Jump to content

User talk:MatthewVanitas/Archive 46

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48→Archive 50

OZO films animation deleted page.

Bonjour Matthew, je présume que vous connaissez la langue Française n'est ce pa? Merci infiniment de votre réponse pour la première publication que jai poste aujourd'hui. Désolé de ne pas pouvoir lire a nouveau la page. En effet cette organisation etait un collectif de differents artistes de lyon en 1985 avec l;'aide et la confiance de Rene Laloux réalisateur connu dans le monde de l'animation, hélas décédé il y a quelques années. Nos liens sont serieux et verifies, pour ma part j;ai travaille a Pdi-Dreamwoks et j;ai plus de 28 ans d’expérience dans le metier de matte-painter. (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2029844/). Merci de considérer ma bonne foi ainsi que les noms véritables des artistes cites comme Rene Laloux, Jérôme Fournier, Rolland Toppor ( La Palnete Sauvage film co-realise avec Rene Laloux) Les studios La fabrique, Paul Grimaud équipe du roi et l'Oiseau". Jean Francoisi LaGuionie. etc etc...Merci de vos précisions et je tacherai de faire le nécessaire pour rectifier la page. Les nouveaux noms de film comme Ozo le films ne sont pas en rappoirt avec le collectif d'artiste de 1987. Merci , Jerome Fournier (courriel: jeromefournier@riseup.net ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeromefl (talk • contribs) 19:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Surjeet Singh

So what i need to show? rather than giving the reasons, can u pls tell me what u need from myside as proof of my correct information?

Thanks - Surjeet Singh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surjitsippy (talk • contribs) 16:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Surjitsippy:, I am not a mind-reader, you can't simply come in and not give me any link or any idea what you're talking about and ask for advice. I edit hundreds of AFC drafts each week. Please reply below and clearly provide a link to the draft you're asking me about, and please clarify what you do not understand about the comments left on the draft. Have you read the large pink Decline box, which explicitly explains what needs to be fixed in your draft? MatthewVanitas (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Request on 12:56:39, 14 February 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Adachipmunk



Adachipmunk (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time and patience. I'm sorry I didn't intend to create a new article from scratch, I was just trying to add a reference to the article on HAL/S because I noticed that the link to the tutorial in reference no. 3 is not working. My apologies, adachipmunk

User:FakesinUAE/sandbox

Just blocked this editor as a sock of another, both accounts (and an IP) trying to insert the claims in the draft article into another article. Given the nature of the unsourced claim that an organisation may be committing illegal acts, I'm tempted to delete. Doug Weller talk 13:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

10:12:09, 15 February 2016 review of submission by Marcus Paul Author


Hi there, could you let me know why this has been declined and i will make the necessary amendments? Many thanks.

Hello @Marcus Paul Author:, have you yet read WP:Notability (books)? That should make very clear what is needed; please take a look and then post back here on my page if you have any specific follow-up questions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 10:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Aside from the Notability issue (that you have not provided any evidence of the impact of the book), the draft is also very much written as a promotional plug, not as a neutral, informative article. You really must understand that Wikipedia is not a place to promote your book, we aren't an ad-host. If your goal is to promote your book, you're simply going to be disappointed. MatthewVanitas (talk) 10:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Re potential new article

Re: what you've just added to your user page, see Reckitt Benckiser. - Sitush (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Walter Goodman

Hi, Matthew,

Thanks for following up on my draft article (apparently already deleted) about Walter Goodman, my father. I can certainly redo the source citations; I did include all title and publisher info on his books, but not per Wikipedia's format, apparently. My main problem is a larger one: I'm currently living in Canada, and have no access to the sources that would solidify my "claims." I can submit a copy of Walter's Who's Who in America listing from the 1990s, but libraries up here (those I've tried, anyway) do not own the American Who's Who or Who Was Who. His New York Times obituary from 2002 can be found in The Times's online archives: (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/07/arts/walter-goodman-74-tv-critic-and-reporter-for-the-times.html), but I cannot provide a source for the details of his numerous positions at The Times; I tried by phone, but they were unwilling or unable to give me the information. Ditto Newsweek, ditto WNET.

I can also point to online interviews on the television show The Open Mind (I think I did include those links in my original draft), but I'm not sure they prove anything—-except that he was considered interesting and important enough to be a repeat guest on a highbrow interview show.

Perhaps the route I should take is to request that an article be written by a Wikipedia staff member, keeping myself available to supply what source info I have, and to do as much background research as I'm able. Is that possible?

