User talk:Timtrent/Archive 32
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Season's Greetings
.jpg)
.jpg)
Hello Timtrent: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 15:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
,_cropped.jpg)
- Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
please help improve Kingsley C. Dassanayake, they want to delete it from Wikipedia--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
File:Plaque of Tide Mills Time-Line.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Plaque of Tide Mills Time-Line.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.
ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC) 
Your draft article, User:Rajendu/sandbox
Hello, Timtrent. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "sandbox".
In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Salim G. Sfeir
Hello, Timtrent. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Salim G. Sfeir".
In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello
How can we delete this entirely?
http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Draft:Mariam_Saab
It comes up when the subject's name is googled. One of the top searches of the subject is her name + wiki
Could you kindly close the request? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 500lightyears (talk • contribs) 18:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Help request
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
How to restore delete write Amna Nasir Jamal? I was working on it but it got deleted.
Your draft article, User:Kasiaprada/sandbox
Hello, Timtrent. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "sandbox".
In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 15:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Help update Gigamon?
Hello, Timtrent! I see you're taking a break from Wikipedia, but I'm dropping you a line to let you know that I have prepared some updates to Gigamon, an article you accepted via AfC in 2015. Should you return to Wikipedia, perhaps you could consider these suggested updates and move them into the mainspace if everything looks OK. As disclosed on the Gigamon Talk page, I have a financial conflict of interest as I'm offering these updates on behalf of the company as part of my work with Beutler Ink, so I am not editing the article directly. Thank you in advance, Danilo Two (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Danilo Two: I have been alerted to this message by email. I am not currently planning a return to Wikipedia. Your use of other mechanisms where you have a conflict of interest is suggested. I suggest you investigate the ability to request a specific edit. I forget the mechanism, but I am sure the help desk will tell you how. Fiddle Faddle 14:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Glenn Mena
I wanted to talk you about Glenn Mena. The artist is notable, which NK Ruth has more references about him. I wanted to know if you can help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajoke Nunu (talk • contribs) 15:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Ajoke Nunu: I am not currently active on Wikipedia. Please see the header of my page. I am unable to help you. Fiddle Faddle 16:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Recreation of MCskill ThaPreacha
Hi there, hope this meets you well. You accepted the article for MCskill ThaPreacha in AfC in 2015 i think but it got deleted eventually. Now i think he has some really good sources that can get the article back on. I just wanted to ask if i have to write another one from scratch or i have to take it to deletion review? Will appreciate a response. MustaphaNG (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- a) I have no idea, I'm afraid.
- b) I am not active on Wikipedia at the moment. Please see the top of this page.
Fiddle Faddle 22:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Its okay, thanks for the response. MustaphaNG (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Precious two years!
 | |
| Two years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Timtrent. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I disclosed
On this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_R._Kowey was a note about disclosing for conflict of interest. Thanks for that. I have disclosed on my User page DLoyle.
Happy Holidays!
Donna Loyle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dloyle (talk • contribs) 14:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Seasons' Greetings
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Blakely
Hi, there is an article you nominated for deletion in 2012 that was reinstated and is now under consideration for deletion again. Maybe you could take a look at it: WP:Articles for deletion/Michael Blakey (music producer) ||| Wikitigresito (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Wikitigresito:Thank you for your note. I do not have time to do a detailed analysis of the article, I am not active on Wikipedia for the present. The analysis will take you 30 minutes or so and must be rational and unbiased. You may prove yourself to be incorrect in the nomination. My approach would be to assess every reference given to determine whether is it in WP:RS, is significant coverage, is independent of the subject, etc. WP:42 is relevant, but not to be quoted in a deletion discussion. You should then state with clarity which references pass and which fail, and consider doing so in the AFD, working out how to quote them.
- It then becomes simple. Either the gentleman has acquired sufficient notability since the first discussion or he has not. If he has, then he stays, and you ought to withdraw the discussion. If he has not then your analysis reinforces the nomination for deletion.
