Jump to content

User talk:MatthewVanitas/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38→Archive 40

declined article on q wang/ freesia

Hello: I have added a number of references. Please review as this is my first time writing an entry. Thanks, RJHB — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJHB (talk • contribs) 03:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

MatthewVanitas Please Review NCCC Article

MatthewVanitas please take some time to review the draft titled Draft:National_Cyber_Coordination_Centre_(NCCC)_Of_India as it has been pending since 10th October 2014.

120.59.105.117 (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry 120.59.105.117, there is a long wait for everyone so we must just be patient, and your topic is not within my area of expertise so I do not personally intend to review. MatthewVanitas (talk) 12:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks MatthewVanitas for your reply and consideration. I understand your point of view and respect your decision. If it is not too much to ask and is not creating any additional burden, can you please ask somebody else to review the same. I have no problem in waiting for another month or more but the topic is time sensitive in nature. I would follow your advice in this regard in any case.

120.59.105.117 (talk) 13:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

No worries 120.59.105.117, never hurts to ask. If you more urgently want a review, I would suggest you ask at affiliated WikiProjects (on their Talk pages). Wikipedia talk:WikiProject India is probably your best bet. I would post a "Review requested at Draft:National Cyber Coordination Centre (NCCC) Of India" message, and explain briefly why you think the article should be processed ahead of others due to timeliness, etc. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks MatthewVanitas for your generous help and valuable suggestions despite your tight schedule. I hope the article would be worth spending time for a reviewer of Wikipedia whenever the review is done. Thanks again.

120.59.105.117 (talk) 13:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi MatthewVanitas. I have placed a request to review the article in question at the Indian noticeboard as suggested by you.Thanks for your guidance and time.

120.59.238.147 (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi MatthewVanitas. Would you please give a second opinion on the draft that has been improved drastically by AmritasyaPutra. If it seems allright to you, i would like to resubmit the same. Thanks.

120.59.238.153 (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

MatthewVanitas the draft has been resubmitted although the credit for the same goes to AmritasyaPutra. He has been a real help and i thank you for pointing me to him. Please spare some of your time as we need another reviewer's opinion here. Thanks in anticipation.

120.59.226.195 (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

MatthewVanitas the article National Cyber Coordination Centre has been accepted. Thanks for your guidance, suggestions and time.

120.59.233.131 (talk) 03:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello 120.59.233.131, the credit for the article itself has not been given to another, AP is simply noted as the approving editor. If you follow the History tab of the page backward (you'll need to click the buttons at bottom to go all the way to the beginning) you'll see that you are recorded as the article initiator and all of its early entries. Good work on adding this topic, and I hope this editing process has been educational. Note that if this entity is indeed officially formed, you can add one low-res image of its logo to the article; see WP:Logo for how to do so. Nicely done, hope you'll stick around Wikipedia and continue to contribute! MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Article Submission

Hello Matthew-

I recently submitted a wikipedia article called 'flixfindr'. I was notified that the submission was rejected and was curious on how to make it eligible? Any advice would be much appreciated! I am new to creating wikipedia articles.

Kind regards, Rewagner13 (talk) 04:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)Ross

Hello Rewagner13, did you read the detailed explanation given in the large pink box at the top of your draft at User:Rewagner13/flixfindr? Read that advice (and the provided Notability Guideline link) first, and then let me know what specific follow-up questions you have. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Palcrypt

Hello MatthewVanitas. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Palcrypt, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article is about a software program, which A7 does not cover. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Whisperback

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 12:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/American Tea Ceremony

Hello MatthewVanitas. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "American Tea Ceremony".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/American Tea Ceremony}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. RichT|C|E-Mail 22:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey Matthew, I have been working on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jon_Buscemi for what seems like 6 months. I added 2 very substantial links. One from the Wall Street Journal, and one from GQ... if and when will this be ready for the real world?

Thank you, Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robheppler (talk • contribs) 00:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Robheppler, you had no Submission template on your page, so it was not in line for review. I've placed a template for you so that a reviewer can come check it out. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!!! --Robheppler (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

About Commonfloor.com

Hi Matthew, Thanks a lot for guiding me it help me a lot to understand how to write and hope that i will learn lot from you in upcoming days. i have done small change according to you can you please check it again. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Govinda rajpurohit (talk • contribs) 14:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Moving sandbox entries to "Draft"

I'm an online ambassador for your WMST 250: Women, Art, and Culture (2014 Q3) class and a reviewer for Articles for creation. I see that you are moving articles tagged for created to Draft mode, the most recent of which was to Draft:Mary Linksill.

