User talk:MatthewVanitas/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Thank you

Hi Matthew, thanks for approving Temple of Peace (Toowong Cemetery).

I love editing and creating articles on Wikipedia but when it comes to all the technical side of doing some things I am useless. Maybe one day I will be able to sit down with someone who is in the know and pick up a few hints!Rocketrod1960 00:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Rocketrod! No worries, glad to help, and nice article! So far as formatting, my common advice, and what I did that worked well, is just find an article where you like the format, and take a squint at their coding to see how it's done. The rest comes with practise, and fortunately Wiki is a collaborative environment, so as long as you have clear statements and good citations, the rest will work itself out.

Thanks again for your new article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Barrack Point and Barrack Heights are two different suburbs.

Hi Matthew, regarding, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Barrack_Point,_New_South_Wales

Barrack Point and Barrack Heights are two different suburbs (Barrack Point is even mentioned in the Barrack Heights article) Barrack Point is smaller than Barrack Heights and contains a caravan park. Also Barrack Point is on the coast line, Barrack Heights is not. For prove, here is Google Maps: https://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=barrack+point&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x6b131470f5c97f2b:0x5017d681632e0f0,Barrack+Point+NSW&gl=au&ei=vF-GUI-1FbCSiAelkYDwDQ&ved=0CHIQtgM

Hopefully that clears everything up :)

Cheers, Nikachu88

Edit: I think I know what you mean, I fixed the Barrack Point page from the link on Barrack Heights page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikachu88 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Abani Chakravarty (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Assamese

Ashraf Jahangir Semnani (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jamaluddin

Pir Baba (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chilla

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you! (2)

Hello thank you for the comment - I corrected where the references are - any other comments? I have never posted a wiki article (at least not in English) before

Y marianna (talk) 05:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Marianna Yarovskaya

Thanks for the appreciation! A few comments:

• The cites are better and better-placed, but you'll want to also have clear cites for the award claims, either to the website of the award, or to a media article which states "Marianna won the X award on Y date". Everything in the article should be WP:Verifiable.
• Do not use ALL CAPITAL LETTERS for words like "Winner", etc. This is considered "shouting" on much of the internet. Instead just type "Winner:". The only time you'd capitalise words is if the words themselves are always written like that, like USA, or if a book was explicitly entitle THE DOG rather than The Dog for some aesthetic reason by the author/publisher. Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Logicworks

Hi:

I moved the Logicworks article, hope this was correct.

Jordan Glogau --Jordan G (talk) 10:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The tricky art of establishing subject's notability

Hi Matthew

Thank you for taking the time to evaluate my submission for an article on Joanna Louise Baker.

I admire wikipedia greatly for it's dedication to standards of evidence and truth, I am on your side, I think these things actually matter. My mistake may by that I had intended this page to be a simple biographical page which would link into pages for each of her three main books which would have more external links and therefore evidence. This article is written about my sister. All evidential material has been lost since her death in difficult circumstances (I have done extensive researching to try and dig up more information), so I doubt whether I have the slightest chance to meet the requirements to adequately evidence the subject's notability you point out. One of my hopes is that by getting a basic factual page up online more of this evidence will become visible over time. This woman co-wrote a series of books that is still in print after a decade and is being used around the world in specifically difficult developing country contexts to empower teachers with limited access to resources. Should I just take everything out except her writing credits? I need your help.

Many Thanks Steve Kerr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hendon Runner (talk • contribs) 17:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, from what I'm understanding there are a few issues here. When you mention "evidential material", my concern is that you're looking at WP:Original research. If there's some info about her that's so rare that misplacing it can cause it's loss, then it's not really available research material. Baptismal certificates, correspondence, etc. are great for primary research like scholars and journalists, but for an encyclopedia we need existing published information like newspaper articles, mentions in books, etc.

So far as "getting a basic factual page up online more of this evidence will become visible over time", it's not a goal of Wikipedia to publicise issues. To the contrary, things need to have public knowledge to have an article. I empathise with your interest to reach out to share information, but until published info is readily available perhaps a private tribute/fan/advocacy site would be a more appropriate place? I'm not seeing any current hits for the name on GoogleBooks or Google News Archive, so not much to work with. This is, of course, not to denigrate her work, just noting that we don't have a body of independent, established sources to work with.

I do also empathise with the desire to support your sister's memory, which is one reason Wikipedia discourages writing about people you know personally; the emotions of the relationship get caught up in the article and make situations like this more difficult.

