User talk:MatthewVanitas/Archive 30

Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31

A barnstar for you!

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
I just wanted to thank you for looking over a bunch of articles that my students have submitted for a social studies project from Oconomowoc High School. The students are really responding to your critiques and trying to fix and get published. Even though, I'm not sure if any will get published, the students have learned and practiced a lot of skills that we have been working on all year. Thank you again for all of your work! Nkschueller66 (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello Nkschueller66, thanks for touching base! Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Education program? It's a program here which helps educators like yourself who are using Wikipedia editing as an educational exercise. If not in touch with them already, you may want to swing by and say hello, tell them what you're up to, and they may have some good advice on best methods.
I hope your students aren't too disappointed that some of their topics are too localized to meet the WP:Notability standards. There are plenty of perfectly good teams, clubs, charities, etc. but to be an article we do require a certain level of big-picture recognition. Some of the articles do indeed meet WP:N though, and I certainly hope the student drafting Draft:Oconomowoc_Lake_Club will continue to dig up sources (including off GoogleBooks) and will finish the article, since that topic can indeed meet WP:N. Thanks for touching base, and good luck in the course you're running. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks MatthewVanitas, I will check with the Wikipedia:Education program. The students are aware that it is going to be hard to meet the notability standards and we talked a lot about how they should pick topics that would try to meet the standards as well. The main thing that we were looking for educational-wise was getting the students to write objectivity, use credible arm-lengths sources, and research a variety of different sources. The students working on the Oconomowoc Lake Club were super motivated by your message and they are digging deep for more sources to get published. Thanks again for all your help!
No worries! I was unsure at first, but when I went to GoogleBooks and found a good handful of hits for OLC, I recognized that had sufficient regional/national recognition to reach the bar of Notability. The students just need to switch up their angle a bit, focusing less on the nitty-gritty (things any club has) and more on what make the OLC a standout due to its history and social role. Funnily enough (and I run across a lot of these coincidental crossovers in my hobby), one of the books mentions that OLC had boats built by Gus Amundson, and just a year or so ago I helped another local writer publish Johnson Boat Works (the company Amundson worked for over in White Bear Lake). Lots of little interlocking stories in the world, and one of the cool things about Wikipedia is how it allows all the separate stories to link together.
I hope that even the students who don't get published have still learned a lot about objective writing, encyclopedia tone, basics of wikicoding, etc. I've used all those skills in my actual adult career, and in all seriousness can say that doing Wikipedia volunteer work has improved my skill as a professional paid researcher for government contracts, so hopefully some of your students may find it encouraging that these skills cross-over into a lot of real-world jobs down the road. Keep up the good work! MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, another minor note while kids are digging on OLC: if they can find any photos which are verifiably dated pre-1923 or earlier, those are automatically out-of-copyright and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (the huge storehouse of public domain and Creative Commons licensed images) and thus can be used to illustrate the article. So if any of the kids dig up such things in old newspapers, or from the county archives or whatever, anything pre-1923 is fair game and would really help give a feel for the place. If anyone else comes across a topic that can meet WP:N requirements and publish, same thing for pre-1923 images, or any photos the student personally takes of the subject building/person/event etc. can be uploaded. But best to focus on publishing first so that folks don't invest time getting photos of things that ultimately don't get published.
One possibility for future classes: you may look to see what existing articles on your town/county need improvement and/or photographs, and make improving those a goal. Possibly in conjunction with any volunteers at WP:WikiProject Wisconsin. I know in my area we occasionally have photo-drives where we list out buildings/places/neighborhoods in our city that don't have a photo, and go out there in person to snap a shot and upload it. Just one of many curriculum possibilites, but again the WP:Education program folks probably have plenty more ideas of big and small ways that you can use WP as an educator tool. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Oconomowoc 84 Wisconsin Lutheran 82

