User talk:MatthewVanitas/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	I strongly appreciate your quality work on finding and citing references. Mujeebsheikh (talk) 07:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

So many thanks for helping me out for my first article with your professional touch. I will serve you a cup of tea with our traditional snacks if possible. Mujeebsheikh (talk) 07:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

15:03:16, 10 August 2014 review of submission by Kalamazoo 54

• Kalamazoo 54 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jurgens Ci Caravans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Kalamazoo 54 (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Matthew – Please advise whether a website may be used as a source? I have been searching for newspaper, online, books, magazines for sources to support this content over the past two weeks – without success. There is a website (http://www.jurgensci.co.za/). Could this be cited as a source with the book I have cited?Kalamazoo 54 (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)(Kalamazoo 54 (talk) 10:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)) Please could you advise me iro this enquiry. Thank you. (talk)

Satair Article

Thank you so much for your corrections. I've tried to fill it with references. If it isn't enough I will gladly try again! :)

Sincerely Julia

Muvese57 (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I think my article for Malvolio (2009 film) was declined? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.17.2 (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Archibald Johnston

The Archibald Johnston (Mayor) - "(mayor)" for disambiguation - is complete per your comments about lead paragraph. We're looking forward to continuing to add data to the entry as soon as we move into name space. Thanks for getting us rolling. -John /jmarquette

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jmarquette/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmarquette (talk • contribs) 16:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

No worries, great work overall. Just a few points:

• I disambiguated him as "Bethlehem", since as I read it he's mostly famous for various roles at the steel mill, vice his mayorship, so "Bethlehem" seemed the best encapsulation of what makes him distinct from others of the same name. I updated the link at Archibald Johnston (disambiguation) to match.
• Photos would definitely be good; a photo that has been demonstrably (not just assumed) to be published prior to 1923 is out of copyright in the US, so anything you see that verifiably predates that is fair game to scan in at high resolution, add to Wikimedia Commons, and include in the article. Ditto for any future topics you cover, 1923 is the "big year" for US copyright expirations.
• Regarding the "we", do make sure that only one person uses a given Wikipedia account. Collaboration is fine, but for liability/legal/etc reasons each account is accountable to one person, so if a buddy wants to type while you're logged-in, have them log-in to their own account.
• Make sure to add WP:Categories to the bottom of your article; I suggest finding a similar historical figure and emulate the categories used in that article. Also there's a blank template I added to the bottom of the page, "PERSONDATA" for you to briefly fill out.

Great work, and I hope you'll continue to cover topics of interest to you, maybe including more Pennsylvania history? WikiProject Pennsylvania (like many smaller/niche projects) doesn't get much traffic these days, but if you care to visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, you might find other folks with good advice on any questions you have on writing and improving US history articles, and you can always check in at WP:Teahouse if you need any general "how to wiki" advice. From what I've seen I think you're fine to publish your next article directly rather than using Articles for Creation and waiting in line, just make sure you have very clear sourcing in your draft before publishing it, and you should be good to go. I'll be in and out and away from Wikipedia, but drop in to the Teahouse if you need advice. Great work! MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Declined Article

Hello Matthew

Thank you for your message. You can probably tell I have never done this before. Now that my article has been declined what do I do next?

Hello, you're not logged-in (or are using a different IP address than you used to write the article), so I have zero idea what draft you're referring to because your current IP has no editing history.

• If you have a Wikipedia account, please log-in, and then "sign" your post (hit the "sign" button on your editing window, or just type ~ four times) [[WP so I can see your editing record and know where your draft is
• If you're editing anonymously without an account (which is fine), please post here a link to your draft so I can take a look for you.

Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

18:55:01, 23 August 2014 review of submission by Willywaller

• Willywaller (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Arthur Howes MBE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Mathew, Thanks for reviewing my article. I have added references and hope this gives adequate evidence of Arthur Howes notability. I would appreciate your advice. Thanks Willywaller. Willywaller (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Green Fairy (novel)

Hi, thanks for the review on the article.

