User talk:Timtrent

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click here to leave a new message, LINK to any article you want me to look at
And sign your posts using ~~~~.
I may not bother with posts where articles are not linked and posts are not signed.
I may just delete them and ignore them and you.
I do not review drafts on request, nor, normally, do I review a draft more than once, so please do not ask
If you want me to do something for you, make it easy for me, please.
This is the home account for Fiddle Faddle, which is both my nickname and my alternate account.
When you begin a new message section here, I will respond to it here. When I leave message on your Talk page, I will watch your page for your response. This maintains discussion threads and continuity. See Help:Talk page#How to keep a two-way conversation readable. If you want to use {{Talkback}} or {{ping}} to alert me about messages elsewhere, please feel free to do so.
It is 1:30 PM where this user lives. If it's the middle of the night or during the working day they may well not be online. For accurate time please purge the page

I do not remove personal attacks directed at me from this page. If you spot any, please do not remove them, even if vile, as they speak more against the attacker than against me.

In the event that what you seek is not here then it is archived (0.9 probability). While you are welcome to potter through the archives the meaning of life is not there.

Please do not decline CSDs without first looking at the page's deletion history. The page was previously deleted by Fastily under WP:U5, making it not eligible for a WP:REFUND, and was re-created six minutes later with identical content. Uhai (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Uhai Thank you for your words. I disagree with the prior deletion. We are entitled to disagree. It is how we handle the disagreement that says a great deal about us. Since no editor has a greater status than any other, and since any editor may express an opinion regarding speedy deletion at any time it seems to me that your route should have been MfD now. That would fulfil WP:BRD, too.
I find Herb Cohen's thoughts to be relevant here. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Uhai Seems that ‎Smartse also disagrees with CSD. I've pinged them so that they are aware of your objection, and to save you from the trouble of messaging them as well 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for taking my advice on the use of MfD. In these cases the community is a better judge than any individual.. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you disagree with a prior speedy deletion, then the only two valid avenues are to communicate with the deleting sysop followed by going to WP:DRV. Inhibiting the redeletion of a verbatim recreation in a non-WP:REFUND CSD category is disruptive. This goes as well to Smartse, the sysop who declined the CSD tag, in that they should have discussed with Fastily before making one decision or another. Furthermore, that my nomination of that page for CSD in any way constitutes WP:BOLD is an entirely invalid assertion. If anything, your decline would be considered bold factoring the previous U5 deletion and my re-tagging being a valid operation in response to a bold edit. It is only upon another reversion by yourself or another editor would I go to MfD to avoid edit warring, which I did.
In the future, if you're going to nominate pages for CSD or clerk CSD categories, please do a thorough check of the creating user's contributions and registration date, the deletion history of the page, along with a perusal the contents of the page (including and especially external links present).
I appreciate your concern for new editors and your desire to not WP:BITE, but as someone who regularly deals with promoters and UPE, I'll tell you that normal editors don't create content like that within five hours of registering their account, especially without some other edits elsewhere that they're directed to make via newcomer tasks. Just because CSD-fulfilling content is in a user space draft, may be a valid attempt at genuine content (though a complete failure), and is theoretically improvable doesn't make it immune to CSD in the meantime, in response to your statement There is scope for development and Smartse's obviously an attempt so not U5. At the end of the day, it's an unsourced essay with external links in the body to the same company's website and no discernable subject for an encyclopedia article, prime WP:U5 material if not WP:G11—an essay which, by the way, is copy pasted from some marketing materials somewhere; just compare the English skills on the page in question to those demonstrated by the editor in the Teahouse post.
If we WP:AGF, as we should, and this user really wrote this content himself and doesn't understand how encyclopedia articles are written versus essays, the page should still be deleted as Wikipedia does not host this kind of content. Full stop. The editor received a welcome message with the first CSD nomination and is more than welcome to ask for guidance, as he eventually did after a tendentious recreation and several tendentious AfC resubmissions, for how to create content that is suitable to remain published on the website, first and foremost, and how to make it suitable for the main space, secondly. Uhai (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Uhai Thank you for this guidance. I have read it with interest. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are most very welcome and please don't hesitate to get in touch with me in the future with any questions regarding the CSD or identifying spam. In the meantime, please do check out the latest creation by this editor at Draft:MVP which, in the sixteen hours since his first creation, demonstrates his improvement via careful study of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines which he was informed of via talk page notices and AfC declines. Uhai (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Uhai He has created a WP:ESSAY. I am not at all sure of the point you are seeking to make? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ISU Skating Awards Review[edit]