- Ideally your input to the discussion should be/become minimal from that point on. We do not help our arguments by repeating them, nor by countering every argument presented against us. Fiddle Faddle 21:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for the detailed advice! Wikitigresito (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Wikitigresito: Wikipedia is, as I am sure you have noticed, a very challenging place to play. It is vital to be unemotional about all aspects of it, especially wishing to see articles kept or deleted. It is only the facts of the topic's notability that are important. Note that to retain an article WP:N must be "referencable", but need not always be referenced. WP:V is important, but comes after N.
- Keep detached from all that you do on Wikipedia and you will avoid burnout. Even then the hobby tends to pale after a while. It is an interesting academic exercise in fact based discussion and neutral writing. Fiddle Faddle 22:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Fing
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Fing, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
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 "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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Pichpich (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
File:Tide Mills tidal and wind mill.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tide Mills tidal and wind mill.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Lord Belbury (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
File:Tide Mills tidal and wind mill.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tide Mills tidal and wind mill.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.
ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
File:Tide Mills tidal and wind mill.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tide Mills tidal and wind mill.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.
ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
File:Tide Mills tidal and wind mill.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tide Mills tidal and wind mill.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.
ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Old draft for deletion
Hi Tim, I'm planning to send User:Timtrent/Damon Matthew Wise (example) to MfD as an abandoned draft of an Afd-deleted article here (AfD). The subject doesn't seem to be notable, the original author hasn't edited in months and it's been five years since I wasted my time copy-editing it. Please let me know within seven days if you object to deletion and I'll leave it alone. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 20:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- sometimes despite our best endeavours these things happen my friend. Delete away Fiddle Faddle 20:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- No worries; I found it looking through my old edits; didn't realise it was still here. I'd have nommed it for speedy deletion if I hadn't copied it from elsewhere. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 22:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Done; the discussion page is here and I've posted a note on the original author's talk page. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 23:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- No worries; I found it looking through my old edits; didn't realise it was still here. I'd have nommed it for speedy deletion if I hadn't copied it from elsewhere. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 22:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Timtrent. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
| | |
| Three years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Draft:List: Cast of Avatar: The Last Airbender listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Draft:List: Cast of Avatar: The Last Airbender. Since you had some involvement with the Draft:List: Cast of Avatar: The Last Airbender redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
| | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Precious anniversary
| | |
| Four years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
and further down. He says he's the CEO and also that he's an unpaid intern, asks for his VPN to be blocked. What do you think? Shall I block him? Would you ping me please if you reply. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: I left a request in the admins noticeboard to do a short term block. I think this is a struggling kid doing its best (badly) Fiddle Faddle 14:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think you may be right. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanking for editing
Hi, thank you so much for suggesting edits and making my first article good. --Thozhan Warrior (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you!
Thank you for leaving tips on my newly created page. I appreciate your help. Origamikuren (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Article: Dan Niles
Hello Timetrent, I am new to Wikipedia and my draft Dan_Niles was rejected due to it reading more like a resume according to your comment. I tried to copy the format of the Jim Simons, Kenneth Griffin, and Michael Bury articles (talking about his career, awards and quotes etc.) Given the comment was very brief as to why my article was rejected, I was hoping to get guidance as to what I should remove, edit, or reword to make it better. I had the following questions: 1. What sources should I look for that aren’t from the person themselves? My thinking was that CNBC, Fox, Yahoo! Finance, Marketwatch, and WSJ were a good smattering across both the political spectrum and financial opinions spectrum that were desperate from the source, but the comment implies I used to much from the source itself and that the sources lacked neutrality. 2. How should I modify the article to make it more objective, and if you had the time, I would greatly appreciate some examples so I have a model to work off of?