Each of the articles for the course has been now been reviewed, with comments on the sandbox talk pages about making the draft article-ready. Since there is review of articles by me another online editor, Adam (Wiki Ed), and monitored by the course instructor Apdame - and the link for the drafts on the course page are to the user's sandbox page - what do you suggest that we do to prevent them moving to "Draft" versions? Remove the Article for creation tags? Other--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello CaroleHenson, I'm only moving articles to "Draft" if they have a "Submitted" tag for AFC. "Draft" is currently the preferred place for any AFC article, so if you'd rather not have articles there, ensure students do not hit the "Submit" button on the sandbox template, or they will be entering themselves into the AFC process. Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for explaining that was the reason why they were moved, that helps! I'll leave it to Apdame to provide direction to the students about whether it's preferred that they go through the Article for creation / review process or not. Thanks much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

09:43:02, 13 November 2014 review of submission by Gidimall


Gidimall (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC) I would like to understand why my submission was rejected? What do I need to change?


Gidimall (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Gidimall, I left a large pink box at the top of your draft explaining why. In short, your draft is simply an advertisement, and gives no evidence that the company meets our requirement WP:Notability.
I strongly advise you read Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations), which will tell you the requirements. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

19:00:40, 13 November 2014 review of submission by Shaunee.tiptonde


Shaunee.tiptonde (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The reason I am asking for a review is my article is in everyway similar to that of SSOE page, but when I try to post I either get blocked or my account gets deleted because the information I have on the article is apparently advertising. The material that SSOE posts is similar if not the same, so why is it that there article is not flagged? What can I do to make my article more appropriate?

Hello Shaunee.tiptonde! Thanks for bringing SSOE to my attention, I've flagged it for deletion as blatant advertising. If somehow it gets turned down for Speedy Deletion, I'll go hack out 95% of it to get rid of the ridiculous stuff like office directory, etc.
Moving on, so far as "how come SSOE got published and I didn't?" The Wikipedia standard reply for that is WP:Other stuff exists. AFC's purpose is to work with you to build the strongest article possible, not to encourage folks to pick a shoddy article and try to match it. So far as what you need to do:
  • Do not make multiple copies of the same article, very confusing to reviewers. Keep everything about this company on one page, and Resubmit it rather than start a fresh draft.
  • Have you read Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations)? If not, read it, and it'll answer 95% of your questions.
  • In brief, as the Notability policy will explain to you, you've given us no evidence that anybody not involved with the company cares about it. We absolutely do not care what the company has to say about itself, this isn't Facebook. Anything that's in the article should be facts that reliable, uninvolved third party experts (newspapers, academics, etc) found worth commenting on. And info like addresses, contact numbers, staff (unless personally famous people with their own article), and definitely things like "list of services" are right out. The problem is that you've written your article as an ad, not as an informative article. The two are very different things, and I'd also suggest reading WP:Conflict of interest. Note that a page about a company is definitely a page for a company. So I wouldn't recommend creating a WP page to "generate buzz", because the minute something scandalous happens to "Acme Corporation", editor will bounce into the article to update the info about anything bad that's happened as well. Assuming you're doing PR for the company, realize you have no narrative control over an article: if a fact is negative, and it's a documentable fact, it will end up in the article.
Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hall Air Yacht

Hi, To make your life easier when creating aviation articles you can use the templates at Template:WPAVIATION creator. All the hard /repetitive work is done for you and the relevant templates are all in place!!--Petebutt (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Article retitling in draft space

In September you moved a new article I wrote (my first!) to Draft space. The article was originally entitled "Social_Axioms_Survey," but I notice on the review page it's titled simply "Social_Axioms." This could cause some confusion, since the article is specifically about a research instrument developed at the Chinese University of Hong Kong to measure beliefs cross-culturally. "Social_Axioms" would be a title for a separate article (which I hope to write someday) about social beliefs in general, not just as measured by the SAS. Can you retitle the article yourself before it goes into article space? If not, could I do a redirect? I would already have to do a redirect for the acronym.

