User talk:Timtrent

Timtrent is busy and is going to be on Wikipedia in off-and-on doses, and may not respond swiftly to queries.

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 6:02 AM 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.

Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page stalkers.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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.

Request on 18:44:06, 20 June 2025 for assistance on AfC submission by John Desmond

• John Desmond (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:George Woodcock bibliography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I should be grateful to learn if it would be allowable for me to copy the additional information that I located about Woodcock's publications which I documented in my draft, and paste it into the article for him, to improve it.John Desmond (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC) John Desmond (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@John Desmond I believe it would be fine. However, don't overload it. Be abstemious. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that I haven't been the unwitting source of confusion and that the following information is helpful.

Admittedly I did not say so (mea culpa) but it was not my intention that my submission would duplicate the listing of Woodcock's books in the article but instead would be a substitute for it. (A cursory comparison of my submission with the listing identifies that, with one exception and a correction of one of the titles, it is based upon a copy of it.) I didn't delete the listing because I considered that doing so might have been regarded as being drastic. If my submission had been accepted, which naturally I hoped would happen, I would then have considered that deleting it would be justifiable.

To borrow your felicitous term 'overload' (thank you), I hoped that creating a list/bibliography would yield two benefits and might yield two additional ones. First, it would obviate the current overloading of the article with the listing of his books. Second, it would enable the documentation of additional information about his books: the names of the publishers, the locations of the publishers, the ISBNs and, if they exist (which they do in many cases), the ISBNs. Third, it might afford a useful location for insertions of Woodcock's articles, of which I suspect there are many. Fourth, as I intimated yesterday in my response to User:Bobby Cohn, the list/bibliography might benefit by being elaborated. John Desmond (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@John Desmond I understand. Even so, please have a detailed look at wikidata:Q954360 which is designed to link to indices of his work. It is likely to be fuller than you expect. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:57, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you requested, I've had a detailed look at the entry in wikidata for George Woodcock. However, I didn't have any expectation about its fullness. Consequently it wasn't fuller than I expected. That said, I acknowledge the huge amount of work that was undertaken to create the template. Also, I was interested to learn two things from the entry about his book The Crystal Spirit. First, that there is an article for it, for which I would looked forward to creating a link in the bibliography. Second, that it won the Governor General's Literary Award, which is just the type of information I would have looked forward to adding as a note in the bibliography, a facility which I hoped would be most easily accessible for enquirers.

Of course, I don't know where that leaves the issue about the utility of my submission. Given that it seems acceptable for me to do so, I could paste the the additional information that I have ascertained about Woodcock's books (the names of the publishers, their locations, etc.) into the article. However, doing so would exacerbate my perception of the problem that I wanted to solve. On reflection I think that I'll try to learn more about what criteria need to be fulfilled to create a bibliography, which I don't seem to have currently fulfilled. John Desmond (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@John Desmond Wikidata is weird resource. It is intended to be a cross WMF data repository, data to be 'called in' to articles by the use of templates like {{Authority control}}. The mechanism for entering data there is somewhat arcane, however. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your frankness. When I accessed the Wikidata entry for Woodcock I couldn't help noticing that many of the data fields were blank; but I was too polite to say so. However, you did invoke Wikidata in support of your rejection of my submission. You stated in your rejection: 'Generally Woodcock's entry in Wikidata is expected to encompass this.' And you began your response to my reply of 08:06, 21 June 2025 by stating 'I understand'. So unfortunately your reason for rejecting my submission remains unclear to me. If you could possibly bring yourself to identify the reason then perhaps I could try to remedy my submission in the hope of improving the chance of it being accepted. Already some basic ideas have occurred to me about embellishing the design of the bibliography, which could enable me to improve my editing skills. However, there wouldn't seem to be any point in me applying any of the ideas if doing so omits to address the fundamental reason for its unacceptability. John Desmond (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@John Desmond I think the main issue is that an article must, in and of itself, be notable.

That leads directly to the question "Is George Woodcock's bibliography notable without George Woodcock?" which leads to intellectual gymnastics, and the simple answer, "No, it cannot be notable without Woodcock, for it is Woodcock's bibliography."

Where I am headed with this is that every article must be notable.

• A list of Specialists in Foo (a notable but unspecified topic) may be inherently notable.
• A list of books about Foo might be notable
• A List of books by Bar (an otherwise notable author) is only notable in my mind when directly inside an article about Bar, otherwise it is an appendix. We do not do appendices.

Forgive me if I lack clarity. I have had an exhausting day. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally I hope that you have recovered from your exhaustion! And, no, you didn't lack clarity: I understand and concur with your reasoning. In fact I did find myself reflecting upon the justification upon which I relied for my submission, not solely the points that I have previously communicated but, for want of a better term, the atonomy of a putative article.