Again I apologize if any of this seems very basic, but I am a very new contributor to the platform and I would like to improve. Cheers, Alexander2357 Alexander2357 (talk) 04:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Alexander2357: Judgements such is this are often borderline. Another reviewer might have disagreed. That's a good place to start, because reviews are partly based upon feel and partly on referencing. From the referencing, Niles's notability is hard to verify. Let me try to explain that a bit better:
- https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/person/1507500= is a 404 error
- https://www.foxbusiness.com/person/n/dan-niles is odd. A solid paragraph that looks as if it has been handed to Fox by a PR company
- https://finance.yahoo.com/news/investor-who-called-coronavirus-collapse-were-not-even-close-to-a-bottom-110659642.html is an interview with Niles. Interviews with the subject of an article or the principal or staff of a corporation or organisation may be used to verify simple facts which are not susceptible to challenge, but they have no value in asserting nor in verifying notability in a Wikipedia sense. They should be regarded as primary sources, which have their place, though WP:PRIMARY shows that their deployment should be limited
- https://www.cnbc.com/dan-niles/ feels like the Fox Business reference
- https://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/18/business/the-markets-market-place-some-detected-warning-signs-on-dell-s-sales.html I have more faith in. It certainly passes WP:RS but is not significant coverage. In a financial way it feels like a gossip column
- https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/bartiromo/story/2012-06-15/dan-niles-alphaone-capital-partners/55654326/1 is an interview
- https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/12/alphaones-niles-things-are-running-worse-than-expected-for-apple.html is another interview
- https://twitter.com/DanielTNiles/status/1226876067807260674 Twitter is an amusement, but never a reference
- https://www.danniles.com/interviews/on-aapl-managing-dis-due-to-concerns-regarding-corona-virus Primary Source.
- https://www.marketwatch.com/story/he-nailed-the-march-coronavirus-selloff-now-he-says-theres-another-30-to-go-before-the-stock-market-hits-bottom-2020-04-02 is really a rehash of the Yahoo Finance article. It does add respectability to that article though.
- https://www.cnbc.com/video/2020/03/12/market-sell-off-not-overdone-on-long-term-basis-dan-niles.html highlights the fact that Niles is a TV pundit
- What all this means when I look at it is that Niles does pass our threshold for notability. You could argue therefore that I ought to have accepted the draft. Wording, though, tipped the balance in my mind against. "As an analyst, Niles made a famous call" was one clause that niggled. In the world of finance fame is the luck of the draw. If he had not bet against Dell like all the rest the call would have been reversed and irrelevant.
- The guidelines WP:AFC asks me to work within are to accept drafts if I feel they have a better than 50:50 dance of passing any deletion discussion. All the foregoing leads me to believe that this draft is likely to be discussed at WP:AFD and likely to be deleted as the outcome. That is a desperately stressful process for a new editor because everyone takes it personally when their baby is criticised. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles.
- I appreciate you have worked hard. I appreciate, too, that you will have thought my review arbitrary. Perhaps I ought to have given you a more detailed rationale then and there. Thank you for asking for it here, now. Remember, too, that I may be mistaken.
- To give you a model based on other articles is hard. No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy. Instead my suggestions are:
- Pare back anything that appears to be puffery. "Famous" is an example.
- Look hard for referencing, and write your artcile around the references. Do not find references to fit the article. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
- We could proceed in a different direction. If you ask me to, because you are willing to take the risk of a deletion discussion, I will accept the draft in its current state. I think this unwise, but remember, I may be wrong. What I don't want you to do is to think in any way that your hard work has been slighted by my declining the draft. Again, another reviewer might have viewed it differently.
- I try hard not to offer a second review after an article has been worked on. I believe that other eyes are always better. Fiddle Faddle 07:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the feedback! I think I have a better idea as to how to write articles going forward. I really appreciate your time and hope you have a wonderful day. Alexander2357 (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Alexander2357: A good way to practice is to choose a topic you have really never considered. Let's say you were to write my biography. You have no real idea which of the various folk a Google search throws up that I am. If you choose one of us you would find some references. After judging which, if any, are WP:RS, you would extract facts form the references and start to build your drat around those facts. By doing this you would be confident that the draft was well referenced, and factual.
- I am not notable, certainly not in a Wikipedia sense, so no article would be accepted about me, but I think the example of the process will help you. I hope you get the bug and start to contribute to loads of articles here, creating some, improving others. Being able to write for Wikipedia improves all your writing. Fiddle Faddle 20:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
It appears that we edit-conflicted, but that we agreed that it was crud, and so that is all right. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Gig Performer
Hi Timtrent,
Thank you for your comment. Feedback is always OK, be it positive or negative.
I'm an IT specialist and a hobby guitarist, and would like to contribute on pages in these respective fields. When I wrote about Gig Performer, I researched similar topics, such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guitar_Rig https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MainStage_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_Visualiser etc. etc.
