User talk:Matthewrb/Archive/2012-May

Denied submission for article on Moment frames
Good morning Matthew, thank you for reviewing my submission. It is my first attempt at writing an article, so please bear with me as I try to figure this out.

I am a licensed Structural Engineer and when i found no articles in Wikipedia covering Moment Frames I was surprised that wikipedia has no information on one of the six permitted lateral force resisting systems in the building Code.

I decided to contribute to wikipedia by writing an article on moment frames.

Can you clarify your comments for me.

I have written two paragraphs so far, the first is the technical definition of a moment frame. the text is quoted directly from the source book that is written by a noted expert in the field of Structural Engineering. Dr. Brunneua is this years recipient of the T.R.Higgins award.

The second paragraph begins to give the history of the development of the Moment Frame. This text is quoted from the second source published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, by Ronald Hamburger, another noted expert in the field of Structural Engineering ande former recipient of the T.R.Higgins award. the same text also appears in the FEMA 350 Steel Moment Frame Buildings Design Criteria as part of the SAC joint Venture of the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), the Applied Technology Council(ATC), and the California Universities for Research in Engineering (CURE).

No portion contains any opinions of my own, and i can not imagine better sources for both the basic definition, and the early history.

Can you please give me more guidance.

thank you

Adam L. Browne,S.E Rulebook (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Adam! Welcome to Wikipedia.


 * Wikipedia is a funny place, I'm sorry to say your certifications don't matter here. We have no way of checking that you actually have the certifications you claim to have.


 * All of the information on Wikipedia must be verified by independent, reliable sources. Also, we have a relatively specific manual of style for how articles should be written.


 * Now, copying text directly out of a book isn't allowable at all, because that's copyright infringement. We can't have that here.  All of the work has to be your own words.


 * I hope I've explained myself a little clearer. If you have any other questions, feel free to reply below. ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 15:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

CommonsAssessments
Hi, I haven't heard from you on this. :) -- A Certain White Cat chi? 14:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * We've spoken via IRC. I'm currently working on the bot. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 15:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Bruce Clark
Dear Matthewrbowker: I ran into a couple of chain saw editors and have withdrawn my submission but, before closing, I do want to thank you for your encouragement in the beginning. The name Bruce Clark is notable and notorious only because he alone has taken on the fundamental question of constitutionalism (that protects foreign Nations and Indian Tribes) versus imperialism (that attacks them). The other editors apparently did not recognize the big issue and dismissed Clark as an irrelevancy which, when not see in the light cast by the big issue, he of course is. Anyway, thanks for your initial encouragement. Perhaps someone else will take up Clark's, I mean to say constitutionalism's banner? Who knows; or cares, eh what? WLawpsh (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that your submission wasn't accepted. If he continues to do what he's doing, he'll probably be notable one day.  I'm sorry it isn't now.


 * Good luck with your future endeavors! ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 15:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear M: I understand the torch I dropped creating an article on Bruce Clark has been picked up by Evarose3, a real biographer who has been preparing a book on him for some time, and who on 8 May 2012 submitted her version to Wikipedia for review under the title "Bruce Clark (Legal Scholar). She tells me the backlog is at meltdown status. Since you already have some exposure to the topic might you consider reviewing her submission? I have no doubt it will be a vast improvement. Thanks. Cheers, W WLawpsh (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I just took a look at the submission, and it's probably going to get declined. She's using Wikipedia for most of her references, which can't be done.  Also, the article isn't written in the proper tone of an encyclopedia article.  I'm sorry about that. ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 19:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes but to every rule of evidence there is evidently an evidentiary exception. Always in the interest of the whole truth policy. In her paper Wikipedia is not cited for the truth of its content which would be hearsay, but rather to evidence the fact that a popular consensus is now established as conventional wisdom. It could ONLY be Wikipedia for that purpose. This is not unreliable but rather the best evidence on the modest point being made, no? --Evarose3 (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes but maybe also an "encyclopedic style" is that which which best serves getting at the truth in the particular case. Or, maybe this is a case for the 5th Rule to Ignore All Rules and save constitutionalism from imperialism, if its your duty, which it is if Bruce Clark is worth reading about. --WLawpsh (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll reply to you both here.

