Jump to content

User talk:Timtrent/Archive 49

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50

Articles for deletion/Sundus Abdul-Hadi

I assume that your explanation about objection to draftification was aimed not at me, because you know that I know what the policy is, but at readers who might wonder why I didn't unilaterally draftify the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon It was more that I forgot to put it there, and that you reminded me in passing. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Mgbidi, Enugu

You might recognize this line. Do you think I may have been premature in culling and then publishing? Bobby Cohn (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bobby Cohn I would have done the same. I think it deserves its entry. We need to make judgements all the time. it is inevitable that we will make mistakes. This was not one in my view 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, I always appreciate the double check when I step into trying something a little different. Bobby Cohn (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
@Bobby Cohn One does step, sometimes, into manure, but it washes off, and is good for the roses. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 00:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

8********131

27.125.250.85 (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Which means what? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Probably a mistake Codonified (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

don't stop me

36 hour block 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Timtrent forget about this page, I will come back and ruin it. MUHF-in (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@MUHF-in You must do what you must do. I hope it pleases you. You will be blocked soon. Goodbye 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

15 March 2025

hi Tim, the article you requested to be speedily deleted Uthman Ibn Farooq strikes back again, this time as a draft, I checked the article and no improvements were made, it is the same as it was before getting deleted. Our previous talk can give you some context again.

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Timtrent/Archive_48#c-Codonified-20250126201900-Article_deletion

Cheers!

Codonified (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Codonified Something unusual is going on. I still suggest you consider filing at WP:SPI. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
This was also a drive-by submission. Very odd. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response, I have a hectic schedule due to my Exams, but I appreciate the work Codonified (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Sock puppetry investigations

Hi Tim, Thanks to your advice, I was able to start the investigation of Sock puppetry. You can check it out. See : Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/K20646

Codonified (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@Codonified You can add new parties. I will add this one on youir behalf and you will be able to compare old with new. Give the investigation a few minutes and check it 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Thank you so much for adding on my behalf, since this is my first time initiating sock investigation. :D Codonified (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
This diff will show you what I have done. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
I apreciate your kindness Codonified (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Imtiaz Sheikh

Hi please let me know if my sources are reliable now, I have removed some of the sources that may be unreliable. This is my first published article so I am pretty new.

many thanks Greengrass.2000 (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@Greengrass.2000 Please wiki link to the thing you wish me to look at. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
User:Greengrass.2000 is talking about Imtiaz Sheikh
Codonified (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes that is correct.
Imtiaz Sheikh Greengrass.2000 (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
@Codonified I wonder why they failed to heed to exhortation to link. Thank you for doing that for them
@Greengrass.2000 No. You have sources from user generated sites where there is no management oversight. One of those is Wikipedia itself. See WP:CIRCULAR for that one. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 00:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
No probs, you're welcome Codonified (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I need help writing some Wikipedia pages

I have been scammed three times now on UpWork and need someone reliable to write a Wikipedia page. How do I go about this? SallySharpeIrvin (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

@SallySharpeIrvin You say that you 'need someone reliable to write a Wikipedia page'; why do you need to create an article here? What is your purpose in being here?
Please report this via WP:SCAM. Also take it to law enforcement as fraud. No-one, especially those who say they are able to(!), can guarantee to write an article for Wikipedia that will be acceptable.
Do not offer payment to anyone to create anything here. All you have done is enriched someone else and added to the scamming problem.
It seems to me that the reliable person can only be you. You should create an article (not a page) by dint of good research into referencing, and follow the process outlined here. If the subject is notable then you will have no problem. If the subject is not notable then there can be no article.
If you are asking me in an oblique manner to write an article for you then I am refusing your oblique request. I write articles on subjects which interest me. This is an amateur project. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 05:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Bro?

When did it become ok to address a complete stranger as "bro", or "dude" for that matter? I keep seeing this more and more. I don't actually expect to you answer the question. It bothers me though and I'm glad you called it out on DG's tp. S0091 (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I loathe it. I have a userbox about 'dude'. I will add one for Bro 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 20:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
@S0091 I now have two userboxen:
You are welcome to transclude either, both, or neither 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 20:14, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Support?

Uncle G (Supporting Drmies since April 2009) 15:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

🇺🇦🇵🇸

I've come across it a couple times where these have split onto a new line, and I notice that between the flags and your user page links you use a   so I thought you might want to know a ‍ zero-width joiner between the flags such as 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 should keep them together. Slava Ukraini and #FreePalestine. Bobby Cohn (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 06:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I understood that the nomination to delete mij article has been withdrawn but it still shows on the article page ?

I understand that DarkKholi stated that my article (Djan Khoe) is not an orphan because there are 4 links in it. May I ask you to remove the tag stating that the article is an orphan ? Khoe0005 (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

@Khoe0005 Of course, following the polite request to link to the article would have made my life easier. That lack has informed my answers to you.
As an emeritus professor I assume that you are able to understand what an orphan is. It is an article with no links to it from other articles. This has no such links therefore it is an orphan. The other editor had no such understanding.
A second point is that you say "MY article" which it is not. Please see WP:OWN. It is about you. The article is Wikipedia's article. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Please help

Hi Tim, it's been a While, My exams are halfway through. As a result I can't really focus on Wikipedia that much :( But I have been wanting finish a draft which I request you to finish on my behalf. All the text in that draft has been written, all you have to do is find sources, which I'm sure will be easy since its about pottery. Here is draft

Draft:Classification of pottery

Link just in case

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Classification_of_pottery

Regards Codonified (talk) 10:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@Codonified There is no deadline for Wikipedia, but I have deadlines in my real life, I'm afraid 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
but won't it get deleted as it is a draft? Codonified (talk) 04:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
@Codonified even a tiny edit every 6 months will save it, and you will be notified a month in advance of impending deletion. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
oh thanks for tip, i didnt know that, :) Codonified (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Hey @Codonified, I've made some minor formatting changes bringing it more inline with some other list articles (see some guidance on formatting here). These changes will give you another six months, in which case any edit will reset the clock again. Good luck on your exams. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for helping and I will 😃 Codonified (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

