User talk:ChrisGualtieri/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome

Hello, ChrisGualtieri and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Július Benčko Monochrome photography Display list Goderich District Collegiate Institute Analog photography Redscale Exmor Gillian Slovo Flipped image Color print film Stop bath Elefun Kiel McLeod VR photography Sun printing Snoot Kodak DCS 100 Image scaling Power and the Passion (album)

Cleanup Tikoloshe Timeline of photography technology Photographic paper Merge Three-CCD camera Gelatin silver process Panoramic photography Add Sources Image Beauty dish Print permanence Wikify Photofluorography Frame shutter mode Gelatin silver print Expand Elche Enlarger Bracketing

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcoming you to the participants list on AfC!

Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Articles for creation! We are a group of editors who work together on the Articles for creation and Images for upload pages.

A few tips that you might find helpful:

• Please take time to fully read the reviewers' instructions before reviewing submissions.
• The project's discussion board is the best place to ask for help or advice. You might like to watchlist this page, and you are encouraged to take part in any discussion that comes up.

• Article submissions that need reviewing can be found in Category:Pending AfC submissions and there is also a useful list which is maintained by a bot.
• You might wish to add {{AFC status}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. There is also a project userbox. If you haven't done so already, please consider adding your name to the list of participants.
• Several of our members monitor the #wikipedia-en-help ^connect IRC channel, and you are welcome to join in to ask Wikipedia-related questions.
• The IRC channel #wikipedia-en-afc ^connect is used occasionally for internal discussion regarding the Articles for Creation process, and also serves as a recent changes feed, displaying all edits made in the Articles for Creation namespace.

Once again, welcome to the project. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Questions, comments, complaints?) 21:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

mail

help me with attacking vandalism.--Walter55024 (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey

Nice work over at Articles for creation, your help is really appreciated! Let me know if you have questions or need anything. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Help

Hi Chris, You recently reviewed the article I created entitled Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fostering Through Social Enterprise. Apparently it didn't meet Wikipedia's criteria regarding Notability requirements. When I submitted the piece, I tried to follow the guidelines in Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, with particular reference to "you must use reliable sources, such as published books, mainstream press publications, and authorized web sites". In your feedback you say: "Even the articles it links to have major concerns with sources and neutrality". Is the problem that Children & Young People Now and Community Care are not regarded as being mainstream press publications? They are both highly regarded publications in the UK social care sector. Is this to do with readership numbers? Similarly, is the British Association for Adoption and Fostering not considered to be an authorised website? Any guidance you can provide would be gratefully received. Thank you for your time. LizHawkins (talk) 10:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Artemis Fowl: The Last Guardian

Hi Chris, you recently reviewed my article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Artemis_Fowl:_The_Last_Guardian and commented that it "didn't comply with standards". Could you please be more specific and explain how it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria? Please reply on my talk page. (Metalla515 (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC))

Article for Creation: Northern Ireland Childminding Association

Thanks for your comments, Chris. I've now amended the article and resubmitted it. Would you have time please to take a look? Headhitter (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Help for The Riots (2011 play)

Hi, sorry to bother you again, I know we just spoke. But I just wanted to clarify that the article I created was ok. The article that you declined is the exact same one that is still on Wikipedia, will it be removed or can it stay there. I am just confused about where to submit articles to be reviewed. Sorry again, thank for your time Briannamm (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Any Video Converter

I am the original creator and I had no intention to advertise. The article was hijacked and the sources were removed. I also added another one to the AfD. SL93 (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Leslie Cheek Theater

Moved from user page. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear ChrisGualteri, Thank you for your advice on my rejected article on the Leslie Cheek Theater. Of course, it makes sense that I should add it under the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts. I took your advice and just did that. This is new to me, so it took a while to make the transitions smooth, but I'll check back now and then to be sure it reads well and, I hope, is not edited out by the museum's PR office! Do you have a quick tip for how to make a wikipedia reference wihin other articles to the Leslie Cheek Theater? Do the double brackets work when the subject is not the page heading? Thanks again! KFFOWLER (talk) 05:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Wearever Cookware

Hi, I was owndering if you could clarify the citation issue on the Wearever Cookware article that is found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Wearever_Cookware I was under the impression that I had cited my sources correctly. Thank you for your input

--A Dufrasne (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! --A Dufrasne (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello! ChrisGualtieri, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Rosiestep (talk) 05:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For the wikignoming on Australian water polo articles. :D

LauraHale (talk) 06:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Porky's Badtime Story The Porky Pig Show Porky's Poultry Plant Soorts-Hossegor My Favorite Duck John Anderson (sportscaster) Kemps Bay Porky Pig's Haunted Holiday John Buccigross Phreatic eruption Jay Harris (sportscaster) The Blow Out International Volcanic Health Hazard Network Michelle Bonner Trey Wingo Porky's Hare Hunt Patient Porky David Lloyd (sportscaster) Sylvester "Porky" Brockway

Cleanup Framing device Nothing (N.E.R.D album) Balanced-growth equilibrium Merge Ravidassia Arti Menippeah DNA replication Add Sources Chris Connelly (journalist) George Bodenheimer TrueHoop Wikify Narrative environment Elephant (stories) Jayski's Silly Season Site Expand Erotic literature I'll Remember April (film) Sargasso Sea Stories (William Hope Hodgson)

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Question

Yesterday you deleted the changes I made to a page citing copyright issues. The bio I attempted to post was not copied from anywhere and was written by the subject himself. As it is a bio it may be similiar to something posted elsewhere but it is authentic and therefore of course will look the same. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YevKasim (talk • contribs) 14:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Your changes were an exact match for four entire paragraphs and only minor changes to a fifth before I axed the entire thing. Even if you argue that it was written by himself that does not mean entire paragraphs should be copied over as it was in this case; I posted the link and warned you accordingly, but I'm going to refer this to an admin to be sure. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The subject would like his official bio to appear on his Wikipedia page. I believe Wikipedia wants the most accurate and up to date information presented on their site. As I said earlier, of course his bio is going to look the same, he wrote and uses it for other places where his bio is needed. As for the link you provided, that's from his old Firm and I don't believe it's currently on their website as he is no longer employed there. Should I ask them to take it down? Would that solve this issue? If I have gone about posting this in the wrong way I am happy to take direction as to how best do it. I am not a Wikipedia expert yet and will need to learn all the procedures over time.YevKasim (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Chris, just following up on your last message. I would definitely appreciate any help you can offer to get the page updated to a more detailed analysis on the subject's life. I'm not sure if the warning below is in regards to me or not as I just checked the page in question and it still remains as you left it. Please advise. Thanks. YevKasim (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• • Eh that ones for me; not you. I wish I could take look at it, but I just don't have the time right now. The biography that was posted was good, just use it as a guide and update and source as necessary. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Chris - Thanks. All I'm doing is updating his bio from the law firm where he retired at the end of 2010 (Covington & Burling, LLP). The new post includes his current work at the Center for International Policy and on the Board of WMATA (Metro). I'm also adding his date of birth, which the law firm bio didn't include and I will also update the photo in the next few days. Thanks again for your help. YevKasim (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. →Στ c. 06:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• I did not want to get involved in an edit war so I did go to the talk page and only after a lengthy discussion and seeking third opinions did I restore it as per policy WP:NOTESAL. I've cited my reasons and discussed it at length with the editor who remains anonymous. As the discussion wraps up with the consensus and third opinion was it should be added. I put them back only after arriving at this conclusion per policy in regards to that third opinion on said policy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Loadedjuggs

Hey what the hell! Is with you that is legit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loadedjuggs (talk • contribs) 06:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Refrain from cursing on my page. When the your own edits are only vandalism do not expect them to last long. You weren't warned for the Chuck Norris or Leeroy Jenkins entries and that entry was removed by another user. Though I did warn for you for defacing the page with that racist and insulting remark. If you could... next time post your comments in a new section as well; rather then in the middle of my user page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey!

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at Wikipedia:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you either received an invitation to visit the Teahouse, or edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests page.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host, 15:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Message sent with Global message delivery.

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Kathryn Stockett Elections in Egypt Infinitas Empire-building Total return index Chuck Pagano (ESPN) Tick Tock Tuckered Kevin Corke Churn Creek Protected Area ESPN Deportes La Revista The Prize Pest Edwin Durso The Case of the Stuttering Pig Felling Lothar Sippel Enzo Bettiza Ketty Gabriele Stephan Engels Norby Williamson

Cleanup In My Mind (Pharrell Williams album) Cee-Lo Green... Is the Soul Machine Chris Berman Merge Ravidassia Bhawan The Weather Channel internationally Water efficiency Add Sources Narcissistic Personality Inventory Dan Monahan Awful Orphan Wikify World Tavern Poker Tour David Bennett Cohen Leadership Network Expand 2012 in the United States Give It Up (Twista song) History of Virginia

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

reply

Hello, ChrisGualtieri. You have new messages at Turgan's talk page.
Message added 17:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Request of you at Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin

Hi. I made a request of you at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Bios . Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

reversions/removal at trayvon shooting wiki

I'm not sure what you are talking about. You suggest there is some reference to "OLD suspensions", when in reality I referenced what people CLAIMED was the most recent suspension. In other words, these people were claimng something happened that did not happened, all of which is highly relevant. Understand yet? Explain your confusion and/or re-revert your errorWhatzinaname (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• This should be on the talk page. The claims were true and he has been suspended 3 times by confirmed accounts, one for the pot residue in the baggy, one for vandalism in which the 'burglary tools' were found, and one for attendance. The other previous 2 are not related to the shooting. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

how many times can one person be confused in one wiki? What the heck are you talking about. The father and the teacher LIED about what he was suspened for, full stop. explain yourself. It has NOTHING to do with PREVIOUS suspensions. Whatzinaname (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

He was suspended three times. Not one. I've removed the other two; even though it seemed that the reports were the previous statements were lies they did actually happen. A weasely way which misrepresents the situation that was being asked. So I've removed the other two suspensions. Here's the link to prove it. [1] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Where the hell is the suspension for "tardieness" in that link. Where is the suspension for some form of trespassing as described by the father. Again, I've asked you multiple times now to explain your edits and you have miserable failed.Whatzinaname (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I enjoyed this edit summary. Literally undue weight. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 23:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

fg2

Hi! Are you related to User:Fg2? His real name was Frank Gualtieri WhisperToMe (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Fg2 was a very well respected Wikipedian before his death. His obituary is located here. He was born in Boston, was raised in Canton, Massachusetts, and attended Canton High School. He attended MIT, the University of Rhode Island, Brown University, and the University of Maryland. He became an expert in Japan and taught there. He died at age 56 in Japan. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

tb

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

Tvoz/talk 06:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Messiah complex Devils Churn Ronald McKie Queen bee syndrome Selfishness Coppenhall High School International Financial Services District Churn Creek 2012 FP35 Lego Digital Designer Mount Mandara Vasuki White widow (cannabis) Peter Mathers 2012 FS35 God complex Tom Flood Corruption in Canada River Churn

Cleanup Soft serve Before Texas A&M University–Kingsville Merge Kurma German American internment Customer attrition Add Sources GameStop On Narcissism Churn rate Wikify Satya Churn Law Beat Your Neighbour (comic strip) John Henry Alexander Expand True self and false self A Hope in the Unseen Antifeminism

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Age

Hi. Not clear why you didn't keep his age without the three weeks stuff.[2] --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'll leave it at that for now. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the change by ChrisGualtieri. Intrepid-NY (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

A response.

Anonymous IP expresses concern for violence in their purported hometown of Sanford... I respond with a message talking about how we got there and a final gesture of hope that we can overcome such things. You realize that this is simply me trying to acknowledge their fear and trying to get them to see past the immediacy of the moment?

It is NOT

• Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment
• An opinion piece
• Scandal mongering
• Self-promotion, or
• Advertising

It IS

• An attempt to console while at the same time acknowledging the source of their fear.

Please try to see beyond a simple 2-sided argument that limits us to actually thinking about what people say. If you have something to say, please make it constructive, don't simply attack a person for trying to be a human being about this. -- Avanu (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not attacking you, but simply informing you that the policies are still relevant even on the talk page. Your speech on your personal beliefs for racism causing unfair jailing is not on topic and its takes a superior tone that is unconstructive and combative citing racebaiting lines and a demeaning tone. Calling other editors names is attacking though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

STiki: A new version and a thank you!

Greetings ChrisGualtieri. As the developer of the STiki anti-vandal tool, I would like to thank you for recent and non-trivial use of my software. Whether you just tried out the tool briefly or have been a long-term participant, I appreciate your efforts (as I am sure does the entire Wikipedia community)!

I write to inform you of a new version of the software (link goes to list of new features). This version addresses multiple long-term issues that I am happy to put behind us. Try it out! Provide some feedback!

The STiki project is also always seeking collaborators. In particular, we are seeking non-technical colleagues. Tasks like publicity, talk-page maintenance, advertisement, and barn-star distribution are a burden to technical development. If you are interested, write me at my talk page or STiki's talk page.

As STiki approaches two significant thresholds: (1) 100,000 revert actions and (2) 400 unique users -- I hope to have your support in continuing the efficient fight against unconstructive editing. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Your Welsh Dragon edit by STiki

Earlier this evening I noticed your Welsh Dragon edit by STiki. I investigated ... liked the idea ... downloaded, and ... where/how will it show up ...

... how do I access STiki? What should I do next?

Your assistance would be much appreciated. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, the edit was just one word on the Welsh Dragon article ... but HOW do I find STiki? Where is it showing on my screen? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to you, I have successfully downloaded STiki. I reloaded Java and that seemed to do the trick. Now to start using it ... any tips for a novice would be greatly appreciated.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

Hi. When you recently edited Dando's dogs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Removing BLP PROD

In this edit you removed the BLP PROD tag from the Nurhayati Ali Assegaf article, with the explanation, "removed tag, was never followed up on". You appear to have misunderstood the BLP PROD process. That tag is to remain on the article for up to ten days to allow the author (or anyone else) to find and add sources for this Biography of a Living Person. If no such references have been added in 10 days, the article is deleted. You removed the tag after only 1 day, without any references having been added. Please check carefully before removing BLP PROD templates: doing so without actually addressing the problem is considered vandalism. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I actually added a source before doing that. Just found the bio where the CV came from and fixed that accordingly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, OK. You didn't format the reference properly to have it appear in the reflist. That was my confusion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Articles for creation/600 Brickell Office Tower - I need your help please

Chris, I need your help with this article. We have been victims of vandalism regarding this building. Someone named Daniel Christensen has been using references against this building writing a very confusing article that stops being informative. Media and other sources use Wikipedia to cite sections for their own publications, but the information posted by Christensen is only partially true. This man took the time to add only all the negative and not focusing on anything positive. Using comments like: this building is "supposed" to be "green"... why should that be allowed? that supposition its nowhere in his references posted, however, he is allowed to make these negative comments and I get flagged and told that I'm doing promotion and advertising when I'm only trying to add facts to improve the articles? It's not my fault the building is incredibly advance in technology and its offering something completely new to the Miami area? However, I know the reason why this man is vandalizing and trashing our article. He even redirected a 600 Brickell page to his Brickell Financial Centre page, which that name is not event the name of the building at opening.

Anyway, the reason I created this new article "600 Brickell Office Tower" is to publish a completely neutral informative page on the building. All we need to say is who owns it, who develops it, how high it is and what's bringing to Miami. All the other comments about debt, loan, financing, tenants that decided to lease somewhere else, etc etc its just hurtful and non-relevant information; these comments are low and malign. None of the other buildings have contributors trying to hurt them, so what is the grudge against 600 Brickell? Besides, most of the references Christensen cite are outdated. And every time I cite a current reference I get flagged. Why is that?

Check out other similar building's articles, just to name a few. NONE of them have such negative comments involved. Espirito Santo Plaza: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espirito_Santo_Plaza Southeast Financial Center: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Financial_Center Brickell CitiCentre: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brickell_CitiCentre

Also, Mr. Christensen had took the liberty to make this comment in the Talk section of Brickell World Plaza: "recent media attention // This building has gotten a lot of attention and is now called the Brickell World Plaza. It has the highest leed green building rating and is one of very few for its size. It has some kind of special internet connection with cisco and is supossed to be really something when it opens in august. Today two window panels on the south side near the top were replaced with plywood and earlier one was broken on the front (that's not so green!) Daniel Christensen (talk) 07:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brickell_World_Plaza

I just ask you to reconsider your partiality and understand our request. I am not asking you to delete Christensen's comments or his Brickell World Plaza article, just let us have and populate our article for 600 Brickell Office Tower.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulides1976 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the advice, I corrected according to your suggestions and would appreciate more assistance

Hi, thanks for the advice, I corrected according to your suggestions and would appreciate more assistance. The entry in question is the one for the Israeli Jewish Congress. Once it is approved I will do a Hebrew language version. Thanks Michaelijc (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Articles for creation/DMAX (film format)

Thank you for your review here: [3]. I wonder how I can improve the article. You state there is a lack of context. Are you thinking about context regarding the situation for movies in China or maybe regarding IMAX or something else? Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

University of New Mexico

I've reverted further than your edit; appears to be the same person vandalizing on multiple IPs. Calabe1992 00:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Skier Dude's talk page.

Kin iamamiwhoami article rejection

Please explain to me clearly why this cannot be an accepted article when it's clearly an album about to be released. I don't appreciate just a simple link full of complicated excessive stuff I don't understand. Borderings (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ChrisGualtieri. You have new messages at Calabe1992's talk page.
Message added 02:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Calabe1992 02:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Rafig Asgarov Chris Kyle Miguel Britos Eccellenza Abruzzo 2008–09 Home page Marinus van Dam Night Mayor Miyazu Line Ricardo Rodríguez (footballer) Frankford Candy & Chocolate Company Thumb Lake WWE Network Glen Hirshberg Sankō Line Anton Sutterlüty Bumper pool Age grade Ghatgaon Daisuke Nakamura

Cleanup Nk grajena Ahmed Kousay Altaie 1998 Speedway World Team Cup Merge Boolean algebra UAAP Season 69 softball tournaments Filter (chemistry) Add Sources Catalonia Government 1992–1995 term of office Iain Macleod Klaatu Sampler Wikify Rosa Martinez Robot Wars: Extreme Destruction Seclusion of girls at puberty Expand List of Fushigiboshi no Futagohime characters Ladies vs Ricky Bahl Extended Secondary School

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I liked your comment and need your opinion

Hello, ChrisGualtieri! I really need your feedback. Click here. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! Thank you!

Brendon is here 12:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Terribly sorry, but my posting on the RfC is to be very limited and potent. While you do make a valid point I doubt it will have any impact on that particular discussion. I'd suggest bring the matter up at a later date with a full proposal because the results of this RfC are to be appended to the ArbCom decision, it is too far removed from the goal of the RfC for them to consider at this stage or time. Keep me posted though, I am interested in it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay! I will try to keep you abreast of any notable change regarding that issue.

But, could you tell me where I would be able to get information about the RfC outcome? Brendon is here 15:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It will be posted later. Three admins are going to review the RfC, but it will probably take a week or two before any mention comes out. Should be at the Village Pump then. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to ask something,

Say, we didn't like the RfC Results in the end. So, can we appeal against the results of that RfC? Brendon is here 15:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It's ArbCom, you'd have to appeal to them and I doubt they would take it up immediately. These binding resolutions and actions are essentially the highest of the high courts. They have basically final say unless the community as a whole disagrees. Would be probably 6 months to a year before the option even presents itself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

What do you sense will be the result? Any ideas? Just asking. (I'm apprehensive, that's all.) Brendon is here 16:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking like no hat notes. The question of the images was already 'keep', and other policies clearly are opposed to it as WP:NDA. Many people made the WP:NOTCENSORED argument, but that argument isn't as strong because the policy for WP:NDA exists. Even without massive backing as seen with WP:V or WP:NOTE it still is a policy that directly says no to hat notes and disclaimers. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Chris. I wanted to ask you about WP:CANVASSING. Nobody warned me about that earlier. Do you think I'll be blocked for unwittingly breaking that? Is my approaching your talk-page a direct contravention of WP:CANVASS?

BTW, I didn't tell you what to like and what not to like. I didn't use the word "support" but "feedback". So, do you think I broke WP:CANVASS? Wikipedia has so many behavioral guidelines.

Man, some people are hateful and vindictive here. They bite newcomers, discourage them from continuing to get involved in Wikipedia processes of their choice, ostensibly trot out their bad-faith against you (based on their whims), want Wikipedia:pillars (virtually, the defining identity of Wikipedia) to be out-right broken in order to accommodate their unfounded POVs.
But amazingly enough, at the end of the day they get to play the "victim"?

On an unrelated note, do you think I've been extraordinarily uncivil (were there no extenuating circumstance) in that RfC? I think I'm being victimized by virtue of my forthright views and their uncensored and essentially unvarnished verbalization. It feels really discouraging, I must say. Brendon is here 06:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

So now you've manufactured a situation in which you didn't know a guideline because people have pointed out that you knew policy all too well for a newbie? Give me a break Brendon. One could buy that you didn't know the rules prior to canvassing, but you're now pretending, after learning about it not to understand one of the four clearly outlined components of the guideline - "audience." If you selectively chose people whose opinions you agree with that's a no no. You knew that though, of course. It's a very lame canvass and I'm not buying it. Also you're not going to convince anyone that you're new here when you use terms like "bite the newcomers" off hand as if they are part of normal everyday speech when they are actually Wiki jargon.Griswaldo (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I know you have your differences, but I do not particularly care if he is new or not, its not my place to make such assumptions. Brandon might appear to be violating WP:CANVASS, but if I was the only one I'd say no. I'm not going to dig into his edits either. Griswaldo, please resolve this by taking it to SPI or avoiding Brandon. I rather not be dragged into this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Shooting section lead

Hi. You're right that the Shooting section lead could use more material. (One is to add "rainy night".) Feel free to start a discussion section regarding the section lead or simply make the edits that you think are appropriate. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikiquette assistance (Brendon section)

I was just about to add a reply there, when I started to wonder if I was doing more harm than good by doing so. Since I agree with everything you last said, the only new I would be adding would be trying to defend my stance as impartial (like I told Brendon on my talk page). What do you think, is it best if I keep my silence there atm? Belorn (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the clean up of Mike Dalton article --Nakurio (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem! It was only a minor fix. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

't Brouwerskolkje and dates

Could you please stop "fixing" the date on this article? There is no prescribed date formst, so there is no problem. The source you change is Dutch, where the normal dateformat is dd-mm-yyyy. So there is nothing wrong give the date of the article as 15-4-2012. Thank you. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cite web suggests using the name of the month. WP:CITE/ES suggests MLA and Harvard standard format of YEAR/MONTH/DATE in all numbers for a cite. While the latter is a suggestion, the template should name the month to prevent confusion. You did this on one section but not the other. The issue is a general fix according to WP:MOS and while it was not the fix I was intending to find, it still brought it up. Since it was entirely in AWB I didn't realize you reverted it, as the page was listed several times for various errors. Namely, reference duplication. Even with the previous convention on the page, that one instance goes against the other formats of naming the months. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

reverted 2 x vandalism to 2012 in the United States

2012 in the United States: not sure what your goal is here but if it happens again I will seek an administrator to settle the matter and since you have had recent issues I dont hold out for a good outcome for either of us (since typically they will always seek to be impartial).--68.231.15.56 (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

if your arguements held any validity concerning manual of style you would have already contributed to the talk on this page, Wikipedia talk:Recent years (which i already have spent many attempts trying to convince you of), since you have not you are most certainly just a "poor"sportsman and are now just seeking any means to damage content that i have spent endless hours on = revenge--68.231.15.56 (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Uh that's a copyright violation which I rightfully removed because the entire section was wrong. The second has been delayed since August 15th 2011 and has been changed 3 times in the last month as to the opportunity, it is not in fact a set date. It is merely the opportunity to launch with a window of time, this is a restriction not of the project, but of matter with acceptable launch window that will occur whether or not it is in fact ready to launch. They have the opportunity being vastly different from 'we will launch', because if the other issues which previously delayed it for more then 6 months continue the next launch opportunity could be in late July. It is best not to confuse the matters of 'launch window opportunities' with 'launching'. The 'postponed indefinitely' surmises that best and until it happens I think it shouldn't be included. Now kindly refrain from reinserting copyright violations and trying to flag me with vandalism. I operate under WP:BOLD and you should operate under WP:AGF before you reinsert copy and pasted material (which is also false) BACK into the article. Keep the rocket one, but it is obvious that the dates are not any guarantee at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

AWB at New England Revolution

Hey Chris! I just wanted to let you know that I undid your edits to the Revs page. It seems your AWB had mistaken "new jersey" as a typo; however the page was talking about the team signing "a new jersey sponsor". Some of your other TypoFixes have shown up on my Watchlist, and they've been all good, keep that up. Just a "heads up" concerning that particular page. Cheers! Achowat (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The Souvlaki article

Hi. Thanks for taking the time to contribute to the Souvlaki article. I have a question about your edit, though. You changed "merida" to "mérida". Here's my misgiving about it. Unless I'm wrong, the change you made leads someone to put the accent on the "e", whereas the accent is on the "i" (and the "i" in "merida" is pronounced as in "kit" (I'm Greek and live in Greece, therefore I should know a thing or two). At any rate, please share your thoughts so that we can further improve the article. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

William Umpleby Kirk AfC

Thank you for your prompt review. Having reviewed it quickly and rejected it I would say you had a responsibility to re-review promptly - you didn't. I'm sure you won't agree. The original three citations established notoriety and verifiable facts. Ap-ro-pos the third reference, which supported the claim that a collection existed and where, your use of the word "even" is revealing of an attitudinal bias. I have no wish to be hurtful to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksoncowes (talk • contribs) 18:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not reviewing it right away, I did not realize you had worked on it again, AfC articles do no immediately flag for me when work has been done on them. This article is AMAZING now, I approved it and you have really done quite well. My previous comment was about the unreliable source, however you have done far more then required by sourcing actual articles and Christie's auctions. Not sure what the other reviewer denied it for, this is just wonderful, I have really high standards and you've more then surpassed them. It was excellent work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have just read your two entries. What can I say? How can I be anything but aware of, and appreciative of your kind efforts to smooth my ruffled feathers. I don't expect anyony to believe that the only thing ruffling my feathers is that the point I made has either been missed of ignored. If it has been missed (and I believe you saw what I was getting at) then I needed to make it again more clearly. I have just set them out a little more fully in my reply to Ladyetc. If she can't see it I must take responsibility for my lack of ability to get it across to her. I can cope with that. If she does get it and thinks it is wrong she should, surely, show that she understands it and show why it is wrong. Or she can just say "no, no, no", as she has said thus far. Your kind intentions are appreciated. Please don't think me rude or spiky when I say that your explanations are unnecessary. I, hopefully not arrogantly, believe that I have raised a profound problem the resolution of which will benefit Wikipedia. It clearly exists or an experienced administrator would have seen a ready solution. I have no ruffled feathers, but I will have none left if they continue to be smoothed; I'll be bald. If Ladyetc can address my points jolly good. If not the world won't end. Jacksoncowes (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Arguments on Wikipedia are something I am quite familiar with. I've gotten attacked before and it will happen again, if I have done anything to help the situation that is more then enough. I have a back log of 200,000 articles to sort through. Yet your article is pretty high on my concern list. Forgive the self-snobbery, but I work in undesirable portions of Wikipedia because they are neither glorious or critical, but I've made edits to more then 10,000 various articles in the past week and I've made 4 mistakes. I balance a ton of work on my head with my limited time, but I've spent a good amount of it trying to resolute disputes between editors. Wikipedia is so vast and large that every editor kind find their niche field. Chances are that unless you specifically ask me something I might not see you again unless a backlog draws me towards you. Its how it happened at AfC actually. The larger and more insurmountable the task the more I am drawn to it, and I my focus can be spread thin as a result. Its funny, but I even while I am still new to Wikipedia, I want it to grow into its ideals and that means helping make sense of its current mess. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Heads up

Just be careful with spelling changes like this one, please. "Manoeuvre" and its variants (like manoeuvrability in the linked example) are the correct British/Australian English spelling for the American English "maneuver". -- saberwyn 06:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually even for British spelling the original one was incorrect. It would be 'manoeuvrability' rather then 'manoeuverability'? Yes, the American version is maneuverability, but wouldn't the lack of the 'e' also be present as per the MacMillan Dictionary? [4] Either way. 'manoeuverability → maneuverability' this is inconsistent with MacMillan. Strange how it did not default to the UK version, but either way the previous incarnation seems wrong in several dictionaries. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

A lot of articles use the 'VERA' incorrectly. I am bringing this up at the typo section. Different dictionaries (UK) say the 'VERA' part is wrong as does the Wikipedia list. Its not so much a false positive as changing a misspelled UK variant to the US variant. Needs a new definition to distinguish it is all, so we can keep the correct UK spelling. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

In my haste, I had not noticed that the article previously used "vera" instead of the correct "vra". Attempts to improve the auto-edit-magic tools to prevent ENGVAR-type errors is always appreciated. -- saberwyn 14:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope we can fix it to default to the UK spelling for future edits. If you search for the incorrect 'VERA' you'll notice a bunch of them exist. Don't worry about before, I'm actually happy someone gives me feedback on the matter, I hate typos and now this one will be 'auto-magically' fixed in the future. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Need your opinion on this

[I assume you're well aware of WP:TPYES and WP:NPA.]
Now, what do you think of the following line,

"If he really is an old hand (esp of a different nature), the way he has played his Brendon account is indefensible. He's consciously intended to screw with consensus by playing a naive ass. All that repetitive bluster combined with faux-offendedness just wastes people time, demoralises people, and generally puts people off the subject."
— User:Matt Lewis

— Should I just tolerate this silently? You told me to refrain from commenting. I took your advice but why are they still on an abject mudslinging spree against me? Is there nobody who thinks this is getting really too much? What did I do to continue to be slandered like this? Their language is opprobrious. Continuous bad-faith assumptions as well as discouraging and libelous statements based on those assumptions don't help a newcomer too much. I am generally a polite person (at least I try to be) and expect the same from others. Man this is wrong.  Brendon ishere 11:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

If this is continuing go to dispute resolution and argue it there, I thought this was over with already. Sometimes the best thing you can do is avoid it, but if you cannot reasonably avoid it, then go bring it to the board. This is beyond anything I can do, WQA cannot resolve such issues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

"I thought this was over with already." — Yeah, tell me about it.

"This is beyond anything I can do" — No, please don't get me wrong. You've already done so much for me. I cannot thank you enough for even that much. And I certainly cannot ask for more. Trust me, I will not. Just tell me what can I do to "bring it to the board" and I'll handle it from there (not saying that I will bring it to the board. This is just a precautionary step).  Brendon ishere 01:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:DR has a list of options or you can try WP:RFCC. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Heads up

Per this edit at Thousand Island dressing well-known is acceptable usage as an adjectival form. Jokestress (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually that is incorrect. 'Well-known' precedes a noun which it describes. 'Well known' is used for anything that contains 'by, as, etc.'. So the correction was no mistake. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Seamus AfD

On the Seamus deletion page, you state, "If for some reason this has a long-standing stigma (for several months and post election season) then maybe it would deserve its own article" I believe that the Seamus (dog) article meets the standard that you cite. This is not a new issue. This story has been in the news since 2007. The issue has been heavily covered by most major US newspapers, and many foreign papers (e.g., Irish Times, Guardian, Globe and Mail). Based on a recent Public Policy Polling survey, about two-thirds of Americans consider the 1983 road trip to be inhumane, two super PACs were formed just around this issue, and mainstream animal protection groups (e.g, ASPCA) have been critical of the Seamus incident Only time will tell how serious of a stigma the issue will become, but I do think that the article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and the article is very well-referenced. 01:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed it the matter to reflect it should not have its own article, not even if it maintains its coverage as it is solely a political image matter. Its not like he is going to be investigated for it, so it should only have a note on his page, not its own article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Careful with AWB

I mostly undid this edit. Review the AWB changes carefully, please. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Didn't give me the difference to properly show otherwise due to the tables on my end. There was no flags to denote it was fine, the context wasn't clear in AWB. Sorry. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Not all of them were actually wrong, didn't manually revert them all the false positives. Some where changed others were not. Made tag for the false positives which cannot be changed. I see you fixed the ones that really were supposed to be capitalized. And I fixed 'welsh' for the future so it won't trigger. Article should be fine for future passes by AWB users now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Computer code

I undid your date (Unix) diff 489664772. The capitalisation of sunday would need a better reason than “typo” and using an em dash in a command is wrong. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 09:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC).