Hey hows it going? I was just wondering how or what I could do to get published — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austincameron26 (talkcontribs) 18:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Doing fine here, but though I'm not an expert on sports articles, my impression is that this article won't meet WP:Notability. Before proceeding, please take a look at the WP:Notability policy to see the "bar" a topic must reach to warrant having an article. Not saying that this game is unimportant or that you shouldn't write about it period, it's just that to be on an international encyclopedia we have to hae a compelling reason that international readership should take note of the topic. If it doesn't end up publishing here, you may find it worth publishing in your town or county's newspaper, historical journal, archives, etc. Don't take it hard, we turn down thousands of articles per day, only a few people/places/things in the world have enough coverage in WP:Third-party sources to meet that Notability bar. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Talkback from Technical 13

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, MatthewVanitas. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script.
Message added 19:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {} or {} template.

Not sure why you waited two hours to report it, but it was a very short term intermediate version of the template while I was making an adjustment to try and fix the "Wikipedia talk:/Articles for creation/User:Example/sandbox" issue. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 19:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

?? I've been seeing this error for days, I just figured it was something folks were already aware of and working on. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Primous Fountain article

I received notification about the rejection of my article on Primous Fountain. I received no details as to why it was not accepted and when.i went to the link in the message which said I could edit and resubmit I found that the article has apparently been deleted. Can you tell me what happened and why?Canticle (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a blip in the code today, so it gave you the wrong link; your draft is safely at Draft:Primous Fountain . I'll let the tech guys know about the bug giving you the bad link. The pink box at top of your article and my comment below it explain what is needed to improve the Draft. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I will work on those suggestions and resubmit.Canticle (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 6 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Newbie submission for Norther Light Orchards

Hi, I am struggling. I cannot see the part that tells me why my submission was not approved. Thanks, Scott — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scgibson1 (talkcontribs) 17:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the large pink box at the top of the page? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes I eventually did thanks! Oddly the first time I clicked on the draft link post your edit the pink box did appear. The second time after seeing your comment it did appear. I have added additional references to establish the notability of the company. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scgibson1 (talkcontribs) 18:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ Store Front Museum

Hello MatthewVanitas. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled " Store Front Museum".

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

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Salvatore Cuomo

Hello Matthew, i've talked to another editor in chat and they heped me to add the references. I couldn't translate them all but these are from the main newspapers. Hope this time my article is ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torratte (talkcontribs) 08:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

How do I make my submission on Marcela Paula Carmen Houston acceptable?

I re-submitted my biographical sketch entitled "Marcela Paula Carmen Houston" and it was rejected again. I think because I did not have a link to the draft. Is that correct? How do I add the required link? CMW4903 (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion Sajni Kumpuris

Matthew I concur with the speedy deletion of Sajni Kumpuris page. Thank you!Sajnicary (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Earnest Machine

Hi Matthew,

I wanted to follow up with the Earnest Machine draft I created. I was tasked with creating a company Wikipedia page. The information came from myself and my knowledge of this company, and from a 50th Anniversary company-released book that we have on-site and distributed internally as a commemorative piece (not sold for profit). I was not sure how to cite these sorts of resources. Thank you for your response. EarnestMachine (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello "Earnest", a few things to bear in mind:
  • Please make extra sure you've read WP:Conflict of interest. I would literally make an annotation at the top of your Userpage and/or Talk page saying "I am involved with the company Earnest Machine and have read WP:Conflict of interest". While it is not totally forbidden to write about something you're involved with, people are very cautious about it, and being up-front about the affiliation helps to stave off any accusation you're covertly advertising.
  • You must go to Wikipedia:Request username changing and modify your username. A username must pertain to only one person. So "Bob at EarnestMachine" or "EarnestMachine PenguinsFan77" I believe would be fine (since they apply to one person/nickname), but a company-wide username will be blocked if any admin sees it before you change it.
  • For an internally-published non-commercial company book, treat is the same as you would the company website: to be cited only for non-contentious issues like founding date, original location, etc. Any "claims to fame" have to be cited to a WP:Neutral authoriy.
  • Published works that are WP:Reliable sources are admissible, but it is absolutely not allowed to include things "you personally know". That's another reason people are discouraged from writing about their work, it's too easy to include "things everyone knows" that are simply not WP:Verifiable to an outside observer.
MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited St. Joseph's Catholic Church (Baramulla), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mother Superior (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

