Mikhail Gorbachev

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 7:59 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

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.

Hello,

In regard to your review of this article: Draft:Joanna_Stadium

You said in your review comment, "... I cannot see sufficent to get this over the high WP:N bar." Should I take that as advice to fix and resubmit? Or is the subject not popular enough, so don't bother to resubmit?

Please advise. Cheers Sven's carrots (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) I'd assume it's just the lack of content and refs. The article says the stadium operated for 30 years before the rebuild but doesn't mention a whole lot about what happened during this time relative to the time it operated. Surely there is more to be written for this period that would let you establish notability? Otherwise, I guess you'll have to wait for the regeneration to be completed as we don't really predict the future. OXYLYPSE (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sven's carrots it is the lack of content, coupled with a lack of good referencing. Popularity is not a criterion we use. WP:NBUILDING will help you here. OXYLYPSE has guided you well.

Find all the references you are able to find for the totality of the stadium's life, from planing through to the current stage of the renovation. Summarise in your own words what they say to generate the history of the building's life. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vinay Ratan Singh Rohitkumar7210 (talk) 08:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rohitkumar7210 I was clear in the review. What help do you wish for? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rohitkumar7210 Thank you for reading my message about blanking this page. That you have removed it confirms that you have read it. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for accepting Ram Brustien’s article. Perhaps you could provide some guidance on what to change so the cleanup template can be removed, or open a discussion on the talk page?

Adig-pt (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Adig-pt You need to ask the editor who placed that particular tag. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at the history of the page I thought it was you. I am referring to the cleanup template, not the orphan template. Adig-pt (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Adig-pt see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ram_Brustein&diff=1296256595&oldid=1296241240 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:39, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Adig-pt Ah. I simply flagged it as containing said contributions which embraces a cleanup message. You may not edit this article since you are a paid editor. You may request edits. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for the fast and helpful reply! Adig-pt (talk) 08:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have been looking everywhere on the Internet for reliable and independent sources covering the demogroup Spaceballs and not just State of the Art and 9 Fingers. I have deleted references to the group from databases like Demozoo, Pouett and Amiga Music Preservation, and social media sites like Reddit, YouTube, LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter, as well as mentions of IT'S ART Magazine since there is no formal publication of that to be found. Some now-removed Demozoo references for the list of Spaceballs members have been replaced with new references, such as for Useless/Egil Thomas Hansen, Travolta/Rune Svendsen, Magnar/Lizard, and Facet/Martijn van Meel. Alas, I could not find references solely for the other members and the group's demos in the "Selected productions" heading that are not databases. I included references to Spaceballs from books like Kunst, Code und Maschine: Die Ästhetik der Computer-Demoszene (2014) and Demoscene: The Amiga Years (2021) and a "Further reading" heading, and there is an Obligement.free article which seems to cover the group in full, rather than giving a passing mention. If the Demoscene: The Amiga Years references are allowed, would I have to use quotes in the references?

I am not sure if Spaceballs will ever have an article if I keep doing citation overkill and/or bombardment. I am finding this very difficult if there isn't enough sources for Spaceballs or significant coverage on it online. If this is not eligible for an article, would it work best as a heading for the article for the Spaceballs movie? Bladerunner09 (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bladerunner09 Non-internet sources, well cited, are acceptable. WP:CITEKILL never is. The rule, an absolute rule, is no references passing WP:42 no article. Is it related to the movie? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The group named themselves after the movie. Bladerunner09 (talk) 09:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bladerunner09 I suspect you will find the connection to be tenuous. WP:TEAHOUSE may give you a better answer, though 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the Teahouse about this, and GarethBaloney answered, "Non-internet sources (including the books) are much harder to verify, although they can still be used. The amount of references in general is pretty excessive, and that big list of current or former members could become a timeline. List of Whitesnake members#Timeline is one such example of a (music) group with many members. I do have to say that most of the ex-Spaceballs members are really not worth mentioning given how obscure the group already is." I am not sure how to create a "timeline" table for the members, though. Could you ask someone else to make it please? Bladerunner09 (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bladerunner09 Honestly not sure whom to ask. I think it is only worth doing more work if you can prove notability. That should be your first task. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check it again my page has been deleted unlawfully Bygonetime (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bygonetime my page has been deleted unlawfully is a veiled legal threat. Unless you retract that immediately you are likely to be blocked. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i retract that Bygonetime (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i request for undeletion of my page Bygonetime (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it is a years old page no one has raised any issue Bygonetime (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bygonetime I have no power to do this. Please visit WP:REFUND if it was a draft. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted as G3, so WP:DRV is probably the only option here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you move this to a disambiguated title? There are no other articles with this name, so no disambiguation is needed at this time. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG It has a shedload of irrelevant articles linking to it, and I could not figure out how to solve that 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved the remaining incoming links: [1][2][3]. Can likely occupy the basename now. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Roger that. I hadn't checked there. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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]

