User talk:Chris troutman/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

DYK for Noel T. Keen

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Leon Dexter Batchelor

Allen3 talk 12:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Xuemei Chen

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Alexander Raikhel

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Rotsler, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Macmillan, Novelette and Ballantine. 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) 08:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Seymour Van Gundy

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The Ascension (Glenn Branca album)

Chris troutman, I was wondering whether the submitted QPQ was adequate, and whether there were any other issues that might hold back this nomination from approval. Please let us know. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Samuel F. Butterworth

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Edward Tompkins (regent)

Hello! Your submission of Edward Tompkins (regent) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! HazelAB (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC) HazelAB (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers.com check-in

Hello Chris Troutman,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:

  • Please make sure that you can still log in to your Newspapers.com account. If you are having trouble let me know.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of Newspapers.com is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips .
  • Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you,

Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Republic of Louisiana

Your repeated reverts of the Louisiana Secession article have become a nuisance. I would expect a "scholar" to be more knowledgeable of the American Civil War. Some of the states seceded from the Union prior to the formation of the Confederacy. These states existed as independent republics for a brief period of time in 1861. The information regarding the chain of events during the Secession Crisis is readily avaliable. I've done quite a bit of research on the topic myself in recent years. As a man with family connections with to the Deep South, the subject is a topic that hits close to home for me, and has therefore been extensively researched. I can assure you that the "Republic of Louisiana" did indeed exist briefly in 1861. Please cease your reverts on that page. The infobox is relavant to the topic discussed by said article. Anasaitis (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You've been warned. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Check the talk page of the article, "scholar". Anasaitis (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Edward Tompkins

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Article assessment

I assessed those three articles you asked about. Comments are in edit summaries. Regards, Samsara 14:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow. That was fast. Enjoy your cookie, posted to your talk page. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Vladimír Remek

Hi there Chris. Just letting you know I have re-nominated the article for GA. Feel free to take part during the review. Here's hoping it is constructive this time! Thanks, C679 09:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for George Edgar Slusser

Allen3 talk 00:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Morrough Parker O'Brien

Harrias talk 18:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of James H. Dieterich

Hello! Your submission of James H. Dieterich at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for James H. Dieterich

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Elsevier

Hi Chris: Way back in January, you sent me a message saying Elsevier would be handing out accounts "imminently" and that I was on the list. I still haven't heard anything yet. Is this still in limbo, or have I missed a message somewhere? MeegsC (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@MeegsC: I sent your information to Elsevier on the 20th of January and they confirmed you had been given access the following week, so you should have been contacted by them long ago. I have since discontinued administering this program so I'd recommend you ask Nikkimaria for help. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Chris! Will do. MeegsC (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on VP proposal: Establish WT:MoS as the official site for style Q&A on Wikipedia

You are being contacted because of your participation in the proposal to create a style noticeboard. An alternate solution, the full or partial endorsement of the style Q&A currently performed at WT:MoS, is now under discussion at the Village Pump. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Charles R. Adrian

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Pearl S Buck

My input on Pearl S Buck Page under subheading of 'Legacy' within that section on her page I make reference to Pearl: The Musical. You deleted my input, input that when provided on other Wikipedia pages but in a way that scapegoats Pearl S Buck and her Welcome House adoption agency, Wikipedia let's it stay. So why are my inputs - I'm simply using the same text already on other Wikipedia pages - being deleted? Again, in this case I am just using the same text that Wikipedia lets remain on other pages only I am pulling it all together. You see what I am saying? WV NYC (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@WV NYC: First, we appreciate your desire to help improve Wikipedia. However, per WP:V you have to provide reliable sources to support the content you want to add. Secondly, the the consensus of the aggregate at one article is not necessarily the same on any other article. I removed your content because it was unreferenced, wrong, and probably promotional in nature. Your edit has since been reverted by someone else, too. Please take this opportunity to learn more about Wikipedia and make better contributions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!!!

Thoughtful listener award
For being able to change your mind. Wikipedia needs more people like you. (And, yes, I'd think this even if you hadn't been agreeing with me.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Thanks! Chris Troutman (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Knan vs Knyaz

Khan vs kynaz[редактиране] @Христо Зарев Игнатов: You don't have consensus for the use of the term kynaz over the current version with khan. Unless you can convince the community of your point of view you're going to have to accept use of the term khan. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear friend, There is not even a single (not a one) source for the use of the title "khan" for Bulgarian ruler! If you find one, please show us one! - Thanks! --Христо Зарев Игнатов (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You are a nationalist and a crank. The sources are right there in the article and you know that. Please accept that history is what actually happened, not what you think should have happened to support your own nationalist views. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Bloomingdale Regional Public Library for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bloomingdale Regional Public Library is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloomingdale Regional Public Library until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

ygm

Hello, Chris troutman. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Sat 25th

Hope you can make it to the Wiknic this weekend Tinkermen Talk 19:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Tinkermen: Thanks for the invite but no, I left Los Angeles last year, which is why I removed my name from the LA notification list. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Editing Alexander Hamilton

Chris, Thank you for your suggestion regarding the editing of incorrect information about Alexander Hamilton. Based on the other reply I received, it seems that any attempt by me to correct that wikipedia page would be fruitless. However, I'd love to mail you a copy of Alexander Hamilton: The Formative Years so you can help me determine how best to incorporate the latest research into Wikipedia. It's a real shame to see blatantly incorrect information on Wikipedia about Hamilton and being unable to correct it. FoundingFatherFan (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@FoundingFatherFan: Correct me if I'm wrong but your book is self-published. To that end, it won't be considered a reliable source, whether I use it or Dr. Jensen uses it. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
It is "self published," but it will be considered a reliable source. I guess Wikipedia will have to wait until it is more widely recognized as the definitive book on this period of Hamilton's life (which many already consider it--see reviews on Amazon).FoundingFatherFan (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Remek

Hi Chris, just a quick note to let you know that Vladimír Remek has attained GA status, thanks in part to your fantastic contributions within the last 12 months. Thank you, C679 20:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cloudz679: Congratulations! I'm glad your effort on that article paid off. You made significant improvements since my last contribution, especially the addition of the statue image. I remain pleased with the Czech Ribbon of National Merit you awarded me for my work and to know you were able to improve the article to GA is all the better. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment at Supdiop RfA Comment

Hi. I saw your comment at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Supdiop saying that the candidate "Clearly lacks competence". While it could be argued that lacking experience and lacking competence are related, the latter clearly has a pejorative tone and should not be stated without supporting evidence. Without a supplied reasoning, the comment seems to run counter to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Reading Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions should give you a better indication of what is and is not a good RfA comment. Jason Quinn (talk) 08:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jason Quinn: Hhhmmm. I'll AGF and take your comments in the spirit they were offered. However, I'll point out WP:AAAD is an essay and I don't particularly agree with it. As I indicate on my user page in one of the infoboxes, I'm a pile-on opposer. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Message to Chris troutman

Message to Chris troutman
I have found information regarding Dmitrii Vasilyevich Yermakov, on http://www.warheroes.ru/hero/hero.asp?Hero_id=8095 it says that he died on December 29th, 1993. Now, please don't delete my article. Mad7744 (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
@Mad7744: First, it's not your article. Second, as the article creator you shouldn't remove deletion proposals. Finally, the sources you've cited are insufficient. The Russian-language article cites some books, so you should use those. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Message to chris troutman

Message to chris troutman
Yeah it is my article because i created it as a draft, added references, and turned it into a real article. Therefore, it is my article. Mad7744 (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

poorly written?

  • Please explain what you mean? It is a stub article of course and needs work, but human possession in science fiction is an important topic for scholars of contemporary mythology and literature. Human possession is well-documented in cultures around the world and throughout history, and plays a significant role in many mythologies and literatures. Science fiction allows a scientific approach to the mythology and ideologies of human possession. This article should not be deleted; there are plenty of stub articles on Wikipedia in much worse status than this one. Nicole Sharp (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • FYI, I moved your deletion proposal to "talk:human possession in science fiction." Nicole Sharp (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
    • @Nicole Sharp: You claim that the subject is "an important topic for scholars of contemporary mythology and literature". Not only is there no evidence of that, that assertion doesn't necessarily pass the bar of notability. If you intend to contribute to Wikipedia please learn not to vomit words onto a page. Work in a sandbox first if you're developing an idea.
    • To have an article about any subject we have to present sources about that subject. Yes, I've seen Invasion of the Body Snatchers and many episodes of Outer Limits and Twilight Zone where this theme occurs. Regardless, except for a single source added later there's no discussion of human possession of science fiction as a trope. The poorly-written content I PRODed is original research as Animalparty excellently points out. I'm not a deletionist so I won't further pursue deletion but the article is still sub-standard in my opinion. By the way WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument to use. Again, Wikipedia has a culture and you'd find this easier if you inculcate what we as a community have already determined. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Warning

This is your only warning; if you template a regular for templating a regular about templating a regular again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ‑ Iridescent 22:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I should have thought twice about that warning. Floquenbeam is too clever by half. So as not to create a loop, I won't warn you for this warning. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey genius

Twinkle does that by itself! Krett12 (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Krett12: So, you didn't bother reading the template before nominating it for deletion, or you didn't know Twinkle places templates after you make a nomination? In either case, you ought to put a bit more thought into nominating stuff for deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Your edit at RFA

Hi,

I remember you from wp:Miss and was surprised to see your RFA edit wiped out. No idea if this was deliberate or not, and no idea how I happened to see this, just thought you may be interested. Regards, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me

@Ottawahitech: It doesn't look like anything was lost; not even an edit-conflict. Thanks for your concern. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Response

Hello. Yesterday you left not particularly pleasant or collegial posts on my talkpg. First with editsummary: editing logged-out? with demands, to the gist of if editing logged-out of an account go log in and 'attribute talk page comments properly'.

You returned a few minutes later, to place a huge {{Static IP|myispname}} template. It's not static. More to the point that template family is, per policy, for use in persistent "repeated vandalism by an IP user" cases. It's not apparent how my contribs could reasonably be interpreted as vandalism. If you believe them to be, please review WP:NOTVAND.

The template contains three 'paragraphs' relating to vandalism, admin instructions on blocking, along with warnings of abuse reports being sent to ISPs--with Level 3 user warning image & language. There's been no vandalism from the address ever, so seems no reasonable justification for placing it. Its only likely effect would be to demoralize, discourage or humiliate. It's particularly discomforting given that in removing the unsuitable template I had to do so in part under IAR. A policy I invoke extremely rarely if at all.

My last talk page comment was 3 days before, with signature. I always leave edit summaries, sign my talk page comments, and suitably attribute sources. Your communications came after I'd worked on a non-talk page over three hours. While I don't ever expect thanks for my contributions (though when that happens, as it does from time to time, it's lovely), it's not appropriate to go after those working to improve the encyclopedia & project to treat them with insinuation, suspicion and bad faith presumption.

I see from your userpage you believe accounts should be mandatory, in order to edit. Having a personal view is fine. However, the unpleasant communication (and it was) is neither an appropriate or acceptable response to nor should it be a consequence of good faith positive edits. Editors should not be treated this way. Please bear this in mind. –87.115.76.251 (talk) 05:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

my user page comment

Thank you for removing that comment off my page. I didn't notice it, and it was already removed. However, I think the user meant to post it on my talk page, but that's my view on it. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

People are you.

I'm Wikipedian. Wikipedian is independent. --violetnese 19:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

YahwehSaves

I'm not sure if you can facilitate, but I might also suggest keeping an eye on YahwehSaves, continuing to use 75.79.31.20 as a sockpuppet. I'm active-duty military, so I can't dedicate the time necessary to back-track/research all the uncited/unreferenced/original content edits made (Chesty Puller, George Armstrong Custer, Fergie Jenkins, "A" Device), some resulting in edit wars. He's been disruptive for years, I just don't have the time to pursue him anymore. Sorry for any inconvenience Bullmoosebell (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Bullmoosebell: My talk page isn't WP:ANI. If you have evidence of socking start a report at WP:SPI. Canvassing as you have is problematic, at best. I'm glad you're finding something other than Wikipedia to occupy your time, though, so go do that instead. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

CVU message

Hi! Thanks for the CVU message you left on my talk page a few days ago. I've been reading through various bits and pieces on the portal. I don't meet the Academy's enrolment criteria yet, but I'll consider applying once I do.

FYI, in the main body of the message you left, it says "...consider enrolling today! Leave a message on my talk page..." but the talk page link actually goes to User talk: Callanecc, not your own one. The signature link works fine. I'm not sure if that was intentional or possibly a bug with a template, so I thought I should let you know. :) Marianna251TALK 23:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Marianna251: Thanks for letting me know about that coding issue; I was able to fix it. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia library Newspapers.com renewal

Your free one-year account with Newspapers.com will end on March 2 2016. Newspapers.com has offered to extend existing accounts by another year. If you wish to keep your account until March 2 2017, please add your name to the Account Renewal list here. I'll let Newspapers.com customer support know, and they will extend your subscription. If you don't want to keep your account for another year, you don't have to do anything. Your account will expire unless I hear from you that you want to keep it. HazelAB (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

IPBE

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chris troutman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Requesting an IP address block exemption, because the IP where I'm currently located has been blocked by Bbb23 thanks to Editor2626744. A couple days ago I waited for the block to expire. Now that this IP has been blocked again, I'm prevented from correcting people who are wrong on the internet performing counter-vandalism on pages like Leviathan (book) and otherwise contributing. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Due to the sensitive nature of this request, we'll need you to put it in via the WP:UTRS system. Apologies for any inconvenience. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Chris troutman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@Coffee: UTRS won't let me submit my request. It gives me the following error: There were errors processing your unblock appeal: Your IP Address is not currently blocked. Is it your account that is blocked? Obviously, I'm behind an IP autoblock (block ID 6553487); I'm not some problem user asking for the standard offer. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Accept reason:

See below. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You should be able to make the request (at UTRS) through your Wikipedia account name option, instead of the IP itself (apologies for not specifying that before). I know you're not a problem user, nor do I have any reason to suspect you will be. We just take every precaution whenever we're giving out this particular user right. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
@Coffee: I did use the named account option. It rejects either option because it says my account isn't blocked (it isn't) and my IP isn't blocked (but it is.) I'm on a wifi network that's blocked. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

IP block exempt

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this userright to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked (through the use of CheckUser) periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

RfA Q4

Not that it matters, but I'm guessing you used XTools to calculate the 42% figure? By my count there are closer to 76% total and 81% in the mainspace — MusikAnimal talk 05:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Thanks for showing me your tool; I was unaware there was any alternative to Xtools. No, it doesn't matter as the question addressed the concept of high tool usage, although 76% versus 42% is quite a figure. With editing automation becoming so popular I think we'll all have to rethink our expectation for RfA candidates, especially those with significant counter-vandalism experience. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Your recent edit on Cullen328"s talk page

Per WP:OWNTALK, any editor can remove any content from his own talk page at any time, with only a few exceptions pertaining to block and sockpuppetry notices. I reverted your edit there. John from Idegon (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

My apologies. Editing before coffee=not a good thing. John from Idegon (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Chris, thanks for keeping an eye on my talk page and for your help today. I want to keep as much distance between myself and the other editor as possible, which can prove challenging at times, so a bit of back-up is appreciated. --Drmargi (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Bitey

This: That's pretty laughable. at [1] is pretty bitey. You are dealing with a scholarly topic that has mostly print sources that are decades old. WP:RECENTISM is a problem with this older topics and even if you disagree on GNG, you can at least be more respectful about it. Just saying. Montanabw(talk) 17:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw: I'm honestly struggling to describe politely how I disagree. You're not the only Wikipedian to make such claims (BITEy behavior) against me but you also seem to not understand my argument, at all. I'm not going to bother defending my comment because I don't have to. I participate in these discussions objectively to help contribute toward a consensus. You seem to be partial towards horses so it doesn't entirely surprise me that you want to keep articles like El Shahbaa. You were, after all, asked to help keep the article as described in WP:CANVASS. I also think too many Wikipedians lack the emotional maturity to recieve honest criticism. Regardless, I hear your complaint and will bear this in mind in future discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Just say you disagree and state the objective reasons, whether the rest of us agree or disagree is not the point, the point is that you don't have to be mean... to say "laughable" is condescending and insulting. It is not "honest criticism," it is being a jerk. Damn right I showed up, you are not familiar with the topic and it needed some fairly esoteric research to explain. (And I do not blindly keep all equine articles, I've prod-tagged more than a few myself, particularly those that are pure promotion or just a celebrity's horse...) Montanabw(talk) 05:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Global ban of Islam

Sir, please help collaborate on this new proposed topic. It is timely and relevant. The article proposes to ban Islam on planet Earth for the safetey and wellbeing of all humans. Please help make this article create. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.227.158 (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Sir, I present supporting evidence for you consider.[2]. Danke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.96.229 (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Islam can turn an ordinary person to a monster who wants to kill non-believers and commit murder and terrorism. It is the only religion to do this. There is no other religion where new converts to that faith, be it Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or atheism where this happens to a the person...only the cult of Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.57.43 (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Art And Feminism Wikipedia Editathon @ CCA

You are invited! - Saturday, March 5 - Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/ArtandFeminism 2016
Arts+Feminism logo
 Please join us at the California College of the Arts' Simpson Library on Saturday March 5, 2016,
for an event aimed at collaboratively expanding Wikipedia articles covering Art and Feminism, and the biographies of women artists!

--Circa73 (talk)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thank you for contributing to my talk page! THetardis123 (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scranton General Strike, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Monad. 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) 09:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

What the fuck?

What the fuck, Chris? Were you serious? I have half a mind to block you for gross incivility. Suicide and/or depression are two very serious things. Don't make light of them. Never do that again. Ever. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Phillip's tour

Hey! I'm wondering how my page is too promotional when I just copied the format of other tours here on wikipedia ??? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_7/27_Tour what's the difference? or this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostalgic_for_the_Present_Tour — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blujayyoung (talk • contribs) 01:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Blujayyoung: I completely understand where you're coming from but "other stuff exists" isn't a sufficient argument; most content on Wikipedia sucks so other articles aren't much of a yardstick with which to measure. My reason for deletion is that it's obviously promotional. Encyclopedias write about tours (in this case) that were notable, that had significant impact. That's not the case here so I can only assume you created the article because you're a fan and you're trying to push the tour. Hence, promotional. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
hmmm.. I really dont understand why my article is being deleted but other articles i just shared are basically the same doesn't get deleted... Of course, once the tour starts, I will be adding more information about the setlist, box office performance... I mean a LOT of tours on here have basically the same format as what I just did, i dont get why mine is being deleted. I mean what should I add? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blujayyoung (talk • contribs) 02:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
@Blujayyoung: First off, it's not your article. It's an article about Phillip Phillips and Matt Nathanson's tour. You just happened to write it. You gave away your contributions to the community, which is what we're all here to do. You shouldn't take this personally nor feel protective of it. If you want to nominate either of those other articles for deletion, be my guest; neither look all that notable. The format you used is fine; that's not the issue. I recommend that you find articles about the tour written in periodicals like Rolling Stone. Without good independent sources we can't write fair, unbiased articles and we'd be overwhelmed with articles about junk people read about on Facebook. Again, please read the policies and guidelines I've linked to. If all you want is an article about a tour maybe you should get your own website. If you want to contribute to an encyclopedia then you'll have to learn our rules. I guarantee you'll have a better experience once you understand how all this works. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Internet

This is my first time using 'talk' so please excuse any etiquette mistakes. I understand you're using Twinkle, but the page for the show relies on a primary source twice, (one really, because I added a thirdparty reference to one of them.) Therefore, the 'primary', 'refimprove', and 'third-party' tags are really unsubstantiated. Also, the podcast is notable enough, as it did make #1 podcast on itunes, and has 250k+ listeners. Typically I'd take these down myself, but you undid my original deletion of the notability tag and said "take it to the talk page" so here I am. Trying to be civil so would appreciate a response. As I am relatively new to editing articles, I would also like to ask if using copyrighted information with permission (like responding to a tweet asking if its ok with them) is applicable under wikipedia law. I'm sure I can find the answer, but I'm here so whatever. Thanks.TheNicolaScheme (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC) Edit: I just found the community talk page specifically for Hello Internet. I'm sure thats what you meant when you told me to take it to the talk page so, uh sorry. I'm here now anyway. TheNicolaScheme (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @TheNicolaScheme: You claim "the 'primary', 'refimprove', and 'third-party' tags are really unsubstantiated" but the present article relies on too many primary sources, more of the information should come from third parties, and the references generally need improved. That's why I added them. Let that be a lesson about removing a banner without addressing the issue. You also say "it did make #1 podcast on itunes, and has 250k+ listeners" That doesn't matter. Please read our notability criteria for web content.
This article was merged into CGP Grey before because the podcast itself isn't notable. Yes, you like many Tims heard Grey say he thought the podcast is notable. It isn't. If it were, the article would exist.
No, you may not use copyrighted information. The content has to be made freely available under WP:CC-BY-SA. Articles can be written in one's one words from copyrighted material without making any infringement, though. It shouldn't be necessary to use copyrighted content to write an article. If it were, then the article should likely not exist. The issue you need to surmount is notability. There aren't enough outside sources discussing the podcast which is why it's not generally notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
@Chris Troutman: I appreciate the response, and I take back my notability claim after reading the page more thoroughly (like I should have anyway). The present article hardly relies on primary sources (which I'm defining as the hellointernet.fm website, and anything direcly tied to Grey/Brady (ie: twitter, etc)), but you're the expert here. Eventually I'll be more well versed in all the rules and regulations, but thanks for responding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNicolaScheme (talk • contribs)

Page Deletion Inquiry

Hello, I wrote & published an article on Friday regarding CoolSculpting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolsculpting) and it was deleted. I saw in the history notes that it was deleted due to seemed too promotional and it was redirected back to Cryolipolysis. I am happy to rewrite the post to be more encyclopedic. Could you please advise on what parts of the post may need revision? I cited as many scientific studies & press releases as possible, but would love some guidance.

I believe the redirect to cryolipolysis is misleading as cryolipolysis describes the method, but not the product itself. I did some quick research & saw that there are several other pages that have products separated from methods (for example, iPhone has its own page as a product, separate from its parent company Apple_Inc., which is separate from the product method, which would be smartphone or mobile device). Any advice is appreciated so that we can get this resolved. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedioatmeal (talk • contribs) 15:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jedioatmeal: Sure. While there were academic articles about cryolipolysis used in the article, the content specifically about CoolSculpting was based on promotional or primary-source references. The trademarked process isn't notable, in any case, which is why that article was returned to being a redirect. Press releases don't help with notability and are generally frowned upon as sources. The article about the iPhone is separate from the article about smartphones because there are multiple independent reliable sources talking specifically about the iPhone. Really, there's nothing you can do to rewrite the content without the proper sourcing and that proper sourcing isn't something that can be bought. It concerns me that you remarked "so that we can get this resolved" (emphasis mine). Who's "we"? If you're a paid contributor working on behalf of a client you are required to divulge such on your userpage. There's already a substantial message on your talk page about our terms of use. Please read those very carefully and then consider if your editing of Wikipedia is allowed. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
@Chris trouman: Hi, I apologize it's taken me so long to respond. Finals kind of took over my life for a while. I'll see what I can do to change around some of the citations. This was actually a school project for me - I'm a nursing student and we were all assigned a non-invasive procedure to research and write a paper on & I was assigned CoolSculpting. When I was doing research for my paper, I noticed there wasn't a wiki page for it and figured I would make one using my paper as a base. As I said before, I'm fairly new to editing on Wikipedia and was hoping that we (as in you & I) could resolve any issues.

