User talk:Mcmatter/Archive 4

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Hypixel Minecraft Server Discussion

Hello, first off, I'd like to apologize for the behavior of some of the other editors for this article. [[1]]

To begin with, if it isn't too much trouble for you, could you please give any addition suggestions for that page, so I can take the needed steps to avoid deletion. As you can see, I've deleted much of the information which wasn't fit for wikipedia, and I believe have removed nearly all sources which aren't fit. Obviously the information present is rather rough, but as of now I'd prefer to avoid deletion over having a perfect page. If it's alright, I'd like to get you opinion on several things.

To begin with, do you believe that the page's topic currently has enough notability to warrant a page? And if not, would you say we should continue with the deletion process now? Secondly, I greatly appreciate any suggestions on how to further the page. I'm afraid several people in our community decided to create a wikipedia page without actually having any knowledge or care for wikipedia, so I'd like to fix the page up if possible, or completely delete if you deem it necessary.

Again I apologize for the behavior of the other editors, I assure you it doesn't reflect the entirety of our community.

FlamingFeebas (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@FlamingFeebas: There have definitely been some massive improvements to the article to prevent it from being outright deleted as advertising, thank you for that. I see you have even some reliable sources which have mentioned Hypixel, the thing is that it seems most of them don't talk about Hypixel in any sort of depth. The NY Times article is just about Minecraft and state Hypixel helped them build a world, but nothing actually about Hypixel and the Huffington Post article is about the NY Times article. The only one which goes a little more into depth is the Rock Paper Shotgun article, but this is not enough to pass the WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH inclusion criteria. I still do not think this server is notable enough for inclusion yet and I am uncertain if will be any time in the near future. You may also ask the previous editors who have taken part in the Deletion discussion to re-evaluate their opinions on the new version, by asking in the discussion itself. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 20:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Fixing My Lifehouse Music Video Table

Hi Mcmatter

Thank you for fixing my Lifehouse Music Video Table It was really kind of you to do that for me

Thank You

Bye

Kind Regards

From

James Duggins 04:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

03:03:24, 18 May 2016 review of submission by طرفدار محیط زیست

طرفدار محیط زیست (talk) 03:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@طرفدار محیط زیست: I'm not sure what you are asking of me, since there are no questions or statements in this request. My original statement still stands about the draft it is nothing more then a fluff piece/resume not based on any independent reliable sources. You need to prove this person meets the requirements of WP:BIO through uses of newspapers, published journals or books. The article should based what those sources say about him not what he or anyone connected to him says about him. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Journal in Plant Science

Hi, I saw you reverted adding Journal in Plant Science to List of open access journals as "not a notable journal". I went to double-check the journal, as I am familiar with other journals from the Frontiers series, and am seeing that it actually is quite notable, with IF around 4 and claims of being the "3rd largest and 7th most cited plant science journal in the world".[2] I actually see no harm including it on Wikipedia. Regards, — kashmiri TALK 16:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: the problem is it does not have an article which has proven notability and it wasn't supported by a independent reliable source nor have you provided one. If you can find another source which isn't a blog by the organizations own website I would have no issue with it being included in the list, but until then using their own words to support any level of notability is not sufficient. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Yep, valid point. Forgot about the article requirement. Thanks :) — kashmiri TALK 17:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Houston, We Have a Problem (2016) - movie // page approval

I am *very* new to Wikipedia, slowly getting my bearings... but.

I would like to know, if my article is by now "good" enough to be published. This is the one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Houston,_We_Have_a_Problem!_%282016%29

I would appreciate any help.