Thanks again for your time and attention.

Hal Goodman User talk:Halg.47

Hello @Halg.47:, I think the first thing to do is follow the instructions at the bottom of your User Talk page to get the Walter Goodman draft undeleted. It was deleted for any punitive reason, just housecleaning since you hadn't edited it in half a year. Tell you what, file the request to have it undeleted (per the instructions on your Talk page, just takes two minutes) and ping me back here once it's restored, and I'll take a look and let you know my advice. Just ping me back here when it's restored. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The draft copy not being accepted- please note it is a company article for viewers to know about the launch of a phone- it is for a good purpose and benefit of technology!

The draft copy not being accepted- please note it is a company article for viewers to know about the launch of a phone- it is for a good purpose and benefit of technology! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.207.184.101 (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

You think it's important and for a good purpose, I don't care one way or the other. What I do care about is that drafts not be written as advertisements, and that they be properly sourced to outside, neutral experts. If you remove all advertising/promotional content, and add citations to more serious news coverage of this company, then it is indeed possible it will publish. I'm not going to do you any special favors for it, you must follow the same rules as everyone else. If you don't want to do that, nobody else is going to do the labour for you unless they're even more enthusiastic about the company then you are. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

George Parbury

Hi Matthew Thanks for dealing with my resubmitted page so quickly. Best wishes --Jgdc47B (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC) George Parbury

Vasiliy Grin

You wrote, about Vasiliy Grin, "Doesn't sound like he's anyone famous, why would we need an article about him?" While that is true, it is a little harsh; please see WP:BITE. It is clear that the author doesn't have a clue as to what Wikipedia is or what Wikipedia is for. They probably either intended this to be a social media profile or to be a user page draft. Many new users don't have a clue as to what a Wikipedia article is, as opposed to a social media profile (because they don't know that Wikipedia is not a social medium), or what a user page draft is. Although your decline was completely right, it was a little harsh for a completely clueless new user. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

12:45:19, 16 February 2016 review of submission by Enasaplos


I changed the sources and added: newspapers, the Pro football teams webpeges that are irrelevant with us plus a tv coverage that are completely irrelevant with ERMIS FC. Basically I did apply what to LaMona asked me to do. So why are you rejecting the article again?

Hello @Enasaplos:, if there is no serious media coverage of this club, then it can't have an article, period. I'm sorry if this is disappointing, but very, very few non-professional clubs are significant enough to merit a Wikipedia article. There are other non-Wikipedia wikis that might possibly accept your article, where you can just copy and paste the coding you're using and submit it to another website, but for Wikipedia we require that any article topic have serious professional sourcing, and most amateur sporting clubs do not meet that threshold. MatthewVanitas (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey, :-) first off this is Greece and not the US... so I do not know what exactly you mean by serious media coverage. Besides, if newspapers, the official webpages (that directly reference the players), official national websites and a video of the national coverage (all of that is included in the sources I did change) does not constitute for a "serious" coverage than what does for an non-professional club? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enasaplos (talk • contribs) 12:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Enasaplos:, the club's own website and websites of affiliates are not serious coverage, because it's just the subject talking about itself. I looked at the newspaper link for Trikalasportiva through GoogleTranslate, and it appears to barely mention ERMIS FC at all. In contrast, for example for professional Greek football teams, I'm sure they are extensively covered in national and international press, so for those teams Wikipedia has extensive articles.
To justify an article for ERMIS FC, you would have to provide serious coverage like a major Athens/regional newspaper writing a full article examining Ermis and how its graduates have gone on to larger teams (not just casually mentioning that famous player X used to play for Ermis), or analysis in a major football publication examining "The Top 5 Junior Clubs Feeding the Big Leagues". You would have to show a body of such coverage specifically discussing Ermis in detail.
All that aside, the draft is also very much written as promotion and advertisement for the club, not as a neutral and objective article. I appreciate that you want to share information about the club, but nothing I'm seeing here indicates that Ermis meets the threshold to qualify for an article. If you want to speak to editors who more specifically cover football topics, you can inquire at WT:WikiProject Football, but I expect they will tell you the same as I am telling you here. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hold on: you said, To justify an article for ERMIS FC, you would have to provide serious coverage like a major Athens/regional newspaper writing a full article examining Ermis and how its graduates have gone on to larger teams (not just casually mentioning that famous player X used to play for Ermis), or analysis in a major football publication examining "The Top 5 Junior Clubs Feeding the Big Leagues". You would have to show a body of such coverage specifically discussing Ermis in detail.

