Jump to content

User talk:Mcmatter/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Anna Thompson entry

McMatter, the references I have supplied *DO* support my edits. I suggest you read them and listen to them carefully. You can't possibly have done this in the time you took to undo all my hours of work. Do you even understand French and German.121.222.177.134 (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I have read through your references and had the one french article translated and it does not fully support all your claims, or even speak in depth about Anna Thomson. at this point this article will be placed back up for Deletion.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The French article? You mean the French spoken interview, for which there is no transcript, that therefore you cannot possibly have translated or understood since, by your own admission, you don't understand French. The German interview was written. If you don't understand German then you could have used Google Translator to have translated this. Is this what you did? Did you even bother to read the two NYT obits about Thomson's adoptive parents? If so, what did you not understand?121.222.177.134 (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

According to the information on the Wikipedia deletion page for 'Anna Thomson (which I have copied and pasted here for your convenience) the entry was deleted on the grounds that Anna Thomson is Non-notable minor performer; fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.

The deletion process was 'Proposed deletion (PROD)'. According to the Wikipedia entry for PROD, Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article for uncontroversial deletion. It is a shortcut to the normal deletion review process (AfD), and a fallback for deletion proposals that do not meet the strict criteria for speedy deletion.

Critically, according to the Wikipedia page, 'PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected'.

With all due respect, PROD should not have been used in this instance because opposition was to be expected here. This is for the reasons that I outline below:

1. The first and most important reason why opposition should have been expected is that, as I write, there are six Wikipedia pages for Anna Thomson (born Anna Kluger Levine on 18 September 1953 in New York City) ) aka Anna Levine, aka Anna Levine Thomson, aka Anna Thomson, aka Anna Thompson, aka Anna Levine Thompson.

In alphabetical order, the six Wikipedia pages for Anna Thomson are in: Czech; Italian; Dutch; French; German, Spanish (Castilian).

2. The second reason why opposition should have been expected is that there is an ' Interview biographie d'Anna Thomson' ('Interview biography of Anna Thomson') on INA at http://www.ina.fr/video/I08260832. Here, on 27 April 2002, Thomson was interviewed by Thierry Ardisson about her role in Bridget (2001).

3. The third reason why opposition should have been expected is that there is a Facebook fan page for Anna Thomson at https://www.facebook.com/anna.thomson.fanpage

4. The fourth reason why opposition should have been expected is that there is an IMDB page for Anna Thomson under her name of Anna Levine at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0505764/

5. The fifth reason why opposition should have been expected is that Anna Thomson, who is 61 years old and still working as an actress, has fifty nine (59) credits to her name on her IMDB page (see above) dating from 1969 to 2012.

6. The sixth reason why opposition should have been expected is that, according to her IMDB entry, Anna Thomson 'Gained cult status among French movie experts due to her performance in Sue (1997)'. Sue (1997) was the first film in a 'Trilogy of Loneliness', all set in New York, starring Anna Thomson, directed by Amos Kollek. The second in the trilogy was 'Fiona' (1999). The third in the trilogy was Bridget (2002) (see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridget_(Film) ). Also see http://www.planet-interview.de/interviews/amos-kollek/34007/

7. The seventh reason why opposition should have been expected is that that Anna Thomson had a substantial role as 'Alexandra "Alex" Arnold' in Jaded (1996). Notable about the English Wikipedia page for 'Jaded' (at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaded_(film) ) is that out of the eleven actors listed in the Principal Cast, only Anna Levine (Anna Thomson) does not have a current entry.

8. The eighth reason why opposition should have been expected is that Anna Thomson starred in 'Fast Food Fast Women' (2000) directed by Amos Kollek, and entered into the 2001 Festival de Cannes (Cannes Film Festival). See: a) http://www.nytimes.com/movies/movie/201743/Fast-Food-Fast-Women/overview b) http://www.nytimes.com/movies/person/97053/Amos-Kollek c) http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/5168/year/2000.html

9. The ninth reason why opposition should have been expected is that Anna Thomson starred as herself in 'A Bitter Glory' (2001), a documentary directed by Amos Kollek, produced by Arte France. The film is also known as 'Bitterer Ruhm'. It was filmed in New York and released on 11 December 2001 in France and in Germany.

10. The tenth reason why opposition should have been expected is that Anna Thomson had roles in two Clint Eastwood films, the character of 'Audrey' in 'Bird' (1988), and that of 'Delilah Fitzgerald' in 'Unforgiven' (1992). Thomson's role as 'Delilah Fitzgerald' was substantial, and played a key part in the development of the film's remarkable, haunting and unforgettable pathos.