Future sports seasons

Try some WP:COMMONSENSE, the new season is starting in about 30 days (1 July), and CRYSTAL itself states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place", which applies here. GiantSnowman 16:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome

My apologize. I'm in college and i have to edit something on wikipedia. That's why i just added something there. I didn't meant to do something bad. I don't know how to use exactly wikipedia except reading the informations from here. Ppoana (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ppoana: If you don't know how to edit Wikipedia, then learn how first. We don't appreciate vandalism. Why exactly do you "have to edit something on wikipedia"? Class assignment? Chris Troutman (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. It`s a class assignment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppoana (talk • contribs) 14:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ppoana: Ok. Do you know if your instructor has a course page here on Wikipedia? We have an outreach program for this sort of thing. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

No. He has not. I have to edit something and send the link of the page on E-mail. Anyway, i wrote an article,edit it and send it to him. I hope it's gonna work. Thank you! Ppoana (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ppoana: Let me know if you need help. Please have your instructor take a look at Wikipedia:Education program/Educators. Thanks. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Request on 07:50:17, 2 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Cyblexy


Hello Chris,

I am not sure to understand as there are plenty of schools / academies on wikipedia e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris_Academy_at_Peckham Other example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris_Federation (you have links on a dozen schools on this one) This is a primary and secondary school for kids between 4 and 19.

Many thanks for your guidance.

Cyblexy (Alex)

Cyblexy (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Cyblexy: The applicable guidelines are our guideline for schools which is part of our guidance on organizations as well as the general notability guideline. There aren't enough independent and reliable sources about the King Solomon school to pass either of those bars. Furthermore, the entry is still written promotionally. Phrases like "The school's point is to give a a high quality academic international, supported by an in number Christian ethos, to get ready youngsters to take their place in the present day business world and help them form into balanced, accomplishing and minding people." is ad copy. Wikipedia is not here to help promote anyone or anything. Finally, making a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument doesn't work here, either.
We have an essay, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES which suggests that typically our consensus would choose to keep an article about a "high school." I am loathe to accept the dreck you've written but I would accept it only to nominate it for deletion. If the article is kept then you get what you want. If the article is deleted, then you will be prevented from re-creating it per WP:G4. I think going that route is a waste of everyone's time but if you want to take your chances, let me know. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Stasi article edit

Hi Chris, thanks for your comment. While what I added to the Stasi page might have seemed like a discussion edit, I actually intended it to be a content edit, to make it clear that the text in that section of the page was actually an abridged version of the text that exists on a different page (the page on the Stasi's informal collaborators). That other page has significantly more information, text, etc. that should be explicitly referenced in the Stasi article -- do you have a preferred way of accomplishing that? Thanks. 24.7.113.92 (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@24.7.113.92: I partially reverted my edit. The link to the article about IMs is already present in that paragraph. Readers can explore the conversation there but creating a "see this here" link isn't appropriate per WP:CLICKHERE. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Might I suggest an alternative edit, which has a heading for the subsection on personnel with the link to the IMs page? Either a "main article" or "see also" heading? (I don't know how to do those edits, but they seem appropriate here.) 24.7.113.92 (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
@24.7.113.92:  Done Chris Troutman (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! 24.7.113.92 (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Talkback 06/09/2016

Hello, Chris troutman. You have new messages at Hamham31's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 01:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Afc process

Hello, I submitted my first article a couple a days ago. I saved the article in my sandbox. The title of the article "Jeff Schwartz" was edited to Jeffrey E Schwartz (as it should have been initially). I did this because another reviewer pointed out the name conflict. I wasn't sure how to correct the conflict other than editing or creating another page. It wasn't an attempt to short cut the process. I simply couldn't find an answer on how to correct it. I appreciate your input but could you tell me how I could have done it properl so I will know next time.. ThanksCdevlin67 (talk) 04:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC) Cdevlin67 (talk) 04:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Cdevlin67: I understand you're new to this process, so let me explain. There was a grey box at the top of the draft, which had a button to submit the draft for review. You did that and submitted it here. There was a yellow box at the bottom of your draft indicating such. After that all you had to do was wait. By pasting the contents of that draft into the main namespace you opened that up to the community for review. We (the community) can correct the name of an article and it's not something you should have been worrying about. Again, we have the Articles for Creation WikiProject for a reason. I'm a firm believer that an unfinished house is a real problem. Your article still doesn't meet our naming convention so far as I can tell. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain. I just read your link to the real problem and found it very helpful. I had already linked my article to another WikiPage to address the orphan status at that point and realized the error in that. Thanks for shedding some light.Cdevlin67 (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

NPP / AfC

Hi. Just a reminder that in just over a week at Wikimania there's going to be a cross-Wiki discussion about the systems of control of new pages. This is a round-table rather than a presentation or a lecture. On the agenda are reforms to the new article reviewing systems and ways to help new users better understand our content policies. If you are going to Italy and would like to take part, please check out the conference schedule, and I look forward to seeing you there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Stereo (mixtape)

I have WP:DEPRODDED this and redirected to Yelawolf_discography#Mixtapes. You are kindly reminded that editors should consider alternatives to deletion including WP:REDIRECTING WP:BEFORE proposing deletion. ~Kvng (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

A note

I was pointed towards your comments from when you declined Draft:Social Outlier. That sort of response isn't appropriate, especially for new users who really might not know the guidelines and policies. We should be helping them understand the rules, not biting them and being uncivil. Heck, we shouldn't even be snarky to someone who has 16k edits, just politely let them know what's going on. Primefac (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Primefac: I've thought long and hard about what you've said. I agree, what I said was harsh although I won't agree it was uncivil. My issue is that working on the AfC backlog as well as NPP brings me into contact with people who are NOTHERE. While I understand our etiquette guidelines are meant to apply to them as well, I don't think they should. These people will destroy what editors like you and I are trying to build and maintain. Lukewarm response to these bad faith editors (and that's what they are because their edits are promotional in nature) prolongs the problem. I've bent over backwards more than once to help good faith contributors. For example, I helped the author of Orpha Klinker in-person across a series of meetups to get the article published.
You're right regardless, I shouldn't be BITEy. With that in mind I'm going to re-think contributing to either AfC or NPP because these sorts of contributors run rampant there. I appreciate the tenor of your comments though, as you've been far more kind than I often am. To that end, your example speaks far better than the explicit text of your message.
Ironically, I served as campus ambassador for more than one course at UCLA and I lobbied anyone that would listen about expanding my role there specifically for outreach needs. The WEF decided it made more sense to stop supporting campus ambassadors than encourage my engagement. Had I been there on campus I might've been able to talk to Bruinwalk, personally. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Michael Antoine Garoutte

You declined the submission for Michael Antoine Garoutte

but Garoutte was a Naval Officer in Continental Navy, Rank Lieutenant. and was in battle of chestnut neck.

the wikipedia guidelines for the notability of military people says:

5. Played an important role in a significant military event; or

his tavern/inn in historic pleasant mills is also notable historically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C048:B2D0:71A7:B117:15E6:41CB (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation. Garoutte didn't play an important role based on reliable sources. I'm trying to help you out. Arguing with me is going to result in less help. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

like I really need your help. did you base that conclusion on your bs university education. I noticed 2 articles authored by you that aren't correctly sourced or cited, and you used sources that are not reliable or verifiable. Wikipedia is a joke. I hope you enjoy inflating your ego.. like it's going to get you anywhere. Have fun retard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C048:B2D0:71A7:B117:15E6:41CB (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

MBlairMartin

You are correct. I did just make an account for my new internship where I am working as a wikipedian in residence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MBlairMartin (talk • contribs) 16:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@MBlairMartin: Is this a role account then? Under what username did you edit previously? Chris Troutman (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@MBlairMartin: Ok. We have a formal program run by GLAM for Wikipedians-in-Residence. If you are not part of that program then you are not a Wikipedian-in-Residence. I'd recommend you talk to them if the Living Computer Museum is sponsoring you. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: May I ask what the acceptable amount of edits/process we should got though before we can re-edit the Wikipedian- in- residence page is? We have reached out to GLAM and are in the process of updating our project page and getting the project underway. MBlairMartin (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

New result table

Hello Chris - should the abbreviation not be ORCP, not OCRP? I am not a template editor so if you could fix this it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks --PatientZero talk 13:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Patient Zero:  Done Thanks for letting me know about the typo; I fixed it. It wasn't a template but a transcluded subpage, so anyone can edit it. Not all templates are locked-down, anyway. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Ah, OK, thank you for clarifying that. --PatientZero talk 18:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Request on 18:29:49, 2 July 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Naitikavyas


This is to discuss about Dr Pankaj Naram Wikipedia Page.

I thank you that you gave me an advice to quit but instead I would love if you could help me improve the article. I will be more than happy to add or edit things. I am beginner to wikipedia and would love to take help from experienced people. Look forward for your help.

Naitikavyas (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)naitikavyas

@Naitikavyas: I'm not going to help you because Wikipedia doesn't need an article on Pankaj Naram and I don't think he should be advertising here. Were I paid to help I might consider but I recognize any client that wants this article would want a version that I cannot honestly provide. You should note that you are welcome to contribute if you'll abide by our policies and our terms of use, which require you to disclose paid editing. You don't have to quit. I've suggested that you quit because partisan editing will ultimately waste your effort and our time. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

RfA

You asked a question on a RfA, about making up your mind. It was easy for me, I trust Opabinia regalis, see "thank you" on her talk, ending on "Hard to get wrapped up in wiki arguments while stopping and smelling the roses" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

McCarthyism revert

I just wanted to mention that though I fixed the top of the McCarthyism article, I hadn't quite gotten to an enormous, and I mean enormous amount of sheer garbage that was placed in the article by the new account. So I have reverted back to the "Version A" which I assume was your intent, as that is the actual status quo ante. Thanks and by the way, I agree about new accounts editing GAs. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in Wikipedia mini summer program

Greetings Chris troutman:


It appears you have participated in an editathon in the past. We are doing a mini research study involving past editathon participants to transform and improve Wikipedia. If this sounds like something quick you would want to do this summer, please sign up to our mini summer research program.

You can read more about our project here.

Together we can revolutionize Wikipedia!


Thanks & Cheers

Wiki crowdresearch (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


Regarding Zakir Naik Page

Hi, appreciate it if you don't undo my changes without reading my notes. If you read the cited article on the first source of apostasy, the link does not work, but the video can be found on YouTube. The another source that is mentioned is actually a secondary article that refers to the former video. In other words, both the sources are the same. Next if you actually hear and understand what Naik is saying in the video and compare that to the quoted text in wiki, you'll find a difference. Shahidt (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Shahidt: I read your edit summary, which is why I reverted you twice. I've responded on Talk:Zakir Naik which is where the discussion should happen. Your assertions aren't necessarily true and even if they were they don't matter. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey sorry new ip user was trying to help fill in the gaps

Hey sorry, the new ip user was trying to fill in the gaps of that old list, I think he is new to all the Wikipedia procedures, I will write on my talk page and his explaining the process but yeah I think he mistook AfC to include the non Wikipedia mainspace pages. Sorry, I will clarify with him now.Calaka (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

He is intending to populate all the redlinks found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/MadMax List/24. Perhaps to overide copyvio the pages can be consolidated and moved into one (as I am sure some of the lists wouldn't have too many red links missing). I recently reorganized some of the lists created by the mad max user into one sub page so it would be easier to organize and coordinate and the spartacus one was incomplete at the time it was made. The IP user is trying to finish the process. :)Calaka (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Rollback on your Talk Page

Hey Chris troutman, I just wanted to let you know I rolled back a vandal that left a pretty nasty Personal Attack on your talk page. Hope you don't mind. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is chris troutman's disrespectful commennts. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Request on 18:26:31, 20 July 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by RichHampton


This is in reference to the Michael Million article. Hey, new to this. Thank you for your comment in trying to hep me to get this article finalized. So am I over citing? Should I remove smaller sites citations all together. Also some of these "nobody" sites are actually very well known in the hip-hop community. The Fader is a big magazine that still comes out with physical copies. Respect is also a physical magazine that still comes out with new copies. 2DopeBoyz has it's own Wiki page. HipHopSince is also another well known site. Please advise.

Again. Thanks for the feedback.


RichHampton (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@RichHampton: You are correct about those sources. I never heard of them before. I have since re-submitted and approved your draft. It is located at Michael Millions. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2016

Draft:Proof of Binomial Theorem Utilizing Taylor's Series

This comment is in reference to the articleDraft: Proof of the Binomial Theorem utilizing Taylor's Series. Rejecting this article will add to the ignorance of the fact that the proof of the Binomial theorem can be achieved by performing the Taylor's expansion of a binomial expression. The proof utilizing the Taylor expansion obviates the need to invoke mathematical induction and reference to Pascal's triangle. I thought is was a goal of an Encyclopedia to propagate knowledge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CA02:6170:E871:76AE:1916:99EA (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Told you so

But you had to go ahead and take your bite at the apple immediately anyway. Admittedly, I was completely wrong about the AfD turning into an epic politard fustercluck, but a "snow keep" was the next most likely outcome, and "keep" would have been the result either way.

Next time an editor with as many battle scars as I have offers you unsolicited advice about when it might be better to be patient rather than simply running headlong into the ramparts, listen. -- Kendrick7talk 01:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

2016 Australian Census

I must be doing something right if I'm being "harassed" [3]. But, I don't think I have ever edited that Census page, so I can't see why I was brought into it by 'that' editor. --220 of Borg 07:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@220 of Borg: I used to work at the VA, working with homeless folks. We were told to expect that some would be "responding to internal stimuli" so your own actions might not be what's provoking activity. I think that's what you might be seeing here. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, what the fuck?

Chris, this is in no way, shape, or form appropriate in any universe I'm familiar with. Kevin is now dead. An obituary is not the place to air your grievances. If you restore it again, I will block you. This is the second time I've come here with similar concerns. Have you no empathy? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@The ed17: Spare me your sanctimony. No, I have none of this misplaced empathy with which you apparently suffer. While I can understand the editor of a newspaper not publishing a "letter to the editor" from a guy like me, I'm somewhat concerned with the apparent WP:OWNership you feel towards talk pages outside your own talk. I don't suppose you have a policy-based argument for your reversion?
To make matters worse, you threaten to block me. How? Can you claim my "conduct severely disrupts the project" through "gross incivility"? I made no personal attack, just stating fact. I recommend you re-read WP:WHYBLOCK. This is the first time an admin has made such a threat towards me and I don't take it lightly. You can disagree if you like and condemn me, but making unilateral threats out of process is something else. You censor me in the same Signpost issue you're complaining about the WMF censoring you. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
[4] Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

re: Missing

Is there a way to avoid being added to that list in the future? It'll be incredibly annoying if I have to go remove myself every three months. · Andonic contact 14:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Andonic: I added a hidden comment on that page to warn Wikipedians not to add your name. Sorry for the inconvenience. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Much obliged! · Andonic contact 13:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Username policy

Hi Chris, while Emir of Wikipedia is rather suspiciously experienced for a one-month account, the name does not violate the username policy unless there's a clause there that I'm not aware of. I'm assuming you left the notice after glancing at the "misleading" section there, but this applies only to named on-wiki positions like "administrator" or "bureaucrat." Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@The ed17: Per WP:TPO, you shall not refractor my comments. If you disagree about my interpretation of WP:IU, you are welcome to make your own comment. This is the second time you've edited a warning I've posted to a user talk page in good faith and I do not appreciate it. I generally don't want to hear from you ever again for any reason. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: New Page Reviewer user right

A discussion is taking place to request that New Page Patrollers be suitably experienced for patrolling new pages. Your comments at New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Backlog

The NPP backlog now stands at 13,158 total unreviewed pages.

Just to recap:

  • 13 July 2016: 7,000
  • 1 August 2016: 9,000
  • 7 August 2016: 10,472
  • 16 August 2016: 11,500
  • 28 August 2016: 13,158

You naturally don't have to feel obliged, but if there's anything you can do it would be most appreciated. I've spent 40 hours on it this week but it's only a drop in the ocean.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Chris troutman, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~ Rob13Talk 06:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Telegram

Hello, Chris troutman. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 15:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- samtar talk or stalk 15:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Replied -- samtar talk or stalk 18:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Protect user pages by default

A request for comment is available on protecting user pages by default from edits by anonymous and new users. I am notifying you because you commented on this proposal when it was either in idea or draft form. Funcrunch (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Reversion

The stuff re: NEMA is already being dealt with; your suggestion could make things more confused. Thank you anyway. DS (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtyseven: Sorry. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Poll comments

Hi Chris. You know I think the world of you, right? Please don't take this the wrong way, but I just had to stop by and say that your comments about Adamtt9 seemed a little harsh. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: I have a high opinion of you, as well, and certainly respect your opinion. Regardless of my feelings on the subject, I will try yet again to restrain my comments on wiki. You are probably the dozenth person to make a complaint.
That said, as my criteria indicate I think an inability to pass an open book test shows contempt for our community. Anyone who vainly makes this attempt at self-aggrandizement is deserving of "a pile-on and ought to be run off Wikipedia". I'm trying to write an encyclopedia not make friends. In the space of seven minutes, Adamtt9 requested PC, rollback, and autopatrolled as well as asked about adminship after almost three years of editing as if they suddenly realized those user rights existed. I might've been harsh but I'm not wrong. I am continually offended by the kid gloves used with editors.
But to reiterate, I'll accept as a matter of faith that you're probably right about this. Maybe I need to go back to strict article work and stop interacting because I keep getting complaints from just about everybody about my comments. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Chris. Well, you may be right. I always feel compelled to super-AGF in such cases. Maybe he feels this is the time to make more of a commitment to Wikipedia and has been meaning to ask for these rights. Maybe he didn't read through the poll stuff because he was distracted because his kid was spinning round and round beside him on a wheeled chair and then suddenly made a terrible smell.
And if your care and devotion is to the project rather than the editors, consider that harsh words may put him off Wikipedia and he may edit less or leave. What do we want more than anything? Minions! Minions hard at work developing this encyclopedia! The fools! The mad fools! Oh, wait. We're minions.
Anyhow, posts that further that end are good and any that risk minions editing less or leaving is shooting ourselves in the foot. That's where I stand, sometimes on one foot. :) Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The last thing Wadewitz ever said to me was that we always want new editors. I still disagree with her on this point. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Disagreeing is like a bank saying they don't want new, unemployed customers with bad credit to come in and borrow money. How is Wikipedia to profit without new editors who have no idea what they are getting into? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

a little trouting

Follow me to join the secret cabal!

Plip!

Hi Chris troutman, just a little trout for your cheeky comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beal-Gaillard House about helping your afd score:) ps. i sometimes do the same so please feel free to reciprocate Coolabahapple (talk) 06:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News

Hello everyone, and welcome to the September 2016 GOCE newsletter.

>>> Sign up for the September Drive, already in progress! <<<

July Drive: The July drive was a roaring success. We set out to remove April, May, and June 2015 from our backlog (our 149 oldest articles), and by 23 July, we were done with those months. We added July 2015 (66 articles) and copy-edited 37 of those. We also handled all of the remaining Requests from June 2016. Well done! Overall, we recorded copy edits to 240 articles by 20 editors, reducing our total backlog to 13 months and 1,656 articles, the second-lowest month-end total ever.

August Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 21 through 27 August; the theme was sports-related articles in honor of the 2016 Summer Olympics. Of the eight editors who signed up, five editors removed 11 articles from the backlog. A quiet blitz – everyone must be on vacation. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdlsk.

>>> Sign up for the September Drive! <<<

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Menelik II

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Menelik II. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Budd Hopkins

Hi Chris, Thank you for your post. The only issues I have with Budd Hopkins' Wikipedia page is its blatant co-option by the "Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia" (GSOW) movement headed by Susan Gerbic. I don't have any problems with any Wikipedia users I've encountered. My frustration lies only with the bizarre and contradictory rules regarding what kind of material can be posted. "Original research" is not allowed, yet "original research", of an unsupported and uncorroborated nature, is much of what is listed at this particular Wikipedia page to support biased, pseudoskeptical statements. Proof of the GSOW movement's co-option of this page is present in the edit history (user: Sgerbic) They even take credit for it at their blog (http://guerrillaskepticismonwikipedia.blogspot.com.au/search/label/Budd%20Hopkins). There is no point arguing with any specific users, few are inclined to listen. I feel what is going on here is a great injustice to the neutrality espoused but not practiced by Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.159.166.64 (talk) 11:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Diesel engine

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Diesel engine. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Three years ago ...
cleanup
... you were recipient
no. 607 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cedar Fire (2003)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cedar Fire (2003). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Request on 01:52:00, 25 September 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Ringoroo


I'm trying to submit an entry that shows the existence of a TV programme which is contrary to an earlier made programme of the same name. The aim is to help avoid confusion. I have, twice, submitted an entry and have, twice, been declined. The latest reason is that the references I've used are linked to the programme maker. I'm not sure what other reference is necessary to simply differentiate between two shows. The proof of it's existence is evident in the BBCs webpages. Could you please help me in understanding what else I should provide.

Thank you.

I forgot to add that 2 of the references link to this programmes existence elsewhere on the internet.

Ringoroo (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ringoroo: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which is a tertiary publication looking backwards. As such, we rely on secondary sources (and to a lesser extent primary sources) to establish notability. We're not a reference work purely to help answer questions. I don't doubt this program exists but there's no claim of notability and BBC isn't a neutral source on the subject, anyway. If there were coverage from The Guardian or some such outside reliable source (several articles, not just one) then we might consider general notability.
However, the content you've written would fit very well at Trust Me, I'm a Doctor (TV series)#New series. You could add that content with the citations you already have and it'd be live online the moment you press save. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I've now added several links to major news organisations... is this enough ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ringoroo (talk • contribs) 02:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ringoroo: No. Please add the content where I've suggested rather than continue to push this insufficient draft. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Request on 22:04:31, 26 September 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by 2A02:C7D:4E9A:A200:709C:BC79:23CC:55A5


I recently tried to submit a page which I thought was informative and un-biased (this, in the last review, counted against my submission). It was my first submission to Wikipedia and as such was bound to need help to meet the guidelines. The first 2 responses I recieved were fine, I tried to address the issues without being biased or seeming promotional.

I then received an extremely impolite, rude and unhelpful response from yourself. I'm not sure which aspect of my inexperience caused you to respond in such an abusive and aggressive manner but I can say that it has made sure I will no longer attempt to add anything to the site or send any more money.

The respect I had for the site has diminished enormously thanks to your intolerance of a new submission.

As your full response wasn't shown above I thought I'd add it here....

"Although you've now added independent sources almost all are just brief mentions and you haven't proven general notability. Furthermore, the piece from The Independent says "This was, in many ways, extremely lazy television. Some of the volunteers were so lacklustre they didn't deserve the airtime." and yet you can't be bothered to actually build this article based on that content. All you say in the text is "It has been referenced in several news items" which is lazy and irresponsible writing on your part. The Oxford link is promotional in nature since it's advertising for one of its faculty that was on the show. Please build content at Trust Me, I'm a Doctor (TV series)#New series and discontinue submitting this draft."

It wasn't exactly encouraging for a newbie.


Arrogant - "Unpleasantly proud and behaving as if you are more important than, or know more than, other people" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:4E9A:A200:709C:BC79:23CC:55A5 (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

"can't be bothered" - I'm a newbie, learning as I go and have tried, 3 times, to include what I've been asked to.... "lazy and irresponsible writing" - I responded to the comments and tried to include references that portrayed both the positive and negative reception of the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:4E9A:A200:709C:BC79:23CC:55A5 (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:4E9A:A200:709C:BC79:23CC:55A5 (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

2A02:C7D:4E9A:A200:709C:BC79:23CC:55A5 (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it. Only a fool would either send money to the WMF or have respect for this website. You're welcome. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Wobbly terms

I'm also not planning on doing anything more with this article. I agree that it was a mistake to suggest merge rather than just delete. Oh well, WP has lots of stupid articles and this one does not seem to be hurting anyone.Borock (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Borock: I still think it's an eyesore; next time I'll just !vote delete. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

GA Cup Announcement

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup

Greetings, all!

We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time.

The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring.

Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on October 31, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now!

If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges.

Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Competence is required#The "very insulting" practice of referencing this page

Hi Chris. I was just curious to find out what you meant when you said "It seems an odd question from someone of your experience". I didn't think the essay's talk page was the place for such a tangent so I came here. Recent experience has made me take more of an interest in how I'm perceived by other editors. I'm worried a large gap has developed between their perception and my own. Cheers.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Gibson Flying V: I was specifically referring to the fact that you have over 90,000 edits and you're coming up on being a ten year editor. I would think you've seen this phenomena (calling editors incompetent) more than I have. Although I talk down to people all the time here and in real life I honestly try not to. When I note Wikipedians with far more experience than I, I make an effort not to treat them like idiots that need me to explain things to them. That's all.
I read the other thread you linked to. I agree with Ritchie insofar as the inclusion or exclusion had no basis in guideline or MOS and none of the arguments did more than express personal preference. Ritchie said as much and perhaps you wanted his opinion on the matter which I assume he has none. Returning to the status quo ante seems reasonable. I don't know if that means there's a gap in perception. You could have been more specific in asking for exactly what I'm guessing you wanted. As with any user talk page there are stalkers so you can expect to get harassed by them, as well. I would know as I'm a stalker on a few user talk pages for Wikipedians who aren't as assertive as I'd have them be.
I'd scratch that up to a difference of opinion. I've never dealt with you before so I can only base what I'm saying on what I see at a glance. It looks like that RfC was suffering from some frayed nerves so you got hit with some unpleasantness. I wouldn't lose sleep over it. (Just look at my talk page!) Chris Troutman (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh gotcha. You just meant of your experience, not of your experience. (That whole conversing through text thing once again). Thanks.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Han Chinese

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Han Chinese. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Since when...

Since they've used their user page to characterise other editors as "haters". That said, I'm content for my comment to just exist as a shadow in the page's history. Cabayi (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC for page patroller qualifications

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

ULS page

User:Kirkcudbrightshire/sandbox/University of Pittsburgh Library System Resources Kirkcudbrightshire (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Han Chinese

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Han Chinese. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

14:50:13, 8 October 2016 review of submission by Rockrollcritic


Hi! Thanks for your prompt appraisal of my proposed wiki page. I'm obviously disappointed to read that you say that my subject clearly doesn't meet the Wiki guideline for musicians. I feel that she fulfils the first criteria as a musician. I modelled my wiki page on the following clearly prominent music artists:

John Lee Hooker Leonard Cohen Elvis Presley Bob Dylan The Rolling Stones Nick Cave David Bowie

I used the same publications and websites for references (the leading music publications, Q, Mojo, The Wire, Uncut, The Quietus, Under the Radar, Clash, Fact, NME, AllMusic, Discogs) that the Wiki pages for these artists use, together with other similarly notable national publications (the newspapers The Scotsman, The National) and websites (Tate). I don't want this to seem as if I'm unduly relying on the "what about x?" argument, beyond all abstract guidelines needing to be anchored in inevitable precedence/example, as the "what about x?" wiki page accepts. (As a music fan, what I love about Wikipedia, in common with AllMusic, are the entries on non-mainstream yet clearly notable artists, innumerable artists of the stature of my subject.) Apologies if this is too waffly!

@Rockrollcritic: I stand by my comments that the subject fails most of WP:NMUSIC and those comments aren't meant as a sleight; she hasn't charted, she hasn't won a Grammy or similar award, she hasn't sold a gold record, etc. However, I have reconsidered my position on general notability. You have indeed provide enough journalistic sources so I have accepted the article. Thanks for bringing this to me. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:AlMaghrib Institute

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:AlMaghrib Institute. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Submission Review of Vikas Gupta

Hi Chris,

For the notable sources here are the links about him, few of them are from the leading newspaper in India

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/music/news/Vikas-Gupta-to-perform-live-in-Thailand/articleshow/51024744.cms

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/Vikas-Gupta-My-show-is-not-an-adaptation-of-Game-of-Thrones/articleshow/46758458.cms

http://www.afaqs.com/news/story/42831_Vikas-Gupta-programming-head-MTV-quits

http://www.indiantelevision.com/television/tv-channels/people/vikas-gupta-to-join-tv-as-head-of-fiction-programming-150821

http://bollywoodhelpline.com/news-gossips/telly-buzz/pyaar-tune-kya-kiya-to-see-vikas-gupta-to-co-host-the-finale/34042

http://www.indiantelevision.com/television/tv-channels/people/vikas-gupta-bids-adieu-to-mtv-india-141220


Few of his work on Wikipedia where his name has also been mentioned are as follows

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTV_Fanaah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gumrah:_End_of_Innocence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyunki_Saas_Bhi_Kabhi_Bahu_Thi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahaani_Hamaaray_Mahaabhaarat_Ki

Murz97 (talk) 04:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Murz97: Then rewrite the draft using those sources. I don't think the subject is notable, which is why I declined Draft:Vikas Gupta. You're welcome to resubmit if you like but I don't plan on reviewing it again. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


Hi Chris,

Is it a possibility if i add few pointers in the article with reference links sent you earlier, for you to review again? Also, am a newbie on wikipedia so if you can explain me what all changes should be made before i resubmit the article. Thanks Again

Murz97 (talk) 07:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Murz97: No, it's not possible. I already said that I'm not going to review it again. You would be better served by having another editor review your draft. I would also recommend you do more than "add few pointers". Chris Troutman (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

09:41:21, 15 October 2016 review of submission by Shubhamsingh023

Sir, I am not able to understand what you are telling me to fix in the article .. please help me ... and can someone from the reviewer desk only make the necessary changes in the article cause it's been months I am trying to make this arcticle pass but it's still not getting accepted .. he is a senior member in politics of Bihar .. and member of Bihari legislative council for 18 years that is why I thought he should have a page too — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shubhamsingh023 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


RFC/N discussion of the username "Emir of Wikipedia"

A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of Emir of Wikipedia (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. —swpbT 18:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

—swpbT 18:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Diego Maradona

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Diego Maradona. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Request on 12:39:13, 20 October 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Amy Jaworska


Hi Mr Troutman, I hope you are well.

I have just received a third rejection from wiki for my article on 'Lotus shoes Limited' regarding one of the Uk's longest standing shoe brands (established 1759). After each rejection I have attempted to make the changes required to improve my article. I was previously asked to include more third party references, as you may remember I now have 13 third party references in my short article which includes the British Broadcasting Corporation,the UK national archives, a wikipedia article and some local organisation websites. My recent rejection does not give me any feedback as to how else I can make this submission a success. Please could you advise? I could for example show evidence of the trademark registration of the brand if that would mean approval?

thanks for yoru help,

Amy Amy Jaworska (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Amy Jaworska: I left a comment on the draft: "The BBC source looks like a reprint of what Lotus itself provided. Most of the other citations are routine business reporting. I don't see a case for notability." Many of those records are Lotus's own documents now held in the National Archives. That doesn't make the case for notability, either. It's a good source to verify facts and totally allowable but that's not the same thing as notability.
I can only assume you're a partisan, editing on the company's behalf so most of what I'm going to say isn't going to make a lot of sense: You need to make a case for notability; NOT what you think is notable like "one of the Uk's longest standing shoe brands" but what Wikipedia's criteria state. WP:NCORP is our guideline for companies and organizations, generally. WP:GNG is our guideline on general notability. Routine coverage doesn't cut it. That the company exists doesn't cut it. Crowdsourced websites including Wikipedia aren't valid, either. We need to see independent reliable coverage about the subject. What about the visit by HM the Queen? What about the Lotus shoes in Northampton Museum? It looks like there's a book called "History of Lotus Ltd." Is that about the subject and if so, was it published by a third-party? These are lines you need to research on. Please be prepared to accept that Lotus just isn't notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and hence covers already notable things discussed in secondary sources. We are not an advertising platform or business index. We write about what people want to read, not what Lotus would like people to be reading. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Chris troutman. You have new messages at Talk:Alexander Hamilton.
Message added 01:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Submission Declined for Clement Dzidonu

Hi Chris troutman.

Trust you are doing great!

I recently submitted this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Clement_Dzidonu which unfortunately has been declined 5 times for same reasons. Actually User:LaMona gave a specific correction to be made for the article to be approved which i have already done that.

Now, you declined the article with the same reason but this time i am confused as to what link i have to remove or add in order for the article to be approved.

Kindly point my attention to the actual error on the page as i can't afford the cost of another rejection of the article.

I am hoping to hear from you soonest.

Warm Regards Kenny Dabiri 10:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennyung6 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kennyung6: I can understand your frustration. When reviewers leave comments they suggest what you ought to do. Making those changes doesn't guarantee our acceptance and another reviewer may have a different opinion of what needs to be fixed. LaMona said that the subject doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC, which they don't. None of your edits can change that fact and two other reviewers declined the submission after LaMona declined it and before I did. The subject isn't notable and I don't see how you can change that. The sources aren't there. You should never write an article about someone if you don't know exactly which criteria they might pass because now you've spent a lot of time on this draft for nothing. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:England (disambiguation)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:England (disambiguation). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Anon edits

I noticed this] with interest. You're right of course, but there's proably little that can be done about it. They most certainly shouldn't be allowed anywhere near any kind of opinion-making pages, that's for sure. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2014 Oso mudslide

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2014 Oso mudslide. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm...

You're spot-on about CIR for GA reviewers. I follow the Help page, saw your strike, jumped over to read the promoted article and immediately started editing. I don't think that's how the process is supposed to work. If articles like that are being promoted it lessens the quality overall. Can we not do something about qualifications for reviewers? Atsme📞📧 20:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your praise but that's not how WP:GANI reads right now. We can and probably ought establish a minimum bar for participation. Kudpung has been leading the charge to establish minimum requirements for WP:NPP and I think he had a lot to do with setting the minimum for the AFCH tool, which is how I got confused in this case. In my opinion no one with less than 500 edits should be doing reviewing anything anywhere. There's even a minimum to attend WP:CVUA. If you wanted to float a proposal to establish a minimum I'd support it. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Atsme, yes I proposed the need for a 'qualification' and its criteria for permission to use the AfC tool. As usual on Wikipedia, the community always prefers us to set the bar as low as possible. This isn't always particularly helpful as is demonstrated by the dozens of users who nevertheless deliberately try to game the system in order, for example, to approve and accept heir own spam artcles This will doubtless also happen with the new user right for New Page Patrol which was enacted yesterday and will be implemented as soon as the devs get round to it.
I'm not sure how critical he situation is at GAN. Over he years I've seen young and inexperienced users turning it into a schoolyard race to see who can review the most GANs, as well as the "I'll pass yours if you'll pass mine'. So I have on occasions had my doubts as to the overall quality of Wikipedia Good Articles - which smarts a bit considering the hard time a correct and mature reviewer gave me over Malvern, Worcestershire seven years ago which in fact at the time was already really FA scope and measure. Her reviews are of a level that we should recognise as the minimum for a GN. I also believe that GAN articles should be of a certain size to qualify for nomination.
If the standard of GA reviewing has dropped significantly below that which is demanded of me for my GAs (perhaps people simply hold me to a higher standard), than yes, I would support a proposal to introduce a clearly identifiable prerequisite for being a GA reviewer. I would even help draft the proposal, though I would not be the proposer or even co-proposer - I've been in the limelight again a lot recently and I want to get back to getting more of my own articles through GA and FA and I wouldn't wish to see my collaboration on such a proposal as having a COI. Keep me in the loop. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
The only point I disagree with here is the "size" requirement for GAs -- thoroughness/completeness and literal size are, IMHO, completely distinct criteria. Smaller GAs (or FAs) are not less of high quality or useful for readers because they're small due to the narrow topic they cover. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Kudpung, I understand exactly where you're coming from, and in fact, am one of the tougher GA reviewers. I also attempted to up the ante on FA and made it as far as discussions with WMF for funding. The project is called WP:Project Accuracy. The talk page will give you an idea of the reception by some in the community. I was unable to get the help needed to follow through but haven't given up entirely. Atsme📞📧 13:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung, Chris - do either of you have any idea what just happened here? I'm thinking it was moved to Project space? Atsme📞📧 20:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a note that I've replied with explanations on my own talk page. :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 19

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 19, September–October 2016
by Nikkimaria, Sadads and UY Scuti

  • New and expanded donations - Foreign Affairs, Open Edition, and many more
  • New Library Card Platform and Conference news
  • Spotlight: Fixing one million broken links

Read the full newsletter



19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 November newsletter: Final results

The final round of the 2016 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2016 WikiCup top three finalists:

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

  • Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a three-way tie with themselves for two FAs in each of R2, R3, and R5).
  • Good Article – MPJ-DK had 14 GAs promoted in R3.
  • Featured List – England Calvin999 (submissions) produced 2 FLs in R2
  • Featured Pictures – Adam Cuerden restored 18 images to FP status in R4.
  • Featured Portal – Yakutsk SSTflyer (submissions) produced the only FPO of the Cup in R2.
  • Featured Topic – Connecticut Cyclonebiskit (submissions) and Calvin were each responsible for one FT in R3 and R2, respectively.
  • Good Topic – MPJ-DK created a GT with 9 GAs in R5.
  • Did You Know – MPJ-DK put 53 DYKs on the main page in R4.
  • In The News – India Dharmadhyaksha (submissions) and New York City Muboshgu (submissions), each with 5 ITN, both in R4.
  • Good Article Review – MPJ-DK completed 61 GARs in R2.

Over the course of the 2016 WikiCup the following content was added to Wikipedia (only reporting on fixed value categories): 17 Featured Articles, 183 Good Articles, 8 Featured Lists, 87 Featured Pictures, 40 In The News, and 321 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2017 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup

Greetings, all!

We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time.

The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring.

Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on November 14, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now!

If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges.

Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. We apologize for the delay in sending out this message until after the competition has started. Thank you to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga for aiding in getting this message out.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup

Greetings, all!

We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time.

The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring.

Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on November 14, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now!

If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges.

Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. We apologize for the delay in sending out this message until after the competition has started. Thank you to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga for aiding in getting this message out.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Account creator granted

After reviewing your request for the "accountcreator" permission, I have enabled the flag on your account. Keep in mind these things:

  • The account creator right removes the limit on the maximum number of new accounts that can be created in a 24-hour period.
  • The account creator right is not a status symbol. If it remains unused, it is likely to be removed. Abuse of the account creator right will result in its removal by an administrator.

If you no longer require the right, let me know, or ask any other administrator. Drop a note on [[User talk:{{{1}}}|my talk page]] if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of the account creator right. Happy editing! — xaosflux Talk 14:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

  • This is subject to removal after the end of your scheduled event. — xaosflux Talk 14:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Done hope your event was good! — xaosflux Talk 15:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Clinton Foundation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Clinton Foundation. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Collegiate School (New York City)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Collegiate School (New York City). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Chris troutman,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:PC2016

Hi Chris troutman, on your oppose !vote, part of the motivation behind the redefinition was that many folks were concerned that the current no-consensus PC2 would subject far too many productive users to review, and does not assume good faith. Part of the motivation behind the redefinition was to make it a bit more inclusive. Anyway, thanks for weighing in, but just an FYI — Andy W. (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: Yes, the proposal sounded like a compromise deal for the sake of moving PC2 along and I considered that. AGF is not a suicide pact and I don't generally AGF so I don't care that PC2 subjects editors to review. The editors are the ones that need to be constrained due to their repeated bad behavior. I'm guessing we differ philosophically on what needs done here. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

thanks for your welcome message

and being the first to welcome me on my talk page. Edaham (talk) 05:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Reverted talk page post

Hey Chris, no love lost between us obviously, but I saw that an editor re-added a previously reverted post. I took the liberty of reverting them again and blocking the user as being disruptive, given their other edits and what I read as a veiled threat against you. If you'd like me to revision delete any revisions here, just let me know. Cheers, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help

Hi Chris troutman,

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)

Please comment on Talk:Cinchona

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cinchona. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism: You insulted me by this word !!!

Hi. I'm not very familiar with wikipedia, but please, tell me how it could be "vandalism" when it's a reply and defending an user who were insulted, by answering with proved argument and without insulting anyone? It's very weird. Vandalism is making wrong action that have no use. You shouldn't use the word vandalism when you see the person don't insult anyone. Did you send a message to the person who insulted in this discussion????


Note: Please, answer on my IP page, it's a shared IP, but I won't reboot right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:49F6:384C:EA95:F5F1 (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Chris troutman. 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)

Re: Huawei Honor article

Hi, Chris. I see in the Huawei Honor article's history that you added some tags back in June. I have submitted an edit request to expand and improve the article, which you can view on the article's talk page. I am trying to find a neutral editor to implement the proposed draft as appropriate. Might you be able to help? Inkian Jason (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Inkian Jason: I am way too busy right now to help you make profit. I see you've already drafted something it'll just take a fine-tooth comb. Perhaps during the Christmas holiday and with the generous offer of a barnstar I might find time to fulfill this request. FYI, the reward board exists for this purpose, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States involvement in regime change

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States involvement in regime change. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer - RfC

Hi Chris troutman. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The Challenge Series

The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Wikipedia to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are invited to participate.

New Page Review - newsletter

Hello Chris troutman,
Breaking the back of the backlog
We now have 819 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.
Mid July to 01 Oct 2016

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

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. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .

Please comment on Talk:Political positions of Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Political positions of Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Volunteer (Ireland)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Volunteer (Ireland). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Tea Leaves

I don't understand your metaphorical use of "trying to read tea leaves" in the context of the conversation here and in the above surveys. Can you explain what you mean? AlexEng(TALK) 19:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@AlexEng: This encyclopedia, as a tertiary source, relies on secondary sources. Describing Trump's political beliefs (assuming he has any) should be drawn from published authors that tell us Trump's political beliefs include... but instead we have wannabe journalists trying to deduce from a history of donations and statements (the metaphorical tea leaves) what his positions are. That's original research. None of us dilettantes are allowed on wiki to perform secondary source analysis, divination, or other dark arts. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I now understand your rationale. Thank you! AlexEng(TALK) 01:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Myth

Dear Chris,

I seem to have messed certain things up just in order to correct a bad link. I need to talk to a high ranking wikipedian!

I was correcting an inter-wiki link. The page Myth was linked to the wrong page in Persian (farsi) wiki. I managed to correct it. But all other languages disappeared. I'm sorry. Can you help to restore things back to normal while keeping the new link to the page in Persian wiki?Salarabdolmohamadian (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Chris, thank you. I just found an administrator and wrote to him as well. I just paniced for such a terrible mistake. Sorry to bother.Salarabdolmohamadian (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It was a Wikidata issue, and I already got it. —C.Fred (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@Salarabdolmohamadian: Sorry I couldn't help you. I was eating dinner and didn't see your notification until the issue was handled. Thanks for reaching out. Please continue to be bold and ask for help when you need it. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

4th Annual GA Cup - Round 1

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup

Greetings, GA Cup competitors!

November 28, 2016 was supposed to mark the end of the first round. However, we needed 16 competitors to move on, and currently only 10 have completed articles. Thus, the judges have come together to let the participants decide what we shall do. Please complete this quick survey to let us know whether you would like a holiday break.

There will be two options for what we will do next in terms of Round 2 depending on the results of this poll.

  • If the survey indicates that the competitors want a break, we will have a 2nd round after the break ends with just the 10 competitors who have reviewed articles, starting in January (with a specific date TBA).
  • If the survey does not indicate that participants want a break, we will extend Round 1 until the end of December.

We apologize for sending out this newsletter late. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase!

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

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

New Page 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) 23:55, 7 December 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)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News

Hello everyone, and welcome to the December 2016 GOCE newsletter. We had an October newsletter all set to go, but it looks like we never pushed the button to deliver it, so this one contains a few months of updates. We have been busy and successful!

>>> Sign up for the December Blitz! <<<

Coordinator elections for the first half of 2017: Nominations are open for election of Coordinators for the first half of 2017. Please visit the election page to nominate yourself or another editor, and then return after December 15 to vote. Thanks for participating!

September Drive: The September drive was fruitful. We set out to remove July through October 2015 from our backlog (an ambitious 269 articles), and by the end of the month, we had cut that pile of oldest articles to just 83. We reduced our overall backlog by 97 articles, even with new copyedit tags being added to articles every day. We also handled 75% of the remaining Requests from August 2016. Overall, 19 editors recorded copy edits to 233 articles (over 378,000 words).

October Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 16 through 22 October; the theme was Requests, since the backlog was getting a bit long. Of the 16 editors who signed up, 10 editors completed 29 requests. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part.

November Drive: The November drive was a record-breaker! We set out to remove September through December 2015 from our backlog (239 articles), and by the end of the month, we had cut that pile of old articles to just 66, eliminating the two oldest months! We reduced our overall backlog by 523 articles, to a new record low of 1,414 articles, even with new tags being added to articles every day, which means we removed copy-editing tags from over 800 articles. We also handled all of the remaining Requests from October 2016. Officially, 14 editors recorded copy edits to 200 articles (over 312,000 words), but over 600 articles, usually quick fixes and short articles, were not recorded on the drive page.

Housekeeping note: we do not send a newsletter before every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your Watchlist.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdslk.

>>> Sign up for the December Blitz! <<<

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Jacques Strap

Good patrol work. Thanks. --24.120.167.25 (talk) 09:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Please reply here

…and explain "run afoul". I am clueless as to your meaning. If it regards switching back and forth between logged and not, I have a crazy and active schedule, and I do not always remember to log, and other times, I am auto logged out of things. I'm not thawing out work just because I'm out. IP address editing is no problem, here, as I understand it, and I always ID myself as Le Prof. THere is no sock pupating issue. Reply here? Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

But how many times have you been warned to stop doing this? I lose track. It looks like you're doing it on purpose, you've done it so many times. Either edit as an account or an IP address, just pick one or the other. It's not that hard to verify whether you're logged in or out. Also, yes, editing the same articles or topics your named account edits is considered sockpuppetry, even if you always ID yourself as Le Prof. It splits your edit history, causes unnecessary confusion, etc. Regardless, it's just a very disruptive practice. Sro23 (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
@Leprof 7272: You have run afoul because your fellow editors take issue with your activity at AfC. (Perhaps you recall.) Once you've already angered people it doesn't help when you're also violating norms like editing logged-in. Yes, I wouldn't characterize your editing logged-out as sock-puppetting since you're not trying to create the illusion you are someone else. However, whatever IP you edit from only identifies themselves as "Le Prof." I could log out and portray myself as "Le Prof", too. The community interacts with you through your account. IP addresses are not people and I'm opposed to IPs editing Wikipedia, at all. To that end, if you want to be a Wikipedian then edit logged-in. Continuing to flout the community as you have may result in enmity and a series of blocks of your account and the IP range you use. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

February Wikipedia Event

Hi there! Just wanted to let you know that I'm planning a Wikipedia beginner's workshop on Feb. 24 as part of a workshop series at the Pitt library. You're invited, of course, if you want to come; or if you know anybody who would like a beginner's guide, please let them know! There will be a tutorial and then a hands-on editing session. Details on the Redd-up-a-thon page. Would love to see you there (and I promise no unplugging this time!). --TheLeaper (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

User:George Ho/Competence is not required

I need help on expanding the essay. I rewrote the essay in effort to make it more friendly to the community. I appreciate your help. --George Ho (talk) 06:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: Thanks for the invite but I'm not sure why you'd ask for my help. I voted to delete it primarily because I think the opposite is true. I couldn't help you make your case. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I thought you would be interested. I reworked the essay to make it opposite to the original essay. Also, I am working on the essay to make it friendlier to the community. You don't have to help me if you don't want to. Maybe you can look at it again and respond. --George Ho (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Operation Castor

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Operation Castor. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Check it out

Wikipedia-Pittsburgh-Pitt-Libraries, Post-Gazette, page D7, Sunday, Decemer 11, 2016. No link yet. You will find me right after the crossword puzzles.

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter #2

Hello Chris troutman,
Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .

WikiCup December newsletter: WikiCup 2017

On 1 January 2017, WikiCup 2017 (the 10th Annual WikiCup) will begin. This year we are trying something a little different – monetary prizes.

