User talk:Timtrent/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

From Benjamín Jarčuška

Hello Tim, Thank you for your review of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Franti%C5%A1ek_Jozef_Tur%C4%8Dek&redirect=no. What kind of reference I have to use to make the article supported by reliable sources? There is no online sources which could be used as support for the info presented in my article. Any suggestions will be very helpful for me. Sincerely Benjamin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamín Jarčuška (talk • contribs) 06:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Tim, Thank you for your review of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Franti%C5%A1ek_Jozef_Tur%C4%8Dek&redirect=no. What kind of reference I have to use to make the article supported by reliable sources? There is no online sources which could be used as support for the info presented in my article. Any suggestions will be very helpful for me. Sincerely Benjamin--Benjamín Jarčuška (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Timtrent, Thank you for your review of "František Jozef Turček" article. What kind of reference I have to use to make the article supported by reliable sources? There is no online sources which could be used as support for the info presented in my article. Any suggestions will be very helpful for me. Sincerely Benjamin--Benjamín Jarčuška (talk) 06:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Benjamín Jarčuška: Those references worked for me, as you will have seen now. Fiddle Faddle 09:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

10:06:48, 10 December 2015 review of submission by Leahnaz

• Leahnaz (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Bmai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Timtrent,

Thanks for your feedback. I agree and understand that the Products section should not be integral to the article, and have cut it down further. I believe that the notability requirement for this article is mainly achieved through Bmai's utilization of the C2M model, but the products are also related to this because part of their aim is to make really great products, and this section relates back to this aim through writing about the specs of the products for readers' information. The "Products and Services" section of the version that I submitted for review has been substantially condensed and moderated from earlier versions - I have tried my best to focus on only the most important specs. At the same time, I have also condensed other sections a lot, so it may seem like there is more weight given to products whereas it probably has more to do with condensing other sections. I hope you can empathize with this and would welcome particular feedback on this.

As for your comment about the references being in Chinese, I will seek help through live chat and would appreciate other pointers for channels to resolve this issue. Thanks again for your help! Leahnaz (talk) 10:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Leahnaz: I am sure the live chat will be useful. I am afraid my suggestions well is dry on folk who read Chinese. Perhaps a friendly talk page stalker of mine can help? Fiddle Faddle 13:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

PubNub article declined follow up

Hi Timtrent,

I improved the PubNub submission's referencing as per your comments and the exchange of messages we had. I'm anxiously waiting for a follow up review to confirm that the information is now verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the PubNub subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia.

I'm grateful for your help in considering the PubNub article for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

Yigal59 (talk) 18:05, December 3, 2015 (UTC)

@Yigal59: I confess to disappointment. there is no deadline here. If you have one on your shoulders you get our sympathy, but that is all. Never wait anxiously. Like the watched pot it will either boil over, or will never boil. If you intend to leave it submitted for review I suggest yo work like fury to continue taking advice and streamlining it. I thought we were working together on this. Never mind, we still can, but not today. Fiddle Faddle 00:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Timtrent,

I read all your comments and feedback, and you have my word of honor that I take full and complete attention to all of them, my last submission for review is absolutely not because I'm in any hurry or there is a boss out there telling me to get results, this is not my case.

My previous submission of the PubNub was on November 14, 2015 and until your recent review on December 3, 2015 I kept making improvements to the PubNub article almost every day, that was an improvement process of 19 days which turned to be the wrong improvements, your observation was correct, I did not get the proper direction what to improve as you provided, but rather vague and unclear feedback. My submission today is not the end of the road, and I'm committed to making changes every day based on your comments and feedback.

At this stage I have no idea when the PubNub will be reviewed, but I'll keep making improvements irrespective to when the review will take place, so please do not consider my submission today as ignoring your comments or feedback, to the contrary I spent few hours today, and I'll continue making improvement each and every day until the review, and I'm also committed to improve the PubNub article even after it will be approved.

Yigal59 (talk) 4:41, December 4, 2015 (UTC)

@Yigal59: I have now spent over an hour and a half, perhaps more, reviewing your references. I see sufficient to show that PN passes WP:CORP, but an awful lot of clutter. I understand how hard it is to review sources in the way I've done, so I am not surprised you had not done it so surgically. There is a lot to rip away, here, in order to have it pass a review.

The paradox you face is that the larger the number of unsuitable sources the harder it is to review. Many reviewers will just let it pass them by and review something else. They find it hard to say "no" clearly and with a rationale. A shorter article is likely to be reviewed fast. An article with only the essential references is likely to be reviewed fast. I hate to say to, but you produced a reviewer's nightmare. I hope my scalpel is useful to you. Remember, doing over and over what one has always done will always produce the same results. To get this accepted, use the scalpel, cut it to the bone, scrape away the things you would like to have in int and stick only to the essential bald facts.

After it is accepted, leave it to others. You need to read and understand WP:COI. We deprecate COI editors who edit articles, and you also fall into the category of WP:PAID. There are declarations of interest you must make, ideally on your user page.

On reviews, my word is not law. There are other opinions from other reviewers. Even the fact that I have carried out a rather large number of reviews only makes me as good as my latest review. I acknowledge freely that I make mistakes. What I know, though, is what gets an article deleted, and what makes sure one remains (0.9 probability - nothing is ever certain). I think PN will make it here if you strip it right down and reference only with excellence. Fiddle Faddle 09:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Timtrent,

I can't thank you enough for the time you spent and the effort you put to provide me the in-depth input and feedback. Words cannot express my appreciation for all that you did.

I followed your feedback to its fullest without any shortcuts, and I "got rid" of all references and citations which were tagged as "fail", and I did so while going thru each one of them and understanding the reason(s) they should not be included in the first place.