I wanted to maintain this simple and informative style, like in articles I mentioned: quick overview, basic features, info box, and references. I researched references from MainStage, Sonic Visualiser and Guitar Rig and added mine correspondingly. Can I kindly ask you to review these articles, and then take a look of mine again? It isn't any different when it comes to style and references. This topic is surely notable, because software is used for live gigging among many musicians, i.e. Chris Broderick from In Flames. For some magazines I don't have a live preview (they must be purchased, no preview). https://www.musictech.net/news/magazine/musictech-207-how-to-set-up-your-studio-for-online-collaboration/
I really thought this would be a lot because Sonic Visualiser is in Wikipedia, and it's the most basic article out there.
Can you please help me out with references, this software is available as trial, 14 days, it has public documentation, it's just software I like to use as well as Logic, Kamelot Pro, etc. There are no university publications, or books about those simple apps.
I'll highly appreciate all the help I can get to make my first article live. I had problems at almost every step of writing this articles, I even quit thinking to add screenshots because that seems really difficult with all the rules... I got tangled in all different rules...
Thanks and kind regards, --Npudar (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Npudar: I can offer as much help as I am able. First tell me that you have read and understood the comment I left in Draft:Gig Performer
- No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into [[idiocracy] Fiddle Faddle 21:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@Timtrent
Yes, I have read all these recommendations (especially Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything), and yes, when I read these guidelines, they all seem so reasonable. So, I'm asking myself what did I do wrong. I'll break this through, please check my references:
1. Release notes - I find info i.e. version, publish date, etc. on the official changelog or release notes for any software I use (right from the horse's mouth)
2. This is a magazine "Keyboard", Stephen Fortner wrote about Gig Performer, he was the editor of that magazine (unfortunately this magazine is now discontinued, but it doesn't change the fact it existed and the issue was published once). I found a preview and entered it.
3. Reference for time it was originally released (the same source I used for the current version, which is still v3.71)
4. Ask.Audio is a non-linear educating company, with bunch of courses, lectures, etc. It is not blog, forum, common newspaper etc. and Matt Vanacoro is a professional musician and producer: http://mattvanacoro.com/ his opinion counts, I guess. I used it for reference that VSTs (virtual instruments) can be loaded into Gig Performer (since it is an audio plugin host application, it's natural it supports instrument plugins, isn't it? I used "him" as a reference, because I tended to have all sentences referenced with different people).
5. Soundbytes magazine, I used this reference to introduce the term "rackspace". When you install Gig Performer, rackspaces are shown by default. There are no lies, there. Everyone can check it by installing software. Author of this article has also a great music career: https://www.davetownsendmusic.com/
6. Songs, setlists, I've taken from the official documentation. There is every option thoroughly explained, also lots of screenshots that confirm options are really there. When I'm stuck in any program, I use its documentation to fix things.
7. General feature page. For example, support for VST, VST3 and AU plugins. Yes, directly from the horse's mouth. As a Windows user, I personally used many VSTs, and imported VST3 plugins, Mac users prefer AU (I didn't make any of these claims in the article, just stated Gig Performer supports these types, nothing else).
8. Vincent Robin is another cool name in music industry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk7HDIVH8Is
9. Reference 8 and 9 I used to prove that layout is based on connecting plugins by virtual wires. I thought it would be nice to show a video of it, so Wikipedia users can check it out without downloading software.
10. News web site. I used this as a proof that these features really exits (these features featured @ NAMM). I could link here official documentation or another 3rd party reviewer, perhaps?
Please forgive me for not coping well with these Wikipedia features (talk pages, section inserts, references' issues, tons of guidelines, ... ), I know you're experienced Wikipedian, I guess all puzzle parts fit just into place when one has 10+ years' experience. If my references are not OK (they look 100% legit to me, though), I'm all ears and open for advice. This is just about a cool software ~40 MB and everything's pretty transparent about it. Other articles I mentioned are also simple ones (Guitar Rig, MainStage, Sonic Visualiser, with fair references). I wouldn't have audacity to write about complicated CAD topics, etc. Just a guitar-based, e.g. tablature editors, Guitar Pro, Kamelot Pro, etc.
I hope things I write make some sense.