About the article salaar: part 2 – shouryaanga parvam

Thanks. What should i do now, like, move it? I wanted to create the page but whenever i search for it, it says its already have a page but redirects it to part 1. But i was kind of scared of moving it cause i read it somewhere that moving page carelessly could cost me big time. Stuxnet.02 (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I moved it to Draft space, so you are safe. IIRC it is submitted for review or has been reviewed 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
@Stuxnet.02 Yes, it is in Draft space waiting review. You may improve it while you wait 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, i thought you said i made a mistake.... or i misunderstood you. Stuxnet.02 (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
@Stuxnet.02 You did. You created a draft on a mainspace talk page. I have rescued it for you. Nothing to worry about. Think of it as my Easter gift to you. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks :) Stuxnet.02 (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello Tim

Hello, Tim I hope all is well. My draft for Bruse Wane was declined. I do believe it was brought fully up to par with the guidance of you and @Bobby Cohn. I don't feel like it will ever be giving a fair shake at this point. Perhaps Hip-Hop and underground Hip-Hop is not a lot of these editors forte, so what counts as notability in Hip-Hop is not recognized by them. How would I go about asking for an article to be moved to the main/ name space. I am an auto-confirmed editor. Edward Myer (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Edward Myer I thin the best place to start is to follow this advice: "I see where Bruce Cohn considers Rap Reviews a reliable source but it looks like the rest of the sources in the main source assessment table don't count towards GNG. The last column in the table above is all "NO"'s. I might be misunderstanding what you mean though, is there another source assessment table? HipHopDX and the interview on Sirius XM might work. Can we start with removing some of the refs that are only links to music videos and paring it down to just the best sources?". Reviewers want to accept articles. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Hello @Timtrent I will take your advice about removing the video sources. (could you point out which ones exactly)?. I see that HipHopDX is listed as a reliable source for use in music-related articles on Wikipedia per WP:WikiProject Albums The Interview on Sirius XM is already documented in the current article. I will try an locate some more independent sources that zero in on Bruse Wane and send you the links hopefully tomorrow.
Edward Myer (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
@Edward Myer I I think anythagt link to any video where there is no critical commentary about Wane are targets for removal.
No need to send me a thing. Edit, pause, reflect, and trust the latest reviewer. Also remember, no0-one is either for you or against you, nor for nor against Wane. We are all pro Wikipedia. So are you. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

New message from Relativity

Hello, Timtrent. You have new messages at Kinfolx1114's talk page.
Message added 21:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Courtesy notification ‍Relativity ⚡️ 21:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Imtiaz Sheikh

Please could you confirm that I have now improved the references on Imtiaz Sheikh. I removed the links to wikipedia as a reference and added improved references i.e newspaper articles.

is there a reason why the wikipedia page is not showing as a search on Google? Is it to do with 'poorly referenced' material.

thanks. Greengrass.2000 (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@Greengrass.2000 Thank you for making improvements. Please read WP:YOUTUBE to determine whether this is one of the very rare instances when it may be used as a reference. Facebook, however, is always deprecated.
Wikipedia can only present its sitemap, a huge set of files, to search engines. It does this periodically, though editors do not know what nor when it submits. It omits some articles with undisclosed quality issues. After the search engine receives the sitemap it is totally at their discretion whether to index or not. I run multiple websites, some with MediaWiki software. I know that 100% of these are not indexed. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Mjonellepeter (and hereness thereof)

Here's my thinking. Reports at AIV are generally for editors who I can look at for two seconds and immediately block. In this case, the editor has already been told by one admin "which part of WP:G11 do you not understand", and could have blocked them at any point, but chose not to. So I took that as an indication that things are not quite as cut and dried, and the final outcome could be anything from an indef block to a "go away and be quiet" message. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 I accept your thinking, and understand it. Thank you for taking the time to tell me. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

What do you think?

Realjjfrosh -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra I think the news coverage is typical of the region, and very poor albeit placed in alleged reliable sources. The article is terrible, and the picture is a copyvio 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
@Deepfriedokra Now appearing as Draft:Realjjfrosh 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Mor-Sa-Ard moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Mor-Sa-Ard. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Theroadislong (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@Theroadislong Not mine though I had a look at it 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Not mine either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
My neighbour's dog also said to say the same. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
DoubleGrazing Everyone who assessed the draft (in this case, declined it unanimously!) has got the notification. You, Timtrent and KylieTastic. Bizarre. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 12:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
The template gives you the option to notify all who have edited it, it seemed only polite to let you know. Theroadislong (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
@Theroadislong that was super polite. Thank you 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks and apologies, Theroadislong, I assumed it was a software glitch  :) Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Note on Draft:Kutthroat Businezz ( Street gang)

Just for reference, this wasn't really a G11 (it did a bit of promoting, but not really), but it was subject to speedy under criterion G10. Asserting that multiple specifically named individuals are members of a criminal street gang, without any referencing to back that at all, is a massive violation of WP:BLP, so going forward, tag such things as an unsourced attack page. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade How unusual of me not to have spotted that! Thank you!!! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

That saga

Thanks for Draft talk:Marty Baylor Bibliography, but is "furtive" a spellchecker-induced typo for "future"? PamD 16:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I suspect I got my worm corrected by autocarrot. Thank you 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Please leave it as furtive. We don't see anywhere near enough furtive these days. [1] DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
@DoubleGrazing, @PamD I have simply struck furtive out and added future. And "good lord!" 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings, I'm not gonna lie.
Oh well, I guess the future belongs to the young 'uns. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
@DoubleGrazing I tried to do it furtively. Does that help? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
I'd have furtively corrected it but wasn't 100% sure it wasn't some wordplay I didn't get - and I'm still baffled by "Woden" as a verb a few posts above on that page! Presuambly an allusion to some past episode... ? PamD 18:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
@PamD "Woden" baffled me sufficiently to wonder how it came to be. 'Woden it be nice to know?' 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Ahh, Wotan... now we're crying! [2] DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
@DoubleGrazing I think I prefer "Three Wheels on my Wagner" 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Y'all are funny! And why I enjoy my fellow AfC reviewers. S0091 (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
@S0091 Can't take life too seriously! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
My past and furtive self agrees with you. S0091 (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
😂
(Heathen) DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
@DoubleGrazing Well, yes! I like heaths. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Disclosure

Hi. Per your and another editor's advice, I have started listing down my paid contributions on my user page as well. I have a lot of paid contributions and if I use the paid template on my user page for each article, it will be a very long user page. So I am listing the paid contributions in a bulleted list and then posting the paid template on their respective talk pages.