I strongly feel that the PubNub article in its current state should pass Wikipedia:CORP and I'd like to submit PubNub article for review, but I hesitate, since I'm not sure if I need to include any additional citations at this stage or not.

I'm grateful for your guidance on this matter.

Yigal59 (talk) 23:21, December 4, 2015 (UTC)

@Yigal59: We, well, you, face a simple set of choices. Base your choice on the fact that a draft need not be perfect. As a reviewer I accept drafts that I believe have a better than 60% chance of surviving an immediate deletion discussion. I think, on balance, this one stands that chance. I have been wrong before, and often enough to make my prediction worth taking with a pinch of salt.

One thing is a challenge. If it is accepted and then proposed at WP:AFD and then deleted, it is hellish hard to create a new article. It must be radically different from the deleted version or it will be deleted on sight. So care is required when you make your choice.

Choose from:

1. Resubmit now and await a review from a passing friendly reviewer. We are all friendly. They may accept to or may find other areas to push back to you on.
2. Resubmit now and either now, or in the morning, ask me to accept it. Bear in mind the risk of deletion and my possible lack of reliability in prediction. I view it as acceptable and will do so, ether now or in the morning, but I would counsel you to await a different reviewer
3. Continue to improve it over the next two or three days without submission, then resubmit and await a review form a passing reviewer

Part of your decision should also be based on the fact that WP:COI all but prohibits your editing it once accepted. You pay your mortgage or rent from the salary you receive from PubNub, so any editing except of simple facts after acceptance is deprecated.

At this stage I would avoid any further citations. Resist temptation. Instead, consider what text you can cut out! I am serious about cutting. It is a good discipline Fiddle Faddle 23:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Timtrent,

I strongly feel that the information on the PubNub article is correct and adequate, and any removal of copy will be a misrepresentation and incorrect depiction of the subject.

I Resubmit it and will be grateful for your consideration of the PubNub into the Encyclopedia.

Yigal59 (talk) 00:02, December 5, 2015 (UTC)

Hi Timtrent,

First I want to extended my gratitude for your help and leadership.

Now that the PubNub article was approve, others in Cyberspace are free to make changes and contribute to it.

Have a wonderful weekend.

Yigal59 (talk) 00:18, December 5, 2015 (UTC)

Yigal59, congratulations on getting into mainspace. I yoinked one of the PubNub refs, which was a blog that happens to be hosted by forbes.com, as opposed to a news story under their editorial control. This is a relatively recent shift for Forbes, but be aware that 'forbes.com' links are often no longer WP:RS nowadays, Mister Faddle.  :-)     Rest of the article also needs some work, since besides the WSJ ref... which is behind a WP:PAYWALL -- Timtrent were you able to see that one?... most of the other refs are trade-mags. eWeek and CioMag are well-known enough methinks, but some of the other stuff (especially in the "awards" section near the forbes-hosted-blogger) likely needs to be eliminated. Besides refs, there are some WP:PEACOCK issues (e.g. "simple" / "global" / "at least") which I didn't correct. Am happy to help with further scalpel-ization, if desired. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I gave the Forbes blog the benefit of th doubt, considering that it would be pulled by someone else if necessary . I failed to see the WSJ link, I think. The history tab will show you. Fiddle Faddle 15:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 28, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle 11:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Keith White (yachtsman)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

enforcement in the EU

Hi,

thanks for preventing the deletion of my article but it is a pity that the uniqueness of the topic is not understood. EU competition law has been the first and traditional area where the EU has had enforcement power vis-a-vis companies. This has changed quite a lot in the recent decade (ECB and ESMA are among new supervisors, who can enforce law directly in relation to private actors. This has been neglected so far! I am now researching this area from an academic perspective and teaching a course on that. I thought that it was also a good idea to make this information my and other students, practitioners and the public about it. My plan was to start this page, develop it gradually and since wiki pages can be edited by others, invite others to develop this page with me...can I not proceed this way?

Thank you for your reaction. Mira — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mira Scholten (talk • contribs) 19:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mira Scholten: It is not whether I understand or misunderstand the topic that is important. I have zero understanding of many of the drafts I review. What I understand is the criteria by which articles are judged for deletion or retention. You may be a content expert, I have some expertise in the ways of Wikipedia, and understand WP:MOS, WP:N and WP:V. These are major things you need to learn before attempting to teach a course here, or the experience will be potentially challenging for your students.

You may not put such obvious work in progress into the main space as an article. It will be deleted. Not by me, I cannot delete anything, but by being proposed for deletion by others, by being discussed and then being deleted. You may have others collaborate with you as a draft: article, but please be aware that there is a huge section in another article that has far more content than this one, and that one of two routes is likely to be proposed:

1. That article should have its section content migrated to 'your' draft, or
2. Your draft should be merged into that section

I don't mind which way it goes, but we may not have two articles on the same topic. This is known as a WP:POVFORK and is not only deprecated it is deleted.

This is why I am trying to find you a route into the education team. Are you USA/Canada based? Fiddle Faddle 19:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

no, I am EU based...

thanks for your help! M.

@Mira Scholten: Please do not forget to log in. IT allows you to keep track of things. You most definitely need help to ensure the course goes well. May I suggest a post at WP:Teahouse/Questions as well as talking to Happysquirrel. Fiddle Faddle 20:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Fiddle Faddle, I am reading what Mira Scholten is writing, and my understanding is that she is the one writing the article, not her students. This puts her outside the purview of all the reccomendations for on-wiki courses. My understanding is that she is teaching her course off wiki and decided, in parallel but independently to write an article on the topic. Anyways, if she is not planning to teach a course on-wiki, but just join us as any other editor, perhaps we should let her get on with her draft writing. The first order of business will have to be clearly defining its topic and structuring it in an encyclopedic article. Anyway, those are my thoughts. Happy Squirrel (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman

Hi there,

You are receiving this message as you have been involved with the Kevin Gorman Arbitration case. I just wanted to let you know that the case timetable has been changed - evidence now needs to be presented by 22 December 2015, the workshop closes 31 December 2015, and the Proposed decision is targeted to be posted 3 January 2016.