Thanks for your reply, and kind regards, --Npudar (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Npudar: Please look up ^^^ and treat us both to some para breaks. I know you tried but please put a blankline in here and there. The Show preview button is your friend. Almost midnight here. After you have made that huge paragraph readable I'll look at it tomorrow Fiddle Faddle 22:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm aware I'm n00b. Npudar (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
My assessment of the references
@Npudar: Thank you for listing these, above, and thank you for breaking the paragraph. I'm going to do the same with a critique of each element:
- https://gigperformer.com/release-notes.html is a primary source. I have made it into a 'note'. It is useful, but not as a reference because it simply verifies what the vendor says it has produced. Notes are very useful for this.
- https://idoc.pub/documents/keyboard-magazine-march-2017-pnxkqk67jg4v This is the whole magazine. The magazine itself does appear to pass WP:RS but I have no idea where to find the elements about Fortner. The thing is, no-one is going to search for that article, so it needs to be refines to page. Look at {{Cite news}} to determine if that or a different citation template meets your needs better, and add values to the parameters
- https://gigperformer.com/release-notes.html Odd that this has not combined with the top one. It adds nothing, and I have combined it with the first now and turned them into a note.
- https://soundbytesmag.net/gigperformerbydeskewtechnologies/ appears to be RS and significant independent coverage. Good
- https://gigperformer.com/docs/userguide/songspartssetlists.html needs to be turned into a note. Follow my lead, please. I could do this, but you will learn by doing it
- https://gigperformer.com to become a note
- http://surfaceproaudio.com/surface-session-ep11-gig-performer-surface-book/ well, no. It's a passing mention, and a "go and look" advert
Let me know what you think of my analysis, please.
I think that making these changes moves the draft into the class where it could be accepted. I suggest you make the changes and resubmit it. I try never to review more than once. Other eyes are always better, especially if I've done a reference analysis. I am now too close to this draft to be objective about it. Fiddle Faddle 08:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
@Timtrent: Thank you for your critique!
- Thanks for adding a note, and grouping two references into a single note
- OK, I'll switch this Keyboard magazine to "cite news" and then populate corresponding fields
- I'll follow your lead and set a reference to a note; yes, I'm interested to learn this myself
- Okay, I'll remove this passing mention (remove the reference to Surface Book). Remark sounds good.
You asked what do I think about your analysis: unbiased, well written, and good to sharpen one's writing/logic (I'll definitely know how to behave next time). I don't think you became close to this draft, you only understand this topic better (I think understanding things is always a plus). I'll leave a reply when I manage to edit this article properly (Show Preview button is already so hot :-) Thanks and kind regards,
Npudar (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
SKYSAWA
Hi. I was wondering what you saw in SKYSAWA that the previous two reviewers didn't? WP:NBUILDING says buildings 'require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability'? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I thought I saw that. I also work on the >50% chance of not being deleted guidance Fiddle Faddle 14:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- https://wbj.pl/phn-to-start-building-flagship-warsaw-scheme/post/123567 Looks reliable to me. Not a huge amount of coverage
- https://poland-today.pl/phns-skysawa-office-scheme-in-warsaw-begins-construction-of-underground-passage-to-metro-rondo-onz/ reliable, more coverage
- https://eurobuildcee.com/en/news/27735-contractor-chosen-for-skysawa reliable, not a huge amount of coverage
- Those are enough for an AFC pass. I can't read the Polish ones. Welcome to put it up for deletion if you feel strongly. I think the community is wise enough to know one way or the other. Our job is not to review to perfection, itl;s to sort the probable from the implausible. You may disagree. Fiddle Faddle 14:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Third time's a Charm
- @Timtrent: There's a proverb: third time's a charm; I have edited that draft according to your instructions, and submitted the draft for a "re-review" (I won't say my article, because it's already result of great teamwork :) Thank you for your replies, feedback and good will (yup, I managed to find a thank you button, too). Kind regards,
--Npudar (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Npudar: 👍 Now create another draft, or edit an existing page. Fiddle Faddle 21:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Timtrent: I'm not sure what to do, the current status of that draft is "Review waiting, please be patient."