For the WC2017 the prizes will be as follows (amounts are based in US$ and will be awarded in the form of an online Amazon gift certificate):

  • First place – $200
  • Second & Third place – $50 each
  • Category prizes – $25 per category (which will be limited to FA, FL, FP, GA, and DYK for 2017). Winning a category prize does not require making it to the final round.

Note: Monetary prizes are a one-year experiment for 2017 and may or may not be continued in the future. In order to be eligible to receive any of the prizes above, the competing Wikipedia account must have a valid/active email address.

After two years as a WikiCup judge, Figureskatingfan is stepping down. We thank her for her contributions as a WikiCup judge. We are pleased to announce that our newest judge is two-time WikiCup champion Cwmhiraeth.

The judges for the 2017 WikiCup are Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email).

Signups are open now and will remain open until 5 February 2017. You can sign up here.

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:North Korea

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:North Korea. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Request on 15:19:19, 17 December 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by WendigoUK


Hi. I'm wondering if you could assist with making this article better so it can be published?

WendigoUK (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@WendigoUK: I'm trying to reduce the backlog of drafts. I am not a volunteer to help you write articles. Try asking at the reward board. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello Chris troutman: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 15:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

hi

Hi User:TheLongTone has just proved he's stalking my contributions. Something should be done but nothing will be done. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Take it WP:DRV or WP:AN. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Who will laugh at you, because they know that if you mention an editor using the [[user:blahblah}} format they get a notification. You talk about me, I stick in my two ha'porth.TheLongTone (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Imbroglio...

I think (besides the obvious "I worked with Eric Corbett" problem) the biggest issue I've had in the past is the great "anti-Bulgarian bias" problem that's documented in the archives of Middle Ages. Some of its at Talk:Middle Ages/Archive 8 and Talk:Middle Ages/Archive 7 which spilled into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sumatro/Archive. There was also some kerfluffle about the lead image at Middle Ages at Talk:Middle Ages/Archive 6 and Talk:Middle Ages/Archive 5. There's also the run in with this sockpuppeter: here. As far as EC - I did get a bit testy here, which wasn't my finest hour, I'll admit. I am sorry you subjected yourself to reading my boring talk page archives... it was probably about as exciting as watching paint dry, I'm sure. Thank you for your assessment. Currently, I'm leaning towards going for it, I suspect. I just did a search for my username in the ANI/AN archives and ... gods, I'm boring! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: I'm not seeing anything of concern there, but I'm also probably not the person to ask about conduct. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

And Happy Holidays to You Too!

I hope we cross paths more often in 2017. Happy holidays, Mr. Troutman! JSFarman (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas Chris troutman!!
Hi Chris troutman, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,

Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!

   –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 21:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–16)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–16). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13Talk 15:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

This Month in Education: December 2016

Home • Subscribe • Archives • Newsroom - The newsletter team 18:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Support before transclusion

Hi Chris. I just wanted to let you know I temporarily removed your support at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ealdgyth. As the RfA hasn't yet been transcluded, it isn't open for !votes. As soon as the RfA goes live, I'll ping you again to remind you to re-add your vote. Special:PermaLink/756335952 contains the text so you can easily copy-paste it. Cheers! ~ Rob13Talk 15:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

A close watch...

I would recommend you to kindly keep a close watch over the article of Creep Catcher.Certain editors seem uninterested in approaching for a consensus and instead repetitively add their own POV to the article.Anyway, thanks for for your last edits!Cheers!Light❯❯❯ Saber 16:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

chrissy greetings

Hi Chris troutman, Mwiaowy xmas Coolabahapple (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2017!

Hello Chris troutman, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2017.
Happy editing,
CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

warning

don,t be bossing people thank you.

--86.163.60.79 (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's the deal: I've been an editor for years. I know what I'm doing. You, however, seek to abuse Wikipedia and the best thing you can do now is go back to Facebook. I'm not going to end up blocked but you probably will. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

you and whos army

--86.163.60.79 (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Funny you ask. The way they have this set up, I just press some buttons and you get blocked not long after. It's not very labor intensive. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!

 

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

Pittsburgh Meet-up

Just us two editors. I'll organize. You pay for your lunch and I'll pay for mine. Time and place? Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@Barbara (WVS): How about noon on Tuesday the third, Wednesday the fourth, or Thursday the fifth? Porch at Schenley, right outside of Hillman Library? Chris Troutman (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Pittsburgh meet-up, January 3, 2012, noon, right outside Hillman (I don't know anything about a porch). We will discuss all things WP and how to improve the encyclopedia. Best Regards,
Barbara (WVS) (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

New sock account

Hello Chris, I had a new account he had recreate article of SM City Marilao again. so shall I request the protection so user can recreate again? well it says User:Clarityu has sock puppet ERSPW, I investigate him/her our new account. Oripaypaykim (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Oripaypaykim: Yes, that's the process. Go to WP:RFPP and request create protect. The speedy deletion you've requested should have gone through by the time an admin sees your request. The SPI seems pretty WP:DUCK to me. Good work. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Scranton general strike/GA1

Chris troutman, I was wondering how soon you were planning to return to this nomination. The nominator has responded to your concerns, and is waiting for you to make the next move. I hope you'll be able to get back to it soon. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Chris troutman!

Happy New Year!

Chris troutman,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 12:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

4th GA Cup - Round 2

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup

Greetings, GA Cup competitors!

December 29th marked the end of the first round, after it was extended from its previously scheduled conclusion at the end of November. Because of the smaller pool of contestants this year, it was decided to keep sign-ups open throughout the month of December.

This extension proved to be very helpful as we saw that more users signed up and completed many reviews. Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an impressive 402 points, followed by Cartoon network freak with a close 338 points. Shearonink who signed up after our extension was in third with 170 points.

We had a rule clarification in Round 1 which was that many articles were being passed with blatant copyright violations and plagarism occurring in the articles. Thus, the judges have concluded that if an article is passed even if it has a copyright violation/plagarism, we will not provide points for that article as it wouldn't be considered a "complete review" under the scoring rules.

In the end, 94 articles were reviewed by 14 users who will all advance to Round 2. The judges had planned on having 16 contestants advance but since only 14 did, we are changing the pools in this round. We will be having 2 pools of 3 and 2 pools of 4 in Round 2, with the top 2 in each pool advancing to Round 3 as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 will begin on January 1 at 00:00:00 UTC and will end on January 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here.

Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase!

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Chris troutman

Thank you for all you did for this project in 2016, Chris troutman.
May your house be safe,
and may you
and those having the privilege of your company
enjoy good health in a

Happy New Year 2017!

Kind regards,
— Sam Sailor 02:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Pass on!
Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages.
Information icon Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.

Please comment on Talk:Albert Cashier

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Albert Cashier. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nobel Oil Group

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nobel Oil Group. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For being an example for other editors in making sure GA means good article. TimothyJosephWood 02:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Poll comments

Hi, I appreciate the comments you left under my entry at the RFA poll. Still, I wanted to ask: what specifically were you talking about regarding oversharing on my userpage? (I put a lot of the userboxes there >3 years ago when I was still relatively new here, so I'm guessing it's one or more of them.) Everymorning (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Everymorning: User:UBX/Aspergers, added just weeks ago. I thought my meaning was clear. Honestly, I recommend you CSD your user page and start fresh. Everything you've ever added is still visible in the history and it doesn't help you, at all. This, for example. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I have marked my userpage for speedy deletion. BTW, I originally added the Asperger's userbox to one of my subpages (user:Everymorning/Userboxes, now deleted) more than 3 years ago, if I remember correctly (which I might not). What I did a few weeks ago was add all the userboxes from that subpage to my userpage, and then had the subpage deleted. Everymorning (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Chris, might I ask why you think editors having Asperger Syndrome is a problem? I have a feeling this is what you were on about at my ORCP. Have a read of WP:AUTIST and let me know what you think. Plenty of autistic admins on here, and I wouldn't say they're "mentally ill" - as you put it, albeit not verbatim, at Everymorning's ORCP. Patient Zerotalk 13:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@Patient Zero: You are correct in assuming my meaning. I do not believe we should entrust with tools editors harboring social and communicative problems when so much of the job of an admin is dealing with people.
The longer explanation
I'm trying to be diplomatic about this as I do not AT ALL intend to attack, disparage, or intimidate editors. Just the same, I was horrified to read Journey of a Wikipedian and I'm disappointed to read AUTIST. (I had no idea that essay existed before now.) I do not agree with the conclusion that these disorders are simply on a spectrum of human experience. As a neurotypical person I assume the editors I'm dealing with are in their right mind. I do not calibrate my comments to consider who they are personally or what they might be going through, and I not going to start now. I'm a misanthrope and I already resent the restraint I have to show to human beings. Normal communication is what I expect. (WP:NOTTHERAPY) I defer to Wikipedia's judgement about who we allow to do what. I welcome editors of all stripes to contribute if they can but the interpersonal judgments I make come from the "reasonable person standard." If being on a spectrum was no more significant to editing than personal attributes like hair color or first name, I wouldn't care that people announce their medical history on their user pages. (I do think oversharing on Wikipedia is a mark of immaturity and often only serves to divide our community.) I would be a fool to ignore warnings from editors that they may be editing under the influence of a disorder that bends their perceptions and potentially disables them from fulfilling adminship duties. This is a new thing for me and perhaps my opinions about Autism spectrum and the like are far from what you have experienced, so please forgive my ignorance.
My comments at WP:ORCP are meant to reflect not just my opinion but my estimate of the general aggregate's opinions. If the community shows me that I'm out of step with the acceptance Wikipedians have for those suffering a "developmental disorder", then I'll drop this objection from my comments at ORCP. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your detailed response sir. Of course you're entitled to your own opinion - I'm not going to argue against that - but thank you for agreeing to drop this objection in the future. All the best. Patient Zerotalk 08:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I forgot to mention one thing: a lot of us on the spectrum, myself included, find it much easier to initiate a conversation online than offline. Which is of benefit in Wikipedia, as more often than not, we do not cross paths in real life. Patient Zerotalk 09:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!!

The Original Barnstar
For being willing to reconsider and change a well-founded opinion when new evidence turns up; a rare and valuable editorial strength. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Chris troutman. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Clarence A. Shoop.
Message added 12:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This DYK nomination was approved by a user on 22 December 2016, but since that time, some users have raised concerns about the hook. North America1000 12:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: You have said yourself that the hook has been approved. The follow-on comments do not indicate the hook doesn't meet the criteria. Seems the hook is ready to be put into the queue. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes after a review has been performed, others come along and provide objections. I figured I'd bring the matter to your attention, in case you didn't notice, that's all. North America1000 15:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
@Northamerica1000: Believe me, I noticed and I complained about it. Those objections, to my mind, are besides the point. This is one of DYK's many failings. When the day comes that I finally quit Wikipedia it will be because of stuff like this that goes unchallenged. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, a promoter may promote it regardless, since none of the "needs more work" ticks are present on the page under the approval. North America1000 16:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: January 2017

Ah, sorry about that.

I just found it funny that IJzeren Jan, himself an author of an artistic country and a language (Wenedyk) and a coauthor of an alternative world, is taking a part in a discussion about a fictional country.

So, I made a half-serious comment in Wenedyk asking if his country and San Escobar are maintaining diplomatic relations. Of course, if you find that inappropriate, you're right in reverting it. 150.254.144.189 (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I reverted only because it wasn't in English, not because of the content of the comment. You can re-add (with a translation) if you would. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 20

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 20, November-December 2016
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)

  • Partner resource expansions
  • New search tool for finding TWL resources
  • #1lib1ref 2017
  • Wikidata Visiting Scholar

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Clarence A. Shoop

On 18 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Clarence A. Shoop, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that test pilot Major General Clarence A. Shoop was court-martialed as a cadet? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Clarence A. Shoop. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Clarence A. Shoop), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Schwede66 12:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Poland

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Poland. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

pointing the capitalization out at Wikipedia:Don't link to WP:AGF. --JustBerry (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

06:12:33, 20 January 2017 review of submission by Tirutirutiru


Hi Chris troutman,

This is with regard to the article on R Nandakumar. It is rejected (repeatedly) by different editors on the grounds that there is no significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - I am amused that my long list of published sources in the reference (citation by other scholars) column is not being considered as reliable sources. Eminent National and International scholars in the field have cited his works, that have earlier been published in prominent magazines / academical and art journals from across the world. To quote a few citations by eminent scholars: Please see Christopher Pinney's 'Photos of the Gods: The Printed Image and Political Struggle in India, published by Reaktion Books (London 2004), p. 215, p.224; Similarly see eminent Indian author Geeta Kapur's 'When was Modernism in India', published by Tulika (2000), p. 175. There are many more such citations by very prominent people in the field. What other reliable source do you require?

I am wondering about the trend in wikipedia, some editor is rejecting the article and when I try to follow-up with them, they become quiet and don't respond. So I resubmit, and some other editor rejects again, on the very same grounds. Do you mean to say that Government of India is granting the prestigious Senior Nehru Fellowship award to a non-notable person? Or for that matter, Government of Kerala is granting Kesari Memorial Award to a person who has not made significant contribution? He was the first to receive this award.... Please check year 2007 of Kerala Lalithakala Akademi Awardee List[1]

I agree that he doesn't have much online references. He must be in his late seventies or early eighties(I couldn't find his date of birth - not mentioned in any of the published articles). However, he is a reputed academician and culture critic. Has curated many shows in India. R Nandakumar has been quoted by eminent authors, his articles been published in reputed magazines and he has been honored by both the Government of Kerala and by Nehru Memorial Museum and Library which is under Ministry of Culture, India[2]. Please note that the Senior Nehru Fellow is granted only to scholars of eminence who have made a significant contribution to the knowledge in their respective fields and preferably have experience of conducting/guiding research and have two published books to their credit.

I do not know what more is required. I have done significant research on this subject, read quite a few books to contribute this article to wikipedia. Tirutirutiru (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.lalithkala.org/content/state-awards
  2. ^ http://nehrumemorial.nic.in/en/news/405-the-construct-of-classicism-carnatic-music-and-the-critical-regime-17th-march-2015.html
@Tirutirutiru: I understand you lack experience with Wikipedia, so I'd ask that you absorb what I'm going to explain. Things on Wikipedia don't work the way you think they should so my answer is the right one, regardless of if it makes sense to you. However, I want you to understand.
First, notability on Wikipedia is very codified. Subjects have to be generally notable, or qualify under our requirements for biographies, or meet the criteria for their profession like our criteria for academics. That is how we judge notability. It has nothing to do with any belief you may have about what the word notable means. Secondly, you've made claims about references about the subject. None of those look sufficient to me. Tulika Review of Books is a WordPress blog, which is not allowed as a source. We require reliable sources like Tribune India but the one citation from it you provided is something the subject wrote; it's not about him. No one can publish their way into notability. We require sources independent of the subject. In Photos of the Gods the subject is mentioned just once and that sentence isn't even about him. We require significant coverage about the subject. All of the sources you provide are insufficient for notability. Thirdly, you make claims about fellowships and awards. I googled for them and came up with very little. Generally, if Wikipedia doesn't have an article about an award, the award isn't notable and does not connote notability to awardees.
It does not matter how much you want this article published or how much work you put into it. Half-a-dozen different editors came to the same conclusion: Nandakumar isn't notable. I'd like to also explain that we are not interested in helping you, either. The editors at WP:AFC like me are just evaluating drafts and accepting or rejecting them. Many editors have left you comments, just to point out things about notability you should have read about before starting. To create your draft you must have ignored most of the advice given to you. Consequently, editors like me don't enjoy spending time explaining these facts about sources and notability to you when we already have so many other new editors who, rather than read, decided to bother us with the same questions. I enjoy spending my time contributing to Wikipedia and I only evaluate drafts so editors like you don't have to wait too long for feedback. Accordingly, answering your argument does not amuse me, as apparently our comments have amused you. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Political appointments of Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Political appointments of Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dominion of Canada

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dominion of Canada. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Pittsburgh MeetUp

Is there a meetup coming up? I couldn't find it. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Barbara (WVS): Yes, February 24th. I've already submitted a geonotice that should start running next week. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding Section "Convening the first U.S. state constitutional convention". Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:American_Legislative_Exchange_Council.23Section_.22Convening_the_first_U.S._state_constitutional_convention.22_discussion".The discussion is about the topic American Legislative Exchange Council. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Calexit (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

4th GA Cup - Round 3

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3

Hello, GA Cup competitors!

Sunday saw the end of Round 2. Shearonink took out Round 2 with an amazing score of 499. In second place, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an astounding 236 points, and in third place, Cartoon network freak received 136 points. Originally, we had plans for one wild card for 9th place, however it appears that both Chris troutman and J Milburn were tied for 9th place. Therefore, we have decided to have both advance to Round 3.

In Round 2, 91 reviews were completed! At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 7 months; at the end of Round 2, the longest wait had decreased to a little over 6 months. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 3 so we can keep decreasing the backlog.

To qualify for the third round, contestants had to earn the two highest scores in each of the four pools in Round 2; plus, one wildcard. For Round 3, users were placed in 3 random pools of 3. To qualify for the Final of the 3rd Annual GA Cup, the top user in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 4th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 3 has already started and will end on February 26 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here.

Also, we'd like to announce the departure of judge Zwerg Nase. We thank him for all his hardwork and hope to see him back in the future.

Good luck and have fun!

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Henry III

I added a very small fact to the article and was reverted with "utterly irrelevant" and you question *my* conduct? What about the conduct of an editor who is so aggressively hostile?Wjhonson (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Wjhonson: Ealdgyth's remark of "utterly irrelevant" isn't mine. I don't know why they would say that. I reverted you because you added unsourced information. That you've already been reverted is why you should be discussing this with fellow editors. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I will source the informationWjhonson (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

O'Leary

Please stop edit warring on the Kevin O'Leary WP page. Try rewording your attempted addition to the page until it reaches consensus. Don't just keep throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. Consider either a balanced comparison of both the similarities and differences between O'Leary and Trump, and only list similarities specifically mentioned in the sources. The edit you are trying to make is hair raisingly full of misrepresented sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.233.155 (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You've not been participating in the discussion on the talk page and I have. Who's editing against consensus? Chris Troutman (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello Chris,
I have input a minor edit into the talk page of the Kevin O'Leary article. One discussion should be kept to one subtitle, not split into two. Please don't make accusations on my talk page of deleting discussions. I have transferred the text so the talk page is easier to read and navigate. Thank you. MohammedMohammed (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@MohammedMohammed: Per WP:REFACTOR this isn't allowed. You cannot change someone's comment even to fix a spelling error. The talk page stays as it is and I really don't understand what problem you think this solves. Regardless, do you want to get blocked over something stupid like this? Just leave the talk page as is. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
No comments were changed in the slightest. Just transferred so we could have one subtitle instead of two. Please don't edit war over such a minor issue. MohammedMohammed (talk) 02:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@MohammedMohammed: There are two separate threads. That's how it is. You solve nothing by changing it and I have every reason to keep tagging you with warnings so I can eventually report you and have you blocked. You can do nothing to me. I have been editing almost four years. You would do well to just follow instructions. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Chris, The WP:REFACTOR which you cited states that refactoring can be done for "Improving the clarity and readability of a page", and "Moving a comment to a more appropriate place in the discussion". Please provide a reason why you feel two discussions of the exact same topic, and within the exact same time-span, should be in different sections. This makes things unnecessarily confusing for all editors. It's pretty common on Wikipedia to combine identical threads in order to improve readability. Also, please do not bite a newcomer.
In any even, I have been reading through the discussion you have been having Re: the Trump comparison, and I will post a potential compromise on the O'Leary talk page. I invite you to view and discuss my compromise suggestion. MohammedMohammed (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Al-Raqqah

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Al-Raqqah. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Chris

Have a question on this page, looking forward to your answer.

Thank you. HardMental (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep up the good work.

Gallipoli Star
As a thanks for the contributions in honor of our veterans and for all your efforts done so far, I here by reward you with this imaginary medal. Stay strong and ever vigilant soldier! HardMental (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Chris troutman,
A HUGE backlog

We now have 819 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

  1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
  2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
  3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Why

Why was my page Draft:List of highest-grossing animated films in Canada and the United States not acpect82.38.157.176 (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

As WP:NOTSTAT describes, Wikipedia is not meant to house indexes or tables of figures like gross sales. We don't need articles like that. Your draft has a few problems. First, you don't explain why you're lumping the US and Canada together. Second, you rely almost exclusively on one source. Finally, you have almost no prose to explain the topic or the valuations. Your lede reads like an opinion piece. You therefore have just copied Box Office Mojo's content and pasted it here, sloppily. Take, for example, List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States. Right at the outset it explains the concept of the list. It doesn't rely just on Box Office Mojo but also uses other sources. It has more prose for each section although it's still largely tables. I don't generally like list articles but some people find value in them. List of highest-grossing films, a featured list, is the best example of what Wikipedia wants for this type of article. It's very heavy on prose although it does have tables, it explains the topic, and it has a variety of sources. Your draft is an eyesore and doesn't accomplish what these other articles do. You can improve what you've started; I hope my explanation helps. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

2nd O

Hey, did you notice my comment regarding the second opinion on the concern raised by you? --Mhhossein talk 19:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Yes, I saw it and am ignoring it. I am the reviewer and I've asked for a second opinion from WikiProject Good Article. I am waiting for that response. You can wait patiently, as well. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
But your concern was regarding the source. You took that to RSN and I acted based on the suggestion from the admin at RSN. What else remains unresolved? --Mhhossein talk 23:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: You solicited Doug Weller and Masem probably because you assumed they would agree with you. This is dishonest. I didn't ask particular editors for a response but Iazyges answered and they said unless Rai al-Youm was really a necessary citation it should be cut and you thought it advisable to argue about it. I am now waiting for the first random GA reviewer to respond to my request. You seem to have a point-of-view you insist on pushing and that's not allowed. I have to be satisfied if my name is going on this and you have been more concerned with trying to force my hand than accept my determination. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
No, I never assumed they would "agree" with me. Sorry to say that, but your bad faith comments are really annoying. Unlike what you imagine, Iazyges never said the source was unreliable, however I have removed direct citation to Rai al-youm in my previous edits (just a link for letting the readers know about the original source). Also, I removed materials solely supported by Rai al-youm. The only thing remains, is an unknown thing...every thing is OK. --Mhhossein talk 07:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: Your apparent pro-Iranian bias is annoying, too. I've also found that AGF is really a waste of time; my instincts are usually right. I'll give the 2nd opinion a few more days and if nothing comes of it I'll likely fail the nomination. You can re-submit without delay. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to promote it, rather I tried to show you the fact. NO ONE said the source was unreliable, but you kept on your own word and ignored the community. Anyway, sorry if I have appeared as you said, the fact is otherwise. I invite you to see this page. Goodbye. --Mhhossein talk 12:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: As promised, I waited a week for a second opinion. I didn't get one and so am failing the nomination. Your insistence in this matter has not helped you. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Nor your ignoring the community. --Mhhossein talk 19:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Request on 20:53:38, 6 February 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Alsamrudo


Hey, I would like you to check out Draft:Cool Cat Saves the Kids again. Leave another comment if the problem still exist.

Alsamrudo (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Request on 21:37:06, 6 February 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Alsamrudo


I want you again check out Draft:Cool Cat Saves the Kids. This time, I actually made it better by getting rid of all signs of YouTube and adding that it received a Dove award for the best family friendly movie.

Alsamrudo (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Here ya go...

I userfied the Shigeo Iwatani article to User:Chris troutman/Shigeo Iwatani. Best of luck! --joe deckertalk 06:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your review

Dear Chris, Thanks for reviewing my article on Russell Brothers and for fixing that copyvio that slipped in. I read about you, and I am impressed with all you've done for Wikipedia. How I wish I could have taken one of your courses from the get-go, rather than learn Wiki by trial and error. My best regards, --Eagledj (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

00:47:30, 8 February 2017 review of submission by Alsamrudo


Ok, I am going to be as polite and mature as possible, but I put a lot of time and effort in making that. Why didn't you tell me that none of those sources were good in the first place? So you can laugh at me while I work hard to make you approve my article? Also, you really are a smart alec on how you said "Let me know when The New York Times reviews this. Until then, this isn't notable." How about you get rid of The Emoji Movie page? It didn't even release yet, no one reviewed it, and it isn't notable yet. I think you should realize the way you act and not let any other user deal with your behavior. There are also many un-notable articles that didn't even have to go though that process.