I've tried to find more notable sources for a few days but couldn't find any and so tried to submit the draft anyway, should have waited maybe. The only fact I could find about the book that could be notable is the prize won by the cover artist for her work (Ursa Major Award 2012 for Best Anthropomorphic Published Illustration) but the award itself doesn't even have a Wikipedia page, there is just a reference on the author's Wikipedia page. It's completely unrelated to the book's author or publisher while still being related to the book itself but being not well known it is improbable it will be accepted as a notable source, I'll add it and try to find other sources but it's probable I'll have to abandon the article altogether considering the book has been circulating for 2 years now.

Thanks again for the review and suggestions.

No worries, not everything is ready for a WP article yet. And that's not a qualitative comment, plenty of awesome people/albums/books just don't have enough coverage yet, and plenty of crappy ones get lots of press. WP has to set the bar somewhere, our bar is formal third-party recognition. Especially for a 2012 novel, if it gathers fame/impact over time, it may well later rate an article, so if you can't find sources, move your draft (not copy-paste, but an actual page-move using the Move tool, ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk to do it for you if you don't have move privileges yet) to your Sandbox so you can leave it there indefinitely in case you later find good coverage. "Draft:" articles get deleted after 6mo or so, but Sandbox pages can stay as long as needed in your personal workspace. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Matthew! I was just editing the page Jessel Mark "Magnifico" Magsayo because it was not accepted but then there's An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, and it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, please report this error. that appeared.. what should I do?????????? pls. help me...

Weapons Law Encyclopaedia website article denied

Hello,

I have made some changes to the article as requested. As I am not sure if this was what was needed for the article to be accepeted, could you kindly take a look whenever you can and let me know if I have to make additional changes?

Thanks a lot!

I've provided a long explanation at the top of your draft, hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Anthony Follett Pugsley

I have deleted this to make way for the draft, but it's a slightly messy situation, because the now-deleted article had a considerable history before user Simon Pugsley cut most of it out and posted (what looks like) the identical text into the Draft page. The original article was started by SP but also edited by several IPs. Maybe they are all him, but maybe not, so I think we should do a history merge. Ping me after you have accepted the draft and moved it to the article, and I will do that. JohnCD (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Move completed, thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done - histories merged. JohnCD (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

That 2012 Show

Hello Was just wondering, why did my That 2012 Show wikipedia page get rejected?

Thanks Daniel

Did you read the reasons given in the large pink box at the top of the draft page? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been asked about

this editor that I see posted to your talk page. What do you think? It's his use of talk pages that is the main issue. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what the wiki-polite way is to say this, but I literally think the editor is actually mentally ill. Full stop. That's just this man's educated guess, and I don't care to even try to communicate with that editor any further since it's been ineffective up to this point. I'd be totally fine seeing said editor blocked under the "just doesn't get it" clause should they persist in unhelpful communications. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Too late for me to think much more about it but I will deal with it. Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

University Roi Henri Christophe

I'm new at this and am unsure how to find the specific problems with the article. I'm unsure how to access the message sent to me and am unsure what I need to adjust in order to gain acceptance for the article. Also, I sent an email to info-en@wikimedia.org noting another university stealing our name for their Wikipedia page. Any assistance is appreciated.

Please read the advice given in the pink box at the top of your Draft page, it explains the guidelines that University articles must meet. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Company Information

Hi Matthew Vanitas, hope you doing good.

Today I got an email or message form your side regarding my company information page i.e. QuadLabs Technologies Private Limited. So, I request you to please let me know the reason behind the not approving the content of my company and I also request you to please guide me how I can improve the content by which our company page will be live on wikipedia.

Waiting to hear you soon on the same.

Regards, Koushal

Hello Koushal:

• Please read the reason for the Decline, which is given in the large pink box at the top of your draft
• Wikipedia is nota place for your company to "list" itself or advertise its service. Wikipedia accepts only factual, neutral articles, about companies that meet our WP:Notability policy.
• If you work for the company you're writing about, ensure you read WP:Conflict of interest.

Hope this helps, MatthewVanitas (talk) 11:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Anthony Follett Pugsley

Dear Mr Vanitas

I am sorry about all the bother I caused, resulting from my cutting and pasting. That was unintentional (I am new to editing, not that that is much of an excuse I freely admit). Many thanks for the improvements you have made. I will provide more citations as you suggest.

apologies and many thanks again.

SimonSimonpugsley (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Stephan Lucien Joseph van Waardenburg

Matthew:

Thank you so much for taking the time to review and edit my biography of Governor van Waardenburg. I appreciate your recommendations and will certainly make the changes and corrections you have requested.