I know I have been involved in UPE and most of my actions and words would seem deceptive at this point, but I intend on contributing with full transparency and 100% professionalism from here on. Not all of my contributions are paid, so I am carefully moving my paid contributions to the draftspace and then working on them to submit them for review. In doing so, I am trying my best to create drafts that require minimal effort from the reviewers. I have been going through all the Wikipedia policies over the past few days to ensure that the drafts that I submit are as perfect as possible. I welcome any feedback from you or other editors about transparency or my work. HRShami (talk) HRShami (talk) 07:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@HRShami Thank you. You have been very lucky to have escaped removal of editing privileges 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
I do realize that. And I intend to prove that the admin who unblocked me did not make the wrong decision. HRShami (talk)

Foxed!

Some typos are funnier than others – thanks for picking up on that one! Made me laugh. --bonadea contributions talk 16:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Bonadea See above! What is life without fun? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Ian van der Pool/Draft:CEN TC 348

Hello Timtrent. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Ian van der Pool/Draft:CEN TC 348, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@Whpq fair enough 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

CEN/TC348 draft - request to submit manually cleaned version

Hi Timtrent,

Thanks for your feedback. I’d like to submit a manually cleaned and properly formatted version of the CEN/TC 348 draft, based solely on reliable, independent sources. Would you be open to reviewing it once resubmitted, assuming no AI artefacts or malformed templates are present?

Kind regards,

Ian van der Pool Ian van der Pool (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@Ian van der Pool check it please, and then submit/resubmit it 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
@Ian van der Pool I don't review. second time, though. Another reviewer will be along to do this. Meanwhile I think youi probably need to declare under WP:PAID as the current chair. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

RE: Draft on Balio Gardens

Hi Timtrent,

Thanks for your note. I drafted Draft:Balio Gardens (Giardino del Balio) myself, drawing on my background as a journalist and using carefully sourced material. I did use ChatGPT to help organise the structure and generate markup, but every fact has been manually checked and rewritten based on reliable, verifiable sources. I've also explained this on my (newly created) user page to be fully transparent.

I revised the draft today, adding a photograph of the gardens and a site map I created and uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. I’m happy to make any further revisions needed and appreciate your time reviewing the draft.

Kned Wiki (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

It still reeks of AI generated text. However, I take your point that you have checked it. ChatGOT usually generates markup that is a hindrance, not a help. Never use it to do that task. I arrived at your draft cleaning up after it. this is the mess I cleaned up. If it does not look right then it is not right.
As a journalist you have a harder task than most. Writing articles for Wikipedia is nothing like writing media articles. We need flat, neutral, dull-but-worthy prose. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Hello,
Thank you for your feedback. I completely agree that the earlier versions were, to say the least, messy. I hope you understand it wasn’t due to sloppiness, but rather a lack of understanding of the process—specifically around when to move content from a sandbox and when to submit it to Draft. I’ll follow the correct workflow going forward.
I’ve now significantly revised the Balio Gardens article, aiming for a neutral tone and adherence to the Manual of Style, which I consulted throughout. I’ve also cleaned up the references and added an External links section with links to Wikimedia Commons images of some of the statues. Although I’ve seen them personally, I couldn’t find textual sources to confirm their presence, so I’ve relied on the images as visual evidence.
If you’d prefer to delete the article and have me resubmit a clean version, I’m happy to do that. The same offer applies to the draft I created for the Cyclopean Walls of Erice.
Thanks again for your help.
Kned Wiki (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
@Kned Wiki Just carry on as you are doing. I think you are well on the way to understanding Wikipedia. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Best wishes

Sending my best wishes for whatever you're dealing with, Tim. Hang in there. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! @Curb Safe Charmer It’s literally a load of pain. I slipped over and whiplashed my neck and it’s taking a while to recover. In real terms, it’s only pain and pain goes away. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Articles for Creation backlog drive

Hello Timtrent:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in June!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 1 month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 June 2025 through 30 June 2025.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 3200 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Nice catch!

Sock puppet investigations barnstar
For keeping your finger on the pulse of (just a few ) problematic socks. As for that recent one; that was a well put together SPI case that you did a good job laying out—you make it look easy! Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know I think you do great work over there! Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
@Bobby Cohn Thank you. It gets easier the more one does. I still make enormous errors, though. Whack a Mole is fun. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Yaaahhiii/sandbox

Hello Timtrent. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Yaaahhiii/sandbox, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: OK, I'm probably going to make myself unpopular with this, but a pretty much incomprehensible sandbox creation from someone with two live edits ain't looking a CSD U5 candidate to me. Maybe we could wait until they actually edit articlespace? Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Shirt58 I was probably doing things to0 quickly. My apologies. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

there's no other reliable sources I can find

im legionnx, and I'm the guy that tried to make a improved version of a Wikipedia on the kingdom of koya. I did this because I find other encyclopedias to be either ridiculed and infested with lies or just vague with horrible grammar, So I gather all the real information I could find on this pre colonial state and squeeze it into one article. All of these cited sources are those I could find that didn't have much of what I described prior, Because of this there may be little to no sources you find favorable and I do wish that I could use pdfs as a way to cite any sources.Legionnx (talk) 00:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Legionnx/sandbox

Legionnx (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@Legionnx You shoudl seek to improve Kingdom of Koya instead of writing a new draft. That is not what Draft space is meant to be for.
You may use pdfs provided they are published by reliable sources, but you may not upload the pdfs in breach of copyright. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
It wont let me its locked..it has extended confirm protection Legionnx (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
You may make requests on the talk page. {{Edit protected}} is what you need. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
@Legionnx forgot to ping you 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE Kiselomlqkosusirene (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC) I have carefully followed the Wikipedia guidelines and added all relevant and verifiable information, supported by trustworthy sources. The links I included point to official competition profiles, published interviews, and documented achievements — not just social media. I’ve provided direct, full URLs with context, no shortened or redirected links. Please reconsider the submission. This is a real individual with publicly recorded accomplishments that meet the notability criteria. I respectfully ask for a fair review of the updated draft.

