User talk:MatthewVanitas

For undated/unsigned posts not archived, see User talk:MatthewVanitas/Archive 23a.

Andre Harvey (sculptor) article submission

Hello,

Looks like my first attempt didn't cut it (unless it was the cheese). Sorry for the stench, but any advise on what I did wrong or what I could do to make it better (enough to not stink) and pass the test would be greatly appreciated.

Update: I have added several references to the article. Please let me know if I need to add more. Some of the references cross verify content and I could have used reference numbered items more than once in some cases. Please let me know if I should do that and the best way to do so.

Thank you for your time reviewing this article, I appreciate it.

Regards, Warrren

Kevin Morris Author Page

Hi Matthew!

Recently, an article I wrote for Kevin Morris was accepted and put online. My bosses who represent Mr. Morris have asked me to inquire if there is anyway we can remove the part of the page that says "this entry has issues"? Please let me know if there is anyway I can do, add, or delete from the page to have that taken off.

Here is a link to the live page for your reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Morris_(author)

I have also contacted Darylgolden who initially accepted the article.

Any help you can give me is much appreciated.

Thanks,

Megan

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

• Boodabill (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:William Haskell Levine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)

23:11:14, 1 July 2014 review of submission by Kristengray

• Kristengray (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Shama "Sak Pase" Joseph (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I'd like to know simply why this post is getting declined and exactly what I have to do to get it live. I'm having a really hard time figuring out why this post is being declined and it is very important that this page is up. Shama "Sak Pase" Joseph is a Grammy-nominated producer and his business is in need of this page. Please, can you explain to me exactly what I need to do to get this accepted and live.

THank you. Kristengray (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings, the reason is given in the large pink box at the top of your draft: while you have provided references, you have not indicated via footnotes which references support which facts. At any point in the article, the reader should be able to click a footnote which takes them to the precise news article, website, etc. which clearly verifies that the fact is true. If a fact has no footnote, it has no WP:Verifiability and cannot be included, since we must protect the reputation of the subject of the article from falsehood, inaccuracy, etc. Sourcing is absolutely paramount.

Please read Wikipedia:MINREF#When_you_must_use_inline_citations which explains this rule. Fix the issue, then hit Resubmit. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:26, 2 July 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 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: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Leo Sarkisian (Armenian activist)}}, 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?

14:19:02, 2 July 2014 review of submission by WalkerJD

• WalkerJD (talk · contribs)
  • User:WalkerJD/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WalkerJD (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

draft wiki page for A.G. Riddle

Hello, I'm trying to create a page for A.G. Riddle. Basically, I guess it is being rejected because you (?) think he is not notable enough. What is puzzling is that he ranks #38 on Amazon, #1 on Kindle Indi, and, as I just resubmitted, his three books have been acquired by CBS Films. It seems to me these are all pretty notable. Plus, I have used references that are not connected to him. What else can I do?Steven C. Price 15:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

We have pretty clear criteria for Notability, and you just have to demonstrate that this author meets those. Pure sales numbers don't matter to us, it's a matter of how significant media/academics find his work. Again, I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia:Notability (authors) to see the criteria. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks--but CBS Films acquiring his book rights does speak to the "media" attention, doesn't it? Steven C. Price 15:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven C. Price (talk • contribs)

Right, but you haven't provided any footnote to a WP:Reliable source showing that this CBS thing occurred, like a news article, etc. Not his own site, not a blog, but a source that's objective and neutral. We don't need footnotes to his own books, so you can remove those. I think GoodReads is accepted only for basic bio data (where born, went to school, etc) but not for any "claims to fame". A really good sum-up of Notability is the essay WP:42. Fundamentally, you have to demonstrate that other people find him worth writing about. Wikipedia doesn't break new ground, we just aggregate and smooth out existing coverage. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your help! BUT isn't this link: http://www.deadline.com/2014/06/atlantis-gene-movie-cbs-films-rights-deal/ evidence that the deal occurred? I put that in my last draft. Steven C. Price 15:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven C. Price (talk • contribs)

Note, you're still neglecting to sign your posts, so SineBot is doing it for you, but please remember to WP:Sign your posts, and using the code, not by just typing/pasting your name

The Deadline Hollywood article looks reasonable and would strengthen (though not totally resolve) your draft. The problem is you have it there as an embedded link so it doesn't appears as a footnote at the bottom. I'd converted a few of your embedded links to footnotes for you as an example, so please turn that one into a footnote too. If you want to make the footnote look organized, hit the "Cite" button at the top of your editing window, choose the "News" template, and it'll let you put in the info and make it a nice clear footnote.