I will work on getting more sources to substantiate many of the unreferenced facets of his life, but as an FYI ... Stephan van Waardenburg is my grandfather. So many portions come from personal knowledge and from discussions with my mother, Maud (one of his 3 daughters) before she passed away, my grandmother (before she passed away), and my sister.

Thank you again and your words of encouragement has me motivated to create more.

Sincerely, Siward Ypma — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutchjeep (talk • contribs) 15:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, but let me caution you that personal knowledge is absolutely not admissible. We have the guideline WP:Original research, which clarifies that any fact we include must be something that our readers could verify themselves in a book, article, etc. Not to include primary/archival materials like wedding certificates, enlistment records, etc.

To put it in context, let's say you personally know that vW had a pet dog named Spot, because your mother told you so. You put that fact in, but a reader who needs to verify that fact has no way of doing so, because it's not in any book, article, etc. And even if you were to cite "Told by his granddaughter", that still doesn't do us much good because short of calling your mother on the telephone and bothering her, we have no way to prove you're not an unrelated person on the other side of the world who made it up. Now, if at some point an academic writing an article for a Dutch paper about vW comes by your aunt's house, writes down her family stories, and publishes it in The Hague Times, then you could add the fact about Spot, and cite it to the newspaper article since it reassures our readers "yes, a trained journalist working for a serious paper went and recorded this anecdote, definitely from X person on Y date". The key is WP:Verifiability. So whatever you know personally, you have to compartmentalize it and not let it leak into your strong, cited facts. It's fine to share those informal stories on a blog, your personal memoirs, etc. but undocumented facts are not admissible on Wikipedia.

Thanks again for your efforts that got your article published, and hope this explanation of guideline helps. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Zubie

Hello Matthey, I frankly do not understand why Zubie did not make the cut while our main competitor has its wiki page... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_(mobile_application) Can you please let me know what we are doing wrong and I will abide. Thanks in advance Best regards Fred — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicefrenchguy (talk • contribs) 17:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Automatic (mobile application) is inappropriate advertising and has been labeled for deletion.

So far as your draft, the footnotes to NYT and Harris don't appear to mention Zubie by name at all. Please do not cite any source which does not mention Zubie explicitly. We don't need you to cite the fact that the sun comes up in the west, the article footnotes are soley to prove "the preceding fact about Zubie is verifiably documented in serious media or academia". The WSJ footnote is fine; it's a blog, but it is an official blog, so it's not optimal but meets our basic requirements. Silicon Harbor Mag I've never heard of, it may be a good cite or not, depending on how reputable SHM is as a neutral and professional news organization. So you have two non-valid footnotes, and two middling-iffy ones that are worth including, but don't build a strong case on their own.

For Zubie to have an article, it must explicitly show that journalists, academics, etc. are finding Zubie significant enough to write about. It exists, no doubt, but does it matter? While initial bursts of news are fine (like if many papers mention their IPO or whatever), but we do need an overall body of coverage. Just my concept, but I like to think of the question as "in the year 2114, will people be saying 'you know, when you look at how connected cars became popular, it's important to note the small but significant role Zubie played before it was bought out by Ford in 2019. You see, they had this business model which really impacted the scene by...'" Does that help clear it up? Maybe Zubie has that coverage and you can add it and get published. Maybe Zubie doesn't but by next November will have been discussed in the news so substantively you can publish then. Maybe it will never gain such attention and will never publish. I have no beef against you or the article, just stating our benchmark.

You also have subjective praise like "leading" (says who? I say I'm a "leading" contender to marry Demi Moore, it's not an objective word), and the "hey, here's how you buy our product", while couched in pseudo-neutral terms, is not appropriate. People can take two seconds to google your product if they want to buy it, no matter how coy it's not kosher to imply "go to iTunes and buy our thing".

