User talk:MatthewVanitas/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Teahouse tips

Hi Matthew! I just wanted to remind you about the expectations for editors who lend a hand at replying to questions at the Teahouse - sayin' hi is, as funny as it sounds, a super important aspect of keeping the Teahouse a friendly and pleasant place to visit. Thanks for all the great work you do!SarahStierch (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

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

Shivaji (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Shahu, Kalyan and Treaty of Purandar

Sambhaji (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Jinji and Powder magazine

Alternativa Popular Canaria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Europa de los Pueblos

Maharani Saibai (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Afzal Khan

Maratha Empire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ginge

Panhwar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Thar

Shirke (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rajaram

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Maratha - CIS

See this for Contributions to Indian Sociology. I once got an article from it via WP:RX. - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I've been getting very firm with User:Starrahul today. They have had more than enough rope and I've requested an admin review the situation in the light of WP:CIR. That request seems to have shaken up the user, who is at least now using edit summaries. My guess is that they'll get a bit more rope from the admin but they'll not get a lot. - Sitush (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I just don't know what to do with that cat; he appears to mean well, but he's either simply not competent at the absolute most basic WP functions, or just doesn't care to improve. The fellow's been editing for four years and is less functional than people who got here last week, despite having produced well over 100 mid-length articles.

English proficiency might explain some of that, but I've worked in multiple languages and can generally recall when and when not to capitalise words, and particularly would be good at it if people kept messaging me and correcting my edits noting I was doing it wrong. That and random bolding, inability to do proper cites, insistence in using books only available in some public library in Maharashtra rather than any of scads of online academic works, etc. In all honesty, 90% of his work on Maratha articles is pretty much only usable as a vague outline of what topics might be of interest to readers. For better or for worse, his writing style is unmistakeable, so I tend to catch the time his work spills out of the very narrow niche of Maratha clans and aristocrats. The dude has been pretty much a one-man WikiProject Maratha for about as long as I've been on Wikipedia. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Then Jericho and Mark Shaw (singer)

Hello MatthewVanitas, I hope you are well. I suspect that, like me, you don't normally edit pop music pages. I'm nonetheless trying hard to keep the Then Jerico and Mark Shaw (singer) pages reliable, accurate and objective, but one editor, it seems to me, wants to use the pages for fan-style updates. I know you probably are not terribly interested in the pages themselves, but I wonder if you would be so kind as to look at their recent edits. I don't want to get into an edit war, and I have tried to offer helpful advice on the editor's talk page. Thanks very much. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikify tag

Hi there! {{Wikify}} has recently been deprecated in favor of more specific tags, which are listed at Template:Wikify#See_also. When tagging an article that needs more links, for instance, please use {{underlinked}}. Thanks! Guoguo12 (Talk)  02:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I am MacNerd 9 You deleted info on articles that i put so much effort and time inti editing i am not happy, you owe me, i want a reponse within 24 hours starting on 12:00 am on October 4th ,2012 (USA central time) To respond email me @ majidtheawesome@gmail.com You do not know who i am Thank you P.S dont delete this paragraph until i recieve an email response — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.168.137.155 (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Your AFC Moves

I noticed that a bunch of your AFC moves have ended up on this list. Are you using the helper script? You wouldn't have this problem if you were. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 02:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixed that today, had wrongly assumed 'bots would remove the converted AFC tag. Can't run scripts for tech reasons, but will watch more carefully working manually. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Happy editing! LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 05:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Siddhi

Hi, a few days ago I had seen the tag that this article is confusing. I found it referring to the Samkhyakarika which is a commentary on the twenty two sutras that are attributed to Kapila Muni, the founder of the Samkhya school of Hindu Philosophy. Therefore, I perused the wikipage Samkhyakarika and the entire Sanskrit text of which has been cited as a primary resource see - Samkhya Karika in PDF. This commentary vide verse 51 elaborates what those eight siddhis hinted at by Kapila in his sutra 15 are, which siddhis have nothing to do with gaining of supernatural powers. I have cited these texts, provided translation of the Sanskrit text, so as to sort out the confusion that has resulted owing to tagging of Samkhya thought with Buddhist Tantrism. You have deleted my edits that were duly cited without perusing the sutra cited by me and the commentary thereupon. I am shocked and very sad.Soni Ruchi (talk) 05:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. For translation I had relied on Patanjaliyogapradeep of Swami Omananda Tirath. page 95. published by Gita Press, Gorakhpur.Soni Ruchi (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Patrick O. Strickland

Your PRODBLP on Patrick O. Strickland has expired, but I'm afraid I decided I could not delete the article, because it did actually have a few references about, rather than by, Strickland, and so did not qualify for PRODBLP. (In my opinion it should qualify, but the conditions for a PROD BLP are set very narrowly.) I have, however, replaced the PRODBLP with a plain PROD. If that is contested you may wish to take the article to WP:AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Mail