Fundamentally, if we don't have independent, published material about her like media or academic coverage, we don't have an article. Even if we have evidence she wrote books ISBN xyz through a certain publisher, that's still not meeting WP:Notability. That said, you can still take this type of information and put it on other sites with differing missions, maybe write an online article for a site about education development? There are a lot of ways to address the issue, and even if Wikipedia isn't quite the right place at this stage, there are a lot of options out there. Sorry there's not an easier answer, but hope this at least clears up the policy reasons. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

iDMAa Notability Question

Hi,

I was just wondering if I could get some advice about the iDMAa article I submitted on my sandbox. I modeled the article on several other articles written about similar arts organizations with similar citing styles, including Siggraph. I have just categorized the article as a art / arts organization stub, because I want to put it up in order for other people to add references and information to it? Is this the best course of action? What else can I do to the article to make it verifiable?

Thanks

Timegiftartists (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

about helping on RFC, and an issue

Hi, thanks for your note about my helping on Granville Fuller House article development. I think you're doing a great thing in helping deliver a good experience to a tentative, new wikipedia editor. But, as i have noted at the published article's talk page, there remain problems. My attention to all this was from your posting at wt:NRHP, where another editor noted the copyvio problem. I tried to suggest the problem mildly at the AFC. I am afraid the new editor is gonna get a bad experience when the article is identified publicly as a copyvio, which would be justified if any editor wants to identify it. I dunno, i think you are responsible now, to edit the article to remove the copyvio/plagiarism, since you promoted it. Sorry not to be more positive. I do think you are doing great to participate in RFC and you have me a bit interested in helping in that arena, too. --doncram 22:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Chopped that section and left a note with some suggestions with the originator. Thanks for the help and the good catch on the copyvio. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it. I amended my note at the Talk page, too. All done for now, good work. By the way, I think that many persons who start as this originator did, can come along and be great contributors, if they get kinder rather than abusive first interactions. Thank you for doing what you do. --doncram 01:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent revert to my edit.

Hi,Matthew i have seen your recent revert of the Template:Allah the reason being placing Allah template is that the whole concept of Shahada revolves around the fact that there is no god but Allah. so i believe that the template Allah should be placed in the article.Although your are also right that the template Islam is also appropriate. why not place both the templates by adjusting the images. Hope to hear a positive reply. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Ibrahim, while clearly God plays the key role in Islam, the {Allah} template is for topics that are features or aspects of God in Islam. The Shahada is not an aspect of God, it's an aspect of human religion which recognises God. Regarding your suggestion to use both templates, it is generally discouraged to have multiple templates on an article, as this is distracting to the reader. Any reader wanting to no more can always click on the God in Islam link; this is the great thing about Wikipedia, that expansions of each topic are available with the click of a button. Hope this explains the reasoning. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm Thanks for the expatiation it really clarify. Frankly speaking i was also uncertain about weather its appropriate to use this one or not. So i thought why not try it, if i would be wrong some one might correct me. Thanks for the help. Stay well and Edit happily. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for communicating! MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Improvement

Hi, Matthew, I've done my best now: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Journal of Early Modern Studies.

(Zbenguiel (talk) 05:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC))

A kitten for you!

Thank you again for the comment! I corrected again. You are the best! My last but not least question is about uploading a picture - there is a picture - yarovskayagoreguggenheim.jpg - that would like to upload - first technicalities are hard to figure out... and overall, how is the article now? too many cross references and links?

Y_otter 08:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Draft in Sandbox

Hey I am a first time editor,

You responded to one of my questions at the teahouse so I thought I would ask you a question direct. I currently have the beginning of a draft article in my sandbox here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LydiaRDoyle1992/sandbox some of it I have already started to publish to the page as a stub. However how fast are you allowed to transform work from the sandbox to the actual page?

Thank you LydiaRDoyle1992 (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Lydia, are you saying you already have this topic published as a full article, but have further content at your draft page that you want to migrate over to the published article? If so, there's not rule about the speed of doing such. If the article has a lot of other editors working on it or the material is controversial, you may want to bring it up at the article's Talk page first. If that's not the case, you can move it over at whatever pace you like, but just make sure you leave a clear WP:Edit summary with each save explaining briefly what it is you're changing, like "adding draft paragraph about her time at Harvard", or "adding material from my draft about 1970-1980 New York period". Just make sure that you have proper referencing for whatever material you move offer, that you're communicating clearly with other editors, and you should be good. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

References

Thanks Matthew! I checked under your link Cluedo#Other_Games, and I found that it already had the game, listed under Clue Junior: The Case of the Missing Cake. So, I guess I don't need to change anything there. Thanks again -B. Jakob T. (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Jakob, glad that worked out! If you want to make sure that people searching Clue Junior: The Case of the Missing Cake arrive at Cluedo#Other_Games, we can create a WP:Redirect from that title to the section of the larger article. You can either read WP:Redirect and try it yourself (it's hard to go too wrong with a redirect), or if you're not comfortable with that let me know and I'll do it for you, and you can observe the coding to see how it's done. Let me know! MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Football rivalries

While independent sourcing is good, I can see no real issue if both teams say that it is their longest standing rivalry,or something similar. I think we need to be careful about allowing our policies which are there to protect us from charlatans and self-publicists, among others, to prevent us creating good well sourced content. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 23:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC).

