User talk:MatthewVanitas/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

WP:PROF

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael L. Tushman seems to meet this guideline. If the named professorship is verified, nothing more needs to be proven. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

turned out to be a copyvio of their univ. bio. & I deleted it as such. That's the first thing to check for academics. One thing that gave be suspicion was their including minor awards.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A History of Belfast Underground Clubs

Many thanks for your helpful comments of 11th and 18th June 2013. I have tried to correct the essay type style by removing the subjective and emotional wording as you indicated. There were many 100's of events throughout the history of the underground, too many of course to document therefore I listed and described in chronological order those events that represented the most significant developments in the movement e.g. the change to unlicensed premises, the move away from dance music, the introduction of Performance art. I had based this on the Wikipedia articles on Pink Floyd; The History of Rock and Roll; the Rolling Stones and Avant-garde jazz. Could you be persuaded to allow the chronological style if the content is more encyclopaedic? Your help in this matter is greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wokmonkey (talk • contribs) 16:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Specialized firearms

Category:Specialized firearms, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 04:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Edward "Ned" Hector - Black Revolutionary War Soldier

Dear MatthewVanitas,

Thank you for helping me with my entry. The subject of the bombardier derives it's comments due to the listing of Edward Hector on the muster roll as a bombardier. Most people have no idea what an artillery bombardier is. So I included the explanation. There are several positions on the gun; matross, gunner, and bombardier as an example. I wanted to clarify what Hector did.

The reference material I cited was published in a respected annual historical publication that has been in existence for over 100 years. It has passed peer review and can be considered valid, consistent with the policy on Original Research. It qualifies to be cited from. Please correct me if I am wrong about this. What I understand I cannot cite my unpublished research.

I've started including the text and context that I am citing from to show where my information is coming from. I have been questioned about a couple of the comments I have made. I put some of this information in the footnotes because of comments about having it in the body of the article.

The subject I am writing about presents problems, this is because I am the one that has done the majority of the research on this subject. Suggestions?

Although I have receive many useful comments and I am trying to make adjustments the best I can without compromising the subject matter, I am becoming a bit frustrated with the Wiki process. Please bear with me.

96.245.119.56 (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6

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.

Kankō Ainu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ainu

Military use of children (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ituri

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Pavel Fileviez Perez

Hello, I have corrected the page for Dr. Pavel Fileviez Perez. I am sorry for the first version, Greg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregcuba (talk • contribs) 20:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Apurv Gupta, Youth President, UNA-UK

Dear Mr. Matthew,

Thank you for editing Mr. Gupta's Wikipedia page and helping us improve the quality and content.

We will make the amends that you have suggested to the page as soon and possible and will be adding More material as and how articles about Gupta come out - this week and the next.

We would highly appreciate if we could get any suggestions from you on how to make the page More suitable fro Wikipedia standards and that it escapes deletion.

Thank you once again.

Not a problem. Fundamentally, the article must explicitly establish how Gupta meets the standards of WP:Notability. Please review those. All facts given should be footnoted, and the only permissible use of Gupta's own site, or those of people/groups affiliated with him, is for basic uncontroversial facts (birthplace, date of election, etc). Any comment about his significance, impact, accomplishments, etc. must be cited to independent, reliable sources such as news articles (not press releases) etc. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Matthew,

Thank you for the quick response. We also highly value your suggestions. We will certainly flesh out Information from articles on Gupta, though it might take some time, but it needs to be done to keep to The standards of Wikipedia.

We are appreciative of the support you have rendered us and hope that we can count on you for further edits in the Near future.

Thank You.

