User talk:Timtrent

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 10:08 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 the page

Advertisement Close

Advertisement Close 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.

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.

declined article

my Draft:Stripy was declined by you, yesterday for lacking reliable resources and being passively mentioned. i disagree with this assessment as all the articles are about the stripy and other animated shorts. they are usually not allocated a whole article and are instead discussed in clusters.

I also disagree with the sources being unreliable, cartoon brew is reliable secondary source. it is mentioned in the wikiproject for animation as a reliable source. i have intentionally avoided using sources that Wikipedia editors and admins deem unreliable and have stuck to strictly reliable primary and secondary sources. every fact is supplemented with a citation from an article about the animated short, i think all the animated shorts that have qualified for an Oscar or golden globe are significant enough to be part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation as this is preserving knowledge and culture. in fact i originally wrote an article about the studio that made it, that article was rightfully declined because the studio is obscure and doesn't have primary sources about it. but Stripy does. In the Shadow of the Cypress doesn't meet many of the sourcing standards set by Wikipedia but editors allow it because preserving and sharing knowledge about animation matters. ~~NotoriousH~~ NotoriousH (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@NotoriousH We disagree. You have resubmitted it. Another reviewer will review it. I hope you have made some useful changes before resubmitting. 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. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

You haven't addressed any of my counter points, and i assume you didn't read the sources and just looked at the titles, because the sources are secondary sources discussing the movie being screened at the movie festivals, giving a synopsis, and a review. there is no useful changes to be made, and i have provided evidence that articles using unapproved sources staying up. because they provide factual information about a remarkable film. I have used approved sources by Wikipedia. so by the measure of source quality, this draft is better than articles up on Wikipedia that haven't been subject to your deletion processes. disagreeing with these points requires actual reasonable, constructive counter arguments not "we disagree". it is factually, objectively, demonstrably untrue that the sources mention stripy in passing, the sources are about journalists going to the cinema to watch stripy and then write a review for it. the use of primary sources is strictly limited to Stripy's synopsis and it being screened at the Annecy festival because they're reliable third parties who screened the movie they mention in their presskit. the articles about stripy take the synopsis from the press skit and supplement their own review. objectively, you have lied about the draft and it's sources. that's not a subjective disagreement, that's objectively what you did. your role as reviewer is to review the articles thoroughly. that is why you should not lie about them specifically to the person who write the article. NotoriousH (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@NotoriousH All are passing, not passive, passing, mentions except one which does not mention it at all. One, the Chicago Tribune, I am prevented from seeing by GDPR. It fails WP:NFILM as presented. I suggest you improve it.

Yes I have read all the references. I have read them again. No amount of argument will convince any reviewer, only work. Wikipedia has strict inclusion criteria. This has not been shown to pass it. Show it, please. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

once again you're not being reasonable, dear Tim.

it's not a passing mention if the critic went to the festival to watch the movie and write a review for it. that's not a passing mention that's as direct as it gets.

I'm not arguing with you, i was trying to have a constructive conversation, but you just ignore any reasonable point by me and just assert that Tims opinion is above reason. I'm open to changing my mind or changing the article when provided with reasons as to why, not a baseless claim.

Again this is not a FEATURE LENGTH LIVE ACTION FILM, It's an ANIMATED SHORT FILM, it's following the standards of the animation Wikiproject, and using resources associated with it Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Resources . despite this stripy meets the notability criteria still. stripy is commercially available on mubi and it's archived in a national archive in it's country of origin, it is the earliest known animation from Iran to be screened at the animation show of shows and the earliest known animated short to qualify for the academy awards. it's been screened 5 years after it's release https://en.kanoonnews.ir/news/314999/The-Largest-Iran-Animation-Festival-Commencing-at-Kanoon-May . but I didn't use this resource because it is not approved by Wikipedia. I have done my due diligence as an editor in my research and citation.

As a reviewer you should hold yourself to higher standards, at least bother to link the correct wiki guide. Wikipedia deserves better. NotoriousH (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@NotoriousH I have asked another reviewer who I know to be very experienced, to take a look at your draft, my review, and at this conversation. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

As requested by Timtrent, I've had a look at this case, to provide a second opinion (FWIW).

I'll start by noting that the decline was on the basis of "not adequately supported by reliable sources". However, the comments accompanying the decline seem (to me, at least) to expand this into the question of notability, as well. I will therefore assess the sources for both verifiability and notability.