Hi there,

You reviewed my draft of ISU Skating Awards ( ) yesterday and gave the following feedback:

All other considerations apart this needs a careful look. It is meant to be a generic article abut the awards, so why is there a 2024 intro about that venue? Please work on what you want to wrote about before resubmitting. Once you do that we can give it a competent review

Please could you give me some more information on this as not completely clear.

Are you suggesting as the 2024 Awards are yet to take place we can not include any information/placeholders on this for now?

If i was to remove mentions of 2024 Awards would the draft be approved?

Many thanks! RedTSports (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RedTSports Thank you for asking for more information.
Please take a hard look at your "Key Information" section. It sits at the top and makes the draft about 2024. It needs to go, either from there, or, if you judge it to be relevant, to the correct place in the draft.
With the draft in whatever that new state is it can receive a competent review, which may point out other areas for attention or may see it accepted immediately. I have not looked at it through that lens, so cannot be more specific.
Your task is to look at it through the eyes of a stranger. Ask yourself "Does this make sense?" then ask "Is it readable? Does it invite me in?"
I think you might also choose to combine "About" into the lead section by removing the heading there.
Come back and ask more when you need to. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks so much for coming back to me.
I'm not clearly on the changes - i have removed any mention of 2024 in the intro section and as per your suggestion combine the intro and about information together.
Was there anything else for me to look at before i put it in for a review again?
Thanks again RedTSports (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, meant to say I am *now clear RedTSports (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RedTSports I cannot see any difference in Draft:ISU Skating Awards? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies, have republished, how about now? RedTSports (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RedTSports I think it now looks to be in a state where another reviewer will either ba able to accept it or to make a further set of suggestions. One point: you link to YouTube inline. WP:YOUTUBE will help you with understanding Youtube here, and Wikipedia:External links will help you understand why we do not link inline. I suggest you handle this before submission.
I am assuming to have handled the prior reviewer's comments. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much for your help and for the note on YouTube, I will review that now RedTSports (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The latest backlog drive leaderboard stats, just now, have us both at 339 reviews. (Snap!) Of these, you've accepted 115, vs. my 27. Remarkable difference! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DoubleGrazing very remarkable.. One of us is likely to be correct!! I wonder who 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We could both be right. Perhaps we tend to pick up different kinds of drafts, and if we were to swap, the stats might also then flip. Or maybe we both agree that something is borderline, but you marginally fall on one side of the fence, I on the other, and neither is more right or wrong about it.
Then again, we could of course both be wrong! :)
I don't put too much store in these numbers, and certainly wouldn't endorse any arbitrary acceptance % 'target'; just thought the contrast in our figures was interesting. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I hit the older entries early where some had not even been reviewed. There was a lot of low hanging fruit there. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DoubleGrazing This might amuse you. I am not at all sure what to make of it. The best I can do is irony. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ha! Did you enjoy your complimentary tutorial on egg-sucking, grandma? :)) DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DoubleGrazing It was quite delightful 😈 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DoubleGrazing I got another one, different this time! What did I do to deserve so much fun! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You almost have to admire that "I know you're experienced and I'm new here, but let me tell you how this whole thing works" chutzpah, though. :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Oh I am. My admiration knows no bounds. I suspect a fellow lawyer. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As long as you appreciate someone generously giving of their time to educate you... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Time spent in education here is never wasted 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carmody Notability[edit]

Thank you for your quick response to the review of the draft new page about Bill Carmody. User:Backyard116/sandbox/Bill Carmody. I appreciate that you have tried to give me a path forward in your note. I see you have been an editor on Wikipedia for many years, and I am new, so I appreciate this very much. But you are mistaken in some of your comments. Perhaps you over relied on the previous comment/review by CNMall41 for some of the facts – which I addressed in this latest draft, which was almost totally rewritten from scratch because of CNMall41’s feedback. This is also why I removed the June 29, 2023 Comment from CNMall41 that you later restored, as it responded to a completely different draft. I still think it ought to be removed because most of what it says isn’t relevant to the draft as it is now.