look at the new sources, I just added a tone of them (third party etc), which such cover your above statement/suggestion. Also, it is not promotion (none makes a dime out of it), its just that in Greece ERMIS FC, and only a handful of clubs, are trying to accomplish what is stated in the article. So criticizing it as a promotion is unfair, don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enasaplos (talk • contribs) 13:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Enasaplos:, a lot of your sources weren't appearing because you just put them between brackets "[ ]" rather than between "ref" tags which would make them appear as footnotes. I went through your draft and formatted them as footnotes so they appear at the bottom. However, I'm looking at the articles from Goalpost and it's just an extremely brief mention of some academies that got some minor award, the article From Dortmund to Panathinaikos, the 16 year old Peter AGIASIOTIS doesn't appear to even mention Ermis, the page http://www.pao.gr/index.php/akadimies/k-20?view=player&id=55 just appears to list older players that are in some other league now, etc. I'm seeing nothing in the links you give that constitutes serious coverage and examination of Ermis FC as a club, just vague passing mentions, coverage of people that later became more famous, etc.
Again, I have nothing against your club, I'm sure it's a fine organization and does good things. I understand why you would want to promote it by having an article, but I'm not seeing any reason that Wikipedia would want an article because this club is simply not famous outside of its local area, based on the sources you've provided.
So far as my saying it's "promotion", no I don't think I'm being unfair at all. Everything about how it's written and phrased is promotional, here are just a few examples of phrasings that would be simply inappropriate on Wikipedia for any article:
  • " made its mission to bring happiness into the lives of children and to support them in fulfilling their dreams. "
  • "It is not an easy task at all;
  • "resulting in a plethora of people who embraced the Academy’s endeavor"
Wikipedia simply does not allow subjective opinions like that. We don't let the article for Apple Computers say that they "bring dreams to life and have shaped a new generation of global users", we instead note their sales numbers, history, etc. We don't say that a given terrorist group is "the greatest threat the world has ever faced, the time is now to halt this brutality in its tracks", we instead note how they were founded, what attacks they have done, etc.
Fundamentally, I think what you want to accomplish here, and what Wikipedia actually does, are two very different things. We are not a place to advertise a good cause, no matter how wonderful a cause it is, and we don't do coverage of small local organizations unless they are famous enough to receive a body of serious coverage outside of their local area. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Enasaplos: Matthew,

first of all, I would like to thank you for your insights.

To the subject at hand: I do respect your opinion but allow me to disagree with you; and I will explain my thoughts:

1. You said that wikipedia does not tolerate advertisement etc. even if it is for a good cause. OK, granted; than why do you guys have articles like that? https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Rihanna (<---there are numerous articles like this) 

   If this is not a clear case of advertisement than what is?

Also, you suggest that (from your point of view it is advertisement), but form another editor's point of view it isn't! In other words, this is a difference of opinions based on the points of views.

2. You proposed that for a not-profit organization to be accepted ... it should have a large media coverage, specifically "famous enough to receive a body of serious coverage outside of their local area" etc. The links I did include are National wide newspapers etc., and from teams that play in the Champions/European League (<--- their sources not of ermis). If this is not a large media coverage what is? Please explain it to me... Also keep in mind that this is Greece we are talking about (ca 10 mil citizens) and not the US etc. with ca 350 (!!!) mil. citizens; and media operates differently.

Most important of all, isn't wikipedia like an encyclopedia, meaning that as long as something is valid it can be included. Since when did wikipedia become a popularity contest?!

Finally, regardless of the outcome the way it comes across over here, is in simple, terms: As a kind of discrimination

That being said, I thank you for your time and efforts.

Hello @Enasaplos:, we appear to have some fundamental differences of opinion here, but reasonable people can differ and the important thing is that we're keeping it professional and calm, which is always appreciated.
So far as advertising, I've reviewed the first part of the Rihanna article, I don't see anything resembling advertising, but your draft I would say is very promotional. While this is somewhat subjective, I would easily guess that 95%+ of Wikipedia editors would find your draft too promotional, so that's where that stands.
Regarding coverage, this is not an issue of Greek media being smaller than the US, it's a matter of the fact that the sources you've given barely even mention Ermis in the slightest. Yes, I recognize some of them are major newspapers, but we need the sources to actually discuss Ermis, not casually mention it in passing. Fundamentally, I strongly advise you take a quick look at this short summary of how our Notability policy works:
Shortcuts