Evarose3: I'm sorry, but we will make no exceptions to the citation rule, even though you mention "exceptions to every rule." The reason is our policy on biographies of living persons (for context, please read Wikipedia biography controversy and the subsequent action taken by Wikipedia). We absolutely cannot publish an article that has less than antiquate citations (that includes citing Wikipedia) about a living person, unless we wanted Wikipedia sued to oblivion. It's a thin line we walk.

WLawpsh: The "encyclopedic" style, while a minor thing, has gotten articles declined. We have a full manual for that sort of thing. However, when your article is getting declined for that, you're in the final stretch of getting an article accepted. And, in context of you "duty" comment, my "duty" is to ensure that this encyclopedia has the best information possible on all topics, written in the proper style and with proper citations. I'm fulfilling that duty by assisting you in getting this article accepted properly.

I hope I've replied to both your comments fully. If not, feel free to ask for clarification. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 22:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I do truly want to see this article accepted, it's a very interesting topic, and it sounds like he has a decent shot of getting into the encyclopedia. It's a good start, and I'm willing to work with both of you to get this ironed out. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 22:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have deleted the Wikipedia references. The style is harder to change there are so many aspects and so many of them seem so subjective, but I shall study the manual to which you guided me and do all I can to accommodate the encyclopedia's preferences and needs. For now might I trouble you to assess the total revision that is currently available?--Evarose3 (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

What's next, Mr. Matthewrbowker? May I start thinking yet about trying out pictures? There are two I have in mind. One is the thumbnail photo of Bruce that I took myself and which is now at his Blog http://mightisnotright.org/contact-and-blog.php. The other is the banner (and its caption) that is at both top and bottom of the Blog and every other page of the website in which it appears. I have been reading Wikipedia about how to deal with panorama's and it does seem technologically beyond my reach, but may I or should I experiment? I will continue studying until I hear from you. This is a fascinating world but a difficult one for a verbal-philosophical type personality. Best--Evarose3 (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * M, you are so true with regard to the duty. M&E, I think I will check out unless you can see some need to keep my oar in. I'm not fishing, it is just that I cannot. Thanks, W. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WLawpsh (talk • contribs) 19:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not really necessary to have three on this. Wishes, --Evarose3 (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Matthewrbowker: The pictures appear to be clear of copyright. There are three. I took the one of the subject. The Four Indian Kings are already part of the Wikipedia Commons. Thirdly the picture of the men with their hands on their heads was sent in to disclose.tv by someone named "Demob". The website bears the following, "Legal Notice. All posts and media uploads are expressed opinions of the contributing members and are not representative of or endorsed by the owners or employees of Disclose.tv. This site may contain copyrighted material. Members may make such material available in an effort to advance the awareness and understanding of issues relating to civil rights, economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science & technology, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law." The call number for that photo is: http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&biw=1366&bih=600&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=onp0NZrDapQnGM:&imgrefurl=http://www.disclose.tv/forum/you-better-start-learning-chinese-t62258.html&docid=Gfb-NpFNs1jE1M&imgurl=http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_W4D0klAwlJs/SVwkdnhD2MI/AAAAAAAAALk/p7BnF-RPISY/s400/surrender.jpg&w=400&h=287&ei=P0axT-ntIbTciALzu4CRBA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=445&vpy=292&dur=828&hovh=190&hovw=265&tx=134&ty=125&sig=116186585119287982478&page=2&tbnh=124&tbnw=166&start=24&ndsp=29&ved=1t:429,r:10,s:24,i:214.--Evarose3 (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but we probably can't use that image. We have a very firm policy on fair use images, which generally only extends to logos and the like.  If you have a picture of him that you took, and you're willing to release it under a free license (AKA anyone can use it, for anything, as long as credit is given to the image on Wikipedia), then let me know and I can walk you through the process. ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 02:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Since we can not use the then-and-now pictures of the Indians it would be best to omit pictures. The MOS seems compatible with basic grammar and common sense so I do not think compliance will slow this project down.--70.26.28.64 (talk) 03:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)--Evarose3 (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, that sounds like a plan. Sorry we can't do pictures...