Thanks a bunch ---Ladydevlish — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladydevlish (talk • contribs) 15:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Request on 23:31:46, 6 August 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by طرفدار محیط زیست


Please help me fix article error and put it in trust location that I create my first Article , thanks dear. طرفدار محیط زیست (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

طرفدار محیط زیست (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help

Hi Mcmatter,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mcmatter. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

New 10,000 Challenge for Canada

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge is up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge for the UK which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Canada like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1600 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Canada but fuelled by a contest such as The North America Destubathon to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. I would like some support from Canadian wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile! Cheers. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Just a gesture of goodwill. You're in my thoughts :) —UY Scuti Talk 17:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Money.net incorporation date conflict

JacksonGreene has been removing incorporation date of Money.Net from 1999, as per Delaware Corporate records and other material like https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Money.net+Expands+Real-Time+Streaming+Portfolio+and+Introduces...-a068991621 clearly shows that the company has been in existence prior to 2001. Looks like JacksonGreene in intentionally using Wiki to promote new line of marketing by Money.Net as a new upstart that's incorporated in 2014. All the sources JacksonGreene mentions are writeup interviews done by Money.Net CEO. Since you have also noticed similar contributions from the user, I am requesting you to intervene and help correct the material. Fintech2k (talk)/(contrib) —Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Investment

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

WikiEditCrunch (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank You!

Oh okay! Sorry for the promoting, I'm pretty new to this site I believe you already knew. But thank you for the welcoming!

It meek (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

DMV Wikipedia Page - Edits/Proper Content

Hello,

My name is Rich Meddaugh and I'm the Assistant Director of Public Information for the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles. It was brought to my attention that there are a few incorrect items on the DMV page you oversee on Wikipedia. I would like to see if we can correct those items and keep an open line of communication to ensure that this page is consistently updated for anyone performing searches for New York State Department of Motor Vehicles.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to working with you to make sure the information listed on this page is timely and helpful.

Rest regards,

Rich

Rich Meddaugh Assistant Director of Public Information

New York State Department of Motor Vehicles 6 Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12228 Office: (518) 473-7000 | richard.meddaugh@dmv.ny.gov dmv.ny.gov — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.168.151.88 (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked because of editing libel.

I was unfairly blocked. I am engaged in an "edit war" because the other party is lying, thus damaging a reputation (libel). This is illegal. Please unblock me or block the other party as well. Other party is: HankyJade

Page reference [[3]]

@LillyLime: You are not in fact blocked from editing you are however no longer able to edit Dee Margo because you were involved in an edit war and did not engage in discussion on the talk page to reach a compromise or consensus on what the content should be. Unless you are able to work within the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia you will could face an outright ban of editing. Threats of legal action are also often met with heavy criticism and could land you with an outright ban of editing as well. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

EDITING OF NDUKA OBAIGBENA

Hi McMatter,

Kindly, in respect to [[4]] is there a way to detect if the page is edited wrongly? This is neither my first nor second edit. A lot of information is missing about Obaigbena and I need to update it. Kindly advise how to verify pages before publishing so mistakes would be avoided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeAyoade (talk • contribs) 18:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

JoeAyoade The issue with your previous edits was they were written in a promotional tone which is not acceptable on Wikipedia. We only want to see facts that are published somewhere reliable. We don’t want to see the opinion of someone unless it contributes to facts in the subject. Things like

“As a child he demonstrated a precocious talent for creativity and was not enamoured of the routine. It was because of his curiosity early in life that he was nicknamed “Professor ” at birth by the British gynaecologist at the University College Hospital ( UCH) Ibadan.”

is pure opinion and not acceptable nor was it cited. We also find

“ The quality news magazine that defined the standards of news magazine publications at the time, as it was strong in economic and political analysis and features, attracting some of the best and brightest of Nigerian journalism.”

purely promotional and no place on Wikipedia. Stick the facts that you can find in published sources without any embellishments and provide that source so some one can scrutinize it. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 21:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


Thanks for your response. It helped save a great deal of time. Now, kindly, can you help confirm if [[5]] meets Wikipedia requirements. Also can you help remove the template message? --JoeAyoade (talk) 09:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

JoeAyoade I have done some further clean up, and remove one tag and placed up another as I feel you may have a Conflict of Interest with the subject of this article. This tag will hopefully have some others come to the article to give it a look over as well to catch anything I may have missed. Any further conversation about the article should probably be moved over to the talk page of the article. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Risk management and underwater diving

Hi Mcmatter, I reinstated the navbox for Underwater diving at Risk management as part of a process of working through the navbox links and updating before I noticed that you had reverted (I am checking hundreds of articles). Risk management is a mandatory part of commercial diving operations, along with a whole set of other occupational health and safety constraints. It seems relevant to me. If you think it is not relevant, I would be quite willing to engage in a reasonable discussion on the talk page. If you just removed it because you didn't see the logic, no worries. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Notability of politicians

