User talk:Matthew Wong (PMA)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Middle Thorofare Bridge has been accepted
 Middle Thorofare Bridge, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Bkissin (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Middle_Thorofare_Bridge help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Strange tags
I created the page Great Channel Bridge as a redirect from an alternate name to Stone Harbor Bridge. However, my creation of the redirect was tagged with (Tag: New redirect). I checked my edit filter log and there is no hit that seems to have applied that tag (and even if there was, why would there be a filter just for creating redirects?) Why is that tag there, and does it mean anything that I should be aware of? — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 15:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And now, after I self-reverted my edit to Requests for page protection after I noticed that the page I reported was already protected, the edit summary got tagged with (Tag: Undo). Again, no edit filter log hits seem to apply that tag. What’s going on here? — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 15:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a collision in the use of the word "tag". We often use 'tag' to refer to a maintenance template applied to an article. In the edit history and similar displays, however, the software makes observations about the type of edit and calls them tags. The tag "new redirect" is observing that you created a new redirect. The tag "undo" is observing that an edit was undone. These tags help other editors make sense of the record. There's nothing you need to do about them.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 15:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

WikiPuppeteer
Hi, Matthew, I'm a little confused as to the history of this page. Why did you move it back to mainspace? You're right in that it didn't belong in project space, but it belongs in mainspace even less. I've since deleted it, but I'm still wondering as to your rationale. Thanks, Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. My rationale was that I wasn’t totally sure if it was a blatant and obvious hoax (as CSD G3 describes), and therefore I felt that tagging the page for PROD was the best course of action. However, I wasn’t able to tag it for PROD in the project namespace, because I got an error saying “Please use PROD only on articles”. As such, I moved it to the main space to apply the deletion tag. If you have any feedback on how to handle similar situations in the future, I would be open to it. — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 16:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A better thing would have been to nominate it at MfD if you weren't sure whether any of the CSD criteria apply. I totally understand how it can be annoying to deal with things like this that are obviously deletable without any easy way to delete them, but the rules are supposed to fit the situation, not the other way around; don't change the situation to fit the rules. If PROD doesn't work outside of mainspace, then just don't use it; moving deletable articles into mainspace in particular just increases the potential disruption, since mainspace is a much more visible and sensitive place for them. I know you had good intentions, and ultimately the result was okay, so this isn't a big deal or anything, but don't do things like that again; it's an abuse of the rules. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Unexplained reverts
This edit to the article for Middle Thorofare Bridge again removed extensive corrections and additions without explanation. Your edit was reverted, again. I'm not sure why you're removing these change and the lack of any expalantion in an edit summary or discussion on the article's talk page isn't helping. Alansohn (talk) 05:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the edits being “extensive corrections and additions”. The article is factually correct as is, and I don’t feel that the additions are necessary. You are the one adding new content, so you are the one who needs to initiate attempts to resolve a disagreement. — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 14:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , we appreciate the contributions you've made to Wikipedia. You have to remember that you don't own a particular article. and  were not personally attacking your work when they made those edits, there were adding to the work that you already created. That is what Wikipedia is, in a nutshell: users collaborating together to create better content that educates others. Bkissin (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Foreign langage
Re: this: yes, the article is not in English. It is in Bengali. If you're not sure, Google translate can generally figure it out. If you're still not sure, better to identify no language than to identify the wrong language. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it looked like Arabic characters to me. I will check Google Translate in the future. — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 16:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Sjoerd van der Burg
I have answered you on my user Talk page. But I think I also ought to notify you here that your claim that the article i started, about this professor of immunology, can be reinstated with one reliable source does not seem to be correct. Another user did supply what would seem a reliable enough source and reinstated the article, but it was removed to draft status yet again, not by you but by someone else. That kind of conflicting and escalating demands and claims makes it rather impossible to know what it actually does take to avoid the same thing happening again and again. Seems more reasonable then just not to spend any more positive energy here for the time being. User:ΑΩ