Thanks for adopting my article! Writing a first article is always a time for uncertainty.Shandong44 (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, I realize that the article is an orphan, but I don't want to create any links to it until it's in article space.Shandong44 (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you very much. If you need any other references for Most Trusted Educational Institutes page, i will be glad to assist. Varad Khot (talk) 09:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

19:35:22, 14 November 2014 review of submission by Everfishusllc


We are having our next annual summit in September 2015 and are in the beginning stages of marketing. We are unclear why this was rejected and could use some help editing it or suggestions, so it is accepted into the dictionary.

I can be reached at:

<small(redacted, please do not put contact info on Wikipedia, for your own privacy)

or: 415 472 2003


Everfishusllc (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Everfishusllc, the problem is that you're trying to use Wikipedia as though it were LinkedIn or Facebook. That is absolutely not what we do here. We are not a "fun place to increase our brand awareness". We publish objective, neutral articles about thing uninvolved people care about. Thus far, you've provided zero evidence in your draft that anyone not involved with the NSS cares to write about it. I strongly advise you read our guideline WP:Notability. In brief, we don't at all care what NSS has to say about itself, what we do care about is what newspapers, food industry journals, books about fisheries issues, etc have to say about NSS.
The draft as it stands now is just a corporate "About Us!!!" page for an organization, and that's absolutely not what we publish.
If indeed NSS is something that serious, professional, and neutral information sources find worth writing about, by all means change the article accordingly. Note that does not mean leave the current writeup as it is and chuck two LA Times links at the bottom. The draft as now written is just not publishable because it's a promo puff piece. If you want an article about NSS, you need to cut out anything that isn't documented by a neutral published party. If not single news or journal article bothers to mention that y'all have regional sub-summits, then that means that Wikiedia doesn't care either and it shouldn't be in the article.
Lastly, we absolutely do not allow "group" usernames. If you want to modify your username to Mikey at Everfishusllc or RaidersFanfromEverfishusllc that's fine, but you absolutely cannot have a group/team/PR account that people share for editing. One account can belong to only one person. Please change this at your sooner convenience, as if it isn't done soon they may lock your account, allowing you to do nothing other than change your username. You don't necessarily need a new account, just follow the "Request username change" instructions on your Talk page. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Request on 00:54:13, 15 November 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Obology


Hi Matthew:

Forgive me this is my first time writing an article from scratch so I just followed the layout in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_Candy_Company

Can you give me an example of a good article in the entertainment business that I should use.

The reason for my writing this article in the first place is the intellectual property issue that exists with wikipedia pointing the mark name (Nollywood)to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_of_Nigeria.

Your thoughts are appreciated.

Thanks

Obology (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Obology! First off, picking just any company article and mirroring it is not the best idea; how do you know that the article you picked isn't terrible? The default best way to find a good article is to find one that's actually rated as good. Go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and you'll see a chart of the top-ranked articles, so you can look amongst those to see what traits Good and Featured articles share. For small companies, look at ones with high rating but "low importance", for small but quality articles so you're not trying to compare to huge ones like Microsoft.
So far as what you need at Draft:Nollywood copyright dispute (I modified the title since Nollywood 99% of the time means Cinema of Nigeria, so it's really more the controversy we're addressing.
  • The good: you have a number of serious news articles covering the case. You'll want all those, and if you find any more coverage of it in news articles from other regions of the world (BBC? Al Jazeera?) that helps too, plus any academic papers in peer reviewed journals on the legal implications (not just college kids' papers).
  • The bad: please remove all the gunk about what the patent entails, the product lists, etc. That all just comes across as advertising, etc. People can google up the patents if the need to see that, or go to the website of the company. We don't care what the company has to say for itself, we care what other people have to say about the company.
  • I suggest you cut out all the stuff the company itself says, and just link to its site and people can find its catalog and patent list there. The vast majority of the article should be noting facts that other people have observed about the company, and citing them to the source. Also please see WP:Referencing for beginners as you've got footnoting almost but not quite right. Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Business

05:01:08, 15 November 2014 review of submission by Aus475


I made requested changes and added sources - how does it look now?

Aus475 (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Tagami Kikusha

Thank you, MatthewVanitas! I'll keep working on it to raise its rating.