Kirsten Kappert-Gonther is a member of the Bundestag, the federal parliament of Germany, a clear pass of WP:NPOL. I don't quite understand why you tagged the stub with a {{notability}} template -- of course the article needs more work, but I fail to see how there is anything like a notability problem. —Kusma (t·c) 13:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Kusma that was my bad I did not realize that Bundestag was the German name for Parliament. The way it read seemed it was just another political party or organization. I will remove the Notability tag. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I should probably mention that the Bundestag is the federal parliament of Germany when I write such stubs :) Happy editing, —Kusma (t·c) 14:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Requests for undeletion #Orlando's Summer of Love. Comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mcmatter, I saw that you collapsed a clarification discussion at Requests_for_undeletion#Orlando's_Summer_of_Love before the discussion was complete. Please note that a discussion where the reasoning for the deletion of the article as well as what needs to change in a restored or recreated article is still apparently ambiguous and contested by other involved editors.

Clarification of the concerns raised that led to deletion as well as allowing the deleting editor to weigh in on the issue is appropriate for the that page--even if it requires extended non-content related discussion to get that clarification. Despite the assertions of other editors, WP policy is going to determine notability of the subject in sources is the issue here and not any of the alleged content concerns. Content discussions do not belong on on that page nor on user talk pages. They belong on the talk page of the deleted article which I am requesting the deleting editor to restore. I think you have been purposely tricked into possibly believing that WP policy related to a content dispute was the purpose of deletion of this article. It was not and the fact that it wasn't has been established with the associated WP policies in the ongoing discussion that you collapsed. Thank you, Johnvr4 (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Johnvr4 I will be honest I don't care about your article or your beliefs about its deletion or anything to do with it, however the continued discussion on a platform such as WP:REFUND is serving no purpose other then disruption . WP:REFUND is only for non-controversial restorations such as PRODs and stale drafts. Since this is obviously controversial you need to take it to WP:DRV and argue it out there. I do not wish to be involved any further then this. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
You don't have to care, however and our beliefs are irrelevant. If you going to involve yourself in that discussion because you have an opinion about whether it is even serving a purpose, then at least understand what you are talking about regarding the cause of the disruption, or what's been said in that discussion regarding the unsuitability for DRV at this time. DRV is premature. The very purpose of the nominating editor's nomination is being disputed (by policy), he won't clarify, and therefore no can say what needs to change. What you call a "disruption" is required to continue so the specific issue that caused deletion can be either reviewed by the deleting editor, rewritten, or taken to DRV as clearly stated in that discussion. Johnvr4 (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Ok, let's see if I can make this clear and in simple English. WP:REFUND is NOT the place to discuss the deletion of an article. If you think the that reason for Deletion was invalid or done in error is to be taken to WP:DRV. So take it there. At the top of the page at WP:REFUND it even says

If you feel an administrator has erred in closing a deletion discussion or in applying a speedy deletion criterion, please contact them directly. If you discuss but are unable to resolve the issue on their talk page, it should be raised at Wikipedia:Deletion review, rather than here.