I thought I already undid that one... I noticed it and stopped it, not sure how it got through. Even refreshed page to say the edit wasn't made. Must have had the high lag or delayed. Thanks for the heads up. Still seem to make an error one out of 2000 edits, not counting all the skips, false positives and others. It's really like 1/4000, but still... thanks for catching it. Different problem every time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Zanzibar women's national football team

Thanks for the review of Zanzibar women's national football team. I will try to deal with feedback in the next day or so. --LauraHale (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I've taken a peek at 5 other ones as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph is from three different sources and the mention these all as regional problems. It only appears on the new articles where there is little history of the game being played there. Pages making these claims should be findable on Google Books as the pages are cited. I just thought them useful as they provide historical explanations as to why the country is not developed when compared to other places. The information there isn't in the European or Caribbean or Asian articles because not relevant there. --LauraHale (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I have this tendency to stick everything and the kitchen sink in and work on the same article set at once. Hence, source re-use on all relevant pages when building new. I nominated the article set I did because I thought there was enough sourcing to make them notable, but not enough that trying to shove in everything and the kitchen sink wouldn't be that problematic. Hence, I've skipped nominating Zambia women's national football team, nor Andorra women's national football team or Anguilla women's national football team. Anyway, I think I did a restructure on the article to address some of the organisation problems that when I read them went OH WOW. YES. ERK. and some of the essay like language. (Normally not a problem as my writing tends to be staccato.) If they just lack information and can't be GA level, I'll understand a fail as not ready in the end. I had some hesitancy with them but thought they should have a chance... just was about 60/40 on them passing. :/ (Unlike the water polo players, where I was pretty confident.) --LauraHale (talk) 06:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If we could do one at a time? I've got an opportunity to do some things regarding women's basketball in Australia and a dissertation to work on... so yeah. One at a time would be good or some patience. :) But I'd love to get more African women's articles up to GA because I think it is an important topic and a good way to address the gender gap in my own special way. :) --LauraHale (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Very well, I'll work on my own projects for now or other GAs... I wonder if that is a high backlog... Seems high. Right? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I promised to review Goalkeeper (water polo) for GA and some of the backlog is of my creation as I think 15 of those articles are mine on sports. There is a mess with schools on GA adding GAs making the backlog worse. But sports is yeah. Not certain. I think there is an X-Files person with 30 open nominations. If there is one the women's soccer ones, I'm okay with doing it but if you reviewed all at once, it might be a bit overwhelming. :) --LauraHale (talk) 04:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

40k AutoED

[]How did this remove 40k? Seems to have done wel but i cant see what was cut?(Lihaas (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)).

I didn't remove any content, it was extra spacing and white space. White space doesn't usually equate to that, but in this case it did and was worth fixing up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Seamus AfD spat

Hi Chris. I want to express my sincere appreciation for your comments at the WQA thread I initiated over comments made by another editor in the Seamus (dog) AfD. I didn't say so earlier because I was confused about your role there. I somehow had the impression that you were involved in the thing regarding the other AfD for the Gemini video game. But that was incorrect, yes? Your participation was that of an uninvolved commenter? It doesn't matter one way or the other, really, since your contributions to the discussion were wholly beneficial and productive; I suppose I was just curious. Either way, thank you very much; I'm grateful for your assistance. Most cordially,  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Strangely I hit upon the Seamus matter through a different path through a post on Avanu's page. The last community rfc to which Brandon replied, I made my post before the matter came to WQA, but I had no involvement prior to that with Screebo or Brandon111. Even still, I have a habit of reading the matter and bypassing the other comments to make my own post in support or opposition without reading the others. I didn't even know Screebo posted to that same AfD until I just checked it. Honestly, I didn't know Screebo prior to this WQA, just a coincidence. Either way, I don't particularly do an exhaustive search on their contributions or postings when the gist of the problem is so apparent. I'm no admin and don't have to worry about taking action, I just try to be neutral and helpful. Glad you noticed it. I didn't know you posted to the Seamus AFD either... we've probably crossed paths before, but I can't be bothered to check through thousands of pages for it. Don't mind the Wiki-gnome, I need to notified for almost everything since I am so scattered here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh you are talking to Avanu now on your page? That Seamus thing is getting lots of attention I see, I'm staying out of it... already had to self-strike part of my comment because of the post above. I thought the wiki was... bigger. I know Avanu from the Trayvon Martin page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Seamus AfD was where Screebo and I had our initial run in; I should have clearly marked the two AfD excerpts as to their respective origins from the outset rather than just providing links, and have done so, now. The thing on my talk with Avanu was that he'd posted a <big> alt. colour comment at the top of the whole AfD, after it had been running for quite some time already, to express his concern that people were saying "it passes GNG", which he considered a distraction, in view of his opinion that it's an attack, advocacy, and gossip piece.

I moved his top-post down to the the then-current end-of-thread, in part because people were beginning to respond to his top-post in place. That's been my only interaction with him AFAIK; I was likewise unacquainted with everyone who joined the WQA thread. But thanks again for your helpful comments at WQA, very much. Think about standing for admin status at some point, if you have any interest. I suspect you'd be a good 'un. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I might be ready for that one day! I'm a bit too new still, but in a few months... who knows? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'd say "Ping me when you're ready, and I'll nominate you", but you wouldn't want me to. I've edited off and on in one of the most contested topic areas on Wikipedia, and my friends who have a different view of that topic area than I tend toward would probably mug you, just as a reflex response to seeing my user name as nominator. But ping me anyway, if you do stand; I'd be pleased to !vote for you, at least.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It will probably be at least 3-4 months from now before I even consider it, this is my second month here. Those said people will probably count it as canvassing if I did so, but I doubt that by the point I do put in for such a thing that it will be largely noticeable by itself. I intend to wipe out a few backlogs first and take care of a few other things... I have no use for admin tools for the foreseeable future. When I do... I have a feeling it will be for the page tools rather then vandalism, deletes and enforcement. Backlogs are my focus and administrative backlogs would be the main target, but I got plenty of regular non-admin backlogs to play with first. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

No, no problem with any accusation of canvassing: Since I've asked you to let me know; it would be seen as perfectly legitimate. Alternatively, I can just watchlist the redlink for Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ChrisGualtieri, and have in fact done so; it'll show up on my watchlist if it ever gets created. But ping me anyway; I don't always keep up with my watchlist to the extent I'd like. If you do decide to stand, I'd just advise you to do the following, first:

1. Create at least a half-dozen articles that have some substantial content, if you haven't already;
2. Ask for an editor review, and do all you can to advertise it;
3. Make sure you have at least three to five thousand non-automated edits;
4. Find an admin you respect for some pre-RfA mentoring and guidance;
5. Get a well-respected, active admin to nominate you, if possible;
6. Peruse the WP:new admin school pages even before you stand;
7. Review failed and passed RfA !voting, to see what kinds of questions you're likely to be asked, and what kinds of things have sunk the failed ones.

I've never done it, and never will, but I know it's disheartening to start an RfA and get turned down; best to be very well prepared, so that doesn't happen. In the mean time, I think you're doing a great job with dispute resolution, and I hope you'll keep that up. Btw, you've inspired me: I saw your user page with its mention of STiki, just now. I downloaded it, and am running it at present; first time I've ever used an automated tool, other than Twinkle. Works great on Linux, too, as one would expect of a Java app.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again! I've been watching the RFAs, but its weird... how can anyone see my contributions when I have over 45,000 edits? I'm slated to hit that this month... I'll lose track of my own edits because the edit counter won't reveal the edited page counts in that format when you hit 45,000. Though my regular to non-automated are going to be a nightmare question because I am a strong advocate of efficency and maximizing my potential, even my AfC uses tools and I'm dominated by my AWB and soon Persondata-o-matic when Wikipedia speeds back up. I run up to 5x AWB at the same time to prevent then 20-30 second lag between page loading from boring me. It will no doubt probably be the worst criticism I have to face... its kind of why I dread going to RFA in general... they will see that I'm such a prolific user of the tools in a non-adminy way and I've made 4 typo false positives out of 11,000+ fixes. I'm a bit of a perfectionist obviously, but I also want to be the first person to state at an RFA 'One of my goals is the elimination of all backlogs, including administrative ones.' It seems to be a sticking point in one of the essays I read, most admins seem to want to exert power over vandals, page deletions and disputes, but no admin ever says that they want to clear backlogs. Guess its because the backlogs are so boring, but I smile every time I correct typos in Good Articles or Featured Articles because a single typo can break the credibility of Wikipedia and disturb the reader, I always pause and go 'Really... they spelled this wrong?'.

How's STiki? I like the new 'good faith revert' and use it quite often. I've handed down quite a few warnings for people with malicious intent, the best being 'It's vandalism time' as the edit summary. The people using Huggle must hate me when I AWB simply because 1/30 edits are mine... or 1/20. I rarely get to the vandalism because other people catch it and Huggle moves so fast. STiki is great at getting at the vandalism quickly. I applied for rollbacker after using it, but it has a built in function that I am still careful of. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone will probably perform an SQL query of the database to get an accurate look; just a guess. I really appreciate your negligible false positives percentage; very nice. Maybe they'll have to add a few bytes to the (width of the) database column that stores edit count, if there is one, to accommodate yours.

I know what you mean, re spelling: It's soooo easy to check; in firefox, for example, you can set up a dictionary so it's just a simple right-click, as you probably know. You'll do fine at RfA if you do some substantial content work first; otherwise I'm afraid you're probably right that you'll meet with some pretty sharp criticism.

STiki is great; I'm going at it very slowly, at first; I'll no doubt find it has lots of helpful features as I use it more, and explore its capabilities. I always perform rollbacks manually, i.e. by going into article history, editing a previous version, and saving it. Cumbersome, I know, but I've seen too many users ( and admins, too ) get their fingers scorched at AN/I over inappropriate use. It's just too easy to trip up with it, imo. But back to work for me, now, I think. Feel free to respond, of course; it'll probably just be several hours before I reply. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

An explanation is due. For false positives I've passed more then 4000 false positives by hand, so less then 4/15000 articles I've made a trivial typo change on. An incorrect British spelling switched to an American spelling (Problem fixed in Regex), a false hit on capitalization in an article. For example: welsh to Welsh. The problem was fixed and tagged with invisi-text notice for the future. You see a lot of strange wordings, spellings and the sort. I keep getting this wrestler once named 'Fourtune' but he switched it to 'Fortune', but every case of 'Fourtune' flags the error. I've had more then 4000 such cases where I did not change it. The fact I act to prevent future mistakes is probably the better thing, as I am not infallible and invisible text tags for very odd spellings (not [SIC] either) are usually flagged because other editors or readers suspect the error and try to correct it.

As for rollback, I always check the article history, sometimes a vandal is not a vandal and just messed up the following edit with a mistake so I always take care. The new notice about being more then 1 change is very helpful, it wasn't present in the last version. Same with the good-faith when I just want to remove it and not warn the editor; saves me the task of manually loading the page, editing it out and saving it. I've done this for those PBUH per WP:PBUH in some articles or when an editor makes an error that is trying to be helpful. Even minor vandalism with random 'italic text' or 'bold text' gets a good faith revert versus malicious section blanking, inserting gibberish or the infamous 'Wikpida r dum'. One funny one was The Fallibroome Academy where I removed some and noticed how ingrained it was before roll-backing a month and removed only vandalism which other STiki users had not gotten. I knew something was up when I read 'The Lusty Argonian Maid' in the window. The 'Joseph Kony and his Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat was also interesting'. Persistent too... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, good on you, Chris. I do appreciate your exactitude, it does you credit. I just had a fun one, too, although a good-faith mistake. A new editor for whom English is clearly a second language just created an article about a "Saint Jerome" namesake school in his home country. He repeatedly wrote about some part of the school's mission statement as the "Saint Jerome Thrust", even entitling a section heading with that. He meant "Trust", of course. In my edit summary to correct the spelling, I observed that the blessed Saint wasn't really a big fan of thrusting, as I understood from mediaeval studies courses in college, at least. Good fun.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It happens and that is why I do not want to tag those with vandalism or anything, I do not know the situation in which they are editing from, such as grammar or spelling proficiencies. Some will edit without making an account just to add something without putting in the source. Wikipedia has many rules and policies to follow, its best not to scare new editors away. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Ed, Edd n Eddy/GA2

Hello, ChrisGualtieri. You have new messages at Talk:Ed, Edd n Eddy/GA2.
Message added 15:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Khanassassin ☪ 15:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, ChrisGualtieri. You have new messages at Talk:Ed, Edd n Eddy/GA2.
Message added 15:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Khanassassin ☪ 15:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, You stated that the article is officialy recognized, but still a fansite, and that it should be used as less as possible. Well, we're using to cite only two sentences, so I guess this is the solution. So, yes I agree. Best, --Khanassassin ☪ 16:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I had a feeling this would be an easy touch up, I'll finish it up by the end of today. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! :) --Khanassassin ☪ 19:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the Pass, Chris! I'm working on the List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes, and well: LOOK. You can vote Support/Oposse, please do, since its moving very slowly. All the Best, --Khanassassin ☪ 19:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Just give me some time since I won't be on for the rest of today. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Hollywood Zap! Party Wagon Journal of Persianate Studies Baltasar Anduaga y Espinosa Fat Dog Mendoza Harvey Birdman: Attorney at Law (video game) William Gaminara Cartoon Network: Block Party Fawaz al-Nashimi High Noon Toons Samurai Jack: The Shadow of Aku DR Congo women's national football team Level Up (film) Perfect attendance award Carmelo K. Anthony Basketball Center Cartoon Network Speedway Spaced Out Leftover Soup Lorenzo Gignous

Cleanup Edenburn The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack Abdulaziz al-Omari Merge Level Up (TV series) Economy of Trinidad and Tobago Drilling capacity Add Sources Whatever Happened to... Robot Jones? TumbleDeck Ben 10: Secret of the Omnitrix Wikify Coates (shaving) Tsingtaohair Cartoon Network: Punch Time Explosion Expand MusclePharm J.H. Ambani Saraswati Vidyamandir I Am Weasel

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Athari

Hi, saw you've been editing the page for Athari, I wonder if you could look at the talk page on whether it should be deleted. --Ddragovic (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Nothing immediately jumps to mind, but a few notes seem to suggest the proper word is 'Athaari', but it might be a cult of Islam or something very small, simply because it is not in English doesn't mean it doesn't exist. While it would probably go up for deletion, asking an Islamic scholar or someone who can search for it in Arabic would be the best. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Self-note on Persondata/Typo Fixes from 16:56 - 17:17 on May 5th

Was using AWB with the edit summary of 'Persondata' under the summary and doing both typo-scan project checks with marked Typo changes. During this time, no changes to Persondata were made, only typos. Given that, I've switched back to Typo Scan Project/ General Fixes, for the remainder of the run which is recursive and not limited to Biographies. Apologizes for the confusion, the typos are still marked appropriately. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:United States constitutional criminal procedure/GA2

I responded, and I am watching the page. Savidan 18:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Passed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Cheers

	The White Whale Award
	For your relentless pursuit of WPUS assessments Maile66 (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

YAY! Thank you for noticing this little Wiki-gnome. I've been trying to fix them after I noticed Sitting Bull and many others were in the ??? pile. Even the list of the US states was in the ??? pile, I mean seriously. The 50 states are of top importance to the project! 13,000 down. 60,000 left to go. As a 1.0 editor the USA assessments are key to including proper articles. Same applied to Jessie James and Wyatt Earp. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Keystone Marker, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Bad bounce with the review template. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Related importance NRHP

I see in this edit to Talk:Belmont County Courthouse you removed the importance rating of the article under WP:NRHP. I was wondering if there was any reason for doing so. |importance=related is a perfectly good assessment, which you can see on WP:NRHP's importance scale. It is reserved for places that are not individually listed on the NRHP but are contributing properties to districts which are listed, as well as several other categories detailed at the link I provided. If this was just a mistake or misunderstanding, that is fine... I just wanted to make sure. Thanks for your contributions!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought I had put it for low, but as it is a contributing property it probably should be related I guess. I'm not too familiar with that project rating scale, but I thought it deserved a low rating simply because its not directly related, but is a courthouse itself. I just checked through my contributions on that day, it was the only one I wiped out 'related' on. Typically I leave them alone. Since I have your attention can you take a look at Boston Center for the Arts? When I was going through with my assessments for WP:USA I noticed this one has the 'related' tag, but I believe it should actually be 'Low' on your own projects assessment as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I actually removed BCA from the project all together. The reason someone had assessed it as related was that BCA itself is not listed on the NRHP, but the main building, the Cyclorama Building, is. This is good practice in certain occasions, but it is generally frowned upon if there is an article directly about the building on the NRHP. Basically, since the BCA article is about the organization itself and not about the historic building, it should only be under WP:NRHP's scope if no article exists covering the building. Since there is an article about the building, the building article should under our scope (marked low importance) and the organization article shouldn't be included at all.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Glad you are around to answer questions like that! I will mark certain ones for later then. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

water polo reviews

Hey, just checking to see how those are coming. You tagged all those rticles for review a couple weeks back yet none have been started yet. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I spoke with the submitter, but yeah, I'll post up the reviews right away. I've made comments on the talk page, but it seems they won't auto-fail if a week passes. So I'll just post em up. I did them like two weeks ago. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

PUNTACANA_Foundation:_Social_Projects

Hi ChrisGualtieri, just wanted to give a quick note- you did the second review on my page PUNTACANA_Foundation:_Social_Projects, rejecting it due to your opinion that it should be combined with the existing PUNTACANA Resort and Club page. This advice was given to me by the previous reviewer and I have decided to take it, and begin working on the page already in existence. Thanks for your comments, but one quick thing- I did blank the entire submission because I was trying to get rid of it entirely (since I am abandoning the effort and taking a different route- combining it with the page already in existence). How can I completely get rid of it? Or did I do the right thing? I couldn't find instructions for this, though maybe I am missing something simple. Luculence (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It will be removed later automatically. By declining it will go to the pile for deletion in a weeks time, if it wasn't declined then it stays on the AFC list for review. Basically, declining is the simplest option to have it deleted later. There is no need for a 'quick delete', because it is not an attack page or something requiring an admins immediate attention. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I see, very nice and easy then. Thanks! Luculence (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to go ahead and delete the auto-tag notices on your talk page. I didn't uncheck the notify author so the flag popped up on your talk when I declined it again. Those notices are usually for articles who are not already in the process of being merged by the creators. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Rating

Would you please help me to understand this "importance" rating and how it is evaluated? Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

For the WP:USA? Its to properly categorize it on a scale of importance. In a simple terms its used for finding out which articles should be the subject of focus and attention. I think of it as a textbook, with TOP being key info, High being important, mid being related, but important and low as anything else. Some other projects have different levels like 'Related' importance. I believe that having all the ??? sorted out will help with making the WP 1.0 project get closer to completion. We had all the 'territory' articles as ??? when they should be mid. Same with Sitting Bull, Wyatt Earp and others. These are fairly important for textbooks, and they were not sorted. So I sort them out. Its largely a catagorizational measure rather then content selection. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I am so dumb that I split my question up into a separate section. Sorry. Also, I did not understand your answer. I am going to ask this way: I noticed that you rated James Chilton and other Mayflower articles as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. I have never understood the rating system and perhaps I am misunderstanding this but I must ask, Why is an article on a Mayflower passenger rated low in importance? Certainly, it is very important to Americans to know something about them and there was not that many of them. Mugginsx (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The Mayflower II was a replica of the ship, not the actual ship itself. See the article at Mayflower II, "The Mayflower II is a replica of the 17th century ship Mayflower, celebrated for transporting the Pilgrims to the New World. [1] The replica was built in Devon, England, during 1955–1956, in a collaboration between Englishman Warwick Charlton and Plimoth Plantation, an American museum." If it was the actual Mayflower it would be High to Top importance. This is just a replica. I did this with the Wright Flyer III which was not the one for first flight. Replicas and offshoots are not as important as the actual historically significant version. As for James Chilton, "James Chilton (before 1556 - 1620) was a passenger aboard the Mayflower on its 1620 voyage that carried the Pilgrims when they established the Plymouth Colony on the shores of Massachusetts Bay. He died not long after arrival in the New World." Being a passenger with no other notability is low importance on the WP:USA project because he played no role in the formation of the government, no high-level importance and America was not even formed yet. If you want move it to 'Mid', but all the other passengers would probably have to follow suit then. Just in terms of importance, James Chilton doesn't seem to be way up there. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think I understand though I will say that, since there are no reproductions of the actual Mayflower I, I thought this might be the closest I could come to capture the imagination of readers who may not be familiar what the Mayflower may have looked like. I can change the heading to state this is an artist's interpretation of the Mayflower or something to that affect. It you think that will help I will gladly change that in all Mayflower articles I have created. As to Chilton not accomplishing anything, I was taught that bravely making the perilous trip that was the early part of the early colonial experience would make him significant in and of itself. I would rather change your mind than change the rating myself. It would not mean as much to me. I am willing to work for a better rating if you feel that it is possible. Mugginsx (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I will think about what you said and make some changes. Perhaps it will only come up a notch but that is better than low. When I am finished I will ask you to please reevaluate. Thank you for the information. Mugginsx (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the caption of the painting of the Mayflower to read that there are no actual photographs of the Mayflower this is a painting by ......... to the following articles, most of which I created:

Isaac Allerton (Mayflower Pilgrim) John Billingham William Brewster (Mayflower Pilgrim) John Carver (Mayflower Pilgrim) John Crackstone James Chilton Francis Cooke Francis Eaton Edward Fuller Moses Fletcher Stephen Hopkins Christopher Martin Richard More (Mayflower Passenger) The More children and the Mayflower William Mullins Degory Priest Thomas Rogers George Soule John Tilley Edward Tilley Thomas Tinker John Turner William Vassall Edward Winslow (Mayflower Pilgrim) William White (Mayflower Pilgrim) Peregrine White (Mayflower Passenger) Resolved White (Mayflower Passenger) Please evaluate this change and if unacceptable I will change to whatever you suggest. Am willing to work hard to improve the rating, if possible. Thanks, Mugginsx (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Uh, couple of things. First of all, importance is not how good the article is. That is class, and secondly, many of these are no longer 'Start' class, but well on their way to Good Article status. WP:WIAGA would be the place for checking that. Now. As for importance its how important it is to the subject. The subject in this case is the United States. The FCC is 'Mid importance' if you were to discuss the USA. Same for the Fatman bomb. [5] Basically, importance shouldn't change, its based on the subject's relative importance to the topic. If I were to discuss the United States, what would be important in order? The Plymouth Colony is Top importance. The pilgrims (themselves) are High Importance, Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony). The Mayflower (original) is Top importance, but I think it should be High as USA History has it marked. From there we go into the 'not so important', Mayflower replica. Its Low importance to me because it is a replica. Individual passengers on the Mayflower (the otherwise non-notable ones) are also in the low importance. To bring major event to major event, think 911 in terms of WP:USA. The event is Top, the major people involved are High, the individuals killed would be 'Low'. Its not a matter of discussing an articles value to Wikipedia, but simply how important (to a research topic) that article will be. Even if the focus were to be 'The Pilgrims' then the individual passengers might be 'Mid' importance or higher depending on the focus. I go by a 'hop count' in which a simple question is asked: What's more important then it? If you go 3 steps or more to a top-level, then you get low importance. For Chilton it would be.

• Chilton (???) -> Mayflower passengers (probably a mid or low) -> Mayflower (High on USA History) -> Pilgrims (Top) -> Plymouth Colony (Top).

• Mayflower (replica) (Low) -> No intermediate -> Original Mayflower (High/Top)

The replica one is tricky because it is a replica, and is not he original. Its like having a copy of 'Mona Lisa', the copy is 'Low importance' because it is not the original and someone interested in the 'Mona Lisa' would want to study the original, not a replica (or Fake). The Mayflower II is just that, a replica whose importance is limited because it was a recreation to serve as a educational tool and not the original itself. Civil war reenactments would be low importance compared to the actual civil war battles, right? Scholars would like to study the original battles rather then some reenactment. The matter of 'importance' is subjective, and frankly even historic WWII squadrons like the 509th Tactical Fighter Squadron is low importance. Its not a matter of content or of writing, its the subjects relative importance to the topic. John Chilton is of low importance if one was to research the United States. George Washington would be of Top Importance, Bill Clinton would be of High Importance, Dick Cheney is low importance. And quite simply, past VPs of the USA are 'low importance', and Biden is only 'Mid' importance. The importance scale is often merciless, but rooted in reason. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking so much time to explain this to me. I understand about the ship.

Most of these articles are, indeed, about Pilgrims but there seemed to be a problem when I started entitling them Pilgrims or Passengers. The meaning of the word Pilgrim has changed thru the years in America and now incorporates Pilgrims to mean ALL of the passengers and early colonists. Europeans and American Scholars understand it in the meaning in which it was used at the time - i.e., persons making a "religious pilgrimage" to the "New World" to flee religious persecution under James VI and I. Consequently, administrators OrangeMike and RonHaworth have changed the titles I originally had to either say (the name of the person only) or (name of the person and (Mayflower passenger) after it.

Ron made a beautiful template which is on the bottom of the articles which differentiates the two and that is very helpful but the titles themselves still leave it confusing (in my mind at least) and I am wondering how that affects the ratings in general.

Also: Finally, ALL of these articles are about men and women who first landed, created and settled in Plymouth Colony. Any comment or suggestions? Mugginsx (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

What's more important, the colony as a whole or the individuals who make up the colony? Ask for a second opinion if you want, I won't contest it, just any textbook you find will have the Pilgrims listed a collective whole, with a few stand outs, the individual members while part of a notable group are not necessarily notable. Just like the US Military is notable, but any single officer may not be, exceptions exist though. I feel this is the same way with the pilgrims. Many are not even tagged with the WP:USA project tag... which means that WP:USA hasn't tagged them as being under its scope, a problem of individual tagging and or bot tagging. There is much work to do if we are missing so many individuals still. The ultimate important lies at the top-level of 'USA as a whole', the Pilgrims are a specific group from a specific time, while historically important, can it be said that the individuals are more important then current Vice Presidents, Senate members, NASA, Government bodies and international missions? Its nothing personal, but if someone is going to study the USA I believe they will stop at the Pilgrims as a whole, and maybe give a mention of notable individuals of the pilgrims, the individuals would never be discussed in detail and thus it is why I put it as low. If they are not going to make it into a textbook on USA history, then I doubt they will make it into a book on USA as a whole. While it is important it is not top-level important. It would be important to any scholar or historian on the Pilgrims though. Its also why state level importance changes against the national level. Someone notable locally may not be known in Wyoming, or important there. The individual pilgrims seem to fall under this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you once again. I think you have answered all of my questions and I appreciate that you took so much time and patience in doing so. I will memorialize your keen answers to understand better all of my articles now and in the future. Mugginsx (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Tons of work is ahead of Wikipedia still, you've shown me that we have so much more to do to categorize the WP:USA files because those are not tagged with the projects coverage or the historical project either. Out of 3.9 million articles, I expected a higher percentage being flagged. Anyways. I want to assist the project as best I can, I may have passed 50,000 edits... but I have the next 150k edits planned out for me already, mostly fixing the backlogs. I'm going to go clear out the AFC backlog now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikikpedia is, I think, lucky to have you. Thanks again. Mugginsx (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, its lucky to have you to. I seem to be only good at fixing problems long since ignored, content generation is lacking on my end. Wish I had the research materials and ability to write good articles... Despite how hard I try I have neither the access nor the skill to make good articles. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that. You just havn't found anything that inspires you. Anyway, everyone has talents which are needed here. I am quite sure that I could not do what you do. Heck, I could hardly understand your first explanation! That's me though, not you! Mugginsx (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been told that before. Only 700 articles at WP:AFC you can help if you are interested. They always need a second set of eyes. Its a lot better then Articles for Deletion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Now you have linked to something I do not feel qualified to do. I will think about it. Thanks Mugginsx (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I've gone searching of materials. While I haven't gotten to the pilgrims, I have found information on the founding, colonization and history of New England. I've begun correcting some of the information and adding details. I've come across a founder of Windsor, Connecticut. I think I have enough info for a new page! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone from Connecticut you want me to research, I got lots of information now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Just got your message. My dog has been sick and haven't worked on Wiki today. This is wonderful news!!!! I told you it was only a matter of time before you found an article you wanted to do! It happens to all of us. Where are the articles you are working on? I will be off and on - taking care of my dog tonight. Hopefully will be back on tomorrow. Happy for you! I see you did some work on Edward Winslow - He is a Mayflower Pilgrim. Good start! Here is a link to the free Connecticut Historical Society newsletter: http://www.chs.org/page.php?id=582 Do not know what is it in yet. Mugginsx (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, an unexpected find for Winslow. It was three paragraphs in the book. This is right before his leadership in '33. Its a gold mine for info and it also has notes to other source. Not my first choice in material, but I can't check out the historical ones. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I signed up for free for the Connecticut Historical Society and there are many sources there. Here is one that I thought you might find interesting. http://cthistoryonline.org/cdm/ Good luck! I am sure you will create a wonderful article. Be sure to use sandbox first! The automated bot will put it up for deletion otherwise within fifteen minutes after you create it. I know! I found out the hard way! Mugginsx (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

There is not auto-deletion bot. If there is that would be terrible, I've made pages on things before, typically it would be users at the New Page Patrol who do such things. If that happens, I'd probably be upset and tell them to not patrol the front as they should not be doing that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was some automated thing. I hadn't finished typing the first paragraph and already they slapped a deletion tag but DGG and some other editor stopped in to help me. Then I had to rushed like the devil to get it to some status where it was more than a stub! Drove myself crazy for a day. After that I used sandbox for at least half the article before I "created" it and didn't have any trouble. Have you started your article yet? Mugginsx (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

More research first, I only have a paragraph right now. I've been hitting up on the unsourced quotes. Fixed a bunch of them, began counting and now I have 17 from last night. Its only got 700 of them. They are also pretty important to quote people properly. I found a fake and negative quote that was attributed for 6 years and was probably an attack. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You are doing fine. Good work! Mugginsx (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

One of the articles I put up for deletion (My only one I think) was completely rewritten and looks really good. I am not a deletionist, but Kaoru Nakamaru was previously in a bad shape with a major inaccuracy being prominent. (Living in the Forbidden City). Though I really wouldn't worry if someone puts something you are working up for deletion, they typically check it thoroughly before deleting, and replying with 'I just created it X minutes ago before it was tagged'. Besides, even if it IS deleted, there is an 'undelete' you could request from an Admin. Wikipedia doesn't seem so carefree, but it is. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for all the work you are doing to evaluate articles. I noticed especially that you evaluated many articles related to Seattle and I appreciate it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Even though most of them are small, I have repaired a great many malformed (double importance sections) related to the Seattle project as it related to WP:USA. Glad someone cares about the work I do! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Cyprus AFC

If you recall, I proposed the editing of an article titled United Republic of Cyprus, which you did not consider ripe enough to enter the WP. Thanks for your reply dated 8 May. If you have a look at the edit fights on the article Cyprus as well as its Talk Page, you will understand better why I proposed that (new) article to be created. On the other hand, a few consoling words from your side on my very tired soul due to these meaningless fights will earn you a good cup of Turkish coffee prepared personally by this scribe. Thank you and all the best... --E4024 (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This AfC? [6] I did not know or even so much as look at your user talk or Cyprus itself before I declined it. I believe it also existed here Annan Plan for Cyprus. I trust the situation is resolved now? I'm really too busy to go sticking my nose into your business, but I'm here if you need help on specific matters. AFC is meant to keep articles from going up to deletion soon after creation. I know its difficult to back away from other editors who make problems, but it really does calm you down and it helps to focus elsewhere. It may be hard, but don't edit topics of great importance to you. It only hurts more when their is heavy pushback. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Tagging

AWB First off, I use WP:AWB for a lot of this tagging. I'm not sure how familiar you are with it, but here are a couple of simple approaches.

1. Generate a list from Category (recursive, user defined level)
2. Choose a small number (two or three)
3. Convert to talk pages
4. More->Prepend {{WikiProject XXX}}
5. Skip: If exists
6. Start

Alternately:

1. Generate a list from Category (recursive)
2. Filter->Removing all pages not containing "X" (i.e. keep all pages with "Vermont" in the title)
3. Convert to talk pages
4. More->Prepend {{WikiProject XXX}}
5. Skip: If exists
6. Start

These methods are neither perfect nor exhaustive, but as you can see, you can get some good work out of it. Let me know if there's more I can do to help you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, it would might be a good think to do after I finish up with my hunt for typos. I keep coming across pages without tags on them and I was wondering how to do it efficiently. I'd like to learn more about how you operate efficiently, such as properly categorizing music works "Coltrane" to a proper section so smoothly. I'm still exploring the full potential of AWB. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ChrisGualtieri. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phase (band).
Message added 06:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikify list

I've fixed it. benzband (talk) 08:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I just redid it, I had an extra [ in the list. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice job on the articles. benzband (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I got more to do though. I have several projects which I work on all at once. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that you added a number of articles to your list where the only thing you did was remove the tag. Can I request that you remove those articles from your list per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikify#Just removing the tag? Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, i have left a reply at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Wikify/Drives/2012/June#Wikified articles with Wikify Tag. benzband (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I checked other users before I did that, and it seemed to be in line with Wilhelmina Will's edits. [7] [8] [9] and so on with numerous other articles. I was under the impression that if we do any work or checking on it that is was okay, I just analyzed the edits of my peers, but if we are gonna nitpick what is valid and what is not. Also that hardly seems to be consensus and I believe we should start a discussion on the matter, since like the example provided for Fascia still required me to research and check the article, apply the appropriate tag and such, even if I do not have major changes it is still a lot better then adding two brackets and calling it done. I don't care about any prize or this or that, clearing out the backlog in any way is the only main thing I care about, while I may not be perfect at Wikifying yet, I do appreciate the additional comments. I am still new to Wikifying and have been adding infoboxes and persondata as needed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

You have a barnstar!