 * The goal of the MOS is to be common sense . I'm glad it's working that way for you. ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 03:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Could you look at it now? I have put in the stipulated introductory four paragraphs and deleted all use of the title "Dr". The early life is not footnote-able but is common knowledge of reputation to those who know Clark or know of him.--Evarose3 (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for waiting for me to catch up! I think the compliance may be complete now. Please critique whenever it is convenient.Evarose3 (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear M: SarahStierch has intervened to decline. She mentions "original research" as a disqualifying feature. The article is about an original researcher. Some cross referencing and explanation of the fact of the original research is part of what makes the original researcher notable. Still, all the key references are to primary (e.g., court judgments) sources and secondary (e.g., Mahony article) sources but not to original research to verify notability. SarahStierch did not leave me a "Talk to me" option. Might you intervene with her to change her mind and, if that fails, would you sponsor the article for mediation? If you will not what more can I do to get third-party help?--Evarose3 (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC) POST SCRIPT: Not having heard from you I infer you have voted with your feet on taking up the defence of the article. So I have attempted to deliver a Request for Mediation between SarahStierch and me. You are invited to join assuming it can get airborne.--Evarose3 (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Evarose,


 * Let me shoot straight with you for a second. You gave me less than 12 hours to respond to your messages.  I spent eight of those twelve hours sleeping and the other four working.  Please give me a little more time to respond next time.


 * Mediation is too drastic a step right now. You received a standard decline reason based on lack of citations.  "Original Research" in this context means that you wrote the content without citing sources.  Remember what I said about BLP's?


 * I've invited User:SarahStierch to the discussion, so she may comment below. Sorry this is confusing, I hope we can work it out. ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 14:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear M: I am very glad and relieved that you have invited User:SarahStierch to the discussion. I hope she will withdraw her declining of the article until we have had a chance to talk. And I sincerely hope she will respond with particularity about "what content" needs "what citations" if that is indeed her problem, or at least an aspect of it. But will that approach help if User:SarahStierch is adamant the article is not a possible candidate because it "reads like an essay" and always will in her view, i.e., it is, by nature, irremediable. Might we three proceed to work through the article together? If so could we start with the lead paragraphs? The birth and early life information and the history of the first contact with issue of constitutionalism vs imperialism which morphs into the all-consuming experience that makes Bruce Clark notable as quasi-Galileo is standard biographer's data acquired from interviews with the subject and his family. Since this is not contentious data is it really necessary to footnote it at all? This is the best evidence available for that sort of data, is it not? Or is the difficulty with the content of the lead paragraphs and not the lack of citations. If not that, might the whole section be footnoted to "Personal interviews with the subject and his family." Or, if that would not be adequate can you suggest another tack? Maybe I could extract from the Testimonials for the lead paragraphs and then footnote to them? Would that be an alternative? Anyway, thank you Matthewrbowker. PS: I forget what the initials BLP mean.Evarose3 (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything on Wikipedia can change, Evarose. What reads "like an essay" could be edited by other users until it's notable.


 * Please don't source personal interviews. Those aren't reliable sources, as we have no way of checking them.  Think of it this way: How can I, a university student living in the middle of the United States, check the facts of the article?


 * BLP is "Biographies of Living Persons" Please read this page for more information. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 05:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The draft has been re-submitted. My apologies to User:SarahStierch. I shall attempt to withdraw my request for mediation, although since both reviewers declined that may not be necessary or useful. The first footnote of this revision is to a Wikipedia article not for the truth of its content but only for the fact the name "Gustafsen Lake Standoff" has been coined. I can of course simply delete the footnote if even that limited use were to be objectionable. Please recommend if I should delete. Thanks.--Evarose3 (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * When I re-open the draft for further editing there appears at the bottom of the page the message, "