Note that Deadline Hollywood is one good source, but you'll need more coverage to document WP:Notability. So please make sure you'v checked for news articles, coverage of his career (not his own books, people writing about Riddle) on GoogleBooks, etc. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

And thanks again! I'm using the 4 tildes--isn't that what you're supposed to do? Also, I thought using the [] for a reference was as good as using a So I guess I'm confused when you use one or the other. But I will fix up the page as you suggest. And, I will continue to try to find additional sources. Many Thanks for your time and input and training. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven C. Price (talk • contribs) 21:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thought

Main Article

Thought Post Modern

Thought as the means for meaning, from the instincts sensations emotions and mentations of oneself and in observation...Ref: Working, 2000, Gilbert c. Meilaender, pgs-119-123Arnlodg (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2014...Does this meet wiki impartiality standards...and I can't or I have forgotten how to access sandbox to see if this could become a way to look at thought today, thanks Arnold

I literally cannot understand your message. It has no context, but I assume you're referring to Draft:Philosophy of Observation Cosmos Self. I'll be bluntly honest: I'm not necessarily saying that you personally have mental problems, but the draft and particularly the above message to me read as though written by a person with some form of disorder such as aphasia. Genuinely not meaning this as an insult, just expressing concern about the inability to form clear and communicable messages. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Today this (writing) is the basic post modern philosophical approach to self-observation in Ontology and many other systems of practice...Thought is material...It is our means for meaning: In our nervous system...thought from thinking is mentation, thought from touch is sensation, thought from feeling is emotion...thought is a function of the functions for our being here...Establishing what thought is, is in part necessary for observing oneself in the present...contextually this is about being here now...Arnlodg (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Your messages are not helpful or communicative, and you are not responsive to attempts I've made to help you. Please do not post on my Talk page any more. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Lori Baker page

Dear Matthew Vanitas,

I am writing to seek your advice in relation to the first draft of a page for Lori Baker within Wikipedia. I have updated the page since the rejection, and hope that you can see it -- or should I submit it, and await your response once having done so?

with thanks, Myles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.148.231.12 (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You aren't logged in so I have no link to your Talk page, but I figured it out. Make it easier on us and ensure that you're logged-in when you post in discussions

Don't hold off on my account, go ahead and Resubmit. The footnotes are a good step forward, but I will say, it would probably help to flesh out the footnotes to be proper citations. That is, if it's an article in a newspaper/journal, make sure to mention what the title of the article is. Sources aren't required to be online, but if they are make sure you include a link to them so readers can read where you got the info. You may find it easier to format your footnotes using the "Cite - Templates" tools at the top of your editing window. But go ahead and Resubmit, and work on smoothing out the footnotes while you await review. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Lamar advertising

Hello, I added a bunch of citations to the history page as a draft. Is there anyway you could approve it!? Thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BLS93 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It tripped out automatic 'bots that identify copyright violations, so it's already been blanked. Look, we're happy to have you help, but you really need to follow the actual good practices of editing. Don't just take the company website for granted, build a history section by gathering up news/book mentions of Lamar, and as you learn each fact, cite it to its source, and arrange them into a cohesive history.

I'm assuming you're affiliated with Lamar, PR person or summer intern? You don't have to answer or give details, though usually a general "I work with Lamar Advertising" statement in your edits and/or your userpage is appreciated to show you're being up-front about your affiliation. The Lamar Ads page definitely should have a good history section since it's a big company that's been around for years, but it has to be actually compiled based on reliable sources, not just ripped off from the company's website. And even if the company was okay authorizing that section to be used here, we don't want to take their word for it, we want facts verified by WP:Third party sources. Hope this helps. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a bot >:( But good advice otherwise - BLS93, I strongly advise you to become familiar with the advice that's been given here and on your talk page. We'll be happy to help you if you let us. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I took a look at the content pre-blanking. Again, WP:Sourcing does not mean "paste the exact same stuff back in, but this time list a whole bunch of citations with no explanation whatsoever". If the 1996 Forbes article mentioned "In 1934, Lamar Advertising won the prestigious Acme Award", then create a footnote right after that fact, like so: <ref>Atlas, Riva, "Billboard Mania," Forbes, November 4, 1996, p. 371</ref>. If that article is available online, definitely provide a link too, though offline sources can also be used so long as explicitly clear on title/date/work/etc.

Making tiny modifications to "just paste it in there" and just hoping you'll hit the absolute bare minimum standard with 30 seconds more effort is not a successful strategy. Take a breath, chill for a bit and read up on some classic advice articles like Wikipedia:How to write a great article. Giving Lamar a low-quality article is much worse than just taking your time with it and building it strong. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Attack pages

Hi. With something like User:Joshphill/sandbox which accuses a named person of being a pedophile, it would be better not to go through the AfC decline process, which thanks the author for his contribution and invites him to improve it: just tag it {{db-attack}} and put {{uw-attack}} on the author's talk page. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Rejected as too chatty OK

Mr. Vanitas,

I took your point on the chatty references and removed them. I have presented Mr. Gilden as straight-forwardly as seemed appropriate after looking at other entries. I do believe many other entries are far chattier by the way. However,Mr. Gilden is a recognized author and a leading light in the science fiction writing community. During his years as host for Hour-25 and now as one of those trying to negotiate the hazards of online publishing, he has personally been in contact with virtually every major sf writer of the past half century. I do believe he should be available via Wikipedia and would appreciate your help in getting him there. My resubmission contains references to the transition to electronic publishing in which Gilden is a pioneer and being watched—if especially like a sacrificial calf.