Kyoho (talk) 13:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC) kyoho

Pranapada

Matthew Saheb, thanks once again. I am proud to know you. I have read many of the over one thousand pages created by you, and learnt a lot. But do correct me where I am wrong; kindly teach me to improve myself. I have been working on Agni, do let me know about the quality/short-comings etc., of the work done by me thus far. Regards.Aditya soni (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

Bhagwa Jhanda
added a link pointing to Mahadeo
Duet concertina
added a link pointing to Lachenal
Manx Gaelic Society
added a link pointing to A.W. Moore

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Request on 00:23:48, 17 November 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Joecsiart


I am writing to see how i can get my page about matt fulchiron published. I understand taking out silly lines/inside jokes and citing his own podcast. Can I cite other peoples podcasts? all of the information about him i got from listening to his show, should i take information he provides on other peoples shows?


Joecsiart (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Joecsiart, I strongly advise you read the guideline WP:Notability. The long and short of it is that we don't care at all what he says about himself, we care what reputable, unrelated, objective people have to say about him and his impact. Anyone can claim whatever about themselves, and another amateur podcast might not be too choosy about facts, but Spin magazine, Al Jazeera, Pitchfork, the LA Times, etc. can be broadly expected to get facts more or less right and focus on important facts readers want to know. You need to remove all the cites to his own podcast, and I wouldn't bother citing anyone else's podcast unless it's a famous professional one, like NPR's Radiolab or something. Big-name sources aren't always right, but at least they can be held accountable for mistakes, unlike some random person's Tumblr page.
Basically, for any fact about him, you have to demonstrate that people competely uninvolved with the show, who are recognized media experts, care about it at all. For example, the "5 icecream trucks" controversy. If this controversy only exists on the show and in the minds of the audience, then it's not something we need on Wikipedia. If, on the other hand, a major pop-culture publication, legal journal, or any kind of pro media wrote about "hey, here's an interesting legal dispute on a podcast", then it's worth having and citing to that source.
For finding sources and using them, see WP:Reliable sources and WP:Referencing for beginners. Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

World Aviation

Matthew. I created the Draft:World Aviation page a while back. Can you move it to mainspace or let me know what needs to be amended still? Since this used to be a publication from before the internet age, online references are hard to give, but the scan of the its front-page should prove its existence. Since it is important for an encyclopaedia, I think it is notable for the categories it is related to, like Category:Aviation magazines. Thx for your reply. 6th Common Sense (talk) 11:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

18:45:54, 17 November 2014 review of submission by Willy209


I have added in citations in the MLA format, as well as the in-text citations. Willy209 (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Request on 20:17:11, 17 November 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Cairnduff&carnduff


Each incidence of a name has been retrieved from a reliable source, scotlandpeople eg: the official source for census records for Scotland, and also marriage and death records. I indicated where these can be sourced and not the actual information itself which would infringe on copyright, the information is there to inform others in their own family research. I have over the years collected such information to build up family trees, linking these entries as do many other people with the similar interest, and connect and understand out genealogy history better. As to WP: Notability: I can assure you many people have the same research interest, and over the years I have received many emails with information to add, or someone looking for help with their own research. P.S. Genealogy is no 25 in the list of hobbies. Source Wikipedia...

If you have any idea how I can resolve my problems I would be grateful I really want to add an article into Wikipedia on this subject, thanks Allan Cairnduff.

Cairnduff&carnduff (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Two pages of same article

Hi Matthew,

Thanks for reviewing the page I submitted! I'm an amateur Wikipedia user, and this is only my second translation of a foreign wiki page. However, I see that my translation hasn't been merged with the old stub, but has instead been created on a new page with no link to the original French version.

Here are the links: stub-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C3%A2teau_d%27Agnou ; translation-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C3%A2teau_d%E2%80%99Agnou

I really appreciate your help, as I'm not confident enough to try to resolve this myself (if that's even possible).--KeeperOfBees (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello KeeperOfBees , I can help you, but give it a shot on your own first using these instructions (with helpful picture): Help:Interlanguage_links#Adding_a_new_link. I bet you can get it right pretty easily, but let me know if not. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I tried, but the original English stub page is already linked to the French source. I'm not even sure how the two pages could exist with the same name. Is there a way to merge them, or delete the old stub? My continued thanks to you!--KeeperOfBees (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello MatthewVanitas. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Kevan Hall

Hi Matthew,

I just noticed you decline the page I created. I think I gave substantial evidence to demonstrate Kevan Hall is notable - both his collections and Kevan have been featured on many television shows that are widely distributed. Is there an appeal process?

