User talk:Timtrent: Difference between revisions

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 8:25 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 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.

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.

A-Navigation

Hi, i am sorry, but i don't understand your comment What do you mean? shall we correct something?Виктория Шмыговская (talk) 06:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Виктория Шмыговская I suggest you ask the OTRS team what has happened. These things do not normally take this long Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

References

@Fiddle^Timtrent Thank you! But may i ask, what shall i correct in the text? The auther of the article is represented by only one link in referenses and others are independed resourses, including massmedia and organizations. Actually, there is no advertisement in the article, it is totally neutral. May i ask you to outline sentenses or words, which seems as an adverticeing for you, or something else what i should correct. Thanks! Виктория Шмыговская (talk) 07:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Виктория Шмыговская Why did you make such a mess on my talk page. All you had to do, all, was to send me a message. Instead you brought a whole slew of material back here from the archive page, overwrote other material and seem to think that is all right. It is not. You caused me work to reconstruct it. This is a rhetorical question.

You have not linked to the article you speak of. I am not going to look for it. It seems I have reviewed it. I almost never review more than once. Please ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, the link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:A-Navigation. may i ask you to check what is wrong with the article, as i totaly don't understand, why it is readed as advertising. Виктория Шмыговская (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Виктория Шмыговская I'm not sure that it is viewed as advertising. I think you need to discuss this with the reviewer who declined it, Luxtaythe2nd, probably on their talk page Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 12:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a survey about medical topics on Wikipedia

Dear fellow editor,

I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.

All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.

Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.

I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).

The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.

Piotr Konieczny
Associate Professor
Hanyang University
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Request on 16:20:48, 16 December 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Fggnna

• Fggnna (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Tetsuro Shimizu 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. I prepared a new article entitled: Tetsuro Shimizu 2 (there is a homonym which is a curler). Shimizu is a contemporary Japanese artist, living in Milan (Italy). He teaches as professor at the Brera Academy. His paintings occur and are displayed in permanent collections (listed in the article). Because Shimizu is an academic and an artist with notable arts, it was worth preparing a wikipedia article about him. These two characteristics (academic, notable artist) are considered being valid for a wiki-bibliography. I would be very grateful if you or somebody else can help my wiki article to be improved and published. I have not enough experience to do it properly. Thank you very much for any hint and help. Best personal regards, Fggnna (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Fggnna (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Fggnna I'm afraid this is not a topic thaty is in a genre I normally create articles in, so I am unable to help you beyond the advice on references. Let me remind you:

For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. 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 cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Talking Wars

Hope you are well. A brief excursion into Wars of The Three Kingdoms has left me wondering if I need counselling. The combo of admin hostility following my outing as the erstwhile and notorious Sirjohnperrot is really out of order. I fled the scene some time ago but it doesn't seem to have stopped the flow of vitriol. Any advice would be welcome if you have the time. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Horatius At The Bridge I am somewhat lost. Would you mind giving me a potted background? I will do whatever I am able, of course. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Horatius At The Bridge What I think has happened is that you changed your user name and have been linked to the old one. I imagine this was under WP:FRESHSTART? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Horatius At The Bridge If my surmise is correct, and without looking at the facts, I suspect one or more folk have considered that you have not played by the rules (I make no comment on that. I choose not to take sides). That has possibly triggered the outing as SJP. And the crowd is now baying for blood. Or some of the crowd are.

If I am interpreting this correctly my advice is to make a substantial apology even of you feel you have genuine reasons to be the victim in this. And to mean the apology, again even if you feel in the right.

A period of intense calm, making 100% useful edits (I am not suggesting your prior edits were not useful) in uncontroversial places tends to rebuild trust.

Am I making any sense at all? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Horatius At The Bridge A firm suggestion is to avoid the article that appears to have enabled this brouhaha, even if you are an undoubted expert in the field. Not that I have any idea whether you are or not.

Somehow, I have kept my own nose clean here since I started editing. I achieve this by being invariably polite and handling any controversial area with very long and policy based tongs. I've seen very long established and productive editors blocked for reasons of their over confidence in their reputation overriding other considerations. So I try to treat every day here as a learning experience, learning how to get along with unique and sometimes difficult people.

I am assertive, yet know when to stand firm and when to yield with grace. When I base my assertiveness on policy it is rare that I need to yield. But when I do I try to thank those whose expertise has proven greater than mine.

I think this means I am counselling you to act in a similar manner. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)#

that really is my problem, its all quite Kafkaesque - I have not done anything I can apologise about. Having finally accepted no consensus was going to be formed around my proposal I suggested a compromise, also posting an admin request asking if it was possible to change the banner on the talk page to the revised proposal. Around this point MichaelMaggs decided the personal attack was in order as above and this quickly changed the tone of the discussion with all the participants, culminating a quite extraordinary accusation by another admin. I'm really a bit shell-shocked tbh.Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Horatius At The Bridge Disengaging is the correct thing to do. If you are certain that there is nothing to apologise for then do not make a false apology. Are you absolutely certain that someone else does not feel you should apologise or withdraw something , or similar action? If so, do that thing, and with genuine good grace.