@Kiselomlqkosusirene Your friend is not notable because you say so. He is notable if sources which meet WP:42 say so.
I shall enjoy the fish. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
he is in reliable sources, did you even check the links that i left? Kiselomlqkosusirene (talk) 11:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

You are Losers Mr. Timtrents

Timtrents (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
The major difference is that I am not blocked, and you, by contrast, are. Oh dear, what a pity; never mind. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
You are winner Timtrent! S0091 (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
I love it. Stamp collecting will get you everywhere, @S0091! I don't need to explain that, do I? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Just trying to make the record straight. :) S0091 (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
~giggles~. Thank you S0091 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
@S0091 This is getting to be good fun. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
@Knitsey is in on now and they don't even know it! (Knitsey, see Knitseys). S0091 (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
@Knitsey and S0091: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Timtrents which I have started in order to document this banality. I imagine there will be more. Children tend to giggle in clumps when entering puberty 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
I usually patrole new users but I was looking at edit filters for a bit of a change lol. Knitsey (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
@Knitsey take your eye off the ball and this is what happens lol. S0091 (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
@S0091 right! Although, if I had seen them I would have left it a few minutes for someone else to pick up on, just do that I'm not giving them the attention they want.
@Timtrent, AND recent changes. Knitsey (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
both of those are one heck of a hobby, @Knitsey! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

About my draft

I just wanted to say hello to the people bro Faze pepinito22 (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@Faze pepinito22 While I understand that, Wikipedia is not social media. We have a different purpose. I hope you understand that and will enjoy editing here. It's an absorbing hobby. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

A probable mistake

Hi. You told me that I made a mistake in the Pooja Hegde article by adding content without a citation or reference and you have removed and archived it in the page history, but if you notice the previous paragraph also doesn't have any citations or references. And the content I added was just a general overview of the actress' career graph. So please tell me if it's still my mistake or not, so that I can know to add the same information again or not. Thank you PuzzleGiggle (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)PuzzleGiggle

@PuzzleGiggle I will look at the paragraph you mention. You're in error adding material without citation. With citations you may add it; without citations you may not. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Oh ok, thanks:) PuzzleGiggle (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Jeff McLean (corporate executive)

Hey, just wanted to reach out directly about this. You mentioned in your review of this that the coverage seems "run-of-the-mill" - just wanted a bit more insight into what you mean by that. While the corporate stuff may be closer to routine, I think the military history and whatnot are in really, really reputable sources and in a great deal of detail - definitely goes beyond trivial, run-of-the-mill coverage imo. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@User:Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) I think we are going to differ over this. He was a pilot doing his job, doubtless very well, but under orders to do it. The issue is that I see nothing notable. Since we obviously differ I am resubmitting it for further review on your behalf with the following comment left om the draft:
Since the creating editor and I differ over whether the subject is notable I will resubmit it, unchanged, on their behalf in order for a further opinion. Please will the next reviewer ignore my review and prior comment and review this without influence from me 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:38, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

My Drafts

Hello Timtrent,

I started writing articles for Wikipedia a few weeks ago for the first time and it was giving me a great deal of pleasure. It felt like I was adding information that might help others discover and understand a bit more about the history of western Sicily. Besides travel articles, information in English is sparse on that part of the country. There are literally only a handful of academic articles and almost no academic books in English that I could find...and I've spent hours searching (and paying) for them.

I was loving doing it. It made me feel excited and I kept thinking about what I'd like to write and show people, albeit virtually, about this fascinating place. I hoped that, in a small way, they'd be able to feel and share the awe, love and excitement I felt.

Unfortunately, the process of creating articles has been, well, not what I expected. I did use ChatGPT initially as I had no clue what Wikipedia markup to use for citations, internal links, etc. I hadn't even heard of a sandbox. Now, of course, I'm pretty good at it and can do it myself. But, no matter what I do now, unfortunately, you still think I'm a bot. I literally edited the articles line-by-line and modified almost every word in the thought that you'd be able to see a human wrote it and not a machine.

And the result? It was rejected.

Perhaps I really do write like a bot. So I attempted another edit, I went over the articles again, line by line. I considered every word carefully. I stripped out any adjective with anything else I thought could possibly be construed as a literary flourish. Alas, this too was seen as bot-like. The third attempt was to write in sentences so simple that even someone with A1 English language ability could read it. The sentences are as short as I can possibly make them. I've avoided subclauses. I've substituted words for the simplest version I can think of.

The verdict: "You're a bot".

So, I've literally given up. There is nothing more that I can do other that to start deleting image galleries or info-boxes. The joy I felt at the start has been sucked out of the process. I just don't see a way forward with this. I've toyed with moving the articles to my sandbox from Draft and deleting them there. Instead, I've resubmitted them, even though that's probably setting myself up to feel worse than I already do.

And though I'll be sad and even more miserable than I am now, that's okay. I'll get over it in time.

I had thought that writing for Wikipedia would be fun. I had literally spent hours thinking about what I would write and further hours writing the articles. But now it only causes me anxiety and is making me feel really despondent. I doubt very much that I'll ever try to write something more for Wikipedia again. I have spent my life writing, but usually I get paid to do it. It's one thing feeling awful if a client rejects the writing, but I really don't want to have that feeling (along with the sleepless nights) when I'm doing it for free. Particularly when it was meant to be fun. The pleasure I felt when I first starting doing this has now evaporated.