Hello User:Aus475, you don't need to "appeal" in WP:Articles for Creation. It's an "iterative" process; that is, you can keep working on it until it gets good enough to publish. All we ask is that you read the advice provided for you, improve the article accordingly, hit the Resubmit button when ready and when it meets standards we will Accept it. A Decline is by no means permanent, and many good articles get Declined several times until they're good enough, it just means that as it currently stands the draft is not yet ready. Improve it, click Resubmit, and be ready to make further improvements if so advised.
Did you read WP:Notability (people) yet? If not, strongly advise you do, as it will solve most of your questions. So far as your current sourcing, the Essence piece is just a few photos but doesn't appear to have substantive discussion about Hall and his importance, so you can have that footnote but it doesn't advance your case. The January article mentions his label but doesn't appear to mention Kevan at all; do not include any source that proves facts not about Kevan, we only want sources that prove things about him personally. His own page and the YouTube clip can be allowed, but they don't advance his Notability because they're involved with him directly. However, the LA Times article is exactly the sort of sourcing you want to have, and more like it. You must show that other experts find him worth writing about. That's Notability in a nutshell.
To find good articles to inspire you, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Fashion, and down and to the right is a chart of top-rated articles. Take a look at some of those, ideally "Low" importance and "GA" (good article) class, which will be other small articles but of good quality. "Low" isn't a knock on the subject, it just means they aren't in the 2% of most important/famous fashion topics, but can still be "GA"-rated well-written and informative articles. Use those as your guide.

Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Matt - I believe I fixed the citations and added sources. Can you please review and let me know if you have additional comments? Also, it looks like the picture was taken down - is that right? I'd like to add it back if possible... Thanks for your help!

Don't forget to sign your posts with four "~" in a row, or hitting the Sign button at top of your editing window.
Hey User:Aus475, I Accepted the article, so now it's live. The reason there's no image is you can't just steal other people's copyrighted work, so you do need to watch that. You can only submit a photo if you as the original photographer, or the person who is the owner of the copyright, specifically release it under WP:Creative Commons, through WP:Wikimedia Commons. You might want to take a glance at WP:Images for the general guidelines, but broadly speaking "I found a picture of him on the internet" is absolutely not going to work.
But the article itself is live, and you can figure out the photo thing at your own pace. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

03:27:59, 18 November 2014 review of submission by Jag149


Hi. Thank you for the quick turnaround on the review. I was wondering if the article could be re-reviewed. The submission was denied on the basis that it lacks reliable sources. This page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Law_sources_as_reliable_sources indicates that primary legal sources are generally reliable. My submission refers to the California Civil Code. While it is, admittedly, a commentary on the law rather than the text of the law itself, this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellis_Act is about another California state law that is similar to the one I submitted an article on, and it consists of analogous content. It seems that one difference is that it actually links to the code section (whereas my article merely states what the code sections are). I'm not very good at using the publishing part of wikipedia, so I was planning on adding references later, but I will try to add that reference before your next review). Thank you. Edit: Oh, also, Costa-Hawkins appears in multiple wikipedia pages, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_the_United_States#Purpose_and_scope. It's just that it doesn't have a page yet. I was trying to fill in the blanks.

Jag149 (talk) 03:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

No worries Jag149, Legal isn't my specialty, I just saw the lack of cited sources and hit the default "Unsourced". It might not hurt to paste your explanation at the top of the draft so other reviewers know the convention, though you definitely want to cite the law, bare minimum, and it'll help if you can add a few comments about how it was viewed in the press, and cite those to the news articles. Thanks for pressing forward, MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh... thanks for explaining. So, I think I did that now... I added a citation to the California Legislature's website with a direct link to the primary statutory language. Do you think that's good enough? Do I have to do anything to resubmit it?

Change the user name

Hobbistry → Ramyaathobbistry

Status:     In progress

Hobbistry (talk) 12:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Request on 19:15:57, 18 November 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Everfishusllc



Everfishusllc (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you see me online?