Recreating deleted articles
I went to create the article for the John Greenleaf Whittier Bridge in Amesbury, Massachusetts crossing the Merrimack River. However, I received a warning that the page had been repeatedly deleted multiple times. I noticed the same error on the Rocks Village Bridge, the next bridge upstream. How do I proceed from here - am I allowed to recreate articles that have been previously deleted multiple times? — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 13:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In this case, a banned user tried to create them multiple times, and we have a policy that prohibits that. You're free to create these two articles as long as they comply with the usual norms. Sometimes repeatedly recreated articles are protected from creation, and you'd get a notice saying so. If you run into that, go to the protecting administrator's talk page and ask to have it unprotected. Katietalk 16:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

List of life peerages (2010–present)
Regarding List of life peerages (2010–present), I removed the information because there are currently no Life Peerages yet to be gazetted, so the section is no longer needed. Someone else has since commented it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.126.81.6 (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Contributions page not working
My contributions page is malfunctioning. See below. Why is this happening? — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 14:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I was having the same issue but it seems to have resolved on its own. If you continue to have issues please reopen this request or repost it at WP:HELPDESK. Thanks, &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Gyaanipedia
It seems that this user closed the AfD prematurely as keep. I saw that you reverted his edit on the article itself so please could you take a look? Spiderone 20:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Self tagging
Hi I was wondering if you could explain why you added maintenance tags to the article you created Bates Bridge. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Because I knew that the article I created still had those issues in my initial versions, so I’ve saved some work for other editors who would have to tag it. — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 16:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC
 * Ok I understand the logic but you should basically do the fixes yourself if you are aware of them rather than publishing a substandard article. If you really want to save work for other editors you can search for appropraite categories and add them yourself and divide the article into sections. This is not a very big article so really just a lead and a history section. If you are interested in bridges I would suggest looking at this wikiproject page WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels that has some guidelines and also an assessment section with the possibility to have a look at some examples of featured articles good articles etc. There is also a talk page and a list of members that could give you advice. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is that I don’t know exactly how to fix the issues. When I know how, I do, but when I don’t know how, I go with what I’ve got and request assistance for the rest. — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 16:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The category problem is not very complicated, you just need to copy the categories from a similar page, try reading Categorization this should help. The sections bit is pretty easy as well, try reading Help:Section. This are some of the basics to be perfectly honest. I would suggest you try and master them before publishing your next page creation. Try using the sandbox. --Dom from Paris (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've done the cats and created the section, now you can move the text around if you want. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

User name warning
I thought I'd have a look at your other edits to see if you need help anywhere else and I came across a warning for a user name that might violate policy. I think this was an error and you wanted to warn them for disruptive editing. If that was the case I totally agree but otherwise I'd be curious to know why you think the user name is problematic. --Dom from Paris (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Previous account
I have been looking at your editing pattern and it seems clear that this is not your first experience editing here. If you have already had another account it is considered advisable to mention it on your user page as the use of Multiple accounts is only permitted in very exceptional cases. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok I've just seen your user page. It was definitely a good idea to create an account after the block of the IP for disruptive editing. Having a user name tends to make the experience more fulfilling and personal. Happy editing! Dom from Paris (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually I will ask the question again because I looked at the IP address edits and they were also clearly not the work of a newbie. So was there another account before the IP edits? Dom from Paris (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have never used another account before and I would appreciate it if you stopped interrogating me. — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 13:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry if the above comment came across as hostile in any way - I’m currently stressed out and wrote it quickly without thinking. I have never used another account to edit Wikipedia. Not all of the edits from the IP address are mine either. I just learn things quickly when I’m passionate about them. — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 14:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

“Suspicious activity”
Why did this edit that placed a promotion warning on a user talk page trigger a private edit filter that says “New account suspicious activity”? My account isn’t “new” anymore, and the activity of adding a warning isn’t suspicious. — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 18:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The edit filter that controls that tag is hidden from view, which means that I can't go into too much detail about what it's doing. But I think I can tell you that the filter considers your account new because it isn't extended confirmed yet; you've met the required 500 edits, but your account was created November 5th, so you're a day shy of the 30-day part of the requirement. Don't worry about the tag, though; your post was a false positive, which is not uncommon for the automated edit filters. It doesn't mean much. :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Speedy tagging
I think you should stop tagging articles for speedy deletion. You haven't been here long enough and you don't have sufficient experience. An example is Oscar A. San Antonio Mendoza, which I just declined, but I've seen others as well before this. I've also seen some meritorious tags, but your judgment generally is not good enough.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)