I would therefore be grateful if you could submit any additional evidence as soon as possible.

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Mdann52 (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done already Fiddle Faddle 10:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Quick question...

Hello Tim! (Sidenote: I voted for you for ArbCom – it's too bad that prior time commitments forced you to drop out!...) Anyway, I have a quick question – can anyone leave an {{AFC comment}} at an article in Draft space? Or is the use of this template explicitly restricted to "regular" AfC personnel? I'm asking because I'd like to leave a comment at Draft:Ricky Garcia about the recent AfD of the Ricky Garcia (actor) article. Thanks in advance! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@IJBall: Any editor in good standing may leave a comment. Those with over 500 main space edits and, I think, 3 months service may join the list of occasional reviewers and deploy the script, which makes life a whole lot easier! If you just use the template do not forget to place your signature within it.

Do consider joining the AfC gang, even every so often. Every draft reviewed is another one not needing current review. Even one a week is one a week to add value to.

Thank you for your sidenote. It was an odd beauty contest, wasn't it? Than you for your vote, too ArbCom needs good people to make it run well. It does need some sort of streamlining, and it should not be hearing silly cases like the one against Kevin Gorman, where my view is that it is being used as a stick to beat him with. I haven't checked out his alleged indiscretions, but sledgehammers and nuts come to mind. Fiddle Faddle 17:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Heh. For the record, I have considered taking up AfC, as I have used AfC before, and I like the idea behind it. I've been too busy at work over the last couple of months to look seriously at it. But I may dip my toes into the water in January. Note, though: even if I do start up at AfC, I'm likely to be a relatively infrequent contributor, as there are only a few months out of the year in which I could devote significant time to AfC, due to my work schedule... But thanks for thinking of me! And thanks for your reply to my question. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@IJBall: No need to devote significant time. Its actually quite relaxing. I find it makes my own writing better. I am more critical of referencing that I find now, and know I need to justify primary sources and may use them. Have a look at Keith White (yachtsman) and the declaration o the talk page as an example. I knocked it into shape in under three hours and then titivated it. Others have now adopted it, so I can walk away.

Do what you can when you want. It's the other side of the AfD pancake. Yes, we push a load back for work, but the joy of accepting one that we view as having a better than 60% chance of surviving a deletion discussion is fun. Fiddle Faddle 17:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

(ec) (watching:) have you seen that in the Kevin case, more and more people withdrew their first statements (copied by a clerk to the so-called "evidence"), leaving nothing. I think the arbs should read the message: "no interest" in using sticks. - I sometimes wonder if evidence has a different meaning for arbs than for me ;) (The question where they found evidence of my battleground behaviour is still unanswered.) - I also voted for you, as you know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, Gerda Arendt I would, had I been on the committee, have looked at the evidence and, if i disagreed then that it should be heard, would have declined it with rationale, even applying WP:IAR. Fiddle Faddle 17:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It was a long case with a good workshop, but looking at evidence wasn't strong, to my observation. My questions in 2013 were about that, - I don't know if you looked. The question was: what happened in a diff which one arb cited in his vote to ban a user, as number 6, the majority. Almost all of the candidates got it right, but none of his colleagues in the case objected to the concerns based on not really looking. (When it happened I felt sick, and one of them told me to better stay away. I survived.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I just realised my message was capable of misinterpretation. I would have treated you as fairly as I was able, too, but I was referring to the current weirdness beating Kevin up. I am leaving my comments there since I feel I carry some responsibility for his being in the cross hairs, so I would obviously have had to recuse (where DID that word come from, it;s as bas as 'redact'!?) had I been on the committee, but most certainly "my" part was a good faith error on his and Vans behalves

Those going to or being dragged to ArbCom need to stop offering unimportant issues up, and the committee needs to tell folk to go away and sort to out themselves faster and more often.

For the record, I scarcely know KG and have only had small interaction with him. Fiddle Faddle 17:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I think I read your message right, that you would have looked at evidence and reasoned. All the others didn't look. Just read three responses to see the difference between looking and seeing the beginning of a diff (I imagine screaming): "He added an infobox". No, he didn't.

I had interactions with Kevin twice, once I got him to apologize, once I told him to talk before a block (which he possibly does now (I haven't seen that he failed to do that since). Did you know that we need an Ethics of Dissensus? (I am awfully proud of that one.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: All I can ever promise is to weigh the evidence and decide based on that. It is the same at AfC, AfD, and everything else. Emotions must not come into it ever. Fiddle Faddle 18:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I wonder how in that case (and it's the only one I watched, involved and biased) emotions against an editor were stronger than looking at a rather simple fact. About a year ago, I wrote already that the whole thing would be best remembered as a farce, but look at Talk:Jean Sibelius and see that some still seriuzly argue, and I can't help laughing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: You have to allow for human nature and the desire to be seen to be in company because others have offered an opinion. I have never had a problem either holding my ground or being convinced by sound argument that I ought not to. Well, not since I became an adult at the age of about 55, at least. Fiddle Faddle 18:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Interesting. I opined. Fiddle Faddle 10:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, like that! "Inbox" is much nicer than "idiotbox" which you normally see in such discussions (but not that one, improvement!) and which (to quote you from above) "speaks more against" the one who uses the term. Also note that those who normally act as the creators of a masterpiece that may not be damaged, have contributed little if anything to this article. (One had exactly one edit: revert of the infobox.) You can comment also in the review of FAC The Oceanides, which has some enlightenment on the topic on its talk. - I sort of mentioned you on my talk, musing about the reasonable people who tell me to stay away from conflict. - Can I be just Gerda for you, Tim? No ping needed, it's a delight to come here. Btw, I just added the unspeakable to laughter ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