Check for copyright problems

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Architecturemps is mostly copy and pasted from a web site. Even if the editor works for them, we would still need OTRS. I won't mark it for G12, I'll let you decide what to do. Gigs (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Clear Andreas Georgiou Thomas for publication

Hi Mathew, Can you please look at the Andreas Georgiou Thomas article and let me know what you think. I appreciate the fact that some people cannot speak or read Greek but that does not detract from my efforts to find references that attest to Thomas as important to Cyprus" Education, literature and the Scout Movement. Any suggestions will be appreciated. Christos Evangeli (talk) 09:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Waterbeach F.C

Thanks for the addition about the documentary. Sometimes I find the notability guidelines frustrating that teams with a reasonable history like this one are borderline because they have never risen above tier 7 of the FA but some hip-hop singer who had one week in the top 100 and number 99 is an 'automatic' notable. I'm hoping that Waterbeach once played in the FA Cup, just needs to be the once to cross the same threshold. NtheP (talk) 10:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Logicworks

Hi:

I added the template for the article review for the Logicworks article, I think I removed it by mistake.

Jordan Glogau

Jordan G (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Doina

Hello MatthewVanitas, thanks for reviewing the page related to the short film Doina. I've corrected the error and would like you to check the page again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Doina_(film)

Thanks

Evahenger hu (talk) 09:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Evahenger Hu

Greetings, I haven't done a new review since I'm not a strong film reviewer, but I've done some basic technical fixes:

• Added the "official" template for the film's website
• Removed excess spaces that were showing gaps in the article
• Here's a big one: adding "bullets" (like on this line I'm typing now) to separate lists of items.

Here's my main recommendations: instead of just listing references, turn them into WP:Footnotes, so that each fact can be traced to its origin. If you say in the article "It won the Acme Award in 2011", you should have a footnote to the specific website where this can be verified. Also for your links, right now you have WP:Link rot, that is you just have URLs instead of a citation, so preferably you want to turn those into full WP:Citations. I don't know enough about the film world to judge which of your references are WP:Reliable sources, but if you can find at least a few footnotes (about the filming, public response, etc) from major magazines or newspapers (in Italian is fine too) to show how wide the film was discussed in media, that'd make the article very strong.

Don't get discouraged, you're most of the way there, just a little polishing to make it great. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Greetings to you, I followed your instructions and worked hard to fix the page. I really hope now you can accept it.

let me know and thanks for the imputs

Best, Evahenger hu (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see how this film is notable, but you might could ask at User talk:MichaelQSchmidt. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi Doc. I fixed it up, weighed its accolades and the coverage already received for where this was made and by whom, and advanced it. Independent short films always have a difficult time showing notability, specially when compared to feature films created by major names or notable production companies with greater access to press and coverage. It will never have the notability of something like Star Wars or Harry Potter films, but for what it is and where it was made, it is getting just enough coverage and commentary to be considered just notable enough for Wikipedia. As it is still making the festival circuits, and already has commentary and analysis in Italian and Romanian sources, it serves the project that it remain and grow over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jivdhan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Famous 5 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kurn Hattin Homes for Children (2)

Dear Mr. Vanitas- I wish to thank you personally for your patience, advice, and kind assistance in my writing of the Kurn Hattin article. You are a truly professional editor and a gentleman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Dickinson (talk • contribs) 18:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chris van Ouwerkerk

Hi Matthew--I don't know what's wrong with that submission (technically), but I am unable to decline it, and be declined it must, definitively. Can you help? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for your approval of my article on Kelly Mark. Though I have done a few entries, I admit I still find Wikipedia confusing. But Im working on it :) Thanks again, Filtrate (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filtrate (talk • contribs) 16:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Earth Journalism Network | Request review at WP:AFC

I added media sources as you advised, and other links. I started small, as I'd been advised in creating a new entry with an idea to letting others add to it. Kindly re-review, and thanks! 76.105.249.191 (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC) Hochungra (talk) 04:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Neohumanism

You might be interested in User_talk:MrNiceGuy1113#Usurping_a_link. I didn't really read the article - a touch of WP:TLDR - just handled the navigation issues. I don't know whether the article is still close to the version you rejected at AfC. PamD 07:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Walkodile - Thank you

HI Matthew - thank you very much for looking at my submissionm and improving it so so much. I really do appreicate. I'm off to have another go at editing it as per your comments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johnalex001

Cheers!