Talkback

Hello, MatthewVanitas. You have new messages at APerson's talk page.
Message added 00:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

APerson (talk!) 00:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Rajasekharan

Dear sir.. I am new here. Please rewrite my submission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Rajasekharan in a more encyclopedic format. Kindly do this favor for me. Thank you.. Regards Rajasekharan Rajasekharan Parameswaran (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I previously helped you extensively when the article was at [[1]], but because you'd copied the material from elsewhere, it was deleted for copyright violation. I feel I've given you some general idea of what needs to be done. If you have questions, I can answer them, but I'm not going to do your work for you, especially since I already did it once. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Addition to page that was rejected

Hi there, just to let you know that I undid a revision you added to a page here [2]. I did this because – whatever the article – it felt to me like overkill and possibly a tad close to biting newcomers WP:BITE. Thanks. Libby norman (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Improving article Shut-off nozzles

Hi MatthewVanitas, Thanks for helping me launch the article I wrote about Shut-off nozzles. I know it looks quite simple, but seeing as this was my first contribution, it took quite some time to figure everyting out. I noticed that there was the comment that it wasn't added to any categories, so I added it to Plastics industry and also Injection molding. Concerning the orphanage status: I believe I could integrate links in other pages. Should I work on this or do you think I should wait a bit longer for other people to make their contributions to the article? One thing I couldn't figure out myself is to line up the text with the pictures a bit more correctly; I am hoping someone else knows how to fix this. Look forward to your reply! ps How do I handle the fact that I added the categories, can I just delete the mentioning at the top of the article? Or does it have to be approved by someone else? Mtsunny (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Vidiots Resubmission

Matthew, Just resubmitted for Vidiots. Thank you so much for your comments and suggestions. I never realized how much work people volunteer for Wikipedia. I was so impressed I actually donated some money. Again thank you for your time and expertise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidiots (talk • contribs) 19:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, I've done some format fixes at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Vidiots, linked (but not yet footnoted) some references, and left some clear advice. Please let me know if you have questions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Tea ceremony

Matthew, I am responding to your request and have made comments to you. Marybethmccabe (talk) 05:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

first article

Hi Matthew,

This is my first article posting on Wikipedia, for Swamini Sri Lalitambika Devi. Perhaps you could offer some advice? Thank you so much for your help.

All best, Hanuman BabaHanuman108 (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Liburdi AFC page

Mr. Vanitas Thank you very much for your comments regarding editing the proposed Liburdi page. I have not written a Wiki page before and used the General Electric page as a guide document. Is it possible to acquire assistance in rewriting the section from a reliable (Wiki approved) source?

I thank you for your direction in advance.

Best regards, Leslie Kidder — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liburdi (talk • contribs) 12:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Pavan Khind‎

You need to explain your tag on the talk page or someone will likely remove it. Dougweller (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/World T.E.A.M. Sports

This is my first new post to Wikipedia and I followed all guidelines. Yet, you appear to delight in dismissing my post. I've posted content to other listings in the past without any difficulties.

Other postings use links to the sites for the topic - I can cite numerous examples. Yet, you appear to follow a stricter standard for my posting.

Aragoniterick (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You requested a review, I provided a review. You can't ask for help and then accuse people of "delighting" when they point out things that need to be fixed. I added a note that you're doing footnotes wrong; manual footnotes make it very hard to move text around over time because the numbers get out of order, so I showed how to format footnotes for automatic tagging. So far as references, we have an explicit policy Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) which says that you have to show that somebody outside of your company ever cared about it enough to write about it. To be blunt, if no newspaper, academic journal, etc. has ever commented on the importance of your organisation, why should we all of a sudden be covering it on Wikipedia? An encyclopedia is not an advertising space, nor a place to launch press releases. If coverage does not exist in independent, reliable sources, then we can't have an article about it.

I didn't say you absolutely cannot use your site for footnotes, but policy is only very non-contentious things can be, in small amounts, cited to the subject. So "Founded in 1973" is fine to cite, but "is the leader in manufacturing the highest quality widgets" is not since clearly the subject isn't neutral on the subject, and we want an outside expert's opinion instead. So far as your seeing published articles using lots of links to the subject's own site: see WP:Other stuff exists (i.e. we don't let people write poor articles just because there are other poor articles). If you see a published article that clearly doesn't meet WP:Notability or is flagrant advertising, please pitch in and tag it for WP:Speedy deletion. Hope this helps, MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rashtrottahana Parishat may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[:Category:Organisations based in Karnataka]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Memorial to the Sinti and Roma victims of National Socialism may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[:Category:Holocaust memorials]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sammanthurai may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''Sammanthurai''' ({{lang-ta|சம்மாந்துறை}}), {{lang-si|සම්මාන්තුරයි}}), often known by its initials '''STR''', is a town in [[Ampara District]] of [[Eastern Province]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Language map of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

