User talk:Chris troutman/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

October 2014

Hello, I'm Viriditas. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Chris troutman that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. "Let me tell you something, jackass" is a personal attack. Don't let it happen again.[1] Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Original Research (yet again)

I've just (admittedly rather belatedly) read your comments about "bickering" on the Thomas More talk page. So I came back here to remind you of how this "bickering" started. The sequence of events is as follows:

a) You accused me of trying to publish original research in the More article.

b) Here's when you did it.

c) I (politely at first) invited you to substantiate that claim or withdraw it.

d) Nearly a year later you have failed to provide a single scrap of evidence for what you say.

e) Because you can't - I haven't written a word of that article.

And yet you haven't withdrawn, let alone apologised for, your remark. In fact you've - ludicrously - tried to deny having made it. (Here are your exact words: "At no point have I accused you of publishing original research".)

Here's my message: don't pull that stuff with me. You want me to stay away from your talk page? Nothing would give me greater pleasure. You flatter yourself if you think I'd spend any longer here than I have to. I had never heard of you until you accused me of original research. But you're in for a rude awakening if you think I or anyone else is going to tolerate people making things up about them.

I'm happy to leave the More stuff on the talk page (where I've addressed your nonsensical points about sources and "troublemakers" etc). But here's some advice for you personally. Don't pick a fight with someone if you're going to burst into tears when they fight back. You want to substantiate your accusation that I tried to insert original research into the More article, fine, let's hear your evidence. You want to withdraw it, fine, I'm all ears. But don't deny what you said. That's the cowards way out. From skimming through your posts, it's clear you're a tough guy in cyberspace, ready to dish out insults and (more irritatingly) patronising advice. But like all bullies, you cut and run the minute anyone stands up to you. Even behind the anonymity of a keyboard you can't summon the courage to answer a straight question.

Here's that question one more time. Do do you or do you not acknowledge that you wrote the following on the Thomas More talk page:

"It is not the job of editors to philosophize about St. Thomas More."

It's a yes/no question.

If no, and someone hacked into your account, fine, we'll call it quits. Otherwise, just grow a pair and stop trying to deny what you said. You obviously don't have enough honour to apologise when you make a false accusation, but don't try and pretend it didn't happen. Otherwise, you make people's blood boil, and then "bickering" happens. When it does, don't whinge about it. If you're so thin-skinned you can't bear it when someone points out you're wrong, just disconnect your modem now, because sooner or later people are going to acquaint you with the facts, and that's evidently more than you can stand. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

tl;dr I stand by everything I said. I explained that I didn't want to be bothered anymore. You're a waste of my time. Leave my talk page or we're going to WP:RFCC. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, right, so you're issuing orders now. And threats. Wooh, scary.

Look, do your worst. I hope it brings you happiness. But let's be clear: you don't "stand by" what you wrote. If you stood by it, you'd be able to point to the original research you accuse me of. A more appropriate metaphor than that of you "standing by" your words is of you running away from them as quickly as you can. Not only do you not "stand by" what you wrote, you can't even bring yourself to admit having written it.

And now you want to tell teacher you're being picked on. Boo-hoo. Maybe teacher will dry your tears, or maybe teacher will look at some of your past confrontations and think it amusing that you can dish it out but can't take it. Who knows. But one thing that I do know, and that you know (and that, best of all, you KNOW I know), is that you won't be able to substantiate your accusation. You can shriek your threats, run to authority figures for protection, but nothing will obscure the fact that, when push came to shove, you couldn't back up your words. No matter what happens, we will both know that you got this one wrong. And that you weren't man enough to admit it. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Randal Bingley

I completely forgot about this request, and I apologize. I have recreated the page for you here. Cheers! → Call me Hahc21 02:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks! Chris Troutman (talk) 04:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Jane Shaw

Hi Chris, Hello, I am User:StanfordScribe. The entry for Prof Jane Shaw has been thoroughly updated with links and reliable sources to the Stanford University website, scholarly journals, books, newspaper articles and current websites. It now satisfies the requirements for biographical citations for verification and notability guidelines for academics. Could we please remove the BLP and notability tags which you added on 14 August? Please remove the tags directly or you can leave me a message on my talk page Thanks. — Preceding undated comment added 17:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@StanfordScribe:  Done Chris Troutman (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Available to support Ben Karney's class at UCLA again this term?