" Can you tell me why that is there and when I might be able to edit again? There are two matters. First, one of quotations in the lead paragraphs is split awkwardly and needs fixing. Secondly and unless you guide otherwise I wish to insert a fresh subheading and text following the "Kill this Clark..." subheading. It name would be "Alternative But Rare Public Perception." Its text would say: The smear and disinformation campaign of the politicians and police that complemented the previously established public attitude toward native activists and their lawyer Clark was slightly countered by one article in a major newspaper. Mahony says:
 * Unlike most journalists during the standoff, William Johnson of the Montreal Gazette looked seriously at the substance of the legal position advanced by the Ts' Peten Defenders and questioned the logic of the plan to remove the Ts' Peten Defenders by force that had been circulating widely. On 26 August, he wrote: "Why risk force? Their argument is based on law. The Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear their case. Could not a solution of restraint be found to settle their claim? It is far too soon to reach for the guns." Because of the negative reporting regarding the Ts' Peten Defenders and their lawyer, Johnson wrote that when he went about contacting Clark for an interview he "expected to encounter a nut, a fanatic, someone out of touch" but actually found him a "man of intelligence who has researched his subject, thoroughly, [and] has come to the startling conclusion that Canada's legal and judicial system with respect to Indians is unconstitutional." Johnson took the long view towards the standoff and the problems which underlined it in another column titled "Lasting solution to Indian conflicts will take many years," in which he stated "The settlement which we must reach for a just peace in this land will not be written with gun smoke." The tone of Johnson's plaintive plea for "cool heads" and caution on the part of the police contrasted with the tone of a vast majority of the mainstream press reports. The Vancouver Sun, report of the same day, for instance, mocked the position of the Ts' Peten Defenders, ignored their legal position altogether, referred to Wolverine as "incoherent," and dismissed the group as a "few fanatics." Similarly, Vancouver Sun reporter Elizabeth Aird blamed the Ts' Peten Defenders for their own bad public relations and acknowledged that the protesters were being dismissed by the media: "The unfortunate consequence of the rebels' garbled message is media coverage just this side of snide and public reaction just short of a smirk."--Evarose3 (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear M: The above message is not what I pasted into the first question. At the bottom of the page when edit is open is some text in <> signs saying not to make any changes and just to hit the save button. I copied and pasted that text but what appears instead if it is the yellow box saying Review is Waiting. With this clarification, can you advise when I will be able to edit again?--Evarose3 (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The Help Desk answered my question. The answer was to go ahead and edit. The present edition is the consequence. I realize (now) you have a life outside of this, so, when it is convenient, really, please be aware it is available. Thanks.--Evarose3 (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Matthew: Darren Atwater, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren_Atwater, the publisher of the now defunct magazine Terminal City, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_City_(magazine), says "Terminal City cover No. 187 April 18-24 1997 owned by Darren Atwater DBA Terminal City Magazine is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License." http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/. That cover is mostly a picture of Bruce Clark but with an effective caption on it: "Sundancer Lawyer Bruce Clark Through the Looking Glass." Darren is in London UK as publisher and editor of Snipe magazine now. I am trying to arrange through him for a JPEG or other clear impression of the cover from Vancouver so you can see it. What all do you require to make it legal? Darren says we are welcome to it. Would a "courtesy of" credit for Darren be appropriate assuming it is serviceable?--Evarose3 (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Matthew earlier with regard to a picture you said, "then let me know and I can walk you through the process," meaning I think once the copyright licence issue had been sorted. That aspect has now been done with regard to the picture I just uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Its name there is File:Photo of Bruce Clark on the cover of April 18, 1997 edition of Vancouver's Terminal City magazine. Would you please see it and if you agree "walk me through the process" of adding it to the right, I assume, of the table of contents?--Evarose3 (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent! So, you want to add an image to an article?  That's fairly easy.  Here's how:


 * replacing NAMEHERE and CAPTION HERE with the appropriate values. Now, I can't find the image you specified, it's a redlink: File:Photo of Bruce Clark on the cover of April 18, 1997 edition of Vancouver's Terminal City.  Please double-check the name. ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 19:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe there has to be a space between "File:" and "Photo". The photo is the one I told you about above concerning Darren Atwater. A delete notice was posted right away by User:January on the ground the licence was not broad enough. I posted to Village Pump the following, "The file was posted an hour or so ago. Then User: January made a change saying, I think, it is necessary for the author additionally to consent in writing, that the licence is not sufficient. My information came from the author who apparently thinks that referring to the licence would be sufficient. I see now there is a template and I have asked an intermediary who knows the author, Darren Atwater, to send it along to him. I expect to have it soon and will be able to relay it to you. So, I have two questions. First, how do I relay it to you? I did not see a place on the upload form for an author permission template. Secondly, can someone ask January to hold off deleting the photo until this can be taken care of. I looked but could not find how to contact her directly." Since then Darren has been contacted and asked to email the copyright owner template directly to permissions with a copy to me. He is in London, working now as the publisher-editor of Snipe magazine. So he may have gone home for the day. I hope it is not deleted prematurely; that there will be time so I do not have to start all over. We shall see. Moving on, where do I type the information NAMEHERE and how does the computer known it is in Wikimedia Commons when I do type that in the right place?--Evarose3 (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * POST SCRIPT. Is the caption the same as the file name in the Commons file?--Evarose3 (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please ignore previous questions about pictures as I think I have the answers. I posted a second photo while waiting for Darren Atwater to email his permission on the first one, I suppose next week now. The second was provided by Clark's wife Margaret who has already dispatched permission since she took it on her own camera April 8, 2012. The first is the magazine cover. It is dated April 18, 1997 when the Gustafsen Lake Standoff issue was coming to trial and much in the news. There is 15 years difference. Perhaps both could squeeze in? How can I get them to you? If you can not gain access to my Wikimedia Commons account to see them might I email them to you?--Evarose3 (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Matthew, User:Theroadislong contacted me with instruction to switch to Creation from Talk which I did and then I replied to her or him as follows: Thanks. Is it OK that I copied and pasted the text only of the article from Talk to Creation but not all the editing and declined and waiting for fresh review data? How do I deal with the fact there are no footnote numbers in References? Can you help me with instructions on how to insert a fresh footnote 27 in paragraph 2 under the subheading 'Federal imperial statutes' on the phrase 'as sovereign States'? Nice talking to you. Cheers, User:Evarose3" How do multiple editors keep on the same wavelength assuming it works out that way? Best,--Evarose3 (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Matthew: I have a question based upon the priority of encyclopedia objectives when substance vs appearance:—if the pursuit of true knowledge in terms of notability and verifiability is satisfied, what does it matter that the expression stylistically reads “more like an essay” than the norm?--Evarose3 (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A supplemental question please:—if your own answer to the question favors accepting instead of declining might you relay the question and supplement to Sarah Stierch and Theroadislong?Italic text--Evarose3 (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there a way to downsize footnote "31", I mean literally the size of the numbers "3" and "1". They stick out because they are so much bigger than the numbers of any other footnote appearing on the face of the main text.--Evarose3 (talk) 05:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Matthew, I have to inform you what I just said to User Theroadislong. This is our conversation:
 * I have recopied the "edit" version for you which retains the formatting for the references. I think you will struggle to get the article agreed though as it still reads very much like an essay and not an encyclopedia article. Good luck.Theroadislong (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Might I impose upon you to take a given section of your own choice that reads like an essay and convert it yourself to read properly for Wikipedia purposes. I have read all the recommended theory articles on the subject and now would benefit from a practical implementation. If that is not possible many thanks for all you have done already. Best,--70.26.28.64 (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but the subject is way beyond me! All good wishes.Theroadislong (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the good wishes. I am sorry. I must have implied that you should become an expert in the subject and revise the substance of the point made under one of the subheadings. Actually I was not talking at all about substance but rather only about appearance or "style." I feel I have explained the issue of constitutionalism vs imperialism that constitutes the basis for Clark being notable and, moreover, that I have verified what I have said. That is, I think I adequately have covered substance. If that were true you would have each point being made in its sequence and, in consequence, you would already know that the imperialism threatens the democratic peoples' constitutional supremacy. It is an issue that greatly and perhaps adversely affects the public interest, yet the public is not informed about it. The "smear and disinformation" campaign in fact has ensured that the public is not interested in Clark, which signifies all the more they should be informed. But how to inform them? It seems the problem is my writing style. An earlier reviewer User SarahStierch said it "reads more like an essay," as you also have indicated. Therefore what I was asking you was to show me by example how to write in a more effective and acceptable style any given point. The fact I can not get help from anyone in that connection, not just you, presents the same "head in a vise" feeling that Clark's clients who arguably are victims of the "serious bodily or mental harm" caused by imperialism must experience. Society is blind to its role. Me putting Clark into Wikipedia could change that information hiatus. Please just bear with for just another few moments, but I have to admit I just wrote my principal Wikipedia mentor User Matthewrbowker as follows. But I have to go to his Talk page to copy it so, in order not to lose this much, I will have to save and then return in just a minute to paste my question and its supplement. I asked: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evarose3 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Matthew: I have a question based upon the priority of encyclopedia objectives when substance vs appearance:—if the pursuit of true knowledge in terms of notability and verifiability is satisfied, what does it matter that the expression stylistically reads “more like an essay” than the norm?--Evarose3 (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A supplemental question please:—if your own answer to the question favors accepting instead of declining might you relay the question and supplement to Sarah Stierch and Theroadislong?--Evarose3 (talk) 08:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

