometimes I get a bunch of pages of results from Google, which usually results in me having to sift through all of them) and took a quick look at your AFC log (a little sad how many articles end up getting declined but understandable) and understand the reason for all of them. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Blaze Wolf Your AfD stats show a decent track record, which is a good place to start. Your understanding of my AFC log is also useful. Do feel free to disagree with any of my reasons! The thing about acceptance or a decline (avoid Rejecting as a budding reviewer) is that it is one editor's opinion. Be unafraid to accept borderline cases, because our job is to accept those drafts we feel will have a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process, and choose not to take offence if any of your acceptances are sent for deletion.

My own AfD Stats are very little different from your recent ones. That suggests to me that you only participate when you feel confident, which is a good thing.

I think you should put yourself forward, and work slowly and steadily, starting with the easy, low hanging fruit. The older the submission the greater the probability that it is hard to review! The reverse is usually reasonably true, too. Set yourself a simple target of a couple of reviews a day to start with and be pleased when you achieve more.

I'm pretty sure your application will be accepted. Your edit count is decent. Your work is careful. You are welcome to refer to this thread in your application.

I'm glad you've decided not to retire. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Retirement is still a consideration, but it's not something I am strongly considering (something I wish could be made optional in the template but I can't figure out how to get it to do that). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Also I would really only reject an AFC submission if it would be something that should be speedy deleted (speedily deleted? speedily delete? yeetily yeet? who knows) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf I agree. I see the two as hand in hand 80% of the time. The 20%? Life is full of exceptions! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf I'm glad to see you have applied. We depend upon Primefac's time for them to be able to reach a conclusion. I'm most definitely in favour of your application. Once you are approved you will be able to make use of the AFC Helper script, something I have completely forgotten how to install! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

SOunds good. And the script simply appears to be one where you just press a button and it installs. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 12:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Timtrent/

You should stop Are you going to report every photo I add to the draft of Draft:Arabid slavery for deletion on the commons? Why.... you dont' see reason? They are being used for an article depicting arabid slavery. So guess what it IS educational value - writing an article about arabid slavery would benefit from pictures of Ararabid slaves. It's like an article about apple trees would benefit from pictures of apple trees. An article about dogs would benefit from pictures about dogs. An article about Christopher Columbus would benefit from pictures of Christopher Columbus. All these photos would be for educational value THese are freely licensed images CREATED BY MYSELF released into the public domain. YOu brought up The uploader has been asked many times to visit COM:VRT to seek to regularise the licencing. That they are not doing so may be a language issue. Potential language issue notwithstanding, they need to follow the processes here. Google Translate is available to them in most languages. So i did visit it... and i went to the section relevant to this issue... and that page had a section on When contacting VRT is unnecessary https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team and it said I created the file myself, it hasn't been previously published, and I am the sole owner of its copyright. Just follow the instructions found on the Commons:Upload page, unless the image/file is of outstanding or professional quality or there is some other reason your authorship may be doubted. So that's what I did there's nothing more to do... yet you keep interfering with the publication and drafting of the article. Are you going to see reason or not?

Yet you PERSIST in trying to sabotage the publication of this article to the full quality possible.. why? PLEASE SEE REASON AND READ THE EMAIL I SENT YOU. You act as though any photo uploaded to my draft you will report... it's annoying and my email to you explained this .... STOP. When contacting VRT is unnecessary IAskWhatIsTrue (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] You have launched Unreasonable gibberish accusations that these photos should be deleted. Sad that people cannot admit their mistakes and own up to wrongdoing. I advise you to do the following: 1. own up to your mistakes and submitting a false report against the photos in Draft:Arabid slavery 2. read my email 3. support https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Draft:Arabid_Slavery by voicing where there is a conflict of interest present as discussed in email IAskWhatIsTrue (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I think your mentally hung up on the following: The person on the right moral good side is the nonestablished editor with no reputation. The person on the wrong side - the immoral side - the side trying to vandalize wikipedia and prevent a good article from being published that would benefit users educationally , was the editor with reputation - using that reputation and established account in a bad way. This was all detailed in the email if you will read it. IAskWhatIsTrue (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC) IAskWhatIsTrue (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Please deal with matters regarding Wikimedia Commons on Wikimedia Commons. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a state highway and this is a notable thing. Mskhejarla (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mskhejarla Do the extra work needed please. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Now you can check. I added information. I think now it have enough information. Mskhejarla (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mskhejarla If you believe t to be sufficient, and if you believe it to pass WP:GEOROAD then another reviewer will review it, assuming you have submitted it. If they agree they will accept it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Why you can't? Mskhejarla (talk) 09:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mskhejarla Read the head of this page, please. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey! I'd like to get your opinion on Draft:Vinesauce. It was previously rejected for not being notable, however in it's current state, I'm seeing a lot of reliable sources and the talk page says that it has been determined to be notable, however I'm unsure if it's able to accepted in the state it's currently in. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf I chose five references at random. I chose them from the references highlighted in green (probably good) by one of the scripts I use that you will see in User:Timtrent/common.js. My selection were all inadequate to verify notability. That said, though, if you feel it has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process, then accept it. However, if I accepted this I would annotate it on the talk page with a rationale such as:

==Acceptance at AFC==

In my view this was borderline to accept. Rather than allowing it to languish and eventually fall foul of G13 I chose to accept it and allow the community to reach a conclusion.