Hi, Chris! Ben Karney emailed me to say how helpful you were with his students last fall, and he's looking for an Ambassador again for this year's course (Education Program:University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)/Psychology 220A (Fall, 2014)). Are you by any chance available to support them again this term? Please let us know (either here or by email), and thank you so much for being such a great Ambassador last time around! It sounds like it was incredibly helpful to have you on board. :) Jami (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Chris! This is Ben Karney. Indeed, the students all reported that your visit was extremely helpful last year, and I am hoping that you might be able to visit again. I have actually blocked out time for a Wikipedia workshop into my syllabus this year -- the time is 1:00 to 2:50 on October 29th. Is there any chance you might be able to come by my class at that time? Let me know if you have a chance -- the best way to reach me is by email at karney@psych.ucla.edu. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benkarney (talk • contribs) 23:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jami (Wiki Ed): @Benkarney: Yes, I'm always glad to represent Wikipedia in the classroom! Thanks for reaching out to me. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 8

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 8, August-September2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• TWL now a Wikimedia Foundation program, moves on from grant status
• Four new donations, including large DeGruyter parntership, pilot with Elsevier
• New TWL coordinators, Wikimania news, new library platform discussions, Wiki Loves Libraries update, and more
• Spotlight: "Traveling Through History" - an editor talks about his experiences with a TWL newspaper archive, Newspapers.com

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Chris

This is my experimentRamblingriver (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gaza flotilla raid

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gaza flotilla raid. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

GA review

I thought that I did adhere to GA nominations. I'd like to continue reviewing other GA nominations if you don't mind. --The lad searches the night for his newts (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@The lad searches the night for his newts: I do mind. I'd recommend you ask for a mentor to teach you how to properly perform reviews according to our criteria. Since you are a new editor, you should gain experience working with other WikiProjects like Did You Know before you proceed. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration

Hi Chris! How do I request arbitration for the Corona del Mar High page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona_del_Mar_High_School Can you take a look at its Talk page and tell me if that's the right thing to request? Thanks! --Dalton D. Hird 05:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@DaltonHird: A Request for Comment is already underway, which is the best first step to resolving the disagreement. (This is a content disagreement). You can express your opinion in the RfC; be sure you read WP:UNDUE and other applicable guidelines so you understand the issue. If, in the process, user conduct gets out of control there are several other ways to go, starting with WP:ANI and WP:RFCC. Arbitration in Wikipedia is something else entirely and you don't want to go that route. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris! --Dalton D. Hird 06:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

How to fix close connection issue

I will appreciate if someone can help me to fix this issue, i have been close connection link but really don't understand how i can solve it. Nissan300zx (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nissan300zx: The Banner added that template among others because it appears that you are closely-connected to the subject and therefore have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia articles have to be neutral and can't be written promotionally. You can't solve the issue because you are the problem. Allow other editors to develop this article and the template can be removed once the article no longer sounds like an advertisement. You shouldn't worry about those maintenance templates anyway, as it only indicates that the article needs work. Don't take it personally. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Mandatory Fun/GA1

In regard to Talk:Mandatory Fun/GA1, I didn't see anything at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Caligula (film) which said that an inappropriate GA review is supposed to be speedily deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Metropolitan90: If you have a better suggestion I'd be glad to hear it. I want a quick easy solution to a editor-initiated problem. CSD seemed applicable. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know what you should do about those GA reviews; I just know that speedy deletion hasn't been indicated as the appropriate way to deal with them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

TWL

Hey Chris, would you mind sending me an email regarding potential TWL coordination, if you are still interested? Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

re GA review of Calugula (film)

Chris, I saw your post at User talk:The lad searches the night for his newts.