I understand you probably only had a few minutes on the review, whereas I spent dozens of hours on this draft, including studying the relevant Wikipedia policies. I have left an extended note as a new Comment at User:Backyard116/sandbox/Bill Carmody to address the very detailed concerns you raised. Perhaps we can further discuss it here after you have looked at my Comment. The crux of the argument for notability lies in the fact that Carmody has been profiled in multiple, independent, high-quality reliable sources. It does not depend on his participation in legal cases. Unfortunately, several of these in-depth sources are paywalled so to remedy this problem, I have left extensive excerpts on the Talk page. Next, all the facts in the article are verified with high-quality secondary sources, including Carmody’s participation in various cases. There’s no use of sources that do not mention Carmody. There was only one Primary in the draft, to support the year of school graduation, and out of an abundance of caution, I replaced it with a secondary source, though it meant removing the year of graduation. I respectfully disagree with your assertion that every fact on the page must be verified by a source that is about the subject of the article. WP:NOTEWORTHY. I do appreciate that you said providing sufficient references to verify the facts in the draft “is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability)” and I hope you’ll agree if you check the references more carefully, that there is proper WP:Verify and the page should therefore be approved. Thanks so much! Backyard116 (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Backyard116 I have little time left today. I will consider what you say when I do have time. Meanwhile please feel free to submit for further review. Another reviewer will be along to review. Appreciate your detailed message. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Backyard116 I have managed to find the time. I have read your draft based rebuttal of my review and your message above.
First, I made my review based upon the draft, not on another reviewer's comments. I noticed them and also saw the edits history, and it was obvious to me that the draft had changed substantially since that review
Second, if you are not relying on "notable cases" why are there eight paragraphs about these cases (lawyer's work) and two paragraphs about the man himself. A lawyer is not his cases. Let me try to explain. If they manufactured vacuum cleaners, the cleaners would be their work. A vacuum cleaner could not be a reference for them, simply because it is the product they make. So it is with research, writings, cases etc. However, a review of their work by others tends to be a review of them and their methods, so is a reference.
I stand by my comments. Your job is to prove Carmody passes WP:BIO. A reviewer's job is to accept a draft when in our personal opinion we believe it stands a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. What I see with this draft is that, were it to be accepted in this iteration it would either be massively précised or be offered for deletion and likely be deleted.
And references to verify notability must be about Carmody not about a case, must be independent of Carmody, in addition they must be significant coverage (three or more paragraphs), and the sources must be reliable.
References to verify uncontroversial facts do not need to pass these tough criteria. That is what I said in my review, and I say it again, here, in different words.
You might wish to follow the link to the Articles For Creation Helpdesk and ask there. Be brief and specific in your question. You can always ask supplementary questions in the same section.
If you resubmit it for a further review you will get other eyes on it. It is very rare indeed that I review a second time. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Backyard116 Well, I replied as soon as I was able because it appeared that your need to know was important. It appears that was not the case after all, and I received your message as part of a "fire and forget" missile barrage, evidenced by the fact that I see you have been asking for help from 25 individual editors and one Wikiproject. Your message to me was not couched in language that endeared you to me, yet I still decided to give you a reply.
With a chid we would call your approach "Asking the other parent" - an approach that doe snot endear the child to the first parent asked. In this case you have asked 24+ other parents. I have no idea what they will say, and I no longer have any interest.
When you ask for help, recognise that you are not better than me, as I recognise that I am not better than you. Yet your tone implied that you do not recognise this.
Note that your copying and pasting of verbatim references was a breach of copyright, They have been removed and redacted. I have left a formal warning on your talk page not to do it again. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editor experience invitation[edit]

Hi Timtrent :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:David "Feet" Rogers[edit]

Hello, this is in reference to the following article that I'm writing:

Draft:David "Feet" Rogers

Your First critique regards my references. Please be specific and tell me which references do not pass your muster.