New line, new year, to be started with an opera which ends on laughter and the insight who foolish we all are ;) Excellent scheduling! It was written in memory of the wonderful user who died this March, but before had added iboxes to all Verdi operas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I shall henceforth assume you are watching and just use your name Gerda. :)

Conflist is a waste of blood pressure and those who seek to cause it are oxygen thieves. Our role here is to do what we can to build, not to argue Fiddle Faddle 16:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for having told those who argued on Sibelius, I wasn't among them I believe. I only started what could have ended in acceptance, as for Handel, Bach and Beethoven (possibly his birthday today! - we only know when he was baptized). Music for your enjoyment, from the Main page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Building, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

That is a building? Fiddle Faddle 22:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

need to explain a joke? playing with your "Our role here is to do what we can to build" - so I tried, expanded more than five times, eliminated unbelievable copyvio on the way (the whole music section was word by word from AllMusic), and nominated for GA, - zufrieden ;) - no word for that containing peace in English, but content with content is also a nice pun, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I must be tired tonight. I am deep in th middle of eBay and shipping things we have just taken out of the cupboards and sold Fiddle Faddle 22:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 16 December

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

• On the Draft:Neil Levesque page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft showing on Google

Hi Fiddle, I drafted this article(Jubril_Enakele) and can see my talk page when i search on google. https://www.google.com.ng/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=jubril+enakele+wiki Is there anything that can fix this? Please.

Alexejesi (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) (talk page stalker) Alexejesi, are you referring to result http://www.it1me.com/learn?s=Draft:Jubril_Enakele? -- samtar ^whisper 14:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alexejesi: I expect you can. That is what search engines do. What are you asking me, please? We have no control over search engines. Fiddle Faddle 14:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

15:43:48, 17 December 2015 review of submission by FSAG

• FSAG (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:CAESES (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, this is our first article in Wikipedia, can you tell us what exactly is the reason for rejecting? It should not sound like an advertisement or PR etc, but simply a description of the software CAESES. Which expressions were the reasons for rejecting it? How can we improve this article so that it gets accepted?

Thanks a lot for your help in this, we are eager to learn from you to improve this and future articles, and to join the Wikipedia community.

Who or what is FSAG, please?

You need to read the comment i left on the draft, perhaps you have not yet been to it and looked? Please come back if you have further questions after reading it. Fiddle Faddle 15:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and quick response. I've tried to adjust it according to your comments, but I am not sure whether I did everything correctly. I also remove the rights-reserved character. FSAG is an abbreviation for FRIENDSHIP SYSTEMS AG.

Unfortunately you are in breach of our username policy. Every contributor just be individual, not corporate, and we have a firm policy of one person per account.

I have not looked at the draft since you went there. I will go and have a look now.

No need for a new heading each time you leave me a message. Fiddle Faddle 16:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

20:26:04, 17 December 2015 review of submission by Starkco

• Starkco (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:David Elmasllari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I just submited an article about David Elmasllari and i think i provided reliable sources and references about the article. Please see the link below: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7795969 Please tell me what went wrong, or if there is anything i should edit or redo please let me know. Thank you!

Please, first, tell me that you have read my comment on the draft itself. It gives you details of what is required for a reference to verify notability. IMDB is a self edited site and cannot ever do more than establish simple facts, and those are subject to being challenged.

I am happy to explain in detail anything you do not understand in my comment, but I need specific questions, please. Fiddle Faddle 00:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Trent - are you getting this? I'm the REAL Princess Leia - who the Star Wars movies are based on

Hey Trent of Wikipedia. May I know your last name and where are you located? How do I reach you? Will you be at the Wikimedia party in San Francisco? I'm kind of hurt that you turned down my article. You see, I'm the REAL Princess Leia (Lucas), who grew up and worked with Georgie Lucas for years, and my life is the one the Star Wars movies may be based upon. I had severe amnesia for over 40 years due to major trauma, (from the US government, among others) and just got my memory back recently, (starting in late 2012), which may be why Georgie and Disney started up the Star Wars movies again. Also, my article describes the very latest brain technology that I used to recover, which is pretty big news in the scientific world, especially given that my own foundations are the ones that developed the technology, and are building the equipment that will utilize the same for other trauma survivors. And, it turns out that I am the best qualified person to explain this since I basically invented it, which is why I wrote the initial article myself. Also, I'm a former federal agent and covert operative, agent Lucas, which I also didn't remember, until now. You should be able to verify this at www.cia.gov. So you see, I thought some of your readers might be interested in me and my scientific info. for reasons OTHER than promoting myself or my foundations, which honestly, I'm not sure that I need to do. So, if you don't want me around, I'll leave. But, I want to make SURE that I tell people correctly, that you asked me to leave for non-compliance with Wikipedia rules. Also, Disney and Georgie can probably figure out the truth of what happened from this entry, so no problem. Sorry I disappointed you. Thanks anyway, from Princess Leia Lucas®. This message, and any related materials are now Copyright 2015/2016, all rights reserved. Oh, and by the way: While I did give Wikipedia permission to publish my article, for free originally, I do NOT give you or any Wikipedia, or Wikimedia company permission to use, or reproduce this message or any future messages, in any way, without written permission from me or my legal representative, and without payment from you or your company representative, as otherwise you would be violating my copyrights and registrations. Just so you know... — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrincessLeiaLucas (talk • contribs) 06:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong about the copyright issue, PrincessLeiaLucas. Every keystroke you add to Wikipedia is freely released under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license, which allows free reuse by anyone for any purpose, as long as attribution is given. That licensing language is in every edit window. If you do not agree, and want to retain your full copyright, then do not contribute to Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@PrincessLeiaLucas: I don't mind whether you stay or go. It doesn't concern me either way. You contribute here under the same rules as the Queen of England or The Pope. If your work makes the cut then it gets accepted, if not, then not. So, if you think it should go in make it conform with the rules.

