David Duncan

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.

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]

	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]

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]

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]

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

@Kathyegill I suggest you resubmit it. I have only given it a cursory glance. I looked for references yesterday, and there are many. The Times (behind a paywall for me) is one such.

I very rarely review a second time, so another reviewer will review its once submitted 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I really liked how you’ve improved your stub article — your use of citations is awesome. Keep going! :) Raffkid (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I really liked how you’ve improved your stub article — your use of citations is awesome. Keep going! :) Raffkid (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Trent,

Thank you very much for taking time to review the draft. I truly appreciate your effort. I am writing because I was a bit saddened by the outcome of the review, and I would be grateful for some sugggestions. I am having difficulty understanding where the draft might have violated WP:OVERKILL or WP:BOMBARD, or which references are considered useless.

If your concern was more about the length or density of the text, I completely understand and would be happy to reduce or remove any parts you find excessive. I reached out mainly to get your feedback and improve the draft accordingly.

Thank you again for your time, and I look forward to any suggestions you may have. Celeste1971 (talk) 06:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Celeste1971 link, please. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:22, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are: link. Thank you! Celeste1971 (talk) 07:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Celeste1971 "Art & Antiques.[9][10][11][12][13]" is a prime example of WP:CITEKILL. Instead we need one excellent reference per fact asserted. If you are sure it is beneficial, two, and at an absolute maximum, three. Three is not a target, it's a limit. Aim for one. A fact you assert, once verified in a reliable source, is verified. More is gilding the lily. Please choose the very best in each case of multiple referencing for a single point and either drop or repurpose the remainder.

WP:BOMBARD is often employed when one feels short of references. We do notmneed a morass of references; we need references passing WP:42, almost always only one for a single point.

We do not need a reference to show he is a painter. We will infer that from other material.

Blogs are absolutely not useful. Please remove the Wordpress faux reference

Some references are not about Francesco Pelleschi. and are passing mentions. Significant coverage means three or more substantial, well crafted, prose paragraphs. Your best 'at first sight' reference is a passing mention.

There is much work to do. Being saddened is a strange reaction. Reviews are an interactive and iterative process and the way we learn. We have to make mistakes to get better. I have also left this comment om the draft. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:22, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and you are right: I shouldn't be saddened. Thank you very much for your detailed explanations. I am going to work on the necessary changes and corrections. I would be happy to update you once I have improved the draft. Celeste1971 (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz Turner, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

KylieTastic (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]