(edit conflict) @Alsamrudo: I can understand your frustration. We get a lot of editors that have passion projects they want to write about. Many new editors make arguments pointing at other content. Sadly, most of the content on Wikipedia that you might look to for an example is crap. We keep trying to clean this stuff up but there are more new articles than we can keep up with. You've since requested the draft to be deleted so now I can't refer to my comments but as I recall, I said at the outset what you would need (WP:NFILM, WP:GNG). I know I said previously that blogs cannot be used as sources. If you had carefully read my guidance you should have understood that. If I wasn't clear up front then I'm sorry. Articles for Creation is a triage process and I simply look for reasons to prevent promoting a draft. Once I find a reason I refuse the draft and explain the reason. I don't go through the litany of problems and I can see how this seems like moving the goalposts. If I find no reasons to refuse then I accept the draft. So, each time you asked for me to comment, I did. Losing your temper over that indicates that Wikipedia is not the place for you. We have nothing but frustration here. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Apology

Ok, stop laughing at my previous post. I have cooled off and I'm sorry for creating such a bad page. I want to finally stop the stress and forget about this. Deal?Alsamrudo (talk)

@Alsamrudo: I find no humor in this. Your frustration is very real and you're not the first editor to have this conversation with me. You're welcome to let this go. Editing Wikipedia should never be something that gets your blood pressure up, although I've found after almost four years of editing that it frequently does. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Ogden Mills Reid

Because he was the owner/publisher. GiantSnowman 09:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: OK, but you didn't make an article about him. I just don't see the point in making a redirect. I'm reviewing the article about the Herald Tribune (his paper) which is how I found out about the redirect. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I know I didn't create an article about him when I created a redirect, that was my intention. Probably not independently notable but a viable search term = valid redirect. GiantSnowman 18:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

07:17:05, 13 February 2017 review of submission by 2.227.120.20


hi Chris troutman first off thanks for your feedback. I don't agree with you regarding some points that you mentioned in your message, i'll try to explain the reasons. You talked that the band should be in some musical chart and indeed actually the brand new album of the band is located at 6 place of the most important alternative chart in Germany Deutsche Alternative Charts, here's the source : http://wp1091379.server-he.de/dac/dac/index_album.php The sources that i used to write my article are not self-published, but show that the band is well known in the goth scene,for example in this link : http://www.ondarock.it/news.php?id=2724 you can read that CPV was in the same festival roster Alt-Fest with band like  : Vnv Nation, Fields of the Nephilim, Marylin Manson, Gary Numan, The Cult, Arch Enemy, Killing Joke. http://www.ondarock.it/ and Rumore are two among most important alternative magazines in Italy, therefore i think that they are sources quite reliable. Lastly but not least, there are in wikipedia/en published pages about bands from the same music label of CPV with sources less notable.. so i'm confused now. Please let me know what you think about it, thanks 2.227.120.20 (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about Deutsche Alternative Charts. I'm going to push to have that article deleted. I don't think those charts are notable and don't count for the purposes of notability. You're otherwise making a bunch of invalid arguments: That articles about other bands exists isn't valid. Most of Wikipedia are articles that are poorly-written and ought to be deleted. Name-dropping, as you've done mentioning bands on the same festival, is a cognitive bias. Notability doesn't rub off on this band because it happened to perform near or with other bands. Wikipedia requires independent reliable sources and you haven't provided that. By "self-published" I don't mean the band created their own website and put the information out there. What I mean is that I expect sources from journalists or academics publishing in platforms that have an editorial board. We don't accept random websites from fans. I have provided you links to much of the reference information about Wikipedia's criteria and clearly you haven't read any of it. Rather than try to convince me, read about what Wikipedia expects and then see if this encyclopedia wants to have an article about this band. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Panoply Media / WP:WTAF

I'm not sure I understand the most recent edit to Panoply Media. WP:WTAF talks about redlinks, but the article had no redlinks.

WATF does talk about listcruft, is that what you were referring to? Would a one- or two-sentence description of each podcast be better? --Hirsutism (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Hirsutism: Adding non-notable entries to lists is problematic. If they were listed in prose that would be fine, but awkward. If there's no navigational purpose served then I see no reason for the list. Most of those entries are unreferenced, too, which should be avoided. Please remember that name-dropping is a cognitive bias. Panoply doesn't become more notable because of which podcasts it broadcasts. I understand you're trying to build the article but I don't think this approach is the way to go. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Germany

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Germany. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News

Hello everyone, and welcome to the February 2017 GOCE newsletter. The Guild has been busy since the last time your coordinators sent out a newsletter!

>>> Sign up for the March Drive! <<<

December blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 11 through 17 December; the themes were Requests and eliminating the November 2015 backlog. Of the 14 editors who signed up, nine editors completed 29 articles. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all who took part.

January drive: The January drive was a great success. We set out to remove December 2015 and January and February 2016 from our backlog (195 articles), and by 22 January we had cleared those and had to add a third month (March 2016). At the end of the month we had almost cleared out that last month as well, for a total of 180 old articles removed from the backlog! We reduced our overall backlog by 337 articles, to a low of 1,465 articles, our second-lowest month-end total ever. We also handled all of the remaining requests from December 2016. Officially, 19 editors recorded 337 copy edits (over 679,000 words).

February blitz: The one-week February blitz, focusing on the remaining March 2016 backlog and January 2017 requests, ran from 12 to 18 February. Seven editors reduced the total in those two backlog segments from 32 to 10 articles, leaving us in good shape going in to the March drive.

Coordinator elections for the first half of 2017: In December, coordinators for the first half of 2017 were elected. Jonesey95 stepped aside as lead coordinator, remaining as coordinator and allowing Miniapolis to be the lead, and Tdslk and Corinne returned as coordinators. Thanks to all who participated!

Speaking of coordinators, congratulations to Jonesey95 on their well-deserved induction into the Guild of Copy Editors Hall of Fame. The plaque reads: "For dedicated service as lead coordinator (2014, 1 July – 31 December 2015 and all of 2016) and coordinator (1 January – 30 June 2015 and 1 January – 30 June 2017); exceptional template-creation work (considerably streamlining project administration), and their emphasis on keeping the GOCE a drama-free zone."

Housekeeping note: We do not send a newsletter before every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your watchlist.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdslk.

>>> Sign up for the March Drive! <<<
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:George Wylde

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:George Wylde. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello Chris troutman,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 819 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

New York Herald Tribune

Made the changes you recommended. Thanks so much for your help.Idols of Mud (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Made some more changes. Again, thank you for your diligence.Idols of Mud (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I AM123

You removed something I edited. How exactly do you cite something.— Preceding unsigned comment added by I AM123 (talk • contribs)

@I AM123: The simplest way is to type in <ref>list your source here</ref> so we know where you're getting the info from. WP:CITE provides directions on how to cite sources and WP:RS describes what we accept for sourcing. We don't accept random websites or what you might deduce from a source. I put an invitation to the Wikipedia adventure on your talk page that helps walk you through editing. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. I currently can sit a url. I need help with making a page, its called The Circle written by Dave Eggers. I just need help making it suitable for wikipedia's database. Go to my talk page if you want to I AM123 (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC).

@I AM123: It already exists: The Circle (Eggers novel). Chris Troutman (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Funny cause when i searched it it did not come up — Preceding unsigned comment added by I AM123 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Len Forkas for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Len Forkas is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Len Forkas until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Edison (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

  • tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
  • updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
  • creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

This Month in Education: [February 2017]

This Month in Education

Volume 6 | Issue 1 | February 2017

This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. Be sure to check out the full version, and past editions. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team!

In This Issue


Featured Topic


Newsletter update

Common Challenges: Time is not an unlimited resource



From the Community

Medical Students' contributions reach 200 articles in innovative elective course at Tel Aviv University

Wikilesa: working with university students on human rights

An auspicious beginning at university in Basque Country

The Wikipedia Education Program kicks off in Finland

The Brief Story of Mrgavan WikiClub

Citizen Science and biodiversity in school projects on Wikispecies, Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons


From the Education Team

WMF Education Program to be featured at the Asian Conference for Technology in the Classroom

Opportunities to grow in Oman

An invitation to participate in the "Hundred Words" campaign!

Education Collab updates membership criteria


In the News

Students Can Learn By Writing For Wikipedia

Online communities are supercharging people's careers

Using open source to empower students in Tanzania

Signpost Special Issue: Wikipedia in Education


We hope you enjoy this issue of the Education Newsletter.-- Sailesh Patnaik using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13
Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
  • Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
  • A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017 WikiCup newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:

  • Scotland Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
  • European Union Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
  • Japan 1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
  • South Australia Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.

The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.

So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Bias

I've noticed you're injecting bias into a lot of your edits and I've tried to remove the bias so that the Wikipedia can form their own opinions on certain topics and you're continuously reverting them. I think it's great you have your own opinions but open source news and encyclopedia are not the place to do it. Create a Twitter account or maybe a Facebook account for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epicmench (talk • contribs) 08:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding onto this bias conversation started by Epicmench, I've also noticed that you (Chris) have been very much biased in your edits, periodically resigning yourself to wiping out other people's content that you disagree with. When you do so, you then resort to dubious uses of policy behind which you hide (or use to mask your actual intention, which is simply to remove other users' content that you simply don't like). That has little to do with Wikipedia policy and more to do with your own personal beliefs and preferences.

As just one (but certainly not the only) example, you commented recently on my talk page, stating, "Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of fulfilled prophecies, without citing a reliable source using an inline citation that clearly supports the material. The burden is on the person wishing to keep in the material to meet these requirements, as a necessary (but not always sufficient) condition. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you." You have removed, wholesale (engaging in vandalism) content from the page in question. You claimed that the content did not have reliable sources, but in other sections of Wikipedia, the sources used were equivalent to those used in List of fulfilled prophecies in the section that you have been targeting for removal (again, I think, because of your personal beliefs and biases, and not because of a Wikipedia policy). In point of fact I have indicated to you that in one area of Wikipedia (as an example, on the JarJar Binks page), social media / microblog links and mainstream media news sources are used together, without anyone attempting to remove them or edit war them away. However, you have decided you wish to target content on List of fulfilled prophecies -- not because it is in real violation of Wikipedia policy - but because you simply disagree with the content itself. And that example is not the only one.

I ask you to step away from Wikipedia for awhile and reconsider your perspective and your treatment of Wikipedia users. Pcvcolin (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Pcvcolin: Good for you. Go get that boomerang. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Winter War

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Winter War. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

4th GA Cup - The Final

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Final

Hello, GA Cup competitors!

Sunday, February 26 saw the end of Round 3. Shearonink finished in first with 616 points, which is more than the point totals for all the other competitors combined! In second place, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an impressive 152 points, followed by Sturmvogel_66 in third with 111 points. Chris troutman and Kees08 each received a wild-card and were able to advance to the Final Round. There was a major error on the part of the judges, and initially, 8 users were advanced instead of 5. This has been corrected, and we sincerely apologize for this confusion.

In Round 3, 71 reviews were completed! At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 7 months; at the end of Round 3, the longest wait is still holding steady at a little over 6 months, the same as for the previous round. By the end of all three Rounds, the total number of nominations increased slightly - this suggests that users are more willing to nominate, knowing that their articles will be reviewed. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in the Final so we can keep tackling the backlog.

In the Final Round, the user with the highest score will be the winner. The Final has already started and will end on March 31st at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Finals and the pools can be found here.

Good luck and have fun!

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Disinformation

Chris - wanted to make sure you saw my note on the GA review for Disinformation. LMK if you would like to take-over the review if you already had your eye set on it. I'm fine either way. DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@DarjeelingTea: I'm sorry to have created the impression I wanted to hijack your review. You've already started the review and you're welcome to finish. This is one I would have liked to have done but I wasn't able to jump on it sooner and I'll live with it. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
No need to apologize! I'll go ahead and finish it up in that case, but please feel free to chime in if you have any suggestions or notice that I miss anything. DarjeelingTea (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Chris, just a FYI, I've failed Disinformation for GA. DarjeelingTea (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Huh

The intro to wp:PROF clearly states that it is an alternate way for, say, a renownded chair in a field of study to merit a blp despite lack of much reliable sourcing.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hodgdon's secret garden: Sure, for a subject to meet a Subject-specific Notability Guideline (SNG) we only need one good source to prove they meet the SNG. (For example, WP:NOLY is the guideline that presumes Olympic athletes are notable.) In regards to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin E. Park, Park doesn't hold a named chair so he doesn't pass WP:PROF, which brings me back to the comment I made on your talk page. You need to come to understand the notability criteria, perhaps with an objective mindframe instead of assuming everyone and everything is notable. I can appreciate that you want to constructively contribute; you're no vandal. But these misunderstandings waste everyone's time. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cold War II

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War II. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

"chess is a boardgame, not a sport"

Ex world champion Anatoly Karpov, when asked in an interview (published in How to Open a Chess Game, RHM Press) whether chess is a science or an art[form], answered that ... chess is a sport. (FYI.) cc: 1982vdven --IHTS (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ihardlythinkso: Our article on chess indicates that there's not consensus for that view. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't acually arguing article consensus (or not). (But re that, how do you figure? [I'm not aware of discussion to resolve, or any need to. Of course "board game" is objective/undeniable fact, but it doesn't follow that "sport" is mutually exclusive.]) Ok, --IHTS (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ihardlythinkso: Ronda Rousey once said "If you don't break a sweat, it's not a sport, its a skill" and I agree. The article itself says that there are some governing bodies that have or do recognize chess as a sport but others don't. Because a discussion on the talk page would bring out partisans to claim chess is a sport I'm not surprised that the article reflects something of a difference of opinion. Without a consensus that chess is a sport the revision in question made sense to me. Besides that, there's a trend of professionalization of games playing (on a computer or on a game board) and sadly some commentators have taken to calling these players athletes and their activity sport in a worrisome effort to connote legitimacy. I'll wait to be overwhelmed by the consensus of the sad aggregate here before I allow this marketing nonsense normalized into our encyclopedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Do baseball players "break a sweat"? Don't they simply "excercise skills"? And racecar drivers? (Bobby Fischer did intense physical conditioning using a well-known trainer-coach, on the basis being in top shape was essential for sitting at a board for up to six hours, where fatigue otherwise sets in and degrades play. So like baseball, the "sweat" occurred in training.) I didn't post to argue sport or not, or whether 1982vdven's change s/ stand or not; rather to inform your editsum declaration isn't fact rather one perspective (on basically an unresolvable Q). And when you responded "no consensus" I thought you meant a discussion at the article ended that way; now I see you meant that "no consensus" is default in absence of said discussion. But the Q is unresolvable, so that will always be true, even 100 years from now. Ok, --IHTS (talk) 05:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I just figured that since Fischer was on the cover of Sports Illustrated in his prime, he would be considered a sportsman. Oh well, I don't really care.1982vdven (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

So

Detail of a sculpture by Henry Hering

any fountain that contains nude figures would not be Category:Nude sculptures because the fountain is not nude? Carptrash (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

So we would not include these nudes because the building that they are on is not a nude? Carptrash (talk) 06:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
@Carptrash: Yes, that's exactly my point. Categories are not meta-tags for content. A category should only contain articles about objects in that category. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Well then there are a bunch of my edits that you might want to undo. Carptrash (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverting on Chinshwehaw

Hello, you recently reverted my edit on Chinshwehaw. Chinshwehaw is a town and it is situated within Laukkaing Township, Shan State of Myanmar. Chinshwehaw Dam is a dam located within Chinshwehaw subtownship. So, Chinshwehaw should not be redirected to a dam article. Chinshwehaw is a legally recognized place within Myanmar and it meets WP:GEOLAND. Ninja✮Strikers «☎» 04:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ninjastrikers: Ok, I see what you're saying. The thing here is, the town itself isn't notable and you hadn't provided any sources, which I why I reverted you. What I'll do instead is propose each for deletion. You can develop a draft article or a userspace subpage for the town and then move into the main namespace when you have enough content. Right now, neither article should exist. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

02:09:34, 18 July 2016 review of submission by NNcNannara


Why is the pseudo code and explanation on the main AVL page 'suitable' and this beautiful C# code with explanation 'unsuitable'.

As I pointed out to Roger, I have many more pages that I could add, but if this one doesn't make it, neither will they.

Clearly I am wasting my time with Wikipedia. I'll not waste any more time though.

Talkback

Hello, Chris troutman. You have new messages at Pichpich's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

December 12

Hello, Chris troutman. You have new messages at Pelotas's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

00:27:17, 8 February 2017 review of submission by Alsamrudo


Hey, I know that I have most likely been annoying you with me wanting you to check Draft:Cool Cat Saves the Kids, but I have got it all figured out now. I removed all the blog post and added that the CEO of FOX, Rupert Merdoch, reviewed the movie.

DYK for Russian military deception

— Maile (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

17:21:52, 17 March 2017 review of submission by Hosseinfani


Hello, I've created an article about my prof. Dr. Ebrahim Bagheri(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ebrahim_Bagheri). The article has not been approved by you since the person is not notable. I've read WP:PROF and the criteria items 2, 3, and 5 at least are satisfied and the respective citations are given. Also, the subject is selected as a Professional Engineers Ontario, so the item 1 is satisfied in WP:ANYBIO. The award is highly notable for at least it has a wiki page! The given websites as references are from IBM and IEEE Computer Society, two notable entities not only in wikipedia but also amongst computer science community. I could have listed all his publication in his domains of interest in the article in order to show that the subject has been influential in these specific domains in computer science. However, Google Scholar and DBLP, which I mentioned as reference, are two well-known computer science bibliography websites in this respect and list all his publications. The h-index and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index#i10-index are two important citation metric to show the notability of an author. The subject's score with regard to these two metrics as shown in https://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=mG0H8oYAAAAJ is 18 and 39 respectively. Plus, the number of citations is 1927. It is important to mention that the content of Google Scholar pages are generated by Google, not the scholar him/herself! So, I guess one can cite Google Scholar as a reference.

I know encyclopedia such as Wikipedia is not Facebook. But according to the notability criteria items the subject is notable acc. items 2,3, 5 on WP:PROF and item 1 on WP:ANYBIO as I mentioned. I would appreciate it if you help me with this article.

Cordially, Hossein Hosseinfani (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hosseinfani: No, I think you're imagining notability. The subject does not meet any element of WP:PROF or ANYBIO. Being a member of a trade organization isn't notability. Being cited isn't notability. Some people will argue h-index during deletion discussions but the number itself is not proof of notability. You can resubmit your draft and take a chance on another reviewer but I have no interest in helping you. If Wikipedia wanted to have an article on this guy one of us would write it. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Help with Maritz, LLC draft

Greetings! On behalf of Maritz, LLC, I'm trying to update the company's Wikipedia article. I've submitted an edit request here and posted requests for help at WikiProject Companies, the Articles for Creation help desk, WikiProject United States, and the talk pages of a couple individual Wikipedia editors, but so far no one has responded to the edit request to add a corporate overview section and information about the company's current and former subsidiaries.

I've proposed text for the article here. I realize this is a proposed article expansion, and not an Articles for Creation submission, but this major addition to the article is similar to an Articles for Creation review, so I'm reaching out to a few Articles for Creation participants, including you, to see if someone is willing to review the proposed addition for accuracy and neutrality. Is this something you might be able to help with? If you are not interested, I understand, I'm just not sure where else to ask for help for the edit request I submitted over a month ago. Thanks! MadisonfromStanding (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@MadisonfromStanding: I'd like to state at the outset that I appreciate your honesty dealing with Wikipedia, making requests as you have. We get inundated with businesses trying to self-promote and it embitters us to commerce. That said, I took a look at your recommendations and I can't help because too much of what you're pushing is ad copy. It's undue coverage of things Maritz wants the public to see, not objective coverage. I don't think incentivemag.com is a reliable source so I'd strike everything that those citations support. Instead, take a look at The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company. I had reviewed this for "good article" status and though I did not ultimately approve it, the material is based on sources mostly after the company folded. The article contains a fair amount of criticism, which the article about Maritz lacks. I think it's questionable if Maritz is even generally notable. Neutral changes to the article in question would have to be a matter of a sentence here or there, not adding entire paragraphs of propaganda. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of List of fulfilled prophecies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of fulfilled prophecies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fulfilled prophecies until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaleoNeonate (talk • contribs) 04:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United Red Army, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer. 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) 09:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Buffalo–Niagara Falls metropolitan area

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Buffalo–Niagara Falls metropolitan area. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Double Warning

Small administrative error. I warned this user: Lodalol (Talk) for their inappropriate edits and then you warned him immediately after for the same edits. Just thought I'd let you know. Thanks. -=Troop=- (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Trooper1005: I noticed. You reverted the vandalism but hadn't issued the warning at that point so I did, only to see that you beat me to it. The editor in question can benefit from two warnings. I could revert myself but I don't see good faith here. Thanks for letting me know. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your vigilance on behalf of the Wiki Community

...here (diff). In any case, you seem appear a fairly active participant in AfD's. Any thoughts for the community's enlightenment here: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Suggested fix-?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:AGF, I think you need to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. You should consider yourself unwelcome on my talk page. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Manassas, Virginia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Manassas, Virginia. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

02:55:27, 31 March 2017 review of submission by Craigonian


Hello, Sir. I've tried creating a page for Taejon Christian International School a few times over the past months and I have not been successful. Originally, it was noted that my submission sounded too promotional. I did some research on other International schools in Korea, looking at what was acceptable on their pages and what has been flagged (yet accepted) and I believe that I have finally created a decent start to have the page created.

Most recently, my article was rejected as not establishing notability. I thought I had at least approached a bit of this, but I went back to similar school's pages to get direction on what is considered appropriate, but to be honest I'm not sure I understand. There are a number, in fact I would say the majority of similar schools in Korea with pages, that do not appear to have established any thing more notable... at least not with references from places not affiliated. Just a handful of the first schools in our conference and professional circles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyeonggi_Suwon_International_School https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_International_School_(South_Korea) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seoul_American_High_School https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busan_International_Foreign_School https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyeongnam_International_Foreign_School https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busan_Foreign_School https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_Kent_Foreign_School https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Christian_School_Uijongbu

Are we not establishing notability similar to that which has been establish by these schools in their articles?


Another question–Pretty much all of the press that we get about our school is in Korean (while we are an international school, our city tends to be less internationally minded than say, in Seoul.) Would it be okay to use these articles as reference to establish notability then in our English articles? Like these schools in Seoul:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_International_School_Jeju https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_School_Seoul_International


I would like to see a page created, as I am always asked why the school does not have one– that a person went to wikipedia to look for info and was surprised that there was nothing here. I am fine being patient and working on establishing the page, but when I look at how other things have been created, I suppose I find myself comparing, but not understanding. Thank you, Sir for your time and consideration. Have a good day.

Kind Regards,

Craig Craigonian (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Craigonian: I understand your frustration. Many hopeful editors like you look at similar subjects to learn how editing should be done because you're ignorant of our numerous guidance pages on the subject. It's important for me to then emphasize that that pointing to other insufficient articles isn't a valid argument. Probably a third of all of Wikipedia should be deleted. We're just in a race against promotional editors trying to advertise. Those promotional editors figured out how to get past AfC and you haven't.
That said, the subject of your draft fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG, as do many of the articles you've pointed to. I'm going to consider getting all of those deleted. When people ask you why Wikipedia doesn't say anything about your school, please let them know that Wikipedia only writes about notable entities. It's not a website for everything. To answer your second question, yes, you may use non-English language sources. I would consider building an article about the school in Korean-language Wikipedia with those sources and then translate the text into English to improve your current draft. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Chris troutman. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#BACKLOG.
Message added 00:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

added TheDJ
removed Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
  • The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
  • An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
  • After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

  • After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
  • Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

This Month in Education: [March 2017]

This Month in Education

Volume 6 | Issue 2 |March 2017

This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. Be sure to check out the full version, and past editions. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team!

