Wikipedia

User talk:Timtrent/Archive 15

< User talk:Timtrent
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Timtrent in topic May 2014
Archive 10 ← Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 → Archive 20

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wizards of Waverly Place Article-for-Improvement

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

A happy proleptic gregorian increment, to you, good sir.  :-)   Agree that we are basically ready for the second AfD, so that we can figure out if no-consensus can be converted to a definitive Keep or instead a temporary Move to WP:Drafts decision.

declaration of independence ;-)

  As for myself, I'm reasonably convinced the topic is wikiNotable by this point, because we have independent peer-reviewers for the bulk of the papers. Kolonay for instance, as the author of iosPress#1, because they contributed to the SORCER codebase at one point, and because they work at the same place where Prof Sobolewski now works, arguably suffers from COI ... but the dozen-and-a-half folks on the conf-peer-review-board (not counting Sobolewski o'course!) arguably had no WP:COI to speak of. That is especially true of the three editors of the print pub, the conference proceedings, consisting of two aussies and a german; experts in the field, but none of them involved with SORCER/AFRL/etc, that I could tell. Thus, in my book, iosPress#1 is absolutely positively now firmly in the WP:RS column: it was first academia-refereed by the conf-board, and then editorially-reviewed by the proceedings-editors, 90% and 100% of whom had no COI. The publisher is not a vanity press; they are a respected medical/EECS journal, small but perfectly valid. Same for the PhD thesis stuff, and so on. The thesis-defense-committee folks seem independent enough, to me.

  Now obviously, any time we use conference-papers, and PhD-thesis-work, there is some care necessary. These are not tertiary sources like frosh-level textbooks would be; they are reasonably cutting-edge, and the article should make that clear. That said, we have reasonable evidence that the *public* scientific papers are actively driving real-world change, in the way classified aerospace weapon-systems are designed and funded (the $22M FIPER grant from 1999-2003 and the current AFRL efforts... plus the NSFC four-year project Kazumo is involved with... plus hints about the Russians and maybe the U.Cranfield folks... and some evidence of Dassault in the continental EU). The small startup in Poland, working on the open-source version, is the tip of the decade-and-a-half-old iceberg. Sobolewski started working at GE — one of the main manufacturers of turbines for aircraft propulsion — back in 1996, and got internal funding prior to the 1999 NIST-ATP thing, methinks.

  Realizing that you have been occupied elsewhere on-wiki and off-wiki, and are not WP:REQUIRED to dive into the huge set of green boxen at the top of Talk:SORCER presently... are you proposing AfD because you believe wikiNotability is *not* achieved, via the mechanism explained above? Garamond seems very certain that only cites-within-academia justify wikiNotability, and even went so far as to tell Beavercreekful that Russian newspapers "do nothing" towards proving wikiNotability; *that* just seems flat wrong. I guess my position basically boils down to a 9/11-style conspiracy theory; I firmly believe that SORCER is being used by at least one classified branch of at least one major government, to develop aerospace weapons of some-level-near-mass-destruction, and that this awful fact is being kept from the public.  :-)   There aren't tons of cites to the dozen public papers published about SORCER/exertions/mogramming/etc, because they are just 10% of the total pub-count... the majority of the citing is to classified papers, which are invisible to wikipedia for the next N years. But although we cannot see those classified papers, nor use them as WP:RS, our belief that they exist is evidence-based.