In general, if you see any commercial products/companies which, like Automatic (mobile application) where their only "footnotes" are commercial sites, press releases, etc and not neutral analysis of the company and its significance, please feel free to use WP:CSD to request that the article be deleted, helping us keep Wikipedia free of spam. Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Jessel Mark "Magnifico" Magsayo

Thank you so much for helping me out Matthew!!! I did improve my draft as what you say,.... I hope it will be accepted.. :D Forevermore2314 (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You've made huge improvements, good work so far! There are still a few changes you'll want to make to increase chance of publishing, so please do keep making improvements. I know this seems like a lot of stuff to learn, but WP:Wikipedia has no deadline, just relax, take your time, just edit when you're enjoying it and take a break for a day or a few if you're getting too tangled up in rules. I might be away for a few weeks, but you can always go to WP:Teahouse to get advice if you get confused. Here's some detailed advice:

• Absolute first things first, I found the rules for Notability for boxers: Wikipedia:Notability_(athletes)#Boxing. Please carefully read this rule. If Magnifico meets these requirements, make sure such accomplishment is clearly stated in the very intro of the article. If he has not yet reached that level, you may have to put your article on hold until he wins a title which qualifies him for an article. This is pretty non-negotiable, he must have reached the level set out in that rule. If he hasn't yet, contact Wikipedia:Userification and ask to have the article moved to your Sandbox for safekeeping (if left in drafts it will be deleted if not edited for 6 months). If he has not yet met that bar, to get some practice you can write a different article for now about a boxer who has definitely won one of those titles. You're learning a lot through this draft, so it's not at all a loss if he doesn't qualify yet, but if he does you definitely want to make clear in the intro his accomplishments which meet [[Wikipedia:Notability_(athletes)#Boxing.
• There is no "you" or "I" or "we" on Wikipedia, it speaks with a purely detached voice. So never say things like "We are very pleased" or "you can read more about him", etc. Re the last, also Wikipedia does not tell its readers "you should" or "it is important to note". We simply state facts and the reader can make their own decisions, so do trim out anything like all this.
• Linking to YouTube is not generally advisable, particularly as its not clear that the people posting the YT clips of his fights own the rights to broadcast those fights. I strongly suggest you remove all the YouTube clips, and stick to simply citing news articles which announce the results thereof. With the good info (names/dates) you've provided, a reader can of course just go themselves to YouTube, you don't need to link them.
• The "ref" citations go after the fact they prove, you're sometimes putting them before the fact. The footnote is to say "that thing you just read, if you want proof it's true, here's the source I got it from".
• There are a few places you have official quotes but no footnote; I assume it's because you're saying the whole section is footnoted to one source. To make it clearer, footnote each paragraph, but to avoid making the footnotes too cluttered, take a quick look at WP:REFNAME which shows a way to streamline repeated footnotes. Not to overwhelm you with new code, but it's just a small change which makes footnoting easier, and I think you'll like the results.
• Right now you're over-quoting the news sources, in terms of it appears you're using their exact words. You can use their exact words some, but you can't make too much of the article copy-paste. What I advise is that you trim/simplify what the sources say. So if the Sydney Times has a paragraph describing the fight, you should summarize it as something like Magnifico won the fight with a liver punch in the fourth round, leading the Sydney Times to refer to his performance as "the best we've seen in the square all year". [footnote here]. If you copy too much stuff directly, a reviewer will reject it as risking violating copyright. A good article with some advice is Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing.
• Your lead section was a little distracting with too much birthdate/place before the most important phrase "is a Filipino boxer", so I moved the specific details to his "life" section below. The intro is now nice and clear, and all I would recommend adding to it is perhaps mention of the highest award he's ever won, or whatever he's most famous for.
• You're pretty good on sourcing overall, but could be a little stronger. If you can read Tagalog, I'd suggest citing a few Tagalog papers. Perhaps someone's written a profile on him that you can use to footnote the facts about his early life? Or maybe a regional boxing researcher has an interesting comment about him that you can quote in the article, and cite to the source you got the quote from.

