User talk:MatthewVanitas/Archive 24

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello Matthew,

Thanks so much for your quick response and your candid comments. They were well-appreciated.

The Gruber Almanack, LLC., publisher of the historically-significant Hagerstown Town and Country Almanack (www.almanack.com), is the 39th oldest company in the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_companies_in_the_United_States), the 2nd oldest almanac in the U.S second only to Old Farmer's), and ONLY almanac in the U.S. that is still published by heirs of its founder, John Gruber. It has been continuously published since 1797 (218 years). As partner and editor, I am responsible for all content included in its hardcopy editions as well as most of the content on its website. I am therefore the author of The Almanack's history (with the help of the sources I acknowledged at the end of my submission). We are the ones who hold the rights to this content and I believe and if we want to allow Wikipedia permission to post our copy-written material, it should be okay with our permission (unless I clearly do not understanding copyright law at all). We would like to figure this out ASAP to avoid a complete rewrite of our content and to also determine how to best present the content back to you for review and acceptance. That poses several other significant challenges.

A review the entry for Old Farmer's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Farmer's_Almanac), Wikipedia's standard format is quite detailed and content is presented in a most rigorous academic fashion (like a thesis, extensively footnoted with links to sources, references, etc.). When clicking 'Edit source', I see what it took to get it to look that way (a high degree of coding). These academic standards, along with the format coding required to do it correctly far exceeds my abilities. As a former IBM executive, my 28-year I/T experience was unfortunately, in marketing /sales, not in programming or coding. Does Wikipedia offer support to help us resolve these issues so that an entry can be created and acceptable (i.e. is there a template for biographies that could be used to make inputting content easier and comply with Wikipedia's standards)?

We are eager to have the story of John Gruber and his famous almanac, The Hagerstown Town and Country Almanack on Wikipedia and with your advice and counsel, we will.

Charles W. Fisher, Jr. Editor Hagerstown Town and Country Almanack The Gruber Almanack, LLC.

Hello Charles , thanks for touching base. The article for the Old Farmer's Almanac is, as you note quite developed, due probably to both the length of time the article has slowly evolved, and the numbers of people interested in helping to make incremental improvements. We don't at all expect that anyone, particularly someone new to editing, is going to produce something so extensive on the first try, so I would suggest that your short-term goal be publishing a very basic but very properly formatted/sourced biography. So far as templates, the easiest suggestion would be to simply find a biography that you like, and copy it wholesale, and then swap in Gruber's details into the "shell" of the coding around it. Does that make sense?

Regarding using the writeup the Almanack itself has written, there are a few issues with that. Firstly, Wikipedia's licensing requires that materials on Wikipedia be freely licensed under

WP:OTRS

) is a pretty big step, basically full releasing your work for anyone who wants to use it.

Separate from copyright issues, the concern is that a writeup by the Almanack itself would have great difficult expressing

WP:Tertiary source

cannot use materials that come directly from original sources. That is not at all to discredit archival research, but it is because we must see information in a independent, peer-reviewed, published source before we process it. Such is the nature of an encyclopedia: not cutting-edge new info, but an attempt to holistically present academic/journalist consensus.

So combining these points, rather than write "things I know personally" or present the Almanack's take on your stack of archival materials, the most appropriate way to kick off having a Gruber article would be to start simple, and start with information that can be explicitly cited to

WP:Secondary sources

(history books, etc.). If there are points where you really need to cite Almanack materials for non-contentious issues, things like birth location is fine, claims for his achievements not so much because we want independent confirmation. But your main sources should be established independent views of Gruber. For example, here are a few books which are viewable on GoogleBooks which discuss Gruber and his impact from an independent, objective perspective:

• History of Western Maryland By J. Thomas Scharf
• Maryland, a Guide to the Old Line State, By Best Books on, Federal Writers' Project
• The Antietam and Its Bridges: The Annals of an Historic Stream By Helen Ashe Hays

I understand it may feel a bit odd to seek outside authorities to verify things you personally already know, but you can understand that it makes the article much stronger if it is clear that it's not "Almanack says this, take our word for it" and more a clear demonstration of "here is Gruber as seen by a variety of historians, journalists, and social commentators over the last century or more". Again, the vital part of sourcing is independence, peer-review (i.e. an author and publisher with credibility to lose if they fail to describe Gruber correctly), and objectivity.