  Methinks the non-classified sources we *do* have, are quite enough to meet WP:42. It will take time, but methinks myself and Martijn can get the prose cleared up, as well. So, TLDR, are you unconvinced of wikiNotability, based on the argument that the conf-referees and proc'gs-editors are independent? Or are you just wanting some other folks to analyze the sources, and give us a clear keep-or-move-to-drafts consensus? Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah... have just looked at talk:SORCER myself. =:->   *I* can answer your questions, about where's the beef, prolly. Definitely think that you and the professor should stop sniping at each other. As for TRPoD, they are a good wikipedian, but they also demand wiki-policy arguments ... and obviously, Sobolewski is more concerned with getting the terminology *accurate* (which is a concern I share) rather than trying to dot all the eyes and cross all the tees demanded by our five bazillion WP:PG (another concern which I also share). I'm quite sure the professor hasn't memorized all that jazz. Anyhoo, getting angry at Sobolewski, and repeatedly demanding he comply with WP:RS, is pointless: he does not understand WP:RS, and should not have to. He's acting in good faith on the talkpage, he's following the bright-line-rule, he's getting frustrated because he perceives attack. Cut the man some slack, my friend.  :-)   In the meantime, I will post a note on the AfD thing, and on the professor's page, telling them I will be the wiki-champion of the SORCERers, to provide the policy-backed arguments that AfD requires. Plus, explaining that this is a question of *moving* from mainspace to AfC/wp:Drafts, not of outright deletion. No work shall be lost, one way or the other; this is a procedural slash evidentiary proceeding. Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Migrating SORCER to a non main namespace area will be just fine.
Actually, the professor and his fellow wizards should understand WP:RS you know. They have chosen to enter our world with its own rigour and they must learn and play by the rules, as I have told them consistently and without variation.
SORCER should have a champion. That it is you is excellent, and I know that you and I will not fall out over this. The outcome of an AfD is either that the article is bolted into place, a good outcome, or that t is removed to elsewhere (including deletion). That is also a good outcome. But the circular arguments over the notability are wearying and tiresome, don't you think?
Even if it is deleted entirely nothing is lost, of course. Fiddle Faddle 18:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I agree to most of this... but disagree the prof should (or even ought) understand WP:RS ... wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, even if they don't memorize the five bazillion policies. Prof et al, are just arguing from the names of the policies; to them, reliable just means correct/accurate/notUnreliable. As long as they keep it to the talkpage per bright-line, and stay wp:nice, who cares if they grok the finer gradations of WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP and such? See also my discussion with Ironholds, about making the first 99 edits easy and fun... *then* starting the assault of sign-your-posts no-copyvio-uploads cite-your-sources no-COI etc et cetera. By the 100th edit, one is addicted.  :-)   Anyhoo, yes, no worries about me thinking badly of you. The notability is either convincing to others, or not, and moving to afc or drafts while we prove it, is no shame. I'll try to convey as much to our friends the SORCERers, too. But in the end, that's the only way to achieve bulletproof consensus-of-being-worth-mainspace, and keep some future AfD from succeeding. I notified some other wizards, see list at Mwsobol talkpage, and Garamond & TRPoD noticed... did you alert scope_creep and some of the others from the first AfD session? p.s. The key to circular arguments, is to break out of them, or to use them hermeneutically. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
With regard to the Russian sources I can argue both sides of the case, but, so far, those seem to have the best chance of rendering it notable, if they are RS. I can argue for notability based on the fact that they are providers of independent coverage, but against it on the basis that I suspect them not to be RS.
So my firing the AfD shot is purposeful, strongly argued, and timely. It was most definitely time to re-test no consensus, and I feel a second outcome of no consensus must be challenged if it is closed as such on the IAR basis that it is not an acceptable outcome for a project of this apparent stature. In or Out (or into a holding pen) is required.
My nomination is, insofar as I am able, a fire and forget nomination. I'm going to be away for a while anyway, and Sorcer must take its chances. I have this Danny Kaye and Hans Christian Andersen feeling about it, though. This may be because I used to work for Wang Laboratories and am so well used to smoke and mirrors because of that. We used to ship mirrors shrouded in smoke and get paid for it. Another vendor I knew well used to ship empty boxes in order to raise invoices, sending "further components" later. Another used to sell 600lpm and 1200lpm printers. the difference was huge in money and a single switch setting somewhere deep inside the hardware. "Look at the King! Look at the King! The King, the King the King...."
And so I reached the point when, for me, notability must be so self evident it makes my eyes hurt. After that, and only after that, the appalling article can be improved. Fiddle Faddle 18:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Heh! I've got a collection of magic smoke, sealed away in glass tubes, taken from the ghosts in the machines of days past, if you're interested. But I only take gold for that magic smoke, and I'll ship you the box first and the other components later. Anyways, methinks your spidey-senses are wrong this time; NIST-ATP is something I *did* know something about before, they don't mess around. SORCER is legitimately notable, methinks; Chinese, Russian, USA, Dassault, Poland+Japan, Aussies, UK... some of it could be black-budget-padding, but not *all* of it. Still, we'll have to see what others say about using the non-classified papers "with care". Speaking of russian, the guy I asked to look at the russkie-sources said to try Ymblanter for that, so I best do so. In the meanwhile, have fun while you are away, talk to you later. TFIW. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
As I am sure you know, I'm happy whatever the outcome, as long as we get an outcome! Another 'no consensus' will be somewhat dehydrating. Now SORCER may be important to folk, but notability is a different thing. All my doubts are caused by the volume of blether vs the volume of verifiable sources produced by Dumbledore et al. And no, I have not notified those from the prior AfD, though I have notified the closing admin. You are more than welcome to let folk know. Fiddle Faddle 22:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
One of those binary folks, eh? There are only 10 kinds of people in the world, those who grok base-two and those who don't. I've always been ternary, personally; yes/no/mu, and true/false/null seem quite correct to my ears. Anyways, if you feel like seeing Google's take on the sources (which is what Garamond was asking for), please see my summary here.[1] As was mentioned by Garamond, having 100 cites is usually a better indication of *actual* notability-lowercase-letter-for-colloquial-common-sense-meaning, but WP:GNG in letter is not that strict, and the top three here would be good enough. Actually though, it's become clear to me that FIPER/SORCER is an industrial engineering project for the aerospace sub-branch of that field, whereas computer science is a much vaster universe. Anyhoo, I expect we'll get an outcome, despite the sturm and drang.
  I'm sorry for the wizards that this is such a hard row to hoe, but at the same time, I'm sorry for you too... gave them months, were patient explaining the policies, but instead of listening, they just got defensive, then prickly. They've never seen *really* rough wikipedia-waters, on controversial political&religious articles with bitter battleground bullshit. Still, there's gotta be a better way, for dealing with WP:WikiSpeak#conflict of interest and also WP:NOTFACTIONS which is related except political/religious/similar rather than money/fame/respect/etc. Prolly if you and I keep bonking noggins, and drag Yngvadottir and some other folks in, we'll get it all figured out. But I've stopped hoping it will happen instantaneously.  :-)   In a way, WP:DEADLINE is pretty nice, and of course my favorite WP:REQUIRED, but there's much to be said for WP:DGAF ... it truly is a skill, and if enough people practiced it when applicable (rather than hurry-hurry and emotional-involvement and such), it would go a long way towards making wikiCulture tolerable. Maybe WP:ZEN is more what is needed... serenely waiting for enlightenment. Anyway, gotta go, in a hurry, stomach churning... uh... strike that, time to leave the computer and make a nice sandwich. Talk to you later, my friend. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
No need to be sorry for me :), nor to be sorry for Dumbledore et al. They may see me as Voldemort, but they wear huge blinkers. Indeed they exhibit 'Kennel Blindness', and see the progeny of their sire and dam as being impossibly perfect. Such blindness that they exhibit means they fail to spot the necessary rigour needed for this article. Were they not suffering from it they would not have attempted to push it here way before they had a clue what they were doing. They need to ask themselves "Would I have committed a huge tranche of SORCER code before I knew how to do everything required?" I hope very much that the answer is a resounding "no". But, because Wikipedia looks easy, they pushed a serious load of non notable ordure into Wikipedia into which was mixed something that may well be notable, but that they concealed by smearing it with so much of the ordure that one needs a divining rod to find it.
I think I may be one of the 11 sorts of binary people. I care passionately about article quality and sourcing, but I get very bored with protective COI editors very quickly. I wonder about them and how excellent they may or may not be in their professional sphere. In general I conclude, having met enough during my work to reach a conclusion, that, in general they may be excellent but do not play well with other children, and also try the "Do you know who I am?" route, thus alienating those with whom they should build alliances.
Hogwarts is only of consequence to me when its denizens become abusive or make personal attacks. I expect all children to learn, and, after guiding them in the direction that they must go, expect to guide them with increasingly blunt language when they ignore that guidance repeatedly. What they fail to realise is that my enthusiasm for helping them with their pet dragon is directly proportional to their following of guidance. But some children will never learn how to play with others despite guidance and help. Even those high on the Asperger Spectrum can be taught the niceties of interaction whether they understand the finer nuances or not. Fiddle Faddle 11:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sycophant