Articles generally require significant coverage

in reliable sources

that are independent of the topic.
From what you've put so far, you have some Reliable Sources, yes, but you've not shown any Significant Coverage of Ermis in these reliable sources, and the sources you provide that discuss Ermis at length are not Independent of the subject. Fundamentally, you aren't showing me/us that experts with no ties to Ermis find it a topic worth writing about extensively. You've shown that Ermis supporters write about Ermis, you've shown that serious newspapers occasionally mention Ermis in passing, but you haven't shown evidence that meets the core policy of Notability. MatthewVanitas (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

14:04:44, 17 February 2016 review of submission by 122.168.222.159


why you delete my article i have reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.222.159 (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not "delete" it, your draft is still there for you to work on; I simply "declined" it, since it is not yet ready to be an article. Have you read the guideline WP:Notability (music) like all the pink Decline boxes explain you should? If you read that, it will answer most of your questions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Help With Article

Hi Matthew,

Thank you for the review, as a beginner to wiki, please could you assist me by explaining what I need to do.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guchi Ugbomeh (talk • contribs) 11:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Rick Gorne

Dear Matthew, thank you for your review. Please can you tell which sources / facts need citing and what needs adding to footnotes? Some of the information has come from news articles and websites, shall I link these to verify the information?

Thank you for your clarification.

Tim Gilbride — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilbride (talk • contribs) 14:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Gilbride:, yes you would indeed want to cite those articles and websites. Best way to get a quick feel for the coding for it is to check out WP:Referencing for beginners. You want to place the footnote for each fact next to the fact(s) that the source supports. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for moving my sandbox to drafts. Two questions: How do I get my sandbox back? and When I want to create an another article in the future, how do I move it to drafts myself? Thanks, Chrstphr80 (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Update - Never mind, I think I figured it out. Hope I did it correctly. Chrstphr80 (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

If you go to your Sandbox page and are re-directed (or go to any page and are redirected), below the page title will be a little comment saying "redirected from Page XYZ". If you click that link, you can go back to the redirect page and remove the redirect code, opening it up to use for whatever.
Also, if you want to write drafts directly in Draft space (you don't necessarily need to Submit them right away, there will be a button you click to Submit), then you can use WP:Article wizard to start new drafts. Hope this helps, let me know if you have any other questions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 11:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Name of article

Matthew, 

 Thanks for the help.  I've made some improvements to the original draft regarding David R Jones (architect).  I noticed in draft it is now referred to as David Jones (architect).  How do I get it changed back to David R. Jones (architect).  Everything he ever did, was under the name of David R. Jones, or DR Jones.  He never went by David Jones.  If it stays as David Jones, anyone who queries his name in Wikipedia will have trouble finding him. Pacaland (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you! - please help!

Matthew, I come to you for assistance because you seem incredibly knowledgeable and like to help other people who contribute. I have created a page John M. Dougan that was nominated for deletion. The person who nominated refuses to provide clarification on why, other than saying there appears to be a conflict of interest. Of course, there is none. I write about subjects that interest me and this is one of the subjects that interest me. He also claims the sources aren't good enough. I am using some of the largest newspapers in the country! I don't get it and I am just looking to make this article better. I know it may not be your area, but Wikipedia is created by people with interests in certain topics. I grew up in Russia and love people that fight against the government, so this man is very interesting to me. I beg you to check out the page and the talk page and give me guidance since this other person who is marking my items for deletion refuses to do so. I thank you VERY much in advance and please contact me at a_borodina@outlook.com for your convenience. You are great!

Aleksandra Borodina

Aleksandra E. Borodina (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

AfC helper script update

Hi! I looked at your most recent edits with the script and determined that you're not using the most recent version. You can use that version by removing the line in your common.js file pointing to User:Theopolisme/afch-rewrite.js, and then checking the setting at Preferences → Gadgets → Editing → Tick Yet Another AFC Helper Script. New features that have been introduced include previewing decline reasons, putting your comments on the author's talk page during a decline, and adding {{Talk header}} to new user talk pages. APerson (talk!) 18:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

I have been trying to contribute to Wikipedia from a long time and couldn't understand why my articles were being deleted every time. Thanks for your advice and educating me with the process. (Related to your comment on 12:05:18, 25 February 2016 review of submission by Sajelsaxena) Sajelsaxena (talk) 11:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Inder Nagra

Thanks for your reply.. I told him this morning, in a message, that we needed to get him some newspaper write ups or Magazines 

  I've never done anything with Wikipedia before except to use it for reading

information... he thought he could just be written up and put on so I tried to help ... 