I wondered if I should move all the Draft articles back to my sandbox in order to delete them there. But, even though I think that they are likely to be rejected again and that will be another stab in my heart, I resubmitted them. If that happens, they'll simply sit on Wikipedia for three months as I won't be revisiting them. Then they can be deleted by your bots. I'm simply not masochistic enough to attempt this again. Of course, I have considered the possibility of you deleting my account altogether. And, yes, that would be the best way to inflict maximum pain on me. But so be it if that's what you choose to do. This process is too stressful and I already feel dejected and unhappy and so even if my account remains live, I probably won't attempt to do anything more than I've already done for a very, very long time. This was meant to be joyful for me, but it's causing too much hurt.

Kned Wiki (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kned Wiki: I have not deleted your account. Not only is it beyond my power to do so, I believe that your contributions are valuable. It is not blocked, though you appear to have blanked your user page.
-----
I started this reply before you found your way back in to your account.
I see no reason to leave. You appear to have an extraordinary skill, though, to write like an AI chatbot! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
@Kned Wiki I asked ChatGPT whether you message to me, above, was AI generated. I asked as an experiment. It gave me this verdict:
---
Thank you for sharing the text. Based on a detailed linguistic and stylistic analysis, this text does not appear to be AI-generated. It reads as a deeply personal, emotional, and introspective piece, marked by:
Authentic emotional tone: The feelings of frustration, disappointment, and hope are expressed in a way that feels raw and uniquely human.
Non-linear narrative structure: The text flows like a real train of thought, with repetition, self-correction, and reflection—all typical of human writing.
Specific personal experience: References to learning Wikipedia markup, editing line-by-line, and emotional reactions are grounded in specific experiences that a language model wouldn’t typically generate unprompted.
Imperfections and hesitations: These actually point to a human author, such as the repeated “line-by-line” phrasing and shifting tone. AI writing tends to be more structurally polished or neutral.
If someone flagged it as “bot-like,” it may have been due to misunderstanding the use of tools like ChatGPT during your writing process. But the final product you shared demonstrates clear signs of genuine human authorship.
If you’d like, I can help you revise or present this message in a format that might make Wikipedia editors more receptive—or explain how to better navigate their sometimes rigid guidelines.
----
I agree with it. This is you, writing from the heart. The hard skill is to write your drafts 'from the heart' yet to be neutral. Perhaps you have written these WP:BACKWARDS. There is a process in this essay which will all but guarantee that a draft on a notable entity is accepted 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
In the spirit of experimentation, I copied the first 800 words from Wikipedia's article on London and asked ChatGPT if it was written by a large language model. This was the EXACT reply:
"Yes, it is quite possible that this text could have been written by ChatGPT or a similar AI language model. Here are a few reasons why:
1. Tone and Style
The writing is formal, informative, and encyclopedic—hallmarks of AI-generated content trained on reference-style material like Wikipedia or government websites.
The sentence structure is clear and well-formed, with a consistent tone throughout.
2. Factual and Neutral
The content is fact-based and avoids subjective opinions or personal anecdotes, which aligns with how language models are typically trained to respond when asked to provide summaries or overviews.
There's a strong focus on data (e.g., population numbers, dates, names of institutions), which is characteristic of how AI often presents information.
3. Comprehensive and Structured
The passage is logically organized, starting with geography and demographics, then covering history, global significance, education, transportation, cultural landmarks, and events.
AI often attempts to cover as many relevant angles as possible when describing major topics like cities.
4. Possible Clues of AI Origin
Slightly mechanical or exhaustive listing (e.g., the enumeration of universities and cultural institutions) can be indicative of AI.
Lack of a clear human voice or editorial perspective—there's no narrative flair, humor, or original analysis.
However, this could also have been written by a human—particularly one summarizing information from reference sources like Wikipedia or official city websites. AI and humans often converge stylistically in such informative genres. Kned Wiki (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
@Kned Wiki That was a good experiment for each of us I think. I suspect the eventual answer is better use of brevity, but with your normal vocabulary, not a self imposed restricted set, and your normal sentence structure. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Kris Ananiev

Can youplease help me with the page? Kiselomlqkosusirene (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kiselomlqkosusirene I cannot see that he is notable today. I cannto conjure notability from nowhere, and nor can you. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
I can! Do you even know him? Kiselomlqkosusirene (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
@Kiselomlqkosusirene Of oourse I do not know him. If you can show that he passes WP:NATHLETE please eat and resubmit. Someone else will review it. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
what is that? Kiselomlqkosusirene (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
I have carefully followed the Wikipedia guidelines and added all relevant and verifiable information, supported by trustworthy sources. The links I included point to official competition profiles, published interviews, and documented achievements — not just social media. I’ve provided direct, full URLs with context, no shortened or redirected links. Please reconsider the submission. This is a real individual with publicly recorded accomplishments that meet the notability criteria. I respectfully ask for a fair review of the updated draft. Kiselomlqkosusirene (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
@Kiselomlqkosusirene Thank youi for being respectful a moment before slapping me with a trout. While trouting is a relatively good faith thing you have just lost any further help that I might have chosen to give you. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
You know that trouting is used when unhelpful, right? Kiselomlqkosusirene (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
And we both know that you were not going to help me Kiselomlqkosusirene (talk) 11:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
And even if I delete it I know that you will not help me Kiselomlqkosusirene (talk) 11:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
I deleted it not because you were going to help, but because i don't want this to stay on your profile. Kiselomlqkosusirene (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
@Kiselomlqkosusirene My talk page my rules. You also removed my comments which is not allowed. I have sorted it out. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
@Timtrent, this draft was already rejected (after being submitted multiple times without noticeable improvement), speedily deleted, then recreated in an attempt to get around our rules. @Kiselomlqkosusirene, if you are Kroasan123, then you are breaking another rule, which is not to use multiple accounts to get around our rules. Whether you are one person or two, you are on very thin ice here. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 10:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
LOL, on very thin ice here, i have tried to make a page for a close friend as a gift, a notable person in my region. I have put multiple reliable sources! Kiselomlqkosusirene (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
That is exactly the wrong reason to create an article(not a "page"). Also, it may not be a good idea for your friend to have an article, see the reasons people shouldn't want articles. 331dot (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
@ClaudineChionh I somehow guessed that, but thank you for pointing it out. I think an SPI is appropriate. Will you file it, please, since you know more of the background. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Being new to Wikipedia, this essay has helped a lot, thank you. TheNoeticOne (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
@TheNoeticOne I am pleased. Thank you 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Federico_De_Caroli

