User talk:MatthewVanitas

Start a new discussion thread

Archiving

MiszaBot III operates in a cyclical fashion, so if you're attempting to archive information immediately, or within twenty-four hours, it can appear as though the parameters aren’t functioning as expected. Mephistophelian (contact) 01:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Talkback

Hello, MatthewVanitas. You have new messages at I Jethrobot's talk page.
Message added 01:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 01:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saraiki Language And Saraikistan

Dear. This Article is about the Saraiki people. We should listen their voice and claim. so kindly don't remove the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.90.154 (talk) 08:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saraiki people have no WP:Ownership of this article simply because it's about them. Secondly, material was removed because it was inappropriate, and/or uncited. We don't make exceptions for "personal knowledge", political advocacy, or any other such reasons. If material does not follow Wikipedia's standards and guidelines, it is removed. MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks But don't delete so many. some parts be retained in this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.90.154 (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the parts are properly cited and neutrally phrased, they wouldn't be removed. They were removed because they are inappopriate, the parts that were at least somewhat cited or appropriately phrased have been retained (though much of the article still needs to be checked and improved). MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edith Jeanette Soterius von Sachsenheim=

Hey Matthew Did you get my message? I need help and fast. I'm happy to pay for someone to set the page up. Please reply [email removed for privacy] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan White (talk • contribs) 01:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, a few points:

I'm doing fine for cash, so I'm not a paid editor, which though not totally prohibited is discouraged on Wiki for a variety of reasons. If for whatever reason you choose to use an advertised paid editor, please exercise all due caution.
I assume this is regarding Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edith Jeanette Soterius von Sachsenheim. I checked out the current version, and though a good start it is nowhere near ready to publish, since it needs much clearer sourcing than it currently has.
If I recall your other posts correctly, you have some ties to the subject. This is exactly why we discourage people from writing on things they have close ties to. Someone who simply finds EJSvS an interesting historical personage is unlikely to be deeply emotionally hurt from the process of improving the article, much less having a specific "hurry" to do so. I can't prevent you from being emotionally invested, but hopefully you can understand why others are leery to help "push" an article through on a timeline that matters only to the originator. If the article were, for example, someone from X War and this was the ABC Anniversary of X War, hurry for proper timing might make sense, but otherwise hurry seems unnecessary.
Fundamentally, you need to bone up on WP:Sourcing issues to fix the article. If this person is near and dear to you and there's some personal reason for rushing the article, I empathise, but we can't publish unready articles, or divert efforts from other articles, based on personal reasons, which is one of many reasons we discourage editing on topics near and dear to your own emotions.
All that aside, for better of for worse you've started an article. My best recommendation is to slowly improve it based on guidance from other editors to bring it up to standards. If you know other people who want to help out (maybe even WP:WikiProject Romania by all means bring them in under this collaborative effort. But there is no "shortcut" to a good article, and a poor or unreferenced article which lunges out of WP:AFC into publication prematurely is likely to be deleted for lack of sourcing in order to protect the reputation of the subject.

Sorry there's no easy answers, but Wikipedians overall would be glad to help you with your questions about how to bring this article up to par. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Matthew Thank you for your response which I fully understand. My only desire to rush was to show it to my 93 year old mother before she dies. But we can exclude that and as you say, take my time sorting out a good article. I'm not 'emotional' about it but my mother is the one with all the information as it's her mother, so my grandmother!

But the family art history is deeper than that, 2 really really old relations are in BENZIT and have paintings in museums as does my grandmother come to that.

It's just that no one has ever bothered to get the info out onto Wikipedia. So I'm gonna try. So you know, I love Wikipedia and recently made a donation.

Ok onwards nice and slowly

Thanks Dylan White — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan White (talk • contribs) 19:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for your attention to and help with the massive mess created by Historylover123, there was no way I could clean it all alone without looking like I'd gone on a witchhunt. besieged^talk 12:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

No worries, and let's both keep an eye on his Contribs and see if he makes any other bad moves, at which point we should take him right to ANI. He's had plenty of warnings. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Te Deum, Zoltán Kodály

Hi, you rejected my article because you said there is already an article written on Zoltán Kodály. I realize this. My article was written on Te Deum, written by him. Please reconsider.

Lwhit (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, I see now. The intro was a bit unclear as to the topic, so at first glance it looked like just his bio. That said, though this is a good start, you have a number of things to clean up:

Several sections, like "Bio" and the Te Deum translation, are covered at length in other articles, and you should just link said articles rather than summarise them here. The article is about Zoltan's Te Deum, so you need to keep it focused to specifics about this individual work, with only the bare minimum of reference to outside topics just for context.
Don't use "Ibid" in footnotes; the beauty of Wiki footnotes is that you can move text around and the numbers automatically re-sort themselves with no effort needed. However, a note saying "Ibid" is dependent upon always being in a certain order, so if someone inserts some more info and a new footnote between #15 and #16 footnotes, now "Ibid" is #17 and incorrectly looks like it's an ibid to the new #16 note. Does that make sense? Instead of using "ibid", there's a little trick called Wikipedia:REFNAME to get footnotes to the same source to stack properly. Let me know if you need help figuring that out even after reading the link.

