User talk:Mattdaviesfsic

---

Leave a message Send an Email

If you want to tell me I'm wrong about one of my edits (or worse), you may wish to familiarise yourself with the key policies and guidelines listed here. If something I did is definitely not grounded in policy, let me know in case I was editing in my sleep.

Note that this page is manually archived very frequently - if you posted a message here and were expecting a reply, please check the latest archive in the box on the right. Thanks.

---

About archives

Thank you for your comments on my draft. By the way links that may be useful for archiving:

• User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo
• User:Evad37/OneClickArchiver

I hope you get better soon. thanks ! SilverMatsu (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Head of a national academy of sciences not notable enough for you?

Hi! How come you rejected the draft article on Draft:Toshmuhammad Sarimsoqov? This person was literally head of the Academy of Science of a country which currently has 40 million residents. Perhaps the person is not white enough for you? I suggest you read the notability criteria:

"Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. ... The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)." Nataev ^talk 18:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nataev: I understand that you might be frustrated by the decision to decline the draft, but I must remind you that Wikipedia editors are required to assume good faith and to refrain from casting aspersions – such as accusations of racial bias – against other editors without very good cause, as these may be considered personal attacks. I suggest that you strike out your remark by placing it inside <s>...</s> tags. (Talk page watcher) XAM2175 ^(T) 18:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

As a separate suggestion for improving the article, you might consider using the |trans-title= and |trans-quote= parameters available within citation templates like {{cite book}} and {{cite web}} alongside the standard |title= and |quote= options. These will allow you provide titles and quotes in both the original language and English, which helps reviewers and readers. XAM2175 ^(T) 19:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey, XAM2175! I'm not the author of the draft article. Reviewers should just use Google Translate if they don't speak the languages used in the sources. Actually, non-English sources are allowed on enwiki. There's no reason for refusing to accept a draft because is relies on non-English sources. As for my words above, I stand by them and am not striking them out or anything. Nataev ^talk 19:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I apologise for assuming that you were the author. Nevertheless, I maintain that your comment is inappropriate, and further I suggest that it's unhelpful to state [reviewers] should just use Google Translate if they don't speak the languages used in the sources in response to a genuine good-faith suggestion of an improvement to the article. I believe very firmly that foreign-language sources are of value to the English-language Wikipedia, but I also recognise and accept that article reviewers are volunteers, and that the citing sources policy includes this guidance: In the case of non-English sources, it may be helpful to quote from the original text and then give an English translation. XAM2175 ^(T) 19:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC). Edited to add: I composed this reply in response to Nataev's comment as it stood at 19:11 UTC, prior to subsequent modifications. 19:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Great, but the quote you provided literally says "it may be helpful". It doesn't say "it's imperative". What do you mean reviewers are volunteers? How about the person who created the draft? Is he or she not a volunteer? Nataev ^talk 19:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it says may be helpful, which is exactly the spirit in which I gave the advice. I repeat that I apologise for assuming that you are the author of this draft, but ultimately – you complained that the reviewer made a mistake in assessing notability, I suggested a way in which the article could be improved to help better demonstrate notability, and now you're wikilawyering over how that's not your problem. XAM2175 ^(T) 19:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not just my problem - it should be everyone's problem. The fact that a reviewer based in the UK decided not to accept an article about the head of a national academy of sciences just because he doesn't speak any of the languages used in the sources. And the sources cited in the article are not just in Russian: there's one source in English and another in Uzbek. Nataev ^talk 20:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The fact that a reviewer based in the UK decided not to accept an article about the head of a national academy of sciences just because he doesn't speak any of languages used in the sources. This is not a "fact", it's an assumption on your behalf, and another potentially-actionable aspersion. I'm genuinely concerned here at the extent to which you are trying to paint malice into the original review decision, and the uncollegial way in which you're responding to good-faith suggestions that have a basis in project guidelines. XAM2175 ^(T) 20:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

1. The reviewer declined the draft article. 2. He explained his action as follows: "Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines (AFCH 0.9.1)". As I've pointed out above, the person is clearly notable. And I do believe that if the draft had been about a white head of an academy of sciences, they'd have accepted it. This is indeed an assumption - I'm using the third conditional after all. But let's wait and see what the reviewer has to say. As for aspersion, this reviewer's action is itself potentially actionable. Nataev ^talk 20:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nataev: Making a substantial addition to your comment eleven minutes after posting it, and without any indication that you've done so, is in my opinion pushing the definition of "short while" included in WP:TALK#REVISE. XAM2175 ^(T) 19:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