Frustratingly I located a help page about the criterion that Wikipedia invokes but which I have been unable to re-locate which I would like to revisit because the issue interests me. Regardless, I would like to ask whether the onus is upon me to defend my submission in the above context or whether you consider that any defence by me is unlikely to succeed. Thank you. John Desmond (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@John Desmond Defending things here is difficult. If one wished to start a defence of appendices as a general concept, I cannot fathom the place to start. I don't know whether it is a policy, a happenstance or an informal consensus.

For any change to the status quo a consensus must be built, but that always depends on how the status quo came about. Thus we are in a true communist state's administration!

I am musing as I write. My initial is that of should be framed first as a question, probably at WP:TEAHOUSE along the lines of "I understand that for various reasons Wikipedia does not do [something]. How may I find the history of why we do not do it?" This will start a few folk thinking, some of who may know with precision how to find out about it and how to alter it.

Thus you avoid immediate defence (combative) and ask questions (collegial) which will move you to seeking to influence change (consensus). 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@John Desmond I found WP:Appendices which seems to confirm that they are only useful as sections in a full article.

Do keep in the forefront of your mind that I may be wrong, too! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That you very much for your prompt reply. I agree with your suggestion, which implies that I might be wrong. However, before I implement it I'll look up the page your mentioned and I should like to look up the help page that I mentioned which I have now located, about notability. Thank you very much for your patience. John Desmond (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @John Desmond, I'll jump back in here a little late as I forgot I was pinged. I think Timtrent has offered some great advice and pulled the curtain back a little on the inner workings of Wikipedia. Your question as to "the onus is upon me to defend my submission in the above context" is a little tricky to answer because the AfC project and its reviewers sit at a slight crossroads on the project. Are we to accept articles that are not in a ready state despite a subject that would otherwise be notable? Hard to say. If one were arguing at a different avenue for deletion (the reverse of the AfC project), it is never okay to say that because it isn't "ready" it needs to be deleted. But in the context of AfC, if the sourcing isn't readily present in the article, it makes the job of the reviewer more difficult to assess if the subject warrants an article. Some reviewers will go to greater lengths than others to rescue promising drafts, but I would note that the pre-filled declination reasoning specifically says "This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article" (emphasis mine). In addition, I will admit that I suggested something that we reviewers often warn against when asked about: I have suggested you compare your draft article to another. Reviewers will often say WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS immedietly in response to an editor saying "I wrote my draft based on this article" but I myself was the one to point you to Stephen King bibliography. I did that because I think there is value in looking there for some guidance and I'd be happy to explain further, as it relates both to Notability and indices and lists. Working against us would be the policy laid out at WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which is why we have the associated project Wikidata as Timtrent has explained to support the work here and collect the information.

One long-winded musing aside, I did do a quick search when I did the move and cleanup of the draft article. I mentioned in the comment, I—to my surprise—think there may be enough sourcing to have an article on the subject, but the controlling policy is WP:NLIST.

What you'll need to find to demonstrate notability of stand alone lists is sources (at the expense of repeating Timtrent) that discuss or analyze the work as a whole or group, and preferably separate from the discussion of Woodcock himself. It may benefit you to search according to topic or theme as well, as some minor assistance in search keyword formatting.

So to answer your question, is it up to you to defend the raison d'etre of the draft article? No—the policy has already been decided about what other editors feel is appropriate to have on the encyclopedia and what isn't. The argument you rather need to make is that, within those confines, this draft article is appropriate. That is done by finding the sources. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your extremely detailed response. I have printed it off and when I've sufficiently collected my thoughts, I shall do my best to honour it. As I told Timtrent, I don't reject the possibility that I am wrong. And I don't harbour an ambition to be a trailblazer. Thank you again; I appreciate it. John Desmond (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have read carefully your reply and hope that this reply will do it justice. The possibility of a submission occurred to me when I first opened the article on Woodcock in the hope of supplementing it with information about his early life in England which is mostly available from 'Letter to the Past', his autobiography, a copy of which I fortunately own. When I opened the article, I was shocked to encounter his extremely large and wide-ranging oeuvre of books, which in my opinion and as I relayed to Timtrent overloads it.

I was aware of, and very impressed by Woodcock's travels in Wales (not least in Wales!, my home country), and to Scotland and France. And I am familiar with his literary achievements, starting the magazine Now etc.. However, there isn't a hint in his autobiography that he had a book in him, let alone that he would write so many of them and on so many wide-ranging subjects, for example the histories - and the biographies(!).