John. Johnalex001 (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Lulubelle III entry question

Hi Matthew looking some advice on improving page about band Lulubelle III, they are being played again next week on BBC 6Music and the playlist pages uses Wikipedia for biographical info. They are also due to get an interview on BBC Radio Foyle at the end of this month and I iamgine they will also build their playlist that way too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicfan1812 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Question: WP:OR relating to reference in Neohumanism article

Matthew, thanks for all your help, and I wish you a pleasant break.

Recently you removed a reference note from the Neohumanism article on grounds of WP:OR, suggesting that it was my original research. The note read: "From this emphasis on utility value, the normative philosophy of utilitarianism, perhaps an extension of consequentialism, emerged. It may also be noted that not all utilitarian or consequentialist philosophers have argued solely in terms of the pleasure and pain of humans. Jeremy Bentham and more recently Peter Singer are notable exceptions to that rule." What I don't understand here is that everything in that note is consistent with and substantiated by the Wikipedia links that I have given. I am not convinced that original research should be a crime, but - regardless of that - what is "original" here? Furthermore, in this footnote I am presenting an impartial point as I am not a supporter of utilitarianism or the parties mentioned. So I am confused. Why remove the reference note?

--Abhidevananda (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, thanks for coming over to chat! As noted in my edits, phrases like "it may also be noted that", "interestingly enough", etc. are to be avoided on Wikipedia (unless in direct quotations) as unencyclopedic. Similarly, our policies strongly prohibit WP:Original research (see link for the full policy). Since an encyclopedia is a compilation of established facts and theories, not newly-discovered ones, we have to limit ourselves to opinions which are already documented in authoritative writing. If an established commentator, in a published work, observed that Bentham and Singer are exceptions, that's fine to include and footnote to that commentator. However, it is not for us as individual editors to make our own assessments of whether Bentham and Singer are truly exceptions or no. That is why I removed the phrase; it's not a "crime", but it is generally prohibited as per the policy. I hate to ask folks to read dry policy documents, but if you just read a paragraph or two of WP:OR it may clear up the issue. Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Matthew. I did understand the point about the problem with original research, having read the policy document about NOR. My main point was that everything I said about Bentham and Singer and Utilitarianism is also stated in their respective WP articles. Presumably, that would mean that this is not original research. I assumed that having linked to their respective WP pages would serve as sufficient foundation for inclusion of the remark without a footnote. I could of course have stated it with different - more 'encyclopedic' language. I am new to this, but I will get the hang of it. --Abhidevananda (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

If the Bentham/Singer point is cited elsewhere, you can copy that footnote and bring it over. I'd just suggestion caution in digressions, as it's easy to start explaining other examples and diverge too far from the actual subject of Sarkar! Glad the clarification helped, and glad to see you're getting a good feel for the Wiki format and customs. Good luck in your continued work! MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I doubt that there is a single footnote elsewhere. I collated information from three articles. In any event, my own remark that you removed was - IIRC - was already a footnote. To add a footnote to a footnote is a bit too extreme for my taste. So maybe I'll just let this one slide. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhidevananda (talk • contribs) 00:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Deleting of Photo on P.R. Sarkar article

Matthew, thanks for your help. This article need to be changed to make it more adherent to the rules of WP. When it'll possible for me I'll try adding some changes. It's a big work because the author was very prolific. Recently You removed the Photo of Subash Chandra Bose (that I've inserted months ago) from the related article. I added it again 'couse I suppose it was an error from You. If not please let me know. Thanks again--Cornelius383 (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I've seen that You have also added a neutrality template on the top of this article but I did'nt find specific proposals of changes on the related talk page. Anyway as I have already said before this doesn't means that I consider the article well written.. Thanks. --Cornelius383 (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Cornelius, I removed the picture of Bose because, simply put, it isn't a picture of Sarkar. If it were a picture of Sarkar with Bose, that'd be great, but it isn't. There are always hundreds of photos we could add to any bio, like the flag of a country he lived in, or skyline of a city he lived in, but to avoid the article being a mass of photos we have to be particular, and restrict ourselves to photos of the person, his works, and specific objects in his life (his own desk, his own house). Additionally, since the article only briefly mentions Bose, forcing in his picture comes across as namedropping, which again compromises the perceived neutrality of what is otherwise a pretty good article. So far as the POV tag, I'd like to get some second opinions to make sure it's not just me, so I suggest you drop into Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions and ask the volunteer mentors there for input on where the article can be made more neutral. Thanks again for your article, and your willingness to communicate with the community! MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

See also: Ananda Marga

Both these articles in a very poor quality. Not only image of Bose, there were more irrelevant images. Like we are teaching alphabets to kids.. A for apple (now a photo of apple), B for ball (photo of ball).