Hello Mathew,I see you are a member of both Hazara and Pashtun projects. If you know about the subject, you should also know that the maps you keep re-instating is completely wrong. As i stated earlier in multiple talk pages, the map is showing majority pashto speaking areas such as Karak District, Shangla District, Battaggram District, Toorghar District and Buner District as Hindko Speaking, while Tank District is being shown as Saraiki Speaking. The map is of a very bad quality and extemely in accurate, so one wonders why was it allowed to be used in the first place. Also if you are a member of Hazara and Pashtun projects you should yourself be aware that the map being used is inaccurate. Even then if you do not remove or replace it with a more accurate map, it just shows (a) either you are incompetent or (b) you are intentionally publicizing wrong information. Tigerkhan007 (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

There's no need to go making accusations, please observe WP:Assume good faith. I'm not saying your map is incorrect, I'm not saying you have ill intentions, what I am saying is it is not proper to change a longstanding map on dozens of articles without first communicating with other people. I understand it can be hard to tell sometimes where best to discuss an issue, but you really need to try at WikiProject Pakistan. If your map is indeed far better, than it should be no problem to get a number of people to agree with you, and then you can make the changes, with an Edit Summary letting folks know "changing per 10 August discussion at WikiProject Pakistan". That's all that is needed. So please, pause in the changes for now, and go share the idea with others so we can ensure there is consensus for such a large change of maps, and if the other map is wrong we can use that consensus to delete the old map from Wikimedia Commons so as to not confuse people with bad data. So please, start the discussion to gain Consensus. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Mathew sorry if i do wrong stuff such as multiple postings etc, i am new to this and still learninig. Thanks Tigerkhan007 (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No worries, your enthusiasm is appreciated, it's just that communication is very important on Wikipedia, so when one person makes a lot of changes without a clear discussion at first, people get nervous. Because without clear discussion, it's hard for us to know their intentions and accuracy. But if you post the discussion at WikiProject Pakistan and say "here's why map X is wrong and my new map Y should replace it, and here's my evidence", and then several people check it and say "that's a good point, we agree", then everyone has communicated and is helping each other to make sure we have the very best information. So please do open the discussion, and if people agree your new map is better, we can make all the changes and also delete the old wrong map from Wikimedia. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Mathew i think we are dealing with a sockpuppet maria0333 at (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Map_of_languages_of_Khyber_Pakhtunkhwa.jpg).need your fair comments on the page, also i think the other two person are the same people, regards. Tigerkhan007 (talk) 08:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Brad Mehldau Trio Ode

Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Ode

Any album by Mehldau, one of the most influential and well known jazz pianists of the 21st century, is notable. Do some research before rejecting an article. I was trying to complete his discography. Added further citations just for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divergence5 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

As noted in the big pink box at top, the initial draft I reviewed didn't meet the guidelines for music articles per Wikipedia:Notability (music). That is, it didn't demonstrate that anyone has bothered to write about Ode and its significance. So far as "do some research", that's exactly the problem. It's not incumbent on the reviewer to go read up on the topic, it's incumbent on the submitter to explicitly demonstrate that the topic meets WP:Notability, succinctly summed up at WP:42:

Articles require significant coverage

in reliable sources

that are independent of the subject.