Just some suggestions, but you've really come a long way. Keep up the good work in improving it, and after you've got one or two articles done through AFC, you may be confident enough to write articles all on your own. Just remember, topics must meet WP:Notability, and sources come first, don't write anything you can't clearly source, and source everything you write! MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

22:58:17, 29 August 2014 review of submission by ChristopherKennedy666

• ChristopherKennedy666 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Australia Asia Internet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am interested to know why it has been rejected?ChristopherKennedy666 (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

ChristopherKennedy666 (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you read my comment in that large pink box? You haven't shown that your subject meets WP:Notability, that is, that any authority other than the subject has found AAI worth commenting on. I strongly advise you to read said policy, or the 10-second version at WP:42. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Lemur's Park

I have added references as you requested. Also, the image that was rejected has been replaced with another. Please can you review and approve this page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurreyJohn (talk • contribs) 09:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I am still waiting ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurreyJohn (talk • contribs) 00:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Expanding Richard Samuel Guinness

Thanks for your comments.PatrickGuinness (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

15:44:41, 1 September 2014 review of submission by Ana P. Lax

• Ana P. Lax (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mireille Schwartz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Matthew, thank you for reviewing my first draft for my very first Wiki article! I added a bunch more resources & citations because my article really needed them so thanks for honest feedback. Now I list CNN, CNN Health, HuffPo and NPR to note dictionary worthiness & significance. How: does she read now? Mucho Better? Big thanks again, g

Ana P. Lax (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sri Satya Sai Degree College concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sri Satya Sai Degree College, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. 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) 01:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Declined Article Draft:Dennis Roberts

Why was this article declined, and what needs to be done so you will approve it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philprey (talk • contribs) 22:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the huge paragraph of very specific advice I gave you in the huge pink box at the top of the draft? MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Rug Connoisseur/sandbox

User:Rug Connoisseur/sandbox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rug Connoisseur/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Rug Connoisseur/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Safiel (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bontempi 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:

• | foundation = ({{start date|1937}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Claremont Rug Company

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Claremont Rug Company, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Safiel (talk) 04:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Please disregard the above misdirected twinkle notice. Safiel (talk) 04:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Please review my contents and upload it

Hi Matthew, I have written one topic "Allama Syed Ishtiyaque alam shahbazi" and now followed the guidelines. Now please review it and approve or suggest if I misss something. Hope for your positive response. Thanks Mdnaseemk (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I have resubmitted your draft for review, another editor should come along to review it in the next week or two. I have done some minor cleanup and formatting for you as well. While you are awaiting review, if you can add any more citations (especially for the uncited parts about his life) from any online newspapers, in any language, that would further help your case. You can continue to improve your draft while awaiting the next review. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

USS PC-598 activation.

Matthew,

Thank you for reviewing my article and activating it. I was expecting it would take weeks!

Emerdog (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It usually does, but I was doing some initial reviews of the newest entries, so I can weed out the ones that obviously won't make it in just to clean up the queue. I ran across yours, and it looked pretty solid, so I went ahead and approved it. A member of WP:WikiProject Military History should be along to assess it shortly. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Ben Russell And The Charmers

Hello Matthew

I wonder if you could please advise me why my submission of the page ,Ben Russell And The Charmers, has been declined and how I can correct it please.

Many thanks Mel Meltemkocak (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I need HELP someone

My Wiki person is on a Wiki break.. how do I talk to??

TarvarusMedia (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the guidance given to you in the pink box at the top of your draft? Please ensure you read that guidance. If you're still not sure, you can ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Make sure you clearly provide the name of your draft, let them know if you've read the pink box, and let them know what it is you need further clarity on. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Pellet heating

Hi Matthew,

thank you for moving the artikel pellet heating, now I do not know what has to be done in order to make it a "real" article. I edited after the initial decline, so I guess I just have to wait now? Thanks for a short reply, this is my first really new article... --Geneva2106 (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

22:34:11, 11 September 2014 review of submission by Breton66

• Breton66 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Accredo Business Software Ltd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks for the guidance. I am gathering external references and will rebsubmit shortly. Breton66 (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks, Matthew! I'll get to work on the changes you suggested. I might not be able to add an image of the ballad because of copyright issues with the archive I work for. Just to let you know, I'm also making edits to other articles on ballads about Robin Hood, so I'll try to keep your advice in mind as I make those. Thanks again!

Jaws86 (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Request on 14:30:32, 13 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Studyandjobs

• Studyandjobs (talk · contribs)
  • User:Studyandjobs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello dear , I want to listing my informational site of studyandjobs.com . Please inform me is it possible to ad my site in wiki. My site is a study and jobs portal. It's really very important for any student and job seeker .

