User talk:Dan arndt

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
It is approximately 3:07 PM where this user lives (Perth, Western Australia). [refresh]
↓ Go to the end of this page ↓

Welcome!

Hello, Dan arndt, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your helpful contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay till I get angry and chase you away. Here are some pages that you might find of assistance:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! RichMac 07:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Review of Draft Article on Atul Karwal

[edit]

Thanks for the kind review and suggestions. Asked myself the question whether this is really worth adding as an article. Having concluded it is, I am trying to improve on the basis of your kind review.

"...not YouTube videos or opinion pieces, authored by the individual".

This was a bit cursory. It may pls be noted that

  1. The Youtube Video cited is NOT authored by the individual but the official channel of the Academy.
  2. The article written by the author is cited only to buttress the point that he is an established author. The article is not published in a blog or a dubious page, but published by a reputed newspaper in India.

To quote from Wikipedia Guidelines as to what is significant coverage: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

I request you to see the sources cited and see if there any item that qualifies for non significant coverage.

I am trying to add more material and citations and removing the Youtube Citation if that is sounding unimportant. Postbox 2 (talk) 06:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is still highly dependent upon a number of primary sources, which are not independent or reliable. Dan arndt (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks dear Dan. Can you kindly mention one source here that is primary or not independent, or unrelaiable. Just one? As I am new to this, I may not be able to readily comprehend the suggestions fully. Pls do guide. Postbox 2 (talk) 04:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Postbox 2, I have clearly tagged those references that are primary sources on the draft article. primary sources, are those that are either published by the individual, including interviews and press statements. When I was double checking I noticed that the ''Business Standard'' reference states "No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content" which means that this is also an unreliable source. Dan arndt (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the kind, expeditious response.
Yes, they are there. They have been kept to support the fact that he is an author.This is giving reference to the publication by the author, a standard practice in Wikipedia and other sources. For example, in an article on Tim Berners- Lee, the books authored by him are given as citations, to buttress the fact that he is an author and has authored those books cited.
The article does not support any of the facts about the person. If you open the contents of these pieces, you can see, they are about issues of public interest and not at all about him. I have not used a single information from these articles he has authored, which can be verified on a perusal of these pieces. Postbox 2 (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you put all these primary sources aside then there is very little there to support any claim that the individual is actually notable. Dan arndt (talk) 05:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will check that again. Thanks a lot.
I most politely beg to disagree with the meaning you are ascribing to 'primary source' (it runs against the meaning it has in the research circles as well as the Wikipedia entry on that) though. We can agree to disagree. I most sincerely thank for your kind and elaborate responses. Postbox 2 (talk) 06:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One Simple Trick

[edit]

Hi,

I added some reception to the draft for One Simple Trick by Lovejoy. Since you were the one who declined the draft at first, if you have time, please take a look at it and give feedback. Here's what I want to know:

  1. Would this at least pass WP:NALBUM?
  2. Does it cover the album in general and what it's meant to be?

Please let me know whenever possible. Thank you in advance.

Jibblesnark86 (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jibblesnark86, as I previously stated in order to address WP:NALBUM, there needs to be significant coverage about the album, not the preceding EPS or singles. In the background section there is a significant amount of original research (i.e. material without any references or sources). The Rock'n'Load article appears to be a press release rather than a review (primary source). The Sputnik reference is just a collection of user reviews not professional reviews. Needs to find better references/reviews before resubmitting. Dan arndt (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, unfortunately, I haven't found any other sources or anything else, yet, other than this. Perhaps I'll have to wait a little longer and hold off for now, don't you think? Thank you anyway.
Jibblesnark86 (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jibblesnark86, given that it was only released earlier this month, it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Hopefully there should be some independent reliable professional reviews of the album before too long, which would satisfy the notability requirements under WP:NALBUM. Don't be too disappointed - give it a break then come back when you are feeling that there is significant coverage. Dan arndt (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Don't worry, I'm not disappointed at all. I know that it will take a while for stuff like this to pop up (whenever that might be), so I always take a break and come back whenever. I will steer clear of this for now. Thank you very much again.
Jibblesnark86 (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Digul Gullas

[edit]

Hi. I'm writing you this to kindly request for a reconsideration, because my submission's references clearly shows that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article as he was the youngest elected City Councilor not just in a particular city, but in the entire country. Also, he became the youngest officer of a prestigious collegial body of elected councilors all over the country. The online news articles from mainstream media clearly show significant coverage and not just passing mentions about the subject. These same sources are independent of the subject as these are mainstream media and not owned or controlled in any way by the subject. I'm fervently hoping you will approve of this submission. Thank you for your time. Erick Wrights (talk) 07:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:36:17, 23 October 2025 for assistance on AfC submission by Hhc rajdeep

[edit]

Hello, I am seeking guidance on my draft article about Dr. Ashwin Porwal, an Indian colorectal surgeon based in Pune. The draft covers his biography, career, and innovations in anorectal surgery.

