User talk:Mrmatiko/Archive 4

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8


Hi. When you recently edited Rob Sloan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sunderland (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) 11:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Ciarán Lenehan

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Ciarán Lenehan, which you proposed for deletion. I am leaving this message here to notify you about it. He is not an association footballer, he is a Gaelic footballer & passes WP:NGAELIC ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC) If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to it. Instead, feel free to list the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

I see, something new to look out for then. Thanks. --Mrmatiko (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You AFC reviews

FYI, we have a great AFC helper tool at User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js which should help you reviewing the submission, informing (automatically) the submitter, when accepting creating the talkpages, updating /recent, etc. Consider adding the script to your skin.js. If you need any help "installing" it, leave a talkpage at my user talkpage. mabdul 20:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that is a very helpful tool. --Mrmatiko (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/FreeKick

Why is the article not allowed? The game is online since 2003, hundreds of thousands of players went through it, it's constantly getting good reviews and several of them are included as references. Much lesser games are listed on Wikipedia. What is the problem and what can I do to fix it? CafaMagician (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You need sources that are independent of the subject. For example national/international news articles about the game. If it is popular enough then it is likely to have had a few news articles written about it, otherwise it isn't really considered to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article.--Mrmatiko (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The sources independent of the subject made national/international news articles about the game and are added in the references list. Most notable is the Narodni list source as that's the oldest Croatian weekly newspaper.CafaMagician (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The article that you are relying on for providing notability reads like an advertorial. It is not a reliable source. --Mrmatiko (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Which one? The one on Oklade.net - perhaps. But the interview with the creator of the game is not an advertorial. The game was notable enough for the Swedish creator to be interviewed by the Croatian newspaper, so I am not really sure how can that interview be considered not notable. It is casual, as an interview of this type should be, but it's definitely not an advertorial. The independent review of the game is also not an advertorial. CafaMagician (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's a translated version of the interview: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.narodni-list.hr%2Farticles%2F1MxEtq_hAzQ&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8 It's about asking the creator about Croatian clubs, explaining the game to the readers, and finally inviting them to play as well. Not an advertorial. CafaMagician (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The interview is acceptable and may be used to prove notability, however the two reviews aren't really capable of contributing to this because reviews aren't independent, reliable coverage. You need at least one more independent, reliable source before the article could potentially be accepted. Once you have done that you are welcome to resubmit. --Mrmatiko (talk) 08:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Blackburner

Thanks Benny — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanoflife27 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mrmatiko, thank you for your help. It really is needed and much appreciated. I'm view the tutorials on proper citations. I am starting to understand them. I will revise it and edit it. I hope it will be acceptable. Fanoflife27 (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC) --Fanoflife27 (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


Hi Mrmatiko, thank you for your help. I have revise it and edit it. I hope it will be acceptable. Please review or should I resubmitted. I await your reply. THANKS Fanoflife27 (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mrmatiko, it seems you have your own project interest. I'm not sure if it's personal but you seem to reply to others. Can I request another Editor to offer me help? Thanks Fanoflife27 (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Kiefc

Hi, per User talk:Kiefc#Your submission at Articles for creation please see User:Kiefc/Global Educational Network for Satellite Operations which is a userfied copy of a deleted version of this article. TerriersFan (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Richie Gee

Hello. Why did you declined my article and which links more do you need? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasey lane (talk • contribs) 09:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Article about Restaurant Week

Just wanted your feedback on a new Wiki that I have created. Does it meet Wiki standards? Would appreciate your comments and feedback (and help!). Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bangalore_restaurant_week Varunr (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added more press clips as citations. There are references are on Facebook and Youtube, but those are coverage done by actual and reputable Television News channels. There are Newspaper mentions too, Note 5 and 6 are Newspaper clips and also, please check the section titled Press mentions. Does that help? Varunr (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You may be interested

in Shivdeep waman lande. pablo 22:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

US Army unit lineages/copyright

Mrmatiko, Thank you for your vigilance in trying to keep copyrighted material form being used improperly on Wikipedia. However, I don't think it was necessary to remove the US Army unit lineage info that you have removed from several pages. This info is from the US Army Center of Military History (CMH). As the CMH notes on its site: "because CMH publications are in the public domain, they are not copyrighted." Some site on the internet,such as military.com have made use of CMH material, but that does not confer copyright protection on the material. Ocalafla (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/International Society for Music Education (ISME)

Many thanks for your review. I have now included additional citations for the Society's page. There is a problem though, just yesterday, someone has created this stub page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Society_for_Music_Education&oldid=474103822 while our page was being reviewed. This is quite inconvenient, as the person that performed that acted without consulting with the Society's leadership and board of directors. many thanks --Dr Evangelos Himonides, Institute of Education, University of London 17:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.Himonides (talk • contribs)

Anyone is perfectly entitled to create an article. They don't need the approval of anybody else. You are welcome to merge some information from your AfC submission in to the new article if you wish. --Mrmatiko (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks! I do know that Wikipedia is a demoncratic space... I simply fail to understand how the two pages will be able to co-exist, when/if the page that is currently under review gets accepted! --Dr Evangelos Himonides, Institute of Education, University of London 11:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.Himonides (talk • contribs)
I am the one who created the stub article - I am an archivist for ISME at the Special Collections for Performing Arts at the University of Maryland. I created the stub for informational value while I compiled research from the archives. I like your version of the article - as you can see, it covers the same ground as my stub, but in an expanded fashion. I see that your article was not approved - this is because your citations are all from ISME's public website. This makes it seem like the only information you have on the organization is from the organization itself. Citing neutral sources such as Grove's, other encyclopedias, or news articles will give your article more credibility. I was planning on adding citeable information from published books or the ISME archives. It is not beneficial to ISME to take my stub down while you and I work on the article, however, because the stub is accurate and at least gets the ISME name out there. alifabeta (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Angela King Twitero