  He has struggled for 5 years to rise in the Punjabi Music industry and

after struggling for those 5 years, he is finally rising and getting more shows now and his music videos have gotten much more views than before.. he is being more and more recognized by his fans... He still has a way to go yet on his rise ... 

  thanks again for your reply...  I haven't talked to him yet today..

so will find out if there are any newspaper articles that I don't know about...

BarbaraPunjabSis104 (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Inder Nagra

Thanks for your reply.. I told him this morning, in a message, that we needed to get him some newspaper write ups or Magazines I've never done anything with Wikipedia before except to use it for reading information... he thought he could just be written up and put on so I tried to help ... He has struggled for 5 years to rise in the Punjabi Music industry and after struggling for those 5 years, he is finally rising and getting more shows now and his music videos have gotten much more views than before.. he is being more and more recognized by his fans... He still has a way to go yet on his rise ... thanks again for your reply... I haven't talked to him yet today.. so will find out if there are any newspaper articles that I don't know about...

BarbaraPunjabSis104 (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Thank you for your comments on my article. I will be waiting on further comments, also. I am trying to write an article about the snow vehicle, but the problem is that is has been out of production from 1970s til 2012. The are absolutely no reviews or any whatsoever information in the English segment of the internet about the snow moto tow vehicles besides the retro ones. The only country today which produces such vehicles now is Russia, but don`t think it`s a good idea to make reference to Russian sources on an English Wiki. Anyway, I would greatly appreciate you help in finishing this article. Thank a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fill232 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

edit-a-thon draft

Hi Matthew, I think I'm confused about how to create a subpage for WP:Meetups (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup). Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrusbell (talk • contribs) 15:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Just a heads-up about a an editor disrupting AFC with repeated blank submissions

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editor repeatedly submits blank pages to AFC, and attempts to hide evidence of it. thanks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

28 February 2016 review of submission by Richardlewis

Hi Matthew,

Thank you for taking the time to review my submission. I'm a little confused as to why it's been rejected. Could you please elaborate if you have the time? I am using a source from a publication which is itself including in Wikipedia -

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Clash_%28magazine%29

Surely this is a "reliable source" no?

Best wishes Richardlewis (talk) 14:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Richardlewis:, yes Clash is a citeable source, but you cannot simply cite one source, you must show a body of coverage. For this kind of bio, usually 4 or 5 good sources should be a minimum.
Also, you really need to take a look at WP:Notability (music) which explains how significant a musician must be to merit an article. A musician can rate an article automatically by reaching certain awards or sales records, or they can reach it through having a significant body of professional/academic/journalist coverage of unique and interesting aspects of their career. Please give that Notability guideline a look, then post back here if you have specific questions I can help clarify, as it should answer most of your questions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

19:10:37, 28 February 2016 review of submission by Rebeccapeltz


Thanks for clarifying the problems. While the books are listed in many bibliographies, there are few if any literary commentaries. Do you think it is sufficient to just list the bibliographies in footnotes? I have listed a newspaper article that I found in the footnotes. Should I describe more of what that article said?