My References include:

1) Troutman, John (2016). Kika Kila: How the Hawaiian Steel Guitar Changed the Sound of Modern Music (1st ed.). USA: University of North Carolina Press. pp. 206–225

--John W. Troutman is Curator of American Music at the National Museum of American History. This book is independently published by a reliable source. Futhermore, there IS significant coverage of David "Feet" Rogers in that book, as there are many references.

2) Ruymar, Lorene (1996). The Hawaiian Steel Guitar and its Great Hawaiian Musicians (1st ed.). Anaheim, CA: Centerstream Publishing. pp. 88–106. ISBN 978-1574240214.

--This is an independently published book and it considered an authoritative source and historical document of Hawaiian Lap Steel Players. There IS significant coverage of David "Feet" Rogers in that book, as there are many references.

--Both of these above mentioned books are listed as sources in this accepted wikipedia article of Alan Akaka.

3) The University of Hawaii archives. This is predominant academic institution in the State of Hawaii.

4) Honorees » HMHOF". HMHOF. Retrieved 2023-07-09. This is the Hawaiian Music Hall of Fame. David "Feet" Rogers is an honoree and inductee to the Hawaiian Music Hall of Fame.

--The Hawaiian Music Hall of Fame is a 501c3 nonprofit organization that was established in 1994. They have a board of directors with 12 prominent members amongst the politics and business community of Hawai'i.

Honestly, I went through this same issue with another editor, Theroadislong . He helped me in making my references much stronger, and they passed his approval after many edits.

I have read the Wikipedia guidelines and am very familiar with them, and I argued these very same issues with Theroadislong.

Please be specific as to exactly HOW these references do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people).

Especially seeing as how the wikipedia article Alan Akaka uses many of the same references, please explain to me how the references are adequate in the approved Alan Akaka wikipedia page, but they are not adequate for the page I am trying to create.

Your Second critique regards using the word "Notable" in the title of a section of the article.

--If you take issue you with that, and all I have to do it take out the word "notable", I'm am happy to do so.

I just want to assure you that I have nothing personal to gain financially nor otherwise in creating this article of David "Feet" Rogers. I have never met the man, and he died in 1983. I just want this humble Hawaiian man who has significantly contributed to the music and culture of Hawaii to have a small place on the internet, and on Wikipedia's platform so that future children of Hawaii and Lap Steel lovers around the world can easily find out and learn about the man who played lap steel on so many prominent and beloved recordings of Hawaiian music.

Thank you for your time. I truly hope that I can get this article approved and finalized.