'Dear Matthew: Is there a person, panel, committee or board within the Wikipedia'' organization to which we could apply for an authoritative policy ruling? Taking for granted that the article "reads more like an essay" in terms of style, I have to submit that this article is a prime candidate for the application of Wikipedia Pillar 5. The proof its subject is notable is verifiable. Inclusion of the article could help to prevent the ecogenocide he so desperately wants to halt. Keeping it out can do harm but including it, no harm. The imperial legal establishment would applaud the exclusion of this article. I am begging you to try to understand my anxiety over the public's awareness of the simple truth about Bruce Clark and the issue that makes him famously infamous, taking the side of the constitutionalism in an imperialist era.''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evarose3 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We have no editorial board. Our content is created and maintained entirely by volunteers.


 * For help in fixing your essay issues, please look at our manual of style. Specifically, please read the sections on tone and layout.  That should help you understand the concerns that have been raised about the article. ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 16:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * P.S. Sorry about my late replies, I just finished exam week at school. I should be on more now. ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 16:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Welcome back. I understand an article's tone and layout must accommodate the policy and, at the same time, that the policy recognizes that these objectives are subjective, and policy accommodates the reality of the subject, recalling the 5th Pillar. In this case the subject Bruce Clark subsumes the issue of constitutionalism vs. imperialism: his involvement with which is all that makes him notable. For this reason I have revised the article with a fresh 1st paragraph and, if possible, would appreciate your reaction. Secondly can you tell me how the matter of accepting and declining works itself out, in practice? My impression is that when an article is declined it can later be accepted. But who decides on acceptance? Is it you now that you seem to have become point man? Or can any Wikipedian step up to the plate and simply accept? If one accepts do those who would prefer to decline it have an opportunity to object? What happens when an impasse is reached? That is, if consensus can not be established do the decliners then get to leave the article in limbo in perpetuity since there is no editorial board to free the article? When I read Wikipedia I think I recall seeing BLPs of less notable people with less verification, the only difference from the Clark article being that those living persons are not involved with fighting the empire in an imperial era. Is that my own bias or is it a fair observation? Thirdly, is not a coatrack a thing with many coats and hats or at least places for them, and does not the Clark article deal just with the man and the issue that makes him notable? Finally, these labels can be so facile but still stick like...well...mud, no?--Evarose3 (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Matthew: I have re-written and re-titled the article "Constitutional question of constitutionalism vs. imperialism and the lawyer Bruce Clark, Ph.D." Please be so kind as to review it. It is in my Sandbox. I do not know how to change the title officially or how to get it out of the Sandbox and established the candidate article. Thank you.--Evarose3 (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Article submissions work like this, both in theory and in practice:
 * An article is written by a user.
 * The article is submitted for review.
 * The article is reviewed by a volunteer and if it's acceptable, moved to the mainspace.
 * If the article is unacceptable, comments are left.
 * The user who submitted the article is free to make changes.
 * The article is re-submitted by the creator, jump back to step #3.
 * Any volunteer can review an article in the queue, it doesn't have to be me.