Sent you one. - Sitush (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hello Matthew! Is it right:1? It is just a translation... What can we do? Thanks!--USAnne (talk) 06:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Muslim communities by location

Category:Muslim communities by location, 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. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Thank you Matthew with the Idioblast article page. I remove the {{User sandbox}} i believe this is what i was asked to do-hopefully it is fine- and i will continue to develop and work with john fekner research best, daniella

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chamar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Radhaswami (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) 11:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing clearing for Wikipedia Clover Forest Plantation

Thanks for the review, I know the article still needs work, all your points are valid! Van Aldenhaag (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries; just bear in mind that tags aren't "accusations", they're helpful advice. They're also a form of protection in that they let readers know "hey, we realise these issues and we're working on them", rather than have them get into an article they thought was finalised and get frustrated by format issues, etc. Think of it kind of like a "ROAD NARROWS AHEAD" sign; it doesn't say "don't go down the road", it says "bear in mind it's narrow at the moment".

If you have any questions on how to address these, I suggest Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions as a great resource. I'm under the vague impression that you may be involved in business with the subject, so do read WP:Conflict of interest to ensure you understand how to maintain objectivity and not get the article dinged for advertising. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Elustondo

Hello Matthew,

I submitted an article that was not suitable for Wikipedia. I there anything else I can do now?

Cheers,

Elustondo (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

_{Replied here to keep all discussion in one place: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#Review_of_Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FThe_Wrong_Assumption:_Revolutionary_Scientific_Theories_that_Shape_the_Elusive_Supernatural_World}

My advisor

Hi Matthew! Please could you help me with this translation 1? What else can I do? The article already exists in Portuguese Wikipedia, and is important. How to keep the translation?--USAnne (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Steve Uncles - English Democrats

Ok thank you for advise on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Steve_Uncles, I will probably need some help ! EnglishPassportEnglishPassport (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Alas, that article will likely never make it into mainspace. Even if it were correctly sourced, the guy fails our noability guidelines. Specifically, he fails those for politicians. Sure, he might have a lot of press coverage around election time but unless he gets elected it really doesn't count for much here ... - Sitush (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

To clarify that, he has stood as a candidate for a very minor party, holds a minor official role in that party and - primarily because of the perception of right-wing extremism etc - press coverage will be more about the party than about him. If you can show otherwise then that would be great but even then I would consider obtaining the opinion of some WP:AFD regulars, such as DGG, before moving to mainspace. - Sitush (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Creating Yuval Avital's wikipedia page

Dear Matthew,

following your remarks I've added some other journalistic references. Some journals were not avalaible on line so I've uploded some scans of the journals taken from Avital's archive. I hope it's ok.

Telling Yuval about our ping pong dialogue regarding the references he noted that while some important journals may do mistake, major festivals, since they cannot allow them-self to being caught in mistake, because they commission musicologists to write their programs and double-check the infos (In the case of Romaeuropa Festival it was the musicologist Luca Del Frà who wrote about Avital).

As before I cut the length of the text even more.

Please let me know if it's ok.

Yours

Raffaele Bellan — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaffaeleBellan (talk • contribs) 13:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Article "Nair"". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 08:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Referencing quotes from family / friends / collegues

Hello, For Sgt. Turberville's page I am interviewing his sister, a former football team mate, and a former Marine collegue. Is this permissable? How would it show in a reference tag?

BTW: I am attempting to add the biographies of Marines who have been killed while defending US Embassies as part of the Marine Security Guard Battalion. I am a historian for the Marine Embassy Guard Association. Could I reference those archives after placing family biographic data up there?

Thanks,

Jack McGarry [sub]removing phone# for safety reasons[/sub] Jackmcgarry (talk) 12:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Jack, you raise a very good question, and the short answer to the interview issue is that "raw data" such as interviews aren't admissible on Wikipedia, per WP:Original research. I hasten to add, nobody is denigrating the value or accuracy of your interviews, it's just that as an encyclopedia Wikipedia is limited to using existing published, peer-reviewed material. That said, it's my understanding that if the MEGA were to publish, in an article, journal, etc. those interviews or quote those interviews, those could be used, though there is some caution needed in citing one's own work. But in the short term, citing "Interview on 18 October 2012 with LtCol John Smith" doesn't work for an encyclopedia, though clearly it's appropriate sourcing for journalistic articles, research papers, etc.