	The check's in the mail
	Building an encyclopedia isn't always an easy task, especially since you get nothing for it. But it's in on it's way, i swear… :-) benzband (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Benzband's talk page.

↑ more. benzband (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Compound adjective/typo?

Hi, regarding this edit can you please point me at the discussion where it was decided that "well-known" is a typo for "well known". This appears prima facie to be in contradiction to MOS:HYPHEN. Please reply here. Thanks. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:HYPHEN states the exact reason. 'Well-known' modifies, 'well known' does not. It is the key difference between 'A well-known actress.' and 'She is well known for...' This has come up several times elsewhere, but here is an old archive of a discussion. [10] Clearly, the edit I made was in accordance with the manual of style. Now that I look at MOS:Hyphen we also seem to be missing a few "not"s as well. Funny. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, CG. Your clarification is much appreciated. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I'll gladly answer any questions that come up. WP:AWB/T is not perfect, but I try to do my best in keeping false positives and other things off it. Like Buddah/Buddha. One is a defunct record label with the 'typo' the other is well... the Buddha. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Jean de Venette

I really like your addition to Jean de Venette. I looked and looked and could not find anything else on him.

As an aside, if you think the plaque picture is too ugly, I don't mind if you take it out if you agree, especially since the nice map is now in the article. I wish there was a nice plaque pic but could not find one.

Anyway, great work.!! Mugginsx (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The page looks good, I was just doing a bit of clean up, specifically errors with links and typos. Its far better then anything in other encyclopedias. I really didn't do much! Seriously. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked in Error

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what did I do? I have no warnings or anything. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

No reason, no warning, no diff, no prior contact. I have absolutely no idea what this is even about. If I did something wrong, please inform me. I only improve Wikipedia, I do not vandalize it.

Accept reason:

Pro forma accept, block already lifted. --jpgordon^{::==( o )}

He may have wanted to block Bumbo1234 (talk · contribs), who vandalized an articel that you reverted. I'll try and get his attention. ☮Soap☮ 00:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Block lifted by Geni ☮Soap☮ 00:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but could I please have some follow up on what happened? I am at a complete loss, and now I have a block on my record and I do not know how that will impact if I one day apply for RFA or something. This whole 'episode' seems really strange. I do not see how my actions were related to 'Bumbo1234' either. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I aimed at Bumbo1234 and misclicked. My deepest sincerest apologies (I have been blocked myself twice for similar reason, thus such a block log is only shame on me, not you). Materialscientist (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No worries! You do good work, I hold nothing against you and I am glad that you work hard to fight vandals that I do not even see. I was fixing Typos and went for some coffee after writing a lengthy post at AFD to see the block. Thank you for explaining it, and don't take it hard. These things happen. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It won't have a negative impact as the unblock statement makes in clear it was accidential. Nobody Ent 02:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, again was just trying to make sure of that. Was just unusual, never had it happen before. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	for admirable patience in the face of (unintentional) utter chaos --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Aw thanks! Its glad to know people care about little ole me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hongkong Bank

Hi ChrisGualtieri, Please stop changing "Hongkong" in the names of Hongkong and Shanghai Bank and its subsidiaries to "Hong Kong". They have the right to spell their name any way they chose to. It is their name and they have been using that style since they were founded in 1865, about 20 years after Hong Kong was settled. Acad Ronin (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hate to ask this, but could you grab a diff for me? I have not edited The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation nor HSBC. I do realize I have changed Hongkong to Hong Kong before, but it was not on these articles. If its an error then I would like to see on which page it was because while I am not infallible nor perfect, the articles above are the ones which immediately come to mind and I did not make any edits to those. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this the only one? HSBC Bank Egypt I see I've changed it twice and I did not read your previous change before. I'm going to take this to AWB/T, I've added an invisible text tag to prevent other cases of this. Strange how it showed up twice in the typo lists. Anyways I'm making sure this mistake won't happen again! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. I think I saw a change a few days ago, on Hongkong Bank Chile, IIRC, that I reverted. Unfortunately, only some HSBC-related articles are on my watchlist so I won't necessarily more than a couple. Regards,Acad Ronin (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

On second look I was correct it seems. The correct term is 'Hong Kong' as is listed on the official website of the bank itself. [11] It states, "HSBC Bank Egypt was established in 1982 as Hong Kong Egyptian Bank." Therefore, it seems that the AWB change was proper and correct because the official name of the bank was 'Hong Kong' and not 'Hongkong'. Please advise, I do not want to bump heads about this, if there is a false positive I'll gladly do everything I can to fix it, but this does not seem to be a case of a false edit now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

More sources like this show 'Hong Kong' as well. [12] I think I should remove the invis text tag, it does appear that the typo correction was not false in light of the official stance. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that what's going on is some anachronism. That is, from 1982 to the mid to late-1990s, when HSBC decided to unify around the HSBC "Name of Country" formula it used names such as Hongkong Bank Malaysia, Hongkong Egyptian Bank, etc. Now, someone in HSBC Egypt with no historical knowledge has gone and "corrected" the history. If one googles "Hongkong Egyptian Bank" in google books, one finds a number of sources, such as the Bankers Almanac, using the traditional "Hongkong" form. However, one also finds some cases of Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation", which is still not correct today. The problem is that HSBC is swimming against the tide. That's probably one reason that they moved to the HSBC brand. Actually, if one goes to the HSBC website and downloads the 40-page pdf capsule history, on p.24 it mentions that Hongkong [sic] Egyptian Bank was founded in 1982. I think we should be historically accurate, even if that is confusing and leads people to try to correct it. By-the-way, I have never used AWB, but in looking at it, I found another instance of company using the Hongkong style, and a note saying not to change it. I admit that this is an arcane concern, but again, I prefer to go with history. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, then I'll leave it up to you. I'll ask for input in making sure it doesn't happen to other ones. I'm no expert on the topic. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It is a slightly bizarre and arcane issue, and admittedly, I have a penchant for such. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

True. Though I rather have it be right then be wrong, especially if I can help it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

And, absolutely, the Hongkong and Shanghai is Hongkong, not "Hong Kong".

Varlaam (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Why comment here and on this? And you are incorrect, the place is 'Hong Kong' not 'Hongkong', the bank however used the name and according to the official site (which I guess is wrong...) the bank was 'Hongkong Egyptian Bank' even though they state 'Hong Kong Egyptian Bank' on their official website, and several tourism and other registers... There is a reason every spell checker from Microsoft word to Firefox labels 'Hongkong' as a typo, because it is except in this very rare case of a name using improper spelling. Same applies to that wrestler who was one known as 'Fourtune' and became 'Fortune'. See, Fourtune. Given how many thousands of skipped false positives I did, the mathematical chance of making a slip up happens, but at least my official checks state that to the best of my knowledge, it was not a mistake. I go by the official sources, which is where your problem comes up down below. The official name should always be used whenever possible. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Andre de Toth

Hi,
The director Andre de Toth is often billed that way, and not as André de Toth.
So you can't go around automatically "fixing" pages by introducing a spelling error.
In the movie Play Dirty, he is not called "André".
My page had it set up correctly:

André de Toth|Andre de Toth

You changed that to:

André de Toth|André de Toth

Varlaam (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Its not 'automatically' the directors name is 'André de Toth' is it not? I do not see how the accent improperly reflects the fact Andre de Toth or André de Toth is infact the same individual. Considering many other films use the correct term 'André de Toth' and the other attributions to his name are in kind, why the problem? See: WP:DIACRITICS If his name is 'André de Toth' we should reflect his name properly like Hugo Chávez or Fjörgyn and Fjörgynn. Numerous other sources reflect this name, like this article [13] and IMDB [14]. I seem to find that the articles which do not use the accent do not do so at all. If its a matter of attribution, shouldn't we use the real name (as in the title his article), to reflect that fact. If you go through the list of his films numerous ones have 'André de Toth' as André de Toth was the director. I'll take this up with the Typo group if you want, but I am kind of confused about the situation. Diacritics exist in other films on that page and we are not technically limited in that regards to properly displaying of his name. Please explain to me why improperly writing the name is acceptable simply because technical limitations or style prevent proper display of his name (and how it is pronounced). ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I just went through the movie list. 16 of them go to André de Toth and only 4 link to the redirect Andre de Toth which goes to André de Toth. Of the matter only Play Dirty uses the 'Andre de Toth' and interwikis to 'André de Toth'. IMDB and Allmovie properly reflect it (as they were external links from the bio). I think that all of the 'Andre de Toth' 's should be André de Toth because the official name (and spelling) should take precedence over an accent-less and technically incorrect version of his name. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Unless you prefer to opt for citing the name and is localization in the exact way, such as 'Andre De Toth | Andre DeToth | André DeToth | Tóth Endre | Endre Tóth | Andre de Toth' Though I do want to note that pseudonyms can also work like this on The Running Man by Richard Bachman/Stephen King. It seems that the name is simply the localized variant of his name, rather then a pseudonym. I really would like your input on this, I've asked that the Andre typo rule be disabled during this discussion, probably removed depending on your responses. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Extra Reflist

This AWB edit added an extra {{Reflist}} just in front of the real one. The result was a mess! Is this an AWB bug that needs reporting? -- John of Reading (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Definitely a bug! I have no idea how that happened. I took off general fixes before doing that, but the auto-tag must have been the function that broke it. Strange, because my AWB didn't tell me that there was already a reflist either in the box beneath. I submitted it as a bug. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

hawnee94

Hi, sorry for the trouble, I just would like to ask what would you choose the cover for article jessica drew in the plot of the Ultimate Spider Woman?--90.155.142.140 (talk) 04:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC) http://www.tumblr.com/blog/hawnee94

Huh? I have no idea what you are asking me about. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding italics for "et al"

Hello ChrisGualtieri,

I just wanted to bring to your attention the MOS:FOREIGN guideline. Per "Common usage in English", the "et al." entries should not be italicized. I noticed you have been applying italics to the "et al." entries on several articles, so please take this into consideration. (I didn't know this myself at one point, so I'm just passing along the knowledge. :-) Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Uh. I was the one who stated the same point of view, however when a rule is changed and if I ask others and they say 'italics', and the rule has been altered to italics I'll correct it even if it goes against my personal preference. I just undid all the ones I made that day and will redo them later. I made a comment on it here. [15] I go by whatever the consensus is. My personal view was 'no italics required', but the changing of the rule essentially was a 'okay... if you want' sort of thing. It was also backed up by the MOS to be italics. See here. [16] I'm glad my personal preference of no italics seems to have won out, but when the two policies clash with different points, I'll ask and change based on what the consensus is. Seems for a brief time (and because of the MOS) it was to be in italics, but that has since reversed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

http://www.tumblr.com/blog/hawnee94

This is a site where I registered there! Please see which of these skins you can choose to article Ultimate Spider Woman? Take a look here http://www.tumblr.com/blog/hawnee94 --90.155.142.140 (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Uh no. I don't understand, nor know anything about 'ultimate spider woman'. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar for TypoScan

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		I just saw you already outnumbered my contributions to Wikipedia:WikiProject TypoScan. By far! Kudos, my friend! Impressive work! Just one small request: could you please add a link to WP:TSN to your edit summary? Just so that more Wikipedians notice this important project. bender235 (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and done! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Ibn Abd al-Hakam

See if my recent changes are enough to remove the "wikification needed" tag. MisterCDE (talk) 05:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

To say thanks!

		Cookies!
		Wilhelmina Will has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Even though you opted out of an article count, I still feel compelled to say thanks for your participation in the June 2012 wikification drive. Your efforts are always appreciated! Cheers! :) Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Aww thanks. I really am not about contests, but I have been relatively busy lately. I'll get around to doing more work sooner or later. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frances Phipps

Hello Chris. I've rewritten the draft and added another source, please check. Thanks. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

All I found are brief mentions, no life dates, nothing substantial. But I still think that short stub is better than nothing. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Commas

Hi, looking at [17], you might also want to look for comma quote space comma, and comma quote comma. – Fayenatic London 18:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. I've been getting the majority of double commas and such which are not coming up with Regex by manually getting them as well, for a number of reasons I cannot search for comma quote because it can actually be used in reference to someone. Regex isn't exhaustive and is very conservative in its detection. Just a stray, comma. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify: July Newsletter and August Drive

EdwardsBot (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikify-tag

Hi there. You recently placed a wikify-tag on 1982 World Women's Handball Championship without a |reason= parameter, so I thought I could ask here what you think is the problem. The wikify-tag gives me a couple of hints, but I can't find any HTML-markup to replace with Wiki-markup, and what could be wikilinked, is wikilinked. The article have section headers, infobox, no linkrot - the only thing I could think of is the lead which could be expanded but that is the case for more or less the entire article. Yes, the article is crappy, but why the "wikify"-tag? Is it some secret tag for crappy articles? Mentoz86 (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not. It was the bot. See the diff. [18] The bot put it for whatever reason it was coded for, lack of interwiki links being the most common. It is a fine article for the purposes of showing the rankings, but it is short and that usually is why bots act strange with them. As part of general fixes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh crap, I'm sorry. Never mind my incompetence :P Mentoz86 (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Its fine. You can't ask questions to a bot as easily as a user. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

That's true. :) Thank you. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Please help submit new articles

Respected Sir,

I'm a new editor at Wikipedia English and have contributed to a couple of articles with minor edits and thoroughly loved the experience. I've decided to contribute a little more to the website that has provided me with so much information over the years and much more in the years to come. I'm interested in Defence related articles and in this endevour, I've created two new articles related to the Indian Ordnance Factories Board's manufacturing units but unable to create and submit the same. It'd be a great help if you can guide me through the whole process. The articles are Wikipedia:Vehicle Factory Jabalpur and Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Ordnance Factory Tiruchirappalli. I know I've messed up a lot but the articles are of great importance to the people who are interested in defence related fields in general or wish to join them. Thanking you in anticipation. --BharatRakshak (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I fixed one, the other is still at AFC, so I will let it remain there. I replied on your talkpage. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

AWB

Hi. Please read the rules of use for AWB, esp. point 2 which states "Don't edit too quickly; consider opening a bot account if you are regularly making more than a few edits a minute." Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I've spoken to numerous people about this matter as I did notice my edits could be numerous and sometimes a bit fast. Everything I check is by hand, I personally verify every edit and it is in no way automated. I'm actually testing AWB functions and Regex rules while I do this, so my task is not a matter of a rush job nor carelessness. Can you please explain what is troubling you with my edits? This is the first time anyone's address the matter to me. Is it because I am popping up on Huggle or something? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

For example, you made approx 20 edits @ 19:07 and a similar number @ 19:08. So three seconds per page to review the content, edit it and save? I doubt I could open 20 pages a minute, let alone do any real quality check of the content. The AWB rules are pretty clear. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if this sounds wrong, but why are you concerned with my edit speed? Is it simply that you don't think I can open X amount of articles in Y time? Is it because you think I don't check the articles I edit? I assure you that I check every article and the content of each edit before I save it. Edit too quickly is neither subjective, and I know I could EASILY do 30 edits per minute, my eyes only need a fraction of a second to verify. Neither has what I've been doing for months been a problem before, considering I am on the final leg of the Wikiproject, I have refrained from making further edits while we discuss this. I just really want to know is there a reason why you are concerned with my edit speed and not the edit content. I am extremely careful in typo checking, every instance of a 'false positive' or ones that are not even reported, I constantly am active at WT:AWB/T to ensure that Regex and its rules and definitions are working properly. Regex is different from content creation, and as a member of the TypoTeam, I'm happy to double check any actions I do for false positives or mistakes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Since you continue to edit even after I ask for your response on your talkpage, should I take this as a carry-on mentality? I've found some previous discussion about 'Rule 2' which states that I am neither obligated to make a 'bot account' and if so this account would ruin transparency. My arguments for my editing are to improve Wikipedia without controversy. Most of the edits are implementing proper capitalization, formatting of commas, corrections of misspellings and Latin abbreviations that require punctuation. If anything I am doing is controversial or awkward please let me know, last time someone mentioned I made a false positive, I pointed out the purposes of context and showed that my 'error' was not an error. I'm no bot, I'm purely human doing efficient editing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I've slowed myself down, the project is almost finished and then my edit speed will drop even further. I rather self-throttle until I get more concrete answers about my speeds. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"I could EASILY do 30 edits per minute, my eyes only need a fraction of a second to verify" Sorry, but that's bullshit. Maybe ANI will help. Lugnuts (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I've already discussed the matter with Earwig, I should try to keep them around 10-12 per minute. I do not need a bot account. And please do not curse on my user page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what is bothering you with my edits anyways? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you please respond? There is no set limitations, I'm trying to be more then reasonable and I've spoken with BAG as a result of your concerns, but please do not continue to ignore me. Its not civil when you have the problem with me, to just ignore whatever I've said or done as a result. I do not even know why you are bothered. Why did you post the exact same message to Waacstat's account earlier as well? What is bothering you about what I do? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

AutoWikiBroswer

We uploaded a new AutoWikiBroswer version which corrects a lot of exceptions and other annoying stuff. I suggest you download it from: http://toolserver.org/~awb/snapshots/ -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I'll do so after this run. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify and the future of wikification

Hi! There is an ongoing proposal at the project talkpage concerning the future of wikification, including possible deprecation of the {{wikify}} template which is being discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 10. Your input would be greatly appreciated!

You are receiving this message because you are listed as an active member of the wikify project. To update your status, go here.

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC) on behalf of Project Wikify

Your help is highly appreciated :)

Hi!

This is in response to your message at my talk page. Unfortunately, I forgot to notify about it to you.

Thanks a lot for your help! Yes, I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's procedures so I moved VFJ's page incorrectly. Do you think that these articles would be speedily deleted? If so, what should we do to protect them? Because it would be sad as they are notable and being presented in a neutral manner for the people who wish to know about them. Ironically, the products manufactured by them have independent pages while these do not. Apparently, there not many contributors from India. Thanks for giving a helping hand to the articles from India. Do you know how much time would it take for OFT's article to be reviewed and submitted? I know it doesn't have a specific time frame but just eager to know. And yes, I saw your edit in one of the pages so thought that you might be a great help. Can you please guide me how to submit an article because there are many more factories left. Once again, thanks a million, God bless you! --BharatRakshak (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

--BharatRakshak (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: User talk:BharatRakshak#Reply

Hello, ChrisGualtieri. You have new messages at BharatRakshak's talk page.
Message added 10:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, ChrisGualtieri. You have new messages at Koavf's talk page.
Message added 05:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

AFC Backlog

Articles for Creation urgently needs YOUR help! Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1486 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you autoconfirmed? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. PS: we have a great AFC helper script at User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js which helps in reviewing in just few edits easily! We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 2 or 3 reviews, it would be extremely beneficial. On behalf of the Articles for Creation project, TheSpecialUser TSU

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA. I appreciate that you took the time to comment and I hope I'll continue to see your name pop up around Wikipedia.

As an aside, I agree that nobody has an inherent need for the tools — but Wikipedia has a need for administrators. My reason for submitting the RfA was that I'd liked to tackle admin areas that are often backlogged, such as CAT:RFU or WP:AIV. We could always use more active editors with the +sysop flag.

Take care. =) Kurtis (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and it probably will. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Backlogs are my specialty. Though I need tools to do more than a few of them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

NASTRO

Hello. I noticed you have been removing WP:NASTRO notablity tags from some articles that fail WP:NASTRO. I was going to start undoing them but don't want to get into a row with you about it. As you read WP:NASTRO, why don't those article merit those tags? Chrisrus (talk) 04:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I was taking a second look at them right now. And I cannot figure out why we even have the articles in the first place, I think this matter needs to be discussed on some talk page or something. I've stopped removing the tags simply because they are so common. I'm a bit of inclusionist, but I think that changing these all to redirects might be a bit hard. Some have been already done as redirects, but others pop up in several sources, all databases, so my search for 'reliable resources' doesn't help much when every single one is tagged to the astronomical database and a few others are cited elsewhere. Why have they not been redirected yet, they seem to stick thus far? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:NASTRO needs an overhaul. I'm finding dozens of sources for otherwise 'non-notable' stars, literally thousands and they are NOT named formally. An example. HD 83183 a.k.a. h Carinae has millions of 'hits' on Google, but the star is not 'popular'. Just because an article is a stub doesn't mean it isn't notable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I heartedly agree, but if you feel that way why would you remove "Seems to fail Nastro" tags from those articles? Chrisrus (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the two of us can hit consensus on a redo of a guideline, but I was stuck in between two states for what to do with the articles. Chiefly, do I remove everything and place them back to redirects even after a good-faith search? Also, since the data is able to be better displayed on Wikipedia then it is across the 3 main databases, complete with non-Java orbital diagrams and some of them have tags like potential threat and such, I believed that these are more important then some 3 meter asteroid.

A second problem exists with ones like HD 83183/h Carinae as others like H Carinae and some other similar items are NOT the same. Meaning that the database would need to respond to multiple redirects and try to give the same information that is already present in the article. I realize the purpose of not copying from a sole database, but a synthesis of material is what Wikipedia is, and if 4 or 5 sources have different information which is in agreement on the physical object, then what should we do with EXISTING articles?

Since the bots are toast, I think the notability tags should be dismissed, the articles get filled in with full information, plot the courses and provide the existing 'amateur' astronomer data so that the objects can be viewed if desired. Like a geographical coordinate, a majority of the early objects are detectable by even modest scopes. I remember combing through SETI data as a part of the open project, so to say that these objects are not notable to someone or is just cruft is a matter of debate. After all, some articles predate the media interest in them, and that is quite special. And yes, astronomical data for astronomers is a pain to get, might as well be Wiki that explains things to the layman rather then having 3 different databases to get 'data'. And quite frankly, that is what the early updates were doing. Condensing, organizing and translating obscure technical terms into layman's terms. And not having to know of the object BEFORE searching for it. Some of the tables are just downright unfriendly on the eyes.

Where should we discuss the tag or redirect issue? I doubt you are the only one with an opinion on it. I just want to clean up wikipedia's tag and never do anything issue, and those articles are a big section of said backlog. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If an article doesn't pass NASTRO, please don't remove the tag that says "this article might not pass NASTRO". I don't have a problem with NASTRO (well, I guess I wish it were written in a way that was easier to implement), but you are right that it's not really being implemented when it comes to aleady existing articles. I was working on implementing it and made quite a bit of progress. I got to a certain point and then got bogged down when Rich Farmborough got banned from using bots. I'm not a botsman and don't know much about bots so I can't do any of this work without a helpful botsperson, and this job really can't be done without a bot. I don't know why it should fall to me to implement NASTRO, but I've been through one round of implementing it and can help you if you want to get it done. If you want to help convert articles failing NASTRO to chart redirects, I can help you. It basically involves going to WP:BOTREQ and making the proper requests in the right order. They are very friendly and helpful there and will usually fulfill astrobot requests in a week or so.

If you can get any of the articles to pass NASTRO, please feel free to do so and remove the tags once you do. With most of the minor planets, however, that won't be possible because most of them have nothing written about them because there are kajillions of them and very few have been written about except by the discoverer who just said that it's there and moves like so and that's all. I don't know about these minor stars; I was just working with the minor planets, but I suspect in most cases it's the same. Anyway, the point is, don't remove the tags until the article passes nastro. Also, if you want to convert any redirects into articles that pass NASTRO, that's also good.

The question is, do we truely have notablity standards on Wikipedia or not? As long as these NASTRO-failing articles stand, we owe an apology to anyone who gets an aritcle deleted on notabilty grounds alone. Until our standards are applied fairly and actually implemented, they stand in mockery of all notability standards on Wikipedia. Also, collecting the info for the minor planet grouping such as the main belt or whatever in such a way that they can be presented as a group makes them pass NASTRO, because the main belt and the Ort cloud and other such groupings are notable things that people would want to learn about and do pass nastro. Collecting them in a chart could serve as a database to be read not by humans but by futurebots that could turn all the data into an interactive graphic presentation of the belt or cloud that might be interesting or in some sci-fi future who knows even possibly useful. What needs to be done with all these NASTRO-failing objects is for the available inforamation about them to be collected into a database that could be used to create a comprehensible presentation of the cloud or belt that they are a part of that is notable and does pass NASTRO.

If you are interested in working on these things I know of some people that might like to work with you on it. Please do not go off on your own but follow NASTRO. If you can find ways to improve NASTRO, please do so, but don't ignore it or remove "fails nastro" tags from articles that fail nastro because those are there to help futurebots convert that info into the proper kind of database, chart, graphic or redirect but not an article because that's not what Wikipedia articles are. Chrisrus (talk) 04:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going through the notability backlog, which is why I NEED to do something with this mess. I think a majority of the material in that backlog is useful, mergable or something, I hate to delete knowledge because of 'notability', notability is always subjective, even these stupid asteroids. I'll probably end up merging them all back, but I really would like a way to keep all of the data on the asteroids easily available. Since deleting all these articles would be a waste of time and resources, its almost easier to let the things stand, flesh them out and compile all the information in one easy place rather then all the comet/asteroid databases. I'd need consensus to merges and I'd need consensus to do anything at all to them. Where should we discuss this with the Wikipedia community. Its shameful we have such high backlogs and no one addresses them. I've put one article up for XFD because I couldn't find ANYTHING on it. These asteroids look more and more like merges. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I've just started merging them, I'll see about expanding the resources and tagging them with their own datalinks to the database entries as the majority have no other observations. I won't push back against NASTRO, I'll make redirects and not put the base articles up for deletion, that way the histories can be easily kept and viewed. If I see a notable one, I'll leave it. Then just use the tool to kill the useless interwiki links to the redirects with AWB on the lists. That way the notability backlog is addressed and Wikipedia is slightly less clustered by non-notable asteroids as determined by NASTRO. It will be just as easy to undo them all later as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You seem to know what you are doing more than I was. I was very dependent on BOTREQ to do all the work, and probably wouldn't have ever gotten involved in it at all if I could have found anyone to WP:LEAD in these cases and am very happy that you seem to be doing so now. I will try to think of stuff I can do to help and let me know if you can think of anything for me to do.

Ok, what could I tell you now that would help you? For what, if anything, it's worth:

• Wikiproject Astronomy is logical place to discuss such things. Unfortunately, in my experience, things tend to get dragged into an endless Entmoot there, as their hearts don't seem to be into the project of converting NASTRO-failing articles into something else, so I can't recommend it. You might have a different experience as you are maybe one of them and I am an outsider to them, but still I bet you will find that there are many who really don't believe in NASTRO and don't want to see it applied to existing articles. Those people are wrong because they had their chance when NASTRO was in development to argue their case and the idea that such articles are OK to leave fails even General Notablity Guidelines (GNG) even if NASTRO had never been made. If they try to stop you from moving ahead to keeping and presenting this information outside of a kajillion separate articles, on a chart, list, or some other way, then they should go ahead and re-write NASTRO but I don't think they will succeed if they want to make NASTRO contradict very basic principles of Wikipedia in general.
• The thing to do is to present it to them that as saving the info in the articles in another more appropriate form. You will have to add more columns to the charts and lists where they are kept to keep them all the info. For example, List of Minor Planets (LOMP) needs a column to say what the object even is, in terms of its group or grouping (please help me: what is the correct term for a coherent group of objects like the Main Belt or the Jupiter Trojans or whatnot?). That could be a good place to start but it would require bot skills or something that I don't have and if you don't either just describe what you want at BOTREQ and they will figure it out with you. Don't ask at the Astro project for help because they say it's impossible but I've proven it's not. Just show BOTREQ the NASTRO guidelines and explain what you want done.
• You may also want to save the orbit info. You could have a column at LOMP and place the orbitinfoboxes from the articles there. You might even want to create a column for each datum. The best way to present it is graphically, though. You could have a differnet LOMP for each grouping instead of just numero-alphabetical as that's not a meaningful organization to a LOMP user. Some minor planet articles have a little animated gif of the orbit and location of the thing. Rich and I and some others were musing that these gifs could all be combined into a mega graphic. Getting really ambitious, it could be a sort of manipulatable thing like this You Tube graphic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_d-gs0WoUw, but it would also be something 3D you could zoom in and out and move backwards and forwards and experts could use to predict collisions and such and also be just something really cool that people would be actually interested in seeing, unlike a kajillion separate articles or a massive list or chart full of raw data. But hey, let's not get too ambitious right now. The point is to get all the NASTO failing info into a futurebot-accessable format so that it can be used to do great things in the future BUT NOT TO HAVE AN ARTICLE FOR EACH ONE. Present this to the Astronomy Project and you probably won't get all the foot-dragging, obstruction, anger, whining, hostility and general unhelpfullness that I got there. Well, you probably will, but probably not so much.
• I have some other things in mind that might help you but I can't write more now. Just one more thing: don't mention my name with astroproject people if you can help it - you don't want to get their backs up against you as I did and encounter needless pushback against actualy implementing NASTRO. Chrisrus (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, it does seem that you have a very strong argument. Such disputes are a pain, I try to assist at DRN and other venues when I can, simply because such disputes destroy Wikipedia. You notified me of what I was doing was against a guideline I really hadn't researched and interpreted in a very broad sense. Potential hazards I figured were a notice, but I didn't realize that 100,000 potential hazards exist and that 500,000 of the things are known by 2010. Even worse, there could be MILLIONs more in the 'asteroid belt' and that zip around Earth. For my mistake, I've corrected it and will seek out that all the non-notables get removed and I can deal with the mess en-mass later on if we have a change in which these currently non-notable asteroids become worthy of their own pages. I'm of the 'all human knowledge' group for Wikipedia, and that means keeping, preserving and expanding all information on all subjects until that each and every dumb little asteroid can be seen, analyzed and have full data capable for any reader to look up. Though at this stage, going back to redirects is the best idea because I can pull the exact same data from the single ref on these pages. In fact, updating with the database links might be the best option.

I still would like to hear about a unified asteroid tables that could be used later which restores the pages and fleshes them out beyond what some dumb bot can do. I do all my work by hand, no bots, so I'll be fixing the 5000ish backlog by HAND. I doubt that a machine could do it before I could, the coding would be a nightmare. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed more that are not tagged for notability come up as well... This is a lot of work, but I think I can handle it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You might be surprised. Try WP:BOTREQ, doing all that by hand may turn out not to be necessary. They are very good.

Right now I'd make sure that LOMP has enough columns to accept all info from the articles, the orbit info but most importantly the "grouping". Right now a LOMP user isn't told whether the object is Main Belt or whatever. Chrisrus (talk) 09:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll put that in for a bot request, if I had a bot, but the issue is that each column and change is simple to do, the task of deleting the data, linking the page to the redirect is tied directly to the name, but is often not on the page. This is more difficult for titles that don't make sense or are weird and contain no link or sources in them. It takes me about 10 seconds to do it by hand anyways. By the time the request was done, I'd be finished myself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but just so you know, I never have bots when I go to Botreq. I just go there and say that a bot is needed to automate this process, and one of them makes a bot to do it and then get permission and do it. You don't need to have a bot to got to botreq, you just need to have something to do. And ten seconds times blankaty-kajillion is a very, very long time and who knows how many Nastro-failing articles there are without tags.

17,000 ish at quick check. But I guess I should ask the obvious question over NASTRO and these things tomorrow. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

AWB Request

Hey Chris, I was wondering if you could move a couple userboxes over to User:UBX (however that is done) and then switch all the transclusions for each userbox via AWB. The userboxes in question are....

• User:Neutralhomer/Userboxes/AAAwareness
• User:Neutralhomer/Userboxes/Autism
• User:Neutralhomer/Userboxes/Autistic
• User:Neutralhomer/Userboxes/Aspergers

If this is possible (or not), please let me know. Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Ack! I don't know how to do that. Maybe ask Koavf? I'm not that good with AWB. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, I just noticed you from my watchlist when you did the WP:USA updates, but no worries. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:HA Schult

You may now have a look at Talk:HA_Schult#Suggestions_for_improving_the_paragraphs. Wikiwiserick (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Did so. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

There are still problems concerning the content of the Schult article. Wikiwiserick (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference

I'm sorry to report that there were not enough accounts available for you to have one. I have you on our list though and if more become available we will notify you promptly.

We're continually working to bring resources like Credo to Wikipedia editors, and this will very hopefully not be your last opportunity to sign up for one. If you haven't already, please check out WP:HighBeam and WP:Questia, where accounts are still available. Cheers, Ocaasi 19:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It happens. Thanks though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Help request

Could you be so kind to help me make a "Request for Comment" for the discussion about renaming this article, because currently there are very few users discussing a matter of principle, regarding naming conventions, as the article itself is possibly not in many people's watchlists and areas of interest. (Please do not try to teach me how to catch a fish, I am too old to learn using those gadgets. :-) Thank you very much in advance... --E4024 (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

One is already open on the talk page. I'd comment there. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Replacing Dagger; and dagger;

Hi, I have checked one of several articles now near the top of my watchlist --selected by the large number of reported dagger replacements (9)-- and I have found that this operation has conflated ‡ and †, which is fatal.