I really can't understand the continued refusal of a complete and reliable biographical profile. Your ostracism is a symptom of a certain ignorance on the subject, as well as an unjustified hostility towards foreign contributors (who perhaps don't write perfect English). Regarding Federico De Caroli, this page alone would be enough to affirm his international relevance, given that he works for the largest music producer and distributor in Hollywood: https://www.apmmusic.com/composers This is the second time that my article has been rejected on the pretext that the sources are unreliable and that the musician is not significant. The musician is even present in encyclopedias (the real ones). He is considered one of the greatest living Italian composers as well as a historical exponent of world electronic music. Get informed. Ossario (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Ossario Please acquire a modicum of politeness. I will engage with with you after you work out that " Get informed." was not likely to be an appealing use of the imperative. I received it in the same manner that I would have received being told to 'fuck off'. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
I apologize for the unkind tone, but I'm exasperated and frustrated to see my work (done carefully and with full knowledge of the facts) being contested on very flimsy grounds; given that Wikipedia accepts articles about characters with little substance and with very minimal sources. It may be that my foreign English does not translate well, but it's absurd that a composer of the importance and fame of De Caroli is treated in this way. I say that it is a symptom of "ignorance" because personally ignoring the existence of an artist does not imply that the artist is of little relevance. De Caroli is in fact a relevant artist. Today the most important Italian music magazine dedicated 3 entire pages to him for the fortieth anniversary of his recording activity. Ossario (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
However, I cannot understand why an artist who - for example - on wikipedia.it has an immense and very complete biographical profile, cannot also have a few lines on wikipedia.org Ossario (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
@Ossario I suggest you ask at the AFC Helpdesk (linked in the decline) whether I acted correctly. When you ask your question there do say that you have contacted me and I have advised you to ask there. If oyu need to refer to this conversion it is at User talk:Timtrent#https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Federico_De_Caroli. (f I have acted incorrectly then I will be happy to have others as well as you tell me so.
The Italian language Wikipedia has less strict acceptance criteria, and each language version is independent. I often wonder why that is so, but it is.
You did not use an unkind tone. You ordered me about. We are constrained, even, perhaps especially, when exasperated to be civil to each other. Please read WP:CIVILITY. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that different language editions of Wikipedia have different criteria for formulation and acceptance. What I am arguing is that an artist of such scope and greatness, whose affirmation is indisputably attested by his works and the diffusion of his name worldwide, is being questioned. And I wonder why reliable international sources are not enough. It's really frustrating. Ossario (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

declined article

my Draft:Stripy was declined by you, yesterday for lacking reliable resources and being passively mentioned. i disagree with this assessment as all the articles are about the stripy and other animated shorts. they are usually not allocated a whole article and are instead discussed in clusters.