My suggestion is that, at this stage in your reviewing career, you watch and see what others do. When accepted this will be sent to AfD (0.9 probability). Whether it survives or not depends on the community. If you decide to accept it I suggest you either abstain at AfD or make a single, neutral comment Neutral As the accepting reviewer at AFC, in my view this was borderline to accept, the more so since it has been rejected once. Rather than allowing it to languish and eventually fall foul of G13 I chose to accept it and allow the community to reach a conclusion.. Honour is then intact. Probably. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright sounds good. I figured I would ask you since you're much more experienced at AFC than I am and so you would know if this would be good to accept. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf I may not be correct. Always remember that! I will always have an opinion, though! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Yep. I might check out all the sources as maybe the 5 randomly chose references may not establish notability but all of them together will. I have a script that allows me to create a table that evaluates all the sources in a given article to see which ones help it pass WP:GNG and which ones don't. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Timtrent. Thanks for your speedy review and comments for my submission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cena) I've addressed several issues that reviewers such as yourself left, and I'll go into a bit more detail here. I have kept the language as the main focus of the draft for now, because I think it is the notable thing about the village - the fact that a language isolate has developed there largely uninfluenced by any other existing language. I understand that the number of native users is relatively low compared to many other (spoken) languages, but this is common with sign languages of this type and I see that other village sign languages with similar numbers of native users also have Wikipedia pages (e.g. Kata Kolok https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kata_Kolok which has 40). As for what makes the language itself of note, I have expanded the linguistics section to detail its use of reiterated code-switches which is for now a totally unique aspect of its grammar which does not appear in any existing literature to my knowledge. I've included several more references and links, turning them into references and external links where appropriate following your suggestion. This means that not so much rests on the single paper that you mentioned. Since I've kept the language as the main focus, maybe the layout of the article with the information about the village at the end is a bit odd - I am very open to reworking this somehow. This is not a request to re-review (though of course I would be open to any further comments), more to say thanks for your insights so far

Ucjudst (talk) 11:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Apologies - just seen that it's better to reply on my talk page. I'll copy and paste this over there to keep things together

Ucjudst (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Quite some time ago, you had left a message on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ising4jesus, indicating that I needed to update my COI disclosure to add the "Paid" template regarding this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:AOZ_Studio, but that template states the I have been paid for my work on this page, which is not true.

With that said, the situation now, is different than when you left that message, since I have not been paid by AOZ for a long time, and at this point, I'm just a volunteer vs. a part-time employee. I have changed my disclosure message accordingly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ising4jesus

What are the requirements for a former employee and/or volunteer?

Of course, all of this may be a moot point anyway, since the draft has been deleted, and I'm at a loss as to how to fix it. Ising4jesus (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ising4jesus Even as a volunteer you derive a benefit, broadly construed, from the organisation. Draft:AOZ Studio has not been deleted, but it has been rejected.

It would be wise to place {{paid |user=Ising4jesus |employer=AOZ Studio |client=AOZ Studio}}, filled out correctly, on your user page 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Timtrent. Thanks for your efforts on reviewing and feedback on my articles. As I was not sure on what to clean I left it. However thanks again and will follow in future. Gardenkur (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

as per your query , that mention the previous username you were using , i would like to mention that i have lost my previous phone in floods so actually i dont know the exact username that i was using , so i am sorry for the same i couldn't remind that exactly.

As it was signed in that phone .

May be it was like pary Mananbhat (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you make that declaration on your user talk page. Making it here is useless. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Wishing you a year filled with prosperity, happiness, and good health. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 12:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 04:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey Trent

I recently joined the wikipedia community to help people learn more about and help bring people into the space while trying to showcase the risk or controversies surrounding different projects.

I received your feedback on my article and have added more source and more edits/information to the article and was wondering if you could take a look at my article to be published. Any feedback or constructive criticism is welcome!