You should check out Special:Contributions/The_lad_searches_the_night_for_his_newts, and see other reviews at

1. Talk:Black Sabbath (film)/GA1
2. Talk:Caligula (film)/GA1
3. Talk:Cult film/GA1
4. Talk:Mandatory Fun/GA1
5. Talk:Hear My Train A Comin'/GA1
6. Talk:Hoochie Coochie Man/GA1

They basically keep saying the same thing, ignoring site guidelines like WP:LEADCITE, etc.

What do you think should be done?

Should a user this new with this little contribs be reviewing GA candidates?

Is there a standard for who can review GA candidates?

— Cirt (talk) 12:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Cirt and Chris troutman: I've got here because I've also been looking at that user's contribs, and I also have concerns about those GAs; please see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Caligula (film). --Redrose64 (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Redrose64, I'll defer to what you guys come up with over there. Glad experienced editors are on top of this. — Cirt (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my review, don't revert it in Stalinist fashioned white washing to act as if it never happened. Open a GA review. There's procedure here. The lad searches the night for his newts (talk) 07:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment, NOT disregarding my passing of the nomination. The lad searches the night for his newts (talk) 08:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Course Help

Hi Chris: I would like to include a Wiki module in my course this semester after all. Hoping you are still available for this! How can we communicate privately? --Dalton D. Hird 21:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@DaltonHird: Sent you an e-mail. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup - Round 1 Newsletter #2

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 1 Hello GA Cup competitors! The judges have learned a great deal in this first part of the competition, and we appreciate your patience with us as we've figured out what works and what doesn't work. As we reported in our last newsletter, an inadequacy in the scoring system has been illuminated in the past 15 days, which has resulted in a major change in the rules. It has also resulted in one withdrawal. To ensure fairness, we've decided to further increase the number of participants moving onto Round 2. Everyone who has reviewed at least one article will automatically be moved forward, and will be placed in pools. You have until October 29 to take advantage of this opportunity. It is our hope that this will make up for the unforeseen glitch in our scoring system. Best of wishes to all of you as you continue to help improve articles and make Wikipedia a better place. Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, what's up?

Hi. I received a message that you are patrolling my user page. How are you? What's up? Have a nice day. NotAnotherTeenPup (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The New Page Patrol checks all new pages. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Julian calendar

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Julian calendar. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

SoCal edit-a-thons on October 21 and 25

Upcoming SoCal edit-a-thons: UC Riverside (10/21, 10am-3pm) and Unforgetting L.A. (10/25, 9am-5pm)

Dear fellow Wikipedian, The Southern California Wikipedia community has two more events scheduled for the month of October: a water-related edit-a-thon at UC Riverside, and an Unforgetting L.A. event at the Los Angeles Archives Bazaar in conjunction with L.A. as Subject! As part of Wikipedia Loves Libraries and to celebrate Open Access Week, UC Riverside is participating alongside other Western Waters Digital Library members in an edit-a-thon focusing on water issues. Join students and faculty learning how to edit! This event will take place on Tuesday, October 21 from 10am to 3pm at UCR's Orbach Science Library (map). RSVPs are requested here. The Unforgetting L.A. edit-a-thon and training workshop will take place at the 9th annual Los Angeles Archives Bazaar, and is hosted by online magazine East of Borneo in partnership with L.A. as Subject. Join us on Saturday, October 25 from 9am to 5pm at the USC Doheny Memorial Library (map). Beginners welcome! Please RSVP here if you plan to attend. I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC) To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

September-October 2014 backlog reduction drive

		One Stripe
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your contributions to the WikiProject's September–October 2014 backlog reduction drive, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject award. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

