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 5:56 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 51

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be auto-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.

Insufficient citations

Hi Tim, I came across an article called CancerVision Goggles, here the first reference is from the maker of the goggles themselves and the second one seems to be an interview of him. That's it, only 2 citations. So not exactly sufficient or secondary reliable reference.

That's all there is to say.

Take care

Regards

Codonified

Codonified (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Codonified You have enough experience now to decide:

• improve by finding references
• Speedy delete - perhaps as an advert?
• AFD

I think you need to take one of these steps. Enabling TWINKLE in your preferences and gadgets will make the whole process simple 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:28, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi tim, sorry for the late response, I saw that the article now contains the tag that states it has "that sufficient sources exist to establish the subject's notability."

Now heres what i found from searching around,

https://utswmed.org/medblog/medical-vision-goggles-cancer/

-This article is written by the maker(Samuel Achilefu) of the product himself, thus this is a primary source.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-75646-0

-This report is also written by the maker samuel Achilefu

https://www.nibib.nih.gov/news-events/newsroom/seeing-eye-eye-building-cost-effective-tool-visualize-cancer

-This one seems like a reliable source, although I'm not sure whether this article constitutes a primary of secondary reference.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-26954138

-This BBC report is reliable

https://siteman.wustl.edu/27437-2/

-This one is an interview of him, samuel himself gives the answers, so its primary.

https://www.bu.edu/photonics/files/2019/11/Achilefu-Abstract-v2.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiW_an01O2PAxVCxzgGHcftOx4QFnoECEgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2JzuufNytvLU6jXL5jx9bX

-This is written by samuel himself, so its primary

https://theweek.com/health-science/58114/high-tech-goggles-let-doctors-see-cancer-cells

-This one is similar to the BBC, it seems reliable

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372325569_Low-cost_augmented_reality_goggles_enable_precision_fluorescence-guided_cancer_surgery

-This is also written by samuel achilefu, so its a primary source

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/interestingengineering_cancersurgery-fluorescentgoggles-realtimeimaging-activity-7357198500901568512-5F-0

-Wikipedia does not allow Linkedin to be used as a source because its social media

What do you think?

Thats all for now Codonified (talk) 00:58, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Codonified Without going through the sources in detail, I think you should work out which add value, and then add that value. Researchgate is a pay to place your paper source, so is to be ignored, and you shoudl not use primary sources. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:43, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have given the sources that are secondary and reliable, also I have removed the primary sources.

If it needs more improvements,

Do tell,

Its nice to talk to you. Codonified (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It will be a while because I’m travelling 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:46, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reject

Hey, I don't think I agree with this rejection (or the subsequent G11 for that matter). Even if it is self-promotion (which isn't necessarily the case as the number of times I've seen "username as topic of first article" is pretty dang high, though it is definitely likely here), it states they have been on ABC Music which is a very significant step towards meeting WP:MUSICBIO#C5. (Granted, it seems like this is just one album, but it's enough of a statement that really makes me feel like a reject is overkill.) In my opinion I think a 'v' decline is the most that was needed, but I'm of course happy to hear your perspective. Perryprog (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Perryprog Collegial disagreement is one of the things that marks good Wikipedians out. Thank you for disagreeing politely.

The draft is blatant self promotion, and I have both rejected it this and requested speedy deletion as an advert. This does not prevent a decent article form being created. This draft is not that article. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:49, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I don't really agree it meets G11—I don't think it needs to be fundamentally rewritten (though it is certainly close) and given that there's a chance that the subject is notable, G11 does note that if it can plausibly be rewritten in a NPOV manner then that's... er, "preferable" to deletion. (Okay, that's not terribly clear.) I will say the thing that surprised me more was the not-notable reject, rather than a contrary-to-purpose-of-wikipedia reject. (I just realized the letter for that is 'e'? I'm not sure why.) To me those are two very different things, with not-notable being a much harder threshold to reach.