Do note what Cullen328 says, above regarding copyright. Your pressing the Save Page button takes precedence over any supposed copyright statement you may make in your text. Just above it the statement "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution." is crystal clear. Fiddle Faddle 09:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Hello Timtrent: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Following up on comment on Draft:Gigamon

Hi Fiddle Faddle. Based on your comment, I took a swing at paring down the excess in the article that isn't supported by the sources sufficiently enough. Can you please take a look? I'm worried I went too far and removed too much of what does make Gigamon notable. Thanks! PinkBlueGreenPowder (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@PinkBlueGreenPowder: Accepted because it meets our needs now. Leave it a while before expanding it. Look again in mid January. Let others enjoy editing it. Fiddle Faddle 00:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fiddle Faddle. Just wanted to say thank you for your guidance. You have been very helpful, and it is appreciated. PinkBlueGreenPowder (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@PinkBlueGreenPowder: It's a pleasure to accept articles. 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'm glad I could accept this one and guide you on what would make it happen. Fiddle Faddle 13:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

This case shall be suspended from December 22nd, 2015 to January 2nd, 2016.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 20:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Motion

Seasons Greetings

	Seasons Greetings
	Christmas! Christmas, everywhere, on every talk page, I do dispair Seasons being greeted and Wikibreaks told, but still time for a little more editing, for being WP:BOLD! So go on, go forth and enjoy beyond concern Your Wiki will be waiting for when you return. Have a good one Tim :) -- samtar whisper 16:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Samtar: Thanks. I wish you the same. Any chance you can close the style thing off, please? Fiddle Faddle 21:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Fixed :3 -- samtar ^whisper 21:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's greetings!

Hello Timtrent: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Esquivalience ^t 21:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

2016

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)    –

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI

I moved your comment form my talk page to the Mohamed Hadid talk page. It gives it more context and greater relevant circulation. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Influx of Wealth

It appears that you may have been tagging it for speedy deletion at the same time as I moved into from user space into draft space, and was about to decline it as an advertisement, but you were also declining it as an advertisement and were tagging it for speedy. Sometimes the AFC scripts get confused about who what belongs to. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Bless them. It's to do with who owns the article actually being deleted at the time. Since you moved it MW software considered you the owner of the resulting redirect. To me that is a foolishness, to the software designers it is not. The draft is a COI spam piece, of course. Fiddle Faddle 17:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

2016 year of the reader and peace

2016

peace bell

Thank you for your support and thoughts, - thanks with my review, and the peace bell by Yunshui! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Click on bell for the soft sound of peace (and jest) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I love irony. I wonder if that was! Fiddle Faddle 12:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I love the mix. Seriously: I like the clean looks of Falstaff, and the way a great unforgotten editor achieved it. I love the wisdom of the opera's last lines, quoted if you click on bell. I love that the piece was chosen to be TFA on 1 January. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I rather like Joe Green's music. Fiddle Faddle 13:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Adminship and me

I just came across your thoughts on adminship, quite accidentally. I found it quite thought provoking. I've been toying (just toying, mind you) with running for adminship at some point in the future; your essay has not dissuaded me, but if I ever do run, I will certainly take it into consideration. In particular, the point that every admin action should have the scrutiny of two editors struck me as something very basic that we do not give enough thought to. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I think it is fundamental to being a good administrator. "Gosh, that needs deleting; whee, I have done it, and even blocked the editor for good measure" is power used poorly. Admins ought to be solid folk who understand the difference between duty and power, but the temptation to 'act decisively and fast' is very great. Nothing is urgent here, despite looking urgent at times. Admins have a mass rollback tool to undo a big mess with relative ease.

I like happy accidents. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle 07:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Editing Assistance

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		Alas, the article did not make it, but your good-humoured assistance did. Thank you Reynardo (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Reynardo: Draft:Michael Fox (British actor) has not,"not made it" it has just "not yet made it" you know. The process is intended to be iterative. Find the sources needed and, when you have, resubmit. Fiddle Faddle 07:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

19:24:02, 4 January 2016 review of submission by 206.177.43.83

• 206.177.43.83 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Elliott Moglica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

{{SAFESUBST:Void|}

Hi, I would like to add that considering onlin Online references it doesn't seem fair. There are many references here to be considered. We should be respecful and fair. This author has been published by many publishers, as Lumo Skendo, Geer, etc. Plus, online - there are many credible references in Albaninan to be considert. Thank you.

Perhaps you should read the detailed comments I left on the draft. If you have references in Albanian there is no bar to their addition, but please make it one fact:one reference. It is either verified or not. Fiddle Faddle 19:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Spam removal from my own talk page

If you check the edit history, it appears that a new user removed your message and heading and left spam on my talk page. I just removed that and never even saw your message. Thanks for the message, though. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 23:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I defer to your being correct Fiddle Faddle 23:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

AfD

Request to revisit the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vidya Shah per sources presented there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

In due course I will revisit it. You have provided a list of material, but that needs to be incorporated into the article by someone. I have never approved of a list of references provided to a discussion that are then left hanging, and that no-one adds. Fiddle Faddle 10:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Kundan Srivastava

redacted silly long message that went in the wrong place

@Primefac: mine by weird foible of MW software only. Not my article. Fiddle Faddle 17:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Heh, whoops. I'll see if I can track down the original author. Primefac (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Random heading

hi. please can you help me with my edited article. Draft: Angelo Maristela A1unlimited (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Angelo_Maristela A1unlimited (talk) 06:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@A1unlimited: I am away from Wikipedia for the moment. I have helped you by submitting it on your behalf. Fiddle Faddle 17:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Freak Hideout (4th nomination) KDS4444^Talk 16:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