Easiest way to go, start small, aim to make a Gruber bio of just a few paragraphs, using the coding from an existing article that looks like a good format to you. And ensure that the information you provide is clearly footnoted; there is a Template - Citation button at the top of your editing window which will automatically make proper footnotes for you, and easier still if you're citing a book on GoogleBooks you can use http://reftag.appspot.com to make full footnotes with just a copy-paste and push of a button.

Start small, get a basic fundamental overview of Gruber published, and that will increase the odds that interested parties will drop in and help expand it, and will also be more relaxed and pleasant than trying to grind away getting a whole big article through the Review process. If you get a basic short bio of Gruber ready, let me know and I can just drop in and review it for you, and later can help you with adding photos, etc (which is vaguely annoying the first time you have to learn it, easy thereafter).

Hope this helps, MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Mercersburg, Pennsylvania Charles W. Fisher Jr (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Matthew, I've resubmitted the page that was rejected with a couple of references now. Hope this helps. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do. Thank you

Reddirtmusic (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, i will keep your suggestion in mind when editing further pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bapi Murmu (talk • contribs) 16:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I got your message and thank you for your assistance.

--Eric Albert 21:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semmes868 (talk • contribs)

Its an absolute shame why you rejected the Joakim hjelle page. He is a legend in Bergen. And let us have this page for god's sake. Stop being such a nazi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleklie (talk • contribs) 08:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

(

reliable sources that discuss the footballer in detail. Note that unless he has received substantial coverage, it is unlikely that he can have an article unless he has played for either a national team or as a member of a fully professional league (that means that all players on all teams have no "day jobs"). If you want to do that, you can submit a new article, but you'll need to leave out all of the negative unsourced info. Qwyrxian (talk

) 13:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time to review the article submission on Dusty White and doing it so quickly.

I am interested in hearing your feedback on why the article was rejected and recommendations on how to improve it so it will not be rejected next time.

Many thanks, ClareLight (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Clare

this page submission was rejected. However, I am confused. "colin maier" was successfully submitted on the page "list of oboists" with the reference http://www.fanfaremag.com/content/view/51573/ which was resubmitted here as well in addition to many other references listed. Please explain how this is not eligible, yet "Colin Maier" on the list of notable oboists is eligible. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.18.201 (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I declined the article because a biography, especially of a living person, need way more than one or two references. Getting onto a list is easier, but a bio has a minimum bar to reach. I strongly advise you read our policy Wikipedia:Notability (music) which clearly explains the type of sourcing needed. Hope this helps, MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

thanks, it helps a bit. I based this on another page which from what I can see has less references than what I submitted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Verch on here, there is one reference that does not work and her website which is external. she is also currently living. In my article i referenced -quartetto gelato (also a wiki page) -2010 olympics (also a page) -concert review, cd review

can you please tell me what in my article i could find references for that would help? I have just looked at my submission again. I have cited 9 sources. That is much more than the 1 or 2 you suggested. Did i enter them incorrectly or something? Thanks again for your help.174.89.18.201 (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC) thanks174.89.18.201 (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

You're not quite grasping what we mean by referencing: the page

WP:Referencing

might be helpful there. For starters, other Wikipedia articles are absolutely not references, you can't cite a book to itself, nor an encyclopedia to itself, that would be circular reasoning. Further, the articles you provided as references don't even mention Maier, so they wouldn't be references even if they were not on Wikipedia itself.

What we mean by "references" is that for any given statement in the article there should be a "says who?" answer. For example, when you say "He studied oboe with David Sussman at the University of Calgary", you should have a footnote for that sentence which tells the reader "Hey, read this article from the 25 March 2012 Calgary Times, and it notes that Maier studied under Sussman". For any given sentence in the article, you should give the reader somewhere to find verification. If we didn't have that requirement, people could just make up information, and we and the other readers would have no way of checking it.