I am facing difficulties because the submission has not been accepted. I would like feedback on whether the current sources provide sufficient independent coverage to meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for biographies of living persons, and guidance on how to improve the draft.

Current references in the draft include:

1. The Indian Express – "Cutting Edge: How to cure fistula permanently?" (https://indianexpress.com/article/lifestyle/health-specials/cutting-edge-how-to-cure-fistula-permanently-8216303/lite/) 2. The Times of India – "Surgeon's technique tackles issues in complex anal fistula patients" (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/surgeons-technique-tackles-issues-in-complex-anal-fistula-patients/articleshow/93978078.cms) 3. India Today – "Travel constipation: the holiday buzzkill nobody talks about" (https://www.indiatoday.in/lifestyle/wellness/story/travel-constipation-the-holiday-buzzkill-nobody-talks-about-2773448-2025-08-19) 4. Times of India – "Study proves novel techniques efficacy for rectal prolapse" (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/study-proves-novel-techniques-efficacy-for-rectal-prolapse/articleshow/103116726.cms) 5. Times of India – "We learn more about piles and the way to fight them with Dr. Ashwin Porwal" (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/health-fitness/health-news/we-learn-more-about-piles-and-the-way-to-fight-them-with-dr-ashwin-porwal-proctologist-from-pune-india/articleshow/80184034.cms) 6. Asia Book of Records – "Longest anal fistula cured" (https://www.asiabookofrecords.com/longest-fistula-cured/) 7. World Intellectual Property Organization / Google Patents – "A device for the treatment of anal fistula-in-ano and complex fistula-in-ano" (https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2021117049A1/en?inventor=Dr.+Ashwin+Dhanrajii+PORWAL)

I would appreciate any advice on additional reliable sources or changes needed to make this draft suitable for Wikipedia. Hhc rajdeep (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, please look at this editor's contributions record and at their user talk page. These speak for themselves. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I did not see that @Timtrent:, that's certainly some history. I was just assessing the AfC but certainly worth monitoring just in case some sockpuppets start popping up. Dan arndt (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For me, they are on the cusp of being blocked, and sliding down that slope. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent if any of those articles appear on my radar, I'll let you know. Dan arndt (talk) 08:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There is little potential for their being able to raise an invoice, I think. I am not keen on their insertion of spam links (reverted in June) into surgery articles. My good faith's elastic limit was exceeded some time ago. Were I their employer I might consider their value to me could be enhanced by their working for my competition. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Think you declined the Rave Archive incorrectly

[edit]

There are a number of secondary sources referred to, even if the primary sources are ignored. Just edit them out rather than reject if you think required. 2A00:23C8:BB24:401:101A:D309:5775:C0B6 (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you ignore all the primary sources, and deadlinks then you are just left with one source (possibly two), which is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 08:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Humans Are Becoming Horses

[edit]

I think Draft:Humans Are Becoming Horses, despite looking like bizarre vandalism at first, was actually an attempt at creating a redirect. The external link for Humans Need Not Apply shows that the video was retitled to Humans Are Becoming Horses at some point. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jlwoodwa, I struggle to see anywhere that confirms that the video Humans Need Not Apply was being retitled Humans Are Becoming Horses.Dan arndt (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Our article on Humans Need Not Apply says its URL is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU. The video at that URL, which in all other details matches our article, is titled Humans Are Becoming Horses. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:16:40, 28 October 2025 for assistance on AfC submission by GrittyLand

[edit]


GrittyLand (talk) 09:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


I am so confused - I just spent hours writing this submission with considerable detail and then the version has been edited with most of the detail deleted and then it is rejected on the basis that it is not detailed enough - what am i missing? how do i get back to the last version before it was edited? There were a myriad of links and citations that provided all the detail, audibility and context and they all seem to be gone - i am a rocky at this but so far this seems very un - user friendly! Thanks