User talk:Mcmatter

This user has opted out of talkbacksPlease do not use talkback templates, if I have started a conversation on your talk page I will have your page on my watchlist and will know if you reply. On the other side of the coin if you start a conversation on my talk page I will reply on my talk page and will not leave a talkback template on your talk page so please watch for my response.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordelephapia (talk • contribs) 07:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Completed Discussion

Borve - tags Hi, You have added tags to the article on Borve, Lewis. One states that "This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Please can you identify which statements in the article require references in your opinion. The only two references that the article contained before my revision were to a road users' site (to verify what number road the village is on) and a Scottish places site (to verify what larger administrative area it is part of). Those references seem completely unnecessary because the information is not seriously open to challenge and in the event that someone does read the article and think "Hey, you're saying the village is on the A857 - well that's an assertion I challenge!", they can easily go and verify it elsewhere, just as if someone challenges the assertion that London is located in England. The second states that "This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed." Please can you decide whether you think it does or does not contain original research and if you decide you think it does, please can you identify which claims you think should be either verified or removed. Thanks! Lordelephapia (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC) @Lordelephapia:, thank you for the message I have cleared up most of the problems with the article, I have removed almost everything which was not supported by a reference. If you can find reliable sources to support the claims please feel free to reinstate them using proper citation methods. Removing references from an article is normally not a good thing, by removing them you remove the ability for anyone to verify anything in the article, and Wikipedia policy is that if it isn't referenced it can be and should be removed. Next time you are looking a removing any reference ask yourself the following questions; Is the reference supporting anything in the article? If I remove this reference am I making it more difficult for someone not from the area to verify information? Is there already another reference supporting the same claim? Hopefully these questions will help when deciding if you should remove references in an article.For the most part references should not be removed, even if they are deadlinks.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 11:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC) It's as if you didn't read what you're replying to properly. Removing almost everything that's not supported by a reference is completely uncalled for, and you have not argued the contrary. Wikipedia policy is not "that if it isn't referenced it can be and should be removed".Lordelephapia (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC) What is the source for your claim that Wikipedia policy is "that if it isn't referenced it can be and should be removed". Have you got a reference?Lordelephapia (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC) This is simple take a read through Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research both basically state all, but the most obvious, claims require references or inline citations, the entire content I removed from the page had nothing for verification of the information, the onus is now on you or who ever wants to add information back to Prove it.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC) So you are rowing back and saying that rather than "if it isn't referenced it (...) should be removed", which is what you first said, the policy is in fact that that applies only when claims are not among "the most obvious". You also say that it's "simple". And you say that the policies on original research and verification "basically" (a clear case of a weasel word) support your understanding of the policy on the requirement for references. Well I claim there is no Wikipedia policy that says, "basically" or otherwise, that all claims, or all claims other than the most obvious, must be referenced. If there is such a policy, it would patently obviously be published and I ask you again to post a specific link to it if you think it exists, not a link to long policy articles that you think "basically" communicate that policy or have it as their gist. Those documents are full of summary sentences and you should be able to point to a sentence or paragraph to back up your assertion if you maintain its accuracy. Using words such as "simple", "obviously" and "basically", even were they to be used in grammatically correct sentences, cannot obscure the fact that having been asked to cite a source for your very specific claim about Wikipedia's policy you have not yet done so. Please consider the possibility that your understanding of it is mistaken. If you wish to challenge some of the statements that were made in this article before you deleted most of it, please do so. Millions of articles at this website contain unreferenced assertions. That's easily verifiable by choosing one at random linked from the main page.Lordelephapia (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC) I have already challenged the content in the article by removing the unreferenced material, you are free to reinstate if can provide reliable sources for them. I am done arguing with you at this point. If you wish you can take this to Dispute resolution or if you think I have violated any policies you may take it to Wikipedia:AN/I.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of Hippo Campus

Hi Mcmatter,

I appreciate you taking the time to review a page that I submitted. I'd like to discuss further how they don't meet the notability guidelines. They have "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" by notable publications in the Twin Cities including the Star Tribune, the Pioneer Press, City Pages, The Current, and other lesser known publications. There are currently (there were a few less when you reviewed) 29 individual references, 24 of which are independent of the band. Can you please provide me some additional feedback on what needs to be done? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hippo_Campus Thank you. Devilsbane (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

External Links

The External Link you have removed which i placed on the Windows 7 page regarding Windows 7 Installation is a really good article about Windows 7 Installation which i couldn't find on Wikipedia that's why i provided an external link to something really useful for users. and I think you probably done that because i by mistake clicked ( patrolled button) in my talk page which I am not sure how to undo that changes because now people will be patrolling my work lol. I m new to Wikipedia and I have joined with the intention to contribute useful tips for technical things. Kindly show me how to undo the changes regarding Patrolled . and kindly don't remove the link regarding Windows 7 Installation which can't be found on Wikipedia that's why i provided one as i explained otherwise please leave a message on my talkpage Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishfaq Buneri (talk • contribs) 13:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Ishfaq Buneri:, please read through the external links guideline. Generally the only links that should be in the external link sections are official links for the subject. If Wikipedia allowed for the instructional links we would very quickly become a link farm and degrade the quality of the encyclopedia. People who are looking for instructions or how to manuals can search Google to find them.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you mean and that is true, but please guide me on when something couldn't be found on Wikipedia regarding Windows 7 Installation having a link to an really good article which is outside Wikipedia would be not a good thing to do ? and please guide me on what to do regarding the mistake i have made by clicking patrolled Button on my own Talk page. Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishfaq Buneri (talk • contribs) 13:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow you're fast:) I was going back to delete it anyway. Not happy with how this politician treated a woman in SD. Didn't need to go on his page, though so thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SorrynotsorrySD (talk • contribs) 01:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

23:58:00, 7 June 2015 review of submission by Gorgenkor

• Gorgenkor (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Canoe Journey to Renew the Two Row Wampum Treaty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'd like to request a re-review of my article 'Canoe Journey to Renew the Two Row Wampum Treaty' because I had already completely re-written it from its earlier form at the request of a previous reviewer, to adopt a neutral tone and to include more secondary sources. I added references to an article in Atlantic Monthly and an article from the United Nations News Center. Are there any footnotes in my list that are not appropriate and should be deleted? I'd be happy to remove any that are. I would also appreciate advice on/examples of what specific text in the article is not neutral enough.

I am happy to keep working on the format and style of the article to make it fit the wikipedia requirements, and would greatly appreciate your help with that. Thanks!

Gorgenkor (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)