In This Issue

Featured Topic Newsletter update

Overview on Wikipedia Education Program 2016 in Taiwan

From the Community

High School and Collegiate Students Enhance Waray Wikipedia during Edit-a-thons

Approaching History students as pilot of Education program in Iran

An experience with middle school students in Ankara

Wikishtetl: Commemorating Jewish communities that perished in the Holocaust

From the Education Team

UCSF Students Visit WMF Office as they start their Wikipedia editing journey

Meet the team

In the News

Från dammiga arkiv till artiklar på nätet

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription.

The new issue of the newsletter is out! Thanks to everyone who submitted stories and helped with the publication. We hope you enjoy this issue of the Education Newsletter.-- Sailesh Patnaik using Saileshpat (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

H.I. Unjustified deletion of properly sourced content

@Chris troutman:Why did you just delete 1800+ characters of 100% sourced content, justifying it by calling it unsourced? It's time for you to drop the stick now.--ArniDagur (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@ArniDagur: You need to properly source any content you add. The websites you're using are either not independent or not reliable and in many cases, you're adding cruft. My edit summary for that edit indicated it. The burden is on you. If I take this to WP:AN I guarantee you're not going to like the result. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 21

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 21, January-March 2017
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • #1lib1ref 2017
  • Wikipedia Library User Group
  • Wikipedia + Libraries at Wikimedia Conference 2017
  • Spotlight: Library Card Platform

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC

Hi Chris,

Could you take a moment to consider removing your comment here please? It reads as aggressive and seems to target genderqueer people as "doublethink" non-conformists, rather than real people, please correct me if I'm misinterpreting who you are referring to. The RfC, as stated, is aimed at creating a welcoming environment for everyone, please comment on the proposal rather than your fellow Wikipedians. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fæ: No. You created an RfC. You cannot then claim that all dissent is non-permissible. The proposal is what I've described as "doublethink". I'm not targeting anyone; I'm simply refusing to assent to changing the wording of our policies and guidelines to cater to an audience that loudly proclaims non-conformity. I, like your intended grievance group, am a real person and I do not find this proposal "welcoming." That you (or others) find my comment aggressive speaks more to these matters of perception than to my intent. Be advised that reaching out to people like me will not always result in adulation as your beliefs are not shared by everyone and your good intentions will not always be met with acceptance. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Could you please explain exactly who the "non-conformists" are that your comment does, quite visibly, attack? It still reads to me as a direct breach of WP:Civility as being derogatory of a minority group, certainly not a criticism of the proposed policy which would be acceptable.
In replying to me, please remain civil. Language such as "your intended grievance group" is not civil, it reads as further derogatory remarks against a minority group.
Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
@Fæ: Gender non-conformance is whose interests you're representing, right? That's the vocal minority to whom I'm referring. You developed this in an echo chamber and are now surprised someone dare disagree with your idea borne of altruistic motives? That you think it appropriate to call my dissent an NPA violation speaks to the reality of newspeak that you intend to impose, first on policies and help pages, eventually all essays and talk pages, too. In closing, take it WP:AN. There are plenty of admins that would love to hand me a 48hr block for incivility and I would rather that, than bend to your demands.
FYI, "your intended grievance group" is correct, not incivil. The LGBT+ audience seems aggrieved with our current wording and I balk at Wikipedia (or any institution/association) being required to use gender-neutral language simply because these people are present. If He/She Him/Her doesn't apply to an editor or reader they can simply recognize that society does not yet reflect their nonconformity. I've been a user of singular "they" as appropriate as I'm not trying to label people that don't want to be labeled. Rewriting our pages and thereby forcing all editors to follow suit is a bridge too far and it's time you become aware of the lack of unanimity on this subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Based on your reply here, it is clear that you are making presumptions that an "LGBT+ audience seems aggrieved" just because the LGBT+ WikiProject was the original place for draft development. This is unwarranted as the WikiProject is focused on improving the quality of LGBT+ knowledge, it is specifically not limited to LGBT+ people. Further your are presuming that in developing the draft I was representing a "grievance group", this is another unwarranted assumption and a personal attack on me. Your comments about nonbinary people should recognize that society does not reflect their nonconformity is a deliberately derogatory comment against nonbinary people. With these clarifications from yourself, I shall follow your advice and ask for a review at AN, so there is an independent view as to whether these remarks are okay for discussions about other editors on Wikipedia. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Remarks_on_nonbinary_people --NeilN talk to me 18:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI

Would you mind explaining your rationale for reverting my edits to Pope Benedict XVI? Your edit summary only said "unconstructive," which doesn't say anything. The standard on Wikipedia is for articles on living people to begin with "X is..." and for dead people to begin with "X was...", and I see no problem with following that here. Please clarify. --HGK745 (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@HGK745: I think you're confusing what you've seen in articles with what can/must/ought to be written. Ratzinger is not known for being a retired German bishop although that's what he is. He's known for being Pope. Normally Popes serve until death and his is an odd instance where that didn't happen. Regardless, your edit was unconstructive because it did not, in my mind, improve the article. I can revert anything you do for any reason or no reason and per WP:BRD, we have to discuss and come to consensus, not edit war as you seem to want to do. That you've been reverted by another editor should point to you that you do not have consensus. Furthermore, I always doubt any changes to lede paragraphs because that's where the cranks and crazies tend to edit. The lede paragraph of a well-developed B-class article is not where you should be editing. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --HGK745 (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Bluebook Template

It is not, it is also not duplicative of the UN documents template that is currently available. Bluebook has strict requirements for every kind of legal document (not only cases and journals.) This template is for UN General Assembly Resolutions, which Bluebook requires you to cite with Roman numerals if the resolution was passed before 1976, etc. I have been creating templates as I need them, because many are still not available. For example, the current template to cite constitution is not in Bluebook format. They are useful to me to apply consistent citation format in work I am doing now, and I hope they will also be useful to others in Wikiproject Law who use Bluebook format citation. Seraphimsystem (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Addition: A number of FA law articles use Bluebook, Schmerber v. California is one example. I use Bluebook as well, and since it should be consistent throughout the page, I sometimes need to add templates. As a former law student, I would not want to say a page adheres to Bluebook if it doesn't Seraphimsystem (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Liancourt Rocks

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Liancourt Rocks. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Apologies, looks like I beat you to closing the RfC by two whole minutes. I'm reassured to see that we both came to the same conclusion though! Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
@Exemplo347: Totally my fault. I took a minute to read up on the last discussion, hit the button to edit, saw the hab close template at the bottom and assumed it was an offtopic hatting, and posted without double-checking. Certainly I'm happier that the consensus agreed with me but that wouldn't have mattered. Thanks for posting, though. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Apologies

Apologies for actions on the page Emma Blackery won't happen again. JTW1098 (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anti-fascism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anti-fascism. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

I wanted to add myself to the poll 178.42.161.183 (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:Don't template the regulars

Please don't post warnings or templates on the talkpages of senior editors and master editors who are reverting vandalism. It's not appreciated. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Information icon Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Being blocked hurts. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. You removed my comment, and unstuck a personal attack. --Endercase (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of "Notable alumni" on Loyalsock Township High School

Why was "Notable alumni" deleted on Loyalsock Township High School? Cclark0 (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cclark0: Please read the edit summary I left with that edit and/or read the warning I left on your talk page! You need to provide independent and reliable sources for any claim you add and you should not add entries to lists where the entry is themselves not notable. This is an encyclopedia and we have rules you are expected to follow; you can't just add content because you like to. Also, this is not the first time I've removed that content so I don't know why you fail to understand. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Trena Collier

Hey Chris. I wanted to touch base with you. I received a speedy deletion for wikipedia on Trena Collier. I must admit I am new to the use of Wikipedia. I am a publicist that has a few clients and trying to set up their pages. Two clients producer have wikipedia pages already that I need to edit, and Trena Collier, I was attempting to set up a brand new page for. She is an american artist/ rapper. That also is a reality show cast member on the Love and Hip Hop Miami. Is there a different forum I should us to set this up? Last question, I was also attempting to upload a photo along with her bio and was a having a hard time. How do I get that done too? In addition, I have included the two producers pages that I need to edit below. They are also linked to Trena as well. They discovered her.

Thanks in advance!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigg_D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cainon_Lamb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiedra2124 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kiedra2124: As the notice on your talk page indicates, Wikipedia requires editors to disclose conflicts of interest and discourages editors like you from writing about subjects where you have a financial interest. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a promotional vehicle. You would really be better served hiring an active Wikipedian to do this work for you than attempt to do so on your own. I'd recommend you place a request at our reward board. For an insignificant sum (or maybe nothing at all) you can get the help you need. Beware of scams where an unscrupulous editor may try to hold an article hostage for money; they cannot deliver the promises they make nor can they execute their threats. Wikipedia has several tutorials you might use but I don't think someone lacking objectivity should be editing. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jews

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jews. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

Greetings. I believe you misunderstood my edit at WP:TALK. I didn't add anything regarding user talk pages, which are different than project pages. The first sentence of WP:TALK even says, "The purpose [of a talk page] is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: Your edit summary is clear but your removal of the word article creates a wider interpretation of which talk pages are being discussed, beyond what you meant. Further, as that's a guideline I don't think anyone should be changing it, at all, without establishing consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, there's no rule against bold changes to policies and guidelines – see WP:PGCHANGE. But I see your point about the interpretation. See what you think of my latest edit. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fucking, Austria

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fucking, Austria. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Utopia (book)#a table of appositive epitopes

I've just deleted a couple of this guy's talk page posts and may delete more. I haven't given him a warning yet, but these are just disruptive and don't contribute to the articles where he posts them. Any suggestions? I haven't yet convinced myself he's a net asset, but he hasn't had the warnings I'd expect. Doug Weller talk 17:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Holy shit. I never saw that reply until now. I'm not interested in getting involved in that sort of crazy. If someone leaves a wall-o-text, concluding with "There are lives at stake if we can't synchronize the sequence of life better than we have", then they're not contributing; they're responding to internal stimuli or they're trying to waste my time. If it were me I'd block for an obvious WP:NOTHERE but I'll never be an admin so you shouldn't listen to me. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Stern warning given. He really seems like a troll. Doug Weller talk 18:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2017 Stockholm attack

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017 Stockholm attack. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017 WikiCup newsletter

The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:

  • Scotland Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
  • Japan 1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
  • South Australia Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.
  • Other contestants who scored over 400 points were Freikorp, Carbrera, and Czar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.

Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.

So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

This Month in Education: [April 2017]

This Month in Education

Volume 6 | Issue 3 | April 2017

This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. Be sure to check out the full version, and past editions. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team!

In This Issue

Featured Topic

How responsible should teachers be for student contributions?

From the Community

Cairo and Al-Azhar Universities students wrap up their ninth term and start their tenth term on WEP

Glimpse of small language Wikipedia incubation partnership in Taiwan

Key to recruiting seniors as Wikipedians is long-term work

Education at WMCON17

OER17

Western Armenian WikiCamper promotes Wikiprojects in his school

Building a global network for Education

From the Education Team Mobile Learning Week 2017
If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription.

The new issue of the newsletter is out! Thanks to everyone who submitted stories and helped with the publication. We hope you enjoy this issue of the Education Newsletter.-- Sailesh Patnaik using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

added Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
removed Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

James Brooke

Hello, Chris - Since you have edited James Brooke, you probably have the article on your watch list, but just in case you don't, I wonder if you'd look at this edit and the ones right before it by the same editor. As a result of these edits, the infobox shows his name as merely "James", not "Sir James Brooke", even though the first line of the article names him as "Sir James Brooke". I thought about reverting all three edits, but I thought I'd better ask you what you thought. I'll leave it up to you.  – Corinne (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne:  Done You can always object to a change and return the article to status quo ante to begin discussion. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Chris. I didn't feel I knew enough about infoboxes to object to the change.  – Corinne (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Goguryeo

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Goguryeo. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review

Dear Chris: please explain who these "politically-powerful administrators" are, how they "bully" other editors, and how they are getting their way. Or, if you cannot substantiate these allegations, kindly take them back. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Sorry for the delay. This inclusionism vs exclusionism fight about SCHOOLOUTCOMES has broken out in multiple places and I thought it better to take time and consider my response rather than just start cursing everyone out and then claim WP:IAR, since IAR is now so popular all of a sudden. I think the behavior of Necrothesp (admin), DGG (admin and member of ARBCOM), and to a lesser extent SwisterTwister (former admin) is blameworthy. They seem to have taken this argument personally, as they're embracing circular reasoning and arguing for a political compromise as if the consensus among a majority of editors may not substitute for the personal feelings of a few longtime admins on what should be allowed. This is why adminship is a big deal: because we can expect this sort of behavior to go unpunished among lifetime appointees. So you know, I don't care about schools, either way. As shown here, I declined a draft and the author made an OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, naming competing schools. I took a look at the guidelines about schools and found that the examples they provided were no longer notable, so I nominated each for deletion to align our articles with our guidance. I'm trying to improve Wikipedia the way the consensus tells me to.
On the subject of that DRV, I also think your restoration of Korea Kent Foreign School was inappropriate. DRV is meant to determine if the AfD was closed properly, not to re-litigate the AfD as your comment there evinces your opinion for a keep outcome. I'm disappointed a sitting member of ARBCOM would do something like that, confusing the issue. This is the sort of political pressure that I think is chasing off good editors. Perhaps you forgot about the appearance of impropriety which is why you can't recognize that misbehavior in your fellow admins. Of course, I don't have to substantiate my comments or take them back. You came to my talk page to exert leverage and I hope you like the rebuke I'm giving you in return. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Just for the record, SwisterTwister is certainly not a former admin (and given that he was recently stripped of the ability to patrol new pages, isn't likely to be made one any time soon). ‑ Iridescent 18:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, sorry, but this isn't much of a rebuke. You've given no evidence of "bullying", you misidentified one of the supposed bullies, and restoring an article during deletion review is not out of the ordinary: looking at the article during a review helps editors make up their mind as to whether the arguments in an AfD were valid. My comment is simply factual: I corrected what A Train said--they were wrong. Mind you, I didn't even agree or disagree with the AfD decision, nor am I going to call out other participants as bullies. The rest of what you have here, this playing the victim, well, it's not worth addressing: hot air. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Khan Shaykhun chemical attack

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Khan Shaykhun chemical attack. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm on day 4

I'm pretty much at the point where I'm ready to take this to ANI. I think it's CIR rather than bad faith or trolling, but enough is enough. Meters (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Meters: I tend to agree action will need to be taken. I can't decide if this is or isn't trolling. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
There is some truly bizarre stuff there... tagging an article with more than 300 incoming links as an orphan for example, or this [5]. He self reverted after that one so it must have been too much even for him to swallow. Meters (talk) 04:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Kobi Arad Article Review[[6]]

Dear Chris,

As Anachronist mentioned it is a new draft.

I have taken into consideration Chris' remarks regarding references and reliability, and removed from list sources which are community articles.

Instead, here are the the main reliable sources (Now all sources are reliable and objective):

- Ynet.com - Full feature article (Israel's largest Newspaper, I've used 'google translate'). - allmusic.com - discography + review - NYU Library - Proof of Publishing - World Catalogue - Proof of Publishing - Forward Magazine - (One of the largest Jewish News Source) - Times of Israel (Jewish news prominent source, non-blog) - Chabad of North Brooklyn - Independent Blog Post by one of the world's largest organizations. - Global Music Award - Proof of winning silver medal

Considering the changes in reliability of the references, please review it favorably,

Thank you,

Lawrence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choclawrence (talk • contribs) 11:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gwanggaeto the Great

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gwanggaeto the Great. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reviewing my page! Here: I'll give you a CHEESEBURGER. GermanGamer77 (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Thanks for reviewing my userpage! GermanGamer77 (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello Chris troutman,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 819 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

An award for you!

Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany
Thanks for checking my user page! GermanGamer77 (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

In case you didn't get a notification

Hey Chris! Thanks again for the feedback last week on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Noticeboard
I responded with the comments there - tried to tag you - I'm guessing that you didn't get a notification for it since its been a week so wanted to make sure you saw it!
I responded at the bottom. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saraht723 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2017 Manchester Arena bombing

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017 Manchester Arena bombing. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

New account

Hi there Chris, from Portugal,

regarding your message on my talk page: 1 - yes, i'll gladly e-mail an administrator in that regard if you think it's mandatory; 2 - no, as of the moment i have no proof of my claim regarding the/a past account; 3 - i was only notifying User:GiantSnowman of my previous name so that it would be easy for him to restore my editing privileges should he see it fit, no other agenda there; 4 - yes, the last part about WP still being a nest of bees always abuzz is not lost on me, it's ME that has to behave better overall (i'll still have zero tolerance for vandalism, but i cannot let that transpire in my summaries).

All in all, no offense was meant with the other account(s) remark and i hope none was taken. Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Quite A Character: You've not answered my question. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, then. Not trying to be a smart ass or anything, but the main question is? I'll answer it as succintly as possible. --Quite A Character (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Reading your message again, with a more "attentive eye": if you mean the "I'm curious to know why, after vanishing, you returned to Wikipedia, created a new account, and then claimed a previous identity." bit, i think i explained it well (if not to your satisfaction is a different matter), i notified Mr. Snowman of my previous identity so that it would be easier to him to restore my editing privileges. One thing i did not address here, about the vanishing part: i asked that two of my accounts be destroyed because i had the intention of stopping my work here and not returning ever as an editor (fed up especially with the trolling and the vandalizing), only to find i always returned after a short time. Nothing wrong with that, i assume.

Also, i find it a bit unsettling your questioning my wiki-persona ("if you even are whom you claim to be", "without telling everyone who you want us to think you are"), but no worries. I'll work the best of my abilities, as always. Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 00:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Quite A Character: I'm a misanthrope and I therefore WP:ABF; it only makes sense. We have many promotional editors trying to create articles for their clients and they've displayed some ingenious methods for slipping past us. Contacting an admin and claiming to be a long-gone editor (who will never notice) could be a socially-engineered method of gaining userrights to create questionable content. You probably are who you claim to be, but I don't know that for certain and I'll bet GiantSnowman doesn't, either. Yes, I didn't know the reason for your vanish but typically editors do that when there's been harassment based on doxxing and editors disappear for their own safety. Were I forced off Wikipedia (because I edit under my real name and reveal where I go to school), I'd create a completely new account and just start over from scratch after a year or two away, so as not to be recognized. If you want to return to editing you are, of course, welcome. This is still a busy place and you could help out. However, with a new account many other Wikipedians aren't going to see your old history of edits and judge you to be a n00b. I would think you'd want to get your edit history back under your own account rather than start fresh, since the only point of starting fresh is not outing yourself. It's up to you. I'd've gotten my old account back. I've been burned before by trusting editors only to find out they were up to nefarious stuff all along. I've spent hours mentoring editors only to have them get blocked for socking, so I trust no one. That said, have fun editing for as long as you can. When you're gone again I won't give this conversation a second thought. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra input, and now I see where you're coming from a little bit better. Another reason for my return I forgot to mention earlier: I also created this new account because I was tired to the bone of asking some users (especially my good wikifriend User:MYS77) to perform tasks for me I could not (i.e. page moves, editing protected pages), as one can easily imagine they're not my errand boys.

Take care --Quite A Character (talk) 08:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

added Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn
removed ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

am sorry, my asperger, my weak personality..etc....and my 2 month insomnia. but aspies are good at things!

User:Chris troutman your comment on my talkpage: Notice this only the lately! olny lately! most of my 500 edits are good but the 50-60 are not, youre the most latley i have stop taking things seriosly, i do not need a break or any further warnings, what happened today is a wake up call for me, just please explain to me what i have done wrong in semi-simple english Ukrainetz1 (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Politics of the Republic of China

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Politics of the Republic of China. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The number of reverts

Regarding 3rr, it is all in the presentation. If you had included this edit at 06:50-55, 3 June 2017 as a revert, and given this edit at 00:22, 12 May 2017 by 94.244.129.146 as the version reverted to, you would have shown four reverts.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Toddy1: I disagree. The IP edit you're pointing to is not intuitively an edit by Hariachi.Horishky and it falls well outside of the 24hr period, so I couldn't have included that 06:50-55 edit by Hariachi because it was not a revert. While El C is technically correct, I've seen more courageous admins apply blocks on bad-faith editors for less. I guess the point is that the edit warring has stopped which was the goal all along. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Have you noticed that there are a huge number of articles with "Kyiv" in the title? In a few cases (e.g. Kyiv Post) the use of "Kyiv" is justified because that is what the subject calls itself. But in most cases, "Kyiv" has been chosen, either out of ignorance, or to promote a nationalist point of view.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
@Toddy1: I hadn't noticed. I don't have a dog in this fight. I am only enforcing the consensus, whatever that is. Any editor that violates consensus repeatedly is a bad-faith editor. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, no. Disagreeing with consensus does not mean you're here to harm the encyclopedia. And in this case, I doubt the editor even knew what consensus means or what it is in this particular case. --NeilN talk to me 14:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: Please note I did not condemn disagreement with consensus; I oppose an editor who "violates consensus repeatedly". I chose my words carefully. This is a collaborative project and Wikipedians are obliged to cooperate. I used edit summaries, started a discussion on the talk page, and posted a warning to the user's talk page. Willful ignorance of Wikipedia's standards are no excuse for edit warring. Wikipedians do a disservice to this project and each other by tolerating such behavior. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

MAturidi

I had simply reverted to older edits -- please tell me which part is "dishonest" and copied; the whole section under "work" was not written by me Historiantheman (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Historiantheman: I see what happened. This edit of yours re-added content that matches this blog, as shown here. From what I can see, this content already existed on Wikipedia before the blog entry, so there was no COPYVIO. (The blog copied from Wikipedia, not the other way 'round.) My mistake; entirely my fault. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I opened a discussion about your comments on my article on the noticeboard

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#New_to_Wikipedia.2C_Moderator_harasses_me_for_making_a_new_article_about_a_book — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asperous (talk • contribs) 21:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Collaborating, learning and adapting

@Chris troutman: I noticed that you declined an AfC submission of Draft:Collaborating, Learning and Adapting on 17 May 2017 for lack of notability. The article was created anyway by User:Oscoda092, and I recently recommended that it be merged into another article. You are welcome to comment at Talk:Collaborating, learning and adapting § Merge proposal if you wish. Biogeographist (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

11:38:24, 8 June 2017 review of submission by 87.114.243.119

Can you provide more information about your comment "I guarantee adding lies about the subject winning awards that they did not win is not going to help this draft."? What lies are you talking about? I have checked the links and they are all correct.87.114.243.119 (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

See my edits here and here and learn to read edit summaries. Subject didn't win either of those prizes and that lie was present pretty early on. That sort of deception will only hurt chances that we would ever accept this draft. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually under Awards I can only see the 2016 NEAC Peter Ashley Prize which is right, is that correct? Would it help to add the runner-up prizes? Apart from the awards, are there any other issues? I assure you, there is no deception intended here. I am fairly new to Wikipedia87.114.243.119 (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC) I should also add that I meant Clossick is a prize winner (which being a runner up is) in the Lynn Painter-Stainers Prize and Columbia Threadneedle Prize.87.114.243.119 (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The current version of the draft is correct because I removed the earlier dishonest edits. It would not help to add instances where the subject was "runner-up" as those don't count. If the prior edits were not meant as deception than I can only assume incompetence. Claiming someone won a prize when they objectively did not is dishonest. There's no two ways about that. If the diffs I provided don't make that clear to you then I think you ought to consider hiring someone to edit for you. The subject isn't notable and Wikipedia is not here to be a promotional tool. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Apart from the genuine mistake on the prizes (which I have tried to explain but you seem to have taken rather personally), you have not said why he is not notable? Isn't your rationale similar to saying only the Olympic gold medalist counts and not the silver or bronze winners? Or do you just have these feelings towards people in art? You may not admit to it but we both know Clossick is more notable than numerous other individuals on Wikipedia.87.114.243.119 (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Do not presume what "we both know". That other insufficient articles exist does not excuse another insufficient draft. This is genuine misunderstanding from new editors like you that I run into constantly and I tire of it. The subject has to meet our notability guideline for artists or our general notability criterion and the subject fails both. Your affront to Wikipedians which you think I "seem to have taken rather personally" is merely a reflection of the fact that I have no respect for lies and faulty arguments. So you know, I wrote the article about Alonzo Davis so I have no bias against artists, although you'd like to think that my refusal of the draft must be based in deep-seated prejudices because that would feel better than being told that Clossick simply is not objectively notable. I've been editing Wikipedia for four years and you'll be gone tomorrow. Maybe you ought to re-think your strategy in this regard. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

And perhaps you ought to re-think being a Wikipedian since you "tire" so easily and seem so unhappy. My comments are directed towards you only since my experience with other Wikipedians has been quite pleasant. Your link to the notability guideline for artists is helpful (at last), so thanks. I am only getting started and am here to stay.87.114.243.119 (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

RfA reqeust

Listen i just want to let you know that i didn't mean to write what i wrote about my RfA requedt and i realized that after but it was too late. Also im only 13 so i have much more important things to do you probably wont be hearing from me for a while — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metro man 27 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anti-Hinduism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anti-Hinduism. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

19:04:11, 11 June 2017 review of submission by 2601:143:8000:6E37:402C:DA87:4350:1E0B



Hi Chris My comments are related to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Keykhosrou_Kesh%C3%A2varz. I am in the process of documenting why Mr. Kaikhosrow (keykhosrow) Keshavarz's contribution to the discussion of the Zoroastrian faith is unique and quite controversial. Unfortunately his book 'Mazda is not God but the creation of existence' has not been translated into English therefore I am preparing some excerpts from his book and a background to show that his contribution is unique and part of the general discussion in the Zoroastrian community of what the true teachings of Zoroaster is. I an addition Mr. Kaikhosrow Keshavarz was the first to author the Dari language, a dying none written language spoken exclusively by Zoroastrian's in Iran and the few dialects. These studies were first published in a few magazines as noted in the Wiki page.