I don't know if anyone in the outside world has taken notice of this topic, although perhaps someone in Canada has done so, which is a thought. And, in contrast to Stephen King, I doubt that Woodcock's books have sold copies in their milions. Yet I feel that his oeuvre, not confined to his books, is notable, which I could try to justify in an introduction. But, at the same time, I acknowledge that my subjectivity could be an issue. If this is not the case, I should be extremely happy to delete the online access dates to the books that I included in my submission and I am very grateful to you for pointing out their inappropriateness to me. Thank you. John Desmond (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobby Cohn You may not see this ^^^^^ without a ping 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@John Desmond so breaking the idea then into multiple problems:

1. Discussing the actual life and events of Woodcock would belong in the biography article at George Woodcock. By all means, if you feel there are things not said in that article, please be bold and add them with referencing! Small changes like that are how we continually improve the project in big ways over time.
2. As it relates to formatting: 've removed the inline external links to archived editions of the books in lieu of an § External links section to the collection of works on the Internet Archive (can be seen with this edit). This has the added benefit of allowing for inter-Wiki links (like the King bibliography), as can be seen here, here, and here.
3. As it relates to writing an article on this list: I've gone ahead and added some content with sources that focus on Woodcock's work to the article, you can inspect them in this change. I've tried to pull from sources that discuss the effects of or analyze his work separate from Woodcock himself. This is difficult because any source will naturally want to discuss both, so you need to be mindful to only focus on the bibliography itself. One of these sources is a thesis, and there is discussion on whether some topics are primary research or if these count towards notability at all, see WP:THESIS. But nevertheless it is a start and lays the groundwork for how this article could eventually be accepted.

Whichever direction you pursue, I'm glad to see another person become an enthusiastic editor to the project. By all means, please ask if you have any further questions. Thank you for your contributions and happy editing! Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your very kind comments. Responding to the problems that you have identified:

1. I would be able to supplement the scant information in the article about Woodcock's early life in England, part of which I have previously inserted in War Commentary. If I can insert enough information, it might justify making that period in his life the subject of a section.

2. This 'problem' (which I prefer to call 'achievement'!) accounts for my delay in responding. I have a longstanding research interest in readability. Consequently, your edit of the formatting of my submission, which was a hugely pleasant shock to me, prompted me to revisit my conclusions and revise them. I had never previously learnt just how much the readability of an article can be improved by judicious formatting, and I very much hope to revisit, reflect upon and internalize my development of this lesson.

3. I am greatly impressed by and gratefuly for your judicious insertion of sources that focus on Woodcock's work. I am unfamilar with the part of them about his life in Canada. However, I am also unfamiliar with the description that his works were 'shaped by his formative years in the UK's Fitzrovia literary scene'. For example, Woodcock didn't allude to the scene in his autobiography. And David Goodway didn't allude to the scene in his voluminous Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow. Woocock revealed on page 244 of his autobiography that he had a 'close friendship' with the very talented and greatly respected Italian anarchist Marie Louise Berneri, to which was added a close working relationship with her. But I don't have any evidence in support of a claim that she shaped him. Of course, if I locate any information which supports the claim, as a courtesy I shall tell you.

The submision now looks much improved and much the better for it. John Desmond (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June Backlog Drive is almost over!

Our pending drafts!

Hi! Thanks for participating in the Articles for Creation June Backlog Drive! We've done amazing work so far, dropping the backlog by more than 2000 drafts already. We have around 200 drafts outstanding, and we need your help to get that down to zero in 5 days. We can do this, but we need all hands on deck to make this happen. A list of the pending drafts can be found at WP:AFCSORT, where you can select submissions in your area of interest. Thank you so much for your work so far, and happy reviewing! – DreamRimmer ■ 01:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of fashion film festivals

Hello! I removed unnecessary links and added links to other articles so that it would not be an orphan. Could you check and, if possible, remove the remark. Thank you for your work!!! Kotikboh (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kotikboh We are self policing. If you have done it then please remove the relevant tag(s) 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work!!! Kotikboh (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on your review

Regarding this draft in the afs process: Draft:Awork GmbH

Hello Timtrent,

Thank you for taking the time to review my draft submission for awork GmbH. I understand and respect the high standards Wikipedia maintains regarding neutrality, notability, and independent sourcing.

However, I was discouraged by the tone of your feedback. While I recognise the importance of following all Wikipedia policies, I am not a paid editor in the conventional sense. I’m an employee of the subject company, aiming to represent it fairly and in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines. My goal is to contribute constructively, just as I see with articles for competitors in the same sector.