I am not satisfied with references there. See Prabhat_Ranjan_Sarkar#References, I can not understand which one is references, which one is note! I have a feeling that editors are there writing own commentary in references section which is not purpose of the references section.

Both these articles are written like advertisements or template of any religious organizations.

For last few months I have been trying to work there. But, it's more a dog's curly tail! For example, per Wikipedia one word should not be linked in every sentence of an article or we should use bold characters unnecessarily in body! Everytime I correct these after few days I see the issues are back.

I have tried to talk to you also. You have replied me some "thank you" messages, but I could not see any progress in the article!

These articles (or multiple sections of these articles) need rewriting).

Reply here. I am watching this page! BTW, have you gone to WP:GOCE which I suggested(and you thanked for the suggestion too)? --Tito Dutta (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok MatthewVanitas. I thought I had done a good thing adding the photo of Subash on Sarkar's article. I respect your experience on WP and I accept to delete it. As you can see from the history of the article I didn't write it but I have just added some information and links on it.Tanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Titodutta I have worked hard to make the "Ananda Marga" article better. I'm not a full time worker of WP neither an Ananda Marga supporter. I've practically rewritten all the article inserting detailed information and quotations. If something is wrong of course it's possible to change it on a cooperative way.. I've inserted a few images on the article (illustrating some of the activities of this organization as I usually do on WP) to make it more interesting. "Per Wikipedia one word should not be linked in every sentence of an article": I agree with you please delete the links that you consider excessive. I don't understand what you mean about the references/citations of the article. If your opinion is that this article is in a very poor condition please give your contribution on the discussion page. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

In these two articles and Subhas Chandra Bose article too I don't know what they have tried to do with citations! Adding long long comments/opinions in citations. And irrelevant images, I had a hard time to understand where actually to click to verify the inline citations! I don't know who is Ashish ictc, but he has added multiple song (audio files) in the article and those files have worstly positioned (see Sadhana section of Sarkar's article).

I had a strong wish to delete most of the unencyclopedic portions in these two articles and reduce to stubs which I have not done so far most probably not going to so.

IMO, the article was a much better condition last year. Shorter but better! --Tito Dutta (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles for creation/News in Levels

Hello could you please review the article again? Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/News_in_Levels — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libor.skodik (talk • contribs) 04:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

National Islamic Front of Afghanistan

Hi MatthewVanitas,

I see you recently redirected National Islamic Front of Afghanistan to Mahaz-e Milli. This issue has been discussed already at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahazamili, and the consensus was to use the english name. Unfortunately, until now no-one had taken the logical step of merging the two articles accordingly. Would it be possible for you to merge the content into National Islamic Front of Afghanistan instead? --Raoulduke47 (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I have a mess of other deconflicts to do, so I'll add that one to the list. Thanks for the catch! MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you regarding the George Willoughby (soldier) article

Hi Matthew,

Thanks for all of your suggestions and editing help. It's great to see my article has finally made it onto Wikipedia. However, I wondered if it was possible to change the title, so that it does say Lieutenant George Willoughby, rather than just having George Willoughby (soldier). The reason why is because people interested in him cannot find him unless they put that specific search in and if they only put 'George Dobson' a Quaker comes up. Could this be changed do you think? I seem unable to edit that part.....

Many thanks Katzeaugen Katzeaugen (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

No worries, glad it all worked out! It's always a steel learning-curve, getting one's first article out, but you stayed positive, learned the ropes, and the article came out really well! I hope you'll do more articles in the future! As someone who's learned by doing on a lot of Indian history articles, I do suggest that you just carefully watch your use of Raj sources to try to balance out the bias. If a given person is covered by both Raj and modern sources (or contemporary Indian/Moghul sources) it's good to get multiple perspectives in there. If someone is known mainly through Raj/East India Company materials, though it's fine to quote passages directly, it's important to ensure that your/Wiki's treatment of the topic is phrased in a modern neutral/professional way that doesn't necessarily glorify the Brits or denigrate the locals, but reports factually and neutrally.