Yes, there are some biographies that are poorly sourced, and generally speaking we upgrade or delete those as we come across them. But since you specifically requested assistance with your article, I'm letting you know what the requirements are and how to reach them. Again, I strongly advise you read our policy WP:Notability; essentially for any given person/issue, you must demonstrate that other people have found this topic worth writing about. The link to Fanfare Mag is just the kind of sourcing we want to have, but we need a lot more than one source (the WholeNote link just goes to some page-squatting site). Does this help explain what I mean? MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

This explains it better, yes, And obviously i do not "grasp" it... That is why I am asking questions. This is my first time doing a wiki article, and reading the link you sent me was actually kind of confusing. I'm "over the hill" and I guess I just don't lean things that fast anymore when it comes to technology. I did ask for help, yes, and thank you for that. I am not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand the wiki-system by asking questions to a human. It is frustrating to read other pages that are up that are poorly sourced. As for the sources I sent that don't mention Maier, perhaps you didn't read the full article I sent, as the name "Maier" definitely there or else I wouldn't have posted it. I have no control as to where in the link the name occurs and how much info precedes or follows appears. In these large articles, should make a note as to where in the link the name is mentioned? I will take your suggestions and re-submit it. no wiki references and i will cite all things i write. thank you174.89.18.201 (talk) 04:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)174.89.18.201 (talk) 04:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No worries, didn't mean to be prickly, it's just that we get a number of people requesting review, and then when someone actually tells them what they have to do to make a good article, they just insist we publish it as-is, which defeats the point of a review.

In whatever case, if you see another article that is poorly sourced, feel free to mark it as such, and it may be considered for deletion if the sourcing cannot be improved.

Getting used to the wiki formatting is a bit vexing at first, but gets pretty easy after the first few articles. I've fixed most of the formatting on your page for you just as an example and to save you hassle (including turning all your related articles into

WP:wikilinks within the text itself). So at this point we just need more citations from WP:Reliable sources like music magazines/journals, newspapers, etc that attest to Maier's career and its impact. MatthewVanitas (talk

) 13:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_Horstmann_Technique and your comment. Thanks MatthewVanitas for your input. There are some references in news articles. However some of these are from papers no longer printing/being active. So I am not sure it is possible to link to them. 1. Would it be possible to upload a scanned article/page to "WikiMedia" or similar) and refer to that instance? 2. Also, if a reference is from an article written in a different language, can that still be used? Thanks Matopotato (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Matopotato , references need not be available online, though if the article makes particularly controversial claims ("So-and-so was personally recognised by the Pope and the King of Norway for his invention") other editors might want to question and dig into the issue. So if you do use non-online sources, use very clear citations specifying what paper, article title, date, etc. And for language, references may be in any language at all. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The IFSG Board of Directors (http://ifsguild.org/FengShui/about/board-of-directors/) would like more information about why our page was not accepted. They refer you to the International Feng Shui Association page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Feng_Shui_Association) which was approved with far fewer references and external sources. Given the sources we have, we would like to be reconsidered. Thank you. IFSGuild (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Bridget Saraka, IFSG CEO (http://www.ifsguild.org/listing/1149)

I have

proposed the deletion of the IFSA page. I've also left IFSGuild a message about their username. ~Charmlet ^-talk-

15:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

However, there is already an Italian article (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settimana_bianca) which only includes the below info:

The white week is the common term used to describe a holiday in the mountains (usually lasting one week) and it is enjoyed during the cold months with the aim to relax and perform winter sports. Usually the common sports are Alpine Skiing, Nordic Skiing, Snowboard, Ice skating and sledding: also common are Ice climbing and walks with snow shoes. In Europe the most famous Skiing resorts are located in the Alps.

If we merely linked up the article that I've written with the above, would that be ok?

Thanks

Emma — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.249.226 (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I recently had an article rejected because of 'unreliable sources'. I would like to challenge that The page is [[1]]. Two are transcriptions of the original sources and cite full library details. The third is a translation of one of the transcriptions — Preceding unsigned comment added by MontagueAlatriste (talk • contribs) 08:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Francois Dancie, he does not appear in secondary sources and there is no image of him — Preceding unsigned comment added by MontagueAlatriste (talk • contribs) 11:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on the image issue. Re the "unreliable" - that's the general category of needed fixes, but please note the specific comments I placed below: the issue is all your sources appear to be