I also disagree with the sources being unreliable, cartoon brew is reliable secondary source. it is mentioned in the wikiproject for animation as a reliable source. i have intentionally avoided using sources that Wikipedia editors and admins deem unreliable and have stuck to strictly reliable primary and secondary sources. every fact is supplemented with a citation from an article about the animated short, i think all the animated shorts that have qualified for an Oscar or golden globe are significant enough to be part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation as this is preserving knowledge and culture. in fact i originally wrote an article about the studio that made it, that article was rightfully declined because the studio is obscure and doesn't have primary sources about it. but Stripy does. In the Shadow of the Cypress doesn't meet many of the sourcing standards set by Wikipedia but editors allow it because preserving and sharing knowledge about animation matters. ~~NotoriousH~~ NotoriousH (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@NotoriousH We disagree. You have resubmitted it. Another reviewer will review it. I hope you have made some useful changes before resubmitting. 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. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
You haven't addressed any of my counter points, and i assume you didn't read the sources and just looked at the titles, because the sources are secondary sources discussing the movie being screened at the movie festivals, giving a synopsis, and a review. there is no useful changes to be made, and i have provided evidence that articles using unapproved sources staying up. because they provide factual information about a remarkable film. I have used approved sources by Wikipedia. so by the measure of source quality, this draft is better than articles up on Wikipedia that haven't been subject to your deletion processes. disagreeing with these points requires actual reasonable, constructive counter arguments not "we disagree". it is factually, objectively, demonstrably untrue that the sources mention stripy in passing, the sources are about journalists going to the cinema to watch stripy and then write a review for it. the use of primary sources is strictly limited to Stripy's synopsis and it being screened at the Annecy festival because they're reliable third parties who screened the movie they mention in their presskit. the articles about stripy take the synopsis from the press skit and supplement their own review. objectively, you have lied about the draft and it's sources. that's not a subjective disagreement, that's objectively what you did. your role as reviewer is to review the articles thoroughly. that is why you should not lie about them specifically to the person who write the article. NotoriousH (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
@NotoriousH All are passing, not passive, passing, mentions except one which does not mention it at all. One, the Chicago Tribune, I am prevented from seeing by GDPR. It fails WP:NFILM as presented. I suggest you improve it.
Yes I have read all the references. I have read them again. No amount of argument will convince any reviewer, only work. Wikipedia has strict inclusion criteria. This has not been shown to pass it. Show it, please. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
once again you're not being reasonable, dear Tim.
it's not a passing mention if the critic went to the festival to watch the movie and write a review for it. that's not a passing mention that's as direct as it gets.
I'm not arguing with you, i was trying to have a constructive conversation, but you just ignore any reasonable point by me and just assert that Tims opinion is above reason. I'm open to changing my mind or changing the article when provided with reasons as to why, not a baseless claim.
Again this is not a FEATURE LENGTH LIVE ACTION FILM, It's an ANIMATED SHORT FILM, it's following the standards of the animation Wikiproject, and using resources associated with it Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Resources . despite this stripy meets the notability criteria still. stripy is commercially available on mubi and it's archived in a national archive in it's country of origin, it is the earliest known animation from Iran to be screened at the animation show of shows and the earliest known animated short to qualify for the academy awards. it's been screened 5 years after it's release https://en.kanoonnews.ir/news/314999/The-Largest-Iran-Animation-Festival-Commencing-at-Kanoon-May . but I didn't use this resource because it is not approved by Wikipedia. I have done my due diligence as an editor in my research and citation.
As a reviewer you should hold yourself to higher standards, at least bother to link the correct wiki guide. Wikipedia deserves better. NotoriousH (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
@NotoriousH I have asked another reviewer who I know to be very experienced, to take a look at your draft, my review, and at this conversation. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
As requested by Timtrent, I've had a look at this case, to provide a second opinion (FWIW).
I'll start by noting that the decline was on the basis of "not adequately supported by reliable sources". However, the comments accompanying the decline seem (to me, at least) to expand this into the question of notability, as well. I will therefore assess the sources for both verifiability and notability.
Source analysis, as at the time of the last review (decline):
1. Primary source, a festival talking about its curated programme, in which it has an obvious vested interest
2. Single passing mention
3. Can't quite figure out this 'Animation Show of Shows' (ASoS), but it's probably good enough to support the content against which it is cited, namely the plot
4. Review, not of Stripy (which, crucially, gets a single passing mention only) but of that year's ASoS set
5. Publication itself is solid, but provides only brief plot teaser plus quoted comment by someone
6. Can't access, but seems similar to #4, ie. a review of ASoS
7. Doesn't seem to mention Stripy (not at this URL, at least)
I'd say #5 is probably the strongest of these, but whether it adds up to significant coverage (and otherwise meets the WP:GNG standard) is debatable. Let's say it does, for the sake of the argument, although IMO it is borderline. Sources 1, 2 and 7 are more or less useless in terms of establishing notability, although of these, at least #2 can probably be used to verify information, namely the statement against it is cited (being the "among the few shorts from Iran" point).
We're then left with #3, ASoS, and two sources (4, 6) reviewing it, not Stripy per se. I would treat ASoS itself like source #1, a curator presenting its curated collection, with an interest in portraying it in favourable light. Does that interest make the source unreliable? Not necessarily. Does it make it independent enough to be neutral and unbiased? Almost certainly not. Are the two sources (4, 6) reviewing ASoS reliable and independent? Probably. Do they provide significant coverage of Stripy? One (#4) certainly doesn't; I can't answer that for the other (#6).
In summary, I'd say the sources are a mixed bag. They may be enough to verify the draft contents, if that were all we're concerned with. But if we consider notability as well, then in my opinion the sources are not enough to satisfy the general notability guideline WP:GNG. This is even if we accept #5 fully (debatable), and assume that #6 provides significant coverage of Stripy (which I don't know).
Beside GNG, the other option is to show notability via the subject-specific guideline for films, WP:NFILM. Where a film falls short of GNG, WP:NFO (part of NFILM) lists five indicators of likely notability, as well as three additional inclusionary criteria (WP:NFIC). I don't see anything in this draft or its sources which would satisfy any of these. (On which point, note that I am not saying the film doesn't satisfy them, only that the evidence provided by this draft does not show this to be the case.)
In conclusion, I find that it was right to decline this draft, because the film has not been shown to be notable, or at least not to the extent that I would estimate its chances of surviving a hypothetical AfD discussion at 50:50 or better (that is, assuming discussants limit themselves to policy-based arguments, which is not always the case, of course). Personally, I would probably have declined it explicitly on notability grounds, rather than for insufficient reliable sources, but that is a difference of nuance, given that Timtrent's decline (for the latter reason) was supplemented by comments taking in also notability grounds, which then adds up to more or less the same thing.
Hope this helps. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
PS: On this basis, I have now declined the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
@NotoriousH I would like to thank DoubleGrazing for their detailed review.
You will see that I have held myself to a higher standard. What you will not know is that asking for a second opinion of a review is a common practice
I do not appreciate your unpleasant accusation that I have lied to you. I note that you have received a formal warning because of this. If you apologise decently for it and show the editor who warned you that apology then you can request of them that the warning be annulled. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
thank you for the response, this is the sort of response i expected to see on Wikipedia, concise reasonable points. I do disagree. as WP:NFILM notes "The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema".
This film has been screened at various international film festivals, being from Iran a country not known for it's animation production this alone makes it worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, it is a significant development for Iranian animation and cinema that a short film from Iran to be screened at film festivals in Brazil, Hungary, united states of America and France.
I do however concede that i should've have included more sources and citations alluding to this fact. for example animation show of shows is a theatrical release of a set of animated shorts, therefor it is a significant development that an Iraninan short film screened in US theaters as a commercial product making it qualify for the academy awards. of course you or Tim would not have known this as this is my responsibility to have wiki linked to animation show of shows. however the review of animation show of shows is a review of stripy, they are the same thing, just because it was screened alongside other animations doesn't mean that the reviews are passing or not worth mentioning, it's a 4 minute animated short, obviously it's reviews will also be short. but being short doesn't null that it is, in fact, a review of a short film. nor will it reduce it's notability. i have avoided using Iranian sources as they have been consistently marked as unreliable throughout Wikipedia, however i will include them in the next iteration as they are the best source.
further more it has been screened again 5 years after it's initial release in the 2022 Tehran animated film festival, i however did not mention that in the draft.
I also apologise for my mislinking of sources, indie wire deleted the article and i forgot to include the archive link. i will promptly fix that.
I also apologise to Tim for saying that he has lied to me about what i wrote, Tim is ignorant of what animation show of shows or the state of animation in west Asia and Iran is and i have obviously failed to enlighten him. I should not have proclaimed that he has lied to me. however, if i was a senior reviewer at Wikipedia i would try to educate myself about the subject of the article im reviewing and possibly give specific concise pointers on how to improve the article. a link to a wiki guide that i have already read and based my article around does not help me improve my draft. NotoriousH (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
NotoriousH I appreciate your apology. Thank you. That is sufficient for you to ask @DoubleGrazing if they feel able to remove the warning.
I think you misunderstand the role of a reviewer. It is not what you would like it to be, it is what Wikipedia wishes it to be. If we all had to be specialists in every area nothing would happen. Reviewing is a matter of examining references, sometimes a subset thereof, seeing that they verify the facts associated with them, and judging a draft against set criteria.
Those criteria are not region specific, they are global in this English Language Wikipedia. That sometimes causes aggravation in Africa and India, where the media are not always as reputable as ine might hope.
You have hit a set of criteria which determine whether Film articles are accepted.
We are charged to accept any draft which we feel has a greater than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion decision. As we gain experience we get better at that.
If we make an error and accept a draft for "Foo" when Foo is not notable, Foo will likely be sent to WP:AFD where some members of the community will offer policy based opinions on retention or deletion. A admin (usually) will close the discussion and interpret but not add to the consensus. And here's the awkward part. If consensus is for Foo to be deleted it becomes hugely more difficult to draft another article on Foo. It has to be substantially different in terms of notability for the next incarnation Foo to remain.
If we make an error and push it back for further work when that is not necessary then the article does not suffer the ignominy of deletion at AfD, but the creating editor can get a bit cross. But that is the worst that happens, and Foo is generally accepted by the next reviewer 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
@NotoriousH reping, properly this time! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
I'd like the warning to remain, it makes for good history. I think the current draft meets the criteria, and from what i gathered you and double are not in the know about animation or animation show of shows, you will not be able to verify facts and citations if you do not have at least a surface level knowledge of the subject. it is notable that an Iranian film got a theatrical release in United states of America. going on a festival tour and being the first Iranian short film to be present at these festivals make it a notable film. it's made by a major animation studio in Iran and has been screened in 2022 more than 7 years after its initial release. short of winnning the academy award this is as notable a 4 minute musical short film can get. and the only reason it ended up with you folk is because wikiproject animation is incredibly dormant, after 3 months i decided to tag it as film too. there's a debate on splitting Computer animation that's been going on for 6 years, because nobody is present to actually reason.
I appreciate your detailed and well reasoned response. NotoriousH (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
@NotoriousH Give me suitable references that demonstrate it passes, even by a slim margin, any of NFILM and I will accept it like a shot. It is honestly that easy for me to do. The problem is that you haven't yet been able to find them.
I appreciate what you say abut "knowing" it to be notable, and I regret that is not enough. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
@NotoriousH SHow me, too, references that explain how it is notable for the reasons you state and I will give it a shot under WP:GNG which is broader and harder to pass.
But, there is a firm rule. No suitable references = no article. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
I have updated the draft to include more sources about its festival screenings and more context about animation show of shows.
i've also included another review from a famous Hungrian animator.
I've also included the source for it being screened 7 years after it's release that also confirms that the studio that made it is a major studio in Iran. NotoriousH (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
@NotoriousH Accepted I think it is a borderline acceptance, but I beieve it will survive an immediate deletion process. Should one happen please be careful only to make policy based arguments. A useful ooe is that it is 'the first of its kind for its nation,ths passing WP:GNG'. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
understood, thank you for taking the time and giving valuable feedback. I will look at further sources to improve it. i will be careful to make policy arguments as i you and double have helped me fortify my draft. I appreciate your due diligence and loyalty to principals of Wikipedia. I will try to improve Wikipedia's animation side, i hope you don't mind if i visit and ask for help sometimes. NotoriousH (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a storage of information, if you think it is a notable movie then you should email news organizations telling them to make a review or article about it. Then, you can make an article when it has enough reliable, secondary sources. However, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought either, so you can not do the same here. Easternsahara (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
@Easternsahara I doubt @NotoriousH will see this unless pinged, so I have done that for us both. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