My only involvement in the discussion was to try and stop the disruption and guide everyone to the proper venue. Instead you come here and continue this SOAPBOX tirade instead of taking it to the proper venue where more people may actually listen or care about the concerns you raise. As far as I am concerned this conversation is now done I have given you the same advice twice chose to adhere to it or not that is on you. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
McMatter This is no soapbox.
As stated: "I have asked the deleting administrator for assistance. However there has not been a reply to date."
WP:DRVPURPOSE "Deletion review should not be used:"
  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment);
  2. when you have not discussed the matter with the user who closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination;
Now, The portion of discussion that you are "hiding" in your collapses explains the very purpose of leaving the discussion up as well as why DRV is inappropriate at this time. Why do you seem to be hell-bent on repeatedly "hiding" this specific portion of the discussion?
Your edit-war-like collapsing is hiding the stated purpose of the discussion while at the same time you are claiming that any discussion there is inappropriate and is serving no purpose. That does not compute and I would appreciate you leaving the compromise I made on the collapse alone and reverting yours. What you've repeatedly done is misleading to the community as to the purpose of the request.
The now-hidden text below is so you can clearly understand why that discussion is there and needs to be there (emphasis added).
"Alleged NM WP:GNG (A7?) was the supposed issue raised. That the sources don't discuss it in much more detail is just one of bogus assertions in the discussion that I am referring to. ... Please just read the quotes from quality sources on the subject [from the screen shot]... and the new one...Also note that in addition to 20+ years of local media coverage, there is an expansive L.A. Weekly source article as well as a multi-page Rolling Stone article on the subject in issue No. 0767..."
"The indication in AfD discussion was that the reliable sources in the deleted stub were somehow inadequate for basic general notability WP:GNG (there were fifteen expansive sources on this era at the time of deletion not counting the new one and there even are more available)."
"The assertion(s) were so absurd that I've asked the deleting editor advice about how to best handle it because WP:DRVPURPOSE did not seem to apply to a scenario where new evidence is only required because all previously presented evidence was blatantly misrepresented in Afd and just ignored in any subsequent discussion."..."if any admin would like to confirm, provide opinion, or guidance on any particular source or the specific DRVPURPOSE to use for requesting a DRV, it would be appreciated--even if only one source"......"By 1991-1992, Orlando experienced its own "summer of love" through the culture that sprang up around the weekend acid-house nights at the Beacham Theater... By the time Rolling Stone discovered the scene, late-night culture had become a shadow of its former self".
Johnvr4 (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
This will be my final reply. So what you are saying is quite simply, you disagree with the close of the AFD and that you would like to have it reviewed because the arguments were "Bogus" and unfounded. This is exactly what WP:DRV is for not WP:REFUND which is the spot for uncontroversial restorations. With all the verbose arguments you would probably be better off just re-writing the article in draft space and have it reviewed there. You can even see the previously deleted page at https://en.everybodywiki.com/Orlando%27s_Summer_of_Love as they have a copy of it. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit to Wiki page for Iain Duncan Smith

Hello, I'm Mcmatter. I noticed that you recently removed content from Iain Duncan Smith without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi with regard to the above, I made changes on Iain's page because it has been edited at some point over the last few months by a Left wing activist and does not accurately represent the work IDS has done, he also asked me to remove it. Unfortunately because I'm not that experienced with editing pages, I missed leaving an explanation as to why I had edited the page. Would it be possible to allow my access back please so that I can accurately edit the page?

Many thanks,

Tabitha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jellyhaus (talk • contribs) 09:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jellyhaus: Since you obviously have a Confilict of Interest in this matter your best approach would be to take it the talk page of the article Talk:Iain_Duncan_Smith to make suggestions and provide reasons for the desired changes. Large unexplained removal of cited material will never be accepted especially by someone with a Conflict of Interest. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jason Mojica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shelter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 08:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thousand Thoughts Page

([[6])

Hi,

I was just wondering why you have nominated my page of Speedy Delegation? I am currently updating it so it has referencing and information and just wondered what exactly was wrong with it so that I can update it.

Many Thans — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmstudent101 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

I noticed that you tagged Guy Loel with {{prod blp}} for proposed deletion. I have removed the tag from the article because it does not meet the criteria specified. The placement requirements are (a) that subject is living, and (b) that the article contains no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography. Please fully read Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people before tagging articles for proposed deletion. Thank you. Adam9007 (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Tagging of Thousand Thoughts (Band)

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Thousand Thoughts (Band). I do not think that Thousand Thoughts (Band) fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because The tour with Inklings, in particular, is a claim of significence.. I request that you consider not re-tagging Thousand Thoughts (Band) for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe that much of the useful info now in the article was not there when you tagged it, and after it was deleted and recreated, your tag was still in place somehow. This is a bit unusual. I am posting here not to criticize your tag, which seems to ahvbe been reasonable when you placed it, but to notify you in case you wish to comment, or to go ahead with an AfD. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for this.--DancingPhilosopher (talk) 06:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Gamma Theta Phi