A Woman is a Weathercock

Many thanks for sorting out my first article A Woman is a Weathercock so quickly and for your feedback. I've added a frontispiece image as you suggested and added the theatre play template to put extra info in the right col, having checked out the WikiProject Theatre you pointed me to, which has definitely inspired me to jump in and contribute more.

I've just spotted another editor has altered the title I gave to the article to capitalise the I in "Is" which has created a redirect. I can go on to "Talk" and say that, if the word "is" is capitalised the word "a" should be too, and make the change, but I'm worried about creating yet another redirect. Or are redirects because of capitalisation changes nothing to worry about in terms of search etc? Thanks again. --Parasitaster (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Redirects generally all orient themselves to whatever the final title indicated is. I'd be less worried about redirects, and more (only slightly) concerned that the "right" title be used. Although given the lack of standardisation in Elizabethan English, both might be "right". Might want to ping the chap who modified the title and see if you two can suss out the best rendering of the title. Very glad to see you found WPTHEATRE to be an informative project. You did a great job putting your draft together, so honestly I don't see it being a problem if you just published your drafts directly in the future rather than wait on AFC, or maybe just publish and ask a fellow WPTHEATRE member to give it a once-over to catch any errors. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Brownie transparent.png Page looks great! Moonchïld9 (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Bhavani Island, Vijayawada

Hi, thanks for article acceptation and wanted to know, will the comments on the article remain like this--Vin09 (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.--Vin09 (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jeff Opdyke Wiki

Hi I am a little confused as to why the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jeff Opdyke Wiki. does not meet requirements for in text citation. Every piece of the article has in text citation. There is an in text citation every couple sentences as I made sure to cite everything. Matt.tennenbaum (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Matt.tennenbaum, in your case it's not so much the number of cites (every few sentences is fine so long as the material is all accounted for), but it's that you list a number of sources at-bottom but yet only footnoted your weakest citations. A link to his Barnes&Noble page is not a compelling source, nor is a brief blurb on a list of participants in a documentary (cite it for a basic fact or two, but don't make it a foundational source). We need to see a body of serious, objective coverage of Opdyke's career and impact, so little blurbs and commercial links should only be used slightly to fill in some weak points, the bulk of citations should be to serious media or academic examinations of his career. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I listed the Barnes&Noble page only because I wanted to list all of his books and wanted to cite them as proof they were all written by him. Everything written about is cited (and proven to be fact), but there's nothing additional that I am trying to add that require other sources. I can't add sources unless I used them, everything I wrote about is backed up with a source. I also included all the extra sources as proof that he is a well-known writer (I can remove the extra sources, but it was only for proof that he is someone that is known).Matt.tennenbaum (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Matt.tennenbaum, mind if I paste this discussion at the top of the draft (in the comment section) so the next reviewer to look at it can weigh in? Or alternately, you can post the question at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk. I'm pretty sure I'm still right, but I'm not a specialist on author bios, so you might get a better response by pasting your question elsewhere so that you don't have to repeat it if the next reviewer has my same concerns. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure, both would be ok with me. Please post anywhere that may help me resolve this. Thanks!Matt.tennenbaum (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Rock Paper Dice Enter

Its a successful film No reason give for not acceptingDanVanKant (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)DanVanKantDanVanKant (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello DanVanKant! Which draft are you referring to? Do you mean User:DanVanKant/sandbox? If so, that one is just a blank page, that's the reason. Are you reading the pink boxes at the top of each decline notice which specifically say why it's declined? Every decline has a reason given. Are you talking about Articles for creation: Kash Gauni? If so, I think it's because the writing is very unclear and confusing, and most of the footnotes seem to discuss his films with little info about him personally. Have you asked for assistance at WP:Teahouse? There are good volunteer mentors there who are outside the AFC process and might have a good outside perspective. If you post then, ensure you clearly provide a link for the drafts you're asking about, otherwise it's very confusing when you don't even tell us what page your question is about. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback.