So far as the next part of your question, the primary title of the article is pretty fixed. Generally speaking, people are not filed by title, but are referred to by their WP:Common name, and if their name is shared with other people, a WP:Disambiguation phrase to clarify which person, generally by what they're most famous for: "John Smith (architect)", "John Smith (Romantic poet)", "John Smith (Opium Wars)". So while the main title George Willoughby (soldier) should probably stay, to address your concern the best was is a WP:Redirect. For example, you could create the new page Lieutenant George Willoughby and then save it with just the following code: #REDIRECT [[George Willoughby (soldier)]]. That will create a "redirect" so anyone searching that term will arrive at your page. You could do the same, if you like, with as many reasonable variants of his name as you see fit (Lieutenant Willoughby, etc). Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Great. Thanks so much. I'll do that. And yes, it was tricky being unbiased as a lot of the information out there is similar and clearly from older sources. Regards Katzeaugen Katzeaugen (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

"Non notable person"

Max Bruch appears to be non-notable? REALLY? I agree that the 'article' that was being created was pointless fluff, but at least decline it for the right reasons. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Tricia McLaughlin

Thanks for moving to appropriate section;)--Aichikawa (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The Society Page Sources

Hello, thank you for your feedback. I will continue to work on the page. As for sources, I can look for more sources to verify the information on Dr. Wilde, but The Society has been formed recently and does not have credible publicity other than locally within NJC. I am one of the cofounders of The Society, would I be able to site myself or other members of The Society on the mission statements and structuring of the group? If so, how can I go about doing this?

Thanks, Mark.broadfoot (talk) 12:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

A hearty Thank You

Matthew, finally figured out how to thank you at your home page. Thanks to your time, patience, and instructions, the Luo Xian Xiang article has been posted. Also took your advice and visited the History project site, left word etc... Will check in with the group again to see where I could help ... OR I will start another project that may involve US Case Law or a bio for another Chinese personnel. Again, without your help, who knows how much longer it will take to bring the article to fruition Many thanks! CHHistory (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Honnavile, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ministry of Home Affairs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Fraternal Benefit Societies

Matthew--a great name, also my 11-year-old son's name!

Thank you for your review of my page on Fraternal Benefit Societies. I see that you have rejected its submission due to other similar pages--which I suspected might happen, because at first glance, Fraternal Benefit Societies often appear to be mutual organizations, etc., which they really are not.

In fact, searches for Fraternal Benefit Society link directly to Mutual Organizations page; however this is not what a benefit socieity is, further confusing the issue to the average reader--which is exactly what I tried to dispel by writing this page.

The closest page that already exists on Wikipedia related to Fraternal Benefit Societies is "Friendly Societies," but the tone of this page is historical, as if these types of organizations are archaic and no longer exist, when Ninalill (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)they are vital, non-profit businesses and organizations that sell financial products geared toward middle income people. They are largely "fraternal life insurers" but also sell annuities and other products in some cases. But unlike commercial life insurers, they invest profits back into the communities they serve through community service projects, scholarships, etc. They are not credit unions, social clubs like the Moose or Elks, or Greek fraternity houses on college campuses--all misconceptions that fraternal organizations are trying very hard to correct.

How do we resolve this? Trying to edit any of these pages "Friendly Societies," "Mutual organizations" and "Benefit Society" would largely result in me effectively overwriting the their content, which I'm sure Wiki doesn't want me to do. But to try to just tweak what they have would not accomplish getting the news out about Fratneral Benefit Societies as they exist today.

What do you suggest? Thank you so much again for your kind attention to this matter.

Best Regards,

Nina Lill

Hello Nina! My best recommendation is to bring up the topic at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions to get advice from the volunteers there. That way you'll get lots of oversight and a breadth of opinions. Thanks again for your work and for being a good communicator, and Teahouse should help you find a solid solution. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete!

Can you delete two profiles on the teahouse guest? I happened to make two profiles and didn't think about. One is named James Jamarcus Darquan Smith and the other Jamarcus D. Smith can you get rid of them please? Thank You. CHAOS IS PERFECTION CONFUSION IS DOMINANCE 19:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuickFireSnyp (talk • contribs)

Archiving

MiszaBot III operates in a cyclical fashion, so if you're attempting to archive information immediately, or within twenty-four hours, it can appear as though the parameters aren’t functioning as expected. Mephistophelian (contact) 01:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC).