Exhibit [19]

More often I have used one character without the other: ‡ because I suppose it evokes fewer objections to Christian symbolism. --P64 (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

According to CHECKWIKI replacing the &daggers some how did not catch the difference between the capitals and the lower case which results in ‡ versus †. I've made the change again. Did you want ALL the daggers replaced with †? For the sake of the matter, I'm using the character rather than the markup. I'll gladly copy and paste the remaining †'s or ‡'s as you see fit. If you want to distance from the most popular method of the dagger to indicate death/extinction of species, I can replaced them with ‡. As the article had BOTH prior to my edit, yet no indication of why they were different. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I have returned to that William Mayne#Selected works and restored one more double dagger in the last line of the section, where the last two lines give the key and imply the purpose.

Since then I have copied the double dagger (copy and paste by pointer and keyboard because I don't know how to insert it from the keyboard, only how to specify it using & and ;). This is adequate for me.

Is there are reason to deprecate the use of & and ; in general? They are heavily used for mdash and ndash, which I dislike but don't routinely change.

Thanks for your attention. --P64 (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Small removal

Hi, just spotted this edit which removed <small></small> tags from the caption in infobox. If this is to be standard then the documentation for {{Infobox UK place}} needs updating as this indicates to use these tags. By the way I am in favour of it been removed. Keith D (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

My reasoning for this comes from CHECKWIKI. "The script found in the description of an image the <small>. The description is already set to 94% in the stylesheet. This tag can be deleted." In this case, the small caption is already made small, so the difference is like this Example Small / Example Small2 The difference? One is single small, the other is double small. They DO stack and for this case I chose to remove the double small as would be coded in the system, as they already should be small-ed. I also agree with the style change because it makes it easier to read on most screens, especially the larger ones. If anyone has a problem with it, I don't mind, I was just trying to correct actual problems as indicated by previous consensus and MOS concerns. The fact you agree with it is evidence that its not just me who is bugged by such things. Though in all seriousness, I already fixed the small batch of those that existed, it wasn't many articles at all, but I will look at the template now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Anton Vickerman

Hello! Your submission of Anton Vickerman at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! Secretlondon (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

• The Anticipation is over

		100000 Edits
		Belated Congratulations on recently reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community and your fellow editors thank you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work! I remember working with you on the Martin/Zimmerman article and I am reminded of you diligent and dedicated efforts.