Any further assistance from you will be appreciated.

22:53:57, 5 July 2014 review of submission by Dave S Hudson

• Dave S Hudson (talk · contribs)
  • User:Dave S Hudson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello.

I can't argue with your decision, but I would like to emphasize that everything in my draft is factual and accurate. However, I must admit that it is not an article. The proof and factual aspect is in the government and local authorities' records, but there is one key detail missing from those records. Yes, I was trying to put the records straight, because I do believe the circumstances were very unusual, in that a series of coincidences produced a possibly uniquely unusual result.

I assume the rejection is due to the subject matter itself and ask if it is such that even a skilled author could never turn it into an article? To put it another way, is there anything that could be done with the subject matter to justify a re-review?

If the answer is "NO", then I will be on my way. However, it would be a pity if these little twists of fate were never revealed, so I would greatly appreciate any suggestions as what I might try next.

Thank you for your time

Best wishes

David

Dave S Hudson (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello David, as noted at the top of the review, the key reason the draft was declined is that it lacks sourcing. WP:Verifiability is an absolute keystone of Wikipedia, we can't simply type out personal knowledge and vouch for it. While as you note some of this information is based on government records, encyclopedias do not analyze WP:Primary sources directly, but are instead based on WP:Secondary sources such as news articles and academic writings.

If Hudson's career and young age have been documented and commented upon by journalists or academics, that could provide sourcing which would validate the article. If Hudson's career and unusual age for it are not documented in media or academia, that is not a failing of Wikipedia, but perhaps instead indicates that journalists or academics should be made aware of the issue if it is something worth writing about. If you have not yet, taking a look at our policy WP:Notability may help explain our need for sourcing. Hope this helps, MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Intequity

Dear MatthewVanitas. My submission of the Wikipedia "intequity" page's purpose, is, to motivate research about a worth-while concept, "intequity". The original research was done and was published in JETEMS, according to the citation in the article. Can you move the article to somewhere in Wikipedia where the following can happen? A place in Wikipedia; where students (researchers), who are looking for topics to do their post graduate studies or research about, can take the articles and work on those articles, as part of their studies or research. Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdpienaar (talk • contribs) 08:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mdpienaar, as indicated at the top of your draft, an article about a neologism must have multiple citations to works which discuss the new term, its origins, etc. Optimally at least a few of the citations should be to articles we can see online, as your current sole citation appears to just go to the homepage of a publisher. If you want the Draft:Intequity to publish, burden of proof is upon you to show that the term exists, and journalistic or scholarly authorities have found the concept to be worth examining. Again, see WP:Neologism. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mike Rafferty (flautist), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Willie Kelly and East Galway. 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) 08:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MatthewVanitas. You have new messages at OccultZone's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Drop-In Fuels

Hi Matthew,

I have resubmitted my draft after the corrections suggested.

Regards

Prithvi Simha 03:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prithvisimha092 (talk • contribs)

Gunwolf fixes

Hi Mathew - Just got the Gunwolf additional refs cited that you asked for. all the best, That Guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by That Guy Corp (talk • contribs) 05:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the input. I will work on refining the article. Jladrew Jladrew (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

my article on Ajay Srinivasan was rejected

Hi,

I had submitted an article on Ajay Srinivasan, a few days back and it was rejected. Can you please give me reason for its rejection Bslirx (talk) 06:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bslirx, did you read the instructions I provided in the huge pink box at the top of your draft? MatthewVanitas (talk) 11:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

rejected article question

Hi Matthew, I see that the article I submitted for review "chef Alain Lemaire" was rejected but provided no reasons or explanations. Could you please get back to me with what it is I need to fix so I can resubmit it? Thank you, SavaPR1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SavaPR1 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello SavaPR1, did you read the reason provided in the large pink box at the top of your draft? MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

William South Page

Hello Matthew: I believe I have the footnoting correct now. Thanks again for your advise. Jladrew (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

09:51:37, 10 July 2014 review of submission by Felixknecht

• Felixknecht (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Caséo-Sojaïne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Let me first thank you for your review! I understand your points, but I just translated this for a friend from German Wikipedia and thought I'd share it with the English one as well. I neither have the time nor motivation to get additional sources etc. So please feel free to delete my draft.