Though strictly not required under the terms of the process to be followed for 'undeletion' of the entry, I have taken some time to put together the ten reasons above in order to make clear to you my concern that this entry should not have been deleted using PROD. Clearly, in this instance there was an abuse of process. In my view, too many Wikipedia administrators are overzealous in their enthusiasm to delete Wikipedia pages on the grounds that a page allegedly fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. In my view, this is yet one more example of this excessive zeal.121.222.177.134 (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The 2 Obit claim 2 people died with a daughter named Anna Thomson, nothing saying it is the same person. There was no claim to abandonment on the street or adoption in either of those obits. Your first paragraph is not supported. As for your second paragraph, the interview with director Amos Kolleck only confirms some collaboration between them on a few films the rest of the films you added in that paragraph are not supported by that reference. Paragraph 2 not supported. "In France, through her roles in Kollek's films, Levine has gained cult status amongst critics." has no support as well, this is just a puff statement.

1. Inclusion in other wikis does not mean squat on English Wikipedia.
2. One interview does make someone Notable
3. Facebook means nothing.
4. IMDB is a another form of a Wiki, not a vaild reference.
5. The number of credits does not infer notability.
6. See number 4
7. This is not a valid argument for inclusion. WP:OTHERSTUFF
8. Notability is not inherited
9. Point not made.
10. Again point not made.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Rollbacker

I have granted rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. 03:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)– Gilliam (talk)

Hello @Gilliam: and thank you, I imagine I will not get much use out of it as I prefer to check diffs prior to reverting and twinkle does many of the same things, but I can foresee some situations where it may come in handy with a multi-article vandal. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 03:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Ted Cruz

The information about Cruz when he was 17 was re-inserted into the article, without discussion by another editor. I agree with you that the information is not notable.--MaverickLittle (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Daniela Nieves

Hello Mcmatter:

I added some references to the article Daniela Nieves, which yesterday you added the template {{prod blp}}. I want to know if is possible to remove the template now that have more than one reference. Warm regards. McEC16 (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello.

I see you have requested speedy deletion for Francis Tan Huan Chun. However, two different people have contested the deletion. If you have time, please give your thoughts on the contested deletion. Thank you. Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 17:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Pyrotle: thank you for the message, it's one of the page creator which is contesting the CSD. I have responded but will let the admin make the choice. If they decline the CSD I will take the article to AFD.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
All right. Thank you. Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 17:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello

I kindly request that you stop nominating my articles for deletion. All subjects I write about are notable and I do not represent anyone in any way. I am a free music blogger and reviewer in Southeast Asia and I am very clear about who is notable and who is not. Thank you for your attention. Jackchee (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Jackchee:, You may be clear who is notable to you, but that does not mean they are notable to the English Wikipedia. Please take some time and review the policies I have linked in the deletion discussions and feel free to make policy based arguments to keep these articles. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello @McMatter:, I am not exactly clear on how notability criteria works because the people I have blogged and created articles for are very notable in the southeast Asian music scene. Could you please help me improve the articles such that the persons seem as notable as they currently are? Thank you very much and appreciate your effort! Jackchee (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Undoing changes to Tiberius page

Hello, paganism is an pejorative term coined in the early Christian era & would be an anachronistic way to refer to the official Roman religion that Tiberius and his contemporaries followed. Also, the article that is linked is "religion in ancient Rome", so "ancient Roman religion" would be a more appropriate name.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.243.174 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

the pic of shakti mohan u used

the pic of shakti mohan u used is not shakti mohan its her younger sis mukti mohan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.57.148.71 (talk) 13:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your message.

Upon reviewing the guidelines for conflict of interest, I have updated my user page to include a declarative statement that I am making edits in connection with my place of employment which is a public archives. While I understand that Wikipedia does not support simply promoting organizations in a biased manner, the archives (Media Archives at the University of Toronto) holds primary source material that is publicly accessible and free to use. I am contributing these links as they identify such materials that directly relate to their respective article and would be of research value.

I am a new as an editor to Wikipedia, so I appreciate the notice of your changes and any further comments. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mea558 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Mea558 (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Mea558:, and welcome to Wikipedia. What I would suggest at this point is make a suggestion on the talk pages of the articles with the link you think may add value to the article and use the {{request edit}} template. This will allow another editor to look it over and see if it adds value to the article. I understand the articles you added the links to were of Toronto based organizations/companies, however Wikipedia is worldwide, so the external links you provided may not applicable for anyone outside of the Toronto area.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 20:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Your AIV report

Please see the notice at the top of WP:AIV. Unless it's something more serious such as WP:BLP violations, warning vandals is generally a prerequisite to reporting to AIV. The idea is they might turn around when they see that there are real people behind the wiki. Warning takes just as much time as reporting AIV, so it should be of little inconvenience to you, but much more conducive to the welcoming philosophy we strive to maintain. Thanks! — MusikAnimal talk 15:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal:Thank you for the information. Normally I would have warned the a user however this account demonstrated their only purpose was to vandalize Wikipedia with 6 vandal edits within 14 minutes immediately after creating this account, hence the evidently a vandalism only account.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Noindexing