WP:Primary sources, that is, books by Dancie. What we must see are books/articles that talk about Dancie. Some John Smith could write a thousand books about gardening and never be famous; to prove his fame we want to see Gardening Today do a feature article on How Smith Revolutionised Gardening or the "Acme History of Gardening" book have a chapter that describes him among gardening pioneers. Does that make sense? If Dancie is famous for influencing fencing, surely somebody over the last few centuries has commented "here's how importance Dancie is to fencing". You must prove WP:Notability to have an article about someone. MatthewVanitas (talk

) 19:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I took a look at GoogleBooks: I'm finding several mentions of him just there (and there are probably tons of specialised fencing books/journals not up on gBooks). As a minor example, a 1936 book mentions that "The rarest extant book of fence is L'Espee de Combat, par Francois Dancie (Tulle, 1623, 8vo), of" which Mr. Corbie possesses the unique copy." Even that right there is a step in the right direction. Are we not understanding each other by what is meant by

WP:Secondary sources? MatthewVanitas (talk

) 20:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Please guide me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zbpeter (talk • contribs) 12:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Zbpeter! Have you read the policy Wikipedia:Notability (music)? I strongly recommend you read that policy: you must meet the standards of evidence laid out in that article in order to get a draft approved. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, if you can't get a draft approved, just creating the article directly is not a good solution. If it's not good enough as a draft, it's not going to fly as an article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

You should be aware that there's been a bit of a dust-up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Can a 3 sentence article be a start?? and several other talk pages over the "start-class" ratings that you've assigned to a few articles when you reviewed them at AFC. Since most of the contentions articles are about topics of interest to Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, that project's new quality rating scale might be useful: Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Assessment#Quality scale. --Orlady (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I was just visiting to call attention to this also, but with regards to

wt:NRHP, properly in my opinion, of egging on other editors to construct contention, which is my personal experience of what she does, from 5 years of interactions. I personally suggest that you should just continue to impose your personal judgment, for AFC, of what is an appropriate rating for a given article. Orlady and others are seeking recently to define a higher-than-general standard for Start for wikiproject NRHP. That is their business, or wikiproject NRHP's, and while it may be weird/inappropriate for wikiproject NRHP's general real goals, it does not say anything about what is appropriate for an AFC rating. I appreciate that you apply AFC rating with integrity as I believe you have always done. --doncram

22:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Doncram, going around Wikipedia offering unsolicited baseless personal accusations about me (you may recall that at Arbcom you were invited to supply diffs as evidence for your accusations, but you failed to do so) looks remarkably like a

personal attack. Please desist. --Orlady (talk

) 00:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to be assessing stuff for AFC, use real assessments. A three sentence article is always going to be a stub, that's just common sense. Bad assessments just make it harder for everyone else. Wizardman 01:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I was rating higher than "stub" due to having all the proper formatting, infobox, map/photo, etc. Apparently there's some NHRP kerfuffle around that I have no interest getting involved in, so fine, I won't review any of these NHRP things, so this is between y'all then. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Matthew,

I hope this reaches you - I feel a bit lost in Wikipedia at the moment!

Just to say thank you very much for reviewing my article, for your feedback and for accepting it. I'm really grateful and really pleased that the article will be there for all to see!

There are some family photographs which I can obtain from West Sussex Record Office, for which copyright will not be a problem as they own the collection and copyright, I will try and get that posted as well.

Thanks again for your assistance,

NicholaNjc78 (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, accidentally submitted an old draft (computer issues), but now the right draft was submitted. Please review again.

Elliot

Elliot735P (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Elliot, it's certainly better, but again please don't number things that needn't be numbered (his list of papers), and use Template:Infobox Physician for the stats at the top. Just copy the coding for the template, paste it onto your page, and put each fact in its labeled row (as available). MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully I've made the changes correctly and added some more references. THanks for your patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddirtmusic (talk • contribs) 21:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Reddirtmusic, in your cites, can you please put the name of the article (or if unnamed, what page#)? Again, the goal is that a reader can verify the info given. It's not required that the ref exist online, but the cite must be detailed enough that, given the source material, a reader could swiftly find the stated fact to be verified. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why you blanked Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mount Darwin (South Island of New Zealand) as an attack page. I understand it might not have had sufficient content to be accepted as an article, and the formatting was wrong, but did you hit the wrong reject button?-gadfium 22:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello gadfium, my bust. When reviewing articles if you hit "v" an odd number of times it chooses "vandalism", if even it chooses "verify/sources". So I either tapped "v" once too much or once not enough. I've corrected the miscode and retained my comments to the originator about what is needed for sourcing. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pitt Hornung, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Strawberry Hill and Caia (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) 11:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

What is the problem to create a page for Carleton Bates Varney?