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. Can you take a look at Talk:Sycophant#Deletion of content and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sycophant? I also notified the psychology WikiProject, since sycophancy is a psychological subject but would like your opinion on this. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I fear my opinion varies from yours. That's fine, of course. I have contributed to the deletion discussion with my opinion. I'm glad we do not always agree. Life would be far too predictable if we did. Fiddle Faddle 20:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll agree with your opinion on this matter in that case. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
We seem not to be as far apart as I thought at first. Fiddle Faddle 22:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I know. I was trying to explain my actions. A user accused me of vandalism on that particular talk page and I explained my actions, but my edits were done in good faith. Even if it does pertain to classics and linguistics, we may need to add its psychological effects if the article is merged. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I think I'd have been more inclined to list it at requested merges rather than AfD, but AfD has a more certain outcome, although often an arbitrary result. The user who accused you is entitled to their feelings, though it's disappointing when one os accused of something when one's actions have ben well motivated. Fiddle Faddle 22:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I see. I already explained that my good faith edits were not vandalism to the user (Banks Irk (talk · contribs)) in question on the talk page of the article concerned, and called it a personal attack in the process. I warned him about this here. This user is just a newcomer to the project, so we'll see what we can do about this. I've decided to withdraw this nomination and propose a WP:PM if there are no objections. Can you help out? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
They were, in their own way, simply trying to prevent what they saw as the destruction of the article. Allow them that and do as you have, which is to move forward with honour intact. Fiddle Faddle 08:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Sycophancy#Merge with Sycophant?