Studyandjobs (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to help you advertise your website. Absolutely not, full stop. If you are here with the sole intent of advertising your site, as your username implies, you will not be allowed to edit. See WP:Conflict of interest and WP:Advertising. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Draft:A. London Fell

Thank you for your helpful detailed reply. Could you please let me know if many scholarly reviews in scholarly journals about me would be sufficient? If so, how would I submit this evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.londonfell (talk • contribs) 15:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, scholarly journals that discuss the author, his career, and the impact of his work are indeed usable. Not so much brief blurbs like in the program for a conference, or an "about us" webpage for a university, but an actual serious objective critique of the author and his work is exactly what we need to meet WP:Notability (authors). This can be in scholarly journals, in formal book reviews, in articles about the field which note the author and his impact, etc.

That said, though autobiography is strongly discouraged since it's nearly impossible to write about oneself, it's not completely prohibited. But I strongly advise you read WP:Autobiography to be aware of the pitfalls. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

josh Lord

hello Matthew I was wondering what was wrong with my article "Josh Lord"? And how I can change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishkalulu (talk • contribs) 02:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Um.... it's not an article? Seriously, it's not even a complete sentence. An article has a basic summary, sections, and absolutely most importantly includes WP:References to where you got the info from. I strongly advise you read Wikipedia:Your first article. To see that sourcing visual artist biographies require, see Wikipedia:Notability (artists). MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Clarence Melbourne Clucas

Please note that generally we do not move articles listed at AfD until the discussion has concluded. Thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Commercial Rowing Club Dublin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liffey. 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) 09:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

09:14:57, 15 September 2014 review of submission by Kalamazoo 54

• Kalamazoo 54 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jurgens Ci Caravans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have sent a couple of requests asking whether a website would be considered a valid reference for this article. To date I have not picked up a response to my enquiry. Please advise.Kalamazoo 54 (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Kalamazoo 54 (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Forgive the delay, been moving internationally. Re your question, in general being a website or not is not the issue, the issue is the neutrality and reliability of the source. In your case, citing the book of caravan history is good, and it is acceptable to have [i]limited[/i] citations to JCC's own cite. JCC's own cite should [i]only[/i] be used for non-contentious issues such as headquarters location, year of establishment, etc. Any claims to fame/Notability should be sourced to an uninvolved, neutral party. You've seen my comments in the pink box at top? Can you find mention of the firm's business succcess, etc in any regional newspapers? I strongly advise you read WP:42 which summarizes the essential benchmark of Notability.

It's very possible/likely that this company qualifies for an article, it's just that you need to have more than more than simply one book and JCC's own website. As a side-note, you're overdoing it slightly on the citations; you don't need to add a footnote to every word, if a given sentence is all supported by pages 22-23 of the same book, simply add said footnote to the end of the sentence, not each word/phrase. So please slightly broaden your body of sourcing (if you can get decent cites to a couple newspapers that should do it), trim back repetitions of same footnotes, hit Resubmit and we should be good. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

19:58:01, 15 September 2014 review of submission by Michaealdorfman

• Michaealdorfman (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Pascal Franchot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've checked and there doesn't seem to be many other "acceptable" sources. I've seen many pages with very few references here on wikipedia. I was wondering why this isn't acceptable since two of his produced/directed films are already on Wikipedia with his name listed? Thanks for the help!

Michaealdorfman (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Michael, I found a few more potential sources on GoogleBooks that mention Franchot's career. Note you have to boolean the search like ""pascal franchot" film -stanislas -tone" to avoid getting hits for a similar-named film guy born in 1905. That said, if there are a body of WP:Reliable sources covering Franchot, he gets an article. If there aren't, he doesn't. That simple. Re your other points:

• I've seen many pages with very few references here on wikipedia. Correct, and when we catch those we delete them. By all means, if you catch an article that you think is not properly sourced, especially modern biographies, please use the code at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion to suggest they be removed, lest their presence weaken Wikipedia overall. The policy about this is WP:Other stuff exists, meaning that the presence of other weak articles is not reason to publish yet further weak articles.
• Re his films having articles: a great policy of ours is Wikipedia:Notability is not inherited. It is entirely possible that his films meet WP:Notability while he does not. It's not common, but possible. Note also one of his films is fully properly referenced, but the other one is up for deletion due to failure to provide evidence for WP:Notability (film) so you may want to take a moment to fix that film article.