Can you please restore Gamma Theta Phi. This was a fraternity At several catholic universities, which I belonged to at Christian Brothers College. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.61.218 (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I cannot. I doubt it will ever be restored unless someone cared enough about it, to actually publish a story about it in a reliable source that you can build an article off. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 21:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Spoonfulone

Thank you for your comment on [[7]]. I've reviewed the text following the guidelines suggested and resubmitted. There are now some extra references, and I do believe that the New York Times, CNN, Huffington Post, Los Angeles Times, CBS (Local - San Francisco), ABC News and NPR are reliable sources and the product/brand is mentioned there. The science is a very important part of what makes sense to explain, since the science process and research results are part of the history and the reason the company exists. Also many of the scientific journals mention the product as well. Please let me know your feedback.LuisPerformance (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mcmatter: Thank you for your help. I edited the text in the same logic as the Tylenol page you've sent me. I left the "scientific" reasoning only as a context for the creation of the product in the History section, as is very summed up. I also added an External Links Section as the Tylenol page has, and that's where I included citations for research, without further explanations (that I'll add on the Allergen Immunotherapy article later, as you proposed). I've based the text in the news articles and pieces of relevant sources and not on research and journals. Please let me know if the article is ok or how I can turn it relevant. Thanks LuisPerformance (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

No deletion criteria for the page Hiyangthang Lairembi temple

The page should not be deleted because it contains adequate references and citations about the topic. Goutamkumar Oinam (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Goutamkumar Oinam: The deletion criteria for this is because it's only purpose seems to be to promote a certain temple. As with most of your posts and articles you take a far too promotional tone and use travel sites as references which are not reliable or adequate for establishing any sort of notability. I would please ask you to read over WP:NPOV and WP:RS. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Mcmatter,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 810 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools
  • It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
  • It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes
  • Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
  • Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks !

Thanks for telling me what's wrong with my article, I'll try to improve it 😊 2J14 (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

About my page

What is a "reliable source"? 2J14 (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@2J14: Click on the links provided in the decline rationale or click on this one WP:RS. The quick and dirty of it is a reliable source must have editorial oversight or peer review, this is generally newspapers, books and or online news with solid editorial oversight. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 02:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Article

Can you check again my article "Antonio Raul Corbo"? I'm not from the US, so I don't know what is considered "reliable" there. 2J14 (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Submission declined for my article

My article about the band "La Nevoa" has been declined. I read the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" and the band falls into item 7 for being the lead and oldest Gothic-style band in Praia Grande and supporting the scene with Compilation album with local band, item 10 for playing no luiza micheletti's show on MTV Brasil and maybe item 5 for releasing her single and participating in the hugely successful underground compilation album "In The Core" released by indie label "Star Cry Records" which also released well-known independent rock names in brazil as "Plastic Fire", "Up Three", "Replace" among others, besides being the first Brazilian indie label to have its own online radio software. Thnx buddy :) --XxxxXrockXxxxX (talk) 06:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)--XxxxXrockXxxxX (talk) 06:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@XxxxXrockXxxxX: the issue lies in that none of what you have just stated is stated in the article supported by reliable sources. Meaning I could not verify anything in the article. You need to prove that what you say is true. Wikis are not considered reliable which includes Wikipedia. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

COI

I do not represent the entity Debjeet Mukherjee on Wikipedia. The article was created by someone not associated with me and I made a few edits because the person under question in the article shares the same name as me. I have already changed my username because of that reason so please stop associating Debjeet Mukherjee article edits with my username. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BongEditor001 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Debjeet Mukherjee

I've draftified Debjeet Mukherjee even though you marked it as reviewed. This article came up at IRC #wikipedia-en-help yeserday and it clearly did not meet NAUTHOR as a draft. It fails the in-line citations requirements for BLPs as well, so returning to draft was, I felt, entirely justified. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 21:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: That's fine, I was questioning the notability and citations. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Request on 17:13:59, 12 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by LeversA



LeversA (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Just received your message about the first page I wrote you rejected for the reason 'seemed like an advert'. Clearly, that wasn't my intention. I'm keen to start contributing and so thought I'd try writing about my local school. Could I edit the page I created and submit again? if so, would you be able to tell me which parts I should remove as I did follow a similar format to some other school pages I looked at.