So far as your larger plan, I would strongly encourage you to visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and post there as to your intent to document MEG casualties. MILHIST is a very well-organised and active project, so there are a lot of highly-skilled editors there very familiar with military topics who can advise on the best way to address it. Rather than write more articles and possibly run into issues "learning the ropes", best to get some input from them on how best to proceed, and maybe even get some support for your ongoing project. Just make sure you give your post a clear title like "Planning series of articles on Marine Embassy Guard casualties - input?" so the context will be clear. Hope you find them to be of help to you, and hope I've cleared up the issue on how field research is great for many things but Wiki can only "digest" published research as an encyclopedia. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:AndrewP1985

A tag has been placed on User:AndrewP1985, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Redirect from userspace to article

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Rcsprinter (chatter) @ 15:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment: While this is probably a great topic for an article, you really need better references than just an Angelfire page. Angelfire is not peer-reviewed, so please instead find some cites from published books, journals, news articles, etc. Something befitting academic theory. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I agreee to some extent, but the referred paper is a proceeding that has been reviewed, by the editors indicated at the top. And the subject is quite forward, not so complicated, however quite possible and may have lots of implications, if people find out about it.

Leon00 (talk) 11:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles of Deletion Leopoldo Ali Shahriari

Please see Leopoldo Ali Shahriari

Page is marked for articles of deletion.

Notability questioned. Shahriari was first muslim candidate born in virginia to run for public office. Notable for advocacy of Third Universal Theory — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mberg52 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Make sure to understand that "notable" on Wikipedia isn't literally "matters or not", it's whether they meet Wikipedia:Notability (politicians). What you're doing right now is about right; you want to have specific arguments based on Wikipedia:Notability (politicians), and as many and the best references you can apply to the article.

Right now your formatting on the Articles for Deletion page is a little confusing, so take a look at some other Category:AfD debates to see how to format the replies. Remember, you can't bring up the same point repeatedly, so you can only "!vote" for Keep once, and after that you can just add Comment to others votes. Again, make sure you base everything on WP:N and on the sources you've provided in the article, not abstract arguments like "he's important". MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Rejected article "True Communists", submitted by user Tatiana.grehan

Thank you for taking time to review the article, submitted by me! I can add one footnote - to the article written by S. Pechuro, V. Bulgakov. "The Case of Jalal-Abad Students. On the history of anti-Stalinist youth organizations" (in Russian), which has been published in historic almanac "Zven'ya", Issue 1 – Мoscow.- Progress: Phoenix: Atheneum, 1991. Pages 528-535. Will this be sufficient for accepting my article? At this time I cannot find any other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatiana.grehan (talk • contribs) 21:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Zdrasvij Tatiana! Though I'm not an expert on Russian publications, that seems credible. Can you make very clear in your footnotes who the publisher is, and the full names of the authors (check WP:Footnotes for how to format this)? I'm getting some hits for those names in books like this[1], so that helps reviewers get some indication that a given writer may be credible.

Is this article available online? That's not strictly necessary, but is always helpful. From what you describe, if you apply some good footnoting with clear citations, I should be able to approve the article. Please contact me before submitting, and if you leave a statement giving me permission to "submit" it for you as needed, I can go ahead and publish directly if it's ready.

Thanks for touching base! Wikipedia is infinitely easier if editors converse with other editors! MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Matthew! Thank you for your advice! I have thoroughly checked sources and found only one article about this organization. This was a very small group, and the only reliable source is the protocol of investigation and the official verdict; both are quoted in full in the referenced article. Since the KGB archives have been once again classified by Putin, other sources are not available. The referenced article has been written by Susanna Solomonovna Pechuro and Viktor Antonovich Bulgakov, respected members of the Memorial. Susanna Pechuro was herself a member of a similar organization in Moscow - Union of Struggle for the Cause of Revolution - and spent time in GULAG for her activities. The article has been first published in Moscow. Historic almanac “Zven’ya” (Links) is a solid publication, dedicated to the history of Russia and USSR in the 20th century. I have added the detailed information (including full names of the authors, excluding patronymics (which I can add if you believe that it is necessary), and publisher) into the footnote, which I have placed at the end of the 1st paragraph. The referenced article is available in the online magazine “Scepsis”, I have included the link (I have removed the external link to the same online publication, included in the first submission). Please note, that articles about True Communists exist in Russian, Lithuanian, and Polish versions of Wikipedia, I have also included links to these languages hoping that this will help. The English article is the exact translation of the Russian one. Hope this information will help you to approve my submission. Please publish the revised article directly on my behalf if you approve it. Otherwise please feel free to give further feedback. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatiana.grehan (talk • contribs) 21:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Matthew! Thank you very much for approving my article. It's nice working with you! Wish you all the best! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatiana.grehan (talk • contribs) 11:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Declining KODA

Hi Matthew, thank you for taking the time to review the KODA submission.