This is overall a good start, but needs some fine-tuning before you resubmit. If you'd like a wider opinion, you can check with the volunteer mentors at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. Good luck and nice work so far! MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it further, you still need to establish the WP:Notability of this composition in the first place. You have a lot of footnotes, but almost none of them are actually about Kodaly's Te Deum. Instead, they substantiate non-TD facts about his life, about TDs in general, or are "cited" to recordings of the work or the score itself. What we need is WP:Independent sources which say "Hey, there's a TD by Kodaly, and here is why it is significant/important." Not your personal analysis, not non-TD details about the composer or the school of music, but to have an article about the specific work, we need coverage of this specific work from the media or academia. Does that help clear up the issue? MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfC

A few points. First, I don't understand why you move pages to the AfC only to move them to the mainspace a few minutes later. Why not move them directly to the mainspace if you don't use the AfC for a thorough review of the page anyway? It seems to be something you usually do, all your recent AfC promotions follow the same pattern.

Second, I moved Charles F. Wurther back to the user sand box where it originally came from. The page wasn't even at the right title, no "Charles F. Wurther" existed, making me wonder if you adequately researched the page before moving it.

Third, I can also find no evidence that the author of that page requested any AfC assistance in general or from you specifically. Moving people's sandboxes to the mainspace without asking or discussing this seems to be rather rude and is something I wouldn't appreciate at all if someone did ti with my sandboxes. The editor was still actively working on the page, why not let him finish first? I can understand that you would move long abandoned sandboxes with viable articles, but that was not the case here.

Fourth, I have deleted Jean-Paul Agon as a copyright violation. The page was taken, with very minimal changes, from the company page at [1], so not very hard to find. Fram (talk) 08:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I move the pages to AFC because pages submitted for review should be at AFC per policy. Unfortunately, the "submit for review" template doesn't force articles to move to AFC, so we get a lot of "John Smith/sandbox" entries in AFC, which, as you can imagine, makes it hard for reviewers to figure out which items they should pick it to review based on knowledge/interest. I tend to go through AFC and pinpoint the "/sandbox" entries, open them all and move them to AFC. Then I go through reviewing, and some of them indeed do pass to mainspace. Further, the AFC Reviewer scripts don't run right on "/sandbox", so unless I want to code hundreds of reviews manually, they need to be in AFC to process smoothly.

So far as moving people's pages: barring any weird anomalies, I'm not going to even see someone's sandbox unless they put a "submit for review" tag on it. The very template itself has a link saying "this should be at AFC, click here to move it to AFC". If someone has an article on their sandbox, or on their userpage, and deliberately adds a "submit for review" template, I make the reasonable assumption that they want their page AFCed, so I move it, and if from their userpage I generally leave a little note saying "this is your WP:Userpage, your draft is linked here: ... "

Moving people's sandboxes to the mainspace without asking or discussing this seems to be rather rude and is something I wouldn't appreciate at all if someone did ti with my sandboxes. - under other circumstances yes, but these are people who have specifically said "review this draft article for me" and do not understand it should be at AFC, or note that the template explicitly says "hey, you should move this to AFC, click here to do it." So far as The editor was still actively working on the page, why not let him finish first? - if they're still drafting, they shouldn't request review. I'm not a mind-reader, so if they request review I have to assume they mean "right now". Unfortunately the submission does not automatically nix out the "sandbox" template, but given the two conflicting templates I have to deal with the one that files the article into the long AFC queue.

If a sandbox/userpage is submitted for review, I can either remove the review request (presumably not the editor's intent), move it to AFC where it belongs (generally I do), or go through some lengthy discussion with literally hundreds of first-time editors about whether they feel comfy having me move their sandbox, having no idea of knowing how long it'll take them to reply and meanwhile their hundreds of entires clog up the AFC queue. It simply makes a lot more sense to move to the right place, review, and send them the message saying "approved" or "declined".

If you have some specific example where somebody never posted a "submit for review" template and I somehow messed with their userspace/sandbox, let me know. But that'd be pretty anomalous because I have pretty negligible interest in others' sandboxes until it hits the AFC queue, at which point it becomes an issue for everyone at AFC. So far as the Loreal copyvio: I've done nearly 1000 of these in the last few weeks due to the desparate overload at AFC. If an article meets basic guidelines, I publish it. If it looks like a copyvio I check, but barring that I trust the copyvio 'bots to run checks, or observant editors to catch it. If I/we turn every AFC review into the same intensity as a GA/FA review, we'd be a year behind. AFC is a pretty coarse filter, so we screen out 95%, and of the 5% we let through a few of them are ones that we shouldn't, but that's still way better than just the tidal wave of bad articles that get dumped onto New Page Patrol every day.