Hello @Rebeccapeltz:, I think what you have about Deer Lick Museum is enough given that it's not a huge issue, but a small interesting fact. What you should cite however is any critical commentary that, for example, discusses how Martin shaped the science fiction realm, or modern academic's comments of how unique she was for her time, etc. Just citing bibliographies doesn't really help since all they do is prove that she exists (albeit as a pseudonym) which was never in question, you need to show that the author matters by citing commentary about her and her work, impact, etc.
Let me provide links below to a few books I ran across on GoogleBooks that are probably worth citing. I'm using http://reftag.appspot.com to instantly turn the gBooks links into full footnotes, and you can just click on the title of the book to take a look at the page I'm citing (RefTag is a really handy tool). One problem I'm running across is that of the books that mention her, many you can only see a small quote from (Google calls this "Snippet View") so you actually have to read the quote on the Google Search page, so I'll just quote some examples:
  • Run a search for "Nettie Parrish Martin" on GoogleBooks, on page two there's a hit for The Bookman: A Review of Books and Life ... - Volume 28 - Page 626 and you can read the quote: "By Nettie Parrish Martin. The author states that this work was suggested by a dream in which her two little boys came from some other world and took her away with them among the Stars.". Okay, cool, you can mention that claimed fact, and footnote it to The Bookman.
  • Frustratingly, gBooks shows that the book Dream Revisionaries: Gender and Genre in Women's Utopian Fiction, 1870-1920 discussed Martin, but I can't get any usable quote from the snippet. Any chance your local library has or can get that book to loan you?
gBooks also brings up the book Dream Machines: An Illustrated History of the Spaceship in Art but again I can't read any citeable quotes: The Dream Machines: An Illustrated History of the Spaceship in Art, Science, and Literature
Tell you what, I'm pretty convinced that Martin meets the requirements, but if you can poke around just a little and add one or two more footnotes, I think we can publish it in good conscience. If you or a colleague/friend are at a university that offers free JSTOR access, that would give you access to academic articles, and quick JSTOR search turns up (albeit with many false-positives) a number of serious academic articles about women and sci-fi that mention Parrish. I believe non-students can sign up for a free JSTOR account where you can read a few articles per month at no cost, really worth giving that a try as a great resource in general.
Not trying to make your life harder, it's just both you and I want the article about Parrish to be a strong one, one that really gives readers some facts to work with, and has clear citations that can lead them to find good sources. Remember that students who read Wikipedia aren't allowed (and rightly so) to quote Wikipedia (and really not any encyclopedia) as a source unto itself, but must go to the sources of the article to write their school/college papers, so let's do them a solid and provide some ironclad sourcing.
This is really a neat article, by the way, which is why I don't mind writing a long reply since I think an early woman sci-fi writer is certainly worth a strong article. Don't get discouraged, take it at your own pace, and ping me if you have any questions, but we can definitely get this published with a little fine-tuning. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft: A Casual Wear (2)

Did you create this draft by moving a page to it? If so, were you aware that Draft:A Casual Wear already existed, and is the same inadequately sourced draft? I have wondered why new editors create multiple copies of drafts, but why did a reviewer create multiple copies of drafts, or did I misunderstand what happened? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello {[reply|Robert McClenon}}, it was in a sandbox so I went to move it to the proper title, but that title was taken. Past convention was (as I understand it) that we do the "2" thing and move it to AFC-space, and then Decline it as a duplicate. And I thought that at one point there was an automatic widget to weed out "(2)" drafts and redirect to the main Draft: page. What's the current standard procedure for when you go to move a /sandbox AFC page to Draft: but find out that page is taken? Do we not still move it to Draft before declining as Duplicate? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
its not that I need help I have an article about taxation so I needed your advise Tshegofatso serameng (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello @Tshegofatso serameng:, if you have an idea for an article but have not yet begun a draft, I suggest you go to WP:Teahouse and post a short description of your idea, and tell them specifically what parts you're not sure how to do. Always best to say "please help with me with X and Y, and I don't understand how to do Z" instead of just saying "I need help" and not explaining. The volunteer teachers at the Teahouse are very helpful, so give them a try. MatthewVanitas (talk) 10:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

thank you

Draft:Sahibzada Muhammad Ishaq Zaffar

hello dear i am new here I have improved my mistakes according to best of my knowledge suggestions and approval required thanks and love — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amer zaffar01 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

02:57:58, 5 March 2016 review of submission by Meredith.w.cornett


Hello,

Back in December you reviewed an article I submitted for a Montessori elementary school in Minnesota. Overall, your comments were positive, but it was declined based on falling short of global "Notability." I wanted to follow up on your suggestion: "That said, there are many wikis other than Wikipedia, that use the same formatting as us, so there is likely a Minnesota wiki, or an alt-education wiki, etc. elsewhere that will happily post this article for you."

I am fairly web savvy, but have not been able to find other suitable wikis. Perhaps my search terms are off, or I am just not looking in the right places. If you could recommend a handful of other wikis that use the same formatting, or just one or two resources where I might look these up, I would very much appreciate it.

Thank you!

Meredith.w.cornett (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

hello i have managed some thing according to my best of knowledge please check thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amer zaffar01 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

hello I tried my best to remove the errors please check Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amer zaffar01 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

March events and meetups in DC

Greetings from Wikimedia DC!

Looking for something to do in DC in March? We have a series of great events planned for the month:

Can't make it to an event? Most of our edit-a-thons allow virtual participation; see the guide for more details.

Do you have an idea for a future event? Please write to us at info@wikimediadc.org!

Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You're receiving this message because you signed up for updates about DC meetups. To unsubscribe, please remove your name from the list.

13:54:11, 10 March 2016 review of submission by Igrkilldrums


I feel it is much closer to an actual entry now with links and references.


Hello @Igrkilldrums:, please do not work on page User:Igrkilldrums/sandbox, the draft has already been published and is has been at Peribleptos Monastery, Mystras since 2012. We only accept Drafts for articles that do not yet exist. For articles that do already exist like this one, you must go into the existing article and make your changes. Please take any good data from your Sandbox page, and please move it over to the page Peribleptos Monastery, Mystras. Please carefully watch your formatting (you can hit "Preview" before saving to see if everything looks correct and is lining up).
Also note, when you copy-paste content from one page to the other, please be in Edit mode before doing so. If you simply copy what you see in reading mode, you lose all the coding, links, formatting, etc. That's part of why what you pasted in isn't displaying right. Please go to your Sandbox page, click Edit first, and then copy the material you want to move over.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Request on 12:26:07, 10 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Heytherehowsitgoin


Hey there! So, you recently reviewed my article for Sam Pepper, to where it got declined for there being another draft still pending for a review. But, it looks like it was already reviewed and was declined. I'm confused on what I should do about my draft, whether I should resubmit it or not, or if there is any other things I would need to know? Thanks.


"Hey there! How's it goin'?" 12:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Heytherehowsitgoin:, your original Sam Pepper draft was declined, and what you are supposed to do is make improvements on that draft until the concerns are addressed, then click Resubmit. What you don't want to do is create a whole new page like you did. Please erase your extra Sandbox page, and do all your writing about Pepper on the original Draft page you submitted. If it is Declined again, same thing, make the recommended improvements (if possible) and click Resubmit again. Making a whole new page separates all your content from the edit history, making us unable to see how the draft has improved over time. Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your response, although I'm still confused about the situation, as I have never recreated a new page on the article. The draft that I submitted, the one in my sandbox, is the only draft that I have submitted. The other draft about Sam Pepper is by another user. I don't have an extra sandbox and the other draft that I "duplicated" was not created by me. "Hey there! How's it goin'?" 16:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello @Heytherehowsitgoin:, huh, I hadn't noticed that it was two different people (and I think other reviewers missed that too). It does occasionally happen that we have two people at the same time trying to write an article about the same person. Draftspaces don't "belong" to anyone once it's no longer in your sandbox, so you're technically free to just collaborate on Draft:Sam Pepper with the other user. I suggest you go to the other user's Talk page, and let them know you'll be adding your content into theirs. As long as you guys can keep friendly, having two people collaborating should likely help you end up with a better article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Great! Thanks again for your feedback and response, I truly appreciate it. One more thing. Although I am free to work on Draft:Sam Pepper, I would really like to continue with my work. Is it possible to resubmit my sandbox draft now that this issue is solved? "Hey there! How's it goin'?" 17:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello @Heytherehowsitgoin:, if that's your choice I will move your draft to Draft:Sam Pepper (2) and I'll put a huge note at the top stating that it is a competing draft, not a duplicate draft. But note that if the other writer's draft is accepted before yours, then that draft will become the main article, and you definitely would then have to merge your content into it since we do not replace an article with a draft, even if a given draft is older/better than the published article. Makes sense? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Seems great, I'm totally okay with that. Thank you so much! "Hey there! How's it goin'?" 17:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Zaffar

hello dear have improved the things suggestions needed thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amer zaffar01 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

hello please help me to make my article more better — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amer zaffar01 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Amer zaffar01:, I have made many changes to improve the article, now you and I are waiting for a next reviewer to come, put fresh eyes on the Draft, and let us know what needs to be fixed (if anything). Since I am helping you improve it, I just want to let a different editor make the decision as to if it is ready. You're doing great work, and your draft is in the queue to be reviewed, so please just be patient while we wait for a reviewer, and you can make any further improvements that you like while we are waiting. I think with only a little more work the draft will be ready to publish.
One small point, please make sure to start a new section when you post on a Talk page, since so far you've been writing your comments within someone else's section, so just put a new section heading in when posting, or post in this same section heading (I've created a section called "Zaffar" to hold our conversation on this page for now). I think we are making very good progress, let's just be patient and wait for a reviewer to arrive. If one does not come along in the next few days, write me on this Talk page and I'll ask someone to take a look. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

hello@MatthewVanitas: thanks

Vadam24

What exactly is Wikipedia's standard for sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vadam24 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Vadam24:, can you explain a little further? Do you mean like "what sources are good sources" or "how many sources do I need" or what? If you're trying to figure out if a source is good to use, take a look at the guideline WP:Reliable sources. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