I would like to expand on the differences between CODA and KODA.

First and foremost, the (ADULT OFFSPRING) Children of Deaf Adults have an organization called CODA. Our KODA children, who are UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE, are not served by CODA or the CODA community.

CODA organizations have conferences once a year, both in the US and abroad.

KODA organizations serve children and their parents, by providing workshops, resources, camps and mentorship programs. They also host kid friendly events that bring the KODAs together to connect with one another, because they are usually the only one in their whole school who have deaf parents. These are kids with very juvenile needs and issues.

CODAs will NOT benefit from all the information that we have just put together.

It is VERY important that the parents have quick and easy access to THIS information because THEY call their kids KODAs, not CODAs. They will be typing "KODA", not "CODA".

ALSO, its almost like saying we should mix the children with the adults, and each group have DIFFERENT NEEDS.

I hope I have made this clear.

Lisa Chahayed I apologize in advance if I do not know how to use the signatures with the 4 tildes, but Ill try.

Lisa Hermatz Chahayed (talk) 05:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries Lisa, and the signature came out fine. I greatly appreciate your writing in to discuss the matter! To address your concerns:

• Both "KODA" and "CODA" lead to the same Child of deaf adult articles, so there is no danger of searchers not finding the right article; Wikipedia is very good at routing multiple keywords to the same destination. If you're curious and it's not too technical, take a peek at Special:WhatLinksHere/Child_of_deaf_adult and you can see all the articles that either link to that one, or WP:Redirect to it. If you know of any term that should go to the article and doesn't, we can created a Redirect for it (feel free to ask for help).
• The Child of deaf adult article specifically mentions KODA in its first paragraph, and in bold, so readers are made clear on the technical terms from the very beginning.
• The draft article you created is largely, though not entirely, a list of links, and there's a specific policy "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" that runs afoul of.
• Overall, what I would strongly suggest is that you visit Talk:Child of deaf adult to discuss the matter with other people interested in improving the article. I note you've made one change to it already so far, but do remember to add an WP:Edit summary every time you save changes so folks know what you're changing. I would share the link to your declined draft on the Talk page, to ask others if there are portions they think should be incorporated.

Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Im sorry if I am making little mistakes here, never done this before. I appreciate ALL your feedback and I do see your point. I will definitely contact the people who created CODA and see if they would not mind our information in their site. Also, I didnt realize (sorry) the rules of links.

Question: Since I saw another article post a "camp", and it was successful. Can we post OUR camp on here? Its a camp that serves KODAs only. Its called KODAWest Camp. No? Yes? please advise.

Really appreciate it. (Sorry also for not describing my edits, didnt know I had to do that...I did not make any changes, this morning, I merely wanted to check out how you plan to respond to me, and or how I can respond to you. Now I see what that edit button is for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KODAWest (talk • contribs) 16:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries at all, mistakes are to be exepected. All that we ask of new editors is that you make a good faith effort, do your best to digest the guidelines as they're pointed out to you, and above all communicate with others. Some folks favour the "bull in a china shop" method of trying to force changes through and ignoring everyone, and those are the folks who get banned for not participating in the community.

So far as adding your camp to CODA, I would suggest a perusal of WP:Conflict of interest just to be familiar with stepping lightly where personal/group interests are concerned. Your safer bet would be to post on the Talk page and suggest adding it, noting that you are an involved party and don't want it to come across as a biased decision. That'll take a week or more to sort out, but it's the safe bet and avoids someone just reflexively removing it as self-promotion for KODA. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shivaji, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rajapur (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) 11:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Successful AfC for a camp site?

Hi Matthew, you accepted Nambwa Campsite a few days ago---a camp site? I fear we will soon have a host of tourism facilities submitted if the word spreads. --Pgallert (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

AFC does have a pretty minimal bar of WP:V and some semblance of sourcing, which the article technically did have, and the term gets plenty of hits on Google. That said, it was a bit premature since there was no extant Mayuni Conservancy, so I created said article and merged Nambwa into it, and added one more formal non-touristy reference. I messaged the originator to let him know his content (which was pretty decent) has been merged into the larger article. I don't necessarily think the AFC approval was too odd, but I can see it could be misunderstood by students, and we needed a Mayuni article anyway, so it worked out in the end. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Oh, on a sidenote, the more I look the more I see students are really under-using GoogleBooks; is there some difficulty accessing it, or licensing issue in Namibia? MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Oookay, as an entry in the conservancy article I see the notability. I wasn't sure whether I had missed some recent WP:N discussions, I haven't been there for a while. Google books sometimes only shows the cover of a book where editors in other countries can see snippets, or whole pages. Generally it works, though. I fear we haven't stressed enough that books are much better sources than random web sites, the idea of a reliable source is new to most students. They believe whatever is published, and by whomever, that's one of the reasons for the introduction of a media literacy course into the curriculum. Thanks for the further work on this student submission, and for the clarification. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I do grant that as a standalone article is was not strong, but again AFC is not unduly demanding. There are plenty of articles that pass AFC and then get AfD'ed, it's just that on the average they're way less likely to get AfD'ed than articles that noobs just write without any help or screening. With the student articles I'll apply a little more caution so as not to set any confusing precedents, but even on some pretty narrow articles that students have turned up some semi-decent refs to that point that I can't argue WP:V and there's at least some light WP:N.