RM notification

Since you have participated in at least one Requested Move or Move Review discussion, either as participant or closer, regarding the title of the article currently at Sarah Jane Brown, you are being notified that there is another discussion about that going on now, at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested move #10. We hope we can finally achieve consensus among all participating about which title best meets policy and guidelines, and is not too objectionable. --В²C ☎ 17:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vietnam War

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Vietnam War. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For your 29 rereviews during the June 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

oiy

Please have alook at my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangover_%28Salman_Khan_Song%29 and tell me if it has been reviewed or i need to sumbmit a review request.. and if it has not been sumbmited for review. how do i sumbmit it fro review ?? please reply — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alynaa (talk • contribs) 11:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Alynaa:  Done I made a couple small changes. Please read our notability guideline specific to songs and add more sourcing and content as needed. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks you. i will now work on adding more content ad sources.--Alynaa (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

oiy1

Please have a look into my new article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bang_Bang_%28Hindi_Song%29 --Alynaa (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		A barnstar to you for re-reviewing at least 25 user reviews during the WikiProject Articles for creation June 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks for contributing to the backlog elimination drive! Posted by (t) Josve05a (c) on 08:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation

Oiya

just wanted to make sure if my article has been reviewed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bang_Bang_%28Hindi_Song%29

and what can you use as 'External' links on wikipedia?--Alynaa (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@Alynaa: I think you misunderstand. The banner template at the top of the article only indicates that it hasn't been reviewed. The article is live on Wikipedia and that banner doesn't detract from it. Ideally, an editor from either WikiProject India or WikiProject Songs should review it. (I don't belong to either.) I assume you saw my activity at AfC and decided to ask me for help. Pestering me for help is a poor way to interact with me.

As for external links, read WP:EL. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

More references added have a look--Alynaa (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!

	Stellar Outreach
	Thanks for going out of your way to connect me with the larger community of Wikipedians! Nafpaktitism (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

List of edit-a-thons

Having removed the list, where did you put it? The list of meetups is just that and it's not possible to see which are edit-a-thons. I recommend that you turn it into a separate article. kosboot (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I deleted it (rather than archive it or move it somewhere else) under the assumption it was duplicative. However, you're right; I didn't check and I should have. I believe the city-specific sub-pages are already archiving their past events but I'll figure out how those entries I deleted should be archived if they hadn't been already. My immediate concern was eliminating the false belief that the how-to article was the way to promote upcoming events. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup - Round 2

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 2 Greetings, GA Cup competitors! Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. Jaguar took out Round 1 with an amazing score of 238. In a tight race for second, Peacemaker67 and Ritchie333 finished second and third with 152 and 141 points, respectively. Two users have scored the maximum five bonus points for article length (60,000 characters+). Anotherclown reviewed Spanish conquest of Yucatán (77,350 characters) and MrWooHoo reviewed Communist Party of China (76,740 characters). The longest review was by Bilorv who reviewed Caldas da Rainha. The review was approximately 22,400 characters which earned s/he two bonus points (20, 000 - 29, 999 characters). In Round 1, 117 reviews were completed, making the first round of the GA Cup a success! A total of 86 articles were removed from the backlog during the month of October! We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 2 so we can lower the backlog as much as possible. To qualify for the second round, one completed review was needed, which 28 users accomplished. Participants have been randomly put into 7 pools of 4; the top 2 in each pool will move onto Round 3. There will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 15th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 2 will start on November 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on November 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here Also, remember that a major rule change will go into affect starting on November 1, which marks the beginning of Round Two. Round 1 displayed a weakness in the rules, which we are correcting with this new rule. We believe that this change will make the competition more inherently fair. The new rule is: Your review must provide feedback/suggestions for improvement, and then you must wait until the nominator has responded and all issues/suggestions have been resolved before you can pass the article. Failure to follow this rule will result in disqualification. The judges will strictly enforce this new rule. Good luck and remember to have fun! Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ayurveda