(Um, you understand that the above is a courtesy notification, yes? KDS4444^Talk)

I did not consider it canvassing. I have simply opined as I have opined before. You did not ask me to opine in a particular way, and I am assuming you have notified other contributors to prior AfDs as well. Fiddle Faddle 17:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

And I did. I got the sense from your message on the deletion discussion that you seemed somehow annoyed at this or that I was expecting you to vote !keep, which seemed weird, but maybe I just read that wrong. KDS4444^Talk

The typed word is a fickle fellow. No, I had no reaction save interest that someone else finds this worthy of removal. Fiddle Faddle 18:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

AfD of Possible Interest

Based on your participation in an AfD for United States presidential election, 2020, you may be interested in this AfD. (This neutrally worded notification is being provided to every editor who registered a !vote in the aforementioned RfC, regardless of direction of their vote, and is therefore done in compliance with WP:CANVASSING and WP:VOTESTACKING.) LavaBaron (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/psychology of eating meat

Were you planning on returning to this review to check out the newest ALT hook, or should I call for a new reviewer. Please either respond there or let me know here. Many thanks. (Since you are on wikibreak, and it has been three weeks, I may call for a new reviewer soon, but you are always welcome to resume your review even so.) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I was not offering a formal review, just a suggestion, when I left my thoughts. Fiddle Faddle 17:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll find a new reviewer, then. Thanks for letting me know so quickly. For future reference, though, placing a review icon is taken as an indication that you are formally reviewing a nomination. If you instead preface with Comment, people will know that you are not reviewing. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Please do. I try to avoid DYK as much as possible because of the arcane rules known only to those who know the arcane rules. To me a question mark is a question mark, I'm afraid. The entire DYK process is one of the most off putting areas I have found here since I started a loooooooong time ago. It's impenetrable. Fiddle Faddle 18:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Rock Cottage

Hi Tim,

I was searching Rightmove for images of Rock Cottage and ran across your blog. Just prior to you acquiring Rock Cottage, rented Dec79 to July80 during a family breakup, I lived in Rock Cottage as a 9 year old boy. Before your ground floor extension and any central heating. There was an open fire grate and an old musket hanging over the fire place. The place was freezing!

Around 2004/5 I passed by Rock Cottage with my then Chinese partner but no one was home. We briefly spoke to the neighbour at the rear, he might have mentioned my visit back then.

I was wondering if you had any images of the house, garden and area that are closer to the early 80s when you first moved in, as I might have remembered it. Sadly I took none.

Regards, Mr. H. Thomas EasySolutionsGlos@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.146.185 (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I fear I am not the author of that blog? I do not recognise the name "Rock Cottage". Please can you clue me in? Fiddle Faddle 19:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I edited/corrected my email address. I made assumption that Timtrent was related to this blog: http://democracy157.rssing.com/chan-11756149/all_p9.html Apologies if not.

Ah! Mistaken identity, the guy I'm after is Simon Baddeley. Mystery solved. Will not bother you again, thank you. https://vimeo.com/user3920728 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.146.185 (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It was not a bother at all. I'm glad the mystery is cleared up. I was involved in that discussion because I was upset at a fellow editor's mode of expression, one I felt to be rude. I have no recollection of what transpired after that. Fiddle Faddle 21:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:SEAMAHP

Hello, Timtrent. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "SEAMAHP".

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. JMHamo (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@JMHamo: not mine. This is a foible of MediaWiki software when things are named. Fiddle Faddle 23:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

article on the Women's Action Coalition submittled last year and rejected

Hi Tim,

My name is Dr. Tracy Ann Essoglou:

SftPwr.com: interviewArtistActivist: TracyAnnEssoglou LinkedIn:TracyAnnEssoglou Academia.edu/TracyAnnEssoglou/Papers Medium-TracyAnnEssoglou-thinking-architect TAEartworks.squarespace.com MissingModules.wordpress.com SinsoftheNewMillennium.wordpress.com SimplyGrace- WisdomSeries:ExploringCulturalMythInBusiness [radio interview 2/2015 - 1/5]

I was one of the founding members of the Women's Action Coalition: http://archives.nypl.org/mss/3376 which was featured in the New York Times in June of 1992: http://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/12/nyregion/no-more-nice-girls-in-angry-droves-radical-feminists-just-want-to-have-impact.html?pagewanted=all

I also authored the chapter on WAC in the book, But Is It Art?: The Spirit of Art as Activism http://www.amazon.com/But-Is-Art-Spirit-Activism/dp/0941920291

edited by Nina Felshin http://curatorsintl.org/collaborators/nina-felshin

and published by Bay Press in 1995. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/the-mysterious-disappearance-of-bay-press/Content?oid=9829

I have approximately 35 digital references to the existence of the Women's Action Coalition in addition to the 35 plus boxes in the New York Public Library's Activism Archive, videotapes, slides, soundtracks and other documentation.

So I am wondering why Taylor Kuhn's submission on WAC was rejected by you for lack of "adequate reliable resources????? Below copied from link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Women's_Action_Coalition

aft:Women's Action Coalition From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Submission declined on 23 April 2015 by Timtrent (talk). This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page. If you require extra help, please ask a question on the Articles for creation help desk, ask the reviewer that declined your submission, or get help at our live help chat from experienced editors. Find sources: "Women's Action Coalition" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · Wikipedia library. Declined by Timtrent 9 months ago.Last edited by HasteurBot 0 seconds ago. Reviewer: Inform author. Resubmit Please note that if the issues are not fixed, the draft will be rejected again.