Hi - I have a question for you. I verfied my references, and I think they are reliable. Is there something inparticular that is not reliable - so I will know for future? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheerit (talk • contribs) 18:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for checking my article NealeFamily (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

METDAQ article

Hello Mrmatiko,

Can you tell me what's wrong with the article METDAQ the last one you have checked? We have rewrote it for the fourth time and still it couldn't be submitted, I have no ideas why and what can we do to be submitted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrew345 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Help needed: finding a neutral voice for BSR article

Dear Mrmatiko,

Thank you for your comments on the draft BSR article. We would like to improve the article but would like to have some guidance as to how to make the article more neutral. We would be grateful if you could point out specific sections that need reworking and if you have any other suggestions for improvement.

Thanks again, Coralhead — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coralhead (talk • contribs) 19:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mrmatiko for your useful and prompt response! We'll get right into fixing the article. CoralheadCoralhead (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Edward Sayer

Thanks for reviewing my article.

Are most of the problems with the "Philosophical and stylistic abnormalities section?" When writing it I thought I was keeping a neutral view point. I try to describe the arguments that Sayer makes in "Observations on Dr. Price's Revolution Sermon" without sounding biased in favor of or against them.

I realize now that words like "propaganda" and "agenda" in the paragraph about Lindor and Adelaide probably sound biased against the philosophy behind Sayer's work.

Do you think I could get an indication of some of the places aside from that which were found problematic where neutrality is concerned?AntiJacobin (talk) 11:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Article rejection for 'Akash Rajpal'

Hi, I saw the article you rejected and the article now is fully revised and shortened. Requesting you to kindly accept the article and help propagate a quality person from India. Unfortunately we have not seen many quality professionals making a mark on wikipedia. Musicandsoul (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Natalia Alonso.

Thank you for your comment. I would like to improve this article; can you please provide guidance as to the particular sections or sentences that require a more neutral tone? Thank you! User talk:Cannons10 15:22 EST 14 February 2012

Thank you for the suggestions. I have edited the language and provided additional quotes and references. User talk:Cannons10 15:54 EST 14 February 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cannons10 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

3V05

Hi Mrmatiko

I'm a Valid Radio Station. Narrowcaster. With Following References http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_radio_stations_in_Australia#Bright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bright,_Victoria#Radio.2FTV http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/licence_search.licence_lookup?pLICENCE_NO=410133 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.192.130 (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

D-Zone CSD A7

Is there a more appropriate tag similar to A7 that would work in this case (Non-web video game)? If not I will AFD. The current major editor of the author also may be a socketpuppet of the original creator, who appears to be the game's author, and some of the sources appear to be potentially fabricated (The Borders book appears to be self published ebook created for this purpose). Is there an appropriate channel to take that? -- ferret (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I see you've already taken it to AfD, there aren't any speedy deletion tags that would be appropriate unless the user is banned (then it would be G5). If you have some evidence of sockpuppetry then sock puppet investigations would be the place to go. With the source you can use the reliable source noticeboard. I'll !vote in the AfD later. --Mrmatiko (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Pusan International Forum

So you know what this is about?? To me, "Ha Seung-Moo(河承武) who held a president of Seoul National University took an editor and an executive editor for a publisher" is pure gibberish. So is "the first overall journal paper of Academic Journal"... I look forward to your clarifications of this article! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It is very poorly written, but the nonsense criteria explicitly excludes "poor writing". --Mrmatiko (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I've reworded the article, still not perfectly written, but should be understandable. Like I said, it was poorly worded but because it wasn't repeating characters or random words, the G1 nonsense criteria wasn't met. It may meet some other deletion criteria, but not G1. --Mrmatiko (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Interesting. So you think that "the first overall journal paper of Academic Journal" and "First it was published by a title of a current journal" is understandable and not a random sequence of words. this is not even a machine translation, because even bad machine translations make it possible to see what's going on. That's not possible here. As G1 says "if you can understand it, G1 does not apply." Meaning that if you cannot understand it, G1 does apply. Your re-wording concerns one phrase and I really find it courageous of you to give an interpretation. I hope what you made of it is what the author intended. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Regina (Dino Crisis) A10

Greetings. I declined the A10 I saw at Regina (Dino Crisis) because A10 is limited to articles that duplicate an existing topic, which this article does not do. That said, I certainly agree with the general thrust of your concern. I'd PROD the article if I were you, and take it to AfD if the PROD is contested. Let me know if you disagree with my conclusion here. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for letting me know. While I was going for the "does not expand upon, detail or improve information" bit, looking at the the criteria it is clear that this only applies if it is a duplicate of the article itself. Now I'm wondering whether a redirect may be better than deletion, what do you think? --Mrmatiko (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for not being defensive/ticked off that I undid it, hehe :). To me, it doesn't necessarily seem like a particularly likely redirect, given the low likelihood someone will come to Wikipedia and search for "Regina (Dino Crisis)", but that's certainly the less controversial route than AFD.

Actually, I just noticed that someone else has A10 tagged it. Maybe let's see what happens with this. I'm going to be crazy and undo that one too. I'm also going to redirect it, at likely the least controversial course of action and one that, happily, minimizes any additional del template spam on a new editor's page! Cheers, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be a bit hypocritical of me to get defensive about a speedy deletion being declined when I've got a link to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion on my user page to check speedy deletion requests. I agree that a redirect probably is the most reasonable course of action and should keep the drama to a minimum. --Mrmatiko (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8