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ayurveda. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Question on notes versus references

Quick question for you. I was looking at Joseph Jastrow's page, and what I consider references are in the notes section. Is there a reason for this? I tried to find a page explaining the difference, but was unsuccessful. Thanks! gemayelc 22:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemayelc (talk • contribs)

@Gemayelc: Take Audie Murphy as an example. Yes, references should be called citations or references, not notes. When I use {{sfn}} (like I did at Alonzo Davis) I put the short citations in "citations" and list the books in "references." Notes (use {{notelist}}) should be explanatory. Fix the article as you see necessary. WP:ASL addresses this. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Thanks! One further question for you. I would like to title a subsection "Dreams of the blind". One of Jastrow's books has a chapter with a similar title ("The Dreams of the Blind"). Do I need a citation to do this? It is the best way of titling the section, which is probably why Jastrow did so himself. gemayelc 20:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I see you've already done this. No, you only need citations for content. Section headers are just the words between the pairs of equal signs. That said, section headers should be entitled based on the content like "early life", "career", "publications", etc. (see WP:LAYOUT) I hope that answers the question. The section you added is fine. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

References

CVU/A Request

I'd like to be trained in counter-vandalism, and I saw you on the CVU/A page. Thanks. JDgeek1729 (talk) 04:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I'm indisposed just now, but I should be able to set up your CVUA page Monday or Tuesday. On another note, please go to your preferences menu and change your signature to point to your current username, not your old one. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I made that before my name changeJjjjjjdddddd (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014: The results

The 2014 WikiCup champion is Godot13 (submissions), who flew the flag of the Smithsonian Institution. This was Godot13's first WikiCup competition and, over the 10 months of the competition, he has produced (among other contributions) two featured lists and an incredible 292 featured pictures, including architectural photographs and scans of historical documents. Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 and 2013 WikiCup champion, came in second, having written a large number of biology-related articles. Casliber (submissions), WikiCup finalist every year since 2010, finished in third.

A full list of our prize-winners follows:

• Godot13 (submissions) wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 181 featured pictures in the final round.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 65 did you knows in the final round.
• Casliber (submissions) wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for four featured articles in the final round.
• Czar (submissions) wins the prize for fourth place
• Sturmvogel 66 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• 12george1 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• ChrisGualtieri (submissions) wins the GA prize for 27 good articles in round 2 and the review prize for 28 good article reviews in round 1.
• Caponer (submissions) wins the FL prize for three featured lists in round 2.
• Sven Manguard (submissions) wins the FPo prize his work on featured portals.
• Figureskatingfan (submissions) wins the topic prize for a nine-article featured topic in round 3.
• ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the news prize for 28 in the news articles in round 3.

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have participated this year. We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

• DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
  • English signup
  • Deutsch signup
• Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
• Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
• British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
• Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
• Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
• JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).

This message was delivered via the Mass Message to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

Please comment on Talk:Gary Webb

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gary Webb. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

BNA

Thanks. Have filled up the form. Tintin 17:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. However - I'm stuck on the last step. I have qualms about revealing my identity to the WMF as it is, but being required to fill out a Google form? I'm mulling whether that's a deal breaker. Google cannot be trusted. Has anyone else raised this issue? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: Yes, others have rankled at revealing true name although their objection was not specific to Google. I could inquire about having you e-mail me that information directly, but Google would still have it that way rather than the form. Speaking for The Wikipedia Library, we've already signed non-disclosure agreements to protect the private information of editors. Ultimately, this is information BNA requires for your access. If your anonymity is that important to you, it may have to come at the cost of resources like this. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I read the BNA privacy page and am ok with that, and I applied on the understanding that the WMF would have the information, but why must Google also have it? I don't have a Google Plus account for that reason. Does Google ultimately own brightline whatsit? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: Ok, if you can communicate your information to me I can pass it along to BNA without involving Google. Is there a particular mail service you feel comfortable with? I assume if you want to avoid Google docs you want to avoid gmail, too? Chris Troutman (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