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

```Buster Seven Talk 02:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

---

I Thought I was being so "perfect" in the way I had created my method of registering the 100K Editors (so I wouldn't miss one}. See User:Buster7/Sandbox-100K Awards. Somehow you moved over the 100k threshold during a glitch and I dropped the ball. Sorry for the delay. I'll make a batch of cookies and send ya' some. One thing I noticed. Our subsequent conversation was a good example of two veteran editors "talking but not understanding and completely missing the basic thought" of our dialogue. You said one thing---I thought you meant something else. You thought I didnt award you because of some previous "run-in" and I thought you mistook my "1000 Welcomes" comment to be 100,000 welcomes. So funny! But I'm sure that you and I see this all the time in more serious article/political/ethnic communications on the "battlefield". Editors COMPLETELY misread each other, get their back up, and its off to the races with no turning back. ANI, RfC and the rest all come about because the reading editor gave the wrong inflection to what the writing editor said. When you Said, "I didn't get it" I read, "I don't understand..." instead of "I didn't receive...". From now on I'm going to take an extra minute to be sure that, when talking/editing I don't say things in a way that can be misunderstood. I hope the Award looks good on your mantle. You deserve it! ```Buster Seven Talk 18:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice Koekjes/Version Two--They Bake Themselves

B7 has given you a Nice Koekjes which promote fellowship, goodwill and WikiLove. Hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the good flavor of Nice Koekjes around Wiki World by giving someone else one. Maybe to a friend or, better yet, to someone you have had disagreements with in the past. Nice Biscuits are very tasty and have been known to be so NICE, they will even bake themselves. Enjoy! ```Buster Seven Talk 20:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

3rr

Hi. I think User:BeeSea needs some Admin attention. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Your adding a template with which the addition makes a contentious claim not sourced in the article. How about adding a source. Regards, Sun Creator<sup>(talk)</sup> 22:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

About the PKK's bombs and other terrorist attacks all over Turkey? I live there and see everyday that the sky is blue. (And the blood is red.) I do not need any source for learning what colour the sky is. (In case that was the question...) All the best. --E4024 (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Well then you are not going to have an easy time on Wikipedia. See WP:VERIFY. Regards, Sun Creator<sup>(talk)</sup> 22:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Sun Creator, I wish and hope the opposite for you. BTW if you wish to learn what I know by "original research" (i.e. daily life) simply write "PKK terrorist attacks" in Google search and choose among the half a million. Now I'll go to sleep with your permission; too late here. Good night. (Sorry Chris for all this.) --E4024 (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I'd be happy to try and help improve the article. I just don't know if this needs 'admin attention', but I haven't looked into it that much, but the article definitely needs expansion. For one, I don't even how notable it is. Since its claim to notability is not present. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Please would you check out ..

.. your recent edits to Clement Adebamowo? Something is not right here. I'd normally ignore anything by someone with your contributions history, but not this time. Philip Trueman (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Must be an error in the Persondata program. I tried to correct the article, but it seems that someone had messed with the template, causing it to fail. Its really weird, but thanks for catching it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

MIDI

Hi. You ran a script on MIDI, and it's created a problem for me. In the absence of a Wikipedia-mandated citation style, I've been using MLA format. This script changed some of my citations, but not others. Per WP:CITEVAR, there's no specified citation style, only that the citations are consistent. They no longer are, and I don't understand the rationale. What was that script supposed to clean up, and what exactly does it do? And if there's no required citation style, then is it right to try to enforce one using an automated tool, particularly on a page that's under heavy, active editing? Dementia13 (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply

It was General fixes as per WP:MOS and other matters, but I'll explain.

• 'File:Synth_rack_@_Choking_Sun_Studio' should not have the underscores in the file name, they are not needed, it is really just appearance.
• The ref which read, "Price, Simon. "Native Instruments Kore". Sound on Sound Jul 06. http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul06/articles/nikore.htm" didn't change anything it just switched it around so the reference comes first, the link comes second. A style matter.
• Though you are probably concerned with the Ref name matter. Once you cite an article once, you do not (and shouldn't) reference it additional times. This simply means that when you assign a reference, for all other instances of material being sourced to that explicit reference, you use a ref name and don't have to make a new ref. The difference is having multiple references repeated on a page when they SHOULD be cited together.

Though the MAIN reason I applied said general fixes is because the references for external links were improperly closed, you can keep whatever 'style' you want, all I did was combine and clean it up. For a good look at the articles ref name, being easily cited see the 'Huber, David Miles. "The MIDI Manual". Carmel, Indiana: SAMS, 1991.' ref being shortened to just Huber, for 26+ references without repeating the exact same citation over and over again.

I don't bicker over the matter, but I didn't break MLA style. I use such formats for my additions to articles with Highbeam sources. You'll find that my clean up didn't alter any of the material's sourcing type. Its just easier to edit the article with proper use of ref names. Though if that doesn't explain it, ask me, I don't know exactly what you are concerned about, but I do like your changes to MIDI, it is helping to fix it up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The file name was as I copied it from Wikimedia Commons, and it's not a concern. The "Sound on Sound" ref you mentioned changes the formatting more than you realize, and it's not just that one, it's a dozen or more. It breaks the consistency of the references on the page. I'm not sure what you mean by the Ref name, but if it's the one that got shortened to "Indiana.edu", those were not all the same page. Those were similar pages, but they had different URLs, and they should not have been made the same. Now I have to go back to find the original pages and manually fix the links, or else when I put this up for GAR, the reviewers are going to check just that one page, and they'll tell me the source doesn't support the info. I'm not sure what you mean by "improperly closed", my convenience links were enclosed in single brackets, which as I understand is correct. Dementia13 (talk) 03:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

For the Sound on Sound Ref. I did NOT change how it appears as a reference! While the order was changed for the text, it still appears as ref 33 "Price, Simon. "Native Instruments Kore". Sound on Sound Jul 06" versus my version "Price, Simon. "Native Instruments Kore". Sound on Sound Jul 06. [15]" The difference? In the previous version the ENTIRE reference was listed as an external link because it had an unbalanced bracket. So no, I didn't change anything on the Sound on Sound matter.

The insert of name="indiana.edu" into the ref after the FIRST citation goes to implement an easier way to cite that source without repeating said reference over and over again. Check the diff. First cited as "Hass, Jeffrey. "Chapter Three: How MIDI works 2". Indiana University Jacobs School of Music. 2010. Web. 13 Aug 2012." then again as "Hass, Jeffrey. "Chapter Three: How MIDI works 2". Indiana University Jacobs School of Music. 2010. Web. 13 Aug 2012." The second one was just bounced back to the tagging ref name. You really expect EVERY citation to have the full details, like Huber is going to have 26+ lines of the same citation every other sentence? Reference duplication is something that AWB has a general fix, the source has to be the exact same and the indiana.edu ref was the exact same, so creating an easier to cite ref name is a good thing for future use, or even look up for verification.

All the other reference changes were to simply fix the format and close those brackets which weren't closed. External links need a closing bracket ], they were left open. By closing them and making the general fix for style 'source than link' and it didn't swap how the citation appears. Closing the bracket NUMBERED the external link like the previous 70 that were in the article, closing those brackets jumped it to 85 (meaning 15 had been unmarked). So that format is also an option, because it clearly shows that 85 out of 109 sources are online, helps with verifiability and again, looks nicer than having all your text to an external website and its source as a giant hyperlink.

Its really down to a matter of your reference style. Though I'll sum up the reason why those changes are in AWB and why I approved those edits for MIDI by citing these pages. For named references, see WP:NAMEDREFS such a format is easier and preferred over repeated long citations. (indiana.edu falls under this). For embedded linking, which for whatever reason is the majority of the citation style of MIDI it has a full citation followed by an external link to said citation. A not entirely odd choice, but also not my personal favorite. See WP:ECITE as an essay on the matter. All my AWB did was comply with the preferred format and produce a valid citation. The correct form is a full citation with the title being cited to the URL according to WP:FN, but there is no 'correct' or 'house-style' type of reference for Wikipedia. By all means, correct all 85 references if you want, but my change of the 15 fixed an entirely DIFFERENT problem and simply brought the rest into alignment with what was the majority manner and a valid way to have an external link in the article. The fact said external link was in a reference probably doesn't change that rule either, even though it could be nicer. Your copyediting is a good thing on that article, and I'm not trying to say do this or that, but I am explaining it. And just one last time, because you were worried about the indiana ref, they were the same url prior and after my AWB change. Though you should be more concerned about the book references to "The MIDI Manual" (Huber is the ref name) as they lack page numbers for said material. Again, those book entries should have page listing and can be done so as of the WP:RF guide shows. Did I explain everything well enough, sorry for the wall o text. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologize about the "Indiana.edu" thing: at a glance, I thought that you had combined all of the references from that site into one. It should be obvious that I've taken good care to combine references on this page. BTW, the Huber and other references do include the page numbers. Every one of those references is followed by the RP template, which displays the page number inline with the text like so: . You're still wrong about the unbalanced brackets, and it's visible in the edit history. Every one of those links begins and ends with a single bracket. The ending bracket is sometimes hard to see, and occasionally looks like a letter "l" at the end of an ".htm" extension, but if you look at the edit history and bump up the font size you'll see that both brackets are present. Dementia13 (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh I see... .htm and the bracket looks like html. Lol, but general fixes are extremely rare to mess up, as the changes have been vetted by consensus and comply with the WP:MOS changes. Also, weird that I didn't see the page numbers... might have been looking in the wrong spot in the edit window. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no importance in WikiProject Biography

{{WikiProject Biography}} does not contain an "importance" parameter. Hasn't for years. It does contain sports-priority, film-priority, musician-priority and other like parameters.

Also, you are adding the importance parameter at a rate of upto 20 per minute. AWB is not to be used as an automated tool in this fashion as you must also look at the main article and understand what the importance should be.

Please go thru and correct all the articles you have made this mistake on, which appears to be over 1,000 articles. Bgwhite (talk) 05:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been doing it all by hand, it is not a script. WP:BIO still has the importance tag listed on their page, the top 200 are important to the project directly, but the other tags are important to groups like the 1.0 Wikipedia team and for Wikipedia Zero. If one want a better view of the scope of notable individuals outside of the top 200, the entire project is a complete and utter mess for key figures in their related fields. See my detailed response below. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I am going to fix them using a script and Yobot. ChrisGualtieri please more careful next time. You can request a bot account to bot autoassessing if you like. This will save you time and force some people to check your initial edits. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I was told there WAS importance and that the category exists for such matters. It was priority. I had already asked before about this, and you know there exists categories like Category:Mid-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles and Category:Low-importance biography articles which more than 90,000 exists. Quite clearly, they are not all my doing, and a majority of those are extremely old assessments. Please halt the changes and discuss it, because I am not being rogue or anything. While the term 'priority' exists in a lot of them, 'importance' is also noted. Its even listed at WP:BIO. Only the top 200 are particularly USEFUL to WP:BIO, but the others are useful to OTHER projects. I take issue with any mass rollback, if there is a problem I will correct the matter to concensus, but the matter of importance/priority IS important. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Split

To address the matter, I'm making this subsection. Please look at the example pages of Talk:Albert Einstein (Top) - Talk:Morena Baccarin (Low) - Talk:Patrick Henry (High). These articles are specifically noted by the 'Article importance grading scheme' on Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment while it is extremely confusing to use two terms interchangeably since 2006/2007, priority akin to importance. There is no Category:Low-priority biography articles instead its Category:Low-importance biography articles. Again, more than 100,000 articles are already assessed by this category, and they are not of my own doing. If one were to make the claim that 'importance' is not used by BIO, then I have more than a hundred thousand objections to such a matter. The fact that BIO still has the assessment page, the assessment details and the pages still using that assessment are all evidence that they still in use. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Only the Top 200 (200, Top importance articles) are marked as Top-importance. And that makes perfect sense because that is what the Wikiproject decided on. Everyone else has to be limited to 'High' importance, but even still the assessment guideline for rating that is 'Must have had a large impact in their main discipline, across a couple of generations. Had some impact outside their country of origin.' Mid is 'Important in their discipline.' Low is 'Subject is notable in their main discipline.' While this is a basic listing, it does help show that importance is useful for Category:High-importance biography articles which contains over a thousand pages anyways and the lesser Category:Mid-importance biography articles contains several thousand.

Unless I am mistaken, they are still in use. If there is something stupid I am doing, just let me know, but I was told that the BIO section has a large backlog and that I should work on them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. It's not a big problem. The situation is the following: WPBiography has more than 1 million pages. None uses "importance". They all use "xxx-priority" where "xxx" is one of the projects task forces. We don't do general "importance" tagging because the pages are too many to do that. Moreover, we use the term "priority" because we don't want to separate persons by" importance" and the term was confused between a person and the article about this person. We now use the term "importance for the category naming for consistency between WikiProjects and only. If you check nside it explains which pages are categorised inside. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I fixed everything already. We need your help ofcourse. Just check how WPBio works. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

So wait... I was obviously under the wrong impression than. I did read the page through, and I was confused on what it was exactly doing. I did a bunch of assessments for WP:USA a ways back and the 'importance' tag was used, I got the impression this was the same thing. Guess its not. Though, why do the categories exist then? If priority is one thing and the importance thing I read doesn't apply... I'm even more confused on what to do. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Check for example "Category:Mid-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles". It reads "This category contains Arts and Entertainment biography articles that have been rated "Mid priority" on the assessment scale by the Arts and entertainment workgroup of the Biography WikiProject." So the categories use the "importance name for consistency with category naming and in the pages we use "xxx-priority" for WikiProject purposes.. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

We also have Category:Biography articles needing priority parameter replacement that tracks and fixes these things. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me see if I get this right. Category:Low-importance biography (sports and games) articles is for the workgroup? And I use 'priority' instead. So when I have an unassessed sport article I should use 'sports-priority=low' if it is low instead of 'importance=low'? So... I just added the wrong importance via the AWB plugin? Also, my Kb plugin doesn't like to work with WP:BIO. So I just did it by hand with AWB, I was planning on using it to assess the articles for class later on, but it wouldn't work with the plugin at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. You have to use 'sports-priority=low' if it is low instead of 'importance=low'. If you download the latest AWB snapshot from http://toolserver.org/~awb/snapshots/ you have a chance that the provided Kb plugin works better. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I do some later on and double check to make sure they are correct. I'll TB you later once I've done a few, but I do not have time right now. I didn't mean to make a mess. Sorry. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I fixed everything already using the tracking category. Happy editing! Keep contributing and discussing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Did some articles. [20] [21][22][23] They should be good as I was using the correct priority tag for the sports work group. I'll wait your reply before doing any more, I think I understand what to do now. Though could you look at [24] because I get this error when I try to do assessments with the Kingbotk plugin. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they are correctly tagged.

I get the same bug as you do, except I only get it when I hit "skip". I wish some developers *cough* Magioladitis *cough* would fix this.

I'm of the school of thought of fixing as many problems as you can while working on a page. If WP Biography has been assessed (stub, start, etc), but other projects haven't, put the same assessment biography has for the other banners. Remove "auto=yes" if the assessment is correct, if not, then update with the correct assessment and then remove auto=yes. Bgwhite (talk) 05:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to blame Magioladitis for this incident or my own ignorance. I get the bug when I hit 'save' as well, it will skip the talk page and have an error as well. Least I know I'm doing it correctly. I'll make a run on them later on... in a few days if this dump finishes soon. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you read too much into some posts. "I am not going to blame Magioladitis for this incident or my own ignorance." All I was saying is I too get this bug, where I get it and a gentle nudge to Magioladitis to fix it. It is not yours or Magioladitis' fault for this bug.

If all you are doing is adding "sports-priority=low", you don't need kingbotk for that. Disable kingbotk and just copy-paste sports-priority=low into each talk page. Bgwhite (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll ask about in later on, when I got more time. Its probably hard enough working on AWB. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello, ChrisGualtieri, and thank you for your comments here! Should I stop any further edits on BP and wait for a result from DRN? OptimusView (talk) 07:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Most likely, a content matter is meant for WP:DRN at least you'll you backers if the outcome is good. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, should I fill a case at WP:DRN? OptimusView (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I would. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Kingbotk AWB Plugin 2.3.2.5

Latest AWB provides a slightly better version of the plugin. Some instructions:

• Use Biography plugin to add WPBIO banners and not the generic template.
• When you add a work-group the correct priority parameter will be added too.
• In WPBIO assessement is connected to work-groups that's why we don't provide generic importance support. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll try working with it again. I've been doing assessments by hand, I put Doc Adams as high for the bio. Maybe I should have put it at mid, but the work spans generations and has the founding father status for a sport itself. Its been fun so far. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC

Because of your interest in dispute resolution,, I am inviting you to comment on the following RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

This dispute has been going on for over ten years and there have been over 1,300,000 words posted on the article talk page (by comparison, all of the Harry Potter books together total 1,084,170 words). Over the years the dispute has been through multiple noticeboards, mediators, and even the Arbitration Committee without resolving the conflict, so a lot of wisdom is needed here. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Challenge of epic proportions... accepted! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Plaistow, Newham

Thanks for your recent polish of this article, Plaistow, Newham, Chris. As you will see from the edits it had rather become my baby and it's certainly useful to have someone else look it over afresh and make simple changes. I must admit it is always my practice to put dates down as dd/month/year, meaning today is 07 September 2012. I don't see me changing after this many years and I hope it doesn't annoy too many people. Regards. LenF54 (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Not to be rude or anything, but the changes made were with a semi-automatic tool that conforms to the WP:MOS Specifically the dates for 07 -> 7 and such are tied to a matter of appearance, but in this case while they are not needed, they seem fine with WP:DATESNO except that they are already apparent for the cite function and are not needed for conciseness. Either way, as long as its not ambiguous it should be fine. Though just a heads up, it will try to make said change every time it is loaded because of the appearance matter. That being said, I'm planning to do a citation check in awhile (read as weeks to months from now) and I might end up changing it according to consensus without even realizing I previously hit AWB on it before. So don't be mad if I forget about it and do so in like December or something. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you are being rude. I cheerfully admit to knowing nothing about the "semi-automatic tools" and/or BOTs that make up Wikipedias tools and useful hints. I'm happy for others to tidy up my work but if anyone regards me as negligent I am sure they will tell me and I will have to learn to do it myself. I think of it along the lines of "I write the songs and someone else with more experience performs them in a better way". I shall try not to get mad. LenF54 (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have a 'house style' for a lot of things, but general consensus has fallen that certain styles for citations should fall under those guidelines. When they don't people will make them conform to those, namely bare links, if the website goes offline it could be difficult to find a mirror without the title or author, a lot can be backed up, but even so, full details go a long way to preserving the content. Dates should be obvious and consistent, that's about all people really care about. The only reason I even found the article is because I was searching for a specific problem; where link text matches the link. [[Link|link]] is a generic example. The correct version is just [[link]] because it is the same. Its not a major issue, all of the general fixes are small. Such things as proper punctuation placement, brackets, references and so on, all the fixes are nearly 100% correct and when they aren't its usually because an editor hasn't made something else clear. Namely math and the -1's in notations, the general fixes try to use emdashes on these, which isn't a problem in most cases, but mistakes do happen.

As you should know, I fix typos as well. I've scanned more than 100,000 articles for typos (out of 242,000 pages with typos (out of 4,000,000)) and corrected 50,000 of them. False positives are common and I use the tool to highlight the problems, but every edit I have to verify and when 50% or so of 'problem detected' pages don't have a typo, but instead a false positive or the typo has already been fixed. I am a maintainer of sorts, and I don't want to intrude on others while they work on pages, no editor 'owns' an article, but their input is valuable in making sure the article develops properly. I don't want to step on anyone's toes or come off as 'elitist' or anything, just because I have so many edits. Some people think such things matter. Even though most of my 'work' is fixing up small things that are neglected otherwise. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding sports-priority=low at bot-like speed

Hello. Could you explain what this AWB run is supposed to be doing? There are articles where the relevant sport project has assessed their importance as mid or even high, e.g. Talk:Zvonimir Boban, Talk:Ivor Allchurch, yet you add sports-priority=low by script without apparently taking any notice of the project's assessment or of the article itself. Presume this has been discussed somewhere first? Struway2 (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm careful to check such ones for mid and high, but I am not using a script itself. Zvonimir Boban is quite clearly a low-priority. Almost ALL entries on Wikipedia have to be 'notable', but merely being notable is not enough to get a 'mid or high' rating for biographies. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment, only the 200 bios will be rated at TOP, never will I put ANY individual into this category without consensus and the criteria is, "High probability that non-Historians would look this up. Limited to the top 200 biographies. Must have had a large impact outside of their main discipline, across several generations, and in the majority of the world." i.e. Einstein for one. I can also say I will be adding few to 'High' which is, 'Must have had a large impact in their main discipline, across a couple of generations. Had some impact outside their country of origin.' and Mid (which I've already added some to) is 'Important in their discipline.'

Now here's the tricky part, who's important and who is notable. Its pretty subjective, but I go by the thought process of 'If you were to name (across the entire sport) the key figures who would you name?' Maybe 10 people? 25? Babe Ruth is top importance, the iconic figure of Baseball throughout the generations. What about Hank Aaron? Obviously another important figure, but it is not 'TOP' because this isn't 'WP:BASEBALL's importance, its WP:WPBIO's 'priority'. Only 400 articles are in the 'High category' and some of those may not belong there at all. Mid-importance (priority on page) has only got 4000, and some of these may be not right. Such as Tommy Scott (coach) where as O.J. Simpson is also Mid. So using a few markers for 'importance' versus notability, it is fairly easy to see what is what. It does help if other projects have tagged them as low or mid, but certain wikiprojects have a tendency to buff up the importance matter. So the TOP for one project might meet Mid on WP:WPBIO. High might be mid or low. I've recently found such one with a baseball founder... I put him into High because he was a 'founding father' versus 'professional player', but even I have second thoughts on the matter. See Doc Adams. The reason I am confused between High and Mid is 'Researchers regard Adams as the creator of the shortstop position'. Now... that is of importance across generations and impacts the game until this day, but is he just 'important' or 'very important'? I've also done the same with the NASCAR drivers. I did the same for Geoff Bodine and Darrell Waltrip. Reasons? Hold key long term records for wins that dominate the sport and stand out like Jeff Gordon, but Jeff Gordon is the top and is rated as 'High' for being a major icon in the sport and a very recognizable figure in sporting itself.

Though Ivor Allchurch probably could be mid importance for football, the 'golden boy' is a term I personally don't like, though I'd also like to point out that Wales is part of the UK and on an international level, the article might be a bit unreasonable considering that Peter Doherty (footballer) is a rival noted in the article and while not yet rated by WPBIO is listed as mid importance for WP:FOOTBALL. Said criteria is 'Teams with nationwide notability. Players or managers that have participated at international level or in a top-level league. Mid-level leagues.' for WPBIO since it covers all sports, it is not proper to just copy said criteria. I list the discipline as the subject with 'important' being the qualifier for 'mid' which is on the international level. Neither of the two articles are such, but Ivor is really close. Up it to mid if you want, but I am more concerned with High and Top importance for WP:FOOTBALL figures being mid or high on WPBIO. Assessments are not hard or soft, but there is a method to my manual assessments. I'm also not exactly well-versed in the subjects, but I am looking from a specific criteria sheet. Though I am not automatically assessing all as low, but a majority of high and mid priority figures are already listed because they are so much more notable.

Lastly, competing in the Olympics is 'notable' for most, but under the notability criteria, it is the bare minimum for an article. Many, many Olympians never win a medal and never place. Surely, under a very loose reading I'd have to put them ALL at 'mid' because of 'WP:FOOTBALL's criteria. So my assessments will typically rate the individual lower than another Wikiproject, because that wikiproject is specific, but not absolute on criteria. Again, please understand I'm not trying to be rude or mean or seem sketchy by doing the assessments, but WPBIO covers 'discipline' and a discipline could mean different things. Sure I could have a 'Backyard Football' project have a TOP or HIGH importance figure, but that doesn't mean they would even make 'mid' on WPBIO, the 'discipline' could be 'sporting' and I take that approach when I do said assessments. NASCAR is not 'Racing' but it is a TYPE of 'racing'. Such an approach keeps me level headed about said individuals, other wikiprojects and so on. Just because one Wikiproject rates a person as higher doesn't mean that the category (Sports and Games) SHOULD repeat it. Otherwise, what is the purpose of WPBIO's priority? Its my dilemma, but I would rather rate it conservatively, maybe spark discussion and move it to mid if a case for 'importance' can be made. Though I'm sure that the handful of ones I've moved to mid are justifiable, the rest are reasonably low. Sorry for the long response, but if you have any concerns, reply again. I won't wall o text it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for going to so much trouble to clarify what you're doing, it's genuinely appreciated. I do agree that the football importance criteria are on the fluffy side, and accept entirely that it'd be inappropriate just to carry assessments over from a project to WPBIO. I'd guess that there are hundreds (thousands?) more over-rated sportspersons, by virtue of people not being aware of the scope of the WPBIO assessment criteria, than there are under-rated by your whizzing through with low assessments. Though by the criteria you've outlined, I'd be more inclined to put Boban ahead of Allchurch. Allchurch played a significant role in his country's football, but that's all. Boban was a top footballer, helping an Italian club to four national titles and one victory in the top international club competition, but there was also the political aspect: he became a nationalist icon through the Dinamo Zagreb–Red Star Belgrade riot, and after Croatia gained independence, something of a (forgive the hype) national hero by captaining the Croatia national football team to third place in the World Cup. That's a personal view, though :-) Please carry on with your assessments, and thanks again for your explanation. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

This is why I love the O.J. Simpson article. He's rated differently for crime than sports, after all, while a notable (not important) player he is internationally known for the crime. Which is rated on High from criminal biography. I am being careful with it, by specifically looking for top 10 figures and key figures in sports it is far easier to tag them, most already ARE tagged properly. Its just that the assessment scale is held to the same level as national leaders, inventors and war heroes, actors and such. I may seem to be blazing through them (I've stopped for this discussion and any discussion which comes up), but I have one simple question for anyone on the sports list. 'How are they important in the sporting world?'

Case in point:If 'I won an olympic medal' counts for a mid then we have 27,807 'mid importance' biographies alone according to the Olympic committee. If we make a 'gold' 'high' then we still have thousands there. Did they compete at the highest level? Yes. Did they get something to show for it? Yes. But then again what about the tens of thousands of athletes that competed and are now stuck at the 'low level' despite being Olympians? What about those that are not Olypians? So it may not 'seem fair' but my interpretation is strict, and leads to a difference between the 'notable' and the 'important'. If the bar is set at GNG or 'professional' for inclusion, then anything at that level should stay 'low' regardless. Being an olypian alone is hundreds of thousands right there, so international play cannot be 'mid' level. If winning a medal (27,000) is a bar set for mid, that is more reasonable, right? It is very difficult to set an arbitrary 'do x' for biography notability for such reasons.

I will be careful, and I am adding people to mid, but at the risk of underrating, is it better than 'unknown' or to 'overrate'? Clearly I cannot add to 'Top', those are set by the wikiproject and I do not disagree with them. 'High' is basically a holding list of all those textbook 'famous' people found in international and national works, the subjects of ongoing debates for generations. I consider mid the 'important' as in 'Textbook of (subject)' would have a chapter or coverage of this person? If no, then I rate 'low'. If yes, or probably, I rate 'mid'. This priority matter while not of any real importance to WPBIO has more importance for Wikipedia Zero and such, which need assessments of pages, perhaps even going into printing. The Top 200 are clearly candidates and might fit the bill right away. Though High is also very much possible. Mid... marginally, but if you are pulling a collection rooted in a topic, then it is also possible. Even 'low' doesn't mean they aren't important, which is why the priority tag used instead, not to discount the already notable individuals, but to separate the wheat from the chaff. Which is why I tend to put the top players, founders or major contributor of sports on the mid and high range and everyone else low.

One last note and case, check Talk:Sitting Bull, prior to my run through USA assessments he was not rated. That an criminals such as Jesse James and members of his posse. Going with the criteria, I assessed them accordingly. I almost put Sitting Bull at high, but it was probably undue. If you agree with this, then I hope you have some faith in my assessments. Besides... I rather have a bunch of 'low' then a bunch of 'unknown', many of these individuals still have careers and importance can change and its also hard to do anything BUT 'low' when all I get is a few lines from a stub. The ones you pointed to were fine, but a lot of the pages are stubs with 'played for 'so and so' from this date to that date'. Expanding them and reassessing is a good thing. Nothing we do on Wikipedia is set in stone, and I'll yield to consensus or a differing opinion so long as they are rooted in a justified argument. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1-2-3 (game)

The article 1-2-3 (game) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

May not meet general notability guidelines

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 18:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:MMA

Hello,

i noticed you edited a Mixed Martial Arts page in August, but you haven't listed yourself as a Participant on the Wikiproject for Mixed Martial Arts pages. I've decided to try to drum up interest to get more people involved!

Kevlar (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I'll add the box. :) ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Edits that aren't edits?

Hi there. You are doing a great job assessing priority for WP:BIO, keep up the good work! But isn't edits like this pretty pointless? Mentoz86 (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Its a deprecated tag which is not in use. So I was just removing them and cleaning it up. There is a bunch of them too. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I believe all WP:BIO banners added before 2010 or something have them, and it needs to be cleaned-up. But I thought we aren't supposed to use AWB to clean up stuff like that without doing a "real" edit to the page, as it only clutters up peoples talkpages? Mentoz86 (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

By the reverse side, edits to the talk page like general fixes and such are against the rules, because I'd end up editing the few if any comments on said talk pages with typos and such. Though even a bot going through and doing it will wind up on the talk page anyways. Might as well do it, get it done with and move on. Like my priority assessments, no matter what, someone is going to see it. Oh, and since I have you here. Can you check my Doc Adams assessment of high? Do you think that is appropriate? I marked him as high because of his baseball invention of short stop and his administrative role. I'd like a second opinion on that one in particular. I don't know if it should be mid, I don't know baseball that well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed this junk though. [25] Stupid vandalism. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, yeah. I've been to some talk-pages as well, and there is a lot of junk on those talk-pages that noone ever removes. But about Doc Adams, I don't know much about Baseball either, but when WP:BASEBALL rates him at mid-importance, shouldn't WP:BIO do the same (I have read through your discussion above with Struway) And since you've had second thoughts about it for a week now, you might just change it? :P Mentoz86 (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Lol, good point. I was reading WP:BIO's important across generations, I guess he's just important instead. Some projects fluff them up, others do not. I just want to fix things up, that's about all, I want to be fair in my assessments. Then again, they know it better then I. So I'll drop it to mid. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Just removing the |priority= tag is perfectly fine as it is removing parameter that is no long in use. However, it should be done by a bot and not manually. There are already bots doing this. Please stop Chris. Also, you are doing upwards of 10 AWB edits a minutes. Again, This is way too fast. Slow down. Bgwhite (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done Very well. I've stopped. I was doing it manually, but if it is being done by a bot, I'll work on something else. Shall I go back to my assessments of low, mid and rarely.. high for WP:BIO sports work group? My speed is high, I know that much, but I was told it wasn't a problem. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You have been told multiple times your speed is too fast. Struway2 told you above. I've told you before. From WP:AWB, rule #2 states, "Don't edit too quickly; consider opening a bot account if you are regularly making more than a few edits a minute." You are also adding low importance to biography when football has rated them high. You are clearly not checking things. Also, you don't need to leave a talkbalk as I put people's talk page on my watchlist when I leave a message. Bgwhite (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I really don't want to cause problems or anything, but I've been told before that I don't need a bot account because I am not running a bot. I am editing efficiently, not editing stupidly. Though I should point out that just because someone is rated 'high' in a WP:FOOTBALL group doesn't mean they are going to be High on another. I spent over an hour writing about that above. Even today, my concerns about Doc Adams is proof I obviously check such things with some seriousness because even though the Baseball WP marked it him as mid, I marked him as High because I thought it matched the specific criteria of being important over the course of generations. Creating a new position and being labeled as an important figure, even in the lead of the article, is proof enough that I'm not doing this blind. Such things come up with Mario Andretti and so on, I doubly check each one with 'High' to make sure that I can justify it, if I cannot justify a 'High' I will look to see if it meets 'mid'. Perhaps my meaning of 'importance' means something different from yours, but most players are 'notable' not 'important', considering all the reasons I give above that if merely being an Olympic athlete means 'important' then we will have hundreds of thousands of 'Mids' Winning a medal would be 'High' and so on. Clearly, when the bar for inclusion is such 'importance', the important aspect is subjective, and a lot of WP:FOOTBALL ones are puffery. So who cares if someone was important and played a national match, that's hundreds of thousands of players worldwide. Oh, so they had an international match? So's the Olypmics, you can't just make criteria be X to have it a 'mid' or 'high', not even O.J. Simpson makes high for sports. I've been specifically looking at 'X of the century' and 'Top world rated' players for Mids and Highs. But fine, I won't assess anything for a bit so we can discuss this. I take offense at the accusation I am not checking things. Its why I was confused about Francisca Ballesteros. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

One thing is though, just so we aren't having a misunderstanding. Even though I was editing with assessments, I explained the situation and was told to carry on, even thanked for providing an explanation. Struway2 hopefully understands what I do and why, assessments are subjective, but I am careful in the matter. And let me make this clear, just in case its not already obvious. Edit count means NOTHING to me. I'm not doing this for some fancy numbers or whatever, I'm doing this to fix up Wikipedia. I believe in its mission and I do a lot of thankless grunt work. I'm not here to fight or try and look good, I'd be doing other things if I was here for attention. I'd hate to use an excuse as WP:IAR in response to AWB's 'rules' which I feel a long out of date and need some work since AWB has changed so much. That is another discussion though. I seek only to improve Wikipedia; and I feel limited because I am going 'too fast'. If Wikipedia were a highway, the speed limit should be defined by what is 'safe' for the 'drivers' (editors) and the highway itself (the server). Since my activity is not doing damage to the server and my deprecated tag removal is not a problem (seems two bots, including your own) are doing the same thing at twice my rate. I can safely say that 'speed' was not a concern. I hope its not odd to think that silence about it or my justification of those assessments are reluctant acknowledgment of my arguments point. Since you don't want a Talkback notice every post... I'll wait a little longer. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not my intent to put you down or tell you are doing a bad job. You are doing a great service and should must continue your work. The class ratings are highly subjective, which makes it hard to say person A is low, but person B is mid... as you also explained.

1) You explanation about WP:FOOTBALL is spot on. Alot of editors will say football importance=mid for anything.

2) For Doc Adams, I never put sports-priority higher than a person's specific sports banner. If Baseball says mid, there is no reason for sports-priority to be higher than mid.

3) I usually just place |sports-priority=low. If I have a inclination that the person should be higher, I leave it blank. I'm not an expert on any sport to justify something mid, high or top, but there are exceptions. I also place |politician-priority=low for the same reasons as sports. Any of the other biography priority ones I don't touch because I don't know enough to make judgments. For example, I haven't a clue what an Indian, Finnish or Mexican actor should be rated. In most cases, the article is a stub and there isn't enough info for me to make a judgment.

4) Ten edits a minute is still to high. That doesn't give enough time to read anything except to just click "save". Granted, there are time when you can go faster (football stubs), but it shouldn't be the norm.

5) My motto is if I'm at a page, I might as well fix as much as I can (see below). If |auto=yes], you can remove it if you agree. If |auto= or class is missing, might was well add that too. Make sure WP Biography is the first banner. If I see a footballer and WP Football is missing, then I add WP Football. I can remember alot of banners, but not all. I have two AWB's open, one for the talk page and one for the main article. Bgwhite (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You need to grab User:Bgwhite/WikiProject Biography. Add this to AWB by going to Tools -> Make module. Paste the code in there, click "make module" and check "Enabled". This will cleanup talk page banners, remove empty parameters and so forth. See this edit for an example.

I use a program called AutoHotkey. My script for the program is at User:Bgwhite/AutoHotkey. This allows me to type alt+b and the script will print {{WikiProject Basketball|class=stub}}. Another one is windows+s, which prints out "|sports-work-group=yes|sports-priority=low". Saves alot of time on typing and hopefully delays carpal tunnel syndrome. Bgwhite (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Tried to load it, gave an error in compilation at line 95 roe 52 for 'MakeHumanCatkey' overload or something which I do not know how to fix myself. Though that is interesting, and if it saves me from doing it by hand... that will be a boost. Though I have a question, as I can run up to 8x AWB, sometimes 4x AWB, you run 1x (to view article) and 1x (to edit talk page) right? I run double, but I wish I could get these plugins to work, yours or Kingbotk's plugin. Every time I load it, it won't work. Though if you are able to hop on IRC and guide me through such a process, I'd be very happy. I usually hang out on the #wikipedia-en channel from the WP:IRC link. This messaging back in forth is so slow to me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like you have a settings problem. Here is my AWB settings that includes the module. Download and save it. To load it up, in AWB goto File -> Open Settings.

I run 1x (to view article) and 1x (to edit talk page). DO NOT do 8x or 4x. Only work on one article at a time in one AWB window or two AWBs if working on talk pages. The idea is to get it right, not speed. Bgwhite (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, did you get the settings? Did you get them Working?

The category for talk pages with |priority= is now emptied. Unfortunately, not all talk pages with an empty priority are in the category because of a bug in the Wikimedia software. The harder category to do is Category:Biography articles with plain priority parameter. This will have to be run semi-manually because a work-group may need to be added and the priority parameter converted to a work-priority parameter. Oh joy. Bgwhite (talk) 05:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I got them to work, but I held off after Lugnuts brought Waacstats to ANI, even though it was closed right away. I decided to ask about edit speed and I wanted on-wiki answers to the ones I got off wiki. It may have taken a week, but I think I will begin editing with AWB again. I don't know if I want to do the assessments yet, since I'm more likely to piss someone else off. I'll probably feel better again in a bit and begin reassessing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh joy. Waacstats does do a high rate of speed on some tasks. He has been dealing with adding "short description" to persondata. It is a job that doesn't require much thinking, so it can go at a higher rate of speed. The best part is Lugnuts creates articles at a high rate of speed, so this is a case of calling the kettle black. Instead of assessments, adding class or work-group can be done more easily than assessments. A tool to use to get a list of articles is https://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite.php It's not the easiest thing to use and can be impossible to use on huge categories, such as Category:Living people. With the tool you can get a list of basketball players that don't have sports-group set. Bgwhite (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM lens

I would ask at WT:GAN about where to put Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM lens.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, did so. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

NASCAR

As your a member of WikiProject NASCAR and deal with typos I thought I'd throw the question your way. We have a typo rule that replaces Nascar with NASCAR, but in Brazil there is a team called "Nascar Motorsport" and is/was a team called "Comprafacil Nascar JF". What I can't really tell is if the 'Nascar' part should be upper cased in these cases or not. Some articles use lower case i.e 2012 Stock Car Brasil season, 2010 Copa Chevrolet Montana season, Juliano Moro and I found many references that use lower case but the quality of those sources are unclear, for example here, here and here. Any thoughts/knowledge/investigation welcome. Regards, Sun Creator<sup>(talk)</sup> 02:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Only question, since the team uses the name of the business, does that business Comprafacil run in NASCAR? I seen some lousy links about it, nothing in English. If you could get the official team logo or page then it should be fine either way, but then again, it could be treading on the rights of NASCAR, so if the team is prominent it might be sanctioned in some way. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

On that question, I have no idea. Regards, Sun Creator<sup>(talk)</sup> 19:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I've asked the initial question on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_NASCAR#Nascar_Motorsport_or_NASCAR_Motorsport.3F. Regards, Sun Creator<sup>(talk)</sup> 18:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal 1, Proposal 2 or Niether?

Hi! On the [[[Talk:Monty Hall problem]] RfC, would you be so kind as to put Proposal 1', Proposal 2 or Neither at the start of your comments? We want to make things easy for the closing admin to count. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I really have to question why someone is going to 'skim' the !votes and come up with an answer. That doesn't sound proper, it prevents reading the actual arguments, but fine.. I'll bite because I'll be returning to it later. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a very good point. I should have been more clear.

This being a contentious topic, after the 30 days go by I am going to request that one of our most experienced and trusted administrators evaluate the comments, write up a conclusion as to whether there is a consensus, and close the RfC. I am also going to ask another admin or two look it over and concur.

The applicable policy is Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, and it mirrors what you wrote above. Although having the individual comments clearly labeled as to which proposal they support is a convenience for the closing admin, you are entirely correct that the actual arguments must be closely read.

The real advantage of having the individual comments clearly labeled as to which proposal they support is in dealing with editors who have strong feelings about the consensus not going their way. I don't want anyone to be able to say "you commented that ChrisGualtieri's comments support X but the way I interpret them, they actually support Y!". If you clearly state which proposal you support, nobody can question or reinterpret your comment to mean something else.

This is the longest running content dispute on Wikipedia. Everyone has been arguing for over ten years, and over 1.3 million words have been added to the talk page. Anything we fan do to make the result of the RfC more clear will help -- maybe not enough, but we should try. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

All the more reason to end it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I just finished signing up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome!

Thank you for joining Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement. Welcome aboard! AutomaticStrikeout 15:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Was just making it official, I already had been assisting. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors

Hey there. I saw you asking about getting some copy editing help. You should take a look at the Guild of Copy Editors WikiProject. We do take requests, btw. Cheers. —Torchiest <sup>talk</sup><sub>edits</sub> 01:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help!

Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1486 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. PS: we have a great AFC helper script at WP:AFCH! News Good article nominee 04 Aug 2012 – Parental brain (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Carina1205 (t · c); see discussion AFCH script improvements 1.16 to 1.17 Batman still works!

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation. If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.
Happy reviewing! TheSpecialUser <sup>TSU</sup>

• Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

yor edits to User talk:98.231.19.20

First off let me say thank you for your contributions at AFC. It's an important project and its great to see people pitching in to try and clear the massive backlog. However, I have taken the unusual step of removing part of the notice you placed at this IPs talk page. The reason is that the AFC submission was an obvious attack page aimed at non-notable persons, but your notice encouraged them to keep trying to fix it up and resubmit it. A warning, which I have now issued to them, would have been a more appropriate response. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I had two articles which I opted to speedy, was this one of them I flagged for speedy after declining and blanking it? I cannot see because it is completely gone. Since I think I speedied it because I find some vague notice on the bot having it been tagged for CSD. The notice I placed was probably the generic one upon decline, clearly for a speedy deletion one, your alteration is preferred, given the matter. I have checked OTHER pages and I notice ALL declines generate the exact same template even on CSD. Check User:Cyde/List of candidates for speedy deletion/Subpage. Perhaps we should be addressing a change to the review template in case of a CSD tag? It has been the normal process for months to give this exact same template even on CSD matters and I've not had a problem prior. Though, the warning is valid and thanks for cleaning up the template in any event, least till the CSD flagged template is altered accordingly. I'll keep an eye on it the next round of AFCs I do. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