I appreciate constructive criticism and have already made two rounds of improvements based on feedback from other editors. But I felt some of your comments – especially „then you will discover how unwise this step was“ and „then you have another think coming“ – were not in line with Wikipedia’s civility policy or the expectation to assume good faith. That phrasing felt unnecessarily threatening, rather than collaborative, and it was disheartening to read as someone trying to work within Wikipedia’s processes. Just to be clear, I don’t expect you or anyone else to help me get paid. As I stated on my user page, I’m not a paid, external editor, just an employee of awork, and my salary or pay is fully unaffected by the outcome of this article.

I’m committed to continuing to improve the draft so it meets all Wikipedia requirements. While I don’t expect you to help me personally, I’d appreciate it if any further feedback could focus on content and policy, and be delivered in a more welcoming and collaborative way. Please know I’ll keep working on the article based on the reasons you gave for the declination.

Thank you for your time and for all the work you do as a volunteer editor.

Best regards,

Max

~~~~ Max Raschke (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Max Raschke Paid editors are paid editors. I may change the wording. You are still paid to get it right. You do this work as part of your employment. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	I have to be honest that I was overwhelmed when I saw the AfC backlog just now! Your work at articles for creation is incredible. Thank you so much for being part of the June Backlog Drive eliminators. I miss reviewing drafts and I hope I am able to get back more actively again. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 01 July 2025 for assistance on Censorship of pro-Palestinian expression in the cultural sector of Germany

Hello, I'm new to creating pages on Wikipedia so apologies if I'm not following procedure, I'm trying to learn.

I made this page, inspired by the experiences of artists I know working in Germany. I have found sources from across the web and I believe that it is well-sourced.

I would be grateful if you could offer any advice at this point - I saw the Palestinian flag in your bio so I hope that I'm not being presumptive by asking.

While I do have personal views on this topic, I believe that this article deserves to exist in the same way that the McCarthyism article exists on Wikipedia. It is very much a matter of current affairs but it is a situation which has its roots in several inflating practises. I believe that there is enough evidence for this topic and trend to take it out of any political side or other and plainly - Encyclopaedia-like – explore the topic.

Here is the draft, thank you so much for reading this

Draft:Censorship of pro-Palestinian expression in the cultural sector of Germany#International responses Sellotapemaskingtape (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sellotapemaskingtape I believe an article on this topic should be here. However, I an consciously biased in favour of Palestine and against Israel but am not antisemitic, and do not feel able to offer impartial advice because of that 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - do you have any tips on how to attract the help I need, without it being any kind of campaign that's against Wikipedia rules? Sellotapemaskingtape (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sellotapemaskingtape Make 100% certain that every fact you assert is backed by an exemplary reference, and be crystal clear about the tone. Only record what is said about the topic in reliable independent secondary sources. Do not seek to draw conclusions (WP:OR) or use multiple references to create an opinion, even an unsaid one (WP:SYNTH). Do your very best to use one excellent reference per fact, not multiple references.

I very much doubt that examples of censorship will be helpful (a paradox, and creation of SYNTH), but what will be helpful is what is written about censorship. Since there is putative censorship that will be difficult to find.

This is a topic where extreme care is required, especially if one has one's own opinion about the matter. That opinion, pro or con, must not be allowed even to creep into the draft.

I hope that helps, but I am not sure that it does. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sellotapemaskingtape I am sure my talk page watchers will wish to chip in here. Their advice may run counter to mine, may vary it, or may agree with it, or all of the foregoing.

Weigh each piece of advice and use it or discard it with a good heart once you understand all of it. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Long way home clarification needed

I just realized that I was missing the IMDB reference. Updated. Also added the official trailer on YouTube.

I'm not sure what you mean by reliable sources/information.

Some sources are niche publications that provide background on TV shows. I thought multiple sources for the same information would attest to reliability. I've tried to make this clearer.

Others are mainstream. For example, the episode guide is sourced to AppleTV. Have added the finale.

I have added 9to5 Mac, which I think of as reliable but I don't know your criteria.

I have watched the series. Despite the new handle due to technical issues with the old one, this is not my first article or edit.

There may be some new sources after the finale. Doubtful, but possible.

Thanks for any clarification you can provide. (I also found a typo.)

Draft:Long Way Home (2025)

Kathyegill (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kathyegill Please read WP:YOUTUBE to determine whether this usage as a reference is ok. IMDB, by contrast is never ok as a reference. The direct Apple reference is simply a TV listing. While it proves it to be a fact it does not assist with notability, nor can it be said to be independent.

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.

9to5Mac is acceptable. You need to find a couple of others. The show isn't really niche. I've watched some or the forerunners mainstream terrestrial TV. You might also ask at WP:AFCHD. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kathyegill (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked to Apple TV's PR page which provides the episode guide (instead of AppleTV program). I've also added The Guardian and Car and Driver. Enough?

I deleted YouTube trailer and IMDB.