Talkback

Hello, MatthewVanitas. You have new messages at I Jethrobot's talk page.
Message added 01:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 01:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Saraiki Language And Saraikistan

Dear. This Article is about the Saraiki people. We should listen their voice and claim. so kindly don't remove the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.90.154 (talk) 08:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Saraiki people have no WP:Ownership of this article simply because it's about them. Secondly, material was removed because it was inappropriate, and/or uncited. We don't make exceptions for "personal knowledge", political advocacy, or any other such reasons. If material does not follow Wikipedia's standards and guidelines, it is removed. MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks But don't delete so many. some parts be retained in this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.90.154 (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

If the parts are properly cited and neutrally phrased, they wouldn't be removed. They were removed because they are inappopriate, the parts that were at least somewhat cited or appropriately phrased have been retained (though much of the article still needs to be checked and improved). MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edith Jeanette Soterius von Sachsenheim=

Hey Matthew Did you get my message? I need help and fast. I'm happy to pay for someone to set the page up. Please reply [email removed for privacy] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan White (talk • contribs) 01:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, a few points:

• I'm doing fine for cash, so I'm not a paid editor, which though not totally prohibited is discouraged on Wiki for a variety of reasons. If for whatever reason you choose to use an advertised paid editor, please exercise all due caution.
• I assume this is regarding Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edith Jeanette Soterius von Sachsenheim. I checked out the current version, and though a good start it is nowhere near ready to publish, since it needs much clearer sourcing than it currently has.
• If I recall your other posts correctly, you have some ties to the subject. This is exactly why we discourage people from writing on things they have close ties to. Someone who simply finds EJSvS an interesting historical personage is unlikely to be deeply emotionally hurt from the process of improving the article, much less having a specific "hurry" to do so. I can't prevent you from being emotionally invested, but hopefully you can understand why others are leery to help "push" an article through on a timeline that matters only to the originator. If the article were, for example, someone from X War and this was the ABC Anniversary of X War, hurry for proper timing might make sense, but otherwise hurry seems unnecessary.
• Fundamentally, you need to bone up on WP:Sourcing issues to fix the article. If this person is near and dear to you and there's some personal reason for rushing the article, I empathise, but we can't publish unready articles, or divert efforts from other articles, based on personal reasons, which is one of many reasons we discourage editing on topics near and dear to your own emotions.
• All that aside, for better of for worse you've started an article. My best recommendation is to slowly improve it based on guidance from other editors to bring it up to standards. If you know other people who want to help out (maybe even WP:WikiProject Romania by all means bring them in under this collaborative effort. But there is no "shortcut" to a good article, and a poor or unreferenced article which lunges out of WP:AFC into publication prematurely is likely to be deleted for lack of sourcing in order to protect the reputation of the subject.

Sorry there's no easy answers, but Wikipedians overall would be glad to help you with your questions about how to bring this article up to par. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey Matthew Thank you for your response which I fully understand. My only desire to rush was to show it to my 93 year old mother before she dies. But we can exclude that and as you say, take my time sorting out a good article. I'm not 'emotional' about it but my mother is the one with all the information as it's her mother, so my grandmother!

But the family art history is deeper than that, 2 really really old relations are in BENZIT and have paintings in museums as does my grandmother come to that.

It's just that no one has ever bothered to get the info out onto Wikipedia. So I'm gonna try. So you know, I love Wikipedia and recently made a donation.

Ok onwards nice and slowly

Thanks Dylan White — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan White (talk • contribs) 19:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your attention to and help with the massive mess created by Historylover123, there was no way I could clean it all alone without looking like I'd gone on a witchhunt. besieged^talk 12:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No worries, and let's both keep an eye on his Contribs and see if he makes any other bad moves, at which point we should take him right to ANI. He's had plenty of warnings. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Te Deum, Zoltán Kodály

Hi, you rejected my article because you said there is already an article written on Zoltán Kodály. I realize this. My article was written on Te Deum, written by him. Please reconsider.

Lwhit (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I see now. The intro was a bit unclear as to the topic, so at first glance it looked like just his bio. That said, though this is a good start, you have a number of things to clean up:

• Several sections, like "Bio" and the Te Deum translation, are covered at length in other articles, and you should just link said articles rather than summarise them here. The article is about Zoltan's Te Deum, so you need to keep it focused to specifics about this individual work, with only the bare minimum of reference to outside topics just for context.
• Don't use "Ibid" in footnotes; the beauty of Wiki footnotes is that you can move text around and the numbers automatically re-sort themselves with no effort needed. However, a note saying "Ibid" is dependent upon always being in a certain order, so if someone inserts some more info and a new footnote between #15 and #16 footnotes, now "Ibid" is #17 and incorrectly looks like it's an ibid to the new #16 note. Does that make sense? Instead of using "ibid", there's a little trick called Wikipedia:REFNAME to get footnotes to the same source to stack properly. Let me know if you need help figuring that out even after reading the link.