 * In regard to point 3, I again have no way of checking any of those labels. Sources are the only way.  I haven't seen your new article (links are wonderful ) but I'm again responsible to ensure he isn't represented in a factually wrong light.  That's why I'm asking you for sources for everything. ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 17:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I could not agree with you more. I hope that no footnotes are missing from the new draft article in my sandbox entitled "Constitutional question of constitutionalism vs. imperialism and lawyer Bruce Clark, Ph.D." Do you have access to sandbox? If we proof it there and it is better than the other one, might I then cut and paste it from sandbox over to Wikipedia:Articles for Creation/Bruce Clark (legal scholar)," thereby deleting the first article I submitted that was superseded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evarose3 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Matthew: I have copied the re-write from the Sandbox to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Constitutional question of constitutionalism vs. imperialism and the lawyer Bruce Clark, Ph.D. I do not know what to do now. Theroadislong before said the previous article Bruce Clark (legal scholar) should not have been in Talk and suggested moving it which I did though I never did understand and still do not really comprehend these options about where a candidate article should be at any given moment.--Evarose3 (talk) 08:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In answer to your question Evarose3, where you say 'candidate article', we say 'submission' (just for clarity). An article submission should, by default, be located at a page beginning with: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ – the suggested name of the article appearing after the solidus. If necessary, the submission can be moved to its accompanying 'project' page, which begins: Wikipedia:Articles for creation/ and the previously used 'talk' page is instead used for discussing problems and improvements related to the submission. Pol430  talk to me 17:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How can I "move" the submission to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/? Please note the change in the title to delete the reference to Clark following your rejection. I am not aware of a soapbox although perhaps the title gave the appearance of one? Do you know how to delete it from the forms? Can I do it while converting to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/?--Evarose3 (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is now at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Constitutional question of constitutionalism vs. imperialism. I figured out how to rename and move the submission. Thanks. Best,--Evarose3 (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Evarose3 (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Update
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wikipedia:Edit summary abbreviation key is now at a satisfactory state. Please move it to the main Wikipedia: space if you agree with this decision. 75.53.218.81 (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

JASRANA HARYANA
4 minutes ago, you tagged this as A1 and I wanted to notify you that I have fixed the article. It seems the article was for a village in India. SwisterTwister  talk  05:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification, it looks a lot better now. That article was very difficult to read, which had me confused. ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 05:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Submission declined
Hello.

My recent Wikipedia: space submission was declined as having insufficient context, however, there are other Wikipedia: pages which exist that are even shorter than that page, or nearly as short. Do you think that you agree with the decision of the party who declined the submission, or do you believe that you should simply move it? Thanks. 75.53.218.81 (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

 * Why thank you. I'm glad I could help. ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 17:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hillsdale 2010 ACS data
Regarding this edit, if the individual making the request had an actual source, why use the unverifiable "U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey" as a reference? And if there was no way to verify that the number was correct, why add the information to the article? Alansohn (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, I'm sorry about the source. The actual number was taken off of the US Census Bureau site, but they have it set up weird so I can't use a cite web, their site returns an error every time you try.  And that's how the Census Bureau asked it to be sourced (LOL, at least that's what I think...their site kind of confusing).  Sorry about that, I can try to find another reference if necessary. ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 03:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just asking, but now I understand the issue. I agree 100% that the Census Bureau's new web site is difficult to use, as once you navigate to the data you're looking for, the link on the page is a dummy and doesn't link to the page itself. What you can do is to click on the link on the page that says "bookmark", which will create a working URL bookmark to the actual page. Once you grab the link from your list of bookmarks, you have the link you need to use as a source. Thanks for doing the work and I hope this helps. Take a look at the subsequent edit I did for that article, which links to the 2010 ACS data for Hillsdale. Thanks again! Alansohn (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That makes sense... it's just so weird. I guess we learn something new every day