I'm trying to chat with you and this doesn't work????

Hi,

My name is Adrienne and I am working on a global event called:

"Napa Seafood Summit"

We are trying to get this into your dictionary, but it has been rejected.

Can you please help me edit this and get it accepted.

I can be reached at:

Don't put personal email/phone info on Wikipedia, just use the internal Talkpage system

Thanks, Adrienne

Adrienne, I've given you very specific advice both at the top of your draft, and on this very page here (see User_talk:MatthewVanitas#19:35:22.2C_14_November_2014_review_of_submission_by_Everfishusllc). Have you read my advice so far? If not, I'm not very inclined to give you more advice if you ignore the advice I've already taken the time to give.
If you want to talk about your draft, please read the info in the pink box at the top of your draft, and my answer to you from 14 Nov higher up on this page. After you've read those, just post here in this section again and let me know if you have further questions beyond what I've already answered. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Izrael Hieger

Hi Matthew- Thanks for your feedback and help on the article on Izrael Hieger. I have attempted to address the issues you raised and wondered if you could have another look please? Thanks Rdowell88 (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Dial tone the producer

Hi could you tell me the reason why This page was not put up as this was all the info about the artist producer??



This should Read Dial Tone (producer) maybe that will help?

ok So maybe Change to Jnr Tubby (aka Dial Tone the Producer)

as there are more writings on his new band Orange Hill

Dantewhyte (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


could you please tell me what you would need to help this article go up all other info is first hand

http://orangehillproductions.com

Hello Dantewhyte, did you read the large pink box at the top of your draft which explains exactly why your draft was declined, with links to the guidelines that show what you must do. Please make sure you read those first, then feel free to ask me any follow-up questions. The simple reason is that haven't bothered to provide any evidence whatsoever that anyone important has ever found Dial Tone worth writing about. If they have, you definitely want to provide that because our general policies are:


http://www.mixmag.net/music/exclusive-music/download-orange-hill-productions

http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/a72acc2c-54d3-4f31-b65e-a22777812672

http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/records/nznwjq

http://www.iluvlive.co.uk/blog/814/Orange-Hill-Productions-Ft-Vybz-Kartel-Sneakbo-Pon-Time-NEW-MUSIC


Articles generally require significant coverage

in reliable sources

that are independent of the topic.
Note the words "independent of the topic". That means "first hand" sources are the last thing we want. Anyone can put whatever they want on their own page, so we don't care in the slightest what it says about DT at http://orangehillproductions.com, what we care about is what they say about him on Pitchfork, Spin, the London Times, professional news sources like that.
MatthewVanitas (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok here are a few like that what you asked for nothing better than the bbc yeah? mixmag??

http://www.mixmag.net/music/exclusive-music/download-orange-hill-productions

http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/a72acc2c-54d3-4f31-b65e-a22777812672

http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/records/nznwjq

http://www.iluvlive.co.uk/blog/814/Orange-Hill-Productions-Ft-Vybz-Kartel-Sneakbo-Pon-Time-NEW-MUSIC

http://www.prsformusicfoundation.com/Grantees/Orange-Hill-Productions

http://unrealityshout.com/forum/orange-hill-productions-featuring-busy-signal-fatman-scoop-kano-wine-de-best

14:14:43, 19 November 2014 review of submission by Jbdbaseball


Hi, I saw that my article was declined from being uploaded to the wikipedia page because the page already exists; however, my intent was not to create a new page, but to be added as a subsection under the SNARE (protein) page. On that page, there is a section titled "Toxins" that is lacking a lot of information, and my hope was to improve on that section rather than creating a new article entirely. I may not have linked my article to the SNARE (protein) page, but I was unsure how to do that. Anyways, if the content I included (or at least part of it) would be useful as an addition to the SNARE (protein) page, then it would be great to see it improved. Thanks.

Jbdbaseball (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jbdbaseball, if you want to add to an existing page, you do not need to go through AFC for that; afc is only for new articles entirely.
I suggest you just add in your part to the existing article, and if it gets reverted by someone (which is always possible with a sudden new addition), then stay calm and contact that user on their Talkpage to see how you can come to an agreement on the expansion. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Request on 18:57:40, 19 November 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Camwest13


I need help creating an article. I have the external sources, but I don't know how to go about placing them in the article, or how to make them "verifiable". Help please!