SANKARA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCE

Respected Sir

Page got declined, it is one of the famous MBA Institute in Coimbatore, and its an educational institution. Can I know why it got declined? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.24.213 (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:SANKARA_INSTITUTE_OF_MANAGEMENT_SCIENCE

Respected Sir, 

  Have added few contents with reference, I hope that it will be approved. Thanks for your time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.128.238 (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

20:09:34, 16 March 2016 review of submission by LandyZA


Hi Matthew

It has been a month since I submitted the draft of "Hakskeenpan" for review. I have added sections about its formation, geology and climate, the origin of its name and more objective information about the speed record while keeping away from the speed record's site as a reference. I would like to resubmit for review but the article may be a bit rough around the edges, this is where I need a second set of eyes to streamline the article. What would you suggest I do next?

Best regards LandyZALandyZA (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done Hello @LandyZA:, great work, I've made a minor formatting tweak (you forgot the "Reflist" code at the bottom), added categories, and published. Well done, and if you have any photos that you yourself took of that location, you can upload them to Wikimedia Commons if you're willing to release those photos under Creative Commons.
You did exactly the right thing by using objective news coverage to document the land speed record from an outside perspective; some people it takes forever to explain WP:Neutrality to new editors, but you've got it spot-on.
Well done, great addition to our South Africa coverage! I hope you'll stick around more, now that you know the ropes! MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI User:Weist.michael

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Regardng Draft:Michael Weist. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Weist.michael_is_disruptive_over_at_AfC  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

SANKARA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCE

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:SANKARA_INSTITUTE_OF_MANAGEMENT_SCIENCE

Dear Sir, 

  I have made changes according to your advise, eagerly waiting for your reply. Thanks for your time and consideration  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalyanaraman 21 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Can't post because we are not in pro scene?

Hi. I was just wondering isn't that too much that a team has to be in pro scene to actually make it to one wikipedia page? like let's be for real there is a lot posts what doesn't meat those things and this post can't get in, i'm kinda confused. We have 3.7k subcsribers, 14k+ followers in Twitter, but we aren't in pro scene i know. Can't you just let me post that one page, it's not gonna harm anyones life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IkaNuutinen (talk • contribs) 14:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello @IkaNuutinen:, it's not that your team has to be a pro team, the team has to be significant enough that pro media would find them worth talking about. Encyclopedias aren't to advertise new or unknown things, they're to digest and summarize what experts are already saying. Even if your team is amateur, but Kotaku, New York Times, The Economist, Vice, PC Gamer, ESPN, etc. are writing articles saying "hey, there's this interesting amateur team that's doing XYZ, that really shows how..." or "a group of MIT analysts studied this team because they were so surprised at...", then that would definitely be something worth writing an article about. But if all the coverage of the team is just written by the team itself, or on unpaid and unvetted blogs, then there's just no proof yet that the team is something the world is really keen to know about. Here's the 10-second version of our overarching rule:
Shortcuts

Articles generally require significant coverage

in reliable sources

that are independent of the topic.
Is that clearer, makes sense? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Request on 22:11:43, 17 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Tito.Gogritchiani94



Tito.Gogritchiani94 (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tito.Gogritchiani94:, what is your question? Your draft page is just a bunch of random coding junk, it's nothing resembling a draft. What are you writing about? MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

SANKARA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCE

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Sankara_Institute_of_Management_Science

Could I kindly pl know the status? I have given reference from major newspapers, journals, etc. Pl kindly advise the result — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalyanaraman 21 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Kalyanaraman 21: I am not solely responsible for your draft, I'm just one of dozens of reviewing editors. I've done my piece on your draft, I'm leaving it to other editors to do the next review, so please kindly wait while you are in the queue to be reviewed. While you're waiting, you are free to continue making improvements. I will not be doing any further work on your draft, but will leave that to other editors, so there is no need to write me regarding it. Good luck as you press forward, MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I hope I have followed the guidelines, and I am optimistic the page ll be approved. Hope in future wikepedia volunteers can take up work based on geography and also hope more Indian editors are recognized, so the process of Indian pages can be expedited. Thanks for your time Sir, have a good one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalyanaraman 21 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MatthewVanitas/Archive_46&oldid=713286782"