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sycophancy#Merge with Sycophant?. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have placed an opinion in favour of merging. At present we have a potential POV fork, a deprecated thing. Fiddle Faddle 09:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

FYI

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A proposal has been made to create a Live Feed to enhance the processing of Articles for Creation and Drafts. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to create a 'Special:NewDraftsFeed' system. Your comments are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Your usurp request

Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Hi there. I noticed your usurp request and would like to help you out. What you'll need to do is register a second account, via Special:Userlogin/signup; you can name it whatever you like (e.g. "Fiddle Faddle temporary"), and then we can proceed with the usurp by renaming that account to Fiddle Faddle. Let me know if you have any questions, and feel free to ping me on my talk page if the usurp hasn't been done by Feb. 10. 28bytes (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@28bytes: Thanks. I have created Fiddle Faddle temporary as you suggested. By the way, Acalamari is looking to learn from this process. Please would you keep them in the loop so that they understand this for the future? Fiddle Faddle 14:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely. @Acalamari: if you want to do the honors once the 7-day waiting period is up (that'd be 18:29 EST on February 9 if my math is right) you can, or I can do it, either way is fine with me. 28bytes (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Isn't it wonderfully convoluted? Fiddle Faddle 15:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Heh, it is. But I've always enjoyed solving puzzles. :) 28bytes (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Like all such things it can be resolved by being broken down into manageable chunks. I suspect this style of request happens once in a blue moon. Fiddle Faddle 15:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Sure, 28bytes, I can do it if I'm online then. The main reason I was planning to keep out of usurpation itself is because I wasn't sure if this type was usurpation is okay and I wanted another bureaucrat to give their input, but since it is I'll defer to your judgment and will happily perform it when the time comes (again, if I'm online then!). :) Acalamari 15:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Acalamari for the usurpation. I need one additional piece of help, please. How do I do the bit from Fiddle Faddle to protect the FF username with a login on all Wikis? I am out of my depth, I fear. Fiddle Faddle 14:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks both. I think I achieved it. I imagine it is a thing that takes a while to propagate? Fiddle Faddle 14:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Your signature

Latest comment: 10 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

From the archives of your talk page it is clear that you are happy with your signature and have no desire to change it. That is fine; it is yours and your choice.

However, I felt I should at least tell you what impression it induced in me. When I saw it completely obscured your actual user name I had the impression that it was deceptive and demonstrated an intent to deceive. I am not saying that such is your intent, just that my initial impression was set. To me the issue is that your current signature looks like one for an account named "fiddle faddle", not a nickname for a different account.

After looking at this for while, and reading Wikipedia:Signatures, I realize that it is, effectively, just a nickname for your nickname (user account) and is, potentially, in compliance with the minimal rules on signatures (unless it could be considered a WP:SIGPROB). I know that all of our user names are merely nicknames. I am not sure why your signature struck me with such a significant impression of deception when we all are going by nicknames anyway, just that I was left with that impression. WP:SIGPROB does, however, touch on using nicknames and suggests including your actual user name. Might I suggest something like:
Fiddle Faddle(Timtrent)
or:
Fiddle Faddle(Timtrent)

Given that you prefer to be known as "fiddle faddle", have you considered actually changing your username?

As I write this, I have grown more and more comfortable with your use of a nickname for your nickname, almost to the point of deleting this post prior to saving it. However, I feel you should be aware of the initial impression it had on me, and potentially others. Makyen (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. I do not propose to make any alterations, but commend you for having given this far more thought than others who have commented. I am proud of my name, thus will not change username. I am proud of my nickname, so I will not be varying it. The whole issue was caused originally by MediaWiki software. Thank you for taking the time to read archives. Fiddle Faddle 19:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Intriguing. The account appears to have made no edits ever, and had its talk page populated in error by Edwards Bot. The account seems to have existed since September 2006. There is a possibility that I created it myself since I was new here some six months before. What makes sense is if I ask to adopt the account, state that I own it (if successful) as a legitimate alternate account, and leave it dormant. I'll have a chat to a Bureaucrat and see what the process is, here. Fiddle Faddle 19:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Ending up with the Fiddle Faddle (talk · contribs) account as a legit alternate with the user and talk pages redirecting to, or mentioning, this account is a good idea. I did try going to both the user and talk pages for Fiddle Faddle prior to making the first post in this thread. Having it as a legit alternate would help reduce confusion/issues. Makyen (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
We will now await the outcome of Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations#Timtrent_.E2.86.92_Fiddle_Faddle. It looks to be within the rules, but I do depend on the person who implements it to understand that I wish to keep Timtrent as my main account. Do you think I have phrased it clearly enough, chaps? Fiddle Faddle 23:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it is clear. You repeated it a couple of times and had it as the last sentence. Both good things when wanting to be sure to communicate this sort of thing. Another time, I would have also put it as the first sentence (effectively a subject statement). While the audience for the request is sophisticated, I have often had to deal with people for which that much repetition was needed. In a case like this where being actually moved would be a significant negative, it is generally better to be safe than sorry. On the other hand, this type of request should be similar to something the audience for the request has seen before. Makyen (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip about the first sentence. I have adopted your suggestion. Fiddle Faddle 11:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the new version is much more clear. Nice job. Good luck, I hope that it goes quickly and well. Although, you will, obviously, have to wait the normal time for a lack of response from the email ping to the configured address. Makyen (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations. I am glad to see the process went well. Makyen (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The question I have for anyone and everyone who cares to answer it is "has this removed any prior confusion you had?" Fiddle Faddle 11:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The new account is not intended to edit, though accidents will probably happen, so I have also made sure I have created this signature: Fiddle Faddle Alternate Account of Timtrent talk 11:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
At least for me, there was no lingering confusion beyond the beginning of my original post. However, if the Fiddle Faddle account had been as it is now when I was first looking onto why I could not find "Fiddle Faddle" in a talk page history where the signature was clearly on the page, any issue I had would have been resolved when I went to the Fiddle Faddle user & talk pages. I hope that having the account will reduce the sporadic issues that other editors have had with your use of the Fidle Faddle nickname. Makyen (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