TypoScan

How do we load a list of articles with Typos up to TypoScan? Regards, Sun Creator<sup>(talk)</sup> 15:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

No idea, you have a list to share? I could do them with you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

A partial list Wikipedia:WikiProject_TypoScan/September_2012, but I have more saved somewhere. I'm somewhat focused in the immediate future of cleaning up the rules rather then fixing typos in articles. If you see things where the rule is wrong i.e you get false positives(but not a language issue) please let me know, those are what I'm currently working on. Regards, Sun Creator<sup>(talk)</sup> 16:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll note them to you, thank you for the list. The next database dump should be processed for Regex, I got someone from IRC to do it, but those rules did not match the current Regex and had 40-50 false positives as a result to 1 good one. I.e. Not usable. Let's wait to the Oct dump before doing the full list. I'll hit these all before the next dump starts. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:MMA Welcome!

Welcome to our new members who joined in August! ChrisGualtieri, LlamaAl, Paul "The Wall", Ruslan90, SiMntjMMA, Udar55, and Zwarrior2. Posting this to your talk pages and PW:MMA Talk page. Kevlar (talk) 06:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Lymantria dispar multicapsid nuclear polyhedrosis virus

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject:Articles for Creation October - November 2012 Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 22, 2012 – November 21, 2012.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

EdwardsBot (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving, ChrisGualtieri!
As we all sit down at the dinner table and say our thanks, I would like to give thanks to you for your wonderful contributions and wish you a very happy Thanksgiving. May your turkey, ham or beast of choice satiate you until next year! TRA! ```Buster Seven Talk	A traditional Thanksgiving dinner.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/eMarketer

Hi Chris, I see you reviewed my afc today: "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms, that are designed to promote or show-off the subject."

First off, to give you some context I had to write this for class. My Prof is having us write Wiki articles on companies in an attempt to demonstrate Wikipedia's flaws. She wants to point out how the submission process is biased and that articles often are (not)published in an indiscriminate manner. By the end of the class she hopes to show the lack of differences between articles that were accepted vs articles that were denied.

Anyway with that being said, I have questions regarding your comments. I really tried to understand where you were coming from with the "peacock terms," and the only line that came to mind was the quip about emarketer clients. I took that from the emarketer website because I don't know who else would really have better information about who their clients are. Would "333 Fortune 500 companies subscribe to emarketer" sound better?

I read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Looking at my references, I know emarketer, linkedin, and a press release are no good. I will update these with:" http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/126/126575.html, http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=736862, http://www.library.hbs.edu/go/emarketer.html, http://www.google.com/finance?cid=12606030". Please let me know what you think about these.

Also, there are literally 1000's of news articles that cite emarketer, but i'm not really sure how to include them without making the article sound unencyclopedic. Here are a few examples: 1.http://www.forbes.com/sites/lewisdvorkin/2012/11/13/inside-forbes-journalists-need-to-understand-the-ad-business-not-sulk-and-go-home/ 2.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443890304578006503381099858.html?KEYWORDS=emarketer 3.http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/market-research-firm-says-expect-less-from-facebook/ 4.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-06/aol-swings-to-profit-in-third-quarter-on-higher-ad-sales.html

These are just a few, in fact if you type emarketer in the search area for the following media companies the numbers are as follows: Forbes: 201 hits, Fox: 92 hits, CNBC: 73 hits, WSJ: 283 hits, New York Times: 784 hits, Businessweek: 325 hits, Bloomberg: 211, Newsweek: 13 hits and refers to emarketer as "a leading researcher of Internet media": http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/07/25/arianna-s-answer.html, AP: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/emarketer-google-pass-facebook-display-ads states "15.4 percent share of the U.S. market, according to a closely followed research firm. EMarketer said Thursday that it expects Google Inc. to generate $2.31 billion in revenue from online display ads", CBS: 148, and MSNBC: 396.

The issue is not a lack of independent sources, I just don't know how to include them without making the article sound unencylopedic. Should I just include them for the sake of inclusion?

Let me know your thoughts. Thank you for your time. -- Colton (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/eMarketer) 1:57 pm, 13 December 2012

Alright, I'm going to be brutally honest with you here. Your professor is either using everyone for an experiment or has a fundamentally flawed concept of what Wikipedia is. First and foremost, 99.99% of 'editors' are volunteers and get zero compensation for many of the headaches we deal with. There are 150 Wikipedia fellows who are paid foundation members, and they are not the type to review anything you see in AFC, AFD or twenty dozen other little projects and sections of this site. So your experiences are the same as going on Xbox chats or whatever, sometimes you get the 12 year old who screams and curses at you, sometimes you hear nothing and a fair amount of the time you will deal with people that you will never see again.

Secondly, your professor should know better then to try and bring this kind of stuff through our horribly flawed process of AFC. There are MAYBE 4-5 active reviewers a day, and I am inactive for a month or more on end. I willingly go to AFC to remove the backlog and review some articles, not to say they are good or bad, but will they survive WP:AFD. And even that is a random draw. Wikipedia is 75% garbage to start with, by aggregate content. AFCs role is to weed out the junk and foster improvement in the budding articles. They are by no means a gauge of quality and notability. AFC is not even a requirement, you could have just made the article in the mainspace and in all fairness, if it looks good for the 30 seconds a reviewer typically looks at it, it will probably stick for many months to someone takes issue and either fixes it up or sends it to the deletion pile. If your professor wants a valid and detailed review process, see our featured content section. WP:FA are peer reviewed, and usually in depth to. These articles are among our best and have been vetted. WP:GA are 'good' and have been peer reviewed by one person, mostly for quality and prose, but can still have errors in them.

Third. Emarketer is probably notable. Its not a major company, but to prove its value on Wikipedia is well.. difficult. We have this 'guideline' called WP:CORP and people will seriously browse the business articles looking for advertising platforms and other positive-only articles. Businesses have long been making their own pages and spinning it because of how Google rates Wikipedia. Is it ideal, no. Is it fair, no. Business as a result is among our WORST area on Wikipedia. Its easier to get a NGO advocacy group through with a few sources. As a whole, the process is stacked against such articles. We don't even have articles on Fortune 500 companies as a result. Its more of a 'shoot first, deal with the problem never' attitude.

Fourth, I'd be glad to speak to your professor directly about such topics, as I'm not exactly a spring-chicken here. We've had our fair mess with another professor who's assignment is to literally disrupt Wikipedia by fabricating hoaxes, one of the most recent was a early 1900s murder alleging ties to Jack the Ripper, using aged paper (fake newspaper articles) and other sources. It didn't last a week, but no one on Wikipedia even got around to checking the article until a classmate posted it on another website and got about a thousand eyes on it, some editors at Wikipedia no less. Long story short, spreading and creating lies and hoaxes are not unheard of class assignments, and its REALLY hard to find such malicious things. I found one about a non-existent civil war battle, took me 15 hours of research to disprove it and get it deleted. And I don't even get credit for it.

Lastly, your article doesn't sound un-notable and doesn't seem majorly wrong. The coverage and industry bullet list got me wondering about it. I'd expand it with context on what they do and why, but from a public interest perspective. Though you got shot down alone on the 'reliable sources' part. LinkedIn is not reliable and we typically do not let articles through with self-published resources, from people or companies UNLESS it deals with facts that cannot be sourced in any other way. Crunchbase is no different. So 4 of your 9 sources are lacking potency. The company overview on Bloomberg is a bad link to go to, I wanted an article about emarketeer, while I can get them, I want the article to link directly to the relevant pages. The Harvard page is a total wash and adds nothing of importance and is going to be questioned as a result, its not on them, its just a description of what they do. Venturebeat is also a bad source. The only independent and detailed report is from Yahoo! We want direct links to relevant business articles (not press releases either), that says why the company matters. As is, it will not survive AFD. And so while it is notable, the article wouldn't last a second glance and I'd be asked why I passed it. For that reason I bounced it back with the template about reliable sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

AWB upgrade

Hi Chris! This edit popped up on my watchlist. If you look closely you'll see that the edit achieves nothing, as it just converts from the new {{multiple issues}} syntax back to the old syntax. This has been fixed in the latest released snapshot, SVN 8686. It may be time for an upgrade. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Didn't realize that changed recently. As you can tell its been awhile. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Just to say thanks for undoing a bit of vandalism on Frederick Thomas Pilkington. If you didn't do it, the vandalism would have stopped me saving some additions to the article. You're timing was spot on. Many thanks. Pjposullivan (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, just doing my civic duty. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution volunteer survey

Dispute Resolution – Volunteer Survey Invite Hello ChrisGualtieri. To follow up on the first survey in April, I am conducting a second survey to learn more about dispute resolution volunteers - their motivations for resolving disputes, the experiences they've had, and their ideas for the future. I would appreciate your thoughts. I hope that with the results of this survey, we will learn how to increase the amount of active, engaged volunteers, and further improve dispute resolution processes. The survey takes around five to ten minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have either listed yourself as a volunteer at a dispute resolution forum, or are a member of a dispute resolution committee. For more information, please see the page that describes my fellowship work which can be found here. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi!

I was the "Good Faith Edit" on the Cumbre Veija article...

Here, I put my comments, here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cumbre_Vieja — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironywrit (talk • contribs) 05:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles for creation needs YOUR help!

Articles for creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1486 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our help desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. Plus, reviewing is easy when you use our new semi-automated reviewing script! Thanks in advance, Nathan2055talk - contribs

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation at 22:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC). If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.

afc and blp

There is no provision for speedy deleting BLPs submitted to AfC unless they are copyvio or attack pages or contain private information or the like. In particular:

1. María Santos Gorrostieta Salazar already exists. The new article started on her was deleted as a duplicate, but only for that reason. I would be very reluctant to speedy any factual article with a BBC reference for the key elements of notability. (There was, btw, a notice added by a bot right at the top of the AfC for Maria Santos Gorrostieta that it was a duplicate)
2. I do not understand your deletion reason for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lydia Callis Purely factual article with good source. Might of might be notable, but the sources are adequate and I do not see how any of the specialBLP restrictions apply. Even it was thought to be BLP1E as one event only, that would need an deletion discussion. The material on her family is appropriate; its part of the relevant background for her importance.

And also:

1. I accepted Shogomoc River Pedestrian Bridge . See my comment on its talk page.
2. I accepted Krewe of Carrollton. The context is perfectly clear; it's a nerw orleans mardi gras Crewe. If you are not familiar with them, you can check the Wikipedia article.

But I agree with your decisions on

1. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr. Ahmad Nashaat Hashem. Probably not notable enough for an acceptable article, but certainly not at this stage.
2. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Freelance-Pacific no likelihood of notability.
3. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kigu Ditto.
4. Aleksei Fedorovich Filippov the sources are absolutely sufficient for notability; tho short, it's an acceptable stub.

And Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vasilika of Boeotia needs work, but can certainly be an article. It's adequately referenced: a printed book is sufficient, & the book can be verified on WorldCat. I suspect the present may be a copyvio , tho. I'll advise the author.

50% correct decisions is not really that helpful. The goal of AfC is to help the new editor write something good enough to pass AfD. More is not needed at the start. All articles get improved. If you need familiarity with the standards we use, the best way to learn them is to hand around some AfD discussion pages. That's how I learned when I started. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me if this sounds rude or anything, but first of all decline is not the same as delete. I've been called an inclusionist before because I'm willing to take more articles then most people. You an I may have a difference in opinions, but there is a big difference in what you say I am doing and what I am actually doing. Now for whatever reason, I cannot see that afc for the other Maria in my contributions, I know I declined it for another reason, but if I were to have accepted it, I'd have double checked before hand. Though WP:VICTIM applied to that stub. Lydia Callis is under BLP1E and half the article was turning her into a meme, she does not qualify under WP:N simply because of a one-off interest because of her day job function is 'funny'. Not every comedian gets a page, and not everything mentioned on TV does either. It wouldn't survive an AFD so I declined it and mentioned what it would need.

Now you accepted two under the wrong premise in my eyes. The Krewe's article was not even properly backed with reliable sources. One is a self-published website. The other is an opinion editorial from a newspaper, and may not exactly pass as an RS, but for its use I'd let it slip. The other is Go Nola. A BLOG. None of these are reliable independent sources. None of these demonstrate notability and it lacks context still. The other is about a pedestrian bridge ON a trail. Merge was appropriate and it WAS added to the article (albeit without the sources... fixable though).

You've also gone ahead and removed my declines and my reasoning from said pages. I think that is very wrong and rude, just because you don't understand my reasoning or share it doesn't mean you should remove someone else's decision. If you are an admin, this shouldn't need explaination. Especially if you aren't going to pass the article yourself. The problem is only compounded by the fact you took an AFC to AFD, seriously. AFC is not the mainspace, the goal is to improve them so they can survive an AFD and exist. I declined it. You passed it, then you proded it. You're declaration of 50% of being 'correct' is insulting in light of such matters. As all the ones you think are 'wrong' have policy matters left unresolved. A duplicate (no matter how good it is) cannot pass, a pedestrian bridge on a trail is an obvious merge, my previous decline on Jimmy Hegarty was correct and your passing and proding is proof of that, the Krewe has no reliable independent sources yet you approve, and a BLP1E certainly applies to Lydia.

As for 'Vasilika of Boeotia' needing work, obviously it was still supposed to be at AFC and your suspicion of copyvio is reading inbetween the lines of my comment, but the first check fails for Vasilika being mentioned in Plutarch's work. [26] So my comment is valid, public domain works are increasingly easy to source. So again. Where did I go wrong? If a book source (which I can see) is missing said information, I'll decline it in AFC or prod it in mainspace. I did major research to uncover a hoax and rid Wikipedia of it. You're assumption of my ignorance rather then search for the reason why is annoying. Cannot verify doesn't mean 'i cannot see there for declined'. And even so, the fact it needs work is another matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll stop, as I think I've made my point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Belgian Congo

Thanks for catching the recent vandalism. It was vile and stupid. Should the User be banned? ```Buster Seven Talk 12:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Its run of the mill junk. the warning is fine. I did over a hundred of those yesterday. Its not even that bad, and the IP hasn't done it again yet. Probably some bored schoolkid.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Question: How many bored school kids does it take to convince a Wikipedia Vandal Fighter that there are just too many bored school kids? ```Buster Seven Talk 20:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

500 or so a day. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Fredy Montero

Please don't undo the corrections to vandalism on the Fredy Montero article. Someone vandalized the page, stating that Montero was "best diver". That was vandalism and I corrected it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuitarWizard90 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, previous versions from Nov 9th carried the same thing, and the edit was made by an IP, I can't find a source for that information either. Not a big sports person, but claims like that need to be sourced. Makes checking easier. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I will work on finding a source for the goal scoring claims. The edit claiming Montero was "best diver" was vandalism and I corrected it, as well as sent a warning to the IP that did it. Calling a soccer player a diver is an insult to that player...it's not a legitimate statistic of any sort.--LFC90 (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited

Seattle Public Library

Date Saturday, December 8, 2012 Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m. Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104 Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand. Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki. Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration. Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Richard Tylman#RfC: Should information sourced to research in genealogical websites be included?

Hi Chris. Thank you for closing Talk:Richard Tylman#RfC: Should information sourced to research in genealogical websites be included?. I agree that you correctly assessed the consensus and have two requests to make. Would you include a link to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 132#Genealogy databases, which discussed this particular article and contains strong support for your close? Would you also implement the close by either removing the unreliable sources or by reminding RfC initiator that you have closed the discussion in his favor? Thank you again for closing the RfC. Best, Cunard (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, I don't close many RFCs as you see. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

AN/I Notification

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fish<sup>Barking?</sup> 12:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Chris

SCREW YOU! The cookie monster is relevent

Lol. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Re:Jay and Dan

Both of those changes were relevant to followers of Jay and Dan and relevant to their podcast. They were not meant as vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmoney888 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Cluebot previously had an issue with the edits as well. With edits like this: [27], "where they discuss all topics other than clowns." Is not really helpful or informative. The first one, which discusses the podcast was wonderful and fine. Could use a source, but I'm not picky. Secondly, the matter of nicknames doesn't seem right. I cannot find anything support this one or the previous 'silent assassin'. So I'm removing it, as some twitter fluff was calling it hilarious. If it really is true, then I apologize. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Article about "Left School" (creator: Tatiana Grehan)

Hi! Thank you for reviewing my article. Regarding your reasons for rejection: you say that article is too contentious, but please note that it exists in Russian and Lithuanian versions of Wikipedia, and nobody is deleting it (please see lt:Kairioji mokykla, ru:Левая школа). Regarding citations: the number of sources is limited, and while I could add a few, but not much. Problem is that nobody is writing about this topic. There are 2 researchers, one in Russia, and another in Germany, but even they use mainly the same sources. I know that they have conducted interviews with the participants of those events, but these interviews have not been published (they will be included in dissertations, on which both researchers are currently working, therefore I cannot refer to them). Please indicate which statements absolutely need citations and I shall see what can be done. Tatiana GrehanTatiana.grehan (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok let me run through it one more time and I'll post the citation needed directly to the AFC. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I've marked it as such. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sin 34

hi Chris and thank you for your time in reviewing my article. I'm not sure I'm clear on why you declined. I do understand that you said that other Wiki articles are not considered reliable sources which I agree with and don't believe that I cited any as references. I'm also aware that not all my references may be acceptable as far as the reliability goes. I did however reference several magazines and The LA times article as well as a published book. does that not qualify for notability? under notability qualifications I thought those were required and I do believe they are referenced. what is missing that you can point me too? thank you for any feed back.Punkinfo (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Ref 1 is a personal website run by Dave Markey, it is valid in the same sense of background. Though otherwise not 'reliable', it is generally frowned upon as a self-source. Ref 2 is essentially a useless source as it is a passing mention. Ref 4 I guess is fine for its tiny use, but that link could die soon. Ref 5 is a blog is not reliable, get the record data from elsewhere, same as the yahoo one if you can. 6 is again the self source. Ref 7 doesn't even mention them. Ref 8 is a minor mention. Same with the rest, and 'lol' I read 'http://mikkipedia.net/' as the funny irish version of Wiki. And the last ref is a video that is 404. So yeah.. reliable sources guidelines: WP:RS I don't think most of those count, sadly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

okay thank you Chris, I will deleat the bad refs and try and locate other sources. This one may never make it, too bad! shucks I did a lot of work on this one. I do appreciate your help though. Mucho gracias!!!! Hope you have good Holliday's Punkinfo (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd keep ref #1, but I just want at least some press otherwise it will be hard to have it survive a second look. If someone sees that I passed something without reliable sources, then I'll look lame. Just need more paper ones, I can search myself if you have some leads. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That would be fantastic! Only I don't know any other leads to give other than all the old Fanzines ie. Maximum Rock n Roll or Flipside Fanzine, I mean Sin 34 was in several issues back in the early eighties, I just don't know how to get the archive text or even how to properly reference them. Also they have a lot of Albums and I don't know how to ref those either. they were so popular back in the day I figured the article would be a shoe in as well as all the photos of them already in the Wiki Commons. I guess I have a lot to learn as far as articles go. so yes please any help would be so gravely appreciated. 108.65.42.27 (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

If you have the material you can cite it, it does not need to be online. I doubt that Questia or Highbeam have access, but I'll do a search later. We just want the material to be verifiable and yes, before 2000s is hard to get good back issues of almost anything. I don't want to lose an article I pass at AFC, so I just want it to have 1-2 solid reviews in a mag or something, or a feature. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay so basically scrap all the refs except for ref#1 and then find one or two more reliable articles? And I don't know what Highbeam or Questia is. Punkinfo (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Basically yes, but keep them on hand just in case you need to fill a spot with something. A few strong sources will let me pass it then you can continue to work it as needed. Those sites are research related, and grab mostly newspapers and academic works up. Its a search engine.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

thank you Chris! Punkinfo (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Chris, I was able to find a few new references for- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sin_34 article and I eddited out some of the un referenced material as well as deleated the refs you didn't want on there. Whenever you get a chance please take a look at it and tell me if there is any thing else I can do for it to be an acceptable article. Thank you so much for your help in these areas. Punkinfo (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe I can pass this, enough sources are there and you did do the fixes, not all sources need be present, but they are alluded to and the information is there for those that can search it out. So it seems fine to pass it now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank You Chris for helping me to better understand the article requirements and for giving me the proper advise. If you get a chance I would love for you to take a look at one other article I've written - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Anthony_%22Tiny%22_Biuso I believe I may have over referenced it as well. any feed back would be greatly appreciated.Youve been extremely helpful and generous with your time. Thanks again Punkinfo (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

This one is easier to fix. Remove the refs to urbandictionary, rockdetector is 404ed, anything with 'blog' in the url. And the personal webpages and imdb. Lyricsfreak should go to. Also, when you do your references, use <ref>[url about]</ref> or use the 'Prove it' cite tool provided on the page. As of right now the references are messed up and cannot easily be read. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Karla Crome

I don't understand "lack of context." What is difference between this article and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Stewart-Jarrett or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valarie_Rae_Miller or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natasha_O%27Keeffe — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWarOfArt (talk • contribs) 05:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, those articles will not survive an AFD. Articles for Creation is not a necessary step to making an article, it just makes sure that it won't join the hundreds that get deleted every month when someone stumbles across them. Chances are I may do something about those articles because you've let me discover them. The 'but this is okay?' argument doesn't apply because anyone can write anything, doesn't mean its good or will stay. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You still haven't explained lack of context. She clearly meets notability guideline number 1: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." And if you want to start doing something about those articles, there are hundreds more like them so you are going to be busy. I found those in 2 minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWarOfArt (talk • contribs) 05:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Normally, I'd say 'no shit'; of course Wikipedia is a giant work in progress, but in all fairness, I cannot fix it myself. My simple request is this, more then three sentences, please. AFC exists to prevent it from being deleted, this is a tiny stub, barely more then a footnote and will unlikely to be expanded for some time. She is notable, yes, but say WHY in the article. 'She plays a main character, Jess in Misfits.' is a lot better then 'She plays Jess in Misfits'. That's what I mean by context. I'll pass if you update it and poke me again. It shouldn't be a problem, I just want a little more detail. And lastly, I am trying to deal with the messes on here... I already went through and fixed 57,000 articles out of 4.1 million articles with typos. I've done thousands of vandalism reverts and I make my own content pages as well. This is an example of my article Lymantria dispar dispar which is not even a 'Good Article' status article yet. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Chris, thanks for reviewing my page for Lori Shemek, PhD. Regarding; 'BLP concerns, inline citations are required more so here. Also sentences like, " Fitness is a big part of her life and it has been reported that she did 10 pull-ups." Sound like vandalism.' I did take out that last sentence and will add later with a citation to it. Though, it wasn't vandalism, even if it sounded like it (the reported part). LOL! Again, thanks.

No problem, just page me when you are ready for a review. Though you got to admit it did sound funny, even in context. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and it was simply my old LAPD days coming out again. "Reported" LOL! Yes, the page is ready for another review and I will think about the sentence structure on that last sentence. Geez Bob! User:Bobchoat —Preceding undated comment added 06:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I cannot pass it yet, the whole biography comment does not have inline citations to comments like these, "Her early childhood saw a heated divorce between her parents regarding a custody battle. Lori would experience moving every year with her mother and siblings that left them with little money and food. Her family even lived in small house in Detroit during the 1967 riots and had to deal with neighborhood shootings and burnings. Lori experienced multiple challenges during her childhood and her resilience through it all showed." Please read WP:BLP and you can also sign your posts with four tildes ~ to sign your name. Its not required, but it kind of is for discussions, as it tells who says what. Lol. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I added a citation from her book and took out more information. Would an interview done directly with her work? Getting information? Thanks Chris.. Bobchoat (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I axed a lot, down to the bare minimum to pass. When you redo the biography keep it neutral, and keep it about Lori and only Lori, not the family and not their struggles. We don't like sob stories or triumphant stories, we want the plain, uninteresting facts. Rebuild as you wish, but please keep it neutral. If I get summoned to an AFD, I'll back it up, but the article needs more work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Chris for that.. And I will keep it neutral.. And thanks for the insight on this too. Bobchoat (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome! I'm glad to assist. Wikipedia is tough to get started in, but it can be enjoyable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Guassa Community conservationa area

Hi Chris, I see you have quickly reviewed the article I had already submitted a while ago and that was rejected on the ground of lack of references. I understand wiki needs referencing and the proposed article not only contains internal references but also three external ones two of which are coming from Peer-reviewed scientific publications. The previous reviewer has been asking what "Common Property Resource Management" means and I have added the needed references (maybe this concept should need an article of its own?). I have also removed the external linking to the 'travel website' as well. Also, I see your point about the similarities with that website (which I have nothing to do with) so I'll look into this. cheers uuuǝıɹ 07:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I just was looking for a source related to the area itself, the scientific papers did not seem to address it and they all came from one individual. If you are certain that those sources detail the area in there works, I'll pass it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Submission declined about HV Kumar's article writeup

Chris This is regarding the article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/H._V._Kumar that you disapproved. Please let me know the precise reasons & I'll get them corrected. Thanks.

Aarganesh (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC) The was that HV Kumar did not take part in the record run, only assisted with live support. I'm not certain it qualifies as notability. Though after having re-read [28], I'm going to pass it. As it is more indepth and is entirely about Kumar. Continue to add more about Kumar and it will be a better article. But consider it passed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Chris; yes HV Kumar is a living GPS like it's mentioned in all the newspapers & magazines; he only coordinates (like a call center) but as a single person to all the travelers through the country because of his extensive driving experience of 800000 Km (500000 miles) through the country. I've provided all the necessary proofs for the same.

By the way, what is that I should be doing now? Please help me understand. Thanks. Aarganesh (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Just keep adding more details as you find them, articles develop with more information, I'd like to see an expanded bio and more about how is services are used by government or major businesses. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you; I'll do as you said. But why the header message that states "It has been requested that certain historical revisions of this page be redacted under criterion RD..." - What should I do about this one? My understanding is that the history contains the copyright violation, but not the present article anymore. Please help understand as what should be done. Thanks Aarganesh (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It will be removed in a weeks time. No worries, an admin will check just to make sure that the content is not readded. I've not seen that before, but it seems clear that it will last only a week. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much both for passing as well as continued support; appreciate it; can it be considered as good as published article in Wikipedia? Aarganesh (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It is in the mainspace so it is published. Though many articles on Wikipedia are of poor quality, to improve it and push towards a Good Article of Featured Article status requires a lot of work check out WP:GAN for an overview of what it entails. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Chris; I'll be improvising the article for sure Aarganesh (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

RaiseAChild.US page

Dear Chris, Please let me know what I need to change to get the RaiseAChild.US page accepted. The reviewer Cerebellum advised me previously and I made all the changes s/he advised. This is my first article and I am still learning the ropes. I would like to consult with the Live Chat editors but I haven't been able to get that to work. Thanks. Editor.corlight (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Editor.corlight

I just fixed it up myself and pushed it through. Might as well check the differences in my edits to figure out what is and isn't a good idea for the article. All the linked ins and personal website stuff should stay out, we don't want contacts to the people to fill the page, we want just the details, anyone searching for the individual is likely to do so anyways. I've removed some of the promotional issues and some of the redundancy to make the prose stronger. Its a decent start point for the article, I just rather clean it up then explain what is good and what is bad, as one takes longer then the other. Just please check it through yourself so you can see what I did and think about why. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Biuso

Hi Chris, I believe I was able to properly deleat the unacceptable refs and also to properly format the others for clarity on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Anthony_%22Tiny%22_Biuso article. When you're available please take a look and let me know of others if necessary. thank you!!! Punkinfo (talk) 06:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Passed. Could use more, but it has made minimums. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Chris, I did a lot of work on those two articles and I will continue to improve on them. you've been extremely helpful! Punkinfo (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Glad to be of assistance! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

AFC declined

Hi Chris. You've recently declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/826Chi, citing inadequate sources as the reason. The page creator posted at the Teahouse asking for help, and, having taken a look at the proposed article, I can't really see the reasoning behind your decision to decline it. The sources, whilst not perfect, all seem to me to meet the basic requirements: they are published in editorially oversighted, non-usergenerated publications; they contain significant coverage of the topic, and (with the partial exception of Centre Stage Chicago, which includes an interview with the chapter's founder) they appear to be independent. Since you haven't left a comment at the AFC, I'm unable to see why you don't think these are suitable sources. Would you mind re-reviewing the page, and either leaving an explanatory note (here, there, on my talkpage, at the Teahouse, wherever) or reversing your decision? Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 09:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Huffington post is not particularly reliable, I know for a fact that RSN has had numerous debates about it, but the thing is that the page does not even mention the store by name, but instead has a picture. [29] is good, but it is really an advertising announcement as I see it. While a little bit of both is the really the major one I had to look at. If you disagree with me, I'll pass it. Though 826 National would have been my ideal area to put it, but I its fine. I'm not going to make a fuss about it, it was borderline because of notability and the organization behind it is notable. I just don't see how it passes WP:GNG or WP:CORP for notability, though we'll test it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

That's very decent of you. I recognise that it's pretty borderline, and to be honest I'd support a merge into 826 National if it were proposed. Thanks for taking the time to explain your reasoning (and I might add, thank you for doing so much work at AFC; until I had a look at your talkpage I had no idea how much reviewing you were doing). I'll let the original author know, and suggest it might be necessary to dig up some more sources. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

AFC declined

Chris. You've recently declined Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/SPI_Group, citing that the submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. The patent won by the company is referred directly back to USPTO the official site for patents. The Pacesetter Award won by the company was referred back to the Atlanta Business Chronicle which issues the award. The other award was referenced from one of the largest newspapers in Asia (featured on Wiki - [[30]]. The company competes with firms like Connolly [[31]] and that company which is listed in Wikipedia refers to awards from the Hartford Business Journal. I will try and find more sources but really these are as legitimate and reliable as one can get (USPTO, Atlanta Business Chronicle etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgrbengal (talk • contribs) 09:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The patent one is 404 and session error on my end. [32] "This search session has expired. Please start a search session again by clicking on the TRADEMARK icon, if you wish to continue." The second one goes to PRINT the document, "http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-karnataka/article2564391.ece?css=print" and its like half a paragraph, and not about the company in an indepth or substantial way. The last is an event notice, that is not a good source either. [33] So I believe my criticism of it still stands as of the second, and just owning a patent is not proof of notability. Please see WP:CORP if you pass that and update the sources, just ping me and I'll take another look. Though, in all seriousness, don't use the 'print page' source, use the plain document. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Ballynagran -Request to review and perhaps accept!

Articles for creation/Ballynagran

Thanks for the review. Have supplemented the google map reference with 2 wikipedia references that now come before the google map reference. I can take out the google map reference completely but as this is a place, that i am writing about. I would like that the reader had a reference to "where"? Is there another wikipedia way of going this that i just haven't copped on to? Or will i take out the google map reference completely. Have taken out the link to Facebook.

Valuser (talk) 10:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)valuser

First of all, please remove all sources to google maps. It is not a reference. For distance matters we will take your word for it. Secondly, the article is not so much about the town as it is about the 'Ballynagran Energy Plus Community' which is promotional and advertising itself. The town itself is covered under Wikipedia's desire to be a gazetteer, but the organization is not really notable. Now, many of the sources are poor and in AFC I come down hard on a few poor sources because they are likely to be checked first before someone sends the article to WP:AFD. If you want to do an article on the Ballynagran Energy Plus Community (which it seems you are) then it needs to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORP. So refs 21-24 are gone. The map ones are gone, and you also refer to another Wikipedia page as source for #17. These all need to be axes and readdressed in a neutral manner with reliable sources. Just message me when you've improved the article and I will reassess, but at this moment it is likely to be Ballynagran Energy Plus Community and not Ballynagran for the article's title. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Big Brothers Big Sisters of Central Texas.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Big Brothers Big Sisters of Central Texas. Hi Chris!

Thank you for reviewing this article. However, I need help with the resources/links. I added a few but I am not sure how to do it right and which ones to add to have the article approved. Can you help me? Thank you! MrsChrissie (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Its better, so I'll pass it, I'm gonna cut the advertising down a notch and some of the others a bit. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

How exactly is it better? There were no changes between your decline for insufficient sources and your subsequent acceptance. Since the reliable sources barely mention the Central Texas branch of Big Brothers Big Sisters, I'll probably send the article to AfD - notability isn't established. Huon (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Edward A Cespedes article submitting and reviewed but denied

Thank you for reviewing the article. So that I can understand the comments:

1) I need to change the voice to be more formal. This is a rewrite of his formal biography. Could you be more specific? 2) It appears that you would like more references. I thought that I provided plenty of press releases, other relevant links of organizations/LinkedIn profile, etc. Could you show me how to do include a reference that is a book like A Very Public Offering http://books.google.com/books?id=A8rqqqEEtdMC&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&dq=a+very+public+offering+and+edward+cespedes&source=bl&ots=MUlxlt-iJi&sig=HVG4gz7xm4vBjP3eCPkj6lIPrJ8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_QvKUNuQNYLe9ATz5IGIDQ&sqi=2&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=a%20very%20public%20offering%20and%20edward%20cespedes&f=false

3) Also, I've tried to insert images in my articles, but it requires them to be hosted somewhere. Is there another way to upload a file from a computer?

Thanks! NoelHS (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)HeidiNS

The thing is that LinkedIn is not a reliable source. For a book cite, include the link if you wish, just ref it. It allows a window, but using the Prove it, function at the bottom of the editing window makes it easier for most cites. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

On the right side of the screen. Upload a file. Here is a direct link to it. [34]

Your review

Your review

Dear Chris: Thank you for your review. I will greatly appreciate your help and your advice "how to fix it". I am trying to gather more data so am I conduction my research. I wonder if this link: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dramatology may help for now. I also found: http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=ppersp.007.0165a&PHPSESSID=b33saa06li3l7sjn5jrrblh1f2 http://internationalpsychoanalysis.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/LothaneSzazAward1.pdf with: Psychiatry professor Henry (Zvi) Lothane have been named recipients of the 2011 Thomas S. Szasz Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Cause of Civil Liberties...His most recent methodological contribution to psychiatry and psychoanalysis is dramatology, set forth in four published papers. Szasz award is a considerable recognition. I wonder if dropping research details and popularizing my description may help. Your help and guidance willbe grately appreicated. With kind regards, Tama Tamakay (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The matter of 'your research' is sort of under WP:OR and we don't want original research, we just want plain reporting of what other people wrote about. And we need examples of its usage in clear blunt prose without much of an explanation. We want an overview of the topic at Wikipedia, not the textbook. Just making it not seem like a neologism is also a task you will have to balance. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Chris. Your suggestions are of great help. I will follow your advice and work on improving the text. Tama.Tamakay (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat & MKII

I'm done with both of them. --Niemti (talk) 02:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look, I gave myself a ton of GAs to do and a few other things, since I'm bored. I feel productive at least. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for the help in article creation-your advice is very helpful Hcallas (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome, happy to be of service. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

AfC Declined

I had created and submitted a page for the book series The Clifton Chronicles. However it was declined by you as you think that a separate page is not needed for the author, the series and the books. But, you must know that it is incorrect to add the summaries of the series into the author's page, and the Series should have a page where you will find the short summaries of each book. Also, you will find the pages :

• J. K. Rowling
  • Harry Potter
    • Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
    • Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
    • and so on...

You'll find many book series where you have the pages for the author, the series and separately for each book or movie... So why was my submission considered incorrect? Do you think that the books written by Jeffrey Archer are incompetent to be mentioned on Wikipedia? Prathamesh Patki (talk) 06:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't make assumptions about what I think. Harry Potter as a series is very much different then this, first of all the second book as ZERO sources on it. Its a mess dominated by a plot summary and that is about it. First of all, the page didn't even add anything of use. Its a plot teaser and then a link to the book. You compare it to Harry Potter something which is a thousand times more famous even though the writing is terrible and the fantasy world is inane. I expected at least some detail if a new article was going to be made, but not the same thing as on the book pages. Big difference. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

World Compassion Day declined

Hi Chris, you have declined the publishing of my article World Compassion Day. Can you help with fixing it so it can be made live?

PriyankaShah69 (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look again, it is more likely that I saw His Holiness and a few other things which just need tweaking, I'll probably pass it after I fix it up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Norin

Dr Georg Norin.

I'm sorry I couldn't find more info. on this nazi doctor. It is not an 'attack page,' as I said, allegedly, and provided what little info. I could find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.14.56.129 (talk) 07:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem 'alleged' you cannot even put the word 'alleged' without a reliable source stating that and its a cop out, you risk staining someone who may be innocent. I want more then a forum post and some document which does not even mention his name. I want a reliable source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Mobile Monitoring

Hi Chris

You have declined the publishing of the article Mobile Monitoring. Can you help with fixing it or be more precise what is missing, so it can be made live? Why is Mobile Monitoring ok for the Germen Wicki and not for the English one?

Jschweizer - SWITZERLAND — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jschweizer (talk • contribs) 08:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll take another look. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It has no references at all, it doesn't state where you got any of the information from. Without a source to check that the information is correct, I will not pass this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Your request today for reviewer rights

Good morning Chris,
I saw your name as the last applicant and presumed that you, like me, had followed Yaris678 (talk)'s advice this morning.
Could you please show me where I am going wrong with my application at WP:Reviewing
-- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 11:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Post script: It has been done. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 11:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I never seen that post, but I found the reviewer thing in another way. Glad you figured it out though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 18:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Charliedzuba

Chris Gualtiere; Is it possible that you can edit my article so that it conforms with Wikipedia Biographical requirements? I am really having a difficult time understanding Wikipedia's requirements and format. Please help. Thanks, Charliedzuba (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Charlie

Consider it done and passed, I'll just address the minor concerns myself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Latitude Learning submission feedback / request

Chris:

Thank you for your review of the Latitude Learning article submission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Caldo_de_Gallina/sandbox).

I'm a bit puzzled why the Latitude Learning submission lacks notability when it it comparatively rich in detail compared to the 39 other competitor LMSs listed on Wikipedia's List of learning management systems(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_learning_management_systems).

As an example, please review the article for Vitalect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalect). It has little content and doesn't include any awards or the extent of articles that the Latitude Learning submission does.

Another is SSLearn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSLearn)- there's not much there.

Even Ning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ning) is listed as an LMS but it contains only links to other non-LMS appropriate links.

I noticed one of your previous objections was that Latitude Learning's award are "very minor", which is not accurate. The awards from Brandon Hall and Knowledge World are very significant and highly sought after in the LMS/eLearning marketplace.

Third party references from LMS evaluators Capterra and Tagoras indicate Latitude Learning is one of the major LMSs available.

If Wikipedia publishes a list of LMS systems - which it does - then Latitude Learning deserves to be represented as much or more than many of the companies currently listed.

Please review my observations and reconsider your decision regarding the appropriateness of Latitude Learning to be listed as an LMS of note.

It has a proud history of providing innovative and effective training through its LMS platform and deserves to be included in Wikipedia.

Thank you for your consideration.

Patrick Caldo de Gallina (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

*Sigh* Things like Vitalect did not go through AFC and do not need to. There is no hard vetting process for anything. But if you want to make sure it survives AFD, Refs 14-16 are useless. I'll pass it on the good faith assumption that it is a notable business, it may count as GNG, but I am shakey about its likelihood to survive an AFD, and to be fair most of the companies listed in that section are far from safe if a deletionist minded person comes by, simply because so much is self sourced. Your work is better then most though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article criteria