Camwest13 (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hogg's "Three Perils"

Thanks Matthew. The new (popular) edition contains only the title page of Vol III, which is better than nothing. I've never added an image to a page but will give it a go. Not having access to the scholarly edition or 1823 edition I don't know if there was an illustrated frontispiece. I would guess it didn't have in-line illustrations, it's not that type of work. Chrismorey (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

If the title page is a modern one, you have to upload it under WP:Fair use, using the "Upload" tool in your blue menu bar at the left of your screen right now. If it's a pre-1923 image that the modern publishers have copied, it gets uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If you have trouble in either case, contact WP:Teahouse for mentorship. The main thing is to be sure you're very clearly indicating the date of the work, where you got the image from etc. It's a little annoying the first time you try it, but after a few times you can do it in your sleep. MatthewVanitas (talk)

Request on 20:52:26, 19 November 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Mexloco


Thanks for the words of encouragement MatthewVanitas. I will look into finding additional sources. On that note, I have found the restaurant in question (Alux) listed on several top ten lists for different or unique restaurants/bars. Would this kind of list be considered a good source? My worry is that since these types of media are mostly used for commercial purposes they may not clear the bar. That said, almost all of the other places featured on these lists already have wikipedia entry's. Other sources I am already aware of are guidebooks, but these also don't seem ideal to cite due to their commercial aspirations. Within wikipedia I also found a reference to the restaurant from an episode of the amazing race when contestants dined there. It has been featured in other TV shows, but I don't know how I might cite those sources properly. Any advice on this would be greatly appreciated. Mexloco (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mexloco, I'm not as strong on restaurant criteria, so I suggest you check with Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Food. Make a very clear new title on the talk page, provide a link to your draft, and explain clearly you're question. Not to overexplain, just too many novices use an unhelpful section title like "My article" and leave a vague question like "how do I use sources' as opposed to "here is my Draft:X, here are links to sources I have so far, any suggestions on other sources, which of these sources are worth using?" etc. etc. Good luck, MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

New Article. Asastikar

Dear Matthew, Many thanks for your kind cooperation in earlier projects. I am a bit stuck with posting a new article in Sandbox. Is it because I already have one article (SHREEM Group of Companies) on hold, which doesn't allow me create a new one? Seeking help. Regards Asastikar (talk) 06:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Asastikar, when you go to User:Asastikar/sandbox, it's taking you to the SHREEM page because there's a WP:Redirect on the sandbox page. To get to the Sandbox itself, when the Sandbox bumps you along to the Shreem page, just under the title there's a little subtitle saying "Directed here from /Sandbox". Click that link, and you'll to right to the sandbox and can remove the Redirect code and start working in your sandbox again. It sounds more complicate than it is, give it a shot and let me know if you have any trouble. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much, MatthewVanitas, That was very fast. Followed your instruction and I was able to proceed with the new article. I now have saved the new one, but I did not see the option to 'submit for review' option. Am I missing something? Thanks again.

Hello MatthewVanitas

Thank you for your prompt responses. I followed your instruction, but now am unable to submit the new article for review. Am I missing something? HELP! Regards. Asastikar (talk) 09:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


Hello Asastikar, simply put the code {{AFC submission}} at the top of your page to mark it as an AFC draft. That will put the gray "not yet in line" template at the top of your article. When you're ready for review, click the "Submit" button and it will go in line for review with a big yellow box at the top. When you do that, make sure you use the "change name of draft" tool at the bottom of the yellow box to move your draft to the proper name. It's easier than it sounds, and easy after you try it once. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi MatthewVanitas

Many thanks. I could do as guided. I was able to submit the article for review. Asastikar (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thai dessert articles

Hi. I see from User talk:Jummyy that you've also noticed the influx of Thai dessert articles. The same thing happened around the same time last year; I suspect they're related. It pretty much seems to be an undocumented student assignment. I'd left most of the editors the {{welcome student}} message, but none have replied. They might be more responsive if I asked in Thai, but seeing that these articles didn't have serious copyright/plagiarism issues, I didn't press further. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Paul_012, yeah it's a pretty clear trend. But overall every single one I've encountered is Notable, the English isn't terrible, and publishing them just involves removing a little WP:OR and WP:NOTCOOKBOOK. It'd be easier if I could just let the whole class know not to include recipes, and encourage them to include photos, but overall nothing terrible. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Request on 21:26:22, 21 November 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by JTHarkness


My proposed article was rejected. The rationale for rejection at this time was articulated well, is understandable and the comments well taken – with no dissent from me, even. I am concerned that any content that does not already come with significant ‘notability’ baggage, would necessarily be rejected, even if the language is cleared of prose, and the content historically accurate and factual.