I'm not an expert on music sourcing, so I can certainly Decline an article for not having sourcing (which was previously the case), but for the next stage I'll defer to a music-focused reviewer as to whether these sources are sufficiently Reliable and Independent. You may find WP:Notability (music) worth reading, to make sure your article meets the checklist of what an article about an album entails. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

READ THE SOURCES NOW. Your attitude is so against the spirit of Wikipedia man, whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divergence5 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Dude, no need to get angry and shout. I don't see what's unreasonable for me to defer to a reviewer who specializes in music. For the first review, when it had no References, it was clearly not ready, so I declined it. Now that it's more developed, it's not an obvious Decline, but I don't feel I'm expert enough on the topic to Accept it. Also it's often best that different reviewers look at different drafts so you're not dealing with just one reviewer's opinion holding you back. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

"For the first review, when it had no References," because AllMusic and Nonesuch Records don't count as sources? What?...you're just ridiculous. Most album pages for discography purpose have only A SINGLE source, usually AllMusic. Check for yourself if you don't believe me. Why you would choose to review something you aren't familiar with is beyond me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divergence5 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Jacob Daniel Essig

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jacob Daniel Essig (Евросоюз Дмитрий Бурдуковский)

Can you be very specific abt was was wrong with me article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandon Woods 4737 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

As noted in the big pink box at top, and highlighted large text below it, you have not given any evidence that Essig meets the standards of Wikipedia:Notability (music). You must demonstrate the Independent and Reliable sources have written Substantive comment about him. Not blogs, forums, Facebook, etc. but instead journalists or academics. You must show that serious observers have found him to be worth writing about, not just that you personally find him interesting. These sources must be clearly footnoted.

Aside from sourcing (which is absolutely mandatory and totally missing), you've put Wikipedia articles as "References" which is not how it works. If you want readers to refer to other articles, simply put double-brackets around words to create WP:Wikilinks like so: [[Chicago]] displays as Chicago.

Lastly, the article is not written in an academic tone. Phrases like "Jacob has a long life ahead with his violin under his chin" is just fluff that doesn't mean anything factual, it's just opinion/prediction. Encyclopedias are about bare indisputable facts, not about promoting or denigrating anyone, not about presenting opinion.

So, those are a few of the key issues to address. I emphasise though, if you cannot find substantive mention of Essig in serious news articles, academic journals, etc. (not just the Youth Symphony's own website), then Essig is not yet ready to have an article about him until such time as he gets such coverage. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

i have a newspaper clipping that i could scan and put it on my computer. Is there any way to place it on the Wikipedia article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandon Woods 4737 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

This is for a Drama project at school and it is totally fictional so how would i get resources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandon Woods 4737 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If it's fictional, then why would we publish it as an article? We can't just publish things people make up. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for passing my article at AfC. You're awesome. theonesean 20:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

File:MAFONSO - Dimore - Anno 2008 - Biennale Venezia 54..JPG

MAFONSO - Dimore - Anno 2008 - Biennale Venezia 54.

Vellalar Image

Hi, I don't understand why you have added this image: it has nothing to do with the chapter and it is from Thurston book which should not be used because not reliable.Rajkris (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The photo is one of general interest showing a culture; there's no requirement that a photo in an article have a specific tie-in to the text immediately adjoining it, just that it be pertinent to the article overall. Secondly, Thurston is not sufficiently reliable as sociologist, but that's no reason not to use his photographs, and more than we should avoid using an anonymous picture-postcard of a Vellalar person if it helps to portray the Vellalar culture in a given time and place. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

But sociologist is also about images, not only contents...Rajkris (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

What's your specific objection? Are you claiming that the image is not actually of a Velallar? MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know whether the people in the image are Vellalars or not. I'm just telling that in my opinion, when an author must not be used in wiki because not reliable, this concerns all of his contents (both what he wrote and also the images he used).Rajkris (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Rajkris, I disagree, there's a difference between being a scholar and taking a photograph. Wikipedia has thousands of photographs taken by amateurs, so barring severe concerns over accuracy, why not allow Thurston's? And further, even if somehow the scene was manipulated or staged, it's still a useful insight into how Vellalars were portrayed in colonial records. Honestly, for some of the people pushing against these images, it comes across as being WP:Pointy. That is, that people who wanted to use Thurston research and were told it was not admissible, are criticising the photos in retaliation. I just don't see the downside of having the photos up, and it's not like there is any other good source of ~1900 Vellalar photos that is any less biased in one direction or another. If we had a number of useful images and were choosing between them that'd be one thing, but it seems impractical to deprive the article of images over some WP:RS dispute about some British observer. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Chaudhary Harmohan Singh Yadav