Nice tone of voice for rejections. How do you do that?

I've removed 'subject's own' references and added third party references. I've resubmitted and look forward to seeing if I've cracked it this time around. https://en.wikipedia.org/en/Draft:Val_Hennessy

Your advice hasn't been wasted - I've been reading the Notable Journalists pages as well as browsing your own talk page and other draft/rejections.

Sarah — Preceding unsigned comment added by MF SarahHorner (talkcontribs) 19:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Camargo Society part2

I sent you a message on 23:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC) in the section Camargo Society. If you didn't wish to answer, fair enough. If you didn't answer because you didn't see it then please do so now, and I will know in future to send messages at the END of someone's Talk page, not half way up. Pstaylor (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

submission rejection for musical act Leadfinger

Hi Matthew...sorry to make extra work for you...I tried to copy my submission from other musical acts. Could you be so kind to tell me what I got wrong and/or direct me to some clarification links of what and what isn't accepted... Thanks, soot68 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soot68 (talkcontribs) 05:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries, Soot68. While your formatting is good, the absolute requirement is WP:Notability (music). Please read that policy, as it has a checklist of features which qualify a band for a Wikipedia article. To publish, your draft must clearly show that the band meets one or more of the requirements, and those qualifications must be documented (ideally by WP:Footnote) to serious WP:Reliable sources. Not Discogs, Facebook, iTunes, Amazon, etc. But rather to serious music journalism, newspapers, or books which discuss Leadfinger, its career, musical/social impact, etc. Definitely start by reading WP:Notability (music), and that should clear up a lot for you. Not all bands qualify for an article, so seeing if Leadfinger does is the key step. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks heap Matthews, I just noticed this reply...have edited and re-submitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soot68 (talkcontribs) 08:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft for Kevin Morris

Hi Matthew,

On June 3rd my article for Kevin Morris (author) was declined. I just wanted to inform you that I have updated the draft with more reliable sources. Of course I realize there are several articles in the queue to be reviewed. I simply wanted to touch base with you. Please let me know of any changes I can make or additional sources I can include should the article be rejected again.

I am working with the company that represents Mr. Morris and we are eager to get the site up. Any help or advice you can give would be immensely helpful.

Here is a link to the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/en/Draft:Kevin_Morris

Thanks for all your hard work!

Megan

14:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meganw6 (talkcontribs)

A few things to fine-tune while you're waiting:
  • Your format is a little off, so please take a glance at WP:Manual of style. Most notably (but fixed in seconds) is you need to use the right coding to make WP:Sections
  • Take a look at your footnotes, some have red text which indicates a mis-coding to fix. Also, if you're using the same citation as a footnote more than once, use the WP:REFNAME coding method to join togther the multiple citations to keep the list tidy.
  • Optimally, any source of info about him should be a footnote rather than simply listed at bottom, so try to turn all links about him into proper footnotes. Really the only thing in "External links" should be his official homepage.
  • If you're involved in business with the topic, please ensure that once the draft publishes you place the Template:Connected contributor template on its Talk page. Without it the article could be more assertively challenged for bias, so you want to ensure it specifically notes your ties to the subject.
We're doing a big cleanup, the queue has gone from over 2,000 to 800 in a matter of days, so the wait should be much shorter now. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


Wonderful! Thanks for all your help. Please let me know of anything else I can do if you think of it. Will I receive an email when this is rejected/accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meganw6 (talkcontribs) 17:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Camargo Society

> ....Camargo Society, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.....

  • Thank you. Encouragingly prompt response.

> I have converted your first few references to footnotes, and would suggest you consider carrying that through for the rest of the page....

