User talk:Matthew hk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Try to use {{talkback}} template on my talk page, that link to a thread in your talk page. Also , try to use {{reply}} (aka ping).

Post Below this line[edit]

Your draft article, Draft:List of member of Federcasse[edit]

Hello, Matthew hk. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of member of Federcasse".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. » Shadowowl | talk 17:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


Could you join the discusion on what we need to do about richard sutt if you have the time please. If not its ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblesorg (talkcontribs) 03:34 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Campionato Primavera 1[edit]

Hi. Do you think a separate article for Campionato Primavera 1 is really necessary? They changed their name, but it seems unnecessary to create a whole new page. The Italian wiki only has one page was well. It seems like the same situation when Serie C1 was changed to Lega Pro Prima Divisione, only the name was changed. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 23:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Then how to deal with Campionato Primavera 2? There were Serie C, Serie C1, Serie C2 articles? More precisely, the whole format changed as the new league consist half of the team and only one group instead of 3, despite having the same organizer. Matthew_hk tc 05:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh so it's like the Serie C splitting into Serie C1 and Serie C2, in that Campionato Nazionale Primavera split into Campionato Primavera 1 and Campionato Primavera 2? So there was never any relegation before in the youth tournament? If that's the case then the separation seems find to me. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 14:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Do you think the Primavera 1 titles and Nazionale Primavera will be equivalent like they made the Serie C1 titles and Serie C titles equivalent? Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure about it. Matthew_hk tc 15:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
@Vaselineeeeeeee:, Lega Serie A listed Inter won 9 times. Matthew_hk tc 21:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
So should Nazionale Primavera be updated then too? They are considering this title equal to the previous titles. If they ever bring the Nazionale Primavera back like they did with Serie C, then they should definitely be included. I'm still not so sure if we need separate articles right now, it might be too early to tell. But they're considering the titles equal, like a continuation, so yeah, I'm thinking we might not need a new article right now. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 21:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive[edit]

Hello Matthew hk, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

  • As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
  • Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: 100 review coin, 250 review coin, 500 review coin, 1000 review certificate.
  • Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


I have undone your recent edit of zte. You must use sources that are not original research. Perhaps you should try to find another source for your edit to substantiate your claim that zte is not government owned. Also, don't accuse others of being vandals when they are using Wikipedia rules in editing an article. Please do not edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8B8C:29A0:9C33:BA9D:D7D6:172F (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You misunderstand the word original research. Wikipedia forbidden original research by wikipedia user, but not forbidden research done by professor Curtis J. Milhaupt. Matthew_hk tc 13:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Well then replace with an approved source. The paper written on the Columbia web site still constitutes original research. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck it is a duck Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8B8C:29A0:9C33:BA9D:D7D6:172F (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stop disruptive editing of the article ZTE. Perhaps, you should get an administrator to weigh in rather than continue your edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8B8C:29A0:9C33:BA9D:D7D6:172F (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Waiting...Waiting...Waiting.... It would seem to me that it is you that doesn't understand the guidelines of original research. You shouldn't assume just because an IP makes a claim that it is incorrect. Please stop your disruptive editing of the ZTE article. Thank you for your co-operation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8B8C:29A0:9C33:BA9D:D7D6:172F (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The source containing research done by Curtis J. Milhaupt is not original research as that policy only applies to editors. If the research is from a reliable source such as Columbia University, the source is considered reliable. Araratic | talk 14:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Policy nuances[edit]

Please be careful to distinguish edit warring from vandalism. I know what you're trying to say, but there are important differences in how Wikipedia treats these two. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: When everyone saying those source are reliable and the ip user keep removing the content with invalid reason, it seem it is not an edit war but pure vandalism or disruptive editing. But, yes, if it is not pure vandalism it had to avoid 3RR. Matthew_hk tc 14:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring notification[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on ZTE. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Matthew_hk tc 15:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)