Just FYI: your edit to User:Arsal884 was not necessary, because the userpage template that I applied already had "noindex" built in. JohnCD (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@JohnCD: Thank you for the information, I wasn't sure and this user was intent on self promotion, so I erred on the side of caution.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, just as well. {{User page}} doesn't automatically noindex, you have to add a parameter, and in fact the default is "no", which seems to me wrong. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Juliëtte Wytsman

What is the problem with the article Juliëtte Wytsman? The RKD seems like a reliable source to me. – Editør (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Editør:There is no claim to significance or proof of notability, the source may be valid but there is nothing to say this person meets WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST not even unreferenced claims.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I was still working on the article and I will add more information with source references. – Editør (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@Editør: Then I suggest you take it to the draft space or a sandbox to work on it. As you have been editing for a number of years I don't think you will need to go through the entire AFC process, but the second you save in the main article space it is under scrutiny and may be deleted within minutes of being published if it does not meet the inclusion criterias. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I've added three major museums in Belgium that have works of her in their collections, so I hope notability is now established. – Editør (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

17:17:58, 16 February 2015 review of submission by 213.7.52.66


dont understand why this is not accepted.. footballer from Cyprus first division top flight professional league with accurate sources just click the links to see for your self 213.7.52.66 (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

what project page

Hi, and thanks for your feedback at Talk:Tostan, where you suggested

asking at the project above

but, what's a project, and in particular, what's "the project above" and how do I ask there? Mathglot (talk)17:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mathglot:, I'm sorry I wasn't more descriptive. A project is a group of editors who watch and work on pages within a certain topic or group. At the top of the page Talk:Tostan there is a big box inside that box it mentions 2 projects. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Africa and Wikipedia:WikiProject Senegal each of those pages have a talk page of their own Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Senegal. These talk pages are where one can try and bring attention to issues with in the projects scopes and solicit extra assistance when needed.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! And where would one go to just ask for general opinion on whether something adheres to policies and guidelines, cuz my question was about a poss conflict of interest (person working at Tostan editing the article and changing it systematically in a way that seems POV to me) and nothing to do with Africa, per se.
Btw, when puzzling about 'Project' I did find a Glossary but Project isn't in there; if your def above holds up more formally than just a quick Q&A to me here, can you please add it there? (or if you want me to copy/paste it word for word, I can do that). Mathglot (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@Mathglot: try under Wikiproject. If after a week the discussion does not proceed towards some sort of consensus you may proceed to WP:CONTENTDISPUTE and follow the process for a request for comment (RFC) which if properly categorized will help alert others to the page plus listing it on some wikiproject pages. Don't expect any dispute to be solved in a matter of hours I have seen disputes last months.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Acceptable List Format

A list of the 23 student body organizations of the California State University is included in the article about the California State Student Association: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Student_Association#Member_organizations

Can I use that format (i.e., association name — college name) to create a list of the student body associations in the California community colleges? VerifyEC (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hydra Branding and Company names

Hi, I was wondering why you removed Hydra Creative Ltd - Web Design Sheffield off the Hydra page (brands and company names section)? The company is called Hydra so that fits with the page and the name is taken from the mythical creature as the number of heads is a reflection of the services they offer. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.64.244 (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@78.32.64.244: I removed your external SPAM link because the disambiguation pages are not for external linking, their purpose to to direct people to Wikipedia articles they may be looking for, not your website.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

How can i make my wikipedia page please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjit.khulal (talk • contribs) 05:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Information

How can i make my wikipedia page please help sanjit khulal magar 05:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjit.khulal (talk • contribs)

@Sanjit.khulal: Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your blog. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia on notable topics, NOT your blog. If you feel the need to advertise your blog then use another service like facebook or twitter. Once again I will be blunt, your blog does not qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia as it is less then a week old and has had ZERO coverage from independent sources.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 05:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Request on 06:49:37, 22 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Sanaz Salem Ayegh


Dear Mr. Mcmatter

I submitted an article titled "Ramin Asadi" on 18 February 2015 that is declined. it is about an Iranian social activist and writer that should be known to the world. I think there are many people like him that are unknown but are more deserved that some known people. I tried to identify a person that devoted his life to orphans and lepers and has a professional life that is worthy to share. I believe that his books and activities should be presented to more people because of promotion to support orphans and human rights. My aim is to introduce him to the world and all the words of article are chosen from his awards, books, articles and documents that are from reliable references with a neutral point of view. If it is possible review my article again and also references. following suggestion of Mr. Martin, I edited the article and resubmitted it but it was not accepted. please inform me about the problems. best regards

Sanaz Salem Ayegh


Sanaz Salem Ayegh (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Article for Mike Muir

Thanks for the feedback, I'm still new to the editing and process for adding articles, but I've added many more additional citations and references supporting that Muir has had a career in both ice hockey, as well as professional paintball. I believe he is notable as he was a highly touted prospect going into the QMJHL that played in a Canadian National tournament in midget, then was on the Jr. A team hosting the national tournament again, until he was injured. He additionally played professional paintball, for 3 years, being selected to an Allstar game, which I read under the notable athletes section, should result as a reason to include him.