re 'dead' link at 'Suicide of Phoebe Prince'

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Timtrent/ FiddleFaddle,
Don't know what's going on, but that "The untouchable Mean Girls" ref at Suicide of Phoebe Prince was leading me to a search page at Boston. Com. Just now of course it took me to the source I was looking for. :-\ And I tried it multiple times, and tried googling it too and it never lead to the page, just said 'not found'!? :-o 220 of Borg 12:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Who can possibly say? It works, at least at present. Fiddle Faddle 12:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Help with a picture and reading Hebrew

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

The article Steven Stayner would be improved with a picture. A banner on the talk page says so. A search has shown that there is a picture contained in he:סטיבן_סטיינר which is to be found at he:קובץ:סטיבן_סטיינר.jpg. I cannot read Hebrew, so I cannot tell whether this picture may be migrated to Commons for free use across all languages, or whether we have to d/l and re u/l the picture from the Hebrew to the English language versions.

Because I don't want to get the licencing wrong I would appreciate a Hebrew reader to perform the task and include the picture in the infobox in the English article, if that is acceptable with the licencing. Fiddle Faddle 14:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't read Hebrew either, but the last line of the copyright template says in English, "This is a fair use file." And although the link is broken, it was apparently taken from SFGate.com, not known for hosting freely licensed images. Going by that, it's highly unlikely to be eligible for the Commons. Personally I'm not convinced an image is necessary enough for a valid claim of fair use. Huon (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Huon. I'm ambivalent about a claim of fair use here. If we were to accept precedent then there is precedent for such use in articles such as this. Since we do not then there is a case that needs to be made for the use. I'm still hoping for a Hebrew reader to help, and I thank you for your interim message. Fiddle Faddle 17:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • FiddleFaddle, I asked in the #Wikimedia-commons connect channel on IRC if there was anyone available who could look over your request and let me know if this image has proper licensing to copy to commons and <matanya> responded with "no {{Guy}} it is under fair use". I hope this is helpful and I'm marking this request as -helped. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 18:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'm going to unmark it. Now we know it is an unfree image I still need help with Hebrew for attribution etc. The route seems to be to download from he and upload to en, but the surround stuff needs to be right. Fiddle Faddle 21:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
According to the Hebrew Wikipedia's template the image was taken from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2008/01/23/BAV2UJOJN.DTL&object=%2Fc%2Fpictures%2F2008%2F01%2F23%2Fba_b5_.jpg, but the original source no longer exists and gives a 404 message. You can, however, still find the image here, including the AP copyright tag. The Google translation of the Hebrew template text is good enough for me to be certain that it provides no additional helpful information, and neither does the rest of that image page. Huon (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks one and all. I'll handle the logistics tomorrow :) Fiddle Faddle 21:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

drawing a blank

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I was trying to think of a good personal slur to leave you, but I've got nothing! Plus, it would just get me blocked.  :-)   I spy with my little eye that you have returned, so I figured I would drop in to say, welcome back. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Aww. Slur away! I'm neither back nor gone, if you follow me. Sometimes one needs a break. So I am here, in camouflage, attempting improvements by sniping. I was about to invite your perspective on Suicide of Phoebe Prince, which as an individual article is far too journalistic, and as part of a class of articles on teenage bullycides is becoming less and less relevant as an individual article. I am tending to the view that these articles should be merged into a single article, perhaps Bullycides of the start of the 2000s (I can't think of a decent title right now) that will form a far more factual treatment of this set of horrible episodes. An example might be Tyler Clementi, whose death was significant, media-worthy, but probably not significant enough for its own article with detailed treatment in a news media manner of who did what to whom. Fiddle Faddle 08:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Swinton

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Tim Thank you for your comments re. issues on the Swinton Insurance page.