Hi ChrisGualtieri, you obviously don't need me to tell you that I considered that "quickfail" had been used to miss-fail a recent nomination. Note: to clarify, the nomination was unarguably non-compliant, but it should not have been "quickfailed" (if that make senses to you). I've also had considerable difficulty in understanding why the process was used (mis-used in my opinion) in this way to "fail" that nomination, but I think that I now understand how/why it happened. As a result of a very recent edit to improve the layout by another editor, I noticed that a "quickfail" section had added to Wikipedia:Good article criteria as long ago as May 2012. Upon reflection, this new section copied from Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles can be interpreted in the way that you appear to have used it. If so, it should never have been changed in that way, as such a change in process was never agreed at Wikiproject Good Articles. It's also unfortunate, from your point of view, that the particular nominator of that article has reviewed (according to the list) 180 GAN nominations and probably nominated a comparable number of articles at GAN, so possibly every time he stated that you were wrong, you probably were (but I did fail the last nomination of his that I reviewed - I left it open "On Hold" for nearly three weeks and nothing was fixed). The same list has me down for 501 reviews (but its an underestimate), so I probably find it hard to appreciate the "difficulties" of a new (or newish) reviewer. I hope you can excuse my failings. I have already contacted AirCorn who made those changes back in May 2012, with the aim of clarifying the processes, and we need to make sure that the process states what it should be stating. Pyrotec (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't start doing GANs till after that was put up, but whatever. In all fairness, the article had numerous concerns and when he put out that he was unable to address the simple concerns raised, I decided why let it languish for a week? Its not a bad article by any means. I just feel that my lengthy posts do not get read, and my point of view was misunderstood as a result. Even when I make coherent arguments.

GA is not a fun process by any means. There is no 'right' way to do it without risking someone getting upset with you. Previously, I was too lax then I was too strict. The criteria are subjective and I know a Good Article when I see it. That one was borderline, I know the article was technically fine by the criteria, its lackings were minor. Though 'One Source' does seem to be a valid concern and the POV is of the biographer. Drmies got on me about small stuff last time. One source is the chief concern. I might just fix it myself and pass the stupid article. Its close enough. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Well yes, its quite easy to review a nomination that is an "obvious pass", such as a potential WP:FAC candidate (but can be hard work if it's a long article), or an "obvious fail". The borderline pass/fails are always more difficult to do, really short articles especially so. Ignoring the one source "problem" just for now. You produced convincing arguments that it lacked citations for comments/statements that needed citations, so the obvious solution (well to me) would have been to "fail" it against WP:WIAGA clause 2(b); as an alternative (and the choice was yours as the reviewer) it could have been put "On Hold" but you'd already ruled that out on the basis that the nominator did not have the sources to hand so it could not be fixed within one week or so, so a "fail" (not "quickfail") on lack of cites was a valid response. The nominator wouldn't have been able to dispute that. However, you used the lack of citations argument to justify a "quickfail" decision and you gone past the point where "quickfail" was valid (the review had been put On Hold at one point and some "problems" had been fixed). One-source is a bit more difficult to justify, but WP:WIAGA clause 4 might have been used - single view point, was there something obvious (its not my subject) that the book had ignored or was the book biased in its coverage? It's now under review again, but the reviewer does not seem to have made any comments yet (Talk:Friedrich Eckenfelder/GA2), so you could fix it and let the other reviewer pass it, if that is your choice. The reviewer may well get criticised for wrongly failing an article that should not have been failed, passing one that should not have passed, etc; and in this case the nominator had more reviewing experience than you had. I sometimes get criticised on my reviews, but not too often, so I invite them to take it to WP:GAR - so far I've won one and lost one. Pyrotec (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to stress about it, it is not a bad article, but I do think the arguments raised were valid. I even attempted to correct the one source matter, by finding references to the subject. Though the nominator may have more reviews then I, I never see it as a basis for interaction or reviewing. Wikipedia is not a battleground for me, and I do not care for battles with anyone, though the greater the real world impact the greater the concern, GA is just a formal acknowledgement of what should already be there. I hold no grudges or animosity to Tomcat7, and I am letting bygones be bygones. Its not a big deal after all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A little confused about notability guidelines

I'm a little confused about this issue.

I wrote a basic article about Bernice Madigan, one of the oldest confirmed people in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernice_Madigan

I thought great longevity constituted notability pretty much on its own. There are a bunch of other Wikipedia articles on people younger than Bennie just for being old.

I've included a few references on Bennie, and there are links to other newspaper articles about her online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauriemann (talk • contribs) 04:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Uh, the decline was because the article already exists. You can just go ahead and update the existing article. There is no need to recreate it. Ignore the tag for now. Just improve it, then the tag can be removed. And yes... its notable, but it seems another editor disagrees. Such things happen. Just give me a message if something happens to the article, like it goes up for deletion. The subject is notable and the page is not going to be deleted on my watch. Improving it will make it deletion safe. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Jamestown Revival

Chris Jamestown Revival has been on Carson Daly and had a song on a TV show called Couples Therapy on VH1. Those are both notable achievements. Those are both also listed in the article I submitted. I have to disagree that they do not meet the guidelines. Many bands on WIKI pedia have done less in the entertainment industry. Jonathan Clay the head writer for Jamestown Revival has been a voice actor in LOL a Miley Cyrus movie and has over 1 million plays on a Youtube video. Zach Chance the other writer in Jamestown Revival had a song on Private Practice. These notable achievements eclipse many of the accepted bands achievements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.133.167.250 (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I edited the Jamestown Revival article. I have only written one other WIKI so I am not very good at this. Please tell me what else needs to be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnaml0 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I declined because the first claim of notability was being eliminated from a contest to be on the cover of Rolling Stones. Being a mere participant doesn't count and it seems comedic that even being in it lends itself to being the notability claim. In all fairness, they do not seem notable per WP:MUSIC. And do not yet seem to demonstrate WP:GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

A little confused...

I'm a little confused about why you declined a stub about a book that had been reviewed by three major newspapers (The Truth About Markets), but accepted an article about a marketing company based largely on unreliable sources (eMarketer)? Pol430 talk to me 13:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I asked for context as was appropriate for the guidelines which was a single sentence stub. It was not reliable sources or other issues, its just I didn't have time to research, write and put a bunch of context in for this case. So I bopped it back on context matter. I was advised that we should want at least a good paragraph or two, and not to write single sentence or 'half a paragraph' stubs. As for eMarketer the sources may be a bit on the shoddy side, but the company itself is notable. I had a discussion with the guy who wrote it, and notability was demonstrated. I also don't like to be hounded about my decisions and after taking a look at the material I decided 'why not' and passed it because our business section of Wikipedia is entirely lacking and this company is one even I know of. Its like passing Stuckey's, its definitely notable and not for everything that is currently in the article, nor does it have to be. It will survive AFD because the company is notable and everything that you think is wrong with the sourcing can be addressed by breaking out the archives of the WSJ and other business papers. I do not have access to such great documents, but they are there and the ones provided were not terrible. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I've just read the background chat you had with the author of eMarketer, I can see now why you accepted it. I find some of the stuff these teachers ask their students to do on Wikipedia I little odd, indeed at times, deeply disingenuous. I also wish they would stop using AfC to facilitate their social experiments -- as if the backlog isn't big enough already! Anyway, thanks for taking the time to explain your reasoning and apologies if you felt I was hounding you, that was not my intention. Best wishes Pol430 talk to me 15:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Ha, you read the archive I guess. Yeah, I too was more then a little irritated that a teacher would dare to do such a thing. If it will survive AFD on its merits, then I'll pass it, but I was reluctant to do so and decided to fix it up a little before hand to cut out the ad portion of the list of services. As it is, the article is fine and its better to have some information rather than none at this point. I too was concerned about the LinkedIn resource, but it was just for the employee count. And yes, I did mention about that other professor who assigns students to produce hoaxes for academic credit. Hey, I've been chugging along declining 8+ to 1 pass on AFC, but the backlog is getting removed. I saw 1600 and went 'OMG' and decided to address it. We are all self trained on AFC too, but no worries.

I get a lot of messages on my talk page every time I do anything that involves editors, I didn't mean 'you' hounding me, but the editor who submitted it made a long and detailed post about WHY it was notable rather then including such in the article the first place. I had 6 messages when I logged on that day, and more so recently then anything else. So yeah, you aren't hounding me, but whenever I do something that someone dislikes I tend to hear about it for days. Such is Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, AfC is a particularly thankless task. I burned out on it about 8 months ago and went on a Wikibreak. I now limit my activities there to assisting in project administration -- like moving misplaced submissions (the Bot can't be bothered anymore). Anyhow, don't let the hounders grind you down and don't be afraid to step back when you've had enough. It worked for me :-) Pol430 talk to me 19:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

True, it is easy to run out of patience with it. I wish I could deal with the Sandbox entries, those are a pain. I remove the template and give a review directly to the user, but I should probably move, snip the afc at the sandbox, then decline or accept. Right? It seems to be convoluted and strange from where I sit right now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The easiest and quickest way to deal with sandbox entries is to copy and paste the most probable article title from the first line of text, then click on the pre-loaded 'move' link in the AfC template (which will probably be located at the bottom of the page). Then simply replace the 'sandbox' element of the new page title with whatever you copied and pasted, then complete the page move. The only time this doesn't work is if the title exists already in AfC namespace, the new title is creation protected or it triggers the title black list (usually if it's all in caps). Once you have moved the sandbox page to AfC space, just click 'review' and then 'other options' and then 'clean submission'; the AfC helper script will move the active AfC template to top of the submission and remove any irrelevant templates. Job done! Of course, it becomes tedious when you do 200 of them... Which is why I'll be happy if Nathan can program a bot to handle them. Pol430 talk to me 14:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A thank you note for your review

A thank you note for your review

Chris: With your help, I think that I have nailed it! :) I have asked my aunt Arlene to simplify my article. She is ideal since knows nothing about dermatology. Well, Arlene is a drama queen :) but it does not make her dramatologist :) and a person without the domain knowledge is good for "popularization". I probably know too much about psychiatry. I was not aware of the policy of Wikipedia on the original research. I have made a reference to Wiktionary (a sister project) where dramatolgy was previously defined by someone in UK (if I decoded it correctly). Let me hope that I have made you happy this time! If not, my next edit maybe from the inside of a mental institution :) With kind regards, Tama Tamakay (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

thanks Chris, I have removed the wikipedia references and left it with the original sources.90.202.29.56 (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Glad to be of service, I'll probably be taking a look at it in the coming day or two for a review. And yes, our policies are weird and it would take me hours to get you to speed with them. Though the WP:PILLAR is a good place to start, from their it gets a little instruction creepy with all the stuff like WP:MOS. My role at AFC is to make sure your article will last, I have not had one go to the deletion pile yet. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Chris, I have been very busy with revisions of my jrn submission (related to psychotherapy :) and it has been done and should be published by a top Springer jrn.

I would like to thank you for your msg and will wait for the next one :)Tamakay (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Chris: I have been working on this article since December 5. It was submitted for reviewing on Dec. 10 and subsequently simplified to one screen only and resubmitted on December 15. The term “dramatology” exists in Wiktionary for some time so technically speaking, it is no longer new. I have seen your message indicating that you are very busy and expressing your willingness to pass to anther person. It would be nice to have this short article published on Wikipedia before X-mas and I wonder if you could have a look at it or pass to someone else as you indicated it in your posting. It will be highly appreciated.Tamakay (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I passed it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Chris: I greatly appreciate your revisions to my article. Thank you for your guidance through this process. Tamakay (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I have just seen it on Wikipedia that it has been published. Thank you!!! Tamakay (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Chris. I have in my sandbox a note:Review waiting. This submission is waiting to be reviewed. This may take over a week. The Articles for creation process is severely backlogged. Please be patient.There are currently 1270 submissions waiting for review at this page. I am not sure what does it mean since the Dramatology article already exists... Could you please help? Is there really another review waiting? Thanks!Tamakay (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Royalton Kisch submission feedback request

Dear Chris Gualtieri

You very kindly reviewed the article I wrote on Royalton Kisch, the conductor. Thank you. You failed it, commenting: "Need more information on the first source to find it, needs more reliable sources as a whole though." The first source cited is indeed the main one for the whole entry, the subject's obituary in The Times, 7 April 1995. As this is the world's most famous newspaper and generally considered a reliable source, I thought that was a pretty clear reference and am uncertain how to improve it. The page number, perhaps? I also thought the other published sources clear enough - What should I do??!!

Wikischpedia (talk) 11:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Martin/WikischpediaWikischpedia (talk) 11:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

There are MANY 'The Times' papers and it was not specific to the New York Times, for that reason I wanted a better citation description and noted in the comment, "Need more information on the first source to find it." Though more reliable sources is a good thing, I mainly declined on the inability to attribute which 'The Times' it came from. Fix that and I'll pass it. Though I really would advise adding inline citations after sentences where the information came from, while not specifically under BLP, I like to make sure everything is well cited. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm bored at this precise moment in time, so I'll fix up the referencing for the author. Pol430 talk to me 15:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done. I'm guessing the author is referring to The Times newspaper, as the subject was born in London. I agree that inline citations would be helpful as The Times' online archives are not accessible unless you pay for it. The article would also benefit from a copyedit as some of the text is a bit weaselly. Pol430 talk to me 16:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing it while I was offline. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Maria de Naglowska article

You declined my article about Maria de Naglowska saying, "Looks good, but needs more inline citations I believe. Also, Inner Traditions does not seem like a standard reliable source publisher and the attribution is to Maria de Naglowska, but who edited it? Questions of reliable sources here."

I have made several adjustments and resubmitted the article. Additional inline citations have been added as recommended.

Inner Traditions is a reliable publisher having done numerous partner projects with recognized names in publishing since 1975. I added a cite to their "about us" web page which details what I think most would agree is a long, respectable history publishing esoteric books.

The other sources are quite reliable. Hakl is the primary scholar who has written biographical material about Naglowska in English and those works have appeared in peer-reviewed journals and books. His work and Traxler's introduction and appendices cite to numerous French primary sources. So does Gareth Medway's book "Lure of the Sinister" to which I also cite. And Medway's book has received broad praise.

It is important that this article come to Wikipedia now that Naglowksa's works have been published in English, lest the knowledge about her be restricted to those who read French. There are Wikipedia articles about Randolph and Evola. There should be one about Naglowska. And I have cited to the major English sources about her. I welcome your further thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RMerciless (talk • contribs) 01:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing my concerns, I have passed the article. Such comments tell me that you are serious and you took care, and while I am not an expert, I do feel better knowing you are serious and will address my ignorance with a strong argument when asked to do so. Taking an active role in your work is something that few editors do here, much less with proper reasoning. I thank you for helping the project grow and expand its knowledge-base! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation newsletter

Delivered 01:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC) by EdwardsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the spamlist.

Articles for creation/Ballynagran Energy Plus Community

All proposals accepted; sensible.

editing done as suggested

Notability. The argument is that this community project is notable because it is one of eight communities in the European Union chosen as a pilot (mainly rural) community to test/champion a transfer as a community to a more sustainable energy use . (Zecos Communities) The success or otherwise of the project in all of these areas will have some bearing on the future EU Energy Policy. Of course there are a myriad of other influences on policy but who is to know at this stage how significant this zecos project could be. Personally i think its notable, but its significance is undetermined at this stage. I think its worth including, and as the various components, be it a wind farm, electric school buses, or biomass energy, etc. etc come on stream , to have them noted in the article.

Valuser (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I or another editor will look at it soon enough. I am sad to say I have a bit of a full plate right now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Good article reviewing

Hi Chris. The discussion at the GAN page is getting a bit long so I thought I would just drop a quick note here. We need reviewers, especially ones that are thorough, so my main aim is to keep you reviewing. It can be a thankless task, especially if you fail someones article. Since you came to the talk page it is obvious you were looking for some advice and it could have probably been handled better by myself and a few others. I think you can take out of the experience that you were correct to fail it, you just should not have labelled it a quickfail. The wording on the instruction pages are partly to blame and I am looking to fix that myself (a you can see from the section below yours).

As an aside, some of the first reviews I failed turned into a bit of a mess. I got some flak for Talk:Rotating locomotion in living systems/GA1 from the nominator, although I still stand by my decision even now. My first ever review was Talk:Stade Roland Garros/GA1 where I took over from another reviewer and the nominator complained passively at his talk page about the incompetence of reviewers (I saw and failed it after that). Anyway my point is that I learned a lot about reviewing from those experiences and one of the lessons was that no matter how crap an article might be, it is always best to treat it as if the nominator has invested a lot of time into it (most times they have). Still fail them by all means, and you will unfortunately still get a disappointed/frustrated reaction, but on a whole I have found it to be much more rewarding (see Talk:Lynsey Nolan/GA1 for a recent fail). It can be a good experience too when you meet an enthusiastic editor not looking for a green spot, but to actually improve an article. AIRcorn (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't do GANs for some time, but I'm going to keep doing the ones which are on things that need only be encyclopedic for awhile, if I see issues with the article like on Tomcat7's nom, I will not even bother starting the review. My whole issue is that Tomcat7 was trying to subvert the GAN process, actively lied and fabricated inline citations, copied and merely translated the flawed de.wiki page with its close paraphrasing (to the book) and unmarked conclusions of the biographer, Tomcat7 also never had access to any material for this enwiki article. When I realized it I moved to quick fail, probably should have just failed it. AGF ended when I saw Tomcat7's 'work' and I feel that he should be responsible for what he is putting into Wiki, a machine translation of the de.wiki page is about equal to tomcat7's work, but while I will not address that matter, for awhile I did believe that is part of what Tomcat7 had done, the article was a mirror image of the de.wiki and it included all the problems yet Tomcat7 would not address the issues and couldn't.

After closing the GA review, I quickly knew I was correct as Tomcat7 continued to subvert the process. Undoing my failing, trying to hide it, personal attacks on me, removing valid tags. That is why I brought it to GAN, and Tomcat7 edit wars and actively engages in disruptive editing to the point of 3RR about it. He already makes personal attacks on the second GA reviewer. I think his behavior overall is terrible. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

My submission for Bricsys

Hi Chris,

Would hereby like to draw your attention to a set of facts which hopefully will lead you to agree that my submission for the Bricsys page is indeed adequately supported by reliable sources.

To start let me acknowledge that my original submission, declined in November by Eclipse for this reason, although factual did indeed not yet have many sources listed … but this is no longer the case.

Here then some of the items I want to draw your attention to:

--> one the sources is the "Open Design Alliance" (www.opendesign.org) where you will not only find Bricsys listed on the homepage as a member, but can also see a dedicated member showcase page. The ODA is a respected industry organization with more than 1000 members … surely a reliable source for design / engineering industry related information

--> please also note that the product brought to market by Bricsys is called Bricscad and does have an existing wikipedia entry. Not only that but both Bricsys and BricsCAD are already listed in several design / engineering software lists on Wikipedia, such as e.g.

• List of CAx companies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CAx_companies

• Comparison of CAD software list

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_CAD_editors_for_AEC

It is just that the Bricsys entry was at some point in the past deleted by someone … and all the existing links are now going nowhere; I'm just trying to re-establish them so that the info base on Wikipedia is complete again.

--> one of the sources is a publication of the Jon Peddie Research company, which is an authoritative voice for consulting (both vendor and customer) and publishing in the graphical / CAD industry … to be compared with Gartner or Forrester but for the Graphics / Design world. Thus articles in the GraphicSpeak publication of Jon Peddie Research are also for sure a reliable source

--> other sources used were "CAD Insider" and "Geospatial Today" … although more specialized in nature than GraphicSpeak, both of these publications are also imho to be considered reliable source in the CAD industry

Chris, to wrap up … I hope you can agree that my submission, intended to fill a gap in the currently existing entries on Wikipedia, is factual and non-commercial. Plus, as detailed above, I do believe it is supported by a number of reliable sources … industry organization, industry analysts, industry publishers.

Looking forward to your approval of the submission … best regards and happy holidays, Guy Gvancollie (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I will look at it in the coming days, thanks for explaining things to me. You are right, Wikipedia has a lack of businesses on it, we have had our problems with them. The bar is set high, but this discussion is enlightening and it says that you are trying to address it and not advertise the business. A fine difference for most sadly. Thanks for taking the time to reply here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your great contributions in general to Wikipedia. LlamaAl (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

help!!!

Hey Chris, I don't know how it happened but I wanted to start a new article and the second I saved the first thing it created it! Now I don't even want it created yet I still have a lot of research to do. The article is called Cold Shot and if you could help me move it to a articles for creation space I would be very grateful! Thanks!!! Punkinfo (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

imdb - Daniel Catullo

Just a note, from my experience, imdb is fine for sourcing things like movies acted in, etc. I've been on the wrong side of that argument before, but it was a while back. It isn't optimal, but they usually get that right and it is usually the best singular source, which is why we have templates for them. The real problem is bio info, which absolutely can't be sourced by imdb. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 09:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I'm skeptical of IMDB when the article is lying about their own accomplishments and achievements. Most of the achievements as noted, had nothing to do with his role, but were instead the respective groups accomplishments and he was attempting to piggyback on it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I suspect IMDB is a poisoned well at this point. I am not going to take any non-reliable sources for the article. Both of the benefits have no connection to Catullo in any reliable source. In fact, one goes into great detail and does not name Catullo as producer or director, explicitly. "Quincy Jones, Joseph E. Robert Jr. and Jerry Inzerillo served as Executive Producers." [35] It never mentions a 'director' either, so I assume the worst. Also, another doesn't list him in the credits. [36] So unless he played some role in the DVD release and got on the credits that way, it doesn't seem right, but I believe it would qualify as misleading to do so. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

What are your thoughts about prod'ing both Daniel Catullo and DC3 Music Group? I'm not really seeing notability for either one. Dreadstar ☥ 23:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem he is notable by extension and all the legal matters he has been involved with. Deletion is a last resort for me, so I will not do either of those, but they are terrible as they are right now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I see; yeah, I wasn't looking at any legal issues for them. I'll leave them to you. Have fun!  :) Dreadstar ☥ 16:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Daniel Catullo. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. - ℅ ✰WPPilot✰ <sup>WPPilot</sup> 06:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC) You are out of line, and in no way have you justified your removal of the data that was well ref'ed and you have in no way stated what it was that was a incorrect in this Wiki. Please refrain from editing pages in a manner that is distructive and non productive.

Invalid. Subject has pushing promotional material and has not demonstrated in reliable sources the claim made on those articles. WP:BURDEN states the challenged material can be removed at any time. I challenged this and found that the other sources specifically point to the cast and producers by name, he did not play a role that he claims to have played in the benefits. Until the proper role is noted, if any role, then it should remain off the page as the material is dubious. Please remove this tag, or I will. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No sir you are wrong, you statment regarding litigation makes it clear that you have a personal biased and you should not be editing the page. You claim that IMDB is not a reliable data base yet every producer in Wikipedia uses it as a source so your claim is reduced to a personal attack. If you care to have copnversation regarding this you may use the talk page but if you continue to edit in a manner that demonstrates that you are biased and clearly making a effort to remove this page you will be blocked from editing on Wikipedia.--WPPilot 05:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

False. IMDB is not a reliable source according to numerous postings at WP:RSN. We even have an essay on citing IMDB. Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb I am allowed to challenge material under WP:BURDEN and I have done so. False information was on this page. You created the Plane to Haiti page and you are trying to discredit me as a direct result. I am not making a personal attack. I DID use the talk page at Catullo. The edits were even commented on by another user who agreed that it was probably in the best interests as the other material was false. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You all but removed the enire page, The Plane to Haiti page I createed, correct but I sir do not need to edit in a manner that discredits anyone, do not flatter yourself, I am not childish in that manner. Clearly you have a bone to pick with Dan you are using Wikipedia to do just that and you are NOT editing in the intrest of Wikipedia, or its readers, you are editing in a manner that makes it clear that you are biased upon this person. The Plane to Haiti page should perhaps be merged into Dansd page but according to you he simply has not done anything that his page states he has done. If you continue in this personal quest to remove this page and you do so using your claims that he is only notable from his litigation you will be blocked from editing. PLease find another story and simply move on. Thank you--WPPilot 06:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Daniel Catullo. WPPilot (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I am acting within policy. Please provide proof of your claims of my bias. Failure to do so could be construed as a personal attack. If I wanted the page removed I would have put it up for deletion already. The subject is notable but I am not going to drag the person through the mud. Its why I didn't link nor mention the dozens of court cases and bad press on Catullo in reliable sources such as the US courts. I've restored the edits on the catullo page. You should discuss them. Blocking is preventative not punitive, and no one has done anything that merits it. I fix things and make Wikipedia better. So calm down, and explain why the claims we removed were valid and not false. Not even GWR has 4 records for him, just one. It seems that GWR is an authority and reliable source on their own records. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Your comments show the bias clearly and as such you need to refrain from your personal attack. I will publish this to the Admin board and ask for outside comments. You are biased and anyone that reads your comments and reviews your edits will agree. Find a story about something that you are not biased upon, and make it better.--WPPilot 06:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

PROOF OF YOUR BIAS: "reliable sources such as the US courts". Am I correct in that you are searching the PACER docket and paying .30 cents a page to research the Pacer docket in regards to Dan? Wow. Why then are you not posting that data that you pay for to reasearch someones civil court matters. I have clearly made my point here sir and as is noted in the prior post, you will be blocked if you continue to vandalize that Wiki page to further your cause. I strongly suggest that you just move on. WPPilot (talk) 06:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Woah, woah lets all try and calm down here. Chris isn't trying to vandalize, he's try to make the article a better one. Clearly you have the same goals too, so lets try and work together. Accusing people of having a bias won't help, so lets try and discuss specific sources or paragraphs we think are not-reliable/POV and work on fixing those. HTH, Legoktm (talk) 06:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Calm is good, especially with the process of WP:BRD. And the documents only came up at the ANI discussion. [37] The post revealed the article and I went about fixing it to comply with policy and standards. Notice no one has added negative material despite it being the first thing on a Google/Duckduck search. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Not a chance, he has stated in public that he is paying to search federal court records to find data regarding litigation about this person. HOW ON EARTH does the summary removal of allmost all the data that I SPENT WEEKS RESEARCHING, is making anything better. He had for the most part removed anything to do with the story and he did it based on his assertion that he Dan was in control the of the page himself. That is simply not true. Comments were to the effect that he (Dan) was using it for self promotion, yet he does not back it up. --WPPilot 06:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Last I checked, I didn't do that. Second, its free and accessible and google even suggests searching for 'Dan Catullo arrested'. The IP believed that dc3director was Dan Catullo. No one confirmed that, maybe its a fan. Who knows/cares. Are you dc3director? Let's get to the reason why my edits were 'wrong'. Please suggest something in the spirit of BRD, that you want to remain in the article and I will give my reasons why it should be removed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Pacer.gov is not free, and it is the ONLY way to see the federal court records. User ChrisGualtieri even suggests that we use the talk pages the he reverts my edits, at the same time without even making any effort to use the talk page. I will not back down on this he is CLEARLY BIASED, no rational person that is simply helping write a story will search and pay to search the Pacer Docket or court records. That is a clear and compelling demonstration of his bias and any rational peraon would also see it as such. I will not back down here and ChrisGualtieri will be blocked if he decides to undertake a edit war with me over this issue. I will address the issues on the story tomorrow and will make sure that it is up to Wiki standards. For now it really is best if you both find another story to edit and let me work my magic after some rest. Cheers! --WPPilot 06:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Chris is clearly not planning on re-blanking the article, if he really wanted to he would have done so already. Lets try and move forward from this point.

Even if the source isn't free, what's wrong with an editor paying money to get more information? I've used my university access to obtain sources behind paywalls many times. Legoktm (talk) 07:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

BTW I am WPPilot. I have ALWAYS edited under WPPilot. That is the ONLY ID I use here. If google suggest that you "jump off a cliff" what would you do? I work in the Law, (US Federal Law as a matter of fact) sir and you have far to little respect for others for me to continue with you here and now. --WPPilot 07:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Typically, contentious material remains off the page for the discussion process as the burden is on the editor to show otherwise. But fine, I am not hasty and will not edit war, I made 1 revert that is it. I will let you work on the page. I'll let you fix it as you see fit for 12+ hours. May I suggest putting the 'under construction' tag while you do so? Anyways, I look forward to any improvements. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

That is a good idea, but I will not be done till late tomorrow. Revisit it in 24 hours and I will have the time to do what I would like to do. Wikipedia has plenty of stories that need work. Cheers!--WPPilot 07:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Very well, 24+ hours then. Won't check it till Thursday. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello guys. I have been seeing all of these posts and decided to register myself to try to assist you in clarifying certain achievements in my career and life that seem to be in dispute. First of all, I appreciate you guys taking an interest in my career and am hoping that by me offering help, this will give some clarity to any disputed issues. Please let me know how I can provide evidence of any disputed items. I can send photos of awards, DVD covers, screen credits, etc.. Just let me know how we do this, as I am not a Wikipedia pro and have no idea how to do some of this stuff. I can assure you that almost everything on my page was accurate (with only a few discrepencies). Please let me know what you want me to do to help end this conversation between all of you once and for all. Best regards, Daniel Catullo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Catullo (talk • contribs) 22:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Celebrities have to be verified through OTRS I think, just because notable people have to be verified same as Twitter or most other sites. I'm not worried so much about the COI matter as fixing the WP:BLP concerns. Whether positive or negative, an error is an error. I do believe the Usher credits say you were Executive Producer and the actual matter was Producer on the credits. Now, I've never even seen your work or anything, but I am well.. picky about certain things. And if it is really you, then well, I do believe properly referencing your role with the proper context be one of our main concerns. Wikipedia is all volunteers, yet our standards are present. Let me go grab the relevant material. I'll pop on WP:IRC's chat for right now just to get some suggestions on how to go about this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. How does it feel to have complete strangers being nitpicky with your bio? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, I was "Executive Producer" on Usher, not "Producer". I am still waiting for a response from the Wiki people, but once I do, I will do what they want so I can prove my identity. To answer your question- it is weird to have total strangers know more about me than I can even remember sometimes, but also very flattering and I am thankful for that! Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Catullo (talk • contribs) 00:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me clean this page up a little so its easier for you to reply. Also, it is good to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ so that Sinebot doesn't have to keep signing for you. Well about Usher Evolution, it has you listed as 'Daniel Catullo III Executive Producer - Coming Home Productions (Dvd Production)' and 'Daniel Catullo III Producer (Documentary Production)' Which are two different credits. I want to put those into proper context, that's all. Right now the claim is ambiguous as it does not specify the role. Some of the credits on Wikipedia here state you directed the event itself. I consider that an error. Though you do a lot of work and a lot of sources are well.. not great at reporting such things. I've personally been involved with magicians, authors, actors and such on Wikipedia. I'm nothing special, but I do try to make sure content is correct. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Chris- yes- that is correct- I had two credits on Usher, as we had a documentary in the bonus features in which I was the Producer and not EP. In regards to Directing vs Producing, in cases like Rockin The Corps, I wore a few hats. One I was one of the Producers of the overall event, as my company produced the event and were the production company of Record (Coming Home Studios). I also directed the TV special and DVD and served as Producer of the DVD. I kind of wore multiple hats on that one, as most of our EP's were just figure heads like Quincy and did not run the nuts and bolts of the actual show. User:DanielCatullo Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Catullo (talk • contribs) 00:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, and thanks for noting about the dc3director account. I'm not sure if this is the proper time to discuss such a matter, but you are probably aware from reading the above a little bit about what is going on in with your biography. I think an explaination on my end is in order to catch you up to speed. So it's 'storytime'.

I found the article after the posting at ANI; our 'dramaboard' for short which is a mix-mash of things likely requiring administrator action. Some anonymous IP editor posted a message about the neutrality of the page and then proceeded to bring up a really lengthy list of civil court matters and such. I didn't bother with all of them, though an unbiased Search Engine does turn up such stuff as well. I really don't intend to slap mud around or do any attacks; I'm in the middle of defending the credibility of someone who has been dead for 80 years on another page. In my attempts to address the matters and conform with Wikipedia's heavy tome of rules, I tagged Plane to Haiti for deletion. In my request I asked that content be merged, as the event was not notable, but it should be placed on your bio and already is partly there. In my fixings I attracted the attention of WPPilot, who created that article. Basically everything in the top half is WPPilot overreacting, but I guess said overreacting got to you somehow and here we are.

I'm just going to throw this out here, because even though I want the article to be proper and correct, those little court matters are more likely then not to find a placement. Granted the drama aspect of the IP editor was overblown, I think we both know that such material is typically bad. I'm not going to add it anytime soon, WP:BLP requires extra care, but WP:NPOV says that it cannot be all 'happy sunshine and flowers'. As much as I dread the subject, it may end up getting a mentioned in a paragraph. If not by me, but by any editor in the future because Wikipedia is not censored. Though I really haven't looked at it much, their does seem to be some 'business disagreements' that have made the rounds with such dramatists as Perez Hilton that avoiding the subject becomes a bit difficult and is part of the reason why people suspected (and rightly so) that the page was being bolstered by someone close to you or the company. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I would hardly call pointing out that you, Chris had removed for the most part, almost everything that was on Mr. Catullo's page, you can see a example of your edits here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Catullo&diff=prev&oldid=528757820 overreacting. You had removed most of the data about him and challanged everything you could in any way you can. Pointing out your perspective and I felt you were not being fair, to Mr. Catullo. That being said I am glad that he is here, now and able to clear things up. Cheers!--WPPilot 14:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC) <Moved down>

Such contentious material and issues need to be corrected, cause the way I see it all of them lack the proper context, most of the awards have nothing to do with Catullo's own role. I fail to see how 'Best Rock Instrumental' has anything to do with his production. Same with ' “Best Contemporary Blues Album”, that is a real stretch and the link is 404 btw. Now I am being very careful here, but even Mr. Catullo has noted there are errors in the article, many are 'half-true', but just like the Usher one I pointed out, the credits Wikipedia has do not properly reflect the context and proper role. To use the hat analogy, he wore two different hats, and the official title of those hats and those roles should be noted, it is just silly to be ambiguous and its bad form. This is the difference between IMDB and Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not be content until the matter is discussed in reliable sources, and TCM properly reflects it while IMDB did not. So if we were to do the article properly, we would cite both roles and their full title as listed properly on the credits. You have consistently been unable to grasp the difference between the roles.

• Daniel Catullo III Producer (Documentary Production)
• Daniel Catullo III Executive Producer - Coming Home Productions (Dvd Production)

This is very very different from being producer of the event as the page would have you believe. There is an 'event' director and there is a documentary director. Then there are two Video Directors from Usher's crew. Then a host of other directors from lighting, to technical, to creative and even tour director. In this case if Mr. Catullo was one of these 'directors' the one we would be concerned with is the full and proper title. So which is why when the article states 'Director' without the full credit it likens him to Hamish Hamilton as the director 'of all', instead of director 'of this'. Though concerts and many other venues are often run in a chaotic manner, we should pride ourselves on reflecting achievements properly and not in uncertain or ambiguous ways. The page should cite both roles in context and not as (Executive Producer) as 4 people are credited as that as the title and 3 (including Catullo) are cited as Executive Producers for DVD production. I removed a lot of material because it was wrong/incorrect and was not sourced properly. It is neither wrong nor permanent and given the circumstances under which I found it, I do not think I was being unreasonable. Though you can also point out that I am willing to research and put the correct credits and content forth before you did WPPilot. If I was malicious or had reason to, I'm certain I could have gotten the article deleted as people have suggested. However, as noted above, Catullo is notable and for me, deletion is a last resort. The article is fixable and fix it we shall. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Now that Mr. Catullo has chimmed in I think it is safe to say that we can get the story correct, and that is what matters. Everyone has a style, and frankly speaking I can be outspoken when I feel strongly about an issue, so please forgive me if I was "over enthusiastic" about this matter. I am offering to do some photos of him, his office and his awards :) as he suggested, his office is not far from me and lets see what he says. Cheers![User talk:WPPilot|talk]])--WPPilot 16:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Chris and Mr Pilot- you are both correct to a certain point. Just to be clear as to my awards, I have never taken credit for other people's work. Any awards mentioned I "did"" receive and "was" indeed nominated. When an artist is nominated for a piece of work, the Producer is also nominated and would receive an award as well. Yes- On Rockin The Corps, I was the Event Producer- but I also produced the TV special. Had that show been nominated for an Emmy or a Telly, I would have received one myself as Producer. Therefore when Rush was nominated for "Best Rock Instrumental" at the Grammys, I would have been given an award had we won, as I was the Producer. Same goes with Etta James- as I Produced "Burnin Down The House". I know it can be confusing, as I wear many hats, but when I Produce music or TV, I qualify for the awards and have received many myself. A perfect example is when I won a Juno Award for Rush in 2004. The band was nominated for "Music DVD OF The Year", yet I was given the award personally as the Producer. I hope this clarifies this.

In regards to your questions about the Perez Hilton stuff, that is a much longer response than I even have time for. I'll leave it at this- consider the sources and where these articles exist. I am not denying having my own legal issues in the past, however most of what you read is false or over-exaggerated by people who are enemies of mine. I also do not feel the Wikipedia is a place for such material, as it is slanderous and tabloid- driven. Wikipedia should focus on facts and things that merit being posted. This page is about my career and not me as a celebrity, as I certainly don't qualify as a celebrity. I don't see my lawsuit with Mel B posted on her page. If it were, then I feel it would merit a posting on my page too. Since it is not, that is in the past and not in the interest of the public in my opinion.

Lastly- I replied to the email from the Wikipedia Volunteer Board verifying my identity. Not sure where everyone can see that, but I should be verified as this being really me. I will be available to discuss and talk more after Christmas. Have a great holiday guys Daniel Catullo (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)DanielCatullo

Yes, I am aware of the producer matter as WPP pointed out, its just that previously he claimed you won them. The article even states you have 4 Guinness World Records, I found only one, and it was for the Creed concert. This should be cited and corrected if wrong. I don't know anything about the 'Spice Girls', but there is no way I'm citing Perez Hilton (whoever that is) because he's not really reliable and is just a glorified blogger in my eyes. Wikipedia pages are not about a 'career' so much as 'the life of the subject' which is why it is a biography and not a resume. We have many really bad articles on Wikipedia, but the ideal would cover a lot more then career moves, especially since one's day job is either notable or it isn't, some special events you did should be covered, but not every event. Though Mel B's page is rated as a B class, its far from being a Good Article and enough vandalism edits have been made that it would probably need to be reevaluated and checked thoroughly then copyedited to stand as a GA. That being said, if this article were to become a Good Article, it would have to include such details. If we get this even to a B class article it may have to be addressed in a nuanced way. Though I don't want to add such material myself, I'm speaking purely from a policy standpoint. WP:NPOV is not convenient, but let's put that issue to rest for now. Let's deal with the actual awards, titles and such first. Those need to be addressed. Pointing out such problems would be good since I don't have 10+ hours to research this myself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Rainer Eisfeld

Hi Chris, the submission of my article about Rainer Eisfeld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Rainer_Eisfeld) was recently declined by you. I´m confused about that, because the content is nearly the same as the german version, which was accepted without any problems. Can you please help me and tell me, which references should be corrected?

Best regards Tiesy

You reference the German version. That is not the same as referencing the material and doing so with in-line references. That's why.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. If I revise my article, would this way of referencing be correct?

Example:

Old: First appointed in 1994, he also continues to serve on the Board of Trustees of Concentration Camp Memorials Buchenwald and Mittelbau-Dora (State of Thuringia, Germany).

New: First appointed in 1994, he also continues to serve on the Board of Trustees of Concentration Camp Memorials Buchenwald and Mittelbau-Dora[1] (State of Thuringia, Germany).

References: 1. Stiftung Gedenkstätten Buchenwald und Mittelbau-Dora, Foundation Committees, Scientific Board of Trustees, http://www.buchenwald.de/en/175 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiesy (talk • contribs) 09:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

User <ref>source</ref> to cite material inline, it then make the [1] and [2], but those are automatic based on the source, that's all. You should see the guide to referencing. WP:REFS. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Chris, I´ve revised my article and really hope, it is o.k. now. Many thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiesy (talk • contribs) 10:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

AFC concern

Hi please excuse me if I am not using this page correctly. My logic was that this looks like a talk page and is the best way to contact you. You recently declined a submission of mine - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Atooka_-_Digital_Media_%26_Design I'm obviously not understanding why the references aren't being accepted? I've read the guidelines and they seem to fit. Could you give me some additional input please? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joejoe123456 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it in a bit and see if I can fix it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for getting back to me! I see it was declined again. Could you help me out with a bit more information on what I'm dooing wrong please? The references aren't helping. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joejoe123456 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh this one, sorry for the delay, didn't realize it was yours when I ran through AFC again. Let's start at the basics. There is little context so it does not seem to be a notable company. WP:CORP is a guideline for inclusion under notability, but we also have WP:GNG which you can have the article IF you have multiple independent sources about the company that shows it is important. National papers and other major references are preferred, but I'd take a handful of regional sources. Self-published material does not count for this as it is not 'neutral' and doesn't need to be 'reliable' as the editorial oversight has a conflict of interest in upselling or promoting the company. Then we need a few paragraphs on why the company is notable, does it pioneer technology, is it revolutionary, or is it just another business unworthy of note unless you happen to be a customer? Our business section on Wikipedia is terrible, and has stricter guidelines to prevent advertising. Alas, this means people will be harsh on the company unless its notability is proven. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Chris, Thanks for that. The companies work has been noted on several international, national and regional papers, magazines, books, TV, radio etc. The work in question is also about as pioneering as it gets. Vertical Farming. Most of the work and links can be found here: http://verticalfarmingaustralia.blogspot.com.au/ Could you advise if this is acceptable and which links you would prefer me to use. Yes, I am a happy customer also. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joejoe123456 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Its is a blog, so I doubt it. WP:RS is rather strict about it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I meant that there is a lot of international and national news articles and links in the blog. I just wondered which ones you thought might be best to use? (Not the blog itself). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joejoe123456 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Then any of them would be fine. Just pick which ones you need and want to discuss the material they refer to. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Great. I've added some links that I feel you might consider better quality links. The work has been featured across countless magazines and websites so I can find more if needed. Look forward to your response. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joejoe123456 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