I hope I can convince you that Wikipedia users, specially Zoroastrians, parties interested in theology, philosophy, and history, will benefit from this discussion.

I need some time to do the documentation please let me know how long it will be before the page is purged.

Thanks Farhad Keshavarz Farhadekeshavarz@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:143:8000:6e37:402c:da87:4350:1e0b (talk • contribs) 15:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

It may seem counter-intuitive to you, but none of your interest in Keykhosrow Keshâvarz matters on Wikipedia. It does not matter that you think anyone wants to read about him. I cannot, therefore, be convinced. Anyone, including you or Kurt Greussing, can improve the existing draft and re-submit it. If no one else edits that draft, it will be deleted on September 23rd. Keykhosrow Keshâvarz would have to meet either our requirement for biographies or be considered generally notable. Such is not the case. If you are related to the subject, then you have a conflict of interest and should bear that in mind. You may work on a draft and submit it even if you're biased but you should be open about your bias. What I recommend is that you take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Zoroastrianism. You are not yet competent to rate articles but you could find other articles that need improvement and participate with other editors also interested in Zoroastrianism. Learning about how Wikipedia works would help you out in the long term. Generally speaking, Wikipedia has too many articles already and we should prioritize improving the articles we have (or deleting them) rather than writing new ones. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

How to help with counter vandalism

Still a bit saddened by your response - gave my response on the new pages page. Is this the right page for the counter vandalism? Counter Vandalism Academy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saraht723 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Also I googled "How to help with wikipedia" and this is the first result: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_help and clearly I messed up because I went and just started doing the stuff there (1. create an account, 2. create articles). So would love some advice on how to start.) Thanks! Saraht723 (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Saraht723: You inability to read WP:YFA (linked right there below the article wizard) is proof of either your incompetence or your dishonesty. I've proposed removing that suggestion from the page so as not to confuse new editors. You're not yet qualified to signup for the Countervandalism Academy. (It says on that page you must have "contributed at least 200 edits to MAINSPACE" and you're not there, yet.) However, there are many useful tasks found both at Wikipedia:Maintenance and Wikipedia:Contribution Team/Backlogs. Only administrators can perform the "administrative" actions but everything else (and there's a lot) can be done by new editors. You can interact with editors other than me, see how other articles have been written, understand what Wikipedia identifies as problems, and increase your own edit count. Given a few months of regular editing ought to help you understand this community, qualify to be a student at WP:CVUA, and then better enable you to write acceptable articles. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Germany

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Germany. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

... for the barnstar. I appreciate it doubly because there have been so many times that I have made similar mistakes like missing double words that are so obvious. Two sets of eyes are always better.

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 01:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Editing

Hey, sorry about that. I just wanted attention, not agreement. Thanks. New account 2 (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bajrak of Oštrozub

I did follow WP:BEFORE.

  • The article has been already PRODed but another editor opposed speedy deletion stating "...some more references (preferably in English) would be a very good idea, but article should not be deleted without discussion".
  • I also checked interlanguage links and the only link is zero sources Albanian wiki article of one sentence about generic term of bajrak which already has an article on en.wiki.
  • I also searched for sources and found out that the topic in question has zero hits at GBS and 17 hits on simple Google search, all of them being mirrors of this wikipedia article. Albanian language version of name has two GBS hits, which are both passing mentions.
  • I checked the article talkpage and noticed that an editor already expressed their concerns about the notability of this topic and that their concerns have not been addressed. Having in mind that another editor has already prodded it, it made sense to initiate AfD.

The topic of this article is not about a populated place which is presumably notable by WP:NGEO. It is about smallest Ottoman administrative unit consisting of several villages within Ottoman borderland. I myself created numerous articles about Ottoman Sanjaks. I think nobody created more articles about sanjaks than me. Unfortunately, individual bajraks obviously do not have significant coverage in RS.

To conclude: this is a matter of WP:GNG. No significant coverage - no suitability for a standalone article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator: I disagree. The article seems to be about a place called Ostrozub which is a Bajrak, not "about smallest Ottoman administrative unit consisting of several villages within Ottoman borderland". There are books that mention Oštrozub (even if not in English) that pre-date Wikipedia so I think someone could buy the claim of GNG. (I don't speak this language; maybe you do.) If an editor like me has doubts about it then I think you might do a better job of explaining this apparent evidence. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in this AfD. I agree that I could do a better job of explaining this apparent evidence and I will move this discussion at AfD discussion page when we conclude it, hopefully soon. I think you are wrong when you say: The article seems to be about a place called Ostrozub which is a Bajrak. Please read what article itself says: "Bajrak of Oštrozub was a bajrak which included about 43 villages..." Place Ostrozub is listed as only one of 43 villages of this bajrak. The article about bajrak explains that "The bajrak... was an Ottoman territorial unit, consisting of villages in mountainous frontier regions of the Balkans, from which military recruitment was based." Frontier regions of Ottoman Empire means Ottoman borderlands.
Let me explain you more about bajraks. They had great global influence, but people still do not know much about them. In the mountain regions of Ottoman Balkans lived very poor population scattered across numerous small mountain villages who lived in very poor living conditions. Those were small tribal herding communities whose life depended on sheep and goats. No big cities or towns, no gold or silver mines, no vine production, no numerous craftsman. That means no money - no tax income for the government. That is why until 19th century no country in history has ever fully included this regions within its administrative system. It was simply stupid to lose a life of a single soldier to capture this territory. The population of this region was grouped in tribes based on their family and/or territorial connection. This region was the last tribal region of Europe. Like many other empires in a similar situation during the history, the Ottomans discovered that it is much better to leave them as tax-free and to recognize their autonomous status as bajraks and to recognize their tribal leaders as legitimate. During the war, which means all the time in Balkans, the Ottomans would pay their tribal leaders to recruit members of their bajrak and to wage war for the Ottomans. Perfect strategy. The Ottomans had at disposal large army for peanuts. They tried to give up this system in the 19th century because tribesmen recruited this way were no match to modern European armies. Instead, they only compromised the Ottomans by harassing Christian population of the Ottoman Empire which was the main source of tax income for the Ottomans. The Ottoman attempts to formally disestablished bajraks and their privileges failed. On the other hand, Serbia and Austria paid them more to actually rebel against the Ottomans. Finally, their rebellion in 1912 provoked Balkan Wars that were one of the reasons that provoked the First World War and SHF. Albania and Yugoslavia repeated the same mistake, tried to formally include this tribal region and its population into their legal system and that was one of the factors of the misery they faced. Today, bajraks do not exist formally. Nor Ottoman Empire, Austrian Empire, Russian Empire, German Empire or Yugoslavia. My humble opinion is that the list is not yet closed.
To conclude. No bajrak is a populated place, including Bajrak of Oštrozub. This Bajrak has received its name against the mountain Oštrozub, just like ie Sanjak of Scutari received its name after Scutari.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
@Antidiskriminator: Ok. I hope you can explain that better at the AfD because it's confusing to me. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Editing

Chris, I implore you that be less negative. Also, as we are supposed to do, presume good faith. Thanks so much. New account 2 (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@New account 2: Perhaps I was hasty in my accusation; I assume bad faith because assuming good faith seldom makes sense. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, I have bad records now on my talk page and the talk page of the article. New account 2 (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
@New account 2: There are no such things as "bad records". If you don't want messages on your own talk page you can delete them. As for the article's talk page, we have discussions all the time about articles as a method of figuring how to improve them. This is normal and nothing you should be worried about. Look at my talk page. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I always thought it was a bad thing to selectively remove messages from someone's talk page. If it's not old and archived, you are trying to hide something. The accusation will stay, I think, and if there is no explanation for it, people will always know that I was trying to canvas. Thanks. New account 2 (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

???

How did you make the red-linked category at the bottom of the talk page? The garmine (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@The garmine: You just make the link. Links are red if there's no page wherever the link points to, like creating a link for an article called This article does not exist. So you know, you want to avoid doing stuff like this because those entries show up in maintenance queues like Special:WantedCategories. The red link on this user talk page is a special exception to the rule. Don't create any new ones. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! The garmine (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sit-in movement

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sit-in movement. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 22

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 22, April-May 2017

  • New and expanded research accounts
  • Global branches update
  • Spotlight: OCLC Partnership
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Re Jack Letts

Hi Chris, thanks for reviewing the article I created, Jack Letts.

I've removed some of the worse instances of paraphrasing, but I'm not sure where the line is between copyvio and coincidentally similar phrasing. Does more trimming need to be done?

As for the notability issue, there's not too much I can do as far as citing sources goes; most reliable news sources are already cited by the article. As a low-profile individual, Letts is certainly close to failing BLP1E, but being a suspected British Islamist is what makes him notable, and isn't really an 'event' as such. What event was it that you thought dominated Letts' media coverage?

Thanks, again, for the constructive criticism. — Quasar G. 19:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Quasar G.: The "one event" is his travel to Syria and subsequent capture. I'm pretty sure he'll be forgotten in 20 minutes. The news cycle creates these personalities and I think too many articles are produced from them. Were up to me, I'd forbid all BLPs on Wikipedia. We ought to have a good 20-50 year standoff from events in order to write responsibly. Anything newer than that is mere journalism but I'm sure Wikipedia would shut down if I had my way. After all, we're not writing an encyclopedia, we're an MMORPG for aspiring librarians and writers creating a platform for Jimbo to raise money. I removed the close-paraphrase banner; thanks. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Wow – seriously? All BLPs? If you were an admin, I'd be scared stiff...
Do nominate it for deletion if you feel the article deserves it, but my instincts tell me it will be kept. — Quasar G. 21:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Help listing articles for deletion

Hi Chris. I am having trouble getting an article listed on the articles for deletion page. I followed all the instructions, placing the appropriate template on the article page (William Urban) and listing it on the articles for deletion page[7] but for some reason on the latter it is not listing a heading. Not sure what I've done wrong but was wondering if you could help me out since you seem to know the procedure well. Thanks Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Rhode Island Red: Ok, I've fixed it for you. Near as I can tell, you pasted in the code for the AfD nom onto the article but you didn't subst {{afd1}} as described in WP:AFDHOWTO. I think because of that, the resulting link didn't include the pre-loaded template. There are instructions on the how-to to then subst {{afd2}} to provide that header. Substituting the template is important because otherwise you've transcluded the template, which is not what we want to do. Honestly, Twinkle makes this really easy; I recommend it. On a separate point, per WP:DEPROD, if anyone removes the PROD for any reason, do not revert them. Going to AfD (which you did) is the right step. However, William Urban arguably meets #5 of WP:NACADEMIC. You always want to be sure if you're asserting the subject isn't notable you check every possible way the subject might be notable as well as performing research per WP:BEFORE. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a mil Chris! Much appreciated. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Wanted to let you know that I'd retired

Thank you for earlier affirming interactions. See User:Leprof_7272 page for details if interested. Bonne chance. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

squirrel

Can you please let me leave an edit up for 5 minutes at least!! I am trying so hard to prank my sister's boyfriend. He will be so embarresed when he sees his name and research on wikepedia! Its all legit too! He's crazy and actually believes squirrel placentas are beneficial! My addendum was well written and I believe it contributes to the humor of the thread.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SquirrelDefenseSquad (talk • contribs) 15:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@SquirrelDefenseSquad: It is not a thread and it is not funny. You're a vandal, soon to be blocked on Wikipedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't know why I didn't see this coming...I've asked for page protection and I am sorry that you've put in so much time to baby-sit the article.
Best Regards,
Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 18:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC) Barbara Page

Please comment on Talk:Dobruja

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dobruja. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Dertosa

I am around. Srnec (talk) 06:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Srnec: Ok. NPP continually digs through the backlog of new pages and if you could help us revert edits like these, that would help. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
The article created by User:ASTOROT was not a duplicate of Tortosa. Indeed, it was a (poor) translation of es:Dertosa and ca:Dertosa, since the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedias cover the Roman-era history in an article under the original Latin name. I've no objection to the revert, but it wasn't an act of vandalism, just a good-faith edit by a new editor. Srnec (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the inconveniences. Dertosa is the Roman name of the current city of Tortosa. Also the present city of Tarragona was Tarraco. Regards (Saludos/salutacions)--ASTOROT (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!!!!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for your help at article Disinformation. Good cleanup of recently added cruft. Sagecandor (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 July newsletter

The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Blue Sky with a White Sun

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blue Sky with a White Sun. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Understanding

Thank you Chris, I might have to scale and tone down the editing on the China issue instead since I have something else I have in mind. Supreme Dragon (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Swaroop Sagar Lake

I have made some updates to the page, and now i am hopeful that it complies with the Wikipedia norms. Hopefully this helps. Thanks. Vishal0soni (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Mossy Oak Mudslinger AfD

Hi, Chris - Mossy Oak Mudslinger meets N per Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Rodeo - he's a notorious big bad bucking hombre! Moooo, moooo 🐮 See this article. Our project team tries to stay abreast of all the rodeo, racing & various other bovine & equine related articles, but this one accidentally escaped into article space before it was patrolled. I removed the N tag and wanted you to know that the project team will be working on the copyediting, etc. Thanks for your diligence and all you do for WP. Atsme📞📧 04:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: I saw that article and I thought, surely we don't have an SNG covering bulls. The subject might be failing GNG so let's tag it. Of course, the one time I don't look is the one time there's an SNG. Thanks for removing the tag and letting me know. I won't make that mistake again. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

America Chavez tags

I wanted to get your opinion on the changes I made to the America Chavez article before I adjust any tags. I have added in more secondary sources and removed some of the primary sources(although some are still used). This was to address the primary sources tag obviously.

In regards to the notability tag, could you clarify some more why you believe the character is not notable? She has received significant coverage from multiple outlets, especially after her solo series was announced/came out, including from The New York Times,[8] CNN,[9] USA Today,[10] PBS,[11] Time Magazine[12], The Huffington Post[13] along with tons of others[14]. Unless the issue was simply the article didn't show the notability/coverage before some of those sources were added in.

Thank you for any kind of response. WikiVirusC (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@WikiVirusC: I removed the tags thanks to your improvmenents. I wish you'd add the citations you provided above to the article. It think you buried the lede, so to speak. Chavez in the raft of Marvel diversity characters, which is how most readers will have heard of her. You only mention Gabby Rivera once, and she figures prominently in more than one of your sources. Her point of view informs the character. That meta story is the notability of the character. Maybe fans care about what storylines she's in. Everyone else cares about the politics. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for you response. Most of the citations I mentioned here were included in the article, with the exception of the PBS and Huffington Post one. Almost all of the article was taken from the Miss America section on her and transferred here as she has received more notability and individual coverage this year. The lead was shortly written when I split it and will be expanded in the future, as I am only just starting working on this subject. The reason Gabby Rivera was only mentioned once is she has only been writing the comic since spring of this year. The character has been around since 2011, so the majority of the information about her came from before Rivera was invovled. Rivera will be the primary point of view of the character going forward. There isn't that much information from Rivera's view out there yet as she has only released 4 issues. Once the first Volume(Issues 1-6) is out there I will be adding the summary of the story to fictional background. The diversity angle and more information about Rivera and her and her point of view of the character will be added into the publication history. Once again this was mostly splitting the information about Chavez from Ms. America article to her own, with the intention of expanding it out more. There is definitely work to be done. Thanks WikiVirusC (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

4th GA Cup - Wrap Up

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Wrap Up

Hello, GA Cup competitors!

Saturday, April 1 concluded the 2016-2017 GA Cup. 64 reviews were completed by our finalists. Although the backlog increased by 42 over the reviewing period instead of declining, the increase suggests that the contest is encouraging editors to nominate articles for review.

Congratulations to Shearonink, who is the winner of the Cup, finishing with 672 points! Once again, just as in last round, this is more than the point totals for all the other competitors combined! It was a close race for second place between Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, who achieved 164 points, and Sturmvogel_66, who earned 150. Though Sturmvogel_66 reviewed one more article than Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga managed to earn 14 points more due to reviewing older articles. Our two wildcard competitors, Kees08 and Chris troutman, came in fourth and fifth, respectively.

There were some bumps in the competition this time: The sign-up deadline and the first round were both extended due to fewer competitors signing up then was planned for. And there were delays in tallying points and getting out the newsletter. The judges apologize for this latter difficulty. Lastly, mid-way through the competition we bid farewell to Zwerg Nase, who stepped down from their position as judge due to other commitments. Information about the Final can be found here.

Thank you to all of our competitors, and congrats to our winners!

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaWiki message delivery (talk • contribs) 17:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Username

thanks for stopping by. If you look another user designed a neat template for my page that rotates cool Ghostbusters quotes. Im not around much, but may be back, there are a few things from the old days that nees tidyed up. Anyway, happy editing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by IvoShandor (talk • contribs) 05:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Friends

Chris troutman, Mike V and Oshwah are all friends of one another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.138.192.249 (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

added Happyme22 • Dragons flight
removed Zad68

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
  • A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
  • Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Request on 14:23:27, 7 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Cececaca


I'm asking for support. I tried 3 times to post a new article/contribution, I strictly followed the instructions your collegues gave me in the online chat and I put all footnotes and references you asked for me: all references and footnotes are 1. Secondary Fontes 2. Reliable 3. Enough .... Did you click on the footnotes and references? They are not internal fontes. They al Secondary and reliable for sure. what else do I need to change?

If you need another reference, here it is another one.

http://voguediary.ru/meeting-cesare-catania-in-milan-the-modern-leonardo-da-vinci/

I could post even this limk on the new article / contribution.

Everyone are Secondary and reliable as asked.....

Kind regards.


Cececaca (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cececaca: We need reliable sources. Who is voguediary.ru? Who is luxurynewsonline.com? It all looks like PR stuff to me. Ticino Online is definitely a paid-for PR spot. Posting URLs frm lopinionista.it is probably your only reliable source and a single source isn't enough to connote notability. Unless a subject is generally notable, they might pass one of our specific guides like our criteria for artists, which Catania fails. I warn you now that if you have a conflict of interest your objectivity might be clouded by your desire to promote the subject. Acceptance of drafts only comes after proving the subject meets our criteria. Wikipedia doesn't actually want or need an article on everybody and everything and we have to draw the line somewhere. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Coi

Hi Chris, three questions:

1. My name is Michael, Arad's manager, and therefore do not edit his articles. Is it ok if I make submission through WP:AFC?

2. Does the following notability specifics seem fair as to be incorporated within the draft:

Subject meets notability in following sections:

WP:GNG

Non trivial and objective coverage by reliable sources such as: ynet.com, Jewish Week, All About Jazz (article) and Israel Times.

WP:MUSICBIO (Although single section notability is sufficient, Arad meets notability in 4 different sections)

Section1: Multiple Reliable Publications:

● http://m.ynet.co.il/Articles/4182867 ● https://www.allaboutjazz.com/sketches-of-imaginary-landscapes-kobi-arad-self-produced-review-by-glenn-astarita.php?width=412 ● http://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/for-jewish-artists-a-space-of-ones-own/

Section 6: Several of Kobi Arad's projects, featured several notable musicians:

● 'Sufi Songs' Trio featuring Bob Moses (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Moses_(musician) and Cecil Mcbee (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_McBee)

Sources:

- http://www.tunedloud.com/2017/07/05/kobi-arad-ellington-upside-down-as-a-musical-portrait-of-the-jazz-titan/

- https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/community_feed/jazz_pianist_kobi_arad_a_career_overview.html

● Grammy Awards- Claes Nobel Team Participating Notable musicians: Wouter Kellerman, Brent Fischer, Robert Margouleff, Mickey Stevenson, Ganda Boys

Sources: - http://fmwebtv.com/TheForgottenPeople/ - https://article.wn.com/view/2017/01/24/Kobi_Arad_Performs_with_Members_of_Israeli_Orchestra_in_Tel_/ - https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/community_feed/jazz_pianist_kobi_arad_a_career_overview.html

Section 7:

● Arad is a world-wide authority in the Third Stream style, as he is the first and only (as of 2012) musician to earn doctorate in the field.

Sources: - Letter from Dean of New England Conservatory of Music to Kobi Arad (dating 2012): https://issuu.com/kobiarad/docs/novak_letter - https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_stream - http://m.ynet.co.il/Articles/4182867

Section 9:

Arad participted in multitude of interviews which featured panel discussions, airplay and interviews in Israeli National Radio, IBA (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Broadcasting_Authority).

Sources:

- http://www.tunedloud.com/2017/07/05/kobi-arad-ellington-upside-down-as-a-musical-portrait-of-the-jazz-titan/ - https://issuu.com/zmiralu/docs/selection (Letter from Iba editor Zmira Luzki) - https://issuu.com/acum9/docs/5_7_1_ (BMI international airplay statements) - https://issuu.com/acum9/docs/9 (BMI international airplay statements)

3. In case the requirements are fulfilled (links are alive, and you find #2 satisfactory, are you going to be willing to assist in living the draft and unsalt 'Kobi Arad' article?

Thanks :=) Ee212 (talk) 01:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ee212: I have no interest in helping you. You or someone on your behalf has been trying to push an article about this subject for years, in what I think is an abusive manner. In any case, only an administrator can remove the SALT prohibition so I can't overcome that even if I wanted to, which I don't. I recommend giving up on Wikipedia. You've burned too many bridges here. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


I was only involved in this for a month, and I apologize if past attempts were abusive.

As his manager it is important to place him in wiki.

I understand your lack of interest to help, which is fine. However, ignoring the notability specifics I presented (both Atlantic306 and Anachronist believe it meets at least one of the categories), and continuing to consciously jeopardize future efforts may at some point be interpreted as a coi (even simply disliking the subject) in the eyes of your peers.