  • Will do. My last revision before you refereed the article was to convert all footnotes to references because I thought a long list of fotnotes containing only page numbers looked silly. I will revert to that version.
  • Is this where I am supposed to communicate with you?

Pstaylor (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I tried to remove the Citation Style bit from the top of the article and couldn't. Will you, please.

Pstaylor (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Pstaylor, Yep, here is the best place to talk to me. Generally the conversation starts on the page of the person you want to speak to, and it stays there rather than go back-and-forth. Some people leave a small "I replied to your message" on your talk, others don't, and in some situations Wikipedia might send you a little "someone replied to you" message at top of your screen though I'm still unclear as to what triggers that.
In any case, what you switched to makes reading the article easier, with the auto-footnoting. I see your point about finding a list of just cite/page footnotes to look a bit clippy, but that only effects folks looking at the footnotes, so overall burden on average reader is decreased. If you want to get a little clever, there's a way to do it using WP:Refname and Template:Page number. I'll go do an example for you quick, but feel totally fine to revert it if you don't like the look. It's easier to demonstrate than explain. By the way, per your request I removed the {} style at-top.
Great work; I imagine it might be hard finding verifiably out-of-copyright photos of these folks, but if there is an official logo for the Camargo Society, you can upload that under WP:Fair use using WP:Upload wizard. Photo rights are tricky until you get the hang of it, so don't be shy about asking WP:Teahouse for help if you get stuck. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Matthew
> If you want to get a little clever.......

  • I like it! Done.

> I imagine it might be hard finding ....

  • Indeed it is. I'm still looking. I hope my appeal on the article's Talk page does not infringe Wikipedia's guidelines.

> ....I removed the ..citation style....

  • Thanks. The other article I've had published has two such boxes at the top. When I believe I have addressed the deficiencies, do I contact the reviewer or does someone pick it up automatically?

Thanks for your help.Pstaylor (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Pstaylor, actually it's fine to post continued conversations under an earlier heading on a Talk page, you only need to post at the bottom if it's a new topic. Didn't mean to ignore you, just caught up in other stuff, and note as of today or so I'm moving to a WP:Wikibreak (editing vacation) for the rest of the month. Regarding tags (the "must fix this" at top); if an article is published yet still has tags, if you make changes that you feel have addressed the tag issues (on published articles) you're free to remove the tag under WP:BEBOLD. Just ensure that your Edit Summary (the little explanation under your editing window) explains why, something like "removed the 'better sources required' tag since I added three citations to NYT articles". If someone disagrees that you've fixed the issue and restores the tags, take a step back and reconsider, and/or contact the tag adder to discuss the issue. But generally, WP:BEBOLD is the policy on tags. Keep up the good work! MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Boerehaat

Hi Matthew. Please remove the tags on this article if you are satisfied that the outstanding issues have been addressed. Otherwise, please advise what still needs to be done (not that I think I personally can do much more). HelenOnline 14:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Dschag

Hello Dschag, a few points:

  • Best news first: "Malibu tile" is a recognized thing, and merits having an article, so do rest assured this is a valid topic and we do indeed want an article about it.
  • Every Wikipedia topic must have one clear focus. Your article must be about Malibu tile in general, about the Malibu Tileworks, or similar. From my rough understanding of the topic, I'd go with either of those; there's no point having a "Resurrection of XYZ" page if we have no "XYZ" page in the first place to introduce the issue.
  • You must add a clear WP:Lead section. Something like "Malibu tile is a type of tile created in 19XX, which is distinctive due to its A, B, and C." or "Malibu Tile Works (19XX-19YY) was a company which produced a unique type of ceramic which came to be known as 'Malibu tile', distinctive for its..." Make sense? We can't start out with "setting the scene", an encyclopedia is not a mystery novel.
  • You must understand what Wikipedia is, and WP:What Wikipedia is not. It is not a how-to manual, it's not a PR site, it's not a soapbox to announce new and exciting ideas. Everything in the article must be clearly sourced to published works, so if you personally have observations about the tiles, but no WP:Reliable source has published them, they simply aren't admissible. Optimally, we'd love to see footnotes to published books of California architecture, ceramics journals, local/regional newspapers discussing the tiles.
  • No matter how excited you are personally about reviving a lost art, the article must not be "Dschag's personal essay on how great Malibu tile is and how you can make it". It must be a straightforward listing of facts about the history of the title and how it is made or how it is distinctive. Not a how-to manual with step-by-step instructions, but just enough info so a layman can say "Oh, Malibu tile is different from standard Moroccan tile because A, B, C!"