My bad, I hadn't read the AfC properly. I have reverted the article back to your edit. --Salilb (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Space-time finite element method concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Space-time finite element method, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Narahari Sharma Review

Thanks for the review. I can see we can add more info to the page but the only soource used is his own interview how can that be unreliable? Also this person is keeping an art alive when TRP driven media does not want to spend time on these things and more worried about nude women videos and photos. That is why I interviewed this person and trying to document this persons life that will be useful for others. I can not provide any other source more reliable than his own interview I myself conducted. Thanks ~rAGU (talk)

Greetings ~rAGU, an interview with the subject does not necessarily meet the criteria of WP:Notability because the subject is not a neutral, objective party, and interviews generally do not include extensive outside analysis and fact-checking. It is not necessarily that we are saying that Sharma himself is unreliable, but rather that on general principle we need coverage that is more objective and independent than the subject's own words.

That is why I interviewed this person and trying to document this persons life that will be useful for others. - ah, this is part of the issue. Wikikpedia is not a place to make something known, to advocate. An encyclopedia summarises existing published works; we are like a mirror of existing media and academic coverage, not a place to create the first image. If you are trying to spread awareness of a cultural art, you must instead work with media and academics to stir discussion and examination of the topic, and only then can we summarise that coverage on Wikipedia after it arises. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Chaudhary Harmohan Singh Yadav

I've deleted Chaudhary Harmohan Singh Yadav per the G6 rationale you gave. Looking at the AfC, I'm not 100% certain you want it to move immediately into mainspace, so I'm going to leave that step up to you. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

John O. Johnson

Thank you for cleaning up my submission for John O. Johnson (White Bear Lake, etc.)

I need help in order to add photos. Photos are from before 1925 from my family.

Johan O. Johansen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan O. Johansen (talk • contribs) 15:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Sabakiball

Hello and thank you for reading my comment. I am a bit confused by this process. I have researched and added references including several news sources, yet my article continues to receive rejections. On a whim I looked up Tchoukball which has a wikipedia article and this sport mentions no news references. It does mention dozens of clubs and organizations associated with the main governing body of tchoukball as would be the case with Sabakiball if they were deemed to be news worthy. Perhaps I am missing something, but it seems that a completely unique patented sport that has grown in just 4 years to include participation by people across North America would warrant notability on Wikipedia. Perhaps, as an avid Sabakiballer, I am too close to the subject but I am curious as to what makes one subject notable while another is not. Is it number of years in the public? For example, more than 250,000 students in the Dallas/Fort Worth/Richardson area are playing Sabakiball through their Physical Education classes. This is in one state out of thirty three states that have implemented the sport in schools. I would imagine someone somewhere is wondering "what the heck is Sabakiball?" Isn't what wikipedia is for? Anyway, I will stop researching information for this article if it is just a matter of time in the public eye that is needed as eventually it will become more notable and someone else can write the article. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.87.19 (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

jimsh

pls aprove my band jimsh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashishben (talk • contribs) 05:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, band articles must meet the rules of our policy Wikipedia:Notability (music). As we indicated to you in the pink "Decline" boxes on the article. Please take a look at the requirements of that policy and see if that band is able to meet them. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Problem with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Silesian School of Iconography ?

Oh! Thank you for your attention! But I do not know what I should do to publish this article. I am new and I make a errors. I'll try to do it according to your advice, and if you can correct me please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Like the dewfall (talk • contribs) 18:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings Like the dewfall, your last edit blanked the whole article (not sure if you meant to do that or no). I will change it back for you to be a full article awaiting Review. It might take a week or two to be reviewed since we're backlogged, and often it takes some back-and-forth and several tries to get it cleaned up right, but we can get you up to publication if you work with us. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