So? What are you trying to say? "A short while" is a fluid concept. To be clear, I didn't revise anything that I had written before - just added a reference to the verifiability page. And did I mention I stand by my words? To reiterate, if the draft had been about some MEMBER, yet alone a head, of an academy of sciences in a predominantly white or Western country, the reviewer would've mostly likely accepted it. Nataev ^talk 19:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I repeat: jumping straight to an accusation of racial basis is failing to assume good faith, when it's entirely possible that the reviewer simply wasn't familiar with the WP:PROF guide, or didn't realise that the President of a Soviet republic's Academy of Sciences would be included within its scope. XAM2175 ^(T) 20:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

And it begs the question: should a person who doesn't know WP:PROF even be a reviewer? Nataev ^talk 20:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and we would have all been better off if you'd started here with that question rather than the unfounded personal attack, seeing as it's at least somewhat close to assuming good faith. XAM2175 ^(T) 20:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

And how are we worse off now? At the very least, this reviewer might read the guidelines before making a decision next time on drafts. Also, the draft article in question should be promptly moved to the mainspace. Nataev ^talk 20:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I have boldy moved the article.

At the very least, this reviewer might read the guidelines before making a decision next time on drafts. This objective could have been achieved without any of your antagonism. XAM2175 ^(T) 20:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Good job! There are articles about this person in four other languages. As for my 'antagonism', I stand by my words. This sort of bias and discrimination and/or or ineptitude - whatever you call it - should end. And calling the move 'bold' is, well, bold. How brave of you to think that a renowned (not where you live, though) mathematician and a former head of a national academy of sciences is worthy of an article! Nataev ^talk 21:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I described it as bold because I'm not an AfC reviewer and I've never before moved somebody else's draft to mainspace, so it is a process with which I'm unfamiliar and less than entirely confident. It involved no element of judgement as to the subject being "worthy" of an article, because I'm aware of the WP:NPROF guidance, and aware of the stature of the Academies of Sciences of the USSR, and thus never had any doubt as to subject's notability.

And by the way – I agree that English Wikipedia needs to do better in dealing with its many systematic biases, but your sanctimonious attitude is not only unhelpful but also disturbingly uncivil. XAM2175 ^(T) 00:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't have to be civil with incompetent or potentially racist reviewers. Such systematic biases have existed for way too long on enwiki. Nataev ^talk 01:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Referred to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Nataev casting aspersions. XAM2175 ^(T) 18:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Declining: == Your submission at Articles for creation: Ron Weidberg (January 10) ==

You declined my submission Articles for creation: Ron Weidberg (January 10). The reason stated is: This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified.

The resources Iquoted are:

1. "Weidberg Ron" (https://www.imi.org.il/Ron-Weidberg-Israel-Music-Institute?language=eng).Israel Music Institute. Retrieved 29 April 2022.

2. "Ron Weidberg" (https://www.israelcomposers.org/Members.aspx?lang=English&letter=W&i d=173). Israel Composers' League. Retrieved 29 April 2022.

3. Seter, Ronit (20 January 2001). "Weidberg, Ron" (https://doi.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.42195). Grove Music Online. Retrieved 29 October 2022.

4. "Dr. Ron Weidberg" (https://web.archive.org/web/20220430073817/https://www.openu.ac.il/en/personalsites/DrRonWeidberg.aspx). The Open University of Israel.

5. Jaffe, Kenneth (2011). Solo Vocal Works on Jewish Themes. The Scarecrow Press, Inc. ISBN 978-0-8108-6135-0.

ALL the resources are of established reliable sources that can be verified and not dependent on the subject of the page:

1. Israeli Music Institute

2. Israeli Composers' League

3. Grove Music Online which is one of the most reliable and selective source on music

4. The open University of Israel

5. A printed book

Can you explain why "the submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources"? Motizin (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

draft:Seán Millar

Hello Matt,

Thank you for your recent review & feedback of my draft on the artist Seán Millar. Your feedback on the references that I couldn't use (like Discogs) was so helpful. I didn't know that Discogs wasn't allowed as it is still on so many pages. I have since removed the things you listed and adjusted the article accordingly. I have resubmitted it and also dealt with the way I have too many references as mentioned by someone else

I am not sure if you are able to review it again as it is a long article and might put others off from reviewing it. Hopefully it is good to go!

Thanks again Matt, Susan

link to draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Se%C3%A1n_Millar Rebeldiamondz (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Effectuation

I know what you mean about borderline. I see it as on the wrong side of the border. My decline rationale may interest you. I do not ask that you agree with it, only that you consider it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft:List of teams to overcome 2–0 series deficits

I believe that I have made the needed changes for this article to be approved, by adding more of a background on the topic. Can you please check and see if the needed changes were made? 131.247.224.28 (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Request on 01:47:31, 6 February 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Przybylop

• Przybylop (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Noah Zuhdi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for taking time to review my draft/entry on Noah Zuhdi and put in helpful suggestions. I was wondering if you would be willing to take another look at it now that things have been adjusted and/or corrected according to guidelines and your advice. Thank you.

Przybylop (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)