The outing is unfortunate. The process does not intend this to happen. Perhaps the redirects shoudl not be present at SJP, but they are, and deleting them now will compound the problem.

I would say that under no circumstances should you attempt to visit a drama board over this. It will backfire. These things often do. WP:BOOMERANG is real.

If you are dragged there, be humble, factual and brief. Do not feel the need to comment on every contributor's actions.

Again, am I making sense? Feel free to tell me where I am not. I refuse to become offended. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes it makes great sense and helps me, thank you. I have stayed away from the article and its talk page but have assured JBA my request to admin as to the possibility of changing the article title proposal to match my revised proposal on its Talk Page was certainly not intended as an invitation to abuse admin powers. Also that I am frankly baffled as to why he chose to describe it in the terms he did and would value an explanation. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Horatius At The Bridge A little too late, I see you have asked about the interpretation of your action. I would have phrased it a little easier to receive.

"I apologise that I suggested something that was capable of being interpreted as requesting an abuse of admin powers. That was not my intention and I apologise for it."

I also would have waited and slept on it one more night Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Horatius At The Bridge The difference is subtle. In my version you take responsibility for your action. In your version you have a slight sting in the tail regarding your bafflement, despite stating that your intent was not what was suggested. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

You're absolutely right of course, I'm off to bed now before I make any more mistakes, thanks Tim.Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Horatius At The Bridge If any rescuing is required rescue it in the morning. You are welcome to mention that I have advised you again if you feel it will be useful to do so. We all make mistakes. It is how we handle ourselves once we have made them that shows who we are inside. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to insert myself into a discussion where I may not be welcome. Horatius, I just wanted to set your mind at ease that there is very little chance of anyone taking anything to a drama board over the discussion that took place at that talk page - some of us were getting exasperated, but it's nowhere near the level of requiring any kind of administrative intervention, and if anyone were to take it to such a board I expect I'd argue in your defense.

However, I'll also say that you have above made two accusations that another named editor has acted improperly (personal attacks and outing). If anything is going to spark an ANI thread, it's making baseless accusations of that sort on people's talk pages. I don't know what comment you perceive to have been a personal attack; I don't see any that could be interpreted in that way, but you should either address your concerns to the user who made the comment, start a thread at an appropriate location, or just keep quiet about it. It is also not reasonable to accuse anyone of outing - the term would only be applicable if they had released personal information about you (for example your real name) that you had not disclosed on-wiki. If that had happened I would have blocked the person who did it, revision-deleted the edit, and requested oversight. What actually happened to you was that someone mentioned a previous name of your current Wikipedia account. That old name is on publicly accessible records: anyone who knows how to read your contribution history would be able to find it within two or three clicks of the mouse. As such, it's not private information, and the outing policy does not prohibit people from mentioning it. I don't know what happened in the past that makes you want to disassociate yourself from that username, but if you truly want to keep your earlier wiki identity a secret, you should consider taking the steps outlined at WP:CLEANSTART. I'm not advising you to do that (I don't have any reason to think it's necessary), I just want to make sure that you are aware that policy allows for it.

That's all I had to say - I'll step back, provided the accusations of wrongdoing either stop, or are taken to an appropriate location. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit I'm grateful for you contribution. Thank you. As you will see I have helped Horatius overcome difficulties in the past. I believe that this will also happen this time. Thank you for a very clear and straightforward explanation of the errors made. Horatius is a useful editor and you have clearly taken substantial time to creat this message for them.

@Horatius At The Bridge Please take the message by GS exactly as it has been given to you. It is an observation of facts, neutrally phrased, and showing errors.

If I may advise you further, may I suggest that you retract the accusations that you have made and that GS has observed, retract them unreservedly, make a humble apology, and mean it. Then, prove by your subsequent actions that you truly have meant it.

If, as GS suspects, those accusations lead you to a drama board, contrition and retraction are the sole useful routes open to you, but this card cannot be played often, so play it well, and after thought. Do not play it as a knee jerk reaction. As I said before, it is the manner in which we handle our errors that show us as who we are. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm obliged to you for your advice which I take on board. WP is an open community but it is a little surprising that this talkpage discussion has taken the turn it has. Please be assured I have no wish to hide or disassociate myself from my previous username. I'm proud of the many edits as Sirjohnperrot and until very recently it was still referenced directly on my talkpage, (I think I'll put it back). I only changed it because it was also used on other unrelated family history sites and caused mix ups on them. For the sake of clarity the comment I regarded as a personal attack was this one:

Constantly arguing when you know you are irritating people will affect your good standing, as it repeats one of the behaviours that got you into some trouble last year at ANI when you were editing as User:Sirjohnperrot. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