Thepublicschoolmusician (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thepublicschoolmusician I cn tell you for sure that Youtube is deprecated as a source.
Please look ar your chosen references with the eyes of a critic. One does not even mention him. AT cleats one is a passing mention, none that I have been able to access have significant coverage. All you have to do is too prove that he passes WP:NMUSICIAN and resubmit it for editing.
Forgive the brief reply. I have been travelling all day and am tired. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I edited the article and took out all the words "Notable".
I did not add any references.
David "Feet" Rogers was included in 2 separate and independently published books, University of Hawaii archives, recorded on an album of Hawaiian music by National Geographic in 1974, and is an inductee to the Hawaiian Music Hall of Fame.
Please explain to me in detail how any of these things are NOT significant by your measure. And please explain how they do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines. It is my firm belief that these measures ARE significant, and that they DO meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Thepublicschoolmusician (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mr. Tim Trent, if you want me to take out the YouTube link, I'll be happy to do so.
It's a direct link to the 1974 National Geographic recording of David "Feet" Rogers playing the song Hilo March. And it has his name on the album.
Furthermore, ALL of my references cover David Rogers. You said (presumably) "At least one is a passing mention". Which reference are you talking about? If you are giving editorial feedback, please be specific.
You claim that "none that I have been able to access have significant coverage". Well, sir, I would say that you would have to purchase these 2 books like I did and read them to verify significant coverage: Troutman, John (2016). Kika Kila: How the Hawaiian Steel Guitar Changed the Sound of Modern Music (1st ed.), and Ruymar, Lorene (1996). The Hawaiian Steel Guitar and its Great Hawaiian Musicians (1st ed.). Anaheim, CA: Centerstream Publishing. pp. 88–106. ISBN 978-1574240214.
I can assure you, I own these 2 books and they have significant coverage of David Rogers.
Furthermore, I own the DVD of the documentary of the Sons of Hawaii, and there is significant mention of David Rogers. Thepublicschoolmusician (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Tim.
If you are referring to this University of Hawaii article:, yes there is no mention of David "Feet" Rogers.
This is a reference for Gabby Pahinui. Gabby was mentioned in my article as someone David "Feet" Rogers played with. It's more of a reference for Gabby within the article to prove that Gabby was a real person and significant in his own right.
Should I remove this reference?
As per Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles guideline #6, "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles"
Gabby Pahinui is extremely notable. He is amongst the most prominent and loved Hawaiian musicians in history. Thepublicschoolmusician (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thepublicschoolmusician I may revisit this tomorrow. But you can tell what is and is not a passing mention. You don't need me to tell you that.
If you feel he passes the criterion, please resubmit it, Someone else will be along to review it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Mr. Tim Trent,
I just want to thank you for your quick replies, and your feedback.
I just noticed that my Wikipedia article was approved! Thank you so much. In some small way, I know that this humble Hawaiian man will be remembered, and now it will be easier for future children of Hawaii and Hawaiian Lap Steel enthusiasts to learn about this man and his significant contribution to the music of Hawaii.
Happy Holidays! Thepublicschoolmusician (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thepublicschoolmusician I’m glad it all worked out. I was too tired to be any real help today 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Tim! I do have a follow up question for you.
I will be going to Hawaii next month, and spending time with friends of David "Feet" Rogers. I would like to include a picture of Feet for this article. Any pictures I have submitted before were taken down.
If I am given a picture of Feet Rogers by the original copyright owner of the picture, how can I post that picture to this article in a way that Wikipedia approves? Thepublicschoolmusician (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thepublicschoolmusician please see WIkipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. That gives you all the information you need. Thank you for asking before trying to upload. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


hi Tim how you doing. hopefully well.