I guess that's all sort of besides the point though because I do agree that in general G11 means you should reject (though I often don't bother, to reduce the talk page spam of the editor, but I think that's just a preference thing), so the disagreement then is on G11. It's definitely a weird criterion and I do have some mixed feelings about it (not as much as about U5), but the way I try to think about it is... "is there some alternative universe where someone technically could reform this into an article (ignoring notability) and that would still be easier than starting from scratch." Does that help explain where I'm coming from? Perryprog (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Perryprog It does, yes. You have also hit upon one of the reasons I choose never to be an admin. I believe every deletion process needs two people, the proposer and the assessor. This provides a safety pause in case of erroneous proposal.

I accept your argument about the notability rationale. I interpreted that too heavily, considering that self promotion with no verification at all combined with blatant advertising encompassed an inherent lack of notability. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:48, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The two-people bit is something that I've actually wondered about a fair bit myself, and I've wondered how I would approach that if I had the delete button. I've definitely in the past leaned towards thinking that it's perfectly valid for an admin to CSD a page instead of deleting it outright in order to retain that two-step verification. (Barring the most blatant violations, obviously!) On the other hand, though, it could be argued that CSDs should only be met if it's so unambiguous that an admin can clearly delete the page independently, which is the position I've leaned more towards recently. Perryprog (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Perryprog My innate sense of morality and fairness insists on a dual key approach to deletion. I know I am highly capable of making mistakes. Deleting an article 'by myself' feels wholly inappropriate.

I've been around here for long enough for people to assume I'm far more authoritative than I am or deserve. Your opinion, that of the newest editor, and that of a steward are all equal to mine, for we are all. unimportant, and fallible. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough for the former point! The latter is a fun bit of discussion though—I myself am a sucker for the inverse-hierarchy model (which probably has a page describing it somewhere—there's WP:RF, but I think I stole this general idea from somewhere else?) where it's the opposite of what someone might commonly describe it as—the editors' job is to serve the readers, the admins' to serve the editors (and by extension the readers), and so on. Our goal is to build an encyclopedia so naturally the reader is ultimately the most important voice in how we decide to go about things. Admins are there to then take care of actions that the editors entrust to them for the purpose of ensuring the readers' experience is continually improved.

Where this model in my opinion gets really interesting is when it's applied to things like editor disputes, since I think it's not obvious how this is possibly compatible with things like site banning disruptive but content-productive editors. My take is that it's both because 1) admins are there to serve both the editors and readers and 2) the long-term impact of a hostile editing environment is far, far, far more impactful than the impact that actual content writing has.

In other words—I do totally agree that the "ranking" of opinions is largely meaningless. We of course have people who collate those opinions in the case of discussion closures, where it's of significant importance to give equal weight to policy-based arguments, regardless of editor status, and that's because that closer's job is to serve the people who participated in that discussion by ensuring everyone's opinion is weighed (through the lens of existing policy, of course). Perryprog (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Perryprog I am glad we met, and I hope our paths cross more. We all strive for policy based arguments. Often, we succeed. When we fail we can crash and burn spectacularly if we care more than 'just enough'.

I care about being right, but not so much as to insist that my views prevail in every discussion; I choose not to use words like debate or argument, each of which necessarily have a winner and a loser or losers.

I genuinely do not mind being proven to be incorrect, because I learn from that. I learned from you earlier, for which I am grateful. I have a good sized ego, but I choose to set that aside here, where collegiality and consensus matter above all.

I agree with RF, though had never seen it stated before.

I agree with delegating such power as I have to admins, bureaucrats, and stewards, and to other functionary roles that decent, ordinary people choose to inhabit. I find it pleasantly amazing that folk wish to perform those roles, but that falls apart because I choose to review drafts for inclusion.

Wikipedia is a wonderful piece of experimental psychology which has a real role in the world, at least at present. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:02, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, very kind of you to say! And I 1,000% agree on both not caring about "winning" on Wikipedia as well as your last paragraph—Wikipedia feels like a place that shouldn't work, yet it somehow does, and it does so while making a real impact on the world. It's a very gratifying thing to be a part of. Perryprog (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bike Boy Scandal (draft)

Advice provided:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject. Vinluna (talk) 06:58, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite complete in formal, neutral tone. If there's any specific area needs attention please advise. I removed all citations for now—will add new citations when rewrite approved. What is next step? Vinluna (talk) 07:00, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinluna resubmission, which I imagine you will have done already 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]