Hello, Smcg8374, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! —DoRD (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Gedamu Woldegiorgis "Aboy Gedamu"Edit

I am new to this, so please forgive me if I am not commenting in the right way. I am not sure if it notifies you, but I did respond to your comment about the proposed article on Gedamu Woldegiorgis "Aboy Gedamu". I could use a little help making sure that it is not deleted. Thank you Ynegede (talk) 14:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Fares FaresEdit

Hello, can you please tell me why is it getting declined? I did everything that was asked, I posted notable sources, I added references. Please let me know. Rchamaa (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see the comments I have posted on the Afc page.--Smcg8374 (talk) 14:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I have read the comments and edited the article as specified. Anymore tips or advice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rchamaa (talkcontribs) 12:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I can give you any more advice on this one, perhaps a more experienced editor may be able to help. You might try asking here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk--Smcg8374 (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Was the second review done? I can't understand if it was seen one more time by a reviewer. Please let me know.
It does not look like it has been reviewed yet. You should receive a notification on your talk page if it is accepted or declined. Please be patient.


Hello, Smcg8374. You have new messages at Riley Huntley's talk page.
Message added 15:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cheers, Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 15:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it did not occur to me that the automated message would be sent to someone other than the creator of the article. I'm still new at assessing AfC pages.--Smcg8374 (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Untold (musician) (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs)

Sry, i reverted your decision, did you already read Untold? and the submission? One is about a musician, the other is about an album! Regards, mabdul 15:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Sry, I read your comment, but please think about that many contributors are either IPs or not already (auto-)confirmed and thus not being able to move any pages. Moreover AFC is normally used by 'newbees' and thus they simply don't know how to move a page. Next time, please do it on your own. mabdul 15:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
OK I'll keep in mind what you said about newbies, I do appreciate that they may lack the necessary knowledge of these technicalities. --Smcg8374 (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


Hi there. I'm not sure why you felt you had to leave Offthetwig a level 3 warning for disruptive editing. Resubmitting an AfC draft, however badly written (and however incongruous the subject), is no crime. Rather, that's what AfC is there for - to give new users a chance to make an article that could be up to scratch, and to learn some guidelines. Threatening them with blocks and calling their edits disruptive would effectively stop them from ever coming back to try and make articles again. Please don't bite the newbies. If you think a submission doesn't have a chance of passing, try nicely explaining why on their talk page or something. Thanks. OohBunnies! (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Maybe I did seem heavy handed. However, if you look at the user's talk page history, this submission has been declined several times because it reads like an advertisement and contains no reliable sources. In spite of this, the user keeps resubmitting without addressing these concerns. In fact they have today resubmitted it without references anyway even after my warning. This has gone on for a few months. I agree that newbies need opportunities to learn but this user does not appear to have learned anything in spite of repeated declines. There are posts on the user's talkspace dated from April explaining that the article is too promotional and lacks in-line references. I made a judgment call that someone who keeps submitting the same unsuitable article and ignoring feedback about its problems over a period of months was being disruptive. If you wish to remove the warning I'll respect your judgment. I'll keep in mind what you said, although I'm not really sure now how to deal with editors who keep repeating the same inappropriate behaviours even though they have been told why it is inappropriate several times.--Smcg8374 (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for replying. At the time of the warning the editor had submitted once and resubmitted twice, hardly a record number of times in my experience. Looking through past reversions of the article, they clearly have tried rewriting it, and indeed this was the impression they gave me today in the IRC help room (where many newbies turn up with questions about their AfC drafts). While speaking to them they were actually quite pleasant, albeit confused and ignorant of our multitudinous article guidelines. Coming here and trying to write articles straight away is very difficult, as the volume of declined AfC submissions shows. It's not inappropriate for a newbie to completely not understand how we write articles - most don't, and the AfC decline templates are apparently not very illuminating to many of them. The easiest way to make some things clearer is to leave a personalised comment, on the draft or on their talk. I could go off on a tangent about the difficulties of being a newbie and the difficulties of getting newbies to understand the masses of policies, based on my experience in the IRC help channel, but you probably get my point. I'm not going to remove the warning, I already spoke to the user and gave them advice (not as much as I would have if I'd had more time) and also made it clear that I couldn't guarantee the article would pass, even if rewritten. There's no need to warn them for resubmitting. If articles continue to be declined, they all give up eventually. ;) OohBunnies! (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply that does help put things in perspective.--Smcg8374 (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A Festival of Maori Song - Waiata MaoriEdit

"One of the references is to an online record store selling the product" Kiwi Records is the producer, i.e. the company that produced the record in the first place (1966), they also happen to sell the record. http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/media/photo/kiwi-records Hence should be considered a primary source . There are subdivisions of Kiwi Records on Wikipedia already - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibiscus_Records.

The other reference is to an artifact pictured on the album cover (by the singer). — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlasdairKennedy (talkcontribs) 05:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

OK the record company produces the album, so you are right it is a primary source. However, sources independent of the subject are still needed to establish notability, such as reviews of the product by people not involved with its production. --Smcg8374 (talk) 06:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/36 Signal RegimentEdit

Hi Smcg8374,

I've updated the references, am I on the right track? It is a young organisation, so references are slim.