Here is the link to my updated article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:CryptoAdopter/sandbox&oldid=1131158368

~~~~

CryptoAdopter (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@CryptoAdopter I've noticed you have made some changes. I do not re-review, I'm afraid. Other eyes will help you more 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I dont see the option to resubmit my article, Would you be able to help me to find the resubmit button or was my article rejected? If it was rejected should I just resubmit it as a new article submission? ~~~~ CryptoAdopter (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@CryptoAdopter You removed it, I added it back for you. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, are you still interested in working on this draft? I was patrolling User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon and saw it was tagged as promising; as you were the last meaningful contributor (nearly 2 years ago), I figured I'd give you a heads-up in case you were still interested. Curbon7 (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Curbon7 Thank you and good heavens. No, I have no interest in it. I was just trying to lead the submitting editor by the nose. Seems I failed. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I've seen you posting on a few threads at Pichemist's talk - what are your opinions of them? I had to rollback one of their declines (Draft:Yolonda L. Colson) for being bonkers, and DMacks has found some other issues, but I wanted your opinions before I drag them before AFC as a whole for review. (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac At the moment I see "New Reviewer" caution. I think benefit of the doubt for a further few days or decent number of reviews. It depends whether they are amenable to input. If so then we have a potential valuable asset. If not then "bye!" 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac I have offered help on their talk page. Since we all have to start somewhere, and since we all, you, and especially I, started out with errors, I am content to walk a mile or two with them to help their trajectory normalise. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Mòran taing. Primefac (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac My jury is still out. Accepting help is one thing, but engaging with the help is another. They do seem keen, and appear to have reviewed a prodigious amount in the past few days. At the moment out could go one way or the other. Their talk page is informative but only to an extent. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

January songs

happy new year

What do you (all) think of their decline of Draft:Jürgen Leonhardt (not by me, I just made the existing refs inline, and added a few), with a template and lecture on my talk (archived)? - The colours of my January calendar image are Ukrainian for a reason. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt I'm not disagreeing with that decline. The references are, many of them, not significant coverage. The do show that Leonhardt exists and has written a book. The book is, I think, notable. IT merits further research. I looked for citation numbers for papers and am not persuaded Leonhardt passes WP:NACADEMIC. But a note of caution: I would probably have not chosen to review this draft had I come across it as pending review since I find academics difficult unless clear passes or fails.

I've read the discussion on your talk page

Forgive me if I sit on the fence more than somewhat. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Interesting CBAN discussion for the originator. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

LouisAlain is my friend. (WP:QAI was believed to be the cabal of the outcast.for a reason.) - He translated thousands of articles to fill red links, and now that I have to do it myself I see what it means. (I do only one per day.) Now to this one: He was a red link mentioned in the body text of Renaissance Latin (and as the author of sources in others.) I think people would want to know more about him than the German article would give them. LouisAlain translated, in 2021. Now the German Wikipedia has the habit to list sources as Literature, not inline (and LouisAlain was more or less banned for that difference). A new page patroller moved it to draft because he couldn't see the sources, and failed to provide at least an interlanguage link to de:Jürgen Leonhardt. I put it on my to-do list and forgot. End of 2022, year-end clean-up, I saw it again, provided the inline citations and some more refs in English when asked. - I will not understand why it's so hard for an internationally acknowledged academic to be regarded as notable, while clergy and sport people are listed who have only regional impact. Or this singer who is just at the beginning of his career. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt I detest our weirdly skewed notability criteria, too. I would prefer all were raised to the toughest!

I think you probably see why, with academics, I sit on the fence with the threshold cases.

Being unable to see sources is not a valid reason to take any action prejudicial to an article. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

thank you - today, I point at two singers I whose performance I enjoyed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Timtrent:, I request you to join the AfD discussion about the article named "Alliances formed by left-wing parties in the states of India". Thank you. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a pretty sorry state of musical list articles, and I've noticed that most of them will probably fail due to Wikipedia's poor policies on lists (that combined with the . I had been trying to get rid of List of compositions for viola: A to B, but both deletion attempts failed due to the vague notion of WP:NLIST or citing the essay WP:DISCRIMINATE. And if it's not that, then people will just make the same faulty statement that India lacks in-depth media coverage like the West and thus there's systemic bias (which is so wrong, it hurts.) I honestly feel like Wikipedia needs to have better, more rigid policies on lists, because listing 10,000 easily non-notable songs (despite an artist's fame) is ridiculous. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Why? I Ask Setting aside the discussion about systemic bias, something I do not propose to get into, these articles are pure unreferenced fancruft. That cannot be argued for the viola article, which also should go unless referenced. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Meh, that's the million dollar argument: whether that indices and other directories of works count as references. I attempted to create Viola repertoire for notable pieces (where even non-linked pieces could be included with a dissertation or whatever), but that was not good enough because people still think that WP:NLIST basically means that as long as the topic of the list is notable, then as long as each entry verifiably exists, it can be included per WP:CSC (citing entry in the list fails the notability criteria) or WP:DISCRIMINATE since every entry is relevant and "assembled with care". List guidelines on Wikipedia really need an overhaul and less ambiguous wording. Why? I Ask (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Why? I Ask That is a discussion, probably eventually for the Village Pump, though going straight to the Policy board tends to fail. If the index is RS and if there is significant coverage, and if it is independent of the topic, then I have no difficulty with an index. Wikipedia has many faults, some glaring, others subtle. "We" created those faults and thus can change them, ideally for the better. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Well I mean, an index of works for a viola attempts to literally list every work published for the instrument. That's several thousands of pieces. I want sources that discuss a work in-depth rather than saying "this work exists". That's what an index does. It lists the piece and nothing else. Why? I Ask (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Why? I Ask The obvious question is why, under these circumstances, a Wikipedia article is required that duplicates a reliable index. I suspect that is the one you need to solve. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Timtrent,