Our User Name is: CV Bates

This insert is coming directly to you from the office of Carleton Bates Varney. We would like to know what we are doing incorrectly. Please respond. CV Bates (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering why my page on Courtney Cole keeps on getting deleted. She is one of my favorite authors and she is listed on the Wikipedia page on authors for the new adult genera. I noticed there wasn't a page yet and I created one that can't seem to get past inspection. What needs to be done? You posted a link to the notable figure guidelines and she fits. She is a New York times best seller and a usa today bestseller. I would really like to get a page on her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Averagren.13 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Matthew: I notice that you have been doing a fair amount of reviewing at the Afc lately, so I am leaving you this announcement:

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1st, 2013 – March 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

There's a discussion going on about the drive at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/October 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Matthew, thanks for helping. I have resubmitted but I didn't get anywhere with the image, actually losing all my changes to the text in the process and having to do it again. I am not going to try again. So please remove the reference to the image or whatever if the text now is acceptable. Considering the few lines produced I have spent an inordinate number of hours on this. As to books available: yes there are many on shipping. However few have anything worthwhile to say about A. C. de Freitas & Co and none I know of in English. The book quoted most by me (A. C. de Freitas & Co. - Kaufmannsreeder)is the ONLY comprehensive history on the company. It is based mostly on still existing documents and contempory newsarticles and relies little on other books and then mostly for historical context. Hoping this will settle it.Bilgola (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Matthew Vanitas,

this with regards to a brief article I had composed for a renowned chef in India. Composition below: Would appreciate your guidance on the same so that it's good enough to be published as an article. Thank you.

Bold textChef Manish Mehrotra, Executive Chef for 'Old World Hospitality',heads the kitchens of Indian Accent,(New Delhi),Oriental Octopus (Ne Delhi & Lavasa) and Tamarai (London)

At the world Gourmet Summit, held in 2011, Chef Manish Mehrotra showcased India Accent's path- breaking contemporary Indian menu which has been designed by chef himself along with the support of his talented team of chefs at the Indian Accent.

Chef Manish Mehrotra's creativity showcases an ingenious amalgamation of the freshest local produce combining home style nostalgic tastes with ingredients from across the world. [1] ( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manish Mehrotra (talk • contribs) 15:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback Matthew. I was trying to figure out if I could use the visual editor on the page, got frustrated and thought submitting it would get me some help. I'll do a lot of work on it and try again, and I'll definitely avoid citing Wikipedia on a Wikipedia page.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esietukeme (talk • contribs) 16:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks for guidance and reviewing. All the changes asked by you have been made, all required/asked citations, references has been made., all peacock/weasel words has been removed. Order of info displayed changed.

Please review again. Thank you.

Dear Mattew,

Thank you for your feedback. Appreciate it and will apply your suggestions before reworking the article. To clarify I'm Supriya Anand, a media professional writing this article on behalf of chef Manish Mehrotra, since this was my first attempt to contribute for Wikipedia I did not realize that creating an account in the same as the article title would be a problem. Apologies. Going forward will collect more references to highlight the chefs prominence and hope the same would suffice.

Thank you once again. Regards, Supriya Anand

Manish Mehrotra (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew my submission would be declined, as it was not in English. I have already figured out how to create a wiki in my own language and it is already online. Cheers. Madaload (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Matthew,

Thank you for reviewing my page so quickly, as you can tell I'm new at this. I have worked with Kals' family to develop a history and the new website with my partner, his step-daughter, and we're trying to link him to his more commonly recognized name Robert Kennedy. Throughout his successful publishing career he kept his artistic collection and practice very quiet. I have primary interviews with his wife and daughter as well as notes from his journals. I'm not sure exactly how to cite these as they are used in their primary form on the new www.wolfgangkals.com website already.

Any suggestions? Any hope at all for this article venture? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Wolfgang_Kals (I don't know how to link this properly yet I'm so sorry!)