Does all this make sense? Please reply here in this section if you have any questions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello MatthewVanitas, Ok, appreciate your patience as I learn the WP way, including place and format to provide a response to your comments (meaning, I hope this is how you do it).

  • Of course, appreciate the positive feedback on the value of an article on Malibu tile.
  • I figure the history of Malibu tile is already covered through the WP article on the Adamson House, so no need for me to dwell on that
  • To some extent you are raising a question I have already pondered for some time now: should I write exclusively about Malibu Ceramic Works because they really did resurrect (understand, I am not trying to work back to that title) Malibu style tile or write about the characteristics of Malibu tile. I felt I could not do the former because then it becomes a PR piece (not WP acceptable). But I cannot write about all facets of Malibu tile because a) I do not possess that kind of expertise and b) Joseph Taylor has already written a book on the subject and I can't commit to that kind of effort. Hence, I chose to write a little about both subjects and let the photographs do the talking.
  • To your point that I need to clearly define what Malibu tile is, I believe that implies a simple (one sentence answer) definition and I don't think anyone can do that. I did try to define Malibu tile by a) it flows from the Hispano-Moresque art forms, b) indicating that Malibu tile is how Malibu Potteries interpreted those art forms, c) vibrant colors (oranges, reds, cobalt blues, etc.), d) their uses (terra cotta floor tile, wall decorations, fountains, etc.), and e) technique (cuerda seca outlining, etc.). I feel I needed to run through the process to educate the reader (as in someone who knows very little about ceramic tile production) for them to understand what Malibu tile is. In short, I believe someone reading the article would say, oh now I have a pretty good idea of what Malibu tile is.
  • As for WP being against 'here's how to,' a quick look around WP and looking at Silkscreening as I referenced it in my article, that article is largely a how to guide. And besides, I don't think anyone could read my article and start making tile (as I said, I was just trying to provide basic information for anyone even contemplating making tile. WP does not believe in this kind of service?
  • Let me take a final crack at explaining my perspective. I am indeed passionate about this art form. And I think I have a pretty good perspective on Malibu tile, having been a docent at the Adamson House and having read everything on Malibu tile that I can get my hands on. I was a Professor for 17 years and I published maybe 10 academic, peer reviewed articles. Each took about a year and a half to write, re-write, re-write, etc. With respect, I think you are missing the point of my article and you are pointing me in an unrealistic direction, i.e., a complete analysis of what Malibu tile is. It's also the case that I can see what you are asking for will require 10 times more work than the three months I have already put in--and I just cannot do that.
  • Appreciate high standards. Appreciate WP, hence my financial contributions. Appreciate your efforts. But, upon reading this, can you think of a more efficient way to work with what I have already produced to get an article up?

Dschag (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Matt. Thanks for your edits--I now have a better understanding of the initial declaration concerning Malibu tile. I'll continue to work on cleaning it up. 108.0.200.50 (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Matt. I feel great that my first Wikipedia article was accepted. My previous comments (whinings) were obviously based upon the cruel and unusual experiences I had as a Professor with journal editors. I confused you with their customary practices--I am apologize for that. Thank you so much for setting my article on a sound footing. I will continue to improve it and add useful information. With much gratitude. Dschag (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pashkvil may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Oil pulling may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Leo Sarkisian (Armenian activist) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Leo Sarkisian (Armenian activist), 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) 01:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Robert_Schotter

Hello Matthew Vanitas,

Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/en/Draft:Robert_Schotter: there is a third party comment, verifying the award on

 https://de.wikipedia.org/en/Ernst-Schneider-Preis. 