I'd like to ask you to not mass-nominate a lot of similar articles at the same time. Please pace them out over a few days. It's not fair to have a dozen+ similar articles up for a deletion discussion at the same time. There are typically a small group of editors who are interested in a subject and I think having to track down reliable sources for multiple articles over a week can place an undue burden on editors with a limited amount of time. I'm not saying that these articles should be Kept or Deleted, this is just a request to space out your deletion nominations over time. There is no urgent need for non-notable articles to be deleted so we'll get to them when we get to them. They don't all have to be nominated on the same day. This is just a suggestion after I got an appeal about this from an editor to slow down this flood of nominations. Many thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Liz And yet 100% are rubbish. I had considered suggesting at on of the ANs that the creating editor be prevented from creating in main space. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Will you help me Drafts:Anjum Lucknowi Saddamshah789 (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Saddamshah789 I have already, but reviewing and declining it. You have work to do on it. What would you like to know? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I eat to work, The page was not being generated from Draft:Anjum Lucknowi, will it work now? Saddamshah789 (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Saddamshah789 You eat to work? Me? I eat to live. Draft:Anjum Lucknowi renders correctly, of that is what you mean. Please clarify with precision what you need to know. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

sir i try to make this journey good u help me in this I will be grateful to you Saddamshah789 (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Saddamshah789 As I have told you, I have helped you already. I have reviewed and declined this draft. I have no interest in the topic. I will not edit the draft. I will, however, watch its progress with interest. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I saw you nominated quite a few articles for nomination. Instead nominating similar articles separately you could have nominated 2-3 similar articles in one bundled AFD. for example, "List of Malayalam songs recorded by Sujatha Mohan", and "List of Telugu songs recorded by Sujatha Mohan" could have gone in the same AFD. It is a good practice to bundle such articles together, it is also good practice to avoid adding a lot of article to one AFD, 4 is a good number depending on the topic/state of the articles. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

There are many good practices. Creating well sourced articles is another one. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Some other good practices are to space-out the AFDs in days like Liz suggested above, and to take constructive criticism/feedback positively. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind advice, not only once, but twice. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I apologise for being impudent in previous message. I was getting frustrated with my office work. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

understood. Office work is never fun. I accept your apology 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Please help me in understanding in why the article submitted by me on my Grandfather is being rejected. Kindly guide me how can i correct this. Daitiva Sharma 09:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daitiva (talk • contribs)

@Daitiva: Assuming I reviewed it, which I have not checked since you have not linked to it, there will be a full reason there, in the notice. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Drafts can certainly be deleted per any CSD criterion starting with G, such as G11 – see WP:GCSD. The mainspace-only CSD rationales are the A ones, per WP:ACSD. (I won't restore the CSD tag to Draft:Yun Kobe, of course, I just wanted to give you a heads-up about this.) Regards, bonadea contributions talk 15:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Bonadea I was imprecise, my friend. I used the edit summary to try to get a rationale over. What I meant was that this one, tagged in mainspace, while not immune in Draft, was "likely" to be edited to comply. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I was just wondering why you didnt accept my article? I dont understand why sources are not okay?

User:Stefani94/sandbox Stefani94 (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

because, Stefani94, I reviewed the named one. And they were not ok. Please read that review and then ask me whatever you feel you need to 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I deleted the first draft, so this is the only article for Michael. I edited the references I hope they are okay now. Please if its possible look at it and get back to me. Thank you so much

User:Stefani94/sandbox Stefani94 (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

There are no duplicates anymore, its just this one in my sandbox. I hope the article its okay now Stefani94 (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Stefani94 I reviewed the named article. I reviewed the sandbox. I never review a second time 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

is it okay now? Stefani94 (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Stefani94 "I never review a second time" 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 00:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey there! I was hoping if you could look at my article again Draft:Michael Nicholson and give me a feedback. This is my last try because this are the only sources that are considered okay.

Stefani94 (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Stefani94 I do not review a second time. I see you have achieved rejection rather than a decline. You need to read what people say to you. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

And now you have achieved a block and appear to be a paid editor. Oh dear, what a pity, never mind. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Trimtent Buwenge (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Buwenge I do public chats. What do you wish to talk about? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Happy 2023 and a blessed February.

The fact is that im i found your selfless edits and i was mesmerised. I just realised we can work on something confidential with a high degree of beneficial mutual interest. I pray that God willing, you can mercifully do me a favour and message me @ jakebrockman2@gmail.com or a whatsapp at +12502441725. Thank you very much in advance. May God bless you abundantly with better health and more years on Wiki. Buwenge (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Buwenge I conduct all wikipedia conversations in public with full transparency. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Every name I tried moving it to (which would be pro-tem at best anyway) seemed to be protected. So what we have is 'gaming'... Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Eagleash you beat me to AfD by 5 minutes. I was busy checking each reference. Do we suspect UPE? System gaming is often a symptom. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Probably; I will happily admit to not being very good at spotting that. The tendentious to-ing and fro-ing and re-adding the weird DaB is likely someone with an agenda. Eagleash (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Eagleash I'll ask them the formal question. I have some success with spotting it. Mostly I just have sensitive antennae. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

OK I'll keep it on watch; Eagleash (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

You wrote: "While you are welcome to potter through the archives the meaning of life is not there." That is true, but I was advised that looking for the meaning of life is a category error. Life is not a symbol or set of symbols, and meaning is the interpretation of symbols. Life is a process, and it may or may not have a purpose, but to ask for its meaning is what philosophers call a category error. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I always thought the answer to the meaning of life, the universe and everything was 42! I was, however, mistaken 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