MatthewVanitas thank you for your help! Like the dewfall (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem, Like the dewfall. While you are waiting for review, I very much recommend that you add some wider sourcing to your article. I'm having trouble finding specific mentions of "Silesian School of Iconography" (or its Polish name) online. Is there some other term by which it is referred? At the very least, can you list out some books that specifically discuss the concept of "Silesian School of Iconography"? That will help the reviewer verify that a) such a movement does indeed exist, b) it has been written about by experts. Not at all that I doubt you, just that we must be able to establish WP:Verifiability. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I understand. I will try to find more sources about this school. Thanks! Like the dewfall (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society

Hi Matthew, I have a couple questions about the article I recently tried to create on The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society. You mentioned that it needed to be less of an "about us" and provide more outside references. I've added a link to the journal's ISSN in Worldcat, a link to an article that mentions the journal and its editor, and I may be able to link to its place in the Library of Congress's catalog. However, when I look at the entries for other scholarly journals, they don't really go beyond those kinds of links to establish their notability. For example: [[3]] and [[4]]. Would adding those links (and a little infobox like the other entries have) suffice to establish this journal's notability?

Thanks, JBCGP (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Dear Mr. Vantias,

I received your message concerning my article. My book is pubished and I am introducing the subject and the title of my book in Wikipedia. I do not earn money for it, and the review of my book is for free in the Amazon, KDP.

To give an introduction of book title and cover page and the name of author is normal in Wikipedia. Why are you saying that your team writes only article? If you searched in wikipedia for Gone With the Wind, a full description of the book and author appear. I plan to create a page just like it to introduce my published book.

Sincerely yours, Dr. Manoochehri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.71.210.106 (talk) 06:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm pretty new to Wikipedia. I need help I do not understand that if you submit new data and if someone removes it with the former content, why are they allowed to have their data there but you cannot? Especially if it has to do with new scientific data on a subject? Isn't it only fair and just that everyone have fair chance to equally present their content equally? What does it hurt if the data is informative and not hurting anyone? Just because it's new and someone doe not like it what gives them the right to have their data there but you cannot have yours there? Can someone please guide me and explain this to me? I'm not trying to cause problems or be malicious or anything like that. But when I tried to post the data back to the subject matter a third time on Gliese 581 g I had a note that it would be removed, and I do not understand why? What did I do wrong? Except to want to place new available data and why is it not allowed as it seems to me? It would seem that persons would first allow all data to be reviewed as it should be in the scientific process and allow both pro and con scientific data to be presented. Not eliminated just because it's new or for some other reason or unknown reason which is not explained.

I need some guidance here. is someone willing to discuss this with me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RS-No-How (talk • contribs) 15:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Vanitas,

Thank you for the message. Last month, I prepared sections of my published books and presented in the wikipedia, but they were deleted by someone based on an "assumption" that they seemed [to her] to be advertising. That was not true, and all my effort for one week to prepare the files were deleted by an assumption. He/she could at least notify me so that I could keep a copy of the file until a final decision is reached on that point. A deletion should be based on a proven fact not on a fiction.

I am not publishing articles. Please, this issue should be cleared that I am not posting an article, rather, I am posting a published book, and, therefore, no part it can be changed or edited. I am introducing the titles of my published books. There is no selling or any kind of advertising in this. My books are published with Amazon, and can be reviewed for free by all the people in the world.

For the introduction the title of a book, however, it helps readers if there is a synopsis of the book and a bit information about the educational background of the author. This is similar to a title like: The Misers or Gone With The Wind. If such titles are searched in the wikipedia, what information about those works would be presented in the pages of wikipedia: the title of the book, a synopsis of the book, sample pages of the book, information about the author, and links for related subjects or books or articles in that regard.

I have kept a copy of the information in my sandbox for the moment, until a final decision with a wikipedia authority is reached. Then, I will keep the information only in one file.

Finally, I am ready to pay for a specialist, a fair amount, to design the pages of wikipedia for my titles and cover pages of my published books in a way that they become available for the public and they are not deleted.