Should I resubmit him or are you able to look at my edits and suggest any improvements?

Rabbit Hill Beer (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

respectsed is, i llike your editing system , but i want to inform you that small error happend at editing of dr y.srihari article , in this article there are two references one is http://www.hypnotherapistregister.com/InternationalIndia.htm , in this at bottom of list there is dr srihari mbbs,bwrt,btht naem at town visakhapatnam , and in 2nd reference http://www.viteprecedenti.com/ipnologi.html#india , in hyderabad town listing is there , but in both the name published as dr sreehari instead of dr y,srihari , if possible please observe it sir,,,thanking you sir , sorry for trouble you sir......sekhar 101.63.189.213 (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

i edited article dr y.srihari , please suggest me sir, my editing is good ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.94.88 (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Value Advantage

Compare the write up for Value Advantage to "Mopar" or "Goodwrench" or "Motorcraft" and I have exceeded the requirements that these pages do not. Someone else can expand it. I explained that if this is listed, it may save someone heartache of a failed transmission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AugustaEditor (talk • contribs) 21:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF These arguments are not valid, you have not currently proven why this brand deserves inclusion as per WP:GNG.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 21:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

18:55:08, 2 March 2015 review of submission by Brushwithrob1


Hello,

Thanks for looking at my article! As this is my first article, I appreciate the feedback. What kind of sources can I provide? More stuff like Bloomberg? More sports-team stuff? The actual Wikipedia pages are OCEANS of text and info, just some streamlined info would be great.

Thanks you again, Brushwithrob1 (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

21:26:23, 8 March 2015 review of submission by Lou Maher


Hi, thanks for looking at my submission. Just learning the ropes here. What is neologistic about my submission? A newly coined word? Should I use "librarian" instead of "academic librarian," "human" instead of "real human"? Thanks for taking the time. LM

Lou Maher (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Help with creation

Hello, would you be able to help? I am unsure how to ensure that a company page it "notable"? What is required? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanhinterland (talk • contribs) 16:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Ryanhinterland: what makes a company notable for Wikipedia is if reliable sources (news media, periodicals, books, etc.) are writing about it. If they are, the Wikipedia article should only contain information written by the sources. For proper referencing check out WP:referencing for beginners. I have also left a welcome message on your talk page with some helpful information.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Mcmatter, thanks for your help!Staffer55 (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I see that I have been denounced as a sockpuppet of you. I guess I feel honoured  :-)  Maproom (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Nova-web1-228x150.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Nova-web1-228x150.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Janet Jacobs Wiki Page

I created a Wikipedia page for Janet Jacobs (my first so I'm a rookie) and I received a note from you that it had been declined because I had not added enough references. I went in last week and added a ton of references and footnotes, but I haven't heard back on it yet. I am not certain I resubmitted it correctly. Are you able to see the changes? Let me know what else would be needed to get her Wikipedia page up. Thanks! Heili Lehr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heililehr (talk • contribs) 16:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

vandalism on Valmiki Caste

One of wiki user is trying to remove all article written in Valmiki Caste.He deleted the bases and all articles I undid it.But I want your help because I didn't know how to report him.Please give your useful time to solve this problem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohinisinghaliya (talk • contribs) 07:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

adding to Stefan Saal name

Hi there -- I understand why you made the change! I confused myself after seeing the link to Strathmore's latest sculptor's Wikipedia page and I linked to Stefan Saal's website -- when the appropriate thing would have been to his own Wikipedia page. His career is similar to that of Roger Stoller, maybe more international. So I'll write & submit that instead. thanks! Studio5B (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

23:37:00, 6 April 2015 review of submission by DocRocsMinions


Hey I wasnt even ready to submit anything, I was mid edit. Is every time I click save does it subit my work? cheers

DocRocsMinions (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@DocRocsMinions: Yes every time you hit submit or save it publishes the page. I know you weren't done yet, hence the reason I moved it into the Draft space for you so it would not be immediately tagged for deletion.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Michael Weist

Why are you deleting the Page on Michael Weist? It uses proper citing and has accurate notibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homie123456790 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Notability can only be established through third party sources not connected to the subject, the original author was told this prior in the draft version of this page, however this is not the page to discuss whether it deserves to be kept or not you can take it to the AFD page linked on the page.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 19:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