[squeeze] I would have thought that AfC-created articles are somewhat "protected" from AfD, to an extent that I wouldn't have dreamt of nominating the camp site at AfD. And that put me in the situation that I would have to assess it for Wikipedia:WikiProject Namibia, create categories, maybe even a stub type. That's why I asked. --Pgallert (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

And I do concur with your other poster that some time familiarising themselves with WP:ENC articles could help a lot; "Random" might not be the best tool, as you've noted, but maybe have a couple more savvy students make a reading-list of good articles, including some competent but small/easy ones that even a noob could see himself writing, and use those as examples in some discussion. Maybe a bit of a stretch, but I almost wonder if looking at some Declined articles as "negative examples" might help as well (not necessarily Poly ones, just in general) to see how advertising, self-promotion, redundancies, etc. are screened out by AFC. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I was always thinking along the lines of "If I could show them some nuked content"---Unfortunately I'm lacking the user right to do that, and it would probably be a misuse of the viewdeleted bit. Will keep AfC declines in mind for next time. Thanks, Pgallert (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget to do talk pages

Theodore Luqueer Mead --  :- ) Don 17:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Starrahul

Starrahul has been favoured with a six month holiday from Maratha stuff. - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep, saw that. I'm not sure what he would cover with that option removed... MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of other Indian topics that would not require mention of Marathas. Although I suspect they'd make the same mistakes there: it's not just a POV thing and in fact WP:CIR is probably the bigger issue. - Sitush (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

User page moves

Hi Matthew, I noticed that you moved a couple of user pages of our project members. I found it confusing that the User talk page was moved along with the user page (and I made a mess-up at User talk:Ndinomuwa hn which I believe I have repaired now): Warnings and welcomes are now on the talk page of a user space draft, where one could actually rather discuss that draft. There is also the danger of creating parallel user talk pages, if someone removes the redirect from user talk.

Would it not be better to leave User talk:Example untouched when moving User:Example to User:Example/Draft Title (untick the box in the move dialogue)? --Pgallert (talk) 08:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

That is a good catch, thanks for pointing that out. Drafts on a userpage rather than a sandbox are pretty uncommon, so I hadn't thought of that aspect while correcting it. Thanks for the heads-up! MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MatthewVanitas. You have new messages at Mark Arsten's talk page.
Message added 15:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mark Arsten (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Your edit got reverted.

I reverted this edit, because you might have removed more content than intended.--Müdigkeit (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it was intentional? Well, sorry. No objections now.--Müdigkeit (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carleton University’s School of Public Policy and Administration.

Hi Matthew

As a Wikipedia beginner, I'm unclear on what must be done to have the article in the subject line approved. I had asked for help when I created it in my Sandbox and was told I could simply edit the existing entry directly. Is that not correct?

Thanks

Saulschwartz (talk) 01:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)SaulSchwartz

You can indeed edit the actual article itself directly; that said, I'm concerned because you seem to imply you want to blank the existing article and insert your content. The content in your sandbox isn't suitable yet because it lacks WP:Sourcing. Accordingly, though you could directly edit the existing article, if you're blanking it and starting it from scratch that could cause discord with the people who are writing the current version. It's best you communicate with the first via the Talk page so you aren't just barging in to say "terrible job, mine is better". I can't quite tell what article you're even wanting to fix (link???) but I can take a look and tell you if it's something you can just dump and replace, or whether you should ease more into it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi again

The article in question is about the School of Public Policy and Administration at Carleton University in Ottawa Canada (www.carleton.ca/sppa). We're (finally) trying to use our website more efficiently and, along with another professor, I'm in charge of doing that. The other guy noticed from Google analytics that we had lots of visitors from Wikipedia. A while back, one of our students had put up the text that appeared on Wikipedia until I edited it. We thought the text was too terse and not informative enough. So, together withe School's director, we wrote a new entry and I replaced the old entry with the new.

I'll check into how to source things better because I'd like to remove the "needs better sourcing" message.