Source analysis, as at the time of the last review (decline):

1. Primary source, a festival talking about its curated programme, in which it has an obvious vested interest

2. Single passing mention

3. Can't quite figure out this 'Animation Show of Shows' (ASoS), but it's probably good enough to support the content against which it is cited, namely the plot

4. Review, not of Stripy (which, crucially, gets a single passing mention only) but of that year's ASoS set

5. Publication itself is solid, but provides only brief plot teaser plus quoted comment by someone

6. Can't access, but seems similar to #4, ie. a review of ASoS

7. Doesn't seem to mention Stripy (not at this URL, at least)

I'd say #5 is probably the strongest of these, but whether it adds up to significant coverage (and otherwise meets the WP:GNG standard) is debatable. Let's say it does, for the sake of the argument, although IMO it is borderline. Sources 1, 2 and 7 are more or less useless in terms of establishing notability, although of these, at least #2 can probably be used to verify information, namely the statement against it is cited (being the "among the few shorts from Iran" point).

We're then left with #3, ASoS, and two sources (4, 6) reviewing it, not Stripy per se. I would treat ASoS itself like source #1, a curator presenting its curated collection, with an interest in portraying it in favourable light. Does that interest make the source unreliable? Not necessarily. Does it make it independent enough to be neutral and unbiased? Almost certainly not. Are the two sources (4, 6) reviewing ASoS reliable and independent? Probably. Do they provide significant coverage of Stripy? One (#4) certainly doesn't; I can't answer that for the other (#6).

In summary, I'd say the sources are a mixed bag. They may be enough to verify the draft contents, if that were all we're concerned with. But if we consider notability as well, then in my opinion the sources are not enough to satisfy the general notability guideline WP:GNG. This is even if we accept #5 fully (debatable), and assume that #6 provides significant coverage of Stripy (which I don't know).

Beside GNG, the other option is to show notability via the subject-specific guideline for films, WP:NFILM. Where a film falls short of GNG, WP:NFO (part of NFILM) lists five indicators of likely notability, as well as three additional inclusionary criteria (WP:NFIC). I don't see anything in this draft or its sources which would satisfy any of these. (On which point, note that I am not saying the film doesn't satisfy them, only that the evidence provided by this draft does not show this to be the case.)

In conclusion, I find that it was right to decline this draft, because the film has not been shown to be notable, or at least not to the extent that I would estimate its chances of surviving a hypothetical AfD discussion at 50:50 or better (that is, assuming discussants limit themselves to policy-based arguments, which is not always the case, of course). Personally, I would probably have declined it explicitly on notability grounds, rather than for insufficient reliable sources, but that is a difference of nuance, given that Timtrent's decline (for the latter reason) was supplemented by comments taking in also notability grounds, which then adds up to more or less the same thing.

Hope this helps. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

PS: On this basis, I have now declined the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@NotoriousH I would like to thank DoubleGrazing for their detailed review.

You will see that I have held myself to a higher standard. What you will not know is that asking for a second opinion of a review is a common practice

I do not appreciate your unpleasant accusation that I have lied to you. I note that you have received a formal warning because of this. If you apologise decently for it and show the editor who warned you that apology then you can request of them that the warning be annulled. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

thank you for the response, this is the sort of response i expected to see on Wikipedia, concise reasonable points. I do disagree. as WP:NFILM notes "The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema".

This film has been screened at various international film festivals, being from Iran a country not known for it's animation production this alone makes it worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, it is a significant development for Iranian animation and cinema that a short film from Iran to be screened at film festivals in Brazil, Hungary, united states of America and France.

I do however concede that i should've have included more sources and citations alluding to this fact. for example animation show of shows is a theatrical release of a set of animated shorts, therefor it is a significant development that an Iraninan short film screened in US theaters as a commercial product making it qualify for the academy awards. of course you or Tim would not have known this as this is my responsibility to have wiki linked to animation show of shows. however the review of animation show of shows is a review of stripy, they are the same thing, just because it was screened alongside other animations doesn't mean that the reviews are passing or not worth mentioning, it's a 4 minute animated short, obviously it's reviews will also be short. but being short doesn't null that it is, in fact, a review of a short film. nor will it reduce it's notability. i have avoided using Iranian sources as they have been consistently marked as unreliable throughout Wikipedia, however i will include them in the next iteration as they are the best source.

further more it has been screened again 5 years after it's initial release in the 2022 Tehran animated film festival, i however did not mention that in the draft.