Is it connected through 3rd party sources, primary and secondary. Music Row magazine published an article as well as plush — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homie123456790 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, thanks for letting me know about my username violation. I'll probably just create a new one and retire this one. Thanks for catching my error, and special thanks for being kind to a wikipedia n00b! 4rallyhealth (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit on Paul Burstow

Hi there, I'm still abit of a noob I'm afraid and have no idea on how to do anything you asked. Saying that every thing I did is correct and I have not written anything that is False. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyt95 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE:

Thank you for your warm welcome. I have added citations regarding his pledge to the NUS and his voting record i hope this is okay but if further change is needed im more than happy to comply i will read up on the links you've sent over. Once again thank you

Johnnyt95 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyt95 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
thank you for giving feedback to a deletion of a edit. I was able to work with this user to produce my first edit Johnnyt95 (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Hi McMatter, Thanks for your help and kindness to a newcomer! Sylvester Rivers is mentioned several times in existing Wikipedia articles and several Sylvester Rivers works have their own separate Wikipedia articles. Knowing that Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a source for itself, I referenced original sources that were already accepted by Wikipedia, thinking that was safe. The main source used for both credits and chart positions was allmusic.com, which is one of the most commonly used and authoritative sources for articles on people in the recording industry and a recognized source by the U.S. Library of Congress. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the American organization that certifies Gold and Platinum sales and is the most reliable authority on the subject. The RIAA link referenced was used to verify claims of Gold or Platinum status and should have linked directly to the song in question, not the search engine main page. This can be corrected. Billboard.com, which was referenced, is considered the recording industry bible in charting and the New York Times was referenced, as well. Discogs.com is considered an industry authority and the largest online database of electronic music releases, and of releases on vinyl media. To my knowledge, none of the references were to social media. I read reliable sources and Wikipedia:Notability (music) and the article seems to qualify on more than one count, e.g.,there are many Gold records that can be verified, but I must have missed something. You must be very busy and I really appreciate you taking the time to help! Riversco (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Riversco: all of those links you have supplied only serve to prove that you have some credits, nothing you have linked talks about YOU which what we need to have an article meet inclusion criteria. We need published media coverage on you as a person, not just a list of your works.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 12:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Citizens' Alliance (Cyprus)

I have checked the article; I believe that the article makes a claim of notability, as it is about an anti-austerity party headed by a former minister of the government of Cyprus. However, it contains no references; feel free to nominate it for a full deletion debate instead. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Borve - tags

Hi,

You have added tags to the article on Borve, Lewis.

One states that

"This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."

Please can you identify which statements in the article require references in your opinion.

The only two references that the article contained before my revision were to a road users' site (to verify what number road the village is on) and a Scottish places site (to verify what larger administrative area it is part of). Those references seem completely unnecessary because the information is not seriously open to challenge and in the event that someone does read the article and think "Hey, you're saying the village is on the A857 - well that's an assertion I challenge!", they can easily go and verify it elsewhere, just as if someone challenges the assertion that London is located in England.

The second states that

"This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed."

Please can you decide whether you think it does or does not contain original research and if you decide you think it does, please can you identify which claims you think should be either verified or removed.

Thanks! Lordelephapia (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lordelephapia:, thank you for the message I have cleared up most of the problems with the article, I have removed almost everything which was not supported by a reference. If you can find reliable sources to support the claims please feel free to reinstate them using proper citation methods. Removing references from an article is normally not a good thing, by removing them you remove the ability for anyone to verify anything in the article, and Wikipedia policy is that if it isn't referenced it can be and should be removed. Next time you are looking a removing any reference ask yourself the following questions;
Is the reference supporting anything in the article?
If I remove this reference am I making it more difficult for someone not from the area to verify information?
Is there already another reference supporting the same claim?
Hopefully these questions will help when deciding if you should remove references in an article.For the most part references should not be removed, even if they are deadlinks.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 11:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
It's as if you didn't read what you're replying to properly. Removing almost everything that's not supported by a reference is completely uncalled for, and you have not argued the contrary. Wikipedia policy is not "that if it isn't referenced it can be and should be removed".Lordelephapia (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
What is the source for your claim that Wikipedia policy is "that if it isn't referenced it can be and should be removed". Have you got a reference?Lordelephapia (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
This is simple take a read through Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research both basically state all, but the most obvious, claims require references or inline citations, the entire content I removed from the page had nothing for verification of the information, the onus is now on you or who ever wants to add information back to Prove it.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
So you are rowing back and saying that rather than "if it isn't referenced it (...) should be removed", which is what you first said, the policy is in fact that that applies only when claims are not among "the most obvious". You also say that it's "simple". And you say that the policies on original research and verification "basically" (a clear case of a weasel word) support your understanding of the policy on the requirement for references. Well I claim there is no Wikipedia policy that says, "basically" or otherwise, that all claims, or all claims other than the most obvious, must be referenced. If there is such a policy, it would patently obviously be published and I ask you again to post a specific link to it if you think it exists, not a link to long policy articles that you think "basically" communicate that policy or have it as their gist. Those documents are full of summary sentences and you should be able to point to a sentence or paragraph to back up your assertion if you maintain its accuracy. Using words such as "simple", "obviously" and "basically", even were they to be used in grammatically correct sentences, cannot obscure the fact that having been asked to cite a source for your very specific claim about Wikipedia's policy you have not yet done so. Please consider the possibility that your understanding of it is mistaken.
If you wish to challenge some of the statements that were made in this article before you deleted most of it, please do so.
Millions of articles at this website contain unreferenced assertions. That's easily verifiable by choosing one at random linked from the main page.Lordelephapia (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I have already challenged the content in the article by removing the unreferenced material, you are free to reinstate if can provide reliable sources for them. I am done arguing with you at this point. If you wish you can take this to Dispute resolution or if you think I have violated any policies you may take it to Wikipedia:AN/I.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