That would be great - I trust you lot. Yes, I'd rather avoid gmail. I gather that's what you use here. Do you do IRC? I lurk a lot (like right now), registered as Rihan. PM me. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Chris I went to sign up and it said it would email to confirm and it never did. Can you sort it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Emailed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Your BNA account was created. You should have received a confirmation e-mail and you can request a resend by logging-in and going to the "my account" area. If it's still a problem, my contact recommends you use BNA's customer support. Let me know if issues persist. Otherwise, enjoy your year of access. BNA is happy to support prolific editors like you. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I know, I requested a resend 4 times and still didn't get an email!! I've contacted support, hopefully I'll get a response soon.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

punctuation

Please look at this edit. Ranges of years, ranges of pages, etc., require an en-dash, not a hyphen, as do things like "Russell–Saunders". (And in some other situations, a hyphen is right and an en-dash is wrong. See WP:MOS.) Michael Hardy (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I had been content to let AWB editors worry about that sort of stuff; I'm writing content. In consideration of your request, I've installed User:GregU/dashes so I'll fix articles I'm working on. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior

What happens here, when one can not dispute the several sources that affirm our latest edit? In fact, it's already clear that the sources can't be negated. At the end of the discussion, Laveol and his/her anonymous IP profile can not dispute the sources, and still does not accept the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.242.208 (talk • contribs)

@79.126.242.208: Well, there are a couple ways to proceed:

1. Post a Request for Comment. A larger community will chime in. Anyone resisting the consensus can be dealt with formally.
2. As the discussion has remained civil WP:ANI isn't the optimal solution. As this looks like a slow edit war. You can report it to WP:AN3.
3. Don't bother. When the partisans come out, I question what good is served fighting them. Clearly WMF doesn't care or checkuser tools could be used more easily and IPs could be summarily blocked. Per WP:CONSENSUS, you only have to voice disagreement once and perpetually revert after that. The discussion has established a consensus that Macedonian nationalism is a recent invention not applicable to the Ottoman Empire. An article about the millet system (which is really a misnomer anyway, if you've read Najwa al-Qattan) isn't the place to hash this out. Surely a consensus at an article about Macedonian nationalism would make more sense. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, neither discussion, nor the concerning paragraph in the article are about the Macedonian nationalism, but - the existence of the Macedonian ethnicity through the centuries. Those are completely different things, I believe. 79.126.227.104 (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for the guidance.

I've just noticed, somebody's explained that we do not talk about the Macedonian national state ideology: according to the latter definition of the term "nation," the Macedonian nation was formed when the Macedonian nation state was established. Today, a nation is the people in a sovereign state. But, more than 100 - 150 years ago, "nation" meant - separate people, meant what we today call "ethnicity".

"Ethnicity" is also a tricky concept but yes, nationalism in the nation-state context didn't come about until modernity while the Israelites, Egyptians, and Han Chinese could each claim to be a nation stretching to the beginning of civilization. Although I'm not an expert on Balkans history, I'd suggest that the ethnic form of nationalism is in many cases really a backward-looking revisionist invention also dating to modernity. The discussion should focus on source material relating to an applicable millet.

I don't doubt that ethnic Macedonians (Christians) probably experienced some preferential treatment through a millet-like political accommodation. The issue is that the literature doesn't seem to bear that out per se and people trying to push a modern Macedonian nationalism want to rewrite history. I know the story of Alexander the Great is a magnet for this sort of thing. I don't care either way. I'd support a Greater Macedonia (much as I'd support an independent Kurdistan) but I don't think they've been oppressed, either. That conversation is done as far as I'm concerned. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you've got wrong impression, but I clearly stated that the Macedonian nationalism is another subject. Am I wrong? The debate about forming the Macedonian nation, on which you claim reached consensus, I'm convinced that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PARAGRAPH HERE AND THE LIST of the ethnicities. In the article there are listed ETHNICITIES, not NATIONS (as we understood the word today). 79.126.168.215 (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