I also apologise for my mislinking of sources, indie wire deleted the article and i forgot to include the archive link. i will promptly fix that.

I also apologise to Tim for saying that he has lied to me about what i wrote, Tim is ignorant of what animation show of shows or the state of animation in west Asia and Iran is and i have obviously failed to enlighten him. I should not have proclaimed that he has lied to me. however, if i was a senior reviewer at Wikipedia i would try to educate myself about the subject of the article im reviewing and possibly give specific concise pointers on how to improve the article. a link to a wiki guide that i have already read and based my article around does not help me improve my draft. NotoriousH (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

NotoriousH I appreciate your apology. Thank you. That is sufficient for you to ask @DoubleGrazing if they feel able to remove the warning.

I think you misunderstand the role of a reviewer. It is not what you would like it to be, it is what Wikipedia wishes it to be. If we all had to be specialists in every area nothing would happen. Reviewing is a matter of examining references, sometimes a subset thereof, seeing that they verify the facts associated with them, and judging a draft against set criteria.

Those criteria are not region specific, they are global in this English Language Wikipedia. That sometimes causes aggravation in Africa and India, where the media are not always as reputable as ine might hope.

You have hit a set of criteria which determine whether Film articles are accepted.

We are charged to accept any draft which we feel has a greater than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion decision. As we gain experience we get better at that.

If we make an error and accept a draft for "Foo" when Foo is not notable, Foo will likely be sent to WP:AFD where some members of the community will offer policy based opinions on retention or deletion. A admin (usually) will close the discussion and interpret but not add to the consensus. And here's the awkward part. If consensus is for Foo to be deleted it becomes hugely more difficult to draft another article on Foo. It has to be substantially different in terms of notability for the next incarnation Foo to remain.

If we make an error and push it back for further work when that is not necessary then the article does not suffer the ignominy of deletion at AfD, but the creating editor can get a bit cross. But that is the worst that happens, and Foo is generally accepted by the next reviewer 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@NotoriousH reping, properly this time! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd like the warning to remain, it makes for good history. I think the current draft meets the criteria, and from what i gathered you and double are not in the know about animation or animation show of shows, you will not be able to verify facts and citations if you do not have at least a surface level knowledge of the subject. it is notable that an Iranian film got a theatrical release in United states of America. going on a festival tour and being the first Iranian short film to be present at these festivals make it a notable film. it's made by a major animation studio in Iran and has been screened in 2022 more than 7 years after its initial release. short of winnning the academy award this is as notable a 4 minute musical short film can get. and the only reason it ended up with you folk is because wikiproject animation is incredibly dormant, after 3 months i decided to tag it as film too. there's a debate on splitting Computer animation that's been going on for 6 years, because nobody is present to actually reason.

I appreciate your detailed and well reasoned response. NotoriousH (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@NotoriousH Give me suitable references that demonstrate it passes, even by a slim margin, any of NFILM and I will accept it like a shot. It is honestly that easy for me to do. The problem is that you haven't yet been able to find them.

I appreciate what you say abut "knowing" it to be notable, and I regret that is not enough. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@NotoriousH SHow me, too, references that explain how it is notable for the reasons you state and I will give it a shot under WP:GNG which is broader and harder to pass.

But, there is a firm rule. No suitable references = no article. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I have updated the draft to include more sources about its festival screenings and more context about animation show of shows.

i've also included another review from a famous Hungrian animator.

I've also included the source for it being screened 7 years after it's release that also confirms that the studio that made it is a major studio in Iran. NotoriousH (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@NotoriousH Accepted I think it is a borderline acceptance, but I beieve it will survive an immediate deletion process. Should one happen please be careful only to make policy based arguments. A useful ooe is that it is 'the first of its kind for its nation,ths passing WP:GNG'. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

understood, thank you for taking the time and giving valuable feedback. I will look at further sources to improve it. i will be careful to make policy arguments as i you and double have helped me fortify my draft. I appreciate your due diligence and loyalty to principals of Wikipedia. I will try to improve Wikipedia's animation side, i hope you don't mind if i visit and ask for help sometimes. NotoriousH (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a storage of information, if you think it is a notable movie then you should email news organizations telling them to make a review or article about it. Then, you can make an article when it has enough reliable, secondary sources. However, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought either, so you can not do the same here. Easternsahara (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@Easternsahara I doubt @NotoriousH will see this unless pinged, so I have done that for us both. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Being new to Wikipedia, this essay has helped a lot, thank you. TheNoeticOne (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@TheNoeticOne I am pleased. Thank you 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Federico_De_Caroli