We have a bit of a problem here then, as the sources do not even mention Atooka, but are instead about vertical farming. We want references about Atooka's designs, directly if all possible. Secondary discussion about their work is okay to show an example to show notability through ability and progress. However unless you turn the article into something about vertical farming, then we have a bit of a content and notability issue. You can use their own website for some material, its not prohibited, but having a few good quality reliable sources that are about their designs or their work is basically a notability requirement, if you cannot find such resources, then it wil be hard if not impossible to have and article about them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Please have the understanding that Atooka should not have to be mentioned directly in words/text as they are graphics/image based. It is their work that is shown/mentioned, just graphically. I can only hope that you can see/understand that, or have that opinion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joejoe123456 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

They do, that's not my rule. It's the community which decides such matters. If it is not discussed in detail or makes mention of it, then attribution alone is not enough to prove notability. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It's probably pointless trying to argue for my point as it would probably further detract you from judging in my favour. But would you be good enough to refer me to the rule please? I was just hoping to create a wiki article for business that has contributed to greatly to sustainable practices and been recognised on an international level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joejoe123456 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Take it to WP:RSN. Though if it is not discussing Atooka at all as most of those seem to do, it will be extremely hard to discuss Atooka as a result and back it with reliable sources. I don't want to argue, I'm a nobody here and its not me you have to persuade. It may not sound nice, but its true. AFC is not even a requirement, I am not going to stop you from doing anything. My advice is just for consideration, do as you wish. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

GAN reviews

G'day Chris, I've noticed that you've taken up multiple reviews at the same time. I love your enthusiasm. Makes sense to me in terms of ships of the same class etc, and it is nice for the nom(s) to know someone is looking at their article. The flipside is that where almost all reviews are "taken" but not all are being progressed immediately (particularly where some have delays of more than a week from indicating a willingness to review to actually starting the review), that could discourage other reviewers from jumping in if they have some free time, and could potentially contribute to the bottle-neck we have at GAN. Just thought I'd mention it. Regards and Merry Christmas. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

They will all be finished within 24 hours. I've had some issues with one GA which is beyond all sets of 'normal' and it has sucked the greater part of a week from other reviews and significantly cut into my editing time. I've actually reviewed many of them already and just need to post the reviews. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

No worries. :-) Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

All done. Put the ones on hold, passed the ones without fixing. I keep to my schedule. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Your comment at User talk:Kanasnick

Both Kanasnick and I are confused about your emphasis on the file upload wizard. All of the files in his draft are from Commons, and we don't understand where the file upload wizard comes in. Could you please clarify? Thanks! — Wolfgang42 (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not know how to move them over either. I would go to WP:IRC and connect to Wikipedia's live editing help channel. Or click this link. [38] I never read his reply message about them being uploaded and already on commons till you posted here, so I had no idea. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Move them where? Aren't they just fine where they are? — Wolfgang42 (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Not physically move... let's just IRC it, I've got a case of the 'stupids' today. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Tomcat7

Found another example in the Folk Singer article. Ref 4 makes no mention of what is claimed, the article mainly touches upon playback quality rather than anything to do with guitarists and does explicitly state what is claimed in the article. Here is the diff of Tomcat adding the info [39]. Also worried about the book sources, if he's done this with online links I fear it may be worse with offline sources which are harder to ascertain whether they are correct. NapHit (talk) 07:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah the offline references are a pain. I am not certain about his book sources for a lot of things, but access to material is my problem. I caught him fabricating the inline citations to material he doesn't have and that is a huge concern. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Please leave me alone or I will report you at ANI. Stop making attacks on my talk page and spying my edits. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 15:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You are the one in the wrong, you are adding false material deliberately. You are edit warring. See you at RFC/U. ANI would only be a boomerang and I rather have this stop without you being blocked. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You are spying all my contributions to list and the like with your NapHit after I mentioned your poor GA reviews. You have a WP:POINT, since nobody would do something disruptive as you. You are not excellent at reading, as the sources clearly support the claims. There might be cases like original research, but there are hundreds of such errors here on Wikipedia. You are adding fat and ridiculous banners on my talk page, instead of discussing the problems. I suggest you step back or discuss properly with me.--Tomcat (7) 16:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tomcat7. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Chris, regarding the Golden Eagle Foreign-language film list, the version promoted seems to have not had misrepresentation (although referencing could have been better). The sentence "... Golden Eagle Awards, which were conceived by Nikita Mikhalkov as a counterweight to the Nika Award established in 1987 by the Russian Academy of Cinema Arts and Sciences." are supported by FN1 ("Nikita Mikhalkov... set the Russian Academy Golden Eagle Award in opposition to the traditional Nika Award.") and FN2 ("The Nika Award is a prestegious [sic] annual ceremony held by the Russian Academy of Cinema Arts and Sciences which was established in 1987..."). The sentence immediately preceding that is not supported by those references, but we could either a) put a citation needed tag there or b) Cite Wikipedia:SKYISBLUE.

Having not looked at the other articles I will not comment on them — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. One says he set or established the award, nothing about creating or conceiving it. Acting as president one can establish or set the details of the award, but it is in no way 'conceiving' it. There is a difference between creation, approval, setting and establishment. The prose, as badly worded as it is, states Nikita Mikhalkov conceived it. The dictionary definition for this case would be 'To begin or originate in a specific way'. The sources do not say that. Call it word choice, but those two sentences on those two sources do not state that the award originated from Mikhalkov. He established it, which is likely to mean 'put forth or introduce.' Though this is a content dispute. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Set and establish is the same as create and conceive. If someone establish an award, he creates it. If not, then you don't need to remove text and sources just because you disagree with a single word. That is clearly disruptive.--Tomcat (7) 11:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

They are not the same. That's the problem, the dictionary disagrees with you. The Olympic Committee establishes and sets rules, but they don't conceive or create them. If someone else had the idea of the Golden Eagle award then the statement is wrong, as the sentence claims the idea originated with him for the award. He was in a position to 'establish' it, but it does not mean he 'created' it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

He has established it, meaning he created it. Clearly you are talking nonsense.--Tomcat (7) 23:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

They are not synonyms. Simple as that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

John Golden bio

Hi! I hope this is the correct way to contact you-- I still find the Talk pages confusing. You recently declined my article on John Golden because "The first line is basically a rip of the second sources abstract"-- which is true. Does it matter that I am the author who wrote the source material that was "ripped off", and therefore I am only plagiarized my own work? The article itself is in very large part culled from the finding aid for the John Golden papers, because having spent all that time writing that finding aid, I was not terribly motivated to re-invent the wheel.

Thanks, and apologies again if I've misused this forum. T23 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmesis23 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Ray Smith (Cricketer)

Chris, would you please explain why CricInfo is not an acceptable source? It has been used for thousands of other cricket related articles. Thanks.

Will

WillE (talk) 08:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Winter Wonderland

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Happy Holidays to you and yours. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

CCI

If you're able to find a couple more copyright issues to supplement what has been found already, it sounds like a WP:CCI will have to be opened on Tomcat. The fact that these are translating issues would make such a case extremely difficult to tackle, but we may not have a choice there. Wizardman 16:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... the Friedrich Eckenfelder article was basically a Google translate of the de.wiki page and the de.wiki page contained close paraphrasing. I got 2, but I don't want to spend all day looking through the others. I'ma point out the matter on the RFC/U and such now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Well done

I saw your recent post at TomCat7's page. It strikes me as a noble fine gesture that takes some guts to make once the situation has deteriorated to the degree that it had. I really hope he takes it in the spirit in which it was offered. Best, ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Umm, thanks I guess? If he has good intentions that's all I care about. I just want content to be correct and right. The issues with Eckenfelder were numerous, but seeing as Tomcat7 genuinely doesn't understand issues like translating and CV even after doing so many, its concerning... yes, but if he sticks to requesting a copy-edit and some other regular fixes then I wouldn't have any problems with him. If I'm wrong on something, I'm wrong on something and I come out to admit it. I was a little too harsh on him because I expected him to have a mastery of the English language. It immediately explains 2 of the 3 content disputes, and it does go to understanding the Eckenfelder edit warring matter. Why the additional inline citations without the source? I do not know. Why the other pages with sources not explicitly backing the content? I do not know. If we can work together and make Wikipedia better, that's all that counts to me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thats how I like to think to. But I do agree that there is some odd behavior, but hopefully he will explain and refrain from repeating it. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Gbern3 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Malware and phishing

Please return to WP:VP/Pr and address the issue that my proposal was discussing: malware and phishing. Nyttend (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Skyrim and Talos worship

Hi Chris,

You undid my revert on Skyrim, which I had to reinstate just now. First off, and I know this is original research, I just finished the game for the first time myself (feel free to check my PSN user name, it is the same as my Wikipedia account) and I don't recall any specific mentioning of the Blades worshipping Talos. Mainly because the only two remaining Blades in the game, Delphine and Esbern, are more concerned about their own survival and stopping the dragons. Second, I don't think it is notable to mention that the Blades were (or are) dedicated Talos worshippers (note that it was misspelled as 'worshipers') at all, because the whole Talos-worshipping thing is one of the main reasons for the Stormcloaks to rise up against the Empire - the Blades were hunted down because they were the elite bodyguard of the Emperor, whether they worshipped Talos or not (and again, I don't think the story says they did). Also, and you might not have noticed this, you undid my edits in the infobox (see the diff). Thanks, and happy editing. --Soetermans. T / C 13:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not original research when it is directly listed in the game and further more as a plot summary point, the right to kill worshipers (is correct, worshippers is the typo) is how they can be executed even if they are not confirmed to be Blades. Also, the Blades as you encounter them in Skyrim have great proof they are agents of Talos, besides tracing their history let's discuss the more obvious parts. Weynon Priory is in Oblivion and the grandmaster of the blades as well as the blades members are members of the Order of Talos. [40]. Here is the in game location area. [41] Though in all fairness the issue of Talos and the blades is really simple if you played Oblivion, Martin is the last of the dynasty by blood and the blades serve the Emperor who are literally the descendents of Talos. So you are in fact mistaken and the primary reason why the Blades are hunted is the connection to Talos. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. Honestly, and I'm not being difficult, but that part has escaped me completely. Considering the fact that you had to bring up Oblivion to make your point makes wonder if the Blades and their Talos worship is in fact that obvious. I also looked up the Blades on the Elder Scrolls Wiki, and it only mentions one bit specifically: The Blades' role as the Emperor's guard was taken over by the Penitus Oculatus, but the Blades continued to work in secret, watching for a new Dragonborn and guarding the Empire. The Blades were among the first to see the growing threat of the Thalmor and the Aldmeri Dominion. Unlike the Penitus Oculatus, the Blades were not bound to Imperial policy and could operate freely, and thus earned the lasting hatred of the Thalmor. [42], which borrows from the in-game book The Rise and Fall of the Blades [43] But I degress, my main point is that even if true, it isn't notable to mention, and I think you'll agree with me there - the Blades and Talos aren't crucial to the story, the dragons and the civil war is, and in that setting the Blades should be mentioned in the brief summary of an encyclopedic article. On a side note, apparently worshiper and worshipper are both accepted spellings. Who knew. Anyway, thanks for your input and happy editing. --Soetermans. T / C 00:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Music For All Seasons

Hi Chris,

I recently submitted an article titled "Music For All Seasons" and it was declined because of my references. I am new to Wikipedia, and I redid my references and I think I have everything right now, but I'm not really sure. So would you mind checking out the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Music_For_All_Seasons and help me to get it published.

Thank you! Courtney081Courtney081 (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Review/ Neil Pakey

Dear Chris,

First may I say Happy New Year!

Thank you for taking the time to review my submitted article. I have noted it attained a 'start' status which I appreciate, and am trying to establish the improvements I need to make. in the meantime I am enjoying working on other contributions.

Regarding the Neil Pakey article, the main facts behind the submission were a) his contribution in delivering the Liverpool John Lennon Airport brand and the fastest growing airport in Europe and b) as the Chairman of the AOA, effectively leading the airport industry's voice for 3 years.....I then researched the gaps and remainder to complete the piece.

I would appreciate any further comments...should i for example, just hone back to the two salient areas of impact I referred to? I would of course like to improve the article and I would appreciate it if you could advise if this is the way I should travel or if you have any further comments that may help. I noticed you had recommended first time around, that we be careful on the diabetes point, i can remove this reference if it helps.

Best regards

Artur AlexarturWalsh (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Just read WP:AD and make sure it doesn't come off as promotional and it should be fine, I trust you have good judgement. I'm a bit under the weather and short pressed on time right now, otherwise I'd help more. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

COI

Hi,

You left me this note on my article titled' Nicholas Oakwell Couture'. "since this is a COI, and you are writing about yourself. You might have to get checked by the foundation so Wikipedia knows that you are really who you say you are. Please message me at my talk page. By clicking on the (talk) part after my username and write me a message, I'll try and point the way to the relevant group then.

It would be great if you direct me to the right people to contact.

Thanks Nicholas Oakwell Couture (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTRS, or specifically: WP:IDENT. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ChrisGualtieri. You have new messages at Talk:Ortrun Enderlein/GA2.
Message added 16:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tomcat (7) 16:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Checkwiki failure

Hi,

Checkwiki screwed up here. Don't know if there are more like that. — [1[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Unicode issue? Its old, but I'll mark it for later. I think this one already got fixed way back though. I'll double check. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Avidently AWB, not Checkwiki. — kwami (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tomcat7

You are on the right track for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tomcat7. One user actually certified it. Part of the certifiers job is to show that they tried to resolve the problem. The second person supplied additional information, but had not attemtped to resolve the problem, and so did not appear as a second certifier. The rules are pretty clear cut for these, and it met the requirement to be deleted. Do you want a copy of the content? The idea to stop rfc/Us that do not stand a chance, from hanging around and causing emberrassment. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Eh, we've had more then two with some like Wizardman not commenting on the RFC/U I think, but both me, NapHit and the second GA reviewer Gbern3 tried to resolve the problem. Though the issues keep on coming with Tomcat7, and Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Rebound_nomination is just the latest round. His edit warring was stopped due to the ANI so I am not sure I should keep the RFC/U open since discussion is continuing onto new subjects and new issues. Even Maunus seems to be getting a bit irritated with Tomcat7's behavior after calming me down during the ANI. He's acknowledged not to copy and paste from Google Translate and has stopped edit warring... so I don't know how much the RFC/U will be at this point. I've never done an RFC/U before, but I guess it was made redundant after I filed an ANI report for his continued edit warring after filing the RFC about his edit warring. Eh.. but why not, it had the diffs easily sorted and on hand, plus comments that were useful even if they didn't come across as certified. I probably should have pointed it out better to those who were dealing with these issues at the same time in another topic, but I didn't want to be called for canvassing. So yeah... rant end... I could use the content in a sandbox. Like /sandbox2/ or something.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Regaring GitS

Untrue. I used the word "bias" because you were focused on the aspect of how much isnt covered then what actually is. And you're referring to studies and elements that were mainly about stand alone complex series and then you brought up studies done by fans such as gender and sexuality (in which in earlier days did search for). And then tried to justify it by bringing up different sources that covered different things. Mainly about stand alone complex series.

Idk if you know this but if you see in the talk page, i nominated mainly for opinion on what else i can improve on the article as i alreay did the best i could without any help.

When it comes to anime and manga articles, the articles are about the "original" media and mention all other adaptations and rarely adaptations have their own article. You can't compare a video game series that gets recognized as a solid franchise over anime and manga. Their both structured very differently. Ghost in the Shell doesnt have extensive information nor does it have as many entries as Final Fantasy to even compare, and you probably dont believe that because you're a fan but its true. Final Fantasy is mainly a series of video games so the article. Video game series are equivalent to TV series only with each entry (episode) being notable enough to have its own article. But thats not the case, their is only 3 pieces of media sharing the exact name, the manga, the film (based off the manga), and the video game. The anime series is commonly known along side its subtitle "Stand alone complex". I'm sure the Disambiguation page is unnecessary

It seems you are more familiar with video games more than anime and manga structure. So here are the examples of the anime and manga series that reached GA that i used to help structure the article better: Madlax, Cardcaptor Sakura, Fullmetal Alchemist. Note that they mention the original media as the accepted most commonly known form and mention all other adaptations. why? Well that is because the Original is directly related to its adaptations since it is it's offspring. But these are significantly different from Ghost in the Shell as each adaptation isnt notable and each adaptation doesnt add its own twist (except Cardcaptor sakura and Fullmetal Alchemist in which they mention the plot differences, however the differences are clear and small enough to be detailed without losing focus). So considering there are only 3 entries (film, TV series, video game) and each notable enough to have its own article, it makes sense the article focus on the manga, now it would be different situation where there was an analysis of Ghost in the Shell covering all media of Gits or there is reception that talks about the franchise as a whole that information would go here in the main Ghost in the Shell article but thats not upto us, but rather upto the sources we are able to find.

The structure (and scope) of Ghost in the Shell is completely justifiable and appropriate. The only justifiable issue with this article's structure is that the sections of both Tv series and films section doesnt properly summarize the information and need expansion, but again the structure of the article is based on several quality articles of anime and manga and will only listen to issues regarding structure and scope if compared to another quality/featured article falling under WP:Anime's scope.Lucia Black (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sick of you calling me biased. I've warned you once about it, I do not want to read it again. If you are not certain an article doesn't stand a good chance of passing GA, review it yourself or have a peer do it for you. Putting it to GAN to find out what needs improving is a bit of a waste of a reviewers time when the prose itself is poor, the story section is inaccurate and you are more concerned about the manga then the whole of the article. Fullmetal Alchemist is a GA, it seems to be a fair representation of its content and notice it covers everything not just the manga. Ghost in the Shell should cover everything, not just the manga. You do not seem to understand this. While it may sound rude, but your inability to find proper reliable sources is not my concern, they exist and are numerous. I've even went through and provided you ones from SAC just because they were easy to find. It took me less then 5 minutes to grab the interviews and the official essays on the matter. Shirow has published plenty of indepth interviews about the work and those are probably essential to understanding the GITS world and the development of the manga. Even Shirow himself does not understand Motoko so he made her preoccupied with her own desires. That is perhaps a perfect example of what should be included in the article, it gets to the core of the character development. The behind the scenes and creation process are very important the FMA page goes into detail about this. The GITS article does not. There are a hundred things to fix, but they fall on deaf ears because you refuse to acknowledge that someone with knowledge of the subject can attest to just how much the article is missing. And quite frankly, it does not meet 3a 'addresses the main aspects of the topic'. The main aspects are glossed over and the reader is left with an incomplete and poor understanding of the subject from an encyclopedic standpoint. I am not asking for a total comprehensive study of GITS which details everything, but I expect it to be substantial and well written. I also expect it to be factually accurate. Which it fails on 2, the story section doesn't even detail the events properly, that must be addressed. Tell you what, I'll stop what I am doing IRL and help, I'll lead by example. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The focus on the manga is there because all other sections have their own article. Plus the manga is the original media that inspired all of these. The MOS of anime and manga also states to mention the original media within the opening post. For example, A single page doesnt have to have a "complete" coverage if there are other articles, just a summarized info. But i can "completely understand" if it isnt summarized appropriately.

So Hypothetically, if the anime of FMA were to split most anime-related such as production and reception would be moved. You keep mentioning but another way of helping if making this information accessible, if you have any info you should share it in the talkpage. Constantly stating theres info out there and myself looking for about two months straight and getting at a dead end for lack of access makes it even more demeaning. I'm a fan aswell but i refuse to be identified as one for the sake of the discussion.Lucia Black (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, mention the original media, but don't make it the only thing. Every other page links back requiring the Ghost in the Shell page to be the hub of it all, not exclusively the manga. I just started to fill in some of the gaping holes in the coverage of the topic. Remember point 2 of the criteria about being broad, well I just added information to the two video game releases that were not in the article. They do not even have articles on there own, but mentioning them is pretty much a requirement for covering the topic. I'll continue to add more information because you do not seem able to find anything useful. You complain about a lack of reliable resources, but I have no trouble finding them. Even the movie Ghost in the Shell was a Billboard #1. The article glosses over Ghost in the Shell 2.0, and I found a great resource for that but the ads at the bottom of the page are explicit, so I'm canning that resource but it has great side by side comparisons of the differences. It is not original research to offer up such material and have them easily verifiable. You do not need to cite everything when there is no need to. And I have a habit of citing everything to death. My article which I am going to push to GA has over 150 citations in it and I'm not even half way done with it. There is a chance I could actually hit 400 when I get into the actual scientific matters. But i digress... Ghost in the Shell is not obscure and its not non-notable, you just have to know where to look and how to data mine. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how you sound? I dont want to point out the obvious but you continue to be

Stand Alone Complex video games do have their own article. I just removed them because its already covered in Stand Alone Complex. Why cover an adaptation of an adaptation in the main article if we can mention it with that adaptation. I imagine it as a tree. The manga creates two branches: the film, and the Tv series, and those create branches too such as manga, novels, soundtracks etc. If we move video games in the main article then there really is no stopping moving all media from all adaptations and it'll all be too redundant.Lucia Black (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That is the PSP one, where is the same named Ghost in the Shell PS2 one? It is extremely difficult to navigate and find out what is what. The entire series is chaotically organized and is essentially a walled garden right now that is completely disjointed and hampered by its organization. Let's keep the talk on my page, I'll post a talkback now. But I am restoring the Ghost in the Shell franchise page and am preparing to move more information in. But let me ask one thing first, you said you looked for months to update Ghost in the Shell, how much material do you have? I have 200~ ish sources right now and that's just from starting the GA process and the discussion with you the other day. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I will ask you this one last time...stop saying demeaning things.

You dont understand, these video games are based off the stand alone complex series, not the manga, therefore best suited in the stand Alone complex article. I suggest we discuss this with some RFC or something because this is getting out-of-hand. Briefly mentioning these under the TV series is best suited ecause Stand Alone Complex has its own media section. We will have to replicate all media in other articles here, making the information redundant.Lucia Black (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything demeaning. Also, the games have nothing to do with the storyline of the SAC and convention states that they are different subjects and are unique enough to warrant their own articles if that is the case. You are attempting to compress everything down far too much. The Ghost in the Shell page had no apparent link to the SAC game outside of the template, it wasn't even mentioned in the article. Information can be a bit redundant, you obviously did not understand my previous examples on the talk page. Summarization, broad-scope, yes that is what a main page is for, the split off can go into more detail as needed, and if that page is not big enough make another page for that detail. The whole point is to make information easily accessible, readable and sensible. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes you are just re-read everything you posted. It is easy accessible, but not everything has to be in one article. Thats why there are sidebars and navigation templates. It has "stand alone complex" therefore part of that continuity, and as far as i know, stand alone complex and the manga are separate continuities. So it doesnt make sense to have the video games in the main article and not the mangas, the novels aswell.

Also you moving too fast. You just renamed the article of both video games because you saw the PSP cover. But look at it carefully, it covers both.

I suggest we stop editing (both of us) and discuss it. I ask again to share such source of information you have.Lucia Black (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Fine. Then let me replace the tags and drop everything so we can talk. Lets start this off with the video games. The video games have no connection to the Ghost in the Shell movie nor the Ghost in the Shell SAC series. It is loosely based on it. My plan was to split both the video games off, fill them out properly and update everything. It does not make sense to have the video game in the SAC page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If their named SAC it has to do with SAC even if they don't follow the events shown in the anime. The novel series arent an adaptation of the anime, but a spin-off telling different events based on the SAC series we might aswell merge those here too, but we shouldnt because it belongs there. Even if you do split them off, its media inspired by the adaptation, not the main series.

Adaptations of adaptations should be briefly mentioned but not have whole coverage. Its inconsistent to have artbooks of several different continuities. Theres a media section for Ghost in the Shell 2:Innocence too. So any media related to that goes there, but i wont deny that its necessary to mention their existence in the main article, but the reason is because it gives more coverage to the respected adaptation.Lucia Black (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but just because it bears the name doesn't mean it is a different retelling or is the same story. You seem to be proposing that Ghost in the Shell and Ghost in the Shell SAC are entirely different subjects, they are not. You want to cram everything under the SAC heading even if its not related. We need to come to a simple base foundation. And here is my proposal: Ghost in the Shell is for all things franchise related. Period. It will serve as the main incoming page for most readers and should have the broadest scope that correctly identifies the materials and offers details into them, spinning off to their own articles as needed. Agreed? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ghost in the Shell SAC holds different events from both the manga and film. They all start off in the same year (2029) and they hold different events, and the persona's of the characters although similar in design, are distinguishable between series. Even the film series changed things from the original manga such as Innocence being loosely about the chapter: Robot Rondo, however the original chapter took place before the merge of Puppeteer and the Major.

Just because you say that, doesnt mean it is true and i know theres no way of proving that with a source because no source will say "this is a game titled SAC but does not fall in the SAC continuity". You're not looking at this in a nuetral way. All SAC related articles (anything marked as SAC) goes there, its simple and easy.

So i dont agree with said proposal. Because you're worried only one thing: accessiblity. But here's what i'm worried about, redundancy. Considering there are articles for these adaptations and spin-offs/adaptations.Lucia Black (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Accessibility of material is very important. Just because they are not in the same continuity doesn't mean they aren't related. If you are going to get picky over whether this storyline is under this continuity or under this one, you ruin it. It has to have the layman explanation front and center, that does not mean passively mention it and whisk the reader off on another tangent. You are quick to criticize what I am doing, but you are not presenting any options. Though to be perfectly fair, I don't think we can compromise on the scope of Ghost in the Shell, this whole talk of putting the tv show and the video games on the same article just don't sit well with me. Merging this material is a bad idea, sources exist, plenty of them do. There is absolutely no justification for making it this needlessly complicated. You should propose something of your own, its your turn. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Their related but just enough to be briefly be mentioned under their respected adaptations. But not enough to have extensive coverage just because

look....im going to give an example:

• main series
  • direct adaptation
    • Works based on adaptation.

Even if they do have their own article, its still not directly related to the original series and shouldnt have that much coverage. Thats why navboxes exist.Lucia Black (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

But that is a terrible way to do it in practice on Wikipedia, it requires knowledge of that as a prerequisite. Even something that is not related or loosely related should still have a foundation page. Even the Atelier (series) still identifies the works, you seem opposed to identifying the works outside of their individual pages. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what should be done, what is practical and what is optimal. Readers are not going to understand the series, they are coming to the page to learn about the subject. Getting the material listed is the important part, not mentioning it and splitting it off. Its like the Mario series, bunch of material with almost no chronology, yet it still covers the material without confusing everyone. You need to understand the difference. A lack of material is a bad thing, the article needs to cover all the bases and you trying to create a hierarchy in which to even present material on different articles on loosely related subjects is an outright bad idea. I'm trying to be nice here to, but you have a fundamental misunderstanding and previously messed up the article for months with your unilateral move. It never should have been done because it broke the other templates, made information difficult to find and required the navigation template. The nav template should not be the only way to find material, and even the template needs work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Your focus is too much on intricate details. And exageratting, i broke no template. But not all aspects of the subject are that relevant to be covered extensively to the main series. Covered in general? Yes, but not to the point where each one has their own section as you attempted to do in the main article with each video game and the table of artbooks all mixed between three series (SAC, manga, films). We dont have to go into detail about every single media released when we already have other articles. Getting into intricate detail is a choice not a necessity, and i find it to be a "bad" choice as it will get convoluted between three different continuities and which is which.

You forget these articles have their own article where they are already covered extensively. I still refuse the proposal for this to be about the media franchise, because of other articles. So my mind is still set that this is mainly about the manga with extensive coverage on films and TV series (with "brief mentions of their spin-offs) as adaptations to the original series.

In some aspects you choose to see things nuetrally, and in others you decide not to. For example: attemp to say that we dont know if the SAC video games are directly connected to the original series but didnt use the same reasoning with the SAC TV series. I have thought of a "compromise" such as separating things by "series" but, the outcome will lead to either the manga being split and the media franchise not being notable on its own (and had to sourced extensively on how the franchise as a whole supercedes the manga) and most likely be merged back with more organization and eventually go back to the layout we had before the GAN.

We have articles for each continuity so we dont need to get into extensive detail on the spin offs based on the adaptation.Lucia Black (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You do not understand, nor have the material you want to sort by your 'continuity' and they are all the same fictional universe and all with the same characters. Chronology, continuity, segregation of topics so closely connected only impairs understanding the base material. The franchise is notable on its own, you are gravely mistaken if you think otherwise. Organization and clarity of the subject is required, your 'compromise' of setting it out by 'series' when you do not even know the material is a bit insulting to me. You seek to put this disjointed sense of in-universe perspective to a walled garden approach where understanding the different 'series' is the only way in to actually viewing the material. The general reader will probably not even understand what Stand Alone Complex is or how it relates to Ghost in the Shell the manga or what 2nd Gig is. The relationships and the media need to be covered upfront, the individual articles about the material can go into their own 'continuity' from there. Its the preferred method, if the same thing applied to Star Wars that page would be a massive train wreck of epic proportions. It just isn't logical to do what you want to do. And I do not believe you about not finding reliable sources about GITS, I've got piles in the last 24 hours, there is not a lack of content or reporting, its just needless merging that has been detrimental. The manga page never should have been merged to the franchise page. Your argument about sourcing and notability requiring them to be merged together has no merit. That's why I am trying to fix this mess, because the actions do not make sense. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

They are not the same continuity. Example: Yano is briefly mentioned in the manga as he was a rookie that was left on his own. In the SAC series, he appears again but dies out of different circumstances.

Azuma is also a character that appeared in the SAC series, but he was a rookie along side Yano. But in the manga he was introduced in Ghost in the Shell 1.5 where the Major had already left Section 9.

The film sequel Innocence is based on the chapter Robot Rondo which chronologically happened before the Major merged with the Puppeteer but the film shows it happened after.

manga has Fuchikoma, SAC has tachikoma and later Uchikoma.

Regardless of such, you continue to ignore their own respected articles. Its not in-universe because said media is more closely related to the adaptations, and have been mentioned "extensively" on their articles. So accordance to Summary style, it gives a detail summary. And therefore, a summary of a summary would make sense. Its too redundant to have that info on the main article.Lucia Black (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me handle it, I got this. Okay? I'm going to do some work on the article because perhaps the only way you will see my vision of the page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Im trying to do my absolute best not to do something that will get either of us blocked. But you refuse to listen. We have no consensus, and you spearhead everything.Lucia Black (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I did listen to your concerns, I am in the process of being bold and making many changes, you keep removing the under construction tag and clearly I'm not warping sections that need not be reference. I'm actually doing positive good work and I doubt you will take issue with the latest changes to the setting or the lede. I'm not even going into the other media, but lets put it this way. Let me do some work, if you don't like it, complain about it once you've seen it. To sandbox the entire article at this point will be pointless. I'm going to be making many edits to improve it and the article will get better with each one. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting tired, so i will only give this one warning, stop and do the proper procedure, RFC, DR. Whatever that will reach a consensus. Or this goes directly to ANI.Lucia Black (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm only going to repeat myself once. Your merge was bold... I reverted your merge, it matters not the time nor the conditions, you unilaterally merged a page and changed the scope of an article in defiance of convention. Just because you do not think the franchise is notable doesn't mean you should merge the manga to the franchise and try to make the manga the focus of the article. Okay? I'm acting in good faith here and I expect you to AGF on my part. Rather then continue to waste my valuable time explaining what I am going to do and how to do it, I'm going to just do it and be bold. There are so many errors in the story line portion (as this is the manga anyways) that for the sake of the article the entire plot needs to be cleaned up. The article makes no sense in quite a few places. If your concerns are the manga, then nominate the manga for GA. That's what this is about right? You want the manga to be GA, go nominate it. Just give me time to fix the main franchise page. You changed it so much with your unilateral move. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

-Lucia Black (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Mediation

This is all or nothing. A formal request for mediation is here: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ghost in the ShellLucia Black (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This is silly. Really silly. Your arguments for ANI were false, I was discussing it with you as you filed and formal mediation is not the right way to start with it since 3 users have already noted my changes are not subjective, detrimental and instead improved the page. WP:OWN much? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Ghost in the Shell". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 14 January 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 21:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Working out the details at Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement

The RFC for TAFI is nearing it's conclusion, and it's time to hammer out the details over at the project's talk page. There are several details of the project that would do well with wider input and participation, such as the article nomination and selection process, the amount and type of articles displayed, the implementation on the main page and other things. I would like to invite you to comment there if you continue to be interested in TAFI's development. --NickPenguin<sub>(contribs)</sub> 02:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Article creation: Left School. Creator - Tatiana Grehan

Hi! I have not yet received any reply to my comment regarding rejection of article about "Left School" created by me. I wrote a comment on December 12th, and am repeating it now in case it has missed your attention: "Hi! Thank you for reviewing my article. Regarding your reasons for rejection: you say that article is too contentious, but please note that it exists in Russian and Lithuanian versions of Wikipedia, and nobody is deleting it (please see lt:Kairioji mokykla, ru:Левая школа). Regarding citations: the number of sources is limited, and while I could add a few, but not much. Problem is that nobody is writing about this topic. There are 2 researchers, one in Russia, and another in Germany, but even they use mainly the same sources. I know that they have conducted interviews with the participants of those events, but these interviews have not been published (they will be included in dissertations, on which both researchers are currently working, therefore I cannot refer to them). Please indicate which statements absolutely need citations and I shall see what can be done." Please respond and advise what can be done in order for this article to be accepted. Thank you! Tatiana.grehan (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Tatiana Grehan

My submission for Bricsys - follow up

Hi Chris,

Hope you had an enjoyable holiday season, and are by now up and running again for the new year!

I wanted to follow-up with you on the interaction we had on 18 December 2012 when my comm explained why I believed my submission for Bricsys was factual and non-commercial and where you indicated in your reply that you appreciated the explanations given and would take another look at the submission.

Assume this probably got lost far down on your todo list ... that's what happens during the holiday season right ... so hereby my little reminder to please take another look at this and hopefully approve the submission ... or alternatively let me know what else you require.

Our interaction from Dec 18th is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ChrisGualtieri&oldid=528637407

The original submission is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bricsys

With my best wishes to you and your family for a healthy and prosperous 2103, ciao, Guy Gvancollie (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Ghost in the Shell, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Notice to DR/N volunteers! Dispute resolution discussions need attention

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there are currently discussions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard which require the attention of a volunteer. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. Below this message is the DR/N status update.

You are receiving this notification to request assistance at the DR/N where you are listed as a volunteer. The number of cases has either become too large and/or there are many cases shaded with an alert status. Those shaded pink are marked as: "This request requires a volunteer's attention". Those shaded blue have had a volunteers attention recently

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Talk:Hardeep Singh_Nijjar	Failed	Southasianhistorian8 (t)	16 days, 22 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 16 hours
Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov	In Progress	Trumpetrep (t)	6 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 16 hours
Jani Lauzon	Resolved	135.12.162.209 (t)	5 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 10 hours
Eastern Tennessee seismic zone	Closed	Mccunicano (t)	23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	19 hours
Breyers	New	Zefr (t)	56 minutes	None	n/a	Zefr (t)	56 minutes

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 16:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Always use {{subst :DRN Volunteer-notice }} when using this template as notification.
• If your replies are directed to the template talkpage, the template was used without subst.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Bradley Manning navtemplate

Hello Chris: Last month you commented on the Bradley Manning navigation template. {{Bradley Manning}}. I have posted it for deletion at: WP:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_9#Template:Bradley_Manning. Please comment. Thanks.--S. Rich (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Persondata-o-matic working again

Please grab latest version from Wikipedia:Persondata-o-matic. I just upgraded to the latest DotNetWikiBot and it seems fixed, at least one other person tested it. Let me know on my talk page if you have any more trouble or suggestions. Dcoetzee 22:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Chris, thank you so much for reviewing the article but I still get some questions about the reference

Hi Chris, You reviewed my article about disruptive technologists and you comment that the first two reference is invalid. The links is as below http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Disruptive_Technologists

However, the articles on the reference link is written by David Craig who does not work for Disruptive Technologists. He is a freelance writer. Lauren Keyson does write freelance articles too, and also writes for NY Convergence, but she is not a team member or employee of NY Convergence. She is considered a "contributor." Will that make a difference in your decision?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lygmahan (talk • contribs) 02:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Your approval of Bricsys submission, pls review

Hi Chris ... guess my follow-up (see cut & paste below) of Jan 17th to our initial conversation from Dec 18th also got lost in your comm stream, so a quick reminder here. Would really appreciate it if you could take another quick look at my submission from Bricsys and let it go live ... thanks in advance. All the best, Guy

Hi Chris, Hope you had an enjoyable holiday season, and are by now up and running again for the new year! I wanted to follow-up with you on the interaction we had on 18 December 2012 when my comm explained why I believed my submission for Bricsys was factual and non-commercial and where you indicated in your reply that you appreciated the explanations given and would take another look at the submission. Assume this probably got lost far down on your todo list ... that's what happens during the holiday season right ... so hereby my little reminder to please take another look at this and hopefully approve the submission ... or alternatively let me know what else you require. Our interaction from Dec 18th is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ChrisGualtieri&oldid=528637407 The original submission is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bricsys With my best wishes to you and your family for a healthy and prosperous 2103, ciao, Guy Gvancollie (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Gvancollie (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Ballynagran Energy Plus Community

Any update on this Chris. ?

You certainly have your plate full!

Valuser (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

TAFI

Hello, In the past few days, Today's Articles for Improvement has gone through many changes. We have modified the process for adding Nominations, which now uses a template/table format and requires only 3 supports for an article to be selected. There is now a Holding Area, where articles are kept for discussion before being selected for a particular date. The TAFI schedule now involves adding 10 articles weekly, chosen from a variety of topics. We now have an Accomplishments page where we will be highlighting our older TAFI articles which have now become quality articles on the Wikipedia. The Project is almost ready to hit the Main Page, where it will be occupying a section just below "Did you Know" section. Three article from the weekly batch of 7 will be displayed randomly at the main page, the format of which can be seen at the Main Page sandbox. There is also an ongoing discussion at the Main page talk over the final details before we can go forward with the Main Page. If you have any ideas to discuss with everyone else, please visit the TAFI Talk Page and join in on the ongoing discussions there. You are also invited to add new nominations, and comment and suport on the current ones at the Nominations page. You can also help by helping in the discussions at the Holding Area. Above all, please do not forget to improve our current Today's Articles for Improvement Thank you and hoping to have some productive work from you at the Project, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC) (From the TAFI team)

Articles for creation help (a.k.a. some nagging from a minor contributor)

Concerning my AFC Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Snoopy and the Red Baron (video game), I decided to beg you to help. I want to resubmit my little AFC, but I can't find that little "when you are ready to resubmit, click here" button. Can you put it on the page so I won't experiment and delete something important (such as previous comments)? Thanks. MgWd (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)MgWd My dog is furry.

Nevermind, you seem rather busy with all of these other posts. I think I can work it out, I'm not that busy currently and can find a way. My dog is furry. MgWd (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)MgWd

Looks like you had a bit too much to think!

	You won trip to the Ministry of Love!
	Big Brother is watching you. MgWd (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Articles for creation Needs You!

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1st, 2013 – March 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

Delivered by User:EdwardsBot on behalf of Wikiproject Articles for Creation at 14:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)