can you see community resolution side there is no progress at all I think they're having hard time to translate things. I want to know how does voting system works if someone had voted in favour or against how I can know or how I can know-how many against and in favour are voted - maybe you could tell me abit about it thanks 🙂 SaneFlint (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SaneFlint The system works thus:
  • It is not a ballot. Majority does not win the day except by coincidence
  • This will run until at least 4 December. If no consensus exists it may be extended for a maximum of two further seven day periods
  • The !votes (the ! shows it is not a vote, and is shortened for an expressed opinion) are judged usually by an administrator, but not always. The expressed opinions are considered, both to keep and to delete. If eventually there is no consensus it is kept by default, without prejudice against a future renomination.
  • If kept it may still be nominated for deletion after the passage of some time. The discussions are meant to be independent of each other, but people may refer back
  • If deleted then it may be recreated, but only if it is substantially different form the deleted version. It is wise to use Articles for Creation for this purpose, and to leave significant time between attempts, perhaps no less that a year
  • All opinions cast are in the discussion, transparently. One may not canvass for additional !votes, and it is always discovered. I do not imagine you would consider this, you strike me as a fair minded person.
  • If anyone at all disagrees with the outcome they may ask for a deletion review. The only grounds for overturning the closing decision is if policy and process has not been followed.
Does this help? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. exactly thank you for explaining this. I just wanted to understand how this thing works as I'm figuring out a couple of things on Wikipedia. 🙂 Wikipedia commons is what I'm now trying to understand next SaneFlint (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
appreciates it. without your guidance I wouldn't come closer to learn more things All the best SaneFlint (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SaneFlint Commons is similar to Wikipedia, but has very strict rules about what may be uploaded. It will protect a copyright holder a well as it can, so any doubtful files are deleted, c:COM:PCP applies to any doubtful pictures. Wikimedia Commons also protects itslef against claims of breach of copyright, so ts processes are rigorous.
The deletion process there has very few participants, often the nominator and an admin only, but anyone is welcome to give a policy based opinion. Opinions that are not policy based, for example, "But this picture deserves to be seen" are ignored.
You will find its rules on Commons, as well as a help desk. If in doubt, use the help desk to ask before uploading.
The world of copyright is very difficult and very simple at the same time. Ask "Would my white haired old grandmother approve of me if I uploaded this file?" It is assumed that granny is 100% law abiding! If she would have even the slightest doubt, do not upload the file, or ask at the help desk first. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
there are some letters I have obtained from some press members. which has very historical value and importance. I was thinking to put them on commons to publish. which was also about same personality I wrote an article about but I'm not sure if it's acceptable SaneFlint (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SaneFlint For that you need specialist advice. I cannot give that, it is outside my expertise 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yes I asked theroadislong maybe he can advice me or theteahouse I think will be a good side to ask about thus subject :) SaneFlint (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SaneFlint c:Commons:helpdesk is the right place to start. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thank you SaneFlint (talk) 10:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was trying to post the letter known as Qasida on commons but during upload my account kept getting logged out. don't know if it's a bug or glitch?) SaneFlint (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SaneFlint I have no idea, I'm afraid 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I'll try with web browser thankss SaneFlint (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The letter which was presented in 1923 remains to be only one original letter. there was no copy of it being contains 8 pages while I have uploaded 2 of them. SaneFlint (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is still the date of the death of the author which is significant. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll check about his death. but where I'll be posting his date of death ? death of author should have a website link? I'm not sure if there will be any link or website post about his death but possibly I can know from some press members who authorise about biographies works SaneFlint (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It should form part of the file information on Commons, something I have already edited once to correct two fields. You need to explain there the date of death of the author. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let me get the author date. Thanks for fixing captions 🙂 SaneFlint (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have kept three pics with captions added properly. but I just kept them there as to shade lights on the subject to know there is authenticity even its Unreliable. I really.hope editor's will review those Urdu references and verifies them.
one more thing I want to remind is that when they will write subject name in urdu on Google it will show more information about him. subject has article on Wikipedia Urdu as well. SaneFlint (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
if it wasn't notable it wouldn't have a article on urdu Wikipedia but both English and urdu holds different policies I think. 🙂 SaneFlint (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SaneFlint The Urdu and English articles are now linked. See left hand margin. If you notice, no-one is saying "Delete" though no-one is yet saying "Keep". This is not a typical deletion discussion. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
exactly 💯 I hope we will clear out this matter. Probably, some editors are having a hard time due to references in Urdu, but they will figure out these things.
I was asked not to add more things as it will make them delay in a process of verifying references so I decide to keep three pics and wait for guys to review
I hope for the best. I SaneFlint (talk) 08:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I cannot predict the outcome. I am hopeful that we will get at least "No consensus" because I doubt it will achieve a full "keep". That will be sufficient. However, the process is not always predictable.
I suspect it will be re-listed for a further period.
If you are able to add more references that meet WP:42 (shorthand!) in the meantime, that is the thing which will create the fun argument for keeping. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
true. I'm afraid that most reliable and full sources are found in a urdu or Sindhi language. which is a problem for English editors to translate. like currently we are having troubles with the translation.
I have couple books written about article subject. which are mainly written in urdu and Sindhi but poor courage in a English side is very bad.
like one article says in last line of article that, "Today these Pirs of Sindh are either absent or on the margins of our history books* SaneFlint (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the sources are compliamt with our needs, the language is not any problem at all 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
sources number 1 2 - 5 are very important and should be analysed. as they contain whole chapter story about subject which I wrote on Wikipedia, editor's were focusing mainly on English sources. I hope its time to confirm these sources as well🙂 SaneFlint (talk) 09:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I reduced the Cite Bombing Adambenji (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Adambenji Thank you. When you are ready, and only when you are ready, please resubmit it for review. Another reviewer will review it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. Thank you for putting me through. You're the best. Adambenji (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Just a personal takeoff. I want a copy of Queer Me. Van Mastashat (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mastashat You should be able to find it at which links to the Amazon site nearest to you. I hope you enjoy it. Thank you for asking me. I'm afraid the link is blocked here, but paste it into your browser and all will work.