I really can't understand the continued refusal of a complete and reliable biographical profile. Your ostracism is a symptom of a certain ignorance on the subject, as well as an unjustified hostility towards foreign contributors (who perhaps don't write perfect English). Regarding Federico De Caroli, this page alone would be enough to affirm his international relevance, given that he works for the largest music producer and distributor in Hollywood: https://www.apmmusic.com/composers This is the second time that my article has been rejected on the pretext that the sources are unreliable and that the musician is not significant. The musician is even present in encyclopedias (the real ones). He is considered one of the greatest living Italian composers as well as a historical exponent of world electronic music. Get informed. Ossario (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Ossario Please acquire a modicum of politeness. I will engage with with you after you work out that " Get informed." was not likely to be an appealing use of the imperative. I received it in the same manner that I would have received being told to 'fuck off'. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I apologize for the unkind tone, but I'm exasperated and frustrated to see my work (done carefully and with full knowledge of the facts) being contested on very flimsy grounds; given that Wikipedia accepts articles about characters with little substance and with very minimal sources. It may be that my foreign English does not translate well, but it's absurd that a composer of the importance and fame of De Caroli is treated in this way. I say that it is a symptom of "ignorance" because personally ignoring the existence of an artist does not imply that the artist is of little relevance. De Caroli is in fact a relevant artist. Today the most important Italian music magazine dedicated 3 entire pages to him for the fortieth anniversary of his recording activity. Ossario (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

However, I cannot understand why an artist who - for example - on wikipedia.it has an immense and very complete biographical profile, cannot also have a few lines on wikipedia.org Ossario (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Ossario I suggest you ask at the AFC Helpdesk (linked in the decline) whether I acted correctly. When you ask your question there do say that you have contacted me and I have advised you to ask there. If oyu need to refer to this conversion it is at User talk:Timtrent#https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Federico_De_Caroli. (f I have acted incorrectly then I will be happy to have others as well as you tell me so.

The Italian language Wikipedia has less strict acceptance criteria, and each language version is independent. I often wonder why that is so, but it is.

You did not use an unkind tone. You ordered me about. We are constrained, even, perhaps especially, when exasperated to be civil to each other. Please read WP:CIVILITY. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that different language editions of Wikipedia have different criteria for formulation and acceptance. What I am arguing is that an artist of such scope and greatness, whose affirmation is indisputably attested by his works and the diffusion of his name worldwide, is being questioned. And I wonder why reliable international sources are not enough. It's really frustrating. Ossario (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

About pottery

Hi Tim, my draft Classification of pottery got declined and the reason given is that the article looks like an "essay" Which honestly is mind-blowing Because it is a list, so for him to say it is an essay is quite intriguing, if you read the article you will see that it is clearly a list. I believe he didn’t even took the time to read and assess the article properly. Anyways I hope you can give me your opinion. Cheers! Codonified (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Codonified It is an unusually detailed list, but I agree. @SafariScribe: you must have had something in mind here. Please would you enlighten the creating editor? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Request to Restore Draft to User Space

Dear Timtrent,

I understand and respect the deletion of Draft:Surya Devan under CSD G11. I acknowledge a conflict of interest and won’t attempt to resubmit the article prematurely.

However, I’d like to continue working on the content offline. Would you be willing to restore the deleted draft to my user subpage at User:SuryaDevanE/SuryaDevan?

I assure you this is solely for sandbox editing and learning, not for immediate resubmission. Thank you for your time and consideration.

— SuryaDevanE (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC) SuryaDevanE (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@SuryaDevanE You may be abe to persuade someone else to. I am not minded to do so, I'm afraid. I abhor self promotion. I note that your occupation is as some sort of media strategist. Self promotion on Wikipedia is very poor strategy. LinkedIn or Twitter or BlueSky is a far better set of vehicles for self promotion 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)