|}

Discussion of Hippo Campus

Hi Mcmatter,

I appreciate you taking the time to review a page that I submitted. I'd like to discuss further how they don't meet the notability guidelines. They have "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" by notable publications in the Twin Cities including the Star Tribune, the Pioneer Press, City Pages, The Current, and other lesser known publications. There are currently (there were a few less when you reviewed) 29 individual references, 24 of which are independent of the band. Can you please provide me some additional feedback on what needs to be done? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hippo_Campus Thank you. Devilsbane (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The External Link you have removed which i placed on the Windows 7 page regarding Windows 7 Installation is a really good article about Windows 7 Installation which i couldn't find on Wikipedia that's why i provided an external link to something really useful for users. and I think you probably done that because i by mistake clicked ( patrolled button) in my talk page which I am not sure how to undo that changes because now people will be patrolling my work lol. I m new to Wikipedia and I have joined with the intention to contribute useful tips for technical things. Kindly show me how to undo the changes regarding Patrolled . and kindly don't remove the link regarding Windows 7 Installation which can't be found on Wikipedia that's why i provided one as i explained otherwise please leave a message on my talkpage Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishfaq Buneri (talk • contribs) 13:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Ishfaq Buneri:, please read through the external links guideline. Generally the only links that should be in the external link sections are official links for the subject. If Wikipedia allowed for the instructional links we would very quickly become a link farm and degrade the quality of the encyclopedia. People who are looking for instructions or how to manuals can search Google to find them.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you mean and that is true, but please guide me on when something couldn't be found on Wikipedia regarding Windows 7 Installation having a link to an really good article which is outside Wikipedia would be not a good thing to do ? and please guide me on what to do regarding the mistake i have made by clicking patrolled Button on my own Talk page. Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishfaq Buneri (talk • contribs) 13:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow you're fast:) I was going back to delete it anyway. Not happy with how this politician treated a woman in SD. Didn't need to go on his page, though so thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SorrynotsorrySD (talk • contribs) 01:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

23:58:00, 7 June 2015 review of submission by Gorgenkor


I'd like to request a re-review of my article 'Canoe Journey to Renew the Two Row Wampum Treaty' because I had already completely re-written it from its earlier form at the request of a previous reviewer, to adopt a neutral tone and to include more secondary sources. I added references to an article in Atlantic Monthly and an article from the United Nations News Center. Are there any footnotes in my list that are not appropriate and should be deleted? I'd be happy to remove any that are. I would also appreciate advice on/examples of what specific text in the article is not neutral enough.

I am happy to keep working on the format and style of the article to make it fit the wikipedia requirements, and would greatly appreciate your help with that. Thanks!

Gorgenkor (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

ProZ.com

Thank you for your comments Mcmatter. It's not my first contribution to Wikipedia, but this is the first time someone undoes my work, and this is not pleasant. I think you could have been a bit more tolerant, adding for example a question mark to question reliability, instead of deleting everything I spent time writing. I've been a member of this website for nearly a decade and I know what I'm talking about. My additions are meant to be objective and help Wikipedia show a fair picture of this website, which implies at least some criticism (there's more (e.g. censorship), but some may not be totally objective, that's why I kept it to the minimum - at least for now). The reference to the Scams forum section is a valid and objective source. It's not about the contents (incidental), but its mere existence. Requiring a "reliable source" to prove the website is open to anyone is also curious, since it's at best very difficult to prove the non-existence of something (in this case, membership requirements, as there are none). Finally, I think it's a bit unrealistic to expect a company to publicly acknowledge its weaknesses/flaws/illegal activities. In this case it was possible but most of the time it's not... 84.100.170.176 (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Forums are not acceptable sources as they are user generated, with no editorial oversight or fact checking. Which means anyone can post anything they want without any sort of proof or evidence, to write based on forum postings would be like original research which is also not allowed. If you find a reliable source to support the scam section of the article then it can and should stay, but until that can be provided, it should not be in the article. You are giving it undue weight since this kind of activity can happen on any website where people sell services.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 12:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