Thank you for your help, AnickaAnickaVG (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The sticky wicket is that encyclopediae are

WP:Secondary source

such as a newspaper, academic journal, history book, etc. it's still a stage too early for us to use.

If there is a basic body of coverage on Kals (under whichever name[s] so long as they are verifiably him), then we can use those as sources. However, if he "kept... very quiet" it may be that he does not have sufficient coverage yet to meet the requirements. If that is the case, and your goal is to publicise the career of Kals, probably your best option (in terms of getting it into existing body of info in the world) might be to contribute it as an article to an academic journal of music history.

None of this is at all to denigrate your research, which might prove very useful in a news or academic context, but

WP:Original research is great for establishing facts on the record, but until such establishment the material is still "too raw" for an encyclopedia. MatthewVanitas (talk

) 19:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I see now, okay I will keep digging, thank you for the clarification. AnickaVG (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Matthew,

Thank you for reviewing the page for our movie PART TIME FABULOUS. What can we do to make our entrance acceptable to Wikipedia?

Thank you for your time, Jules Bruff and the Part Time Fabulous Team — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julesbruff (talk • contribs) 20:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Julesbruff, I'm going to be in and out, so your best bet is to file your question with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Just make sure you paste your article name where it says "article name here" for clarity on the form. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Matthew, thank you very much for your help and your offer to help with an image! This link will provide the image of the company's logo as used on their letterheads ca. 1903 to 1912:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~lintzer1/defreitas/ 

Hope you can use it. Thanks againBilgola (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Good Afternoon,

I have resent my the article. My apologies for not including correct citations. I hope I have included the proper information. If I have not please let me know. I would really appreciate it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corysmith1 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

My submission is not on Marcus Mosiah Garvey as indicated by your editor. My focus is on the Centenary of the UNIA 1914 to 2014. One article focuses on ther man, while my submission focuses on the organization. Ptahheru100 (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, the fact that several of us were unable to figure out what your intended subject is would be a good indication you need to make it much clearer what your subject is. The word "Centenary" only appears a few times in the draft, and you don't even really specify centenary of UNIA until one of the last sentences. An encyclopedia article is not a mystery novel, the main point should not be a surprise at the end. Look at almost any other article on all of Wikipedia: the specific topic is explicitly stated in the first few words of the article.

Per your statements, I have moved the draft to

WP:Sourcing. You may also want to visit Talk:Universal Negro Improvement Association and African Communities League first to make suggestions before commencing your edits, so you can communicate with other interested editors working on the article. MatthewVanitas (talk

) 15:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Coolvipcandy, it is indeed a lot cleaner, but a few tweaks further are needed:

• Please do not "copy-paste" text while you are in "view" mode (just reading an article). The copy-paste will only capture the words, not the coding behind them, so in doing so you lose the
  WP:wikilinks
  and the footnotes you had coded in. The tell-tale sign of doing so is seeing text like "regular/permanent basis.[7][8][9]". That is because your copy-paste "grabbed" the footnote's number simply as a number, not as the small blue raised number that leads to an actual footnote. So those copy-paste moves severed the sentence's connection to any footnote. Fortunately, the data is not "lost" since you can go "back in time" in your drafts by viewing the History tab, and can go back and re-capture lost data. For example, in this case to to fix this [7][8][9], check a few versions back in the history tab until you see a version where the phrase "regular/permanent basis" ends with three small, blue, numbers, proper footnotes. Hid the "Edit" button on this old draft, find that sentence and the "ref" codes at the end of it, and copy them while still in Edit mode. Now you can return to your current draft and paste the proper coding in place of the miscopied "789" numbers. It sounds a little complicated to put it in words, but it's quite easy. The important lesson here: don't copy-paste text in reading mode, or you'll lose the coding.
• Additionally, there are still a few terms that are confusing to the reader. You can assume basic knowledge of a reader (i.e. that a reader generally knows India is a country, that the reader knows a veterinarian works with animals), but specialised political terms like "regularisation" don't mean anything to a reader. You have to explain this regularisation, SCs, etc. in a way that a general educated person in any country could grasp the basic point of the issue. Is it that the government was giving undue emphasis to
  positive discrimination
  by favouring Scheduled Caste veterinarians to the detriment of the larger veterinary community? As you've explained it so far I can't totally follow what the issue is, so please review the description, imagining you are explaining it for a global audience.
• Also, the "Political advocacy" and "Veterinary community" sections have several sentences which are duplicates of each other. Either make the two sections clearly about different issues, or else merge them into one section, since you explain the RVOA website and SMS campaign twice in basically identical words.
• Don't footnote to other Wiki articles,
  wikilink
  them instead (the double "[[" and "]]" markings)