--Npudar (talk) 22:04, 24 J. une 2020 (UTC)
- @Npudar: It's simple. If you can improve it further (the magazine needs the page numbers, have you done that?) continue to do so. Otherwise leave it alone, be patient, and think what else you might do here. The draft will be reviewed, that I guarantee. It could be in the next few hours or the next few weeks. Reviewers have no queue, just (currently) sees weeks worth of submissions, and each of us works in different ways.
- As an example, I aim for the oldest first, but they are usually old because they are hard to review, and take a time each. When I want a break I do some of the newest. Those are usually an easy accept or decline. Other reviewers, usually the newest and least experienced, start at the newest and learn how to review. And we all make mistakes. Some of us aim for a set number a day, others drop in and out when we feel like it.
- What interests you? Do you feel like adding value to Wikipedia as a hobby for a while? If so there are many things to do. What about something local to you that you have seen? Is it worth an article? As an example, I created Edward Upcott because I saw a spectacular gymnast on TV and found there was no article. I walked to a beach near Newhaven and found Tide Mills, East Sussex and found nothing about it. I started the page. That led me to a load of other things, such as Chailey Heritage Marine Hospital. After I create I ignore and let others improve. Fiddle Faddle 06:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Timtrent: If clumsy ones are ever the priority, that article will be verified very soon :) I didn't find the page numbers section (when I entered reference as "journal", at the first place - there were page numbers; when I converted to "news", I didn't find fields for page numbers). You said: "After I create I ignore and let others improve." - yes, I was thinking the same when I was creating my first article: I'll make the basic structure, the foundation, and everybody is welcome to contribute... ... but I stumbled upon many obstacles along the way. Too many concepts to deal with. I guess I'm lucky you were willing to help. I even stopped thinking about inserting a screenshot, since it would be deleted very likely due to various strict copyright regulations and guidelines.
Yes, I'll continue to contribute, but in the beginning far simpler things, like changing version numbers, adding a few sentences to paragraphs, new references, etc. (I was doing that before I got the courage to create my own, I even got a "thank you"). Perhaps also to create my own page, like you did. I suppose that would be great to exercise. I like stuff related to computers, and guitars, I'll roam through those fields/topics. --Npudar (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- At {{cite news}}, scroll down and this list appears, albeit in vertical format:
- {{cite news | last1 = | first1 = | author-link1 = | last2 = | first2 = | author-link2 = | last3 = | first3 = | author-link3 = | last4 = | first4 = | author-link4 = | last5 = | first5 = | author-link5 = | display-authors = | author-mask = | name-list-format = | last-author-amp = | date = | year = | orig-year = | title = | script-title = | trans-title = | url = | url-status = | format = | editor1-last = | editor1-first = | editor1-link = | editor2-last = | editor2-first = | editor2-link = | editor3-last = | editor3-first = | editor3-link = | editor4-last = | editor4-first = | editor4-link = | editor5-last = | editor5-first = | editor5-link = | display-editors = | department = | work = | type = | series = | language = | volume = | issue = | others = | edition = | location = | publisher = | publication-date = | agency = | page = | pages = | at = | nopp = | arxiv = | asin = | bibcode = | doi = | doi-broken-date = | isbn = | issn = | jfm = | jstor = | lccn = | mr = | oclc = | ol = | osti = | pmc = | pmid = | rfc = | ssrn = | zbl = | id = | archive-url = | archive-date = | access-date = | via = | lay-url = | lay-source = | lay-date = | quote = | postscript = | ref = }}
- @Timtrent:
OK, done! :) I think it's now 100% by the book. I saw you don't like the visual editor, I think it's really neat for beginners. Thanks for your suggestions and best regards! Npudar (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Request on 15:05:49, 26 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Hugh David Loxdale
Dear Editors,
I have created an article about Major Hugh Victor Duke (1918-1944) MC & Bar, killed during the invasion of Normandy on D-Day. One Editor who examined the draft text said that there was too much genealogy in the 'Early Life and Ancestry' section, which i think was a fair comment, so I have greatly reduced this to what I consider the bare minimum.
Another Editor said that some of the references citing Wikipedia articles were not in the right format, which I have tried to change, as below. I would be grateful if you could please kindly look at these and let me know if they are okay.