AFC-Logo Decline.svg

Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: This has since been created at Women's Action Coalition. Please consider expanding that version of the article Rankersbo (talk) 06:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42 Fiddle Faddle 12:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

AND WHAT CAN I DO TO REMEDY THIS SITUATION?

Thank you very much. Tracy

Tracy Ann Essoglou, PhD. taessoglou@gmail.com

Tracy ann essoglou (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The draft article was declined 11 months ago.

Why are you asking me this? Women's Action Coalition exists anyway. If that article needs to be improved, please improve it. The draft is a subset of the major article, surely?

I'm sure your credentials are very fine, bt this is Wikipedia. Here we care only about well referenced facts. "We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources." should be your watchword.

I perceive from the tone of your message that you are here on my talk page on some sort of a crusade. Doubtless your cause is a good one, because all who espouse causes feel them to be good, but my cause is helping people to understand when their draft is not yet appropriate. Fiddle Faddle 22:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

15:45:14, 28 March 2016 review of submission by 103.253.38.4

• 103.253.38.4 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Noman Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Noman Group is one of the biggest companies in garments and textile sector in Bangladesh. There should be some information about it in wiki. The link used as reference in most of the places in article is from The Daily Star, one of leading newspapers in Bangladesh.

Many people think many things should be in Wikipedia. Solid referencing is all that is required. Please provide that if you wish it to go forwards. Fiddle Faddle 16:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Article MCskill ThaPreacha nominated for deletion

Hi there, i just got an email now that the article i created MCskill ThaPreacha has been nominated for deletion. I'm reaching out to you because i noticed you approved it a year ago. I really don't know why its up for deletion now but I've read Wikipedia guidelines and i noticed editors have to contribute so a consensus can be reached. Will appreciate if you help contribute as to why its up for deletion.

Best regards. MustaphaNG (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC) MustaphaNG (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@MustaphaNG: The effort you went to to communicate with me on a talk page it is clear I do not use must have been prodigious. I have moved the conversation here. You are very fortunate that the notification scheme worked. I do not monitor that page at all. It has always been set as a redirect to my real, monitored, used talk page.

I do not, typically, participate in deletion discussions of drafts I accepted at WP:AFC. I may have made an error in accepting this draft, or it may be an error that the nominator had placed it at WP:AFD. Consensus will determine this.

You, basing your arguments solely upon facts and policies should make one good counter argument, and make it brief and to the point. I see the sources are criticised. This is what we need:

We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this article be retained. (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

My view when I accepted it will have been that it was acceptable. We reviewers are not infallible. Fiddle Faddle 21:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:Decentralized autonomous organization

Talk:Decentralized autonomous organization, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Decentralized autonomous organization and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Decentralized autonomous organization during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --Snowded ^TALK 12:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello...

Your message duplicates (as you noted) your message that you are not on WIKI much. That's fine however, given that you are the person who apparently rejected the WAC entry by Taylor Kuhn a more expedient and responsible message would include an indication as to how to proceed and with whom??? so that we can all move forward -- really not much point in repeating the already stated without providing actionable instructions.

SO to whom shall I direct my inquiries and contest the rejection of this amply documented historical movement that is featured in the New York Public Library, has been the feature of numerous print media articles, and impacted the lives of tens of thousands of people?

Thanks & happy break. Tracy Ann Essoglou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracy ann essoglou (talk • contribs) 00:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I have replied in various places to your plea. I have no idea why you seem to think that I must help you, but I have done so. There is a supreme irony about asking someone who is not present for help, then waiting for ages before appearing again, and asking the same question, near enough, and expecting a different answer. The article is present. You might improve it, but you have a conflict of interest, whcih I have noted on the article. Fiddle Faddle 15:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Irony as well: indicating that "you might improve it, but you have a conflict of interest." Especially considering that I only intervened on behalf of the author of the entry that was rejected for having too few references which I then provided in my letter trying to get her article loaded. Furthermore, I no longer have a copy of Taylor's article not sure what you mean by comments you added to it "on the article" (which) (when) (where).

You do not have to help me but it would be appreciated if there was someone with whom to communicate in full. I was given a link indicating that you were responsible for the rejection of Taylor Kuhn's article (better written than the one included). I was asked to follow up with you. That is all I did. Once. And I got a oneline message that repeating that you weren't available. I left you alone in the intervening months OUT OF COURTESY and imagining that a more useful response would be forthcoming or that you would perhaps forward this situation to someone else more involved and/or willing.

As for the entry that exists well it appears to have been added this past March so apparently during the FemWIKI drive and likely by a student given the writing so after both Taylor and I were in contact with you.

So as one of the founding members of WAC and as the author of the only historically replete history of the organization, CAN I or CAN"T I submit corrections and improvements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracy ann essoglou (talk • contribs) 02:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Correct. you are inappropriate to improve it. Please read WP:COI and see what you are and are not entitled to do. Now, apart from answering this, I am not here. WP:Teahouse/Questions will get you assistance. There is not ever "someone to communicate with" because Wikipedia does not wok that way.

The topic of the article is not one that catches my interest. I work in other fields. If it interested me I might improve it myself. What you need to consider is the reason for the article on your organisation being present. But please do not consider that with me, consider it with others. It may never be an advert, for example, nor a vanity piece. It must be 100% factual with facts cited.