 * Thanks for fixing that! ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 04:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

International Inter University Photography Exhibition
dear metthew, sorry but I failed to understand the reason of your deleting my page. can you please explain it? in which criteria it failed to reach wikipedia standard? please explain.. I am new here.. and I was still editing the page.. it was yet to be improved. can you please help me by pointing out the reasons? so that I can improve it? please? --Shuruk (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Your page has not been deleted, it's located here.  Your submission was still pending, but it needs to be in a specific place on Wikipedia in order to be accepted.


 * I'm sorry this was confusing. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 16:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

ohh.. thank you for clearing the fact :)--Shuruk (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem at all ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 17:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Dame Rose Tyler
I think there might be some misunderstandings about Dame Rose Tyler & its redirect and have started a thread at that talkpage. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

VyprVPN/Golden Frog
Hi Matthew,

I'm trying to create two new entries for products of Golden Frog: VyprVPN and Dump Truck. You reviewed both of these not too long ago and they were both declined. Can you please let me know how I can improve them so they will be accepted? I've tried not to write them like advertisements and stick to only mentioning their respective product features. What else do you suggest I do? And as for the VyprVPN comment about the references not being verifiable/notable, I read the guidelines and tried to revise them to the best of my abilities. What should I be doing instead?

Thanks, Corinna128 (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)Corinna128


 * Corinna, I'm sorry but I must be blunt. We don't care about the features of the software.  We're looking at the history and importance of the software as a whole.  A notable piece of software will have lots of coverage in independent, reliable sources documenting the history and usefullness of the software.


 * I hope I've been clear. If not, feel free to reply below. ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 17:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Article "Regularization_perspectives_on_SVM"
I'm writing to urge you to accept the article that "Elmackev" recently submitted. This article covers standard material in statistical learning theory courses. It is not original research.

This is one of several articles that our class has recently submitted. All these articles cover topics in machine learning from the perspective of regularization theory. This is a common point of view taken in many machine learning courses.

These articles were written by students in my course "Statistical Learning Theory and Applications" at MIT.

tomaso poggio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bracciolini (talk • contribs) 16:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say his article is really to detailed for Wikipedia. His article went too far in depth with the theory.  I couldn't understand it, and I'm a computer science student!


 * Instead, we're looking at this history of this theory and information like who discovered it. A "layman's introduction" if you will.  Not a full application of this theory.


 * I encourage Elmackev to re-write the article and re-submit it. He also is free to post here at any time.  Good luck! ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 17:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * P.S. Out of curiosity, does your class have a campus ambassador? I would like to include them in the discussion here. ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 17:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Pol430 talk to me 10:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Article declined
Hi, I'm the author of the article about the thick disk you declined. Could you tell me a bit more about what you found to be WP:OR or any other specific problems in it so I can fix them and re-submit the article? I just can't see it by myself. Thanks! Gaba p (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit: With help from another editor I changed the article to sound more encyclopedic. Could you take a look and tell me what you think? Gaba p (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, since I didn't hear from you all day I just re-submitted it with the changes. Either way please feel free to drop by and tell me how to improve it if you have the time. Cheers! Gaba p (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but have you read the notice at the top of my talk page? This is the first chance I've had to log in since I posted that notice.


 * It appears to have been accepted by another editor, so we're good. Good luck in the future! ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 13:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 May newsletter
We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is, whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader,, is for the first time not our highest scorer at the time of newsletter publication, but his good articles on The X-Files and Millenium keep him in second place overall. leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by, our current overall leader. Nearly half of Casliber's points come from his triple-scored Western Jackdaw, which is now a featured article.

This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user,, claiming two. Miyagawa's featured list, 1936 Summer Olympics medal table, was even awarded double points. By comparison, good article reviews seem to be playing a smaller part, and featured topics portals remain two content-types still unutilised in this competition. Other than that, there isn't much to say! Things are coming along smoothly. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)