We see that the word nation is a problem. Should we remove the sources from 200 years ago, where the Macedonian ethnicity is called "nation"? 79.126.168.215 (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The misunderstanding was mine. Did you read #3 above? That's you. You're the partisan pushing Macedonian nationalism. You've used the word "we" a lot to refer to yourself so, to borrow a line from Magnum Force: "who's we, sucka?" What nationalist collective am I talking to?

The issue here is, were Orthodox Christian Macedonians included in the Rum Millet? Probably. Do the sources say that? No. Sources don't list the ethnic Macedonians as specific members of the millet. Why are you pushing to include them? Answer: because you're a partisan. This is the extent of the argument. Had you not been pushing this, I wouldn't have had the article protected. Now that it is, you might try being more reasonable. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Оh, this is ridiculous - Sources don't list the ethnic Macedonians as specific members of the millet. The other ethnicities were also never explicitly referred as being part of the Rum-millet, but the sources say that they existed as separate entities, don't they? It's kind of funny how concerned you are that I, "a Macedonian nationalist," "try to rewrite the history" but by showing already written evidence. 79.126.168.215 (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:St. Francis Dam

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:St. Francis Dam. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello Chris troutman. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for W. Conway Pierce

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bath School bombings

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bath School bombings. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Carl A. Wiley

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup - Round 3

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 3 Greetings, all! We hope that all of our American GA Cup competitors had an enjoyable Thanksgiving holiday. Friday saw the end of Round 2. Two from 7 pools, plus a tie score and one wildcard (16 in all) moved onto the next round. Some pools were more competitive than others. Round 2's highest scorer was 3family6, with an impressive 255 points. Good888, who came in second place overall with 202 points, reviewed the most articles (19). The wildcard slot for Round 2 went to Jaguar. Congrats to all! Round 3 will have 15 competitors in three pools. The key to moving forward in Round 2 seemed to be reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates; almost everyone who moved forward nominated at least one article from the pink nomination box (20 points) or reviewed articles that had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). The GA Cup was also used to promote a group of articles about The Boat Race, a rowing race held annually since 1856 between Oxford University and Cambridge University, on the River Thames. 17 Boat Race articles were promoted to GA in November. In Round 2, 110 reviews were completed, as compared to 117 in Round 1. The GA Cup continues to be a success. This month, we got a report from User:AmericanLemming, who maintains the GA statistics, that in October, there was a net gain of 201 articles nominated for GA. He thought that more open GANs could mean that more editors are submitting more of their articles to the GAN process. In addition, having a high-throughput of GANs means that more articles get reviewed more quickly, which reduces the frustration of potentially waiting several months to get an article reviewed. The activity in Round 2 of the GA Cup seems to bear that out. It's our hope that the competitors' enthusiasm continues in Round 3, and we can continue to make a difference in helping more editors improve their articles. For Round 3, participants have been randomly put in 3 pools of 5 contestants each; the top two in each pool progressing, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users. Round 3 will start on December 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on December 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here. There have been a couple of rules clarifications to announce. We're slightly changing the wording to the second bullet in "General rules", which now reads: You may only score points in a round for reviews which have been completed in that round. We're also including this clarification: Only reviews started during the competition are eligible. We have also lost a judge, so there are now only three judges. Good luck and remember to have fun as we move into the holiday season. It is the judges' hope that every competitor in the GA Cup has a joyous holiday season and Happy New Year. Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The Czech Ribbon of National Merit

		The Czech Ribbon of National Merit
		Chris troutman, please accept this Ribbon of National Merit for your dedicated work, greatly improving the article on cosmonaut Vladimír Remek! On behalf of WikiProject Czech Republic, C679 19:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)