You made a statement urging ArbCom to accept a case following up on the G&K paper, and also added that there should be an external audit, and said that the WMF should pay the cost of the audit. On the one hand, I mostly agree. However, on the other hand, I will ask whether you are aware of any firm that provides the type of audit that you are asking for. An audit, when not further specified, usually refers to a financial audit by chartered accountants. (I think that they are called chartered accountants in Great Britain. They are called Certified Public Accountants in the United States.) I assume that you are not referring to a financial audit. I have heard of business process audits, which are a little closer to what you are referring to, but I do not know anything about the firms that conduct them. Do you have a more specific idea as to what sort of external audit there should be? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Robert McClenon Research firms and external consultancies can and will provide such audits. Some may also be accountancy firms, but it is not a financial audit I recommend.

Before I retired I used to provide Data Privacy audits as a consultant, and process audits are available, and relative easy to find. I've been out of the workplace for a lomg while now, and woudl have been able to use my network of contacts got identify one previously. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Robert McClenon A place to look might be Gartner. While they made their name as an IT consultancy they also have consultants well able to handle process, or did in 2003 when I last worked there. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The WMF hired an external expert to prepare m:Croatian Wikipedia Disinformation Assessment-2021, but I'm not sure who it was. Levivich (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Levivich This is, in broad terms, what I am suggesting. Arbcom has many members with many virtues. Some of the team are doubtless highly experienced, but it is happenstance and an election that has brought the team together. There is a point beyond which WMF needs to grasp the nettle and offer Arbcom heavyweight support. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree, though I doubt the WMF will do anything (even pay for a supporting expert) unless Arbcom asks them to, as the WMF probably doesn't want to intrude upon local governance. On the other hand, I bet they'd pay for it if asked (it would be relatively inexpensive compared to their overall budget). Levivich (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Levivich I know that, were I on Arbcom, I would both vote to accept the case and also know I was out of my depth. Knowing our limitations is a scarce skill. I would work with my fellow committee members to create consensus for a formal request to WMF for help.

Local governance notwithstanding, were I a WMF exec I woudl be asking Arbcom what support they felt they required in this case. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Same here, and I'd bet the WMF has already asked (I hope, anyway). Levivich (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Levivich I intend to trust them. I have made the suggestion in plain sight. If anyone chooses to support the suggestion that is fine and if anyone chooses to oppose it that is also fine. It might, however, be useful for it to be discussed for or against. For my part I have done in as few words as possible there, both disqualified myself from further activity in the area (I really cannot work there, the topic makes me physically unwell) and made the suggestion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Timtrent, my name is Margaux, I work for HB Antwerp and submitted the draft you reviewed earlier today. Thank you for taking the time, and for your detailed feedback. I've made a few changes in an effort to address your points, and would greatly appreciate it if you could take another look and let me know if you see any remaining issues? I'd be more than happy to make additional improvements based on your input. Thanks again, Margxx (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

We should allow another reviewer to take a look. It is rare indeed that I review a draft more than once. Different sets of eyes serve you better. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand. Should I leave a comment somewhere to explain that I've made these changes? Thanks again for your time. Margxx (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Margxx My feelings are that you need to take the following steps:

1. Read and understand WP:NCORP
2. Read and understand WP:42
3. read and understand WP:NPOV
4. Implement your understanding
5. Submit for a further review. There is no point in leaving a note. We see the article history. We all check it.

Now, while reviews are an iterative process, it would be unwise to expect help. Why? Because you are paid to learn how to do this, paid to draft the draft and paid to make it acceptable. Wikipedia is predominately a volunteer hobby project. Most volunteers are allergic to helping a person paid to do the job. We get no reward, so helping someone learn how to get paid is anathema to almost all of us. Paid editors are tolerated, you see.

What we expect of a paid editor is that they should be able to create a draft that is likely to be accepted on the second attempt, third at the most. It matters little if they are drawing a salary or wage, or raising an invoice. You have done the correct thing by making the declaration. Not doing so is a major rule breach. We all thank paid editors for their honesty, but they are paid, and we, most of us, are not. Brutal? Maybe. It is, however, the way it is, and is what happens when payment enters an amateur project. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi TimTrent, good morning. Haven't had time to review and improve David Gonzalez's article.  I am just putting the paid editing template in place and have not yet been able to change anything in the article, nor have I requested that the article be reviewed again. Please give me a little more time so that we can fix the mistakes we have made. I have contributed many, many articles on a voluntary basis and will continue to do so. I was unaware that there was a paid editing tag, and once I was asked to do so, I did it without hesitation. David Gonzalez is an artist with a long career and he can perfectly be in Wikipedia, but you must allow me some time to ask for the collaboration of other editors and for the article to be written with a neutral point of view. Thank you very much for your understanding Miskito89 (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Miskito89 The draft was submitted by someone else, not you, which is why I have reviewed it. It is only references that will show that an article is merited. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for replying quickly, I think the editor who asked for the review is a bit vandal and chaotic.... Miskito89 (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Miskito89 They certainyl have me noticing them 😈 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I have removed 'Find A Grave' sources from Draft: William Henry Redmond. SharkContent (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@SharkContent Wise. Thank you. I wish the draft every success. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I am aware you denied the addition of Shakura Masoki. Well if you should know. AC is a real person as he has only ever revealed his initials. And all claims in that page are from AC himself. IndieGameUpcoming (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@IndieGameUpcoming AC, whoever AC is, is a primary source. Please read and understand my decline. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-o0TzOfjco So far this is as close to a public appearance as he got. And it's also why he is called AC IndieGameUpcoming (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@IndieGameUpcoming I am not interested and will not view it. I have e told you with absolute clarity why this may not proceed. I will not review it again. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Timtrent,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.

Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@ToBeFree Thank you. My sole pu[ose in offering a statement was to suggest and request external, independent, formal validation and verification of the ArbCom work on this case, if accepted. This is in order to strengthen their and WMF's hand. I am not sure that the evidence gathering stage is relevant to this. Perhaps you would correct me if I am in error, please? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 00:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

No worries: There's no requirement, especially for you as a non-party, to add evidence. The bold formatting is only meant to ensure that those interested in providing evidence keep the end date in mind.

I have sent the same notification to everyone who has made a statement at WP:ARC regarding the case, to ensure that those interested are aware. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@ToBeFree I knew it was a generic message, but thank you. I just wanted to make sure I had said what I had to say in the correct place. It will be a challenging and lengthy case and process, and more difficult for those unaccustomed to potential media scrutiny. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 00:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Timtrent. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ann Wead Kimbrough, 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) 19:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Dear Timtrent, what do you think about this edits. Apparently the editor tried to conceal the previous declining of the drafts. 77.137.192.95 (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I have reinstated the review history and choose to consider it to be finger trouble this time around. You may restore any such removal yourself if you wish 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering if you could explain what made you decide so quick to decline the article based on run-of-the-mill rule. The person mentioned in the article is notable and is a popular figure in Pakistan. He is not just a "cleric", but a religious scholar and is being watched on Madani channel.

Earlier, I wrote an article in which I described him as a religious scholar, and one of your editor mate rephrased it to Cleric, so I thought it would be appropriate to write that.

I have put necessary citations to tell the references of the information and this time it was declined due to the reason that there are many clerics doing their job. That makes no sense. A person having 1.1 million subsribers on Youtube, and have presence on internet doesn't meet the criteria of getting noted on Wikipedia just because there are too many of them?

I have now made some changes, and resubmitting it again in hopes of getting it approved. I changed the term Cleric (which I just put because of my past experience of getting the term "scholar" changed). Ameenfaheem (talk) 07:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ameenfaheem In my opinion you had not demonstrated the subject's notability. Clerics, scholars, name them what you will, have a job to do. Reviewers have to be persuaded by your work that they step outside WP:MILL and pass our notability criteria, otherwise Wikipedia is just a directory of indiscriminate information.

It is perfectly possible that I am in error. Another reviewer may well have a different opinion. 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 🇺🇦 08:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand, but I will also keep addressing the issue. Ameenfaheem (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet. Bye. Next! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mrmctorso was:

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 people). 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.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ann Wead Kimbrough and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Mrmctorso (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mrmctorso Please check WP:NACADEMIC and consider whether being appointed Dean is ipso facto notability. I am interested to discuss your thoughts further, please

Welcome to the AFC reviewer team. I agree wth your three other declines. I am concerned about the fact that you have not chased the images in Draft:Phoebus the Knight to Commons where each is inadmissible. While not a formal part of the reviewer's task it is a useful facet to learn. I have flagged all those uploads for deletion.

Looking forward to hearing from you. It's hard learning to review. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I see her as qualifying under criterion 6: The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. but your thoughts may differ. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your feedback, @Timtrent. My read of WP:NACADEMIC is that the qualifier "highest-level" implies positions like university president or chancellor, but that Dean of the School of Journalism and Graphic Communication within Florida A&M may fall short. While clearly an important administrative post, I'm not sure it meets the standard for highest-level in the broader context of the entire institution. I can understand where others might feel differently.

Your note about the Commons images is well taken and an oversight on my part, I'll pay closer attention to that side of the review process moving forward.

Cheers!

Mrmctorso (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mrmctorso Our role as reviewers is to accept borderline drafts, ones which we believe have a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion discussion. How do you feel this draft measures up to that yardstick?

I am not arguing particularly for a change of your mind. AWK is very hard to reference, hence my main reliance on criterion 6. She does appear to be important. I see her as borderline notable, but which side of the border? Would she survive an immediate deletion process?

----

Thank you for embracing Commons going forwards. Naïve editors often try to drive a coach and horses through the rules there. It's a very specific place for file uploads 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Timtrent I agree that it's borderline and merits further discussion - honestly difficult for me to say where an immediate deletion discussion would fall here. I'll aim to be more open-minded with such cases. Mrmctorso (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mrmctorso It's a difficult tightrope to walk. We are entitled to make poor accepts and poor declines. I am not saying this was the latter. I am sanguine if a draft I accept goes to AfD, and remain steadfastly neutral there, sometimes stating that I will remain neutral, often not participating. If I make a borderline accept I often note it on the article talk page. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Timtrent I appreciate your advice and the details you've provided regarding your review approach. I'll do my best to keep learning. Mrmctorso (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia writing and was trying to understand your comments. You state the article did not have reliable sources. I cited to a book, The Who’s Who in Golf, an article from Sports Illustrated, an article in The New York Times and the Website for the Kansas Foundation which profiles members of the Kansas Golf Hall of Fame. For some reason, although these citations appear at the bottom of the text they are not footnoted in the text. Is the problem that the sources are not reliable or that the footnotes do not appear in the text. Also I cited wikipedia pages on Joanne Garner and the Curtis Cup but they did not appear.I assumed that citations to wikipedia were appropriate. Is that correct? Finally, i disclosed that I was a long time friend of Ms Crawford. Is this disqualifying, even though the Wikipedia pages for the USGA Women’s Amateur Golf Championship and Th Curtis Cup reflect her accomplishment and invite the creation of a page?

Thank you for helping me to understand Wikipedia’s standards.

John S. Martin a/k/a jsmjude