"You are giving it undue weight since this kind of activity can happen on any website where people sell services". I have the strong sense that you are not a neutral user... Undue weight? If you read the references you will see for yourself that the site's management themselves admit that proz users are a favorite target of scammers and there was a perceptible increase in scam activities. You won't find a forum dedicated to scams (incidentally, with so many incidents) on all websites of that type. And this forum was not created by users but by the management themselves, as evidenced by the references provided. And you won't find everywhere so many resources and tools to deal with scams either. And not all service websites experience large-scale data harvesting (with CV theft) while claiming this kind of thing cannot happen because the system is secure. 84.100.170.176 (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

That's the thing, I shouldn't have to interpret the source that is what we call Synthesis of material you are making assumption because of the existence of said forums, that it must be a big issue, but if you look at almost any place which sells services they will all have issues with scammers. What is needed has anyone outside of ProZ published anything about it, I personally have no issue if it is in the article if it has proper sourcing which a FAQ and Forums are not. What I am basically saying is every website which requires you to log in, suffers from the same issues and will have dedicated FAQs to tell you how to avoid being scammed, and some will have forums about them too this does not make it noteworthy or else some part of the media would have picked up on it and written a story about it. If that has happened and it has been written about in the media somewhere that's all that is needed.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 19:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I get your point. But I still fail to see how a 20-page forum thread where 100 people report their data was stolen (large-scale harvesting here), and on said site, is not reliable while any external, more or less credible and anonymous site or blog is considered reliable... Doesn't make sense to me. "User-generated" doesn't hold water in this case. If 100 people report an incident, it becomes a hard fact and can be relied upon. While nowadays, just about anyone can build a site/blog and fill it with malicious/biaised content towards an entity they don't like... On top of that, you can't always expect to find external sources about that kind of events, as although not standard, they are not really newsworthy either. In this case it was possible but it doesn't resolve your failed reasoning 84.100.170.176 (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@84.100.170.176: WP:RS talks about what Wikipedia considers reliable sources, to be clear forums, most blogs, and press releases are not considered reliable. Editorial process, peer review help to establish sources as being accepted as reliable sources. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 03:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

article

Hi Mcmatter, you invite me to join Teahouse. I prefer to contact you in order to help me to write an article for Wikipedia, about a book.could you guide me?

Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.99.92.154 (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

08:24:27, 22 June 2015 review of submission by Davep atoc


Thanks for reviewing my page. I am afraid that being new to this that what you are asking makes no sense to me. Getting to where I did was a miracle. Reading the help pages is not very intuitive. I produced the EuroSpec page based on the German language version by a German colleague of mine in the partnership, which is online in the German wiki. All of the references work to the same location. If you could perhaps write in simple layman's terms the problems I might stand a fighting chance. Thanks in advance. Dave Davep atoc (talk) 08:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Davep atoc:I have left a welcome message on your talk page with several helpful links. These should be able to answer most questions if you have specific questions after please let me know, or follow the help instructions in the welcome message.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 12:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Alessandro Esseno page

Ok! Thank you very much. --Arizzium55 (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Article for 2015–16 SEC men's basketball season

Hello. You recently deleted approximately 90% of the original content of the article for the 2015–16 Southeastern Conference men's basketball season, with an (apparently hastily written, and thus ridden with grammatical errors) edit explanation of, "Removed blank tables they can be put back in as needed, but should not be placed in preemptively." However, you failed to cite any Wikipedia guidelines that dictate that. Additionally, I see that you did attack the Southeastern Conference article for anticipative tables, yet you left untouched the related articles 2015–16 Colonial Athletic Association men's basketball season and 2015–16 Pacific-12 Conference men's basketball season. Why did you not delete nearly all of those articles as well? I have restored all of the original content to the article while I await your justification of your edit via Wikipedia guidelines, and as soon as you can justify deleting all that you did, I will certainly comply and ensure that no unnecessary tables are added until appropriate. Thebobbyroberts (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Thebobbyroberts:, I am going to start off with a reminder of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. A policy is not required for every edit, the removal of the tables from the article was because they were completely speculative, skirting the premise of WP:OR and in violation of WP:FUTURE. The way I looked at it was what value do they hold for the reader? Many of the tables will actually sit blank until the end of the season in 2016, like the post season section, what value does this actually have in the article? What happens if there is some sort of strike or action which prevents the season from happening?. Everything below the lead is speculative and is unconfirmed because it has not yet happened which is a violation of WP:FUTURE. Now there is nothing saying one couldn't maintain these sections in their sandbox to add when the events do occur and can actually add some value to the article. To your other points I am simply going to say I am 1 person and Other stuff exists.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Understood. I will remove all of the tables. Thebobbyroberts (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

how does this end?