Hope this helps, you're getting better with each step, and I expect you're feeling more and more familiar and confident with Wikipedia method as you go. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks for the review but there are some citations asked that can never be made available like : 1. In 2008 he passed out from GADVASU as a veterinary graduate and took a job in Muktsar, Punjab as Rural Veterinary Officer on a contract basis. "Service providers to run vet hospitals". Tribune. July 15, 2006. </ref> DOES THIS ARTICLE SPECIFICALLY MENTION BRAR? IF NOT IT IS NOT A VALID CITATION

Newspapers never cover university admission or getting job of each and every individual across any country. All i can do to prove is that send the certificates/documents copy proving the same to your email. The article cited from tribune newspaper mentions that there were jobs under the mentioned conditions.

2.

This succeeded in spreading awareness and convinced all[
weasel words] veterinarians to change the

This do mean 'all' as voting was done and new president was chosen on that basis.

3. In 2010, on learning about Punjab Government's policy of regularizing only a few Scheduled Caste candidates and completely ignoring^{[neutrality is disputed]} the rest (Cabinet Minister Animal Husbandry favored SC community and tried to fill 90% vacancies from only one community at name of SC backlog ) This is not against or provoking anybody as it was in newspapers. Government(Punjab) advertized the same. and infact they were indeed recruited even after being opposed. Cabinet minister favored his community. but protests started by doctors led to their recruitment too later. This can be cited with newspaper articles if you like.

4. saved millions of lives.^{[neutrality is disputed]}

Yes there are indeed many many articles about their working, remote free medical camps, and above is their official record which will confirm how many treatments/surgeries are done by RVOs in time. but that won't be relevant to cite in "Dr Vipin Brar" but if the statement does seem relevant to you then it has been removed. Although the same can be seen on drvipin.com/about.html where scanned copies of newspaper articles have been uploaded and do mentioning his contribution (by name) in saving lives and professional impact.

5. {{cite news |title= Hindustan Times - Receiving Award of honor from Chief Minister of Punjab, S. Parkash Singh Badal |url= http://rvopunjab.info/forum/images/HT%20dr%20vipin%20receiving%20award.jpg |newspaper= Hindustan Times |date= August 24, 2011 }} {{hilite|IT IS NOT PREFERRED THAT YOU LINK TO THE ARTICLE ON AN RVO FORUM; IS THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE NOT AVAILABLE ON THE HINDUSTAN TIMES WEBSITE???}}</ref> Hindustan Times website doesn't have archive of old news and its not possible to link to it, So a saved/scanned copy at that time is used.

6. Please do omit that you feel is not required or in-appropriate from the article. Thank you.

Thank you for guidance, the section with duplicates, is merged into another to avoid the same. the descriptions asked has been defined/described. references from wiki has been wikilinked. Please review. Thank you.

thanks for teaching

i really did learnt various things along the way of editing. hopefully will soon be lending hand to you all.

Please read

One of the reasons is, that as it was published in 1854, it is, according to this wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_oldest_newspapers, one of the oldest newspapers on the world.

I also see that almost every other old, or significant newspaper has a listing and I don't see why the Surrey Comet shouldn't.