Thanks :=) Ee212 (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ee212: You claim "continuing to consciously jeopardize future efforts may at some point be interpreted as a coi (even simply disliking the subject) in the eyes of your peers" which is utter nonsense. I voted against the current conflict of interest rules because I used to be a paid editor (for WikiExperts) and I think we have a real problem with religious fanatics, fans, and partisans none of whom are being paid. But Wikipedia is concerned with moneyed interests, like you. Nobody but you cares if I choose not to volunteer my effort to help your business. You evince your issue by admitting "As his manager it is important to place him in wiki"; you're only in this for crass promotion. I'm working on writing an encyclopedia for free. Wikipedia has outlawed the former while paying lip service to the latter. And, oh by the way, you can tell from my talk page that I don't give much of a damn about my peers. I make enemies here everyday, gladly. In the immortal words of George W. Bush: "you're welcome." Chris Troutman (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Chris, it does seem you don't give a d__mn about your peers / fellow humans.

In contradistinction to that, I sincerely believe in Arad's genius, and indeed do it voluntarily (I am not asking for a cent, simply because I believe his music should be shared with and recognized by the world.

If you had taken a listen to his output you would have agreed with me. Anyhow, the real conversation here, is regarding notability specifics which you ignored. Interestingly except of you other editors and an admin are encouraging this edit and submission, the admin also advised to include the notability specifics in the draft's talk page,

Thanks :=)

Please comment on Talk:Syria

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Syria. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Request on 13:10:13, 8 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by TridentP2


I recently submitted an article for Company P2 of the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets. It was rejected as it was "not notable". What are the guidelines for notability? This is a unit that has produced a substantial amount of military officers, even the commander of the 2nd MEF of the USMC, and has existed as a formal training unit with the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets for 40 years. The unit has received awards from Texas A&M, is formally recognized as an organization under Texas A&M, and has its own financial accounts to conduct unit business and transaction. I do have photographic evidence as such and have also added the page recognizing the unit within Texas A&M University to the list of references on the page itself. It is also featured within 40 yearbooks for the University with unit photos, rosters, and unit awards. To reference an organization within Texas A&M that was recently approved for Wikipedia, the MSC Student Conference on National Affairs has similar standing within the University and their page has been approved. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSC_Student_Conference_on_National_Affairs)

Please let me know what more I can do to substantiate the units "notability", and how to move forward. Thank you in advance.


TridentP2 (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@TridentP2: To be successful here, you need to spend more time reading and less time typing, troop. The template placed on your submission said "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time." and it included a bunch of links. I understand that text was in a colored box and new editors seem to experience cognitive dissonance and ignore it. That template, however, is our primary means of communicating with you. Our guideline for organizational notability is where you need to focus. Please recognize that you have a conflict of interest blinding your objectivity. You would like to use Wikipedia to write about your cadets, which is understandable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we don't desire to have an article about your cadets. If we had, we'd've written it. The onus is on you to demonstrate notability. Pointing at MSC Student Conference on National Affairs is a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha. I will keep working to post more legitimate sources. Aside from documentation showing the units affiliation with the University, what other types of sources would you recommend? I noted on SCONA because they are similar in standing, so I was asking what documentation they supplied that made them acceptable to Wikipedia's standards on notability. I understand my conflict of interest and I did take the time to read the green text, but it is my conflict of interest that is making it difficult to be unbiased when debating the units notability. Were you writing this article, what types of references would you look for/put down. Thanks for the reply, by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.179.78.1 (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Focus on nothing but books and newspapers; avoid anything published by the University and most anything written locally. You'd be better off inserting a sentence into Texas A&M University Corps of Cadets and then develop it there before spinning it out. Your draft is a non-starter. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

23:23:52, 10 July 2017 review of submission by Nalad


Hi, I am requesting a re-review into the article I recently submitted. After looking at the "Wikipedia: Notability (Music) page I see that the subject fulfills at least 2 of the criteria and other:

4. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.[note 4] 12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.

Both of these criteria were met in the submission along with news sources about the events also discussing the subject.

The article was written as the subject is a well established, notable singer/songwriter worldwide with Press and news coverage to support this.

@Nalad: I disagree. She's been an also-ran in other people's shows. She's not been the subject of significant coverage. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Request on 22:42:42, 10 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by SingoutLOUD


Clearer breakdown of notability substantiation "7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style"

Maybe I put too many references. This is the main one that establishes notability in a genre: http://web.archive.org/web/20170426184101/http://harmonizer.s3.amazonaws.com/Harmonizer_vol70_no3_mayjun2010.pdf

He has won two quartet gold medals and directed a chorus to four gold medals. He travels the world to coach groups and has been the face of the two quartets and chorus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7mGjSZpdpk - singing Bass, 700k views https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmDGntpZC3I - directing, 2.8 million views

I cannot find reference to him in the NY Times. Interview of Dr. Jim Henry on Fox & Friends at Rockefeller Center: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4166960021001/?#sp=show-clips

Thanks for your patience. This is my first article created. SingoutLOUD (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@SingoutLOUD: Please understand, I know nothing about your hobby and I don't care. What I know is, The Harmonizer isn't known to be a reliable source. The "quartet gold medals" aren't notable awards. YouTube isn't allowed as a source and the views don't count. An interview on Tv doesn't count, either. The subject needs to meet our notability criteria and I'm not seeing it. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I get that. However I do think he is influential enough to be referenced on Wikipedia. I may need to figure out how to search Australian German, Dutch and British sources to establish that. Some of the references are from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, a Pulitzer-Prize winning newspaper. Those really aren't solid enough? I have also noticed that choral conductors often have links to their wikipedian students. Not sure if that helps validate notability or is just incidental. Dr. Henry has at least one, I can probably find out if there are more. I am hoping to create a few other articles as well, one about a local fellow who was recently written up in Rolling Stone, but not NYTimes (happens to have been a student of Dr. Henry), and another who had a long profile in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and has been quoted in the NY Times, but not featured, and will be interviewed on CBS Sunday Morning in a couple of weeks. Do you think those are worth exploring?

SingoutLOUD (talk) 03:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Request on 14:53:52, 11 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Cececaca

{{SAFESUBST:Void|


Hi Chris, thanks a lot for your kind reply.

Reguarding your opinion about luxurylife and voguediary.ru they are well know and riliable online magazines. Not PR stuff and so on..... Try to find the on all social network and you will find how much engagements they have! Reguarding the TIO.ch it is the most famous online journal in the Ticino Swiss Area. Everybody in Ticino usually read the TIO.ch

Cesare Catania is a very well known contemporary artist and the argument has so much notability that he deserves a place in wikipedia enciclopedy.

If you need any other references here they are: 1) http://www.laprovinciacr.it/arte/arte/170465/il-moderno-leonardo-da-vinci-cesare-catania-espone-reart-2017.html 2) http://www.arte.it/calendario-arte/cosenza/mostra-cesare-catania-reart-37509 3) https://sinapsinews.info/2016/10/04/arte-italiana-nel-mondo-le-opere-cesare-catania-al-louvre-parigi/ 4) https://www.agendalugano.ch/events/37315/cesare-catania-l-abbraccio 5) https://www.dailycases.it/cesare-catania-conquista-londra-lesposizione-presso-la-royal-opera-arcade-gallery/ 6) http://www.meteoweb.eu/2017/03/riarteco-cesare-catania-larte-dei-rifiuti-urbani/871999/ 7) http://www.controluce.it/notizie/cesare-catania-larte-dei-rifiuti-urbani/

Do you need any other references?

I'm sure you will understand the public importance of the author and that you will give a place in your enciclopedy for him.

Kind regards.


Sabry


Cececaca (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cececaca: I think you're a partisan and I'm not convinced that the subject is notable. Good luck finding a Wikipedian that is. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

23:56:34, 10 July 2017 review of submission by Nalad

The subject Starred in and Won multiple episodes of a UK wide Television show which has been referenced by news articles & IMDB links this was not an "also ran" role in other artists shows. The subject was also named as the reason that the show even went into production? Does this not constitute a Notable Subject? This would in my eyes cover item 12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.?

@Nalad: No one cares what makes something notable in your eyes. I'm not convinced. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Movement Strategy reminder

Hi. You contributed in a previous part of the discussion, so this is just a reminder to you (and any interested talkpagewatchers), that it's the second week of our Movement Strategy Cycle 3 discussion. There's a new topic each week in July, and this week's is: How could we capture the sum of all knowledge when much of it cannot be verified in traditional ways? You can see more details, and suggest solutions or respond to other people's thoughts (from this week and last week) at Wikipedia:Wikimedia Strategy 2017. You can also read a summary of discussions that took place in the past week. Cheers. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

COI WikiExperts

On your user page you disclose that you have a COI in respect of the BLP Gabe Zichermann which you created and edited on behalf of WikiExperts, an organization that conducts paid editing and has been banned from editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure states If you are being paid for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you, who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship. If you have been paid for this contribution, please will you follow this Wikipedia policy in full. On another point: I see that there have been complaints about your behavior here under WP:Civil. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC).

Take it to ANI, get your boomerang. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I second the encouragement to civility. --Nemo 21:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

13:01:53, 13 July 2017 review of submission by Hannahinnes

Can you please clarify your reason for declining? All of my references are are from verifiable sources?

@Hannahinnes: The subject fails our notability requirement for musicians, leaving the alternative of general notability. As I commented on the draft, I don't see general notability there. General notability requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This and this are good sources. The interview in M Magazine isn't independent (because the source communicates the subject's words) nor is the piece from British Council because they're a sponsor. Other Wikipedians might be sold on general notability but I'm not. You've since been accused of sockpuppetry. If you and other editors working on the draft have been at all related to the subject and/or each other, you need to come right out and admit it now. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@christroutman thanks for that feedback, that is much clearer and makes much more sense than your first feedback comments, thank you very much for taking the time. This is my first article and I really appreciate your help with this. In terms of your sockpuppetry I'm not sure I know what you mean? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannahinnes (talk • contribs) 15:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hannahinnes: I put a notice on your talk page. The discussion is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hannahinnes. Again, Wikipedia requires full disclosure. We can work with you and your associates if and only if you are 100% honest about who is paying whom to accomplish what. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@christroutman - Thank you! This makes sense now, I have explained what has happened on the investigation. Really sorry about the confusion around this! In terms of the M Magazine piece you refer to is a reliable source at it is an independent magazine and a feature piece on the musician - I'm not sure why you won't accept this? The British Council piece makes sense. Thanks again for your help and apologies again for the confusion! HI2017 (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hannahinnes: There are two things happening. First, articles rely on sourcing to verify the content. Those two sources are fine for verifiability. Second, articles rest upon claims of notability (like winning a Grammy) and upon general notability. I'm looking for sources that have no connection to the subject that are covering the subject in depth. This subject is 80% of the way there. I just don't define general notability as low as other editors might. I am curious why you're interested in promoting this subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Chris troutman, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
  • Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

  • Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
  • The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Query

Hello, I just noticed a message that my user-page has been reviewed by you. I guess this might be due to me removing a comment that you perhaps placed near my username? In case it is, then that is fine indeed since it shows integrity in checking users and the kind of edits they do. I believe you have now an idea that I am gaining more clarity on how the Wikipedia policies and etiquettes work, and also that I have started to engage in some editing here other than the article that attracted most of my attention when it was placed for a deletion discussion. I am taking my time now to become more familiarized with the policies, and to have more confidence in the processes before I resume editing articles in philosophy and related humanities entries. In the meantime if after reviewing my user-page you have some recommendations for improvement, then I would be grateful to hear from you and other experienced editors here. Thank you (AcademeEditorial (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)) (AcademeEditorial (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC))

I noticed that you have syllabi for UCLA courses set here in Wikipedia. Is this an educational tool similar to Moodle or BlackBoard? Have you tried it and is it useful? And please if you have suggestions on where I can get further information about it, please let me know. Thanks (AcademeEditorial (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC))
@AcademeEditorial: There are a couple things in play. I am a new page patroller, which is why I reviewed your user page. The comment I placed by your username was related to the fact that your edits were primarily focused on promoting Nader El-Bizri. We discount the opinions of editors that don't seem to be here to write an encyclopedia. My comment is valid per WP:TALK, which is why I reverted you. As you can see, Wikipedia comes with a learning curve and deletion discussions aren't fit for new editors. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, then I welcome you. We can always use more help. As my user page indicates, I used to be a campus ambassador in the Los Angeles area including more than one class at UCLA. If you look at each class, you can see that it was not me but the respective professor that had the curricula. I was Wikipedia's representative in the classroom and the classroom's official helper on wiki. I can tell you it's nothing like BlackBoard. Please read Wikipedia:Education program for more info. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Chris for your clarifications and recommendations. I did some additional edits since I joined in the English Wikipedia and I am also making contributions in other European languages. I will see how it goes... I am indeed interested in the Educational program and will read more about it since we might benefit from it in teaching in our undergraduate classes (AcademeEditorial (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC))

09:09:33, 7 July 2017 review of submission by Johnnyspangles


Hi Chris Can I ask a question about the rejection. The reason given is the the 'references do not adequately show the subject's notability' So is it the references that are a problem? If so, I'm not sure I understand why, as most are independent and verify the statement about the organisation. Others, such as the annual reports evidencing the Revenue and Income may not be independent, but do verify the amounts. Johnnyspangles (talk) 09:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Johnnyspangles: Wikipedia already has an article about Keepmoat, so why are you trying to write this? Chris Troutman (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: In February 2017 Keepmoat sold the Regeneration arm of their business to Engie. Keepmoat Regeneration is now a separate business owned by Engie as the citation here states: Keepmoat offloads regeneration arm for £330m | Construction Enquirer http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2017/03/02/keepmoat-offloads-regeneration-arm-for-330m/ Johnnyspangles (talk) 09:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox former country

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox former country. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA Candidate Poll

Thanks for coming by and giving your two cents. I'll work on my CSD tagging, I accept that I have been a bit sloppy in several cases. I did not understand your comment about DYK, did you mean in terms of the articles that I have written, or in terms of just in general?

As for the user rights that I requested, in a recent RfA I learned about the page mover right, which I previously didn't know about and I really could have used a long time ago (I have done a lot of work over at Requested Moves), and when I was researching it I ran across some other user rights that I thought might come in handy. I had previously noticed pending changes on a couple of articles I frequent and didn't understand why I couldn't review them (even though they were obvious), so that was more of a "if this comes up again I'll be able to deal with it" thing. Since your comment I've bookmarked the pending changes log and will check on it from time to time and will help out there to prevent backlogs developing.

As for rollback, after using it honestly it is very underwhelming. Yes it makes undoing obvious vandalism a one click job, but I'm not that lazy, and the lack of an option to add an edit summary is a real deal breaker for me. I have avoided using it since getting it and really don't intend to much. I'd rather use Twinkle's rollback function and take the extra couple clicks and have the opportunity to add an edit summary for why I rolled it back in the first place. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 15:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: Generally speaking, you should be regularly using the userrights you carry because, as mentioned on ORCP, it otherwise looks like hat collecting. I gave away a couple userrights I don't use anymore and I make a point to hit pending changes as well as NPP every now and then to validate my posession of those flags. I will say that I have rollbacker although I always use Twinkle's rollback, because the hat is a statement about community trust. Twinkle is a coding kludge and can be used by anyone (and is actually superior in function) but I always remind myself that rolling back vandalism comes with community expectations about responsible use, and the hat can be taken away from me if I act irresponsibly. As for DYK, when you write an article or get it to GA, spin by DKY and get a blurb on the main page. It gets extra eyeballs on your hard work. We can't take old articles to DYK. I am a mesopedian and I like to see Wikipedians contributing to our WikiProjects, especially the ones outside of narrowly-defined interests. Of course, you've been doing a fine job as editor and you might find (like I have) that there's more fun in eschewing adminship. The mop and bucket isn't all it's cracked up to be. The freedom of not caring what people think of you is very liberating. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
more fun in eschewing adminship. Sounds like sour grapes. A paid editor with a record of incivility to newbies would have a hard job passing RfA without a long period of responsible editing to erase past sins. Doubt my words? Give it a try. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC).

AfC talk page

Could you check this out please, [15] and the page's history. Unless I'm missing something, the software appears to have got the history out of sync. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: My mistake. Thanks for pointing that out. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you mark your CSD's as patrolled?

Hello Chris, could you please mark the pages you have set for deletion as patrolled so they don't show up in the queue? Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@L3X1: Sorry. I thought putting the template on it registered it as patrolled. Thanks for letting me know and sorry for the inconvenience! Chris Troutman (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Sequoia Di Angelo

Hi- you rejected Draft:Sequoia Di Angelo as it was non-notable, the author has gone ahead and created it in mainspace: Sequoia Di Angelo. AfD? jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jcc: I nom'd it. Thanks for letting me know. Some people just won't take "no" for an answer. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Good lord...

So many things wrong. WP:AGF violation on Gregbard's motivations; situational awareness failure on who did what, and letting the means justify the ends with respect to "interrupting" deletion of a notable topic. VQuakr (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@VQuakr: You seem to be just as misguided as Legacypac. I would think that you read what I wrote on the talk page so I'm not sure why you're bothering to say anything here. If your beliefs differ from mine then you accomplish nothing by telling me so. I reproved of Legacypac for standing in the way of G13, which would have resolved the problem. I can only assume that you think the end goal of Wikipedia is more articles. It is not, and I hope you learn that lesson sooner than later. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
"Beliefs!?" WP:AGF is a guideline. You also accused the wrong editor of submitting it - Greg canned it in userspace in 2014 with an edit summary that referenced U1. These aren't qualitative issues with two sides; you made a series of mistakes and I'm pointing them out to you so you can do better (as you usually do).
Re the G13, lots of people have "different beliefs" (though I can't say I am frequently accused of being an inclusionist - I am at something like 75% delete !votes at AfD), that's not the issue. You are explicitly at odds with WP:CSD, which is policy: consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub... or handled in some other way. Chiding someone for "interrupting" deletion of a draft on an unambiguously notable topic is, to borrow your term, misguided. VQuakr (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@VQuakr: I am not at odds with CSD... I didn't nominate it. G13 is a semi-automated process to clean out abandoned drafts, which Draft:Harold Booth was. I am aware Legacypac didn't submit it and I said as much. They made a comment which resets the G13 clock, which is what I objected to. (The clock ran out three days prior and the article should have been deleted had an admin stayed on top of Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned AfC submissions.) I'm a big proponent of WP:REALPROBLEM and I don't think Wikipedia is a better place for having that article. Someday somebody might have gotten a four award for that and you robbed them of it. It just astounds me that we have game players ignoring gamification. I don't understand your strategy if what you're doing is moving drafts by banned editors into mainspace. That makes no sense, especially for a poorly-sourced stub about some guy in the California state assembly. I chose not to save that draft and am horrified everyone else tried to. I am all for improving my editing and if I were wrong, I would say so. Your actions undercut the mechanics of article creation and that's my issue. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to propose deprecation of stubs or a change to WP:NPOL is you dislike coverage of "some guy". Until those have gone through, you should be unsurprised if editors roll their eyes at your melodramatic devotion to some essay. Yes, you have made very clear that you value the "mechanics of article creation" (means) over the ends. VQuakr (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Account for a student from Imperial College

Hi Chris, I got a notification from WP:UAA about User:Emily k123. Thanks for passing it on to me, I'll be in touch with them to explain it really should be one account per person. The notification is from two days ago, so has anything happened in the meantime? Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell (WMUK): There were several students in that cohort and none of the have edited since. Thanks for your help with this. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

UserPage

A month ago you reviewed my UserPage... yet I am confused. What exactly does that mean? Dinah In Wonderland 17:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dinah Kirkland: Because of the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident, New Pages Patrol (of which I am a part) checks up on new pages like your user page to make sure you're not accusing an innocent person of assasinating a president or some such. You don't need to take any action and it doesn't impact your editing, at all. We seek to review every page across Wikipedia but new pages are constantly being created. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh okay! I wasn't worried but I thought it was about one incident I had once (to much information on my page) but it's good to know. How exactly to you become a part of this? I'm curious. Dinah In Wonderland 18:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dinah Kirkland: You can read about it at WP:NPP. We require 500 undeleted article edits, which you need to accomplish. I'd recommend examining Category:Wikipedia maintenance. There are things you could work on like fixing articles that have bare URLs for citations or stub sorting. If you focus on fixing articles, you'll get to 500 quickly and you can apply for the patroller userright. Wikipedia has other maintenance projects like the Guild of Copy Editors you could join immediately. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah cool! For now I think I'll just work on sources until I'm more experienced. Dinah In Wonderland 18:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Request on 23:40:29, 17 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Shayan eslami


Hi Chris, My article has been approved in farsi wiki (https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B4%D8%A7%D9%87%DB%8C%D9%86_%D8%B2%D8%B1%D8%AA%D8%B4%D8%AA) with same references and sources. Can you please advise me on how to improve my article? Thank you. Shayan eslami (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Request on 23:43:49, 17 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Shayan eslami


Hi, My article has been approved in farsi wiki (https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B4%D8%A7%D9%87%DB%8C%D9%86_%D8%B2%D8%B1%D8%AA%D8%B4%D8%AA) with same references and sources. Can you please advise me on how to improve my article? Thank you.

Shayan eslami (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Shayan eslami: First, it appears English-language wiki has more rigorous standards than Farsi-language wiki. We are two different communities. Second, the draft in question presents sources like frostsnow.com/ which looks like a semi-promotional entertainment site, as well as divadubai.com and deeveedubai.net/ which not only manage models but appear to have a financial relationship with the subject. These aren't independent, reliable sources. There's no general notability here. While we're on the subject, do you have a relationship to this subject? Chris Troutman (talk) 07:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Tagging of User:Adayarajoo/sandbox

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on User:Adayarajoo/sandbox. I do not think that User:Adayarajoo/sandbox fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because It is a SANDBOX. Tests are normal. I request that you consider not re-tagging User:Adayarajoo/sandbox for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@DESiegel: My concern was that it wasn't a simple test, but an effort to advertise a website. Had there been no URL I would have let it go. If the editor would have been actively editing I would have discussed it with them, but drive-by edits from a month ago to advertise look like WP:U5 to me. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Part of the markup for building an article is linking to external sites. When a link appears amid fragments of plausible article wiki code, it doesn't look like promotion to me. In any case userspace is NOINDEXed, so if the intent was to promote the website it was a miserable failure. If there is doubt, U5 does not apply, as per WP:BITE. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Tagging of User:K1NGG COBRA/sandbox

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on User:K1NGG COBRA/sandbox. I do not think that User:K1NGG COBRA/sandbox fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because Plausible start to a draft, not a WEBHOST violation. No reason to delete.. I request that you consider not re-tagging User:K1NGG COBRA/sandbox for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Neither this nor the page listed in the section above it are even close to NOTWEBHOST violations. Editors are allowed, even encouraged, to use sandbox pages to experiment with the markup needed to build articles, and to start on drafts that might, or might not, eventually become articles. I don't know why you thought either was a U5 speedy, but please be more careful in future. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@DESiegel: If someone makes a single edit in a sandbox and that edit is promotional in nature, do you think that they made an attempt at a draft article or do you think that they were trying to advertise and simply put it into a sandbox because they assume no one will hurry to delete it? I hear the point you're making but I think you're AGF'ing too much. I'm trying to help out on NPP. None of the pages I'm sending to CSD are far outside of the criteria (as other admins have had no problem making those deletions) and no useful edits or editors have been lost. Rather, I think you're out of step with current deletion norms. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I think you are AGFing far too little. CSDs are supposed to be for clear-cut cases, not borderline ones. Nor do i agree that this was in any way "promotional". I would be happy to debate it an an MFD, if you think there would be consensus to delete. In reviewing Category:CSD as I do quite often, i see far too many invalid tags placed by editors doing NPP. I think I decline half or more of the A7 tags, 34/ts of the no-context tags, and most of the U5 tags. U5 is for baltant misuse, someone who is basically putting up a personal web site in Wikipedia space. If it can plausibly be considered a draft, it isn't U5. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for User:Harryrgwatts

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Harryrgwatts. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chris_troutman/Archive_12&oldid=1144236226"