About pottery

Hi Tim, my draft Classification of pottery got declined and the reason given is that the article looks like an "essay" Which honestly is mind-blowing Because it is a list, so for him to say it is an essay is quite intriguing, if you read the article you will see that it is clearly a list. I believe he didn’t even took the time to read and assess the article properly. Anyways I hope you can give me your opinion. Cheers! Codonified (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Codonified It is an unusually detailed list, but I agree. @SafariScribe: you must have had something in mind here. Please would you enlighten the creating editor? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Request to Restore Draft to User Space

Dear Timtrent,

I understand and respect the deletion of Draft:Surya Devan under CSD G11. I acknowledge a conflict of interest and won’t attempt to resubmit the article prematurely.

However, I’d like to continue working on the content offline. Would you be willing to restore the deleted draft to my user subpage at User:SuryaDevanE/SuryaDevan?

I assure you this is solely for sandbox editing and learning, not for immediate resubmission. Thank you for your time and consideration.

— SuryaDevanE (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC) SuryaDevanE (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@SuryaDevanE You may be abe to persuade someone else to. I am not minded to do so, I'm afraid. I abhor self promotion. I note that your occupation is as some sort of media strategist. Self promotion on Wikipedia is very poor strategy. LinkedIn or Twitter or BlueSky is a far better set of vehicles for self promotion 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Your Review of Joanna Stadium Article

Hello,

In regard to your review of this article: Draft:Joanna_Stadium

You said in your review comment, "... I cannot see sufficent to get this over the high WP:N bar." Should I take that as advice to fix and resubmit? Or is the subject not popular enough, so don't bother to resubmit?

Please advise. Cheers Sven's carrots (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I'd assume it's just the lack of content and refs. The article says the stadium operated for 30 years before the rebuild but doesn't mention a whole lot about what happened during this time relative to the time it operated. Surely there is more to be written for this period that would let you establish notability? Otherwise, I guess you'll have to wait for the regeneration to be completed as we don't really predict the future. OXYLYPSE (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
@Sven's carrots it is the lack of content, coupled with a lack of good referencing. Popularity is not a criterion we use. WP:NBUILDING will help you here. OXYLYPSE has guided you well.
Find all the references you are able to find for the totality of the stadium's life, from planing through to the current stage of the renovation. Summarise in your own words what they say to generate the history of the building's life. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia Link to Other Publish Page

Vinay Ratan Singh Rohitkumar7210 (talk) 08:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Rohitkumar7210 I was clear in the review. What help do you wish for? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
@Rohitkumar7210 Thank you for reading my message about blanking this page. That you have removed it confirms that you have read it. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timtrent/Archive_49&oldid=1297180111"