Sincerely yours, Dr. Manoochehri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.71.210.106 (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Shivam Patil

I am a little concerned with you acceptance of this from AfC as large sections are unsourced. Also the tone is not encyclopaedic (for example "he was renown for" and "who took a deep interest in") and is in general promotional. LGA _talk^edits 23:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I shall make needed changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.47.67 (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I shall make needed changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.47.67 (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Jessy Jacob choorapoikayil

I shall make needed changes  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessy jacobchoorapoikayil (talk • contribs) 18:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC) 

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vaughans Radio Ltd

Have made changes ready for review... thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaughans (talk • contribs) 10:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Swaraveenapani

Matthew ,

I have added the refferences to the page. Could you please review and approve this page? Thanks Sri P 14:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sri pusuluri (talk • contribs)

AfC

Hello there! Hope you had a nice Wikibreak :) I just noticed that some of your reviews caused template break-ups. Have you noticed that too? Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello FoCuSandLeArN, is this with the WP:42 highlighted text? If so, I've seen it happen in a few cases and corrected it, but the vast majority of the time had no problem with that coding. Any ideas what's going wrong with it? I'd requested before to have that highlighted phrase turned into just a full template, but nobody has taken me up on that yet. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but today I also saw you'd left a comment, but instead there were about 3 or 4 "missing comment" red warnings where there should've been comments. Bugger, I should've kept the link. Yeah, I know what you mean. It's tiresome to copy-paste all that over and over again! Well, if I see it again I'll post something on the AfC talk page. Have a good one! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for your help on my article about Marion Holland! (I added some sources & hope to add more.) ~~Emily Brewton

Emily Brewton (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Emily Brewton! Nice work on the article, and you can feel free to go ahead and remove the "ibid" tag from the top of the article, and the "single" tag once you have at least a few footnotes to sources other than the Post. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

whats Wrong with my Post Euphoric Heritage Records

Kindly explain why my Article is rejected please? thanks alotShanghsu (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, as stated inside the pink box at top of your article: This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.

Simply put: your article tells us statements about the article, but it doesn't demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That is, we need to see any "claims to fame" or even slightly contestable statements (achievements, awards, etc) verified in newspapers, music biz journals, etc. Euphoric's own webpage can only be used for very basic facts like founding date, owner, location. Blogs, Facebook, YouTube (unless official news/statement pieces from reputable authorities) do not count as References. We need to see serious coverage of this record label and its impact in order to approve the article. Does this help? MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks alot and I have provided some reliable source and news from independent body of the record label — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.89.184.35 (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Shanghsu, being from the record label is the exact opposite of independent source. We mean here, not "independent" like "independent film", but we mean "not affiliated professionally or personally with the subject". We must have perspective in the article from professional sources which are not hyping, promoting, advertising, etc. the record label, but are able to neutrally comment on it. I have left some comments on your draft about specifically what does not work with the current sources. Again, has this label been discussed in serious newspapers, music business journals, etc? I strongly suggest you read the basic policy WP:Notability to judge whether this subject meets that requirement at this point. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Baagh e Naazir, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A.H. (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) 11:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Croatian hip hop

Dear Matthew: I was reading the above article which you declined, and I can't find anything threatening and and negative about it. (Please note that "sick" these days is being used as a synonym for "awesome".) Did you accidentally select the wrong decline reason? —Anne Delong (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Anne Delong, good catch. I use the keyboard to select my justifications, and unfortunately while hitting "v" twice takes me down to "Verifiability/sourcing", hitting "v" just once or three times gets the code "van" for Vandalism. So I must have hit "v" either too many times or too few. I've fixed the coding and left a note for the originator. Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I usually move the submissions in to "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Article name" and use the helper script. They have to be moved anyway, and it's less work doing it from the big yellow box, where the text is already in place. However, I have to admit, selecting with my touch pad doesn't always work either; several times I have selected the wrong item from the list and had to backtrack. Just the other day I accidentally moved a submission to Portal space when my hand slipped. Good luck with your reviewing. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for article review

Hi MatthewVanitas, I have noticed you review Articles for Creation. Would you mind reviewing two articles I have submitted? I would greatly appreciate it if you did. The articles are below:

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Casitas del Sur Case
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jorge Erdely Graham

Thanks. Ajax F¡ore_talk 00:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply to your message to Dr. Manoochehri

To Whom It May Concern/ Wikipedia Team:

