User talk:Chris troutman/Archive 14

   {{resize|88%|Send New Year cheer by adding {{tls|Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.}}

{{clear}}

{{clear}}

Hello and Happy New Year!

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and we will set up your submissions page. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2019, and which you have nominated this year, is eligible for points in the competition, the judges will be checking! Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are {{User4|Sturmvogel 66}}, {{User4|Godot13}}, {{User4|Vanamonde93}} and {{User4|Cwmhiraeth}}. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your help last year, and your good wishes! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

{{Col-begin}}

{{Col-2}}

File:Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Galobtter

:File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Orangemike

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg BorgQueen • Davidruben • Ocee • Revolving Bugbear • Theda • There'sNoTime • Timc • Tijuana Brass • Tristessa de St Ange

File:Wikipedia bureaucrat.svg Bureaucrat changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Addshore

{{Col-2}}

File:ANEWSicon.png

File:Checkuser Logo.svg CheckUser changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Joe Roe • SilkTork

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

File:Oversight logo.png Oversight changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-add.svg AGK • Joe Roe • SilkTork

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

{{Col-end}}

File:Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

:* There are a number of new or changed speedy deletion criteria, each previously part of WP:CSD#G6:

::#G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{tl|db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in :Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.

::#R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{tl|db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.

::#G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{tl|db-blankdraft}}.

:* The Wikimedia Foundation now requires all interface administrators to enable two-factor authentication.

:* Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.

File:Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

:*Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:

::# At least 8 characters in length

::# Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the [//github.com/wikimedia/password-blacklist Password Blacklist library])

::# Different from their username

::User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.

:*Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.

:*{{tl|Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

File:Scale of justice 2.svg Arbitration

:* Following the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: {{noping|AGK}}, {{noping|Courcelles}}, {{noping|GorillaWarfare}}, {{noping|Joe Roe}}, {{noping|Mkdw}}, {{noping|SilkTork}}.

File:Info Simple bw.svg Miscellaneous

:* Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.

:* Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

----

{{center|{{flatlist|

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

}}}}

{{center|1=Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)}}

Hi Chris, just letting you know I resent some of the mass messages since I noticed that about 200 of them failed[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=20190201065200&limit=250&type=massmessage&user=&page=&wpdate=2019-01-31&tagfilter=&subtype=&day=31&month=1&year=2019] (not your fault, this is a known issue phab:T139380 that doesn't show up as an error for the sender). I temporarily added the targets which failed to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe/resend, and copied/pasted the message content from one that did get delivered. Cheers, - Evad37 [talk] 07:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

File:ANEWSicon.png

File:Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Enterprisey • JJMC89

:File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg BorgQueen

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

File:Wikipedia Interface administrator.svg Interface administrator changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-add.svgEnterprisey

File:Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

:* A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.

:* Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.

:* A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

File:Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

:*A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

File:Info Simple bw.svg Miscellaneous

:* Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically [https://tools.wmflabs.org/meta/accounteligibility/49 check your eligibility] to vote.

:* A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be [https://freenode.net/kb/answer/registration identified].

----

{{center|{{flatlist|

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

}}}}

{{center|1=Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)}}

You're right that User:Wikilrcs/Brouillon doesn't exist, but :fr:User:Wikilrcs/Brouillon does. Brouillon is the :fr: version of sandbox. Cabayi (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Cabayi}} Thanks for letting me know. Is it possible to move the page (rather than copy+paste) from fr-wiki to here? Chris Troutman (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

::I've never heard of it being used, but there is a user group, WP:Importers, held by just 2 people. Cabayi (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Chris, just checking on your availability on 27-28th for Signpost. I heard your request last month to mark finished items more clearly. Is it OK if we both agree that if an item is marked "done" at WP: NEWSROOM, then it shall be included? Sometimes the articles don't get fully checked off at the in-article templates. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Bri}} Yes, I'll be available. I prefer our team dots every i and crosses every t. That's why all those checks on both the draft articles and in the table exist. Please enforce them, for your own good if not for mine. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Just a heads up, Anthony22 resumed editing on 1 Feb after a 7-month hiatus. I see no improvement, which I believe effectively puts us back at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthony22&diff=845593651&oldid=845592231 this point]. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Mandruss}} I'm watching this issue. The last time I tried to run someone off Wikipedia, I got forced into self-imposed exile. I need to see outrageous conduct in order to move against anyone, now, which is a shame. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

::My feelings are similar. If the community is unwilling to do anything about an editor like this, that's on them, and he can do as much damage as he wants provided he doesn't do it to an article that currently has my attention. And even there I'm limited by 3RR, as I can't correct more than three of his blundering edits in any 24-hour period. If you decided to pursue admin action, I'd like to be there to add my strong support, but I don't know how you could let me know without violating WP:CANVASS. I generally don't watch ANI. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

:::{{replyto|Mandruss}} I feel bad for our hard-working editors who wrote that content, only to see it mangled by this wordsmith, re-writing our consensus view as if he's the senior editor of The New York Times. That's why I reverted the changes. I don't have an obsessive need to defend Wikipedia so much as I hate seeing our good work defaced. But yeah, the community let me know more than once that they don't want me engaging editors, so I won't until I feel like I have solid ground beneath me. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for correcting my comment about User:Bruce Mouser in the Deceased Wikipedians section; it was a typing error-thank you-RFD (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: the non-notable entries at the US Army DSC page; there is a similar [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_Force_Cross_(United_States)&oldid=867612632 situation] at the US Air Force Cross page as well. - wolf 12:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Thewolfchild}} Per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, do you suggest I should pick more fights or do you think no one should have to follow rules if somewhere else the rules are being ignored? Chris Troutman (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

::This was just a friendly 'heads up'. I agree with your edits on the DSC page, hence the reason that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_Force_Cross_(United_States)&diff=885798148&oldid=885795208 I basically made the same edits to the AFC page]. Depending on how (and if) anyone reacts to my edits, some might think I'm "picking a fight" as well, but I like to think of them as bold edits, supported by P&G. Should it come it come to it though, I'm sure a centralized RfC, to cover all pages with similar lists, will have a consensus in our favour as well. Literally tens of thousands of these medals have been awarded, we can't list all of them. Cheers - wolf 14:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

:::{{replyto|Thewolfchild}} I apologize. I was wrong to snap at you. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

::::Meh, no biggie. I didn't take it as snapping, just confusion because my first post wasn't clear enough. Hopefully we're on the same page now. Cheers - wolf 15:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

{{Col-begin}}

{{Col-2}}

File:Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Evad37

:File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg There'sNoTime

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Alex Shih • Brian • Mushroom • Nakon • Oscarthecat • PeruvianLlama • Ragib • Reaper Eternal • Rossami • Tom

File:Wikipedia Interface administrator.svg Interface administrator changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Evad37 • Galobtter

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ritchie333

{{Col-2}}

File:ANEWSicon.png

File:Checkuