User talk:Timtrent/Archive 47

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Draft:Moriyama Teshima Architects

Hi there. I'm just following up on a declined submission. Would it be possible to get a bit of clarification on why it was declined? I've revised the sources for the submission quite a number of times to account for comments I've received. What would make them more successful? Likewise, a number of the citations are from very reputable, widely circulated, newspapers speaking directly about Moriyama Teshima. Are you looking for print media? JLzero02 (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, just seeing your other comment regarding notability. What would qualify? The firm is one of the most famous in Canada and has been around since the 60's, it's about as reputable in the country as it gets. I'm happy to include that information, I just don't know how to communicate that. JLzero02 (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad you read the comment. I was just asking whether you had when you added this message. one of the most famous in Canada is an odd thing. You need to be able to verify its fame, but fame per se is not always the same as notability in a Wikipedia sense.

As I said, you have concealed notability in a welter of stuff. We need to cut the forest down to find the serial tree we seek.

Stand back from this. Ask yourself "What in this shows notability?" and be brutal. When you find it, clear away the brushwood. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@JLzero02 forgot to ping 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate the encouragement! Will give er a shot! JLzero02 (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@JLzero02 You can do this. What you have now is far larger than the end result will be 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

If you wouldn't mind taking a look to see if I'm on the right track (it's not quite yet completed, but I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding your suggestions). I've gotten rid of a lot of the projects, and the ones that I've retained, I've included a bit of additional information on. Thank you so so much for your help by the way. I've been eager to make this article better but wasn't sure how to tackle it. JLzero02 (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@JLzero02 You are definitely getting there. I think you are close. I know it's been hard to cut material out. Notability needs to shine out, and can only do so when there is "just" sufficient information to allow it to do so. Almost always less truly is more.

I've only skimmed what you have done. Anther reviewer will review it when you submit it (fresh eyes are always better), but what I can see is that the shorter draft welcomes the reader in.

From now on it's a matter of referencing. One good one is worth a goodly number of poor ones. Be ruthless in checking the quality of references. They must be:

• Significant coverage (3 or more useful paragraphs)
• Independent of the subject
• About the subject of the article, not by the subject!
• In reliable sources (that is hard to judge, for example tabloid newspapers tend not to be reliable, despite being mainstream, media; Also see WP:FORBESCON

You might wish to read this essay. A little too late for this draft, there is a process in it which almost guarantees success provided the topic is truly notable. You can still use it to check your trajectory, of course!

The difficulty with architects is that their product - design - has to speak for them. Thus a review of their buildings, while not always useful, can speak to the architect's notability. It all depends who reviews them!

To many folk see the review and reviewer as an obstacle. 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.

Let me digress and give you an example of brevity and notability - Elsie Reasoner Ralph - undeniably notable as 'The first female war correspondent in US history', yet there is almost nothing to say about her. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for these resources! I'll review them all and hopefully will get this article where it needs to be (and will certainly be applying it to articles I hope to write in the future). JLzero02 (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@JLzero02 When you think you have completed this draft, let it mature for a couple of days before you resubmit. There is no deadline, but as it simmers gently you may think of the one key thing... 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you

I would like to extend my sincere apologies for the recent misunderstanding regarding the "writing about yourself" guidelines. I misinterpreted the intent behind these instructions and did not realize that self-promotion was prohibited. It was never my intention to convey a misleading impression or to make such an oversight, especially when the guidelines clearly state that self-promotion is not allowed.

I deeply regret any confusion this may have caused and am committed to adhering strictly to the established guidelines moving forward. Thank you for your understanding.

Sincerely,

Corey Wesley Coreycreativemind (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Coreycreativemind No worries at all 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

re: Draft:Easterhouse Festival Society

Hi there, sorry to bother you. I’m just new here, so I’m trying to figure out how this stuff works.

I notice that you just rejected Draft:Easterhouse Festival Society, and wanted to touch base to ask why / what to do about it. I didn’t create the draft, but had edited it and found sources for it during the last submission period, and would like to get it fit for acceptance if possible, because it seems like an interesting page.

You said in your rejection that it didn’t have enough sources that were in-depth, reliable, secondary, and strictly independent. As far as I can tell though, while the introduction about why the society was needed doesn’t directly address the society, in the section that does we have two TV programs from Scotland TV and the BBC directly talking about the society at the time, a Glasgow times article from this year (2024) talking about the most famous artwork the society produced, and a book published in 2020 which is about one of the major participants of the society, and the play that won a fringe first award at the Edinburgh fringe.

These all seem to fulfil the in-depth, reliable, secondary, and strictly independent criteria?

You also note that there is too much information, and too many citations, so I can only assume that the extra stuff somehow dilutes the relevance of the other directly relevant citations/sources? I was under the impression that once the basics were established, extra sources didn’t subtract relevance from those basic sources, but maybe I’m wrong? Like I said, I’m new so I’m still trying to figure this stuff out.

Given that you want less information / fewer sources for acceptance, which parts would you like to see cut? I’m guessing the earlier “reasons the society was created” sections?

Thanks for your help Absurdum4242 (talk) 08:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Absurdum4242 I'm not seeing the references and the text in the same manner that you are. I suppose that is obvious.

The TV shows are interesting. But one presented by the society seems to be what they wish to say, so doesn't verify notability.

There is a difficulty with pre society history, one you will not think obvious, and which is subtle. Imagine a reference saying "There is a need for Foo!" and another a while later, saying "We have Foo!" What those have not established is a link between need and arrival of Foo. We call any cause relationship stated or implied as WP:SYNTH. You need to be careful not to link the gangs and their disappearance with the arrival of the society unless a reference links them directly.

References not mentioning the society are hard to justify as useful. Check these with care, please.

Consider that the artwork may be notable independent of any notability of the society. It os a paradox that a work may be notable and the creator of the work may not be.

Do you see where I am going with this? Please come back with further questions. I'm sorry you had to wait so long for a reply, In have been busy all day. I probably have left unanswered questions simply because I am too tired to think too deeply 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks very much for taking the time to reply.

Don’t worry about replying quickly, I saw in your profile that you’re busy IRL, and was expecting a reply to take days not hours 😆

I guess what is confusing me a little is what I’ve been reading over on the notability page - ie the parts quoted below

- “Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists

The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles.”

- “Article content does not determine notability

Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvement to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.”

- “Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article

The absence of sources or citations in a Wikipedia article (as distinct from the non-existence of independent, published reliable sources in libraries, bookstores, and the internet) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sources exist in the real world; it does not require their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article.”

These policies seem to suggest that so long as the subject of the article (The society in this case), has been covered in external sources which are *significant, *reliable, *independant, *secondary sources - and that such sources exist whether or not currently included in the page as written. That some of the linkages in the page as currently written are weakish (although I disagree about exactly how weak, given there’s a source given which says the dude who created the society did so specifically because he was concerned about the previous level of gang violence) seems not to matter so long as they exist - given the policy that says poor writing and referencing doesn’t decrease the subject’s notability”? Nor do they need to be in the article as written at all, at least not at first, given that the policy “does not require their immediate presence or citation in the article” as long as there is a “possibility or existence of notability-indicated sources that are not currently in the article”?

I’m not at all having a go at you for denying the article, or suggesting that you should have done otherwise… I’m just confused since I’m new here whether the actual culture of long term editors has decided to interpret these policies differently than they are written (or at least how I am reading them as written)?

Sorry for taking you time with this long reply - you seem to be really good at articulating this stuff, so I thought I’d ask, and hopefully it will help me do better in future.

Thanks, Michael. Absurdum4242 (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Absurdum4242 I think there is often a difference between theory (policy) and practice (what editors do with a mainspace article). The role of Reviewer is to seek to protect creating editors such as yourself from the vagaries of editors who happen upon articles and sometimes offer them for deletion with poor rationales (causing the creating editor stress and grief) and even sometimes succeeding in the deletion.

That was a whole paragraph to say that Wikipedia is weird!

The role of a reviewer is to accept any draft whcih each of us, individually, believes has a greater than 50% probability of surviving an immediate deletion process. To define "immediate" I choose it to mean "with no other edits since it entered mainspace" so obviously I didn't feel yours was quite there. Equally obviously I am relatively human and can make mistakes! I think you think I have here. That's ok by me. I have no need to defend my corner.

That means that, if you feel I ought to have accepted it, and say to me "Please revisit your review, I think you are mistaken" I will be happy to do just that, and accept the draft. You have no need to resubmit it, you only have to ask me.

Now, if I cut to the chase of what you are saying, it is the difference between "Inherent Notability" and "Demonstrated and Verified Notability" - that is what you are saying, isn't it?

Subjects, topics, with inherent notability should be accepted, perhaps even if the draft is exceeding poor, something yours is not, exceeding poor. The question is, what will happen at [[WP:AFD]? That is something I cannot predict. Deletion discussions are meant to be policy based. Usually they are. Often they are not.

What you need to think hard about is "Does my topic have inherent notability?"

If it does not, but needs the notability to be verified, the next question to ask of the draft is "Setting aside my wish for it to be published as it is now, looking at the draft with, ideally, a jaundiced eye, does it have sufficient references which pass the criteria below to survive:

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

This is where I see it as just below the threshold. Does your new jaundiced eye see it as above? If you are on the fence about it (jaundiced eyes do that), don;t ask me simply to accept it. Instead, ask me to ask another reviewer whose opinions I trust, to take a look with a view to acceptance.

I'm pretty sure I haven't given you direct answers to your questions, but have I answered sufficiently so you understand my thought processes? And remember, I make mistakes. We all do. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Tim,

that all makes sense, and definitely gives me something to think about. I think what I’m going to do now is maybe give the actual creator of the draft a chance to improve it, and possibly talk to him in a week or two if he hasn’t, see if we can get on the same page. I just stumbled across the page and thought it was interesting, which is why I tried to help out. I won’t ask you to review it, or check with anyone until after a bit of time has passed and I’ve touched base with the creator or had another go myself at digging up sources. I agree that the pre-society introduction is long, and… perhaps too reliant on quotes? But I don’t want to just cut it all either, because it isn’t MY draft.

Really I was mostly just trying to get the policy vs culture here clear in my mind, because 1/ it seems from observation that it differs, and 2/ I very much suspect that I prioritise usefulness / interest more, and… internalised policies around denying / deleting for lack of direct relevance than a lot of the editors on here. I’d rather have a weak (but factually true) article on here if it’s useful / interesting, and then work to improve it, rather than deny / delete it, which seems to be some editors main interest (I’ve come across several, even just in two weeks, who only delete / deny, and do not edit / create - which I’m not suggesting describes you, or is even wrong, it’s just not my mindset). It… seems to have been wikipedias’s original motivating force too, and I wonder if time / cultural drift has affected it without people necessarily noticing.

Anyway, not suggesting you made a mistake, and don’t have my more asks at this stage. Really happy you’ve taken the time to explain this so clearly to a noobie, and that you have a great weekend.

michael. Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Absurdum4242 The thing about all reviewers is that we have asked to perform the role because we want to accept articles.

At the same time we also want to keep the true trash out.

A new reviewer is less likely to accept a borderline draft than an experienced one. The new reviewer still think is it is a but abut them and their reputation. An experienced one knows that it is all about the article. I aim to accept any borderline draft I come across, for example, because I am confident in my thinking. And I still make mistakes. I am only as good as my most recent review!

The weekend will see may at my local sailing club. I support my local RYA Sailability group in making sure those folk who need extra support to sail get the best fun they can possibly have.

I hope your weekend is excellent tooo 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft:John_M._Dorsey,_Jr.

Thanks for the assessment. I was looking for an neutral opinion, and you told me what I'd feared but hoped against. It was worth a shot! I've already offered up pretty much every source that is available on line, and will not be revising the article further. Who and how should the draft be removed? Thanks again for taking the time. AwryGuy (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@AwryGuy Sleep on it for a couple of days. Then, if you are certain it cannot be proven to be notable, apply {{Db-u1}} on a line of its own, at the head. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Presumably there is nothing to prevent me from re-submitting the thing in the unlikely event that further suitable sourcing emerges. AwryGuy (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@AwryGuy No obstacle at all. I hope sources emerge. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Your essay

I know your thoughts on PAs, but this vandalism was glaring and offensive. Someone who doesn't know you might be concerned about your thoughts. I haven't rev del'ed so feel free to revert me if you disagree. Star Mississippi 19:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Star Mississippi. I think this might be revel'd with benefit. Obviously mine is a perfect scale model! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi The IP seems generally to be offensive, probably a child. I'll leave what you do about then to you entirely. I don't mind all sorts of personally directed ordure on my talk page, but not in things I've bothered about creating. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I just took out their trash. Sorry for the extra edit to your essay, couldn't figure out how to rev del without it at first. Star Mississippi 19:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi I'm sure you wiped your feet om the mat, though. Bin collection happens soon! Unless they are on strike of course. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:MAAsterG

Hi @Timtrent Thanks for your inputs on the draft page, MAAsterG. Quite enlightening. I have removed references to Youtube link citations as I was unable to ascertain if a video is in fact protected by copyright or not. I have also made changes as per the Manual of Style. Please review this and let me know if any further inputs or if this is good to go. Thanks again ARGHJ (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@ARGHJ I am afraid you will need to trust your own instincts. I am travelling for the next couple of weeks 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Cercle_d%27%C3%89tudes_Scientifiques_Pierre_Rayer

I have just made changes to the article in question and I would like to have your feedback on it if it is good or not; also regarding the two accounts underlined above it was an error on my part and I have already explained myself on that, Waiting for your return, thank you Inspiringflow (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Inspiringflow Please do not await a review from me. As it said when you made this post, and as it says at the head of this page "I do not review drafts on request, nor, normally, do I review a draft more than once, so please do not ask"

Wth regard to the twin accounts, It is not an issue provided you have discarded one of them. If you have edited from both after being warned about it then it is not an error. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

For the twin account please delete it, I don't know how to do it, I'm talking more precisely about deleting inspiringflow1 Inspiringflow (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Inspiringflow Accounts cannot be deleted. They may be rendered useless. Please deploy {{admin help me}} on your user talk page and explain that the (abandoned) account was an error and that you wish it to be blocked to avoid future misunderstanding. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

GPTZero

I just saw your comment in an AFD that GPTZero thinks that something was written by artificial intelligence. I assume that more specifically means by a large language model. What is GPTZero? Is it a program that tries to detect writing by large language models? Sometimes text is detected as possibly AI-written that, to a retired IT engineer, reads like marketing buzzspeak, sales material that may be attempting to dazzle or amaze the reader. In the computer industry, such stuff was typically written by sales personnel, and was viewed with disgust by the engineers who did the real technical work. The large language model may have been trained on a base of material that includes marketing literature. So if a large language model writes marketing buzzspeak, it may be imitating blatant marketing writing by humans. It doesn't matter much, because any draft containing marketing buzzspeak should be declined or rejected, and an article containing marketing buzzspeak should probably be nominated for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon My working life was as a bullshit and hype creator for US IT companies. Oddly, it's an art to write appealing(!) ordure. I can quite see what you're saying here. Training LLMs with 'ordinary' text alone is foolish, as is using concise engineers' pieces.

I have found Open AI useful in creating job descriptions for the charoty I volunteer for, but useless in writing meaningful prose 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 04:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

So what is GPTZero? Is it meant to be an AI detector? If it is really a bullshit detector, how does it tell human shit from computer shit from the output of real bovines? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon It is reputed to be an AI detector, presumably based upon phraseology. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Katy Krassner

Thank you for your comment about my article draft Katy Krassner. I understand your point and hope you will now move to immediately delete articles about both Tree Paine and Derek Taylor, both of whom do not meet your very narrow definition of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Variety312 (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Variety312 You are welcome to nominate them for deletion yourself. All editors may do this. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Oldcheese

I have reinstated those links, including the dailymail link that was removed. Oldcheese8552 (talk) 09:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Oldcheese8552 Your edit here [1] was entirely disruptive, adding back deprecated sources to The WP:Daily Mail and WP:IMDb. Theroadislong (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Oldcheese8552 I concur. And why you didn't create a new heading is beyond my understanding 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Junbo-Ritsugō

Hello! Recently you reviewed my page Junbo-Ritsugō and accepted it. Since then another editor has come in and at first made good edits. Now I feel they are dragging it and I don't know if they know much about the topic. They won't leave the page alone, but all the sources and wording ect are fine. I am a student, I can't keep editing. Since you were in Wikipedia longer I hope they will respect you. Could you review the page just one more time, and remove anything unnecessary from both me and the other editor. I am asking as they said in the past that the page should be moved back to a draft. They don't seem to hold this sentiment anymore, but it still seems appropriate for you to review this page just one more time and maybe leave a report in the talk page so I know how well you found the page. As well as this, you could also remove irrelevant stuff or change stuff too. I apologise for the inconvenience but unfortunately I feel the other editor is dragging this and as I've said, I'm a student to I don't have time. Although I'm sure your busy to, if you have the free time please re review the page. I apologise Camillz (talk) 07:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Camillz This is very much a WP:Content dispute between two editors. I do not get involved in these. If you cannot sort it out between you on the article talk page then you will need to use WP:DRN.

My sole concern was notability, which I believe it passed when I accepted the draft. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright. Thank you! Camillz (talk) 07:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Camillz There are technical reasons why it should not be moved to Draft unilaterally. I have noted those on the talk page.

Content disputes can almost always be solved with the Dispute Resolution process. Since there is never a deadline here I think you will have the time to interleave this with your studies. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! As per the recommendations of the content dispute. If they continue I will wait until they have moved on so this doesn't stress me. Again thank you very much Camillz (talk) 07:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Camillz It's important to realise that the other editor has a firm belief that they are correct, equally as firm as your belief that you are correct. Wikipedia teaches us many interpersonal skills that we can and should translate to our everyday lives. Here, we learn how to interact with the typed word. That works well in any area in our real lives we choose to apply it to. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes of course! I am truly greatful this has been a great help!! Genuinely thank you- Camillz (talk) 07:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Carlos_Botelho

Hey @Timtrent, thank you for your input on my draft page. It's my first article, so the help is appreciated and I'm now seeking input from the English Wikipedia help chat. One question: for the Japanese immigration to Brazil, is the issue that it is too much of the article or that it isn't closely related enough? I can only find sources on Botelho in relation to his work on Japanese immigration to Brazil as it's his main accomplishment that he's known for. Tylermack999 (talk) 11:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tylermack999 If Botelho is not covered in reliable sources independent of the Japanese recruitment, may I suggest covering the recruitment noting Botelho's part in it. I think the immigration may be notable whether the man is or is not.

I may be wrong. I have been wrong before. So follow your instincts. Just try hard not to write a dual purpose article, because those fail. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I can definitely integrate the information on Japanese emigration into Japanese Brazilians, but if I can find better non-wiki sources for Botelho himself could I remove the emigration section and leave the article as a stub about a politician? Tylermack999 (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tylermack999 Absolutely. And you can wikilink that stub to the correct section in Japanese Brazilians. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Timtrent I actually just discovered an existing page about Botelho on Portuguese Wikipedia, mainly focusing on his career as a doctor and making a short mention of his political career. How would I go about bringing this page onto English Wikipedia? Tylermack999 (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tylermack999 First please do not use machine translation. It is not allowed. We need human translation. Second, it may surprise you to learn that the Portuguese Wikipedia is almost certainly less strict in inclusion criteria than the English Language Wikipedia, so it may or may not be appropriate here. Third, if and when a translated version arrives here, attribution is required. A useful way is to deploy {{translated page}} with parameters filled out on the talk page of the new article here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tylermack999 If you ask at WP:TEAHOUSE about translation help that may bear fruit 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Seeking suggestions for review

hello sir what more content and/or sections can be added to make this page more suited for a wikipedia article AnirRudh Contri (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@AnirRudh Contri That is entirely your decision, the more so song eI have no idea what article you are talking about. Eb]ven when I know it remains your decision. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi There

can i have your number please! Injusticegod (talk) 05:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Injusticegod Not under any circumstances. Anything you wish to say to me should be here, in the open. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello

Dear Timtrent, I have edited the page http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Chukwuma_C._Ogbaga based on your suggestions. Specifically, I removed the wikidata citations and the clumped citations to avoid WP:CITEKILL. Thank you for your help AlexCollins4u (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC). AlexCollins4u (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@AlexCollins4u I am afraid my review is not quite what you hoped for, but the rejection is now nullified. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Help

Can you assist me in publishing this page http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Draft:Joyride_Sweets&action=edit&section=3 yours sincerely,Toby Toblerone101 (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Toblerone101 I am not the reviewer who rejected it. Please make your case with them. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

How can I find them Toblerone101 (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Toblerone101 With respect, they signed the rejection notice. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I have already changed some information, please check and help

Dear Sir, please check and help.

Draft:Vietnam Cashew Association

Thanks! Herofive (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Herofive If you are content that you have done enough please resubmit. After resubmission please continue to improve the draft 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:46, 18 October 2024 (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: Incorrectly applied primary-source issue on Burton Machine Rifle.

The article only contains a single primary source; all others are secondary and tertiary. But please do let me know if I'm mistaken.

Thanks, Shuttle256 (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC).

(talk page watcher) @Shuttle256: that's a bit harsh. The article does cite multiple primary sources. Timtrent accepted the draft, and quite correctly tagged it as having primary sources, and for that he gets a slap in the face? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Shuttle256 What they said. But I will grill the trout and enjoy it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean any offence at all.

What primary sources are listed? I don't know which ones you are referring to.

Once again, sorry.

Shuttle256 (talk) 10:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Shuttle256 Trouts are apology free 😂, no need to apologise. Any Youtube videos, but see WP:YOUTUBE and anything that even resembles a blog. Current refs 4, 5, 6. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. You may close this thread if you wish to.

Shuttle256 (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Shuttle256 No need. It will be archived in seven days. It's been good to meet you. I do need to wash the fish off my face, though 🐟 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft: Justin Kimball rejection

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Justin_Kimball_(photographer)

Hello Timtrent,

I'm having some issues with your reasoning for rejecting the article. You included in the reasoning that I shouldn't include Justin Kimball's books as a source, and to add the ISBN; I am using the ISBN if you check the sources and I'm using them to source the books when I reference them, so I'm not understanding your reasoning here, should I not cite the books at all? And for the notability of the person, I went to the guidelines and Justin Kimball meets the requirements:

under Biography 1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times;

Justin Kimball was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship, which is a significant award which is included in his award section at the top. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Guggenheim_Fellowship

Under Creative professionals This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if:

3. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Justin Kimball has permanent collections at the Library of Congress, the National Gallery of Art in Washington D.C., and the J Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles, among others which are listed in his collections.

I have multiple sources from major news organizations covering his work, including the Boston Globe and the Wall Street Journal, as well as Aperture Magazine, one of the largest and most influential photography publications (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Aperture_(magazine). The citations for his group exhibitions are also included and are from reputable publications that cover art and photography news and reviews. His books have contributors with their own wikipedia pages, as do his books as contributor, including a book by former vice president and presidential candidate Al Gore.

I believe that he meets the criteria for notability, and the sources are adequate.

Best,

jnanderson26 Jnanderson26 (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jnanderson26 At present it is over-referenced. If, when you list the books, you use the ISBN there, inside the template, then they do not require a reference. However, if there is a review of a book that acts as a review of the author. That should be incorporated in the text. You have not said much about hi in the draft. It shoudl speak for ite=self. Readers must not be required to hunt out his notability, you must tell them what is said about him in secondary sources, albeit in your own words.

Why do 100% of his exhibitions and books require listing? Be selective. http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q62090733 will link to the relevant indices when the draft is approved and the article is linked from there. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

On UNDUE for sexual assault (Grant Neal Draft)

Greetings, this is HC226, you recently reviewed my article submission for the American Mixed Martial Artist Grant Neal. The reason for rejection was "UNDUE" on the sexual assault case mentioned. I would like to know what viewpoints I would be recommended to supress and/or expand on in order for readers to have a complete picture of the case. I apologize if the writing seemed biased, that was not my intention.

Thank you for your help. Best, HC226 (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@HC226 The answer is that it needs to be one facet of Neal, and to take less prominence. Human beings are multi-faceted. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand, I will attempt to change the proportion it takes on the article or give it its own section, while keeping important details. Thank you for your answer. HC226 (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Principles on Effective Interviewing for Investigations and Information Gathering (Mendez Principles)

Hello! I would like to thank you for your review of my draft article. In reading your explanation, I do understand your reasoning and will make suggested précis work. It would be a real shame to see this entry immediately deleted.

I would also like to clarify. The sentences you have pointed out as problematic are in the "Analytical Structure" section, and my reading is that this is the only place where the text comes across as an interpretation by the author. Is this correct? I have worked extremely hard to stay true to the document itself and the empirical grounding of it since this can be a sensitive subject where many people make assumptions and claims without scientific examination and study. If there are other places you see interpretation, please do let me know.