Andrew Morrison (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Give me some time to have a look and I'll let you know what I think.--Smcg8374 (talk) 07:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

re: MachiavellianEdit

Ah, my apologies, I had been under the impression that The Prince's status as a work of satire was undisputed, but not widely known, and that the phrase 'Machiavellian' itself was fundamentally flawed. I added that bit because I thought it was a known fact that was lacking from the page and would further confuse the issue. I shall endeavour to research such things more closely in the future. :-) Master Deusoma (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The Book of the Law - recent revision.Edit

The original research article is about to be published by a third party - a print magazine called 'Magick'. Will the article become eligible to be used as a citation at this point?

Also - I notice that authors of a certain religiosity are very quick to say that 'Crowley believed X, Y and Z' when (if I am correct?) the correct mode of address would be 'Crowley claimed to believe'... after all - none of us needs to peer review an obvious anagram - i.e. 'I sin, I was the Master'. :D All we can really know is that Crowley claimed to believe certain things, not whether he actually did believe them or not; - so can we remove all the 'Crowley believed...' statements or modify them please?

Oh - and thirdly - the New Aeon is never mentioned in the Book of the Law, but one author is saying that the Book announced the New Aeon?

I welcome you taking an interest in this wiki page and hope you keep editing my friend.  ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dara Allarah (talkcontribs) 03:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the publication you mentioned, I'm not completely sure. Sources need to be reliable and preferably independent of the subject. However, if it is made clear what the source of this opinion is, it might be OK.
As to the anagram business, well this might seem obvious to some people but frankly it seems to me like sheer speculation about something that could well be a coincidence.
As to what Crowley actually believed, I do agree that we can't really know for sure what a dead person actually believed as opposed to what he said he believed. I won't object if you modify these statements, although I would ask you to consider the stylistic effect on readers, i.e. if every sentence about what Crowley claimed to believe is loaded with qualifiers it could make for dull reading. So maybe don't over do it.
Regarding the New Aeon, even though the book may not have mentioned this, I think it is important to remember that an encyclopaedic article needs to provide context that explains why the subject is important and how it relates to broader issues. Therefore, the article does need to discuss what role the book played in Crowley's teachings. Thanks for your interest.--Smcg8374 (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind holding off on the revisions until we have clarification back from the help desk whether evident perfect anagrams in a text are to be regarded as Original Research or not?


Anagrams have been used and accepted in court as evidence btw. For instance in the recent court case of Dan Brown Vs. Baigent and Leigh, the Judge accepted that Dan Brown's villain 'Leigh Teabing' is an anagram of Baigent and Leigh and said "I have already observed the anagram in the name Teabing as being another example of how The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail was clearly in the mind of Mr Brown when he finalised his book."

Clearly, if anagrams were entirely subjective they could not have been accepted as evidence.