Thanks

Saul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saulschwartz (talk • contribs) 02:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I meant a link to the Wiki article; can you just take the parts after "wiki/" and put and around it so it'll form a WP:Wikilink? In any case, glad to see you're here and willing to talk about the issue. At this point, my best recommendation would be for you to hit up Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. It's volunteer mentors who do nothing but help folks like yourself. I recommend you first read WP:Referencing for beginners and then post on the Teahouse (with a clear Wikilink to both the article in question, and to your sandbox draft) and as your questions there. Not to be unhelpful myself, but I'm in the middle of clearing a huge backlog of articles to review, but Teahouse is more chill. Good luck! MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

thank you for your review of The Medieval Arab Agricultural Revolution

Dear Matthew Vanitas,

Thank you for reviewing the article entitled “The Medieval Arab Agricultural Revolution”, which I submitted to Wikipedia. It is true that there is already a Wikipedia article on this subject, but as you will see below, at many points the current Wikipedia article seems to be completely wrong and at other places the entire slant seems to be misleading.

The current Wikipedia article is based almost entirely on an article by Michael Decker in The Journal of World History, June 2009. Decker is probably also the author of the Wikipedia article. The purpose of both articles appears to be to criticize, and indeed demolish, the work of Andrew M. Watson on the subject. In an earlier but very similar Wikipedia article on the subject (“The Muslim [sic] Agricultural Revolution”) the author based his entire criticism on only two conference papers delivered by Watson in 1972 and 1974 and published in 1976 and 1981; both of these gave very preliminary reports on work in progress. These also appear to be the main sources for the current Wikipedia article, though reference is made here (in a footnote) to Watson’s important book: Agricultural Innovation in the Early Islamic World. The Diffusion of Crops and Farming Techniques, 700-1100 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983; republished by CUP in 2008 with a new foreword by Watson and an updated bibliography). The current article makes no mention of the second edition, in which Watson reconsiders several of his findings and defends his general conclusions. It also fails to note that nearly all the points made by Decker have been addressed by Watson in his book, the only exceptions being Decker’s outright errors.

Like the article by Decker, the Wikipedia article is based on many misquotes, mistranslations, distortions, omissions and errors of fact. If necessary, I could elaborate on these at some length, and indeed it would require a few pages to do so since they run through the entire World History article, on which the various Wikipedia articles are based. It seems impossible to revise this highly tendentious article. Instead a new article should be written on this important subject. Inter alia the new article would explain that the many irrigation devices of the pre-Islamic world were very spottily distributed through only some parts of the Roman Empire, the Arabian peninsula and Mesopotamia; that they were often used as much to provide urban and village water supplies as to irrigate land; that they were rarely used to water summer crops; that in the western part of the Empire there was a prolonged decline of irrigation starting around 300 CE; that in Byzantium and the Sasanian Empire irrigation declined markedly at least from the time of the plague of Justinian in the late-sixth and early-seventh centuries; and that in the Hadramaut the last of all the great irrigation works went out of operation when the great dam of Ma’rib collapsed in the late-sixth century.

The early centuries of Islam saw a much wider distribution of irrigation devices for agricultural use. Because of the greater choice available and the greater possibility of using the technologies in combination, individual irrigation projects could respond more sensitively to local conditions and could provide water over a longer period of the year. (The above points are explained in greater detail in Watson’s article on “Water Engineering” in The Oxford Dictionary of Economic History).

Regarding the new crops which Watson says were diffused through the early-Islamic world, he admits in the foreword to the second edition of his book that he may have made a mistake concerning hard wheat, though he still thinks the question is open. His conclusions on the other crops still seem to stand. He has always stated very clearly that before the rise of Islam several of his “new” crops had already appeared in very limited areas in eastern parts of what was to become the Islamic world: (1) rice in parts of the Sasanian Empire and somewhere in Palestine (almost certainly the Jordan Valley); (2) sugar cane in some coastal areas of Arabia Felix; (3) sorghum possibly in several limited locations but certainly not widely as was later to be the case; and (4) tree cotton, which seems to have appeared in some places with very warm climates, for instance along the northern shores of the Indian Ocean, possibly in Ethiopia, Nubia and Upper Egypt, and somewhere in Palestine (again probably in the very warm Jordan Valley), but not the “herbaceous” annual cotton, which could be grown in cooler areas and was eventually, but only in Islamic times, diffused widely. I believe that these are the main – probably the only – crops studied by Watson which had entered what was to become the Islamic world before the rise of Islam, and their pre-Islamic distribution was very limited. That they were not only grown but also traded seems clear, but the extent of the trade is difficult to gauge and was probably limited in quantity and area; the source of some of the crops traded may well have been India or regions outside of what was to be the Islamic world and lying still farther to the east.