Additionally, I had communicated with the first reviewer and it was suggested that the title should be more concise. Through that discussion, I came to the conclusion that the best title would be Méndez Principles on Effective Interviewing. I also learned that the most logical time when a change to the title can be made is during its move to the main space of Wikipedia. This means that the reviewer who accepts it would be in the place to make this change. Are you in a place to review this article once I have done the requested revisions and work? Legitimacy Matters (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Legitimacy Matters Thank you for appreciating what I have suggested. A common thing we see is drafts which are too lengthy, often leading to thoughts of WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. It's an easy trap to fall into, and one which risks deletion on a newly accepted draft.

All(!) you have to do is to demonstrate that the topic has notability.

With regard to my reviewing for second time, I always feel that fresh eyes will serve you better than those which have examined the draft, any draft, before. They bring a freshness to the task. I will decline the invitation, I'm afraid.

The article title will be decided on acceptance, and you are welcome to to suggest a title on the draft talk page. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Need help

{{subst:Db-notice-multiple|User:Prem Barthasarathy/sandbox|header=1|U5|G11}} ~~~~

Prem Barthasarathy (talk) 10:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Prem Barthasarathy You appear to be evading the block applied to your other account. Tell me why I should help someone who is evading a block? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Prem Barthasarathy You have been blocked. Oh dear, what a pity, never mind. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

submission Iran 1981 Massacre

Dear editor, I am writing this message in relation to "he submission "I981 Iran Massacre". I would like to let you know that the entry has been drafted based on authoritative and independent scholarly and legal documents, which are referenced in the article. The sources include a recent UN-report (2024), academic journal papers, scholarly monographs, and academic databases. All sources are mentioned in the submission. However, the entry has been declined by the editor "due to lack of reliable sources". Therefore, I wonder how this issue could be resolved. I also sent a message to you earlier but have not received a response so far. I would be grateful for your help. Best, Arthatruth Link of the submission: Draft:1981 Iran massacre

Arthatruth (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Arthatruth I have again checked the references. The Taylor and Francis papers (they are each the same) are cited by no-one. ohchr.org is of interest, yet the abstract has no context. Iran.archive.com is a scanned scrap of paper. Translating Rastyad into English produces text such is this: "eople Of The People Of The People Of The Wor The Of The Of The Of The Of The Of The Shamma Mai Twanid in Kurden Bar Asami Shahr, the number of executions has been proven to " whicih appears to be mangled text.

I return you to the comment I left on the draft. I do not believe that this draft, reference ed in the manner, can be accepted as an article. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Timtrent Faddle,

Thanks for your message!

A) The academic paper you mentioned is a seminal article on the 1981 massacre and has been cited and referenced by the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Iran in his landmark UN report on the subject matter. Moreover, the paper has been cited by various scholarly publication. (Please see google scholar citations!)

B)The Rastyad.com (https://rastyad.com/en/home_en/) is the main academic database concerning the 1981 massacre and contains thousands of archival material, empirical data and primary sources for research purposes. The database has been cited and referenced in the landmark report of the UN.

C) For your reference, I added the link of the UN report on the 1981 massacre which also contains the references to the paper and the online database. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/countries/iran/20240717-SR-Iran-Findings.pdf

D) The UN report has been used as a reference for the Wikipedia entry!

E) All other references mentioned in the article are authoritative sources and cover first-hand material.

F) There is a Wikipedia-page on the 1981 Massacre in Persian which also relies on these references.

I hope this explanation is helpful. I would be grateful if you could consider this in your final evaluation.

Best, Arthatruth (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Arthatruth Since you are obviously sure that this passes WP:GNG I suggest you make any improvements you feel to be necessary and submit it for further review. Please be aware that fist hand reports are primary sources. Also please understand that the Persian and English language versions of Wikipedia have totally different standards for acceptance. Please let me remind you of the criteria used here:

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

If you believe it meets the criteria please go ahead and resubmit it for further review. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I just made a few minor changes for clarification of references and resubmitted the entry. Arthatruth (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Arthatruth all that you have done is added a second reference to several points from the existing pool of references. A fact you assert, once verified in a reliable source, is verified. More is gilding the lily. However, it is a lily of your creation, and you have gilded it.

You have not yet resubmitted it for review.

Were I to review this a second time my current review would stand. I will not do so. Other eyes are always useful. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

In fact, in addition to current sources, various (new) scholarly references were added to support the claims. I hope this is sufficient. Arthatruth (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Arthatruth Scholarly sources and Reliable sources are not always the same thing. I hope it is sufficient, too. Also consder your YouTube reference and read WP:YOUTUBE please 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! I removed the youtube link. Arthatruth (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I want to be sure I accepted article correctly

Hello! It's been a while here, please help check my AFC work, I want to be sure I accepted Ervin Theodore Blix correctly without any redirection. Tesleemah (talk) 04:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Tesleemah The technical process worked. I have no idea what you mean by without any redirection because the process does, did, and should leave a redirect.

I am finding notability hard to find. Please enlighten me? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok thank you, I want to be sure I did. What notability are you referring to? Tesleemah (talk) 09:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The notability of the subject of the draft, now accepted article. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Tesleemah Indeed, that has been flagged already by Theroadislong. I suggest that any notability has not been verified, and returning to draft kindly is appropriate. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Tesleemah As kindly as I am able I have returned this to draft.

I believe you have made an honest error, something we all do. I have no quarrel with that at all. I have made a substantial number of honest errors. I may even be in error in returning this to draft. The trick is to become ever better in what we do.

I am wholly grateful for your asking me for my thoughts.

I had a look at your AFC review records. You can do that, too, by looking at the AFC participants page, finding your user id and clicking "reviews". I agree with all except two. Another editor has corrected the second. That is absolutely fine and as it should be. I am not criticising your work, I am simply providing a small course correction. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Alright thank you, it will get better with time. Tesleemah (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Request on 18:08:43, 6 November 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by RedamancyBlues

• RedamancyBlues (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Umer Aalam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! I wanted to address the article that's been rejected twice. I understand what you're saying regarding the references and it was a concern for me at first too, but I checked out more than 10 pages of similar actors and noticed a lot of the same resources. Here are a few for reference: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Aruba_Mirza http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Sheheryar_Munawar_Siddiqui http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Muhammad_Faizan_Sheikh

I'd love to make amends to the article and its resources as per your advice so it can be approved. Appreciate your time!

RedamancyBlues (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@RedamancyBlues please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I will look at the articles you have pointed out. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@RedamancyBlues I have looked at all three, as you can too. The first I have sent to WP:AFD, the second I have flagged for issues, and the third has mostly suitable references, though can use some reference improvement, whcih I have flagged.

You can do this too. Please do. We need poor articles to be flagged for improvement. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. The references included in these articles are from some of the biggest entities in Pakistan that cover entertainment news and provide updates. Most interviews are in video format instead of being published in magazines, so most of the references for any Pakistani celebrity will include most of these sources. If there's a way to navigate this issue that can still align to Wikipedia rules, I'd be happy to learn so that other articles can be amended accordingly as well, but I'd like to highlight this as it could simply be a difference in cultural norms. RedamancyBlues (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@RedamancyBlues There are also local language editions of Wikipedia to work with. The English Language Wikipedia is the strictest for inclusion criteria. The fact at present is that we require references which pass WP:42. That is a consensus that you can try to change by building a new one. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Noted, thanks! RedamancyBlues (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Gerard Gertoux at WP:CLEAN

Hey, @Timtrent. Most requests on WP:CLEAN that receive input are relatively simple tasks, such as table formatting or bare url cleanup. More complex tasks like general cleanups, let alone cleanups needing expertise, are sadly neglected very often. Which is why I believe it is very unlikely anyone on this project would be able to help with the requested article. I skimmed through Gerard Gertoux and its talk page and saw that there was consensus that the article itself has an WP:UNDUE issue. If that's the case, I think you should just go WP:BOLD and make edits on wherever necessary or propose a revamp on a RfC. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 01:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@00101984hjw Good point well made. I'll leave it a short while and give it a kick. Sounds like you agree that it is a shame, and also have hopes that the project would enjoy getting the drains up. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@00101984hjw I used big, crude, sharp editing scissors. I'll note this at the project. I think some help may still be required, please. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

About copyright warning

Bro, can you give me a hard document about the copyright warning given to me? Did you give them out of personal enmity? The files you refer to as potential copyright infringements were prepared by me and posted to Wikimedia Commons. If you can show me the original version of the pictures I provided. If they were copyright infringement, someone would have warned me earlier. Please consider my words. MD. Sazid Bin Sahid (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@MD. Sazid Bin Sahid Some thoughts for you:

1. This is the first time I have seen you not use an LLM in a ta page post
2. Pictures are handled on Wikimedia Commons, not here.
3. Even so, you cannot just find stuff on the internet and assume you can use it.
4. No. No-one should have informed you about the potential for copyright violations. You had to tuck a lot of boxes during the upload process. They are there for a reason. They warn you.
5. Personal enmity? Give me a break and do not make accusations
6. I am not now have never been, nor will ever be your Bro.

Yup, that's the lot. However, I may be about to respond on Wikimedia Commons. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello :P

You asked me to write to you on your account of my wikipedia article, you commented that I had no sources and that I should message you :P Kárpáthy Kamilló (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Kárpáthy Kamilló I decided to find the draft you were asked to link to. Thank you for providing references. I see it is submitted for review, so it will be reviewed by another reviewer in due course. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

About vandalism in page

Hi @User:Timtrent! Can you please help me about article: Mostofa Sarwar Farooki? An individual is defacing the page without citing credible sources. Assistance is needed. MD. Sazid Bin Sahid (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@MD. Sazid Bin Sahid I see a content dispute rather than vandalism. A content dispute is where you and one or more other editors disagree about what the article should say. Vandalism is deliberately defacing an article.

Am I correct in my initial assessment?