Hope this answers your questions. Either coverage of him exists and can be cited, and he gets an article, or it does not and he doesn't. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Corrected the mistake

Hi Matthew,

I have changed the statement to "TicketGoose, the fastest growing online bus ticketing portal in India" and provided the finance.yahoo.com reference. All the statement given in the page has all the reference links. Please point me if something wrong. I will surely correct. Please review the document again. If you need any confirmation from CEO of the company please let me know.

Thanks a ton. Satish — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satish vp (talk • contribs) 21:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

06:39:34, 17 September 2014 review of submission by MSrinivas12

• MSrinivas12 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Varadaraja Perumal Temple, Shoolagiri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello MatthewVanitas, I have considered your comment on why my article on Varadaraja_Perumal_Temple,_Shoolagiri, was declined and have made the necessary changes. Kindly do a re-review and if you still find any issues, kindly let me know on how the improve the article even further so that the article can be accepted and published. Many thanks in advance. -MSrinivas12.

MSrinivas12 (talk) 06:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

20:36:59, 18 September 2014 review of submission by Steve.kimberley

• Steve.kimberley (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Hugh Heinrick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Steve.kimberley (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Matthew, thanks for your comments on my proposed article about Hugh Heinrick. I take your point about the lack of references but have a couple of questions. How much by way of references is needed - would one be enough or should there be more than one, from different sources? Quite a lot of the information in the piece came from newspaper articles published at the time and the only way I've got hold of them is via archive websites where they claim copyright and levy charges for viewing, so I guess links are not feasible. Would it be enough to add e.g. "The Nation' newspaper, October 19, 1875" or similar?

Thanks for your help!

No worries. The answer to "how many references do I need" would be "how many facts do you have"? Optimally, it should be crystal-clear to the reader exactly where you got these facts. Clearly, you read these in some book or article, so let your readers in on "the secret" and tell them where you got the facts. So far as paid archives, as per WP:PAYWALL, use the best sources you have even if they aren't easy to get to. That said, it'd be nice to have at least a few citations to more accessible books, so check out GoogleBooks and see if you can work in a few more facts and/or supplementary footnotes to back up key points about him.

Basically, for any given chunk of the paper, imagine a "says who?", and that's what you're answering with your footnotes. You needn't footnote every sentence, it's fine if one source generally backs up all the facts in a given paragraph, or two sources together agree on the same facts, broadly. If there's anything uber-contentious, even a small phrase, it should have its own footnote just to clearly indicate what academic made this contentious claim.

Big picture, your guy clearly meets our WP:Notability benchmark, your draft just needs to pass WP:Verifiability, by showing readers from whence you got your facts. See WP:Referencing for beginners for advice.

After the article publishes, it'd be great to add an image of Heinrick to the article. Clearly any image from his lifetime is out-of-copyright, so any image of him at all you can find that's contemporaneous, and has no additional artistic contribution (ie is just the image as it'd appear back then), you can go ahead and upload it to Wikimedia Commons, which will give you the address to display the image in this article.

Thanks for writing in, and I hope once you get this published you'll press forward with improving existing articles and creating new ones. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, regarding how to cite things not broadly available online: general rule is as full a citation as you can. Newspaper, date, title of article, journalist if stated, page of newspaper if known. I suggest you use the Citation Templates, which are in a drop-down box at the top of your editing window. If it's totally not on the internet, clearly there's no link, but if it has a link but is paywall, do include the link to the site but also include the coding shown at Template:Subscription required which advises readers of such. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Copy-paste incident passed at Articles for Creation

The articles William L. Carlisle and Ernesto "Wild Che" Leche look to be identical, apart from the article titles. I think content from Carlisle was copy-pasted to Leche. The only change appears to be name replacement. This also occurs in the references. All external links discuss Carlisle, even though each is labelled with Leche's name. I think Leche is a fabrication, or at the very least non notable, as search results on Google bring up nothing but the cut and paste Wikipedia article. So, I have listed it at articles for deletion here Vycl1994. (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

feedback/ assistance

Hi - I appreciate your feedback as I am trying to create my frst Wiki-article about the author and new CEO of Innovation norway. Please tell me when you are back - and I would like much to get your advice and assistance how to publish the Wikiway comme il faut.

Best regards, Cathrine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xathrine (talk • contribs) 14:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

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.