Sorry for the long answer, but you get the general idea that I'm acting in good faith in a difficult situation, and with editors that simply don't understand where things go but have explicitly requested AFC review. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which article?

Hi there Mathew, how do I see what was wrong with my article?

Regards Marcelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.126.176 (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Marcelle, which article are you referring to? MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terasem

Thanks for the feedback on the Terasem Movement article. There are a couple points I was on the fence about when I started out to write this piece. Would it be more appropriate to give each branch their own article? If not, am I attempting to get too deep, and therefore should I be abbreviating the area I cover? Forever. 15:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsataReign (talk • contribs)

Hello AsataReign, some good questions there. First off, I would keep everything on one Terasem article at first. If there isn't a good basic article on the overall TM movement, having branches thereof will be unstable. Also, my vague impression is that the branches have a lot of basic commonalities, so probably most efficient to have a general TM article and some brief explanation of the variants later in the article.

Secondly, I do think the article needs to take a broader focus, and is bit too down into the nitty-gritty without even giving enough of a broad-overarching view of the Movement. This is a common problem with articles written by adherents of spiritual or political movements. A good way to try and break from that is look at what non-members have written about the group. Not saying just you, but a lot of such groups spend time on minutiae of their history and namedropping people of near-zero interest to those not intimately familiar with the movement. If "Joe Smith" and "Bob Smythe" had an argument about the movement and Smythe left in 1995, unless we have existing articles on Smith and Smythe, and there are greater significances to that split, the casual reader probably doesn't need to know it, no matter how interesting it may be to people familiar with Smith and Smythe.

My vague impression is that this is a Notable topic, but it unfortunately reads like an article for TM vice about it. For an uninvolved reader, it comes across as a lot of internal minutes, namedropping, lots of jargon, etc. The concept is certainly interesting, but it needs to be phrased for an encyclopedic audience. My strongest suggestion is to dig into what non members (journalists, academics, etc) have taken time to write about, and use that as the majority of your footnotes, other than points where you cite the org itself on basic non-controversial data like founding date, mission statement, etc. Does this help? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Rafael Shimshilashvili

Hey Matthew, Can you help me edit it better ? Thank you, Mike

You're talking about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ron Rafael Shimshilashvili , right? First off, and not saying this to be a jerk, you have to remember this is a busy place, so never assume someone else knows what you're talking about, so make sure to phrase things very clearly, give links, etc.

So far as improving, I'm going to link you a few "suggested reading" policies:

First off, read the basics of WP:Referencing for beginners, and that will show you how to make Footnotes. It's pretty easy coding.
Next, get your sources together. Look at the links you have now, and figure out which ones are WP:Reliable sources. They have to be sources where you can honestly say "yes, this is a website known for accuracy, and where their success depends on having accurate information." So, for example "http://www.watchfreemovies.ch" is not going to be one; they don't care about journalistic accuracy, they don't have an editor who will fire someone if they get someone's hometown or age wrong. So no blogs (unless they're the blog of some serious organisation, not just a hobbyist), no forums, not Facebook. IMDB is fine to link to at the end, but you can't cite them since they're crowdsourced like Wiki is, and they don't show their sources. If he's covered in Israeli press, feel free to use Hebrew websites as well, as long as they're still WP:Reliable sources.
The big one: once you know how to make footnotes, and you have good references, make the footnotes and make sure everything is properly footnoted. For example, where you say They gave hem the nickname "Dubi", which means “ Bear ” in Hebrew , because he was as big and cute like a bear so often as a baby ., you either need to find a news site, media industry site, or something which proves that, or it has to be removed. There's a rule WP:BLP which basically says "if someone is alive, we have to protect their reputation, so absolutely everything in a living person's article has to be verified."

Those are my basic suggestions, let me know if you have any questions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merging "Classes in SWTOR with SWTOR

The article Star Wars The Old Republic is locked for editing (until March 29th of next year). I don't know if I can merge it at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaac149 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the article's Talk page, start a new section saying "Do we need to include info about Classes?" and give them a link to your page. They should either say "hey, good idea" and they can get an exemption to have it added, or they'll say "no, we don't need it" and that'll be it. Go communicate with the Talk:Star Wars: The Old Republic page, see what happens. Make sure you check that page's Archive first to make sure that hasn't already been discussed. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Offer

Specifically adding pictures. I'm not sure how to do that. Usually I look at articles that have features I want and see how they're done, then try to copy the format. I can't figure out how pictures are added or embedded in the articles, though. I've looked at the directions, but I'm not conversant yet with the nomenclature used to understand exactly what to do. I started the piece on the Leesburg Transfer Company in the Sandbox because I couldn't see a tab that let me create an article. It's there, I'm sure- but when I was looking for it I couldn't find it. So- any help is appreciated! talk) 20:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]