This is overall a good start, but needs some fine-tuning before you resubmit. If you'd like a wider opinion, you can check with the volunteer mentors at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. Good luck and nice work so far! MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking at it further, you still need to establish the WP:Notability of this composition in the first place. You have a lot of footnotes, but almost none of them are actually about Kodaly's Te Deum. Instead, they substantiate non-TD facts about his life, about TDs in general, or are "cited" to recordings of the work or the score itself. What we need is WP:Independent sources which say "Hey, there's a TD by Kodaly, and here is why it is significant/important." Not your personal analysis, not non-TD details about the composer or the school of music, but to have an article about the specific work, we need coverage of this specific work from the media or academia. Does that help clear up the issue? MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Which article?

Hi there Mathew, how do I see what was wrong with my article?

Regards Marcelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.126.176 (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Marcelle, which article are you referring to? MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Terasem

Thanks for the feedback on the Terasem Movement article. There are a couple points I was on the fence about when I started out to write this piece. Would it be more appropriate to give each branch their own article? If not, am I attempting to get too deep, and therefore should I be abbreviating the area I cover? Forever. 15:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsataReign (talk • contribs)

Hello AsataReign, some good questions there. First off, I would keep everything on one Terasem article at first. If there isn't a good basic article on the overall TM movement, having branches thereof will be unstable. Also, my vague impression is that the branches have a lot of basic commonalities, so probably most efficient to have a general TM article and some brief explanation of the variants later in the article.

Secondly, I do think the article needs to take a broader focus, and is bit too down into the nitty-gritty without even giving enough of a broad-overarching view of the Movement. This is a common problem with articles written by adherents of spiritual or political movements. A good way to try and break from that is look at what non-members have written about the group. Not saying just you, but a lot of such groups spend time on minutiae of their history and namedropping people of near-zero interest to those not intimately familiar with the movement. If "Joe Smith" and "Bob Smythe" had an argument about the movement and Smythe left in 1995, unless we have existing articles on Smith and Smythe, and there are greater significances to that split, the casual reader probably doesn't need to know it, no matter how interesting it may be to people familiar with Smith and Smythe.

My vague impression is that this is a Notable topic, but it unfortunately reads like an article for TM vice about it. For an uninvolved reader, it comes across as a lot of internal minutes, namedropping, lots of jargon, etc. The concept is certainly interesting, but it needs to be phrased for an encyclopedic audience. My strongest suggestion is to dig into what non members (journalists, academics, etc) have taken time to write about, and use that as the majority of your footnotes, other than points where you cite the org itself on basic non-controversial data like founding date, mission statement, etc. Does this help? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Merging "Classes in SWTOR with SWTOR

The article Star Wars The Old Republic is locked for editing (until March 29th of next year). I don't know if I can merge it at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaac149 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Go to the article's Talk page, start a new section saying "Do we need to include info about Classes?" and give them a link to your page. They should either say "hey, good idea" and they can get an exemption to have it added, or they'll say "no, we don't need it" and that'll be it. Go communicate with the Talk:Star Wars: The Old Republic page, see what happens. Make sure you check that page's Archive first to make sure that hasn't already been discussed. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for Offer

Specifically adding pictures. I'm not sure how to do that. Usually I look at articles that have features I want and see how they're done, then try to copy the format. I can't figure out how pictures are added or embedded in the articles, though. I've looked at the directions, but I'm not conversant yet with the nomenclature used to understand exactly what to do. I started the piece on the Leesburg Transfer Company in the Sandbox because I couldn't see a tab that let me create an article. It's there, I'm sure- but when I was looking for it I couldn't find it. So- any help is appreciated! talk) 20:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, MatthewVanitas. You have new messages at LPBrennan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Matthew--how do I find your response to my questions?

I was unsuccessful in trying to find your response to my comments regarding your denial of my Fraternal Benefit Societies page. I'm new to "Talk" Can you send a direct link to your comments? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninalill (talk • contribs) 21:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, it's filed in my Archives (to keep my Talk page from getting too long). Here's the link for it: User talk:MatthewVanitas/Archive_17#Fraternal_Benefit_Societies. Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Are we supposed to decline submissions that already exist only as redirect? The submission that you declined already exists as a redirect to Mutual organization. I thought that if/when it gets accepted, we were supposed to delete the redirect (with the help of admin, of course) and move the submission to the article space. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 23:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I think you're right, it's just I was reading the two different things as relatively synonymous terms, but Ninalill is stating that there are some significant technical differences. If someone else wants to take a look and move the draft to take the place of the redirect (if the draft itself is kosher), I have no objections, but then we'd have to check with the Mutual organization editors to see if they though the two should remain separate or should merge. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 03:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)