Thank you for your clarification about the rule and policies of creating a userpage with the Wikipedia. There are, however, a few points that should be brought to the attention of the Wikipedia Team as a defense for the charges that I am using Wikipedia for "self-promotion" or for "Advertising". Although that looks like it, but that is not true, for the following reasons:

1) I am a published author of 12 volumes of pictorial books for which I worked more than 15 years. Pictorial books are usually produced by the sponsorship of a government or a university or financially strong publishing house. For 1 volume of a scholarly produced pictorial book, between 5 to 20 persons should be hired to perform various tasks related to the production of a pictorial book (--before its publication). For the first time, a free-lanced author has started and completed the production of original, pictorial manuscripts as a post-doctoral, academically oriented project, by the investment of the author for all the costs. The resources that I inputted to complete the 12 volumes ( now published with Amazon/ KDP Select), could have well been used to produce between 200 to 500 books in the West by the use of advanced software such as a dicta-phone and an editing software. Just one picture of a castle in the desert of Iran cost about $500 to travel to that spot by a car rental office (-- no bus, train, car or airplane moves to that location; therefore,a car and a driver should be hired from the nearest city and go to that location and return.) This is just 1 example of about 5000 illustrations about the main features of the traditional architecture in Iran for my books. During the years that I worked on my books, I have not been paid a penny by any person, while a janitor is a Western country earns about $1000 a month and about $12,000 a year and about $120,000 for 10 years. The salary for the holder of a Ph.D. is about $5000 a month, and about $60,000 a year. For more than 20 years working on the production and completion of 20 volumes of architectural books ( 12 volumes of which are now published by Amazon and can be reviewed for free by all people of the world), I must have been paid by a sponsor about $1,200,000 just for time. So far, I have not earned even a penny for my works and my works can be used by all people for free. Introducing my books in Wikipedia, is similar to introduce an author and his work in Wikipedia, i.e., Gone With the Wind, by Margaret Mitchell; The Invasion of Body Snatchers by Jack Finny. This, I do not think violates the Wikipedia policy. There is no conceivable financial benefit from the introduction of my books in Wikipedia. Wikipedia has allocated space to even introduce famous pornstars. Does that mean that people that see the picture of a pornstar in a wikipedia page will refer to that pornstar and will offer her money to buy love from her? It is impossible that I sell my book via Wikipedia.

2) I have a personal weblog (www.dr-manoochehri-Phd.co.uk) for two years in which my manuscripts and my resume and a copy of my doctoral degree are presented.

3) 12 volumes of my books are already published by Amazon/ KDP Select.

4) Wikipedia invites all people of the world to create an account. It is written in the top (right) section of the page. When an account is created, the person that creates such account should introduce him/herself. I have created an account, in the userpage of which I have introduced myself and the title of books. It is obvious that people want to know a bit about an author and his/her educational background. I some countries, and I do not mention where, some books are written and published by some interest group that those books are %100 written chatting. They are written by literate people, sometimes with a B.A. degree, to advertise about a topic for their interest. If searched, I am sure that some of this genre of books are also introduced in the Wikipedia. It is very unusual that all the Wikipedia Team become very obsessd to delete my account so that no name of my books appear in the wikipedia.

5) I created the second account so that the articles in the deleted account be transferred to it and be saved.

I hope the above points be read by the team in Wikipedia. If you decide to delete the account, that is fine. I cannot have objection to it. But please make all the review of a person intending to create an account prior to the creation not after the creation. Wikipedia creates accounts for users very freely and easily, but then the team in the Wikipedia exercise the career of deleting accounts and articles.

Sincerely yours, Dr. Hossein Manoochehri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.103.27.82 (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Change of Title

The title of my content Tarlok Singh (Soldier) seems inappropriate. How can I change it to Tarlok Singh, Vir Chakra? Thanks! Beewikis (talk) 11:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

@Beewikis: You already moved the page. However, I've moved it back to it's original title, as the standard for titles is First Last (occupation). Wikipedia does not include honoraries in titles (such as the Vir Chakra award). ~Charmlet ^-talk- 13:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)