is it just a duel between which of us is willing to post more often? obviously we disagree about this entry's impartiality and "facts". is there a moderator that gets involved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxxdtox (talk • contribs) 17:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Xxxdtox: not at all, you have admitted to the section being a violation of WP:OR since the source given does not say what you had written, instead you made conclusions based on an FAQ. I don't doubt you may be correct but you need to provide a reliable source which directly supports your addition, not one where you connect the dots for the reader. If you would like to get other's input you can try posting on the articles talk page and see if anyone else has any input. There is also Wikipedia:Third opinion or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Xxxdtox:, I have asked for a third opinion please refrain from adding anything to the article until we hear something back.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Obviously you know how to use this process in a way that I don't. I am trying to be cordial as the guidelines suggest. How may I introduce the controversy to this page in a way that you will not reverse? There is significant controversy over this method and you do not help the entry by refusing to allow it to be present on the page. How about if you write the controversy in way that you will allow. I am an addiction counselor and I'm just trying to help the cause a little. The time it is taking to try and satisfy you is coming directly from the active treatment of alcoholics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxxdtox (talk • contribs) 18:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Xxxdtox: you need to provide a Reliable Source which states exactly what you are saying in the section it cannot be one or more references where you compile and make assertions that are not explicitly in the any of sources provided. Wikipedia is not a medical journal nor is it a blog, but if you have seen a medical journal, book or news/trade magazine story on this specific issue then use it. So far you have provided an FAQ, a Blog and a med pub about AA, none of which even mention the Sinclair Method. If this is as big of a concern as you say it is someone must have written something on it and been publish by a reliable source. If you find some bring them to the article talkpage so it can be discussed there and others may weigh in.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello there! I've been directed here from Third Opinion. As far as I can tell, the Sinclair Method is only discussed in two of Sinclair's own research articles. The literature does not discuss this by this name. There is, however, tremendous discussion in the literature about the use of naltrexone for alcohol dependence. As such, I propose this article be deleted. The Sinclair Method is simply non-notable and could even be considered OR. All mentions of this "method" should not be included on Wikipedia, and the topic of naltrexone and alcohol dependence could merit a separate article from Naltrexone#Alcohol_dependence. If such course of action is effected, there should be a hatnote placed there. Hope this helps. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Who takes the page down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxxdtox (talk • contribs) 23:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I will start the WP:AfD process as a prod will not suffice since it had already survived an AfD in 2010, it will then run for at least 7 days, longer if there is not enough discussion or if consensus has not been achieved. Before I begin this,FoCuSandLeArN do you mind if I copy your reason above? - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Sure thing! Thanks for that. I'll add the article to my to-do list, so hopefully soon enough we can all enjoy reading Naltrexone use for alcohol dependence. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Nomination has been put up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sinclair Method (2nd nomination)- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Article Problem

I do not understand what I did wrong. The IIN campaign is one of India's most talked about ad campaigns ever. With most people in India resorting to Quora for lack of relevant information, I believe that there should be a wikipedia page about it. There have been about 2128000 searches on Google in India alone, since the campaign's inception. Source: Google Adwords. Please advise. -- Rohit R. Mohanty — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohit r m (talk • contribs) 13:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Mar Roxas

Please determine non-factual information in the submitted entries rather than simply reverting to old material with dead links. This behavior of reversions without explanations is destructive and childish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foolmars (talk • contribs) 03:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Foolmars:, you are absolutely correct, your continued revision with out explanation is childish. I have already explain that the addition you insist on is not supported by reliable sources nor is it written in a neutral manner. In fact almost the entire piece is original research which is not allowed. Deadlinks do not matter they can remain as they at least allow for an archive search. As stated before, at this point please make a edit request on the article talkpage so it may be reviewed and discussed. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mcmatter: On the contrary, this is not original research. Click on the links to view the sources. They come from reputed news articles in the Philippines. Instead of simply reverting, why don't you isolate the ones that you think to be written in a non-neutral manner and deliberate from there? To simply cast off the revision simply because you perceive it to be non-neutral is a overbroad and even assumes that the material reverted to is gospel truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foolmars (talk • contribs) 04:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft:API Chaining concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:API Chaining, 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) 01:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, indeed, you are right :-) 85.193.233.46 (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mcmatter/Archive_2&oldid=1143161210"