p.s. I could not find a button to sign electronically Jsmjude (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jsmjude: First, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so may not be used as any form of reference. Please read WP:CIRCULAR. We use Wikilinks to other pages. Wikipedia is a user generated site and thus cannot ever be reliable. It records that which reliable secondary sources say and is, itself, a tertiary source.

The references you state to be present I overlooked since they are not really visible. This is why I suggested WP:REFB and WP:CITE for reading and research 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. This is very helpful. I will try to correct it. Jsmjude (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello Fiddle Faddle, I have more citations to the draft Draft:Opiyo Wandayi as you inbstructed me on my talk page. You can help me review it again. I highly appreciate your help and contribution to Wikipedia, Thanks ! OwlFree (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@OwlFree I do not review a draft more than once. Thank you for the additional work. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@OwlFree Of course, you could neither wait nor tidy up after yourself. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. You approved the Zero Petroleum page a while ago. The company's public name has now changed to Zero and I was wondering if you know whether it is possible to change the page name to Zero to reflect that? Or would we need to produce an entirely new page under a new name? Thanks for your help. ~~~~ WDMGray (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@WDMGray  Done 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Please take a look at Draft:Huddah Monroe, I think the author (this account) might be linked to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Izaaqnewton. Thanks Xclusivzik (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Xclusivzik nothing jumps out at me. If you are sure please open aWP:SPI yourself 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Timtrent. Per your request here on your Talk page, I'll keep this short. In 2022, you accepted the Ajit Mohan draft I submitted via Articles for Creation on the subject's behalf. Per more recent news coverage, I've outlined some updates at Talk:Ajit Mohan, where you'll also see a link to a draft I've published which clearly shows text additions and relocations via highlighting.

In addition to specific text changes and relocations, I've proposed adding some subsection headings to the Career section for organizational purposes. I'd like to think these changes are non-controversial and quick to review. Given your previous involvement, I wanted to ask if you'd be willing to copy over the updated markup. If you're not interested, I can submit a series of edit requests using Template:Request edit. I'm happy to address any concerns on the article's Talk page. Thanks for your consideration, Inkian Jason (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Replied on the relevant article talk page 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I've submitted an initial edit request to propose these changes. Take care, Inkian Jason (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I have now linked sources supporting all statements. Althought I am a friend of the subject, the Wikipedia Page for the USGA Women'Amateur Golf Championship lists her as a winner in 1965 and invites the submission of a page for her.Her accomplishments are thoroughly documented Jsmjude (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jsmjude Why have you linked this to my own talk page? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

This is my first submission to Wikipedia. I thought that since you rejected my submission, I should contact you when I made the changes in response to your comments. Jsmjude (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jsmjude There truly is no need. I probably declined it rather than rejecting it. But you have not linked to it as asked whenever you post a request here. Just resubmit int for review and someone will review it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I noticed you have accepted this article in 2014 CAM English article... I would like to add to it few sections, but need help >> could you assist please? 

Thank you. Ccpoka1971 (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ccpoka1971 please feel free to add to it unless you have a conflict of interest. I simply accepted a draft. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Timtrent. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Inseparables (2023), 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) 11:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft:The Inseparables (2023), a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Inseparables (2023) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:The Inseparables (2023) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 03:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be deleted, but it should actually be a G4. Thanks for nominating. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I agree except that afd makes it harder to recreate than G4. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

True. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• MJSC123 (talk · contribs)
  • User:MJSC123 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please undelete the draft:Elcka this shouldn't have been deleted!

The copyright has been updated as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials showing clearly the requested changes to allow this content to be used. Please visit https://elcka.net/biography.asp scroll down to bottom to see the notice, please kindly undelete this page Draft:Elcka

MJSC123 (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@MJSC123 Please ask the deleting administrator. I am not an administrator and cannot help you. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it's out of order they deleted this without checking 1st.. is there a senior admin I can refer this request to as I'm not sure who to ask ? MJSC123 (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

It was a copyright violation and was purely promotional. Neither is acceptable. Ask any admin you choose. There is no hierarchy.

I suggest you write it again from scratch. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that you misinterpreted the history in thinking that this was a contested draftification. It was not moved from article space to draft space. It was moved from Wikipedia space, where it was misplaced, to draft space. I don't see anything wrong with the sources except that there are too many of them. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Much appreciated 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Timtrent,

You left your comment on this draft on the User talk page of a nonexistent editor which I just deleted. You might want to check to see if the real draft creator received notice, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Liz Thanks. I solved it on the day, but always good have a prompt just in case. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I have not been paid in any way for making Adel Rahman and Stiven Mikhail. I do not get paid for creating Wikipedia pages. I do not charge anything for creating Wikipedia pages. I have not used any copyright file. I do not used any copyright file. Lalmohanlal (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Lalmohanlal I acknowledge receipt of your message. I find it confusing, because your user page states you to be a paid editor, paid by Stiven Mikhail.