After the Arab conquests, these crops came to be much more widely grown in the eastern parts of the Islamic world and they were carried westwards as far as Spain and West Africa. Similarly, most of the other fourteen crops he studies appeared in the eastern parts of the Islamic world and spread westwards. In general, the crops he studies came to be grown very widely in all parts of the Islamic world, almost wherever climate, soils and water would allow. Moreover, the fact that many of the new crops were summer crops and that irrigation water had become available in many places in summer made it possible to open up what was almost an entirely new agricultural season in many parts of the Arab world. Where previously land might be cropped in a winter season and then fallowed for a year and a half, quite commonly it came to produce crops four times or even more often in a two-year period,

These agricultural changes were linked to important changes in the economies of the entire Islamic region: increases in population; the rise of many cities, some very large; and a considerable increase in trade from and to agricultural regions.

Several final points should be made:

1. The earlier article states that Watson claims that the “agricultural revolution” included the increased “mechanization” of agriculture. I can find nothing in Watson which supports this statement – unless the term refers to irrigation devices.

2. Decker’s article (which is the basis for the Wikipedia article) states that the artichoke was widely known and traded in the pre-Islamic world. This claim is based on a mistranslation of the word “kinara” by himself and Ruffing, as well as a clear misidentification of a plant in a mosaic in the Bardo Museum. For a seemingly correct history of the development of the artichoke, which draws on many more sources than were used by Watson, see the article in Gastronomica (2009) entitled “Did the ancients know the artichoke? A review of the evidence” by Clifford A. Wright, a highly respected scholar on the history of Mediterranean food. Wright concludes, as did Watson, that “evidence from genetic research, as well as from the historical and linguistic records, heavily supports the notion that Arab or Arab-influenced cultivators developed the artichoke from the cardoon in the early medieval period”.

3. The article refers to research by E. Ashtor, the conclusions of which are at best shaky. One of Ashtor’s main purposes has long seemed to be to deny the Arabs any accomplishments in the economic sphere. He has clearly made a number of errors.

4. A footnote suggests that Watson used the terms “Islamic agricultural revolution” and “Muslim agricultural revolution”. It is difficult to believe that he committed such an error.

It appears that it will be not possible to edit the current Wikipedia article. It needs to be rewritten. The specialist in this area is Watson, who has worked on the subject for over forty years; his publications may be found on his website, www.andrewmwatson.com. Other people who might be able and willing to write a fair-minded article are Thomas Glick, Daniel Varisco. Ingrid Hehmeyer or Clifford A. Wright. These can all be easily found on the internet.

But in all modesty, I think that the article I submitted does a good job of covering the subject. I am still hoping that it could appear as a Wikipedia article either instead of the current article or alongside it.

Thank you for your attention.

James McDonald — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcdonald2005 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello James, rest assured your draft was declined purely on the technical grounds of there already being such an existing article. No judgment was implied on the quality of one vice the other. At this point, there's a bit of juggling involved to line up the debate to choose one or the other, or merge one into the other. Rather than me try to explain a bunch of steps, if you can make below a statement along the lines of "I authorise MatthewVanitas to make needed page moves and announcements to further discussion of replacing or merging Medieval Arab Agricultural Revolution" I'll go ahead and move things around for you so the discussion can begin. Again, I am not involved in this field of study, but empathise with your desire to improve the article, so am offering solely wiki-technical assistance. Let me know if you'd like such an assist, as I don't want to interfere with your drafting space and quoting your arguments without your clear concurrence. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Vanitas,

Thank you very much for your reply to my request to publish "The Medieval Arab Agricultural Revolution" as a Wikipedia article, either along-side the current "Arab Agricultural Revolution" or to replace it.

I have thought for some days about your suggestion that perhaps the two could be merged or pages could be moved, but do not see how this could successfully be done. Perhaps you can help me to understand.

As I see it, the current "Arab Agricultural Revolution" is based entirely on Michael Decker's article, "Plans and Progress: Rethinking the Islamic (sic) Agricultural Revolution" published in the Journal of World History, an electronic publication of extremely variable quality. The article has many misquotes, errors of fact, serious omissions, etc., which could be discussed at length; and as a result the entire thrust of the article seems wrong. It is true that the current Wikipedia article has been considerably revised from earlier versions, but the argument and conclusion are still based on the same mistakes and therefore seem wrong.

Although the current article is correct in stating that the main irrigation technologies used in the Arab agricultural revolution were known in pre-Islamic times, it exaggerates the extent to which they were known, and it makes no mention of the dramatic decline of irrigation all across the pre-Islamic world in the centuries before the rise of Islam. There is no doubt that by the 10th century these devices were much more widely distributed than in ancient times, and they were used in many new combinations which were suitable to special local conditions and allowed the opening of what was almost an entirely new summer season for crops of tropical or semi-tropical origin.