Isn't this sufficient a third party source?

Or do you rather expect external links to some of the films Robert Schotter made, such as:

 http://www.zdf.de/terra-x/zweiteiler-ueber-die-macht-der-jahreszeiten-folge-1-fruehjahr-und-sommer-29131996.html http://www.zdf.de/terra-x/terra-x-geisterschiff-im-wattenmeer-24805902.html 

Thanks for your help, Regards, Karin --79.231.94.141 (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karinsoika (talkcontribs)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bunny chow (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Achar
Minerva Armored Car (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Hoboken
Templar House (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to New Lodge

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

possible blunder: Perspective projection distortion

Mr. Vanitas: I went to what I thought was my PatKelso Sandbox site and did I'm not sure what. But I noticed my Sandbox site had some how taken me to a Perspective Projection site instead. So I may indeed have done damage to that site. I want to give you a heads-up and trust you are able to undo what I may have done. My regrets. Pat Kelso (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Pat, no worries at all, I see the confusion. Your draft was at User:Patkelso/sandbox and had a "review requested" tag. As part of the review process, we move said drafts out of your sandbox and to a "Draft:[title]" page, so we can identify the drafts by title on our worklist. Moving your Sandbox to the Draft page created a WP:Redirect; if you look closely, there is a little legend in blue right below the title saying something like "you were redirected here from User:Patkelso/sandbox" (don't know the exact English label, mine says "Envoyé ici de la page User:Patkelso/sandbox". Very well, but what if you want to use your Sandbox for something else now that the "Perspective" draft has its own Draft page? Just click the little blue "sent here from" link, and it'll take you to your proper Sandbox, and you can remove the "#REDIRECT" tag from it, and just continue drafting however you like on your Sandbox. However, make sure that you only have one draft of a given topic at a time, don't start a new "Perspective" draft on your sandbox when you already have one if your "Draft:" entry.
So hopefully that solves the Redirect confusion I caused. So far as actual content, as a reviewer I'm a generalist, not topic expert, and since I could not definitely deduce your topic from your draft, my best guess was Draft:Perspective projection, so that's the title I gave it. We already have an article on Perspective projection, so I declined yours as redudant, though suggesting your could merge your content into the existing article if the existing article lacks any details you can add. If I have erred and "Perspective projection" is not what your article is about, I request you go to the "Move" button in the menu at top of the page (just left of your search box) and edit the title of your draft to reflect your intended title, and please ensure your intended title is mentioned by-name in the very beginning of your article, in bolded letters to avoid such confusion.
Hope this helps, if you have further questions please ask the mentors at WP:Teahouse as I may be away from the site due to work. Good luck! MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Vanitas: OAS, in the absence of advice to the contrary, in our correspondence I will take the liberty of using your talk site here, under the present "Blunder" headline rather than my own talk site. If this causes complications, please let me know. Thanks. Pat Kelso (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Pat, I've cleared your sandbox so you can do any future drafting here: User:Patkelso/sandbox. NOTE: do not create a new Draft:Perspective projection page, just use the existing draft page that was Moved from your sandbox to "Draft:" space. Content issues, however, I'll leave to the specialists. You may find it useful to raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts, since that gets more traffic than the individual article's talk page. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Vanitas: I would like to submit (resubmit?) my editing of Perspective projection for review. It seems to be blocked by a "black list." If you might give me a kick start from this point, it would be appreciated. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/en/User:Pat_Kelso/sandbox) Pat Kelso (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Pat Kelso, I'm not really a technical guy, so suggest you enquire at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk instead, to reach a wider/savvier audience of reviewers. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Your in put has been very much appreciated. My thanks again.Pat Kelso (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