Harfush clan

added links pointing to Mustafa Pasha and Fakhr al-Din

Randa, Mallorca

added a link pointing to Hermitage

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Please review NginAd

Hi Matthew. A link to Yahoo! Finance was added in the citations on the Nginad page and hopefully it now falls within the guidelines for Wikipedia admission. It was re-submitted. Nginad is an open source ad server under GPL v3 and is free to download, modify and use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.158.206.114 (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Waste Atlas edit

Dear Matthew,

Thank you for the review you made on my article about Waste Atlas. I made some changes and additions according to your comments. Could you please let me know if it is ok now?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwaccount (talk • contribs) 11:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

June Julian Article Editing Advice

Thank you, Matthew, for your help with my article, June Julian. I have been trying to establish notability of Dr. Julian as an Art Educator, not as an artist primarily. I have included many references to her published works. She also has just had a exhibit of her work in Italy in September 2014, sponsored by the U.S. Embassy to Italy.There have been extensive reviews of this in the press. How do I include them in the article? I appreciate your help very much. Lincolnspencer (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: The Wood Nymph (Sibelius)

Thank you for taking the time to approve the article I have submitted on the Sibelius tone poem, The Wood Nymph! I am curious, however, why it has been assessed as "Start-class," which is for articles that are "developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources." I am a bit confused by this designation for two reasons:

(1) because I have scrupulously researched the topic, consulting over 10 sources across books, CD inserts, JSTOR articles, etc. Because the Wood Nymph is relatively rare, it is not a piece for which there is a huge number of sources. I am very confident that I have used reliable sources and a close-to-exhaustive set of sources. The sources I consult are also Sibelian scholars and are the authorities on the subject.

(2) because the material is very thorough, rather than incomplete, and the article follows what appear to be the established guidelines for classical music articles, with sections on on the history, the orchestration, the structure (movements), the reception, and recordings. I even went, I believe, above and beyond with a section on analysis. I also created and linked to the bottom navbox and made a introductory side box with at-a-glance information.

So, again, thank you for your help! But if you could kindly explain your low rating I would be very appreciative. I think Sibelius aficionados will really appreciate this page, as it is far more detailed and well-researched than those for his other pieces (with the exception of the 5th and 8th symphonies). Perhaps, if you are convinced, you could bump up the rating to GA status. Sgvrfjs (talk) 02:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings, ratings above "Start" generally require an actual checklist review by the Wikiproject covering said topic, where they go through a list of specific attributes they look for. "Start" is not a pejorative assessment, it's just as high as I, a non-expert, can assess on the topic, and is there to make it clear this is not a "Stub" article. So no offense to your research intended, it's just a default score from a generalist. You can check in the WP:WikiProject Classical music or WP:WikiProject Opera if you'd like to have your article assessed by either of them, just post on the Talk page for said project, introduce yourself and your article. Note many WikiProjects have only a small following, so don't expect instant results. But in whatever case, "ratings" are a very, very minor labeling mostly for administrative reasons, not a holistic assessment of the article, which stands on its own merits. Thanks so much for taking the time to write such a thorough article, it was very easy to publish with basically no further work needed! MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah! I see. Thanks for explaining the ropes to a first-time editor and thanks for the encouragement in your last line. My goal is to expand this beyond the article I wrote and make more thorough and well-sourced pages for other Sibelius tone poems. You should check out his music! :) Sgvrfjs (talk) 02:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jim Snyder (journalist) Comment

You seemed to have put the wrong link in the decline reason, as the one you linked was a Failed proposal. For future reference the right one is WP:CREATIVE. Just wanted to let you know! Thanks, TheMesquito^buzz 06:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Asramam Maidan

An article that you have been involved in editing, Asramam Maidan , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Trinidade (talk) 09:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Request on 23:35:10, 28 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Mursillis

• Mursillis (talk · contribs)
  • User:Mursillis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am not very experienced as a contributor to Wikipedia and this is the first time I have submitted an original article.

The Scottish elector band "Final program" has an album launch on October 15th and for that reason I wanted to upload a page - but it has been refused

How do I find out what is wrong ?

Mursillis (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the large pink box at the very top of your draft which explains the reason and provides clickable links to the appropriate rules? MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)