I have been instructed by the company to update its corporate history, and have taken as a template the numerous Wikipedia pages of other insurance companies, (Moneysupermarket, Aviva, etc).

Your own pages show you are an encyclopedia expert, so I would be grateful if you could be more specific with the issues you have, and inform me which passages you have a problem with, with a view to amending them.

Please let me know your thoughts. Regards Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew spinoza (talk • contribs) 17:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest you refuse the brief. Please read WP:COI. What you have created is motherhood and apple pie and a miasma of PR pap. We dislike paid editing, the more so when it is biased. Fiddle Faddle 17:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Tim While your opinions are welcome, I would ask you to read any other corporate organisation's entry and explain to me who originated the entry? Swinton has a right to describe its own history, the majority of which is a simple account of business transactions, the account of which sits in the company's own records.

I can see you have a concern about the company's beginnings, but whether you feel it is 'PR pap' or not, this is the documented history of the company.

You have flagged citations are needed on numerous commercial transactions which over many years which cleared various corporate legal, financial and banking compliance processes.

It is not practicable to produce citations for transactions which are commercially in confidence.

You have removed the Advertising section which again is a straightforward history of the company's advertising campaigns,and which is modelled on other insurance companies' entries. Do you intend to remove their Advertising sections too?

It is disappointing that you use such extreme language in your characterisation of the article. I would still like to consult with you in a reasonable manner if you are open to us using your expertise constructively. regards Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew spinoza (talk • contribs) 17:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

If you can not cite it it can not go in. WIkipedia is not the place to promote a corporation, especially one with which you are associated.
On Wikipedia no article sets any precedent for any other article. I am not interested in other articles, I am just looking at this one. The advertising section was uncited. No citations means no text. Please do not ever mistake Wikipedia for a place where promotional text is allowed. If you are disappointed that I describe your text as pap, please create better text. However, I counsel you against persisting with this article since you have a conflict or interest. We have a great sensitivity to paid PR on Wikipedia.
Further discussions about this article should appear on the article's talk page, please. Fiddle Faddle 17:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Talangere stone inscription

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Added new page on "Talangere stone inscription". The copyrighted articled mentioned above has not been linked. Authentic sources have been referred to, while editing the new page.Kpbolumbu (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The above mentioned page has been moved to my sandbox. While moving it, you have referenced the article to the "copyrighted article". That "copyrighted article" does not mention about the language. There the language has been assumed to be Kannada. It is a wrong reference. The reference has been deleted. Kpbolumbu (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Why was it moved to the sandbox? Are the sources not authentic enough? Kpbolumbu (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
@Kpbolumbu: Ask the person who moved it to your sandbox why they did it, please. I didn't do it.
Your article as it stood was an almost complete grab of a copyright blog. You may not ever reproduce copyright material here. Fiddle Faddle 18:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I see you have asked them already, and they have answered you. Fiddle Faddle 18:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Tom Daley

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I provided sources other than the Huffington Post. I provided a direct link to the video interview with Tom and an "E! News" article. Dnywlsh (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Please read the discussion on the article's talk page. This speaks to your points with precision. Fiddle Faddle 08:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Added, and then deleted, info about suspect in Suicide of Amanda Todd

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There was particular information added to the article about a suspect in this case who exploited Amanda sexually online, and which information has already been removed. Information about suspects is relevant to the case, and provides a more thorough understanding about the subject and topic. I believe it is important to include such information, and make a record of it here that it was included and then, deleted. I am for it being re-included. Said information is as follows: The suspect is Aydın Çoban, with reference information found at http://globalnews.ca/news/1277461/arrest-made-in-connection-with-online-bullying-of-amanda-todd/ "Arrest made in connection with online bullying of Amanda Todd" (April 17, 2014, retrieved April 19, 2014). The issue is not about being "first" with the news, but providing a thorough account of information related to this article. Not doing so detracts from the quality of the article. Daniellagreen (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a huge WP:BLP issue with adding this information. Please see Wikipedia:BLP#Persons_accused_of_crime. Your opinion is interesting but is against the policy. Fiddle Faddle 16:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Steven Stayner.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A tag has been placed on File:Steven Stayner.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Redsky89 (talk) 04:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Your submission at AfC Recycling Lives was accepted

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Recycling Lives, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sionk (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/international design awards

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Strictly speaking, in-line citations are only requires under certain circumstances. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Strictly speaking you may be right. Let's make a better Wikipedia. I have never been strict, just dogmatic. Fiddle Faddle 21:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 10 May

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

  Done Fiddle Faddle 00:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Dane Elkins