Felixknecht (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Article Submission (Steven Oberman)

Hello, Matt. I am very sorry for all of my formatting issues. This is the first time I've tried to do this.

Reference your message to me: User talk:Kimdavis621 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Major formatting issues at Draft:Steven Oberman[edit] Hello, it took me several minutes to clean up the formatting errors to the point that the draft was even legible.

Take a look at a few of the areas I cleaned up, then the areas I didn't. Note how indenting a paragraph causes the text to display wrong, so do not indent. Also I find-replaced every use of "Mr.", since we don't do that here. Also you were putting

after every single footnote; that's not how it works, that code should only appears once at the bottom of the page, which tells the program to list all the above footnotes there. You also need to make proper section headings rather than bolding your subtitles.

Long/short, please take a look at how other articles are formatted and do likewise. Look at the page after each time you save it, and if there are things that blatantly look to be coded wrong, please fix them.

These format issues are separate from any WP:Notability or WP:Sourcing issues, which a next reviewer will address. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2014

Hello Kimdavis621, no need to apologize, that's what the Review process is for. Please just take the constructive criticism into account, make the needed changes, and hit the "Resubmit" button. If you are uncertain on how to format or phrase certain points, our big guideline is the WP:Manual of style, so somewhere you can refer to in order to get some ideas. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Inline citations are not needed in new articles

Hi Matthew. I see that you declined Draft:Jeremy Sewall with the comment "References for living person bios must be done as footnotes." Inline references are required only for direct quotes and, for living people, in a only few other special cases. Everything does not need a reference. An only the notability references need to be independent of the person. As Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions says:

1. Avoid declining an article because it correctly uses general references to support some or all of the material. The content and sourcing policies require inline citations for only four specific types of material, most commonly direct quotations and contentious material (whether negative, positive, or neutral) about living persons.

Except for direct quotes, in most cases new editors don't need to learn anything about putting in inline citations before their article is accepted. Of course those citations will be needed to improve the quality of the article. Happy reviewing. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Films about the People's Republic of China

Category:Films about the People's Republic of China, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

17:17:35, 13 July 2014 review of submission by Kravitza

• Kravitza (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Nikolaj Grandjean (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Kravitza (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Dear Matthew, thank you for such quick review of my submission. I wanted to ask about notability criteria. The draft I submitted was an English version of a page that already exists (Danish one) https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolaj_Grandjean Artist was nominated for two Danish Grammys, his music was featured in episode of House of lies (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2666322/?ref_=ttep_ep8) and some other shows. He also achieved a platinum record for writing and producing entertaining educational children's music. What would it take to create English version of his Danish page? Would it help if I were to provide some links that verify platinum status and Grammy nominations? Thank you in advance for you responceKravitza (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Kravitza , the main this is to provide evidence of his accomplishments through neutral parties. If he got a platinum record, surely it was mentioned in some newspapers? It's fine to use foreign language source, so feel free to cite Danish newspapers. I suggest you take a close look at the Notability policy for musicians, note to yourself which requirements he meets, and make sure those exact requirements are explicitly footnoted in the article, to serious and neutral media sources. Ideally for footnotes, use the "Template - Cite" tool at the top of your editing window to get a nice, clear footnote.

You also had too many links for his sites; to avoid advertising musicians are generally allowed just one "official site" link. Similarly, on his list of albums, please remove all links to sites selling his albums, as that comes across as marketing. A reader wanting to buy one of his albums could find it in seconds on Google or iTunes, no need to belabor it on his page.

So far as the Danish page, other-language WPs have differing levels of standards and supervision, so "but the other page has XYZ" doesn't tend to work as an argument. That said, if your English WP article gets approved, make sure to quick the "Languages" tool at the very bottom of the left-hand margin, where you can select the Danish article to tie this one to so both are linked across languages.

So tidy it up a little, remove any commercial links, it's okay to cite his own page for noncontroversial personal facts (birthplace, school, etc) but any claim of accomplishment must be footnoted to an outside and neutral source that verifies the accomplishment. Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much!Kravitza (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Steve Platcow

Hi Matthew,

Articles for creation: Steve Platcow (July 14)

Why was my article rejected?

Thanks, Carolyn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjacobs101 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Cjacobs101, did you read the large pink box at top of your draft? MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Samuel Bolton Colburn, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Asilomar and Don Graham. 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) 08:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Seaton Carew Golf Club

Thank you for the prompt review of this submission. I note the comments about creating articles etc. I still have a lot to learn about the submission processes etc. Its good to have folks keeping you straight! Gairderek (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

LLCO submission rejection

It is ridiculous to reject the LLCO submission based on lack of independent sources. We are talking about a far-left post-Maoist organization, which obviously exists and has a presence in numerous countries. If this standard were applied consistently, it would mean the decimation of Wiki information on the far left of numerous countries.