As for the crops themselves, Watson has admitted in the introduction to the second edition of his book that he may have been wrong about hard wheat, though he thinks the question is still open. Of the other crops, three had already been introduced into a few areas -- all places with very warm winters -- in pre-Islamic times, but the extent of their cultivation was very limited. In Islamic times they and the other crops studied by Watson were much more widely diffused in the eastern regions of the Islamic world, and they appeared for the first time in the western parts of the Islamic world -- Spain, Sicily, North Africa and parts of West Africa, where they became common.

The diffusion of the new crops along with irrigation devices often used in combination opened up a new summer season, which made much agricultural land and labour far more productive than it had been in ancient times. The increase in agricultural output is closely connected, as both cause and effect, to the marked rise in both rural and urban populations, the rise of trade and hence specialization in the countryside, greater prosperity, and the enlargement of classes of people who, depending on others to produce foodstuffs, could engage in non-agricultural activities. Without the agricultural revolution, the early-Islamic world would have been a very different place.

It would be good if you could take these arguments into account in considering whether the current Wikipedia article can be successfully revised or amended. Perhaps you will be persuaded that it needs to be replaced. But if you wish to revise the current article in the light of the arguments I have presented above, I give you my full permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcdonald2005 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Miguel Forbes page

Hi Matthew. Thank you for reviewing the page I just created on Miguel Forbes. I am still fairly new to article creation on Wikipedia, and I would like to know specifically what is disputed in terms of the neutrality of the article. Thank you. Rmlewinson (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Rmlewinson, I added the tag since the article came across as a PR piece, but I can't find any specific examples of clear bias, so withdrawing that tag. I am however putting in tags for "cleanup" due to punctuation/layout issues, and the WP:Categories need developing (the guideline may be a good read). The cleanup might take you 10 minutes and the Categories 15 once you read the guidelines; another good trick is to find a very similar individual with a well-developed article and base your categories on the ones they used. Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing Hugo Crosthwaite's artist page

Hi Matthew, thank you for your feedback regarding Hugo Crosthwaite's page. I was wondering what can be done in order to get the page approved. You commented that this was not a 'neutral source' and cited Wikipedia:Notability (artists). What does the source need to be in order for it to be deemed 'neutral'? As for notability, I believe Crosthwaite satisfies criterion 2a) A piece that has been purchased or displayed by notable expositions, as the artist's work has been purchased by and displayed at major institutions such as the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the San Diego Museum of Art, etc. If you could please let me know how we can get this page approved, I'd really appreciate it. Thank you! Best Regards, Angela Yang

Vcfineart (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, the issue is not so much his actual Notability, as much as proof thereof. Your article right now has no footnotes, so it's unclear where all this info can be validated. Step-by-step:

• For info like Crosthwaite was born in Tijuana, Mexico and grew up in the tourist-heavy beach town of Rosarito, where his parents owned a curio shop. - where does this come from? The reader has no way of knowing where to check this. Now, for really basic and non-controversial, non-famous info like this, it can be okay to cite the artist's own page, though not ideal.
• For claims like In November 2012, Crosthwaite's work Bartolomé, purchased by The San Diego Museum of Art will be included in Behold, America!, a collaborative exhibition which presents art of the United States from three San Diego museums, at The San Diego Museum of Art. - we need to see someone other than the artist verify this. Not to accuse him personally, but on general principle we can't just take someone's own word. As an extreme example, I could make up my own website matthewvanitasartist.com tomorrow and post there "MV's portrait of Napoleon hangs in the foyer of the Albert Hall in London", but that wouldn't make it true. If, however, the London Times had an article about Albert Hall that said "and in January 2011 a new cubist portrait of Napoleon by Maltese artist MatthewVanitas was purchased for 20 bob by Albert Hall and hung in the foyer", then you could cite that specific article as very credible evidence.
• I did some looking, and Crosthwaite does get some hits on GoogleBooks, so I'd start looking there, and also check GoogleNews Archive for news articles. Given that he's a living person, per WP:BLP every fact given about him should be cited to something credible. That's for his own protection, to prevent someone coming in and saying "and in 2012 we was accused of having stolen the Hope Diamond"; if it can't be documented somewhere, it shouldn't be in the article.
• So find some good sources, and turn them into footnotes and add them to the portions of the article they verify. A great read for this is WP:Referencing for beginners. Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your helpful, detailed suggestions. I have added the appropriate citations for your review. I am currently waiting on Wikimedia Commons to approve the image of the artist. Please let me know if the contents of this page are approved. Thank you again! Vcfineart (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)