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm writing to you, as you created the Talk page for the Dane Elkins article, which came to my attention because someone's linked to it on the Ektelon article page, as Elkins is apparently an Ektelon sponsored player. The thing to me is that I don't think that Elkins deserves an article, as he's just a kid who's not accomplished much yet. He's not even made the US Junior Team yet, so I just don't think this is someone who's notable. But this could be a harsh judgment, so I don't want to delete the article or start that process without consulting someone. What do you think? --Trb333 (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@Trb333: I honestly have no problem if you wish to start a deletion discussion. I sometimes am too generous when accepting articles, but do it on the basis that there is no problem that cannot be cleaned up later. We have a huge backlog of WP:AFC and I admit to working very fast on the backlog, so will make the occasional error. We'd love more help at AfC,you sound as though you have a good eye.Please come and join us. And do not be afraid to propose this for deletion, or to make mistakes if you care to come and play. WIth this one I;d suggest AfD since it seems more polite than CSD. PROD is also a decent route. After reflection why not choose PROD; that way, of the originator cares, it will be contested, and they at least get to feel good. Thanks for dropping by. It made my day,truly. You care. Fiddle Faddle 20:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Henrik Valeur

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Timtrent, In the article which states that Ar. Henrik Valeur did not receive payment, it also mentions that he has been working with Chandigarh College of Architecture. In the article from Times of India, Ar. Henrik Valeur has been covered as a the person who has proposed a new master plan for Chandigarh. I was using these articles to refer to the particular points as mentioned in the article. Sorry, if my editing is not effective; I am returning to WP editing after quite a length of time and therefore I am not familiar with the new requirements. I will improve the article further with whatever sources I can find. Scalebelow (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Scalebelow

Do not take anything personally, naturally. My thoughts on referencing can be quite draconian. I always aim for perfection and often miss it myself. The gentleman may have done this, that, and the other. But what has to be seen is not just material saying so, but informed commentary from others about it. Fiddle Faddle 13:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Nothing taken personally here, just my lack of editing knowledge. I am currently working on the page. Thank you for your reply, it clarifies certain points for me.Scalebelow (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Scalebelow
There is no rush at all. Take it slowly and enjoy yourself. Fiddle Faddle 13:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Added certain articles from newspapers to cite certain professional practice details. These are not available online, but the article titles and dates have been cited.Scalebelow (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Scalebelow
That they are not online is not a huge obstacle. When you are ready please resubmit, and also continue to work. I would like a different reviewer to look at it rather than me. We sometimes stand too close to see things properly. Fiddle Faddle 14:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thaddeus Rutkowski submission

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Timtrent - Could you please advise specifically as to what supporting materials are needed to help this bio page get published? I've been cutting things out and streamlining so much, so not sure. Randihoffman (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Randi Hoffman

Please link to it. I have been accepting and declining many articles. It will be a pleasure to try to help you. A start is to read User:Timtrent/A good article to see if any of that is already helpful for you. Fiddle Faddle 12:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Timtrent - It seems you posted a form letter with nothing specific about the article I created and you rejected. For instance, There are no citations from Amazon on my submission. I still do not understand why it was rejected this time. Do you have anything specific to suggest besides providing me with a bunch of links?
Here's the link to the article, if that is what you need:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Thaddeus_Rutkowski
Randihoffman (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Randi Hoffman
Please see https://s3.amazonaws.com/NYFA_WebAssets/Pictures/9a96de49-21e5-4b6d-93e2-20525e2dd081.pdf which appears to be some sort of calendar.
I was very careful not to post a "Form Letter". I considered my review very carefully and it is specific to your article. If you prefer another reviewer to look at it simply submit it for a review again. I find your tone one that leaves me with little wish to converse with you. I was happy to be helpful. Now, not so much.
All of us here give our time freely. You have been given my advice. You seem unable to make use of it. Please ask for someone else's. Fiddle Faddle 21:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Submitted article "Yung-Ping Chen"

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Is this where I can dialog with Timtrent about a rejected submission, so I can get a better idea of how to fix it? Kpearlman1122 (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Kpearlman1122: welcome. Before you ask me questions, please check I haven't covered the answers in User:Timtrent/A good article. I'm not saying this to put you off, just to save you time. Ask me whatever you like. I may be able to give you a good answer. When you ask me a question please LINK to the current location of the draft article. Fiddle Faddle 11:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Will do; thanks. Is this the correct mode for dialogue (going into Editing User Talk within my section)? Kpearlman1122 (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

100% perfect. Looking forward to chatting with you. WHen we talk please remember, mine is but one opinion, and I may not be correct   Fiddle Faddle 06:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Wonderful. Below I have indicated my questions/comments below each of your review points (in bold):

The gentleman may be notable, but the article does not help people understand that.