I declined the original because an article existed already, as far as I recall. I barely recall it. Fiddle Faddle 06:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Decentralized autonomous organization

An article that you have been involved in editing—Decentralized autonomous organization—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll pass on that, if you don't mind. Fiddle Faddle 17:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Notifications

Hi, re: your question at WT:Notifications#Overwhelmed by notifications that do not go away - Explanation: There are only 25 notifications shown at a time in the flyout, and hence the "Mark all as read" button only clears 25 at a time, to avoid someone dismissing notifications they haven't had a chance to see. So, you can either clear them in batches of 25 that way (recommended) and it will eventually decrease to under "99+"; or you can visit special:notifications directly and view the new (!) in-development interface for seeing the messages grouped by day, where each day's messages can be marked as read. Sidenote: There is a feature-request to add a button for "mark absolutely everything as read" (phab:T136614), but that only has 1 user-request and it risks adding clutter to the interface for very infrequent value, so it is low on the priority list. Hope that helps, and sorry for the delay in replying. Do let me know if you have any other feedback on Notifications (positive, or constructive criticism/suggestions!), and thanks again. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Quiddity (WMF): I have never seen a "Mark all as Read" button? Nor could I work out how to use the interface you suggested? Help, please? Fiddle Faddle 23:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Quiddity (WMF): I have uploaded some screencaps, which may be deleted after they have been used

• File:TT screencap 1.png
• File:TT screencap 2.png
• File:TT screencap 3.png

There seem to be very few controls. I am stuck with 99+ messages in the notification boxFiddle Faddle 07:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, you should be able to just go to https://www.mediawiki.org/ and the flyout there will have the "Mark all as read" button. You'll need to click it, and then re-open the flyout, and repeat a few times (batches of 25). If it takes more than ~8 repeats (meaning there are more than 200 unread notifications), let me know, and I'll ask a developer to just mark absolutely everything as read via the database. You might also want to remove mw:Project:Support desk from your watchlist there. Happy to help further. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Quiddity (WMF): Thanks. Clicked. Closed, Reopened and repeated a dozen times. removes that page from my watchlist, too. I;d appreciate that chance for you to ask form the database to "nuke absolutely all as read" please.

It's been driving me nuts Fiddle Faddle 23:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the delay. I've got a slightly more complex (2 minute task) procedure for you to do this yourself.

Steps to reset (mark as read) all local notifications on a single wiki:

1. Go to your local mw:special:mypage/common.js
2. Edit that page, to add this line at the bottom

   new mw.Api().postWithToken('csrf', {action:'echomarkread', all:1});

3. Save that.
4. Open any page on that wiki, and watch the notifications badge-counter go to 0. -- (or close, cross-wiki notifications will still exist)
5. Revert your edit at your common.js -- (otherwise it will autoclear everything before you see it, forever)

Done! Let me know if you have any problems. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Quiddity (WMF): Glorious and successful. Thank you!!! I can't be the only one in need of this?

We are at ZERO! Fiddle Faddle 17:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Awesome. :) Thanks for the update.

It's not a very common need, but I've documented it at How to: Clear all notifications at a single wiki until it's made into a button. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Quiddity (WMF): Does that line of code act continuously? In other words will THAT Wiki never show above zero for me? Or is it a one time healing process? Fiddle Faddle 07:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that was the importance of step #5, you should remove that line from mw:User:Timtrent/common.js. Sorry I didn't emphasize/explain that clearly enough. :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 16:40, 10 June 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. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 11:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Worcester Park House for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Worcester Park House is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worcester Park House until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kelly ^hi! 12:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

16:48:32, 1 September 2016 review of submission by FarreBanana

• FarreBanana (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kevin Cherkas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have made some changes, can you please re-review the draft.

@FarreBanana: I try not to re-revoew drafts. You will get a far better and broader view from further pairs of eyes. Fiddle Faddle 17:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

11:46:38, 6 October 2016 review of submission by Vacuumblasting

• Vacuumblasting (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Vacuum blasting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! I have tried to modify the text and added references, just as I was encouraged by the reviewer. Since this method of abrasive blasting is quite new, there is little updated text about this topic to be found (the technology have existed for a while, but have not worked properly until recent years). I believe there should be an article about this topic under abrasive blasting so I tried to write it myself :) Vacuumblasting (talk) 11:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Vacuumblasting: I see you have resubmitted the draft. Excellent. I am not on Wikipedia much at the moment, and other eyes will review the draft. Fiddle Faddle 20:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello Timtrent. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator.

 Administrator note You have been grandfathered to this group based on prior patrolling activity - the technical flag for the group will be added to your account after the next software update. You do not need to apply at WP:PERM. 20:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Enter stage left, whistling innocently

Arb self-noms are open again. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: So they are, but look how much I have been here in the past 12 months. That would, certainly this year, invalidate any candidacy, methinks. My time commitments in real life are such that I could not do the role justice, which is why I withdrew last time. Fiddle Faddle 17:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I feared that might be so, but I hope you'll think about leaving that determination up to the voters. It's my understanding that the committee is large in order to spread the work around, so that no arb feels they need to participate in all cases. I also continue to believe that it would be good to have arbs who found ways to avoid taking more than the minimum of cases. And that, other than regretting 74/75 is not around with their wisdom and humour, is probably all I have to say. Hope your pursuits are all going well. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

When I return to Wikipedia full time I will consider the concept again. I think it would be 100% valid to consider any candidacy by me for the moment to be even sillier than that of Trump. And he was elected! Fiddle Faddle 20:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help

Hi Timtrent,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

User group: New Page Reviewr

Hello Timtrent.

Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed.

New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The Challenge Series

The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Wikipedia to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are invited to participate.

• Use {{subst:The Challenge series invitation}} to invite others using this template.
• Sent to users at Northamerica1000/Mailing list using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC).

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Timtrent. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

"a good article"
... you were recipient no. 1316 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter

Hello Timtrent,

Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have 816 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.

Mid July to 01 Oct 2016

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)