May I call you Matthew or Matt? I may have stumbled again. Today I submitted for review my editing of Perspective projection of the subsection of Perspective (Graphics). This in spite of the fact that you advised me not to; but then I seemed to remember that you had pulled the first submission because I had not meant to submit it. At any rate I went through the procedure of submitting and received a reply with the heading, Draft article not currently submitted for review, but then at the bottom of the same page it mentions that it might take some time before my submission comes up in the queue for review. Can you clarify the status for me? And thanks, as usual. Pat Kelso (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
My appreciation for your patient and indulgent assistance. I may have to call on you again. Pat Kelso (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi do do i undirect a link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/en/X_1999#Video_games

There are two video games I want to make pages for but when I put the brackets in there the pages get redirted to the page that i am on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.17.2 (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Scott Roberts

Hi

I had created a page for the Canadian voice actor Scott Roberts and it got denied? How to I get the page accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.17.2 (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

AFD notice

A draft submission that you had previously declined that was promoted to article space over the suggestions of AFC, Kash Gauni, is now up for deletion. As the commentary from AFC is used as a contributing reason for deletion, please feel free to look in and give your thoughts. Hasteur (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Page deleted?

Hi,

Why was this deleted: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jeff Opdyke? I have been working with editors for a very long time now making all necessary changes to get this page up. Why was this deleted if I was complying with all requested changes to meet Wikipedia guidelines. Please restore this page so I can continue modifying it until it meets the guidelines. I have now lost almost two months worth of progress.Matt.tennenbaum (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The Authors Road draft 6/30/14

Mathew,

We thank you for your kind help and advice, but I must first tell you our heads swim with all the necessary rules, conventions, coding, etc. But we'll work our way through these.

Our major question is that you, and possibly others, have suggested The Authors Road is a film. Although it does contain a number of videos, the actual product is more akin to a unique library, repository or archive of information on writers, including but not limited to filmed interviews. Also included are audio files of the writers, researched information about each writer, and a number of photographs of the writer and their place of work.

I'm not sure if this makes any real difference (other than we believe it makes it more notable), but we will continue to work on the draft as if it is a film, per your suggestion.

Again, thanks for your help and insights.

George GHMason12 (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

19:39:29, 30 June 2014 review of submission by Boodabill


Thanks for taking the time to review our article on William Haskell Levine. We read the notability requirements. Isn't it "notable" to have one's music heard by 14,000 million people on each live TV air date and subsequently tens of millions more on reruns and international broadcast. All totaled, the rebroadcast of all of Levine's music should have reached easily over 800,000 million people internationally by now (40 million per episode over time x over 20). His YouTube has reached almost 100,000 views, there are comments discussing how great his music is.. In any case, if a movie is reviewed, they rarely mention the score. Nevertheless the music makes people laugh, cry or cringe.

Please define "notable" for us since the Wiki doesn't.

We added some awards for theater.

Thanks.

bb 19:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


Hello, at the top of your page note the link provided to our Music Notability policy, also found here: Wikipedia:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. This list gives a very clear list of factors which would go into qualifying a subject as Notable and thus in need of an article. I'm not seeing that the info given in your draft clearly meets any of those requirements. Fundamentally, we must see that other news media or academic published sources find Levine worth discussing. Our goal is not to bring new attention to subjects not yet covered in the mainstream, the goal of an encyclopedia is to blend and provide an overview of existing coverage.
I suggest your read the "Criteria for musicians" list, and if you feel Levine meets certain ones of those, please leave a comment at the top of the draft pointing out such for the next reviewer. I would also make sure you've checked around for any serious media/academic coverage of Levine you can find to strengthen the article as much as possible. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Leo Sarkisian (Armenian activist)

Hello MatthewVanitas. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Leo Sarkisian (Armenian activist)".

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

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. -- t numbermaniac c 02:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi!

I wrote a comprehensive piece, filled with references, formatting - I'm note sure what happened that it sent it blank - what was the issue in this case and how can I avoid it in the future?