Thank you. Dara Allarah (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

As to holding off on editing, there is a general principle that when the inclusion of new material in an article is challenged, the burden of proof falls on the editor who wants to include the new material. That is, the editor must show that the material can be sourced to independently published material and is not just their own original thoughts on the subject. I have viewed the responses to your help desk query and note that every editor who has responded has rejected your claim that this anagram should be included. Wikipedia works on a consensus basis and the emerging consensus appears to be that your claim is not valid. As to the court case you mention, I would like to reiterate that as an encyclopaedia there are limits to what can be accepted here that do not apply in other contexts such as courts. Court Judges have a responsibility to make determinations like the one you mentioned. Such decisions are beyond the scope of an encyclopaedia. For me, this keeps coming back to basic principles. Even though you might think the anagram is self-evident and that it sheds light on the subject, this is still your own opinion and not something published in an independent reliable source. Even if it turned out you were absolutely right that Crowley deliberately slipped in this anagram, it would still not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. There are other forums where it would be perfectly OK to post your own ideas about this, but Wikipedia is not one of them. --Smcg8374 (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry but if you go back and read the help desk pages you will find that the editors are exploring the issue and once their questions have been answered on a topic they do not reiterate it but explore other POV as is natural and expected to editors that are not 100% fully familiar with the text. At the end of the discussion when everyone has had ample time to explore different angles of the question then I'll ask for a show of hands but at the moment we are not there yet. Just because wiki editors are vigorously testing the burden of proof is not an indication that there is consensus on this discussion as yet. You have a definite tendency to jump the gun don't you?
If you read the help desk then you'll find its been suggested that the anagram has intrinsic verifiability just as a mathematical statement does and the matter is not one of verifiability but notability - and the anagram is inherently cogent by its own cogency to a topic of notability. It validates itself.  :-)
Again, please be patient with the process of reaching consensus and do not assume the matter is answered on the basis of one editors reply (as you first did) or in the early exploratory part of a discussion (as you are doing now). I find the lively engagement of wiki editors to be a good sign but not any indication of how the consensus will develop in the end. Dara Allarah (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I have read the most recent update of the help desk query. I am aware that one editor argued that the issue is of notability. The same editor also said that by this criterion the anagram fails, your own arguments to the contrary notwithstanding. To be quite frank I think you are clutching at straws if you think the consensus will favour your position, particularly as every editor who has commented on this matter has said no. You state that: "once their questions have been answered on a topic they do not reiterate it..." but this is simply not true. Several editors have reiterated their positions. AndyTheGrump said that you are wasting your time and reiterated the point that several editors think this is OR. The most recent editor, Mangoe, pointed out: "There is no way in which you are getting a positive response..." and repeated a request for you to stop wasting time with this matter. You might see this "lively engagement" as a good sign, but honestly what I am seeing is emphatic rejection from every person who has contributed on this matter (with a number of editors repeating their original opinions) as well as growing irritation with your behaviour. I do not mean to be impolite but I am running out of patience. You say you want to wait for a show of hands even though not one single person has supported you. I think this is an unreasonable position as no-one has showed any indication that they are willing to change their position. Smcg8374 (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Every editor has raised a question or a valid objection that I have answered. That's the way debate works. If a negative proposal it put forward then a number of people test its validity from a variety of positive standpoints. If a positive proposal it put forward then people test its validity from a variety of negative standpoints. It actually makes no difference if lots of people are saying no or yes. It appears that you didn't have any patience to begin with and although Wiki editors are supposed to work towards consensus then the more usual thing around here is to pronounce judgements before discussion and expect them to have the same weight as ones after discussion, or even believe that one editor can make a consensus judgement. I didn't think that's how Wiki works and perhaps there are some editors that should reconsider their membership of the wiki community if they are easily offended or impatient with what is a process that has logical steps. I feel a little like I'm reading some absurdity in 'Alice in Wonderland' here. "Sentence first! - Verdict afterwards!" Also - please be exact and don't exaggerate. There have been 6 editors that contributed to the debate and only Andy the Grump has maintained his position and rejected the points made. It may be the case that the position of other editors has changed and evolved after being given new information... that tends to happen you know. Its a quality belonging to general humanity if lost on some WP editors. Unless you're claiming to read minds then before a vote at the end then you really can't say. So is Margo apparently. I think you both need to examine the process and read up on what reaching a consensus actually entails. You don't have established precedent given the nature of the text (a non straight text). Don't assume you can read peoples minds! You're not The Shadow! Though there may be a 'Wiki Shadow effect' going on...? Ho Hum. Dara Allarah (talk) 07:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


Hi Smcg8374. Could you please comment on my recent edits on Spirituality? See Talk:Spirituality#Mass-reversion. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The Machiavelli testEdit

Hi - I noticed you reverted my "Machiavelli test" addition. I think there are some sources for this eg:

- Christie, R., and F. L. Geis. "How devious are you? Take the Machiavelli test to find out." Journal of Management in Engineering 15.4 (1970): 17.

- Ortwein, Bernard M. "Teaching Negotiation: A Valuable Experience." J. Legal Educ. 31 (1981): 108.

- White, James J. "Lawyer as a Negotiator: An Adventure in Understanding and Teaching the Art of Negotiation, The." J. Legal Educ. 19 (1966): 337.

- The later two both talk about the so-called "Machiavelli test".

I was just at a seminar where this was mentioned and looked up and couldn't find it here - and so added it to help. I have put it back with a toned down claim and a source which would seem OK to me. Might this be a term that was used but now is not used so much? Feel free to revert if you really want to and have strong feelings on this.

Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC))

I removed that article from the AFC page. That 1973 article. Thank you.Emeraldgirl (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Spelling vs. pronunciationEdit

Does anyone know why the spelling of the name is so different from the pronunciation? There is an explanation of the etymology in the article but no explanation of the unusual pronunciation. If anyone has any sources to shed light on this, I think it would be worth adding. --Smcg8374 (talk) 07:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

See Chester (placename element). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Leicester is equally unexpected, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it follows the pattern of Leicester, Bicester, etc. Hogyn Lleol ★ (chat) 16:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The spelling and sound are logical and follow sound change. The town's Old English name is Glaiw Ceaster (glaw chester) which over time has dropped the "ch" syllable due to the nearby "es" syllable under the influence of haplology, and the long vowel sound of "aw" has shifted to "o". As indicated in responses above, this follows normal patterns in English. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Sydney University womenEdit

Hi Smcg. You might be interested in an editathon this Friday: Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/University of Sydney Wikibomb. --99of9 (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Personal boundaries and setting boundariesEdit

Good to see another active contributor in the psychology field. As you created boundaries of the mind, I thought you would be interested in the related personal boundaries which I created. Recently Wiki-psyc boldly renamed personal boundaries as setting boundaries and added new material https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Setting_boundaries&action=history. I would be interested in your opinion of this.--Penbat (talk) 08:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi there Penbat, thanks for your message, it's good to see your contributions to the psychology field too :-)

My home internet has been down this week, so I have only had restricted access to the net. I will take a look at the article you mentioned and let you know what I think. Just off the top of my head, I would think the original title, a noun phrase, seems more suitable than a verb phrase. --Smcg8374 (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Any progress on this ?--Penbat (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!Edit

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Possible removal of AWB access due to inactivityEdit

Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)