If I am, then this needs to be sorted out first on the article's talk page, and, if that fails, at WP:DRN

If it is vandalism, true vandalism, then you may warn the vandal. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I want to clarify the context with Mostofa Sarwar Farooki. He is one of three newly elected advisers of interim Government of Bangladesh. Some people are not happy with the incedent, and that's why they are trying to attack him at Wikipedia page. What should I or u do? MD. Sazid Bin Sahid (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@MD. Sazid Bin Sahid I cannot read the language being added, I'm afraid, so I am unable to determine whether it is a content dispute or vandalism. You could file a request at WP:RPP. There is a mechanism at the top of that page. Please bear in mind that these things pass by themselves, usually. But a request for protection is never wasted. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@MD. Sazid Bin Sahid Another editor has made the request. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Timtrent since you're a seasoned senior editor, could you please handle this? (I think that vandal has been blocked, but he's now trying with unregistered account!) MD. Sazid Bin Sahid (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@MD. Sazid Bin Sahid I am not an administrator, so I can do nothing myself. Don't become alarmed over vandalism. It always gets sorted out. Sometimes we feel it to be an emergency, but it truly never is, even if the vandalism is offensive. There is genuinely no rush. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Timtrent Oh, sure! Thanks. MD. Sazid Bin Sahid (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@MD. Sazid Bin Sahid It was protected almost an hour ago. Now only experienced editors can edit it. Those with a different editing track record cannot. You may be able to edit or may be unable to edit, but the major problem is solved.

Now you need to rely on calm heads to correct any errors in the article. Yours may be one of them.

This is not a new issue for Wikipedia. Things blow ups and appear alarming, but, once the article is protected the issue can be solved. And there is never a race. never a need to rush. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with the statement that there is never a race. There are edit conflicts, and an edit conflict is a race condition, and there are a few other types of race conditions in Wikipedia that are similar to but not the same as edit conflicts. It is a good idea to avoid getting into a race. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Great technical answer, but I think you know what I mean. Getting overheated about vandalism just creates stress. We can revert to any version at any time 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. You are saying not to panic about vandalism, because it can always be reverted in time, and there is no deadline for reverting vandalism. In fact, I can easily think of a situation in which panicking about vandalism may be counter-productive due to the silly idea that there is a race. That is if two enthusiastic anti-vandal editors look at the same article that has been vandalized, and one of them reverts it, and the other one is edit-conflicted momentarily. The second editor notices a new edit, and thinks it is more vandalism, and reverts it. The two editors may get into an edit-war trying to revert the vandalism. Then an admin comes along and partially blocks all three editors for 31 hours, the vandal and the anti-vandals, while they figure out what the original version was. The anti-vandals now have a 31-hour partial block on their record, because they were edit-warring to try to revert vandalism, but were doing it recklessly. That is a good reason not to be in too much of a hurry to revert vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Reference Bombing

But one of the purposes of reference bombing is to make it difficult to complete a source analysis table, and for that purpose, the more, the better.

I would have replied to you earlier about your note on the admin election, but I was more thinking of another election (in which 80 million people made a tragic mistake). Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The outcome of that latter election is alarming.

This Advent, in three weeks, I plan to read the prophetic books again. A characteristic of most of the prophetic books is that times are bad, and are going to get worse, and then get better. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I do not follow any religion, nor do I have a deity. I hope these books allow you the comfort you hope for. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that any view of history that is fundamentally dependent on one's religious beliefs is probably a dangerous delusion. I am in particular thinking of literal end-times concepts, which are, unfortunately, more common on the west side of the Atlantic than the east side. What is useful is a long perspective on history, which has been going on for at least six thousand years (with tens of thousands of years of prehistory) and will go on for thousands of years more, and things have always gotten worse for a while and gotten better for a while. Things got worse 2700 and 2600 years ago, when these books were written, and there were good times again, and things get worse, and they get better. That hasn't changed since ancient times. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I suspect it all comes down to people lusting for power. Eventually we learn a brief lesson. Then it happens again, Robert. It gets worse because the power lusters somehow get more popular. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

You are wholly correct, which is why I push refbombing and citekill back 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Thank you for the reply. I forgot to say. I meant every word in my short note. You have and display all that is required and more.

It is not a role I would relish. It changes things. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

About file I've uploaded

Please can you check if the file I uploaded is now usable? The file: File:Cumilla_Victoria_Government_College_logo.png File:Cumilla_Victoria_Government_College_logo.png. Please let me know if I have done something wrong or not gave credit required. MD. Sazid Bin Sahid (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@MD. Sazid Bin Sahid Almost. I have tagged it wil {{Non-free reduce}}. Fair Use relies on minimum necessary sizing. You cam ensmallen the image to the size it woudl appear on a letter and re-upload it 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Or just wait, as the notice says. Either is fine. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Timtrent, Does this mean I don't need to be concerned, and the bot will lower the image resolution? Or is there something I need to do? MD. Sazid Bin Sahid (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@MD. Sazid Bin Sahid watch, wait, and if a bot does not do something in a day or two, then reduce the size by uploading a new, small version 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Timtrent, What are the criteria for updating the image? Can I edit the existing image or should I add a new one? If so, what size should the new image be? MD. Sazid Bin Sahid (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@MD. Sazid Bin Sahid the image shoudl be about the size of a postage stamp, and you can upload over the top of this one. There is a tiny link under the file history box "Upload a new version of this file" whcih I imagine does the job. I've never used it.

I did make one small change. I added "|image has rationale=ye" to the licence template, because it has a non free use rationale. The history tab will show that to you. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)