Yes, the recently released book was a large part of the reason for creating the proposed article – 50% the reason to be exact. The other 50 % was to include a factual, encyclopedic, thumbnail description of a decorated WWI bomber pilot for reference by anyone else. I admit that I carried over too much language from the book’s marketing flyer into the proposed article – a condition of over-familiarity that I have probably become numb to, but can easily rectify. The rationale for a WP entry is experiential – that is, I often Google the object or topic of my interest before heading out to the bookstore. Since I often check out the WP link contained in the search results, I reasoned that similar behavior by others is probable. Thus, it behooves me to try to include the person for whom the factual, historical, biographical memoir was created into WP. Yes, as the proposed article is about my grandfather, I do have a vested interest, which, I imagine, by that virtue alone should not necessarily cause rejection. I can understand and appreciate steps taken by WP to accept only verifiable articles. I have now read most of each of the suggested guidelines about WP:Primary source, WP:Tertiary source, WP:No original research, and WP:Notability, and although your points about my article are well taken, and I can fix it, I now wonder whether such an article has any chance of being accepted. Until now, I was under the impression that Wikipedia, like its namesake origin, is intended to be an online encyclopedia – thus, anything factual and verifiable can be included. The problem here is that even if everything factual cannot be necessarily included, not everything is well known yet, and not everything that is an undisputed historical “fact”, is already in a hardcopy encyclopedia or has several books written about it and a dozen references. The above mentioned guidelines lead me to the conclusion that acceptance is all about “quantity” of appropriate sources. By those criteria, very few noteworthy people who fought in WWI and even received meritorious distinction would qualify. In the case of my grandfather, no one on earth but the Harkness family possesses the WWI diaries of Captain Donald E. Harkness, or the many photographs he took during the war. Thus, no one else besides the newspapers of the time have written about him. I could reference the newspapers, and probably should, but would that satisfy the notability criteria? I could also reference the many WWI reference books diligently read and studied to validate the historical events mentioned in the diaries but they reference the events and not D.E.Harkness. All of which leads me to the conclusion that ‘notability’ would rely solely on the one book and the newspaper references. Naturally, I am concerned that such emendations would be for naught.

As for the image that I uploaded, “Left-Capt-DEH-(London-Feb1919)__Right-FSLT-DEH-(Coudekerque-FR-1916).jpg”, its only purpose was as a visual aide to the proposed article, so if the article is rejected then clearly it only makes sense to delete the image also. JTHarkness (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

JTHarkness (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello JTHarkness, if you want to get a most informed view of the cuttoff bar, I suggest you post a succinct version of your question, and link to your draft, at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Military History and get the opinion of the experts there. Hope that helps. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

David Whippey
added a link pointing to Beachcomber
James Munro (sealer)
added a link pointing to Mutton bird
Lachenal & Co.
added a link pointing to Wheatstone
Thai fruit carving
added a link pointing to Sukhothai

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

20:51:51, 23 November 2014 review of submission by Bogancs


Bogancs (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The page for Eusociality only encompasses one facet of reproductive suppression. It talks in detail about populations that arise from a singly breeding female where some members are under reproductive suppression. However this phenomenon is not limited to just the eusocial colonies of ants, termites, and naked mole rats. The literature we provided clearly dictates it as a phenomenon that occurs much more commonly and with many more examples than just the few on the Eusociality page. Please look at this carefully before you reject our submission once again. It would not be accurate to simply edit the page of eusociality because the examples we provided are not eusocial organisms. May we suggest that a reproductive page is created with a link to eusociality because that is simply an extreme form. If anything eusociality should be under reproductive suppression instead of the other way around as it is now. Please reconsider.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MatthewVanitas/Archive_36&oldid=637254181"