I have read your piece on “A Good Article”; thank you; this was very helpful. I had previously read the general guidelines on creating articles and associated material (re tone, style, notability criteria, etc.) and attempted to be consistent with these. I tried to model this piece, in terms of both structure and content, on existing Wikipedia articles from the comparable domain (contemporary economists and social scientists). Evidently, it’s still not quite there. There was language in the first submission that may have better established “notability” but I edited out much of this for the 2nd submission in view of the earlier reviewer’s feedback regarding writing from a neutral point of view and in an encyclopedic manner. For the next revision I have added a new 2nd sentence at the article’s beginning: “He pioneered the concept of home equity conversion (reverse mortgages) in the United States and has developed innovative approaches to the funding of Social Security benefits and long-term care.”

• Where he has been prolific in writing papers, say so and refer to a few key papers.

I had hoped the “Selected Bibliography” would accomplish this. Is there any specific change you could suggest? The goal was not to illustrate Dr. Chen’s prolific writing per se but the importance and influence of his ideas within his areas of contribution, which I felt had been accomplished by the existing subsections, as documented by the References (see following point) and supplemented with the Bibliography.

• What is the enormous list in the section Special tax treatments and economic status of the aged? Are these yoiur references? No-one can be sure, so please make it clear Yes, they are the References. I had erroneously omitted that heading. This has been corrected.

• Look at section Work and see two numbering schemes starting at 1 That is unhelpful

Thank you. This has been corrected.

• References by the gentleman are useless to show that he is notable. You may refer to them in a bibliography (etc) but not use them as references. The previous reviewer mentioned that, but they still remain. Please deal with this.

I can edit the article to eliminate these from the References, but I remain slightly confused by the policy, as I have found numerous articles with Reference lists that include some of the subject’s publications (i.e., separate from a bibliography); some examples are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_E._Roth, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sachs, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Card. I understood the previous reviewer’s feedback, and in this draft limited such citations to a relatively small proportion of the total References (8 of 45), and attempted to do so only in the context of a “jumping-off point” (e.g., as in the beginning of the “Work and retirement options for older workers” section) about an idea or concept that was subsequently influential and commented on by others, as also documented and referenced. Also in response to the previous reviewer, I greatly expanded the number of external references to the subject’s work. Is there any further light you can shed on this issue for me, or perhaps reconsider whether a few of the subjects own citations can be acceptable in context, as they appear to be in other articles?

• Wikilink to other articles

Understood, and I have now read the Wikilinks help material. Do you have any suggestions as to what extent and what types of things should be Wikilinked, i.e., just the major concepts (reverse mortgage, Social Security, etc.), or every possible link (names of universities, etc.)?

I will be appreciative of any further advice or guidance you can provide on the above. Thank you for your openness to this dialogue. Kpearlman1122 (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It is my intention to answer you. I have had a tiring day and will not make a good answer today. If I have not answered by this time tomorrow please feel free to poke me. 21:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it. No need to rush on this. Kpearlman1122 (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I am copying and pasting this material to Draft talk:Yung-Ping Chen so it can be associated more easily with the article. I will answer it there. I have moved the article to the Draft: namespace to enable the Talk: page there. Fiddle Faddle 07:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

article for creation Delphine Manceau

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello,

The creation of the following page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Delphine_Manceau) is a translation of this page (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphine_Manceau). I added some reliable independent sources (Financial times/reuters). The main reliable sources are in French...

Could you help me? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremie.lesant (talk • contribs) 09:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jeremie.lesant: I have added what I hope is a helpful comment to the draft. I don;t have a huge amount of time today, but any editor will be able to help you. The real time chat option may be the most use for you? See the banner on your own talk page. Fiddle Faddle 10:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

article for creation Nagle Jackson

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Timtrent, I'm sorry to have bothered you with this request for review. I didn't mean to propose the article. I must have clicked on something by mistake when moving the article to my sandbox.Lisaby 14:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Heavens, never mind about such things! Nice to meet you, though. Fiddle Faddle 14:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


Article for creation/ Rotating armature alternator

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for your talk in Articles for creation/Rotating armature alternator. Yours is much appreciated concrete advice. I have suggested a new title, "Magnetic stator alternator". Douglas Nelson Turner (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

@Douglas Nelson Turner: I've played a little with the words at the head of the article. See what you think? Fiddle Faddle 14:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks again for your support! Please disregard my talk in Article for creation/ Rotating armature alternator, about other potential names.
Best regards, --Douglas Nelson Turner (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

@Douglas Nelson Turner: always a pleasure to promote an article to the main namespace. Now you have achieved something significant you may like to read User:Timtrent/A good article to see how the whole thing works here. Be a father to the article now, not a mother. Fiddle Faddle 15:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The Ganymede Club

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Some citation has now been added to the article The Ganymede Club. --Bejnar (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Beit Memorial Fellowships for Medical Research may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {uncategorized|date=May 2014}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

  Done Fiddle Faddle 20:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timtrent/Archive_15&oldid=1045657775"