Would that satisfy the notability criteria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.174.8.199 (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello 93.174.8.199. It may very well be that the Comet is Notable, but you must demonstrate this Notability using sourcing. That is, if your second sentence in the article is "It is one of the oldest newspapers in the world, and the oldest in Southern England" (or whatever the case may be), you need to have a clear citation to something like "John Smith. History of Broadsheets and Newspapers. Acme Press, 1993. Page 82", or "Surrey's Ancient Paper Presses Onward. Hindustan Times, 28 April 2008". Something like that. I would suggest you briefly read the actual page WP:Notability, as it gives a good summary of what we're looking for: a reason the subject is worth reading about and proof that journalists/academics have observed and documented said importance. None of our personal opinions, just compiling/presenting the published views of others. I hope this helps. I'll try to return your message to the IP address you're posting from, but for continuity of communicating with others and following the progress of your draft, consider Wikipedia:Why create an account?, since your IP address may vary over time and make it impossible to correspond easily. But your personal choice in whatever case. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Matthew, thank you for your input, I have edited the page but I'm not sure if it has resubmitted. Can you please confirm that you have received the resubmission, as I may have sent a lot of them. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffmanharryut (talk • contribs) 23:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Hoffmanharryut, it appears there's a misunderstanding about resubmitting: resubmitting does not mean pasting another copy of the article onto the page. Resubmitting means clicking the button that says "Resubmit" on your pink Decline box, and it will create a new "Awaiting review" yellow box and get you back inline for an editor (the box may appear at first at the bottom of the page, so check there if you don't see it at first).

Right now you have like three copies of your article on the page, so please delete anything that isn't your best draft, and then hit the Resubmit button at the top of your page. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Regarding https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KAMALHAMOUD/sandbox

A new article is resubmitted per request. If you consider. It is a new article with a new title. This is my first submission. That's why. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KAMALHAMOUD (talk • contribs) 08:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi again

YES. I DID RECEIVE IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KAMALHAMOUD (talk • contribs) 08:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello

does not publish Original Research. If your findings have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal of mathematics, they are not yet ready to be on an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a tool to gain recognition, it is a place to explain things that are already recognised. MatthewVanitas (talk

) 15:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No worries

WP:Reliable source. So you can cite a Hindi newspaper, so long as its a recognised professional paper, or cite a book of journalism history in Marathi, provided the publisher and/or author is recognised as professional, peer-reviewed, etc. MatthewVanitas (talk

) 20:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Once again thanks so much for your assistance. I believe there is only minor adjustments still to be done. Best wishes ```` Ron Witton [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawitton (talk • contribs) 01:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

No worries Rawitton, I'll see if I can get someone at WP:WikiProject Australia to maybe help clean up the last bit of it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know who the hell Matthew Vanitas is, but he has some nerve telling me that the late actress I submitted a page on is not notable enough to have a Wiki page. Matthew, your entire list of interests is the thing that is truly not notable. How about butting out of the whole approving and rejecting thing and let a more deserving person make the decisions you are unfit for. The End. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.41.224 (talk) 07:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I am struggling. Who is Cline? I will remove all references to everything but Franklin and the Tea Masters and THEN will it be accepted? This has been a labor of love for tea and you are teaching me a lot about patience.Marybethmccabe (talk) 07:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC) Marybeth McCabe

Hello Marybethmccabe, learning to write for a new organisation is always tricky, but hopefully in the big-picture a good mental exercise and fulfilling. You're really quite close in your draft, the point we just really have to bear down on is: the article is not about what we (you or I) think an "American tea ceremony" is, should be, what things we personally think qualify. It is about the concept of an "American tea ceremony" as explicitly discussed, by that very term, by published academics, commentators, pundits, etc. Thus my comments about how talking about how much the Dutch enjoyed tea really isn't pertinent, because they did not, and to the best of my knowledge nobody else did, refer to this as an "American tea ceremony".

The real strength of your subject is that Ben Franklin, then Cline (Entertaining the Idea of an American Tea Ceremony with Special Reference to Its Environment. Ann Cline University of California, Berkeley, 1974), and then Teamasters, explicitly said "hey, Americans should have an explicitly ceremonial tea experience, parallel to that as seen in Japan and some other countries." Once you can get the article pared down to only those things which explicitly discuss a tea ceremony for the American people, then we should be ready to rock. On a minor sidenote, there appears to be also something called the "African-American Tea Ceremony", which may be worth a mention if you can note any serious academic or journalistic authorities making note of it. Also if you're able to actually get a hold of the Cline book (maybe ask your library about free inter-library loan to get it to your local system?) that might be useful, though maybe that can be for later expanding the article after the basic version publishes. Note also if you search "cline american tea ceremony" on GoogleBooks there are one or two books by other people who refer to Cline's work.

Does that help clear up what we're looking for? MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)