Hi Tim, just wanted to reach out about the Earl of Errol article that you approved via AfC today [4] The article appears to have a few BLP issues which I will remove and post on the talk page (ie references Burke's Peerage and Debrett's as sources for the current holder, but it is just a link to the Wikipedia page, there is no way to independently verify this. Another reference went to a classified ad)
I wanted to bring this up to you as you might not be aware, there have been a number of issues around BLPs and sourcing with Baronage of Scotland and contributors to the project. [5] These issues are ongoing (current ANI) (previous ANI) with respect to questions about off-wiki coordination, etc.. [6] and User:Daniel_Plumber/sandbox/WikiProject_Baronage_of_Scotland

Nayyn (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nayyn Good point well made. Thank you. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the draft Wikipedia article on Matthew Lani. I appreciate the time and care you dedicate to upholding Wikipedia’s standards.

I respectfully request that you reconsider the decision to decline the article, as I believe the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, particularly for biographies of living persons.

While the article touches on a widely publicised arrest, Matthew Lani is not only known for that incident. His case was covered extensively by national and international media, and it has sparked significant public discourse around digital identity fraud, the role of social media in public health misinformation, and government accountability. The impact of this case has gone beyond headlines—it has set a legal and social precedent in South Africa, particularly in relation to how state departments and regulatory bodies handle professional misrepresentation in the digital age.

Furthermore, the matter is still ongoing, with a civil case currently before the courts. This continued legal relevance, combined with the enduring media coverage and public debate, reflects a level of sustained notability and public interest beyond a one-time event.

Given the scale of online misinformation and the polarised commentary surrounding Matthew Lani, a centralised, neutral, and well-sourced Wikipedia article would serve the public interest by offering clarity and context based on verifiable sources. Ashleyashville (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Matthew Lani Ashleyashville (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashleyashville Since Wikipedia may only record faithfully what is said in multiple, independent, reliable sources, we cannot allow a sort of 'beacon of truth' as a tool to offset the information. Were we to do so we would become a soapbox. In some ways the draft is a soapbox.

I suggest you may have written it WP:BACKWARDS, saying what oyu wish to say and then seeking references to fit. What is required is the seeking of references first, and then writing the draft from a storyboard based on what is said on the references. I think you will achieve a better draft that way.

Immediate resubmission is not prohibited but it biases the next reviewer against the resubmitting editor. That it ought not to is unimportant - reviewers are human beings, and react to actions. You might wish to revert that resubmission to seek to avoid prejudice against the draft. That's your business, not mine 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thank you for the earlier feedback. I’ve completely revised the draft based on your suggestions:

• Rewrote the article to follow a neutral tone

• Removed WP:SOAPBOX elements and avoided WP:BACKWARDS

• Structured the content around what is covered in reliable, independent sources

• Added more citations from major national media (News24, TimesLIVE, IOL, Sowetan, etc.)

• Clarified the notability based on national and international coverage, public debate, and ongoing legal action

I’d appreciate it if you could take another look when you have time. Thank you again for the guidance it helped a lot. Ashleyashville (talk) 11:35, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashleyashville too tired to give any meaningful input today. Sounds like you worked well and hard 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I’ll await and hopefully the draft gets approved. I’ll try till I get it right. Thank you again Ashleyashville (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashleyashville Assuming always that he passes WP:BIO you have almost certainly given it a great chance. You might find this essay helpful. It's one of many essays here on article creation 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 197.184.89.193 (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I’ll take your advice 197.184.89.193 (talk) 10:35, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]