That episode was most regrettable and "excessive verbiage and snark" were identified as something I should try to avoid in future. There was no snark in my dialogue with Girth Summit but I do apologise for my verbosity which was unnecessary, probably very irritating and also obscured the main point of my proposal for change that the title lacked the required explanatory power (what wars? what kingdoms?) and was likely to be unrecognisable to most users anyway. So let's hope all this is now water under Horatius' bridge. May I wish you both a Happy Christmas and New Year - during which btw I'm due to be involved in a wikitree event tracing the ancestors of their special guest Jimmy Wales! Delighted today after possibly discovering his 10x Great Grandparents in 16th century Gloucestershire ;-) Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that you were not overly aggressive or snarky in the recent discussion; you were perhaps verbose, but you weren't the only one, I am frequently guilty of that myself. However, I don't think that you would be able to convince many people that the comment you've copied above constitutes a personal attack, as the term is defined here - it's not about you yourself, it's a comment on something that you were doing. Was it unnecessary? Perhaps, but not a personal attack. For what it's worth, I actually think that your comment about me, The missionary zeal of this editor and others to rebrand 17th century British history as Scottish or Irish or Welsh... was a personal attack, since it is commenting on my motivations. I don't mention that as any sort of threat, I am certainly not going to ask that anyone take any action over it, but it's worth bearing in mind that comments like that raise tensions in a discussion and are likely to irritate your interlocutors. I concede that telling you that your argument is arrant nonsense, or that you should put something in your pipe and smoke it, may also have the same effect: we're none of us perfect. I'm happy to let this flow under the bridge, and to wish you a merry Christmas - I hope the wikitree event is a success. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 11:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Horatius At The Bridge I think we are at the state, now, of least said soonest mended. I'm very happy to have had my talk page play a good part in this. Coming somewhere neutral is always a good idea when one is unsure of what has transpired, or whether one is at fault.

All of us editing Wikipedia are respected editors until out latest gaffe! May all our future gaffes be well into the future. And yes, I make them too! Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 12:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Failed to ping Girth Summit. That note was for both of you Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 12:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Excellent, I would just point out to Girth Summit my reference in the passage below was to the author of article title and other similar-minded editors but certainly not to him! If he had resorted to that particular trope in his extensive defence of the existing title I should surely have noticed ;) "Finally, I return to the important point about the subtext of retitling. It is fashionable to try to challenge the established record of historical events to promote a particular narrative and this is a case in point. The missionary zeal of this editor and others to rebrand 17th century British history as Scottish or Irish or Welsh, using an empty 'Three Kingdom' code as the default, is no doubt seen as admirable by some. I am not one of those and it pains me to see such deliberate distortion. The "Three" Kingdoms in this context is a complete fiction - the last sovereign king of Ireland was Ruaidhrí in 1198 and the last sovereign king of Scotland (Idi Amin aside ) was James VI in 1601 - the last sovereign king of Wales was Owain ap Gruffudd in 1170 who has inexplicably been excluded so far - I await a proposal for "The Wars of The Four Kingdoms" with keen anticipation ;) "Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		Thank you for patience, understanding, wisdom and leadership! You're a true inspiration. Hope we cross paths again :) MaskedSinger (talk) 11:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@MaskedSinger Thank you. Wikipedia is a place to make (weird) friendships while indulging in a satisfying hobby. It's oddly like the real world in that real decisions are made by others about what we all do. It's unlike the real world in that we all enforce our own rules, and create those rules the first place.

We do what we can, when we can, and every time we do something we get a little better at it. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 12:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Objective analysis

In response to this I have done this could you assist in cleaning up the mess? Celestina007 (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007 I have looked at each article and placed an unbiased opinion at the AfD. You have alerted me but not canvassed me. I appreciate that.

On Commons I have sent four files for deletion, two as copyvios two as deletion discussions. That is independent of any AfD.

The AN discussion is correct. This is being not guilty if reasonable doubt exists. With evidence the editor(s) can be blocked. Without it, much harder. Do you see evidence for an SPI? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I’m sorry for the delayed response, I was trying to enjoy my Sunday by just doing new page reviewing or work at the Teahouse and I suddenly get hit with this which has left me inundated and annoyed as I continue to ponder about how this has gone on so long unnoticed. Are you referring to this editor? @Luciapop, on if or not they maybe optimizing more than one account? (please correct me if I’m not interpreting your question correctly) if yes, then it is possible that they are, I can can carry out an investigation to that effect. Celestina007 (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I am referring to Luciapop, but I have no idea if they have more than one account. I anticipate that they have.

These things go on because we trust people Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007 I have been led to Special:Contributions/Awwakko, who created on item at the AfD. These are the pictures I have sent for deletion Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Aha! Thanks for sharing this with me, how yourself and Dan ardnt are able to spot things I overlook or fail to see always wows me, I shall be looking at this with my microscope tonight! Celestina007 (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007 I find following pictures to Commons almost always bears fruit. Some is harder to pick than others Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007 the articles created record is interesting. As you expect there are half decent articles, pure rubbish and a few decent ones Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)