The copyright issue is dealt with on Wikimedia Commons. It is a separate site. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not being compensated in any way directly or indirectly for my edits. Lalmohanlal (talk) 10:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Lalmohanlal I have no interest in this topic any more. Others will decide. You have been overzealous in saying this, as lovers of Hamlet will tell you. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey - I blocked the sock, and deleted the article per G5. I then looked at the sock's talkpage and saw the discussion about someone threatening to delete it - so assuming there's any truth in that, we're caught between allowing a sock's creation to stand, and gratifying a UPE spammer. Hmm. You reviewed it - if you think the subject is legit notable, let me know and I'll undelete it. I'm now going to go talk to the oversight team about the email address and LinkedIn profile referenced in that discussion - that doesn't look like the sort of thing we ought to be hosting onwiki. Nice to bump into you again by the way, hope the summer is treating you well... Girth Summit _(blether) 20:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Girth Summit I feel we should obey our rules, which you have done. While I believe that there is no problem with the article I now know for sure that there is a behaviour problem with the editor. Your deletion should stand. I would not have accepted it had I determined the editor was a likely sock prior to acceptance. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Girth Summit I have just asked for CU on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ildivino1010 where talk page protestations are very similar in style with this latest sock. I may, of course, have found the wrong tree to bark up 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I just processed that case - they weren't related to the BJ Sam stuff, but I've blocked a few accounts over there. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Girth Summit A shame they were unrelated, but always good to takeout the trash. Thank you. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Timtrent, Indefensible helped clean up the InMoment article to meet Wikipedia guidelines and brought it to the main space. My COI was declared on the talk page since creating the draft. Can we remove the content banner at this point? Appreciate your input.--Chefmikesf (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Chefmikesf does it still contain content that you authored? That will answer your question better than I can. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

These were a case where you had to nominate them for deletion even though we may not want them deleted but draftified. As we know, once an article has been draftified and draftification has been contested (by moving it back to article space), the consensus process is AFD, and Draftify is sometimes the right Alternative to Deletion. In other words, I agree with your action to nominate them for deletion, as the right way to get them back into draft space, and to caution the author. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Thank you. Sometimes one needs to use the big hammer 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

But it is always a good idea to review the history of articles in article space with pending AFC templates to see whether a hammer is needed, or whether a scalpel to remove the AFC template is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I agree, and use both with broadly equal facility. I also find accepted drafts like Philip Agbese where I am mystified by the acep[tance, and note with interest that it has now been stubbified. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I temporaily removed the speedy delete tag on Stephan Zipfel pending verification that the banned user Farzanfa007 created it. Reason I'm asking is the user who created the article isn't listed on the suspected or confirmed sockpuppets of Farzanfa007. Also, you're the one who moved the published the article as an articles for creation submission. Then 7 minutes later you requested it be speedy deleted. I can still speedy delete the article if needed but I need more explanation on what is going on here. Thanks! --SouthernNights (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I replied on yr talkpage. My error. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. I posted here before I saw your comment on my talk page.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@SouthernNights I am obviously too tired to edit right now. That was not a mistake I should have made. Thank you for your courtesy. I shall step away from the keyboard for a while.😳 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

It's all good. I've seen your work before on Wikipedia and have always been impressed with it. Keep doing what you're doing! Best, --SouthernNights (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey.

Yesterday you added {{Multiple issues}} template to 2023 IFK Norrköping season. I was wondering if the inner reports and sources aren't enough for a regular Season article? Thanks. Anderssøn79 🦔 (talk) 🦔 💛💙 12:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Adding @Spiderone to the quarry. What sources should a pure Match-handler page (which using reports) have? What am I missing? Anderssøn79 🦔 (talk) 🦔 💛💙 13:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Why have you created a separate article for the matches when the content is already in 2023 IFK Norrköping season? It would be better to improve the season article rather than duplicating the content into a new article. Also, it's better to use independent sources (see WP:IS) rather than the website for IFK Norrköping, which does not count towards notability per WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Because it contains 30 games, and each game conatains multiple lines, therefore it is a headache to update a single match, while when it is outside the article, we may use subtitles and therefore subsections, which help find the right match easier. As this is an article about the matches of IFK, I see no point using reports outside IFK's website (after double checking) I will use the SVF instead. Thanks, I am still a newbie in English WP Anderssøn79 🦔 (talk) 🦔 💛💙 13:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Anderssøn79 Let us get back to basics, please. I doubt that Spiderone will disagree.

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.

Now I am alerted to Spiderone's question I pose it as well. I'm not convinced by the answer yet. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, sorry for being such a newbie make it simplest for me: if I am using SvFF as a major source, and adding websites such as everysport.com, is that enough, or should I use something else, and if so, what? thanks! Anderssøn79 🦔 (talk) 🦔 💛💙 10:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Anderssøn79 multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS will do the job. You are using a single source for which there is an argument that it is primary. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah okay, I will use multiple in its body. Is it ok though using SvFF (official) as a primary source for the matches themselves (as happens in the other 2023 <Swedish team> Season)? Thanks again. Anderssøn79 🦔 (talk) 🦔 💛💙 10:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Anderssøn79 WP:PRIMARY tells you how, when and whether to use a primary source. I said "there is an argument" which means that opinions will vary. I am undecided on its status. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll tell you why it seems so weird for me. When I report about a match, it includes the name of each team, who score, who was warned or off (aka yellow/red cards), and in what time the match began. When I think about "sources", I cannot imagine a scenario in which the source would lie about .. well, obvious facts. I truly understand why one should use multiple sources whenever an argument is given, and why I shouldn't've using IFK website, though cannot understand why pure and simple facts should use other sources than the official SvFF. Anderssøn79 🦔 (talk) 🦔 💛💙 10:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Anderssøn79 Your match list is a borderline area. The facts are simple ones. But you intend(ed) this as a stand alone article. In that case full notability must be verified.

Were it part of the article about the team then it becomes more simple. The team's notability is easier to verify independently that matches.

However, if the team is notable it is likely (0.95 probability) that the match is recoded in independent reliable sources, together with match commentary. Thus you can furnish the article, stand alone or not, with good referencing.

Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia rather than news outlet, and is a tertiary source, we may only record what is stated by significant coverage (>three paragraphs) in multiple, independent, reliable sources. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks again. Anderssøn79 🦔 (talk) 🦔 💛💙 11:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)