User talk:Mcmatter/Archive 10
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Mcmatter. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Down-ball redirect to Downball
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down-ball&oldid=1232772302
Hi Mcmatter, there is no Down-ball page nor Down-ball (draft) currently. I'm appreciative that you've added your voice and voted on the Down-ball Deletion Review and so perhaps we can discuss Down-ball redirect to Downball here sometime. Rockycape (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Rockycape, you can make the draft page and begin working to demonstrate it's notability there, by working on a new version properly sourced version. Until you submit it for review or stop editing it for 6 months it is safe from deletion or much oversite while you take your time to learn the ways of Wikipedia. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Mcmatter Thank you for your suggestions which are much appreciated. Rockycape (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- As per the title Down-ball redirect to Downball, I'd like to discuss the switching on of this redirect if that's not off-limits and ok by you. Rockycape (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Rockycape, I'm not sure what you mean. There is currently nothing wrong with the redirect. If you go through the the WP:AFC process and draft out an acceptable article the redirect will be deleted and the approved article will take it's place. There is a process for this that has happened time and again. I'm not an admin I can't delete the redirect, I can redirect it if need be but I think right now it is best where it is. The only other issue I could see you having is you think the page was actually removed from view but it's still there when you click on Down-ball it will forward you to Downball but at the top of the page there is a link that will take you back to the redirect page. I would avoid editing this if I were you however, you have already begun to wear on many nerves with this combative uninformed argument style you have taken. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- No that's not what I mean. If you're happy to discuss further please respond back that you are and I'll explain what I mean in the next response. Rockycape (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Rockycape, I'm not sure what you mean. There is currently nothing wrong with the redirect. If you go through the the WP:AFC process and draft out an acceptable article the redirect will be deleted and the approved article will take it's place. There is a process for this that has happened time and again. I'm not an admin I can't delete the redirect, I can redirect it if need be but I think right now it is best where it is. The only other issue I could see you having is you think the page was actually removed from view but it's still there when you click on Down-ball it will forward you to Downball but at the top of the page there is a link that will take you back to the redirect page. I would avoid editing this if I were you however, you have already begun to wear on many nerves with this combative uninformed argument style you have taken. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- As per the title Down-ball redirect to Downball, I'd like to discuss the switching on of this redirect if that's not off-limits and ok by you. Rockycape (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Mcmatter Thank you for your suggestions which are much appreciated. Rockycape (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive
| New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive |  |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
FIX Antenna article
Dear McMatter, As I see QuickFIX (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuickFIX) does not have on the wikipedia page - in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject), reliable, secondary, independent of the subject sources as well but the page was created. When I was working on the FIX Antenna article I was trying to do similar content. Could you show me key differences between my (FIX Antenna) and QuickFIX article? So, I will know what should be changed or improved. In addition, I understand that some versions of FIX Antenna have commercial license but it is also available as open-source. OlehVasyliev (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- @OlehVasyliev you are correct so I have tagged that article for deletion as well. Please do not use random other articles to base a draft on. If you are going to use an existing article as a template try and use one with a G or higher quality rating. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- McMatter, thanks for information.
- So, no chance to post the article without valuable backlinks? Is my article trash or I can do something without backlinks? OlehVasyliev (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- To be considered notable enough for inclusion we need to see that the software has been discussed in detail and provide some critical analysis in reliable sources which are not connect to the subject in any form. You can also take a look at WP:NSOFTWARE for an idea of what is needed. Otherwise this would just become another site to list all things everywhere and managing it would be almost impossible. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
I was turned down because my sources were not verified. I reworked it and added the REF button before each published article. these are stories from major news papers, government agencies, etc. let me know if I need to do anything else. I am new here. thank you Dpielsticker (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in a research
Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Kind Regards,
BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Request on 13:29:00, 24 October 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by Salimbenk
Hello Mcmatter,
I would like to contact you about the draft that you declined.
You say that the sources we provided do not provide enough coverage, or most of them are not independent.
I would like to differ. I provided a link to the entry of ALLRAIL in the European transparency register, which lists all active lobby associations in the EU. I also provided a link to the page of the Group of Representative Bodies, which lists all EU-recognised Eassociations of the EU rail sector. I can also provide the entry in the Yearbook of International Organisations: https://uia.org/s/or/en/1122282302.
The other sources are mostly independent news outlets that have nothing to do with ALLRAIL, and yet provide coverage of its activities and goals.
Other associations of the European railway sector, such as the Community of European Railway and Infrastructure Companies, UNIFE, or UIRR all have entries on Wikipedia with a similar amount of sources, if not less, and most of them not being independent ("in-house" sources). They are by the way also listed on the page of the Group of Representative Bodies.
I don't want to do "whataboutism". I only wish that ALLRAIL benefits from the same treatment than the other associations of the sector.
Many thanks for considering my request.
Best regards,
salimbenk
Salimbenk (talk) 13:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Salimbenk Directories or listings have no value at all towards whether an organisation is notable or not. The news agency articles have been press releases, which are written by the organisation or quotes from their members which do not provide any significant coverage on the group. Please also look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS each draft is evaluated on its own merits not what is out there. Exisiting articles may have not been through the drafting process or may have been written prior to changes to the guidelines/policies and have not been caught on their issues. But each of those articles would not pass either based on their current formats. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)