The page I created is [[8]]

Many thanks

A

@LeversA: So the primary items which come across as an advert are the entire stats section. These stats purpose is to make the school look better then other schools. Other concerns are there is a general lack of citations. Every fact should be supported by a citation , for example when the article says
"The school also participates in various performing arts. Pupils regularly sing in the school choir and perform in school stage productions. Its pupils also enter public speaking competitions, including the Chipping Norton Music Festival and the English Speaking Board examinations in which pupils recite poetry from memory, read a passage from a favourite book and prepare a talk on a topic of personal interest."

We need to see a source which supports this statement. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Game Boy Camera

So what is wrong with the links I am adding to the GameBoy Camera page? The intent is to provide useful information about current day uses of the GameBoy Camera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkarches (talk • contribs) 19:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Tkarches: Please read through WP:EL and WP:LINKFARM to see the issues. That page was just becoming a huge external link farm which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 20:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I would take exception with calling it a "link farm", which connotes to me a bunch of junk links that are used to generate revenue. My intent is to increase awareness of an obscure device that can be used for artistic purposes. I am not making any money from this. Is this because link farms are inherently bad or because they are sometimes used purely to generate revenue? If the links don't belong here, are article titles and author information (without the link) acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkarches (talk • contribs) 13:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
@Tkarches:, You can take exception to it, it doesn't change the fact that's what the article was turning into. If you had read through the links in my above post you would see the term link farm has nothing to do with monetary gain, but instead it discusses excessive external links and how they detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an indiscriminate collection of links you think are cool. If people really want to know what they can do with the gameboy camera there is other sites they can perform searches on to find them. Please also remember to sign your posts with ~~~~. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Correct use of A7 speedy tag

Hi Mcmatter -- I've deleted D3tape as promotional, but the A7 tag was incorrect -- it can only be used for a limited set of articles including people, companies & organisations (excluding schools), and web content. Please read the guidelines carefully before using A7 again. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict: thank you for your note, however I do understand what A7 is and just like their other page D3 tape they just made it talks about their non significant company called D3 Tape which is the purpose of A7. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 03:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
The articles are clearly about the tape brand, not the company. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

A graph showing the number of articles in the page curation feed from 12/21/18 - 12/20/19

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days
Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 Rosguill (talk) 47,395 Patrol Page Curation
2 Onel5969 (talk) 41,883 Patrol Page Curation
3 JTtheOG (talk) 11,493 Patrol Page Curation
4 Arthistorian1977 (talk) 5,562 Patrol Page Curation
5 DannyS712 (talk) 4,866 Patrol Page Curation
6 CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) 3,995 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 3,812 Patrol Page Curation
8 Boleyn (talk) 3,655 Patrol Page Curation
9 Ymblanter (talk) 3,553 Patrol Page Curation
10 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 3,522 Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Patrick O'Connell (american actor)

Hello Mcmatter. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Patrick O'Connell (american actor), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: father of two notable musicians and multiple roles in notable shows / films. Thank you. SoWhy 15:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Mcmatter,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources
Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Horticultural Trades Association

Hello Mcmatter. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Horticultural Trades Association, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims importance/significance of the subject. Thank you. SoWhy 15:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Anton Safronov for deletion

Dear McMatter — I will add more sources on person Anton Safronov. His efforts on self-governance of Sakha Republic (Yakutia) as indigenous territory of Russia carry significant importance in Yakut people's traditional subsistence way of living, especially given climate change and environmental implications of continued natural resource exploration by Russian state-owned oil and gas corporations. More sources will be added on this person as they become available. Thank you. Personal82 (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kenneth J. Heidrich has been accepted

Kenneth J. Heidrich, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Sam-2727 (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: StrangeZero

Hello Mcmatter. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of StrangeZero, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Being signed to a notable label indicates importance/significance (WP:CCSI#SINGER, WP:CCSI#BAND). Thank you. SoWhy 07:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi Mcmatter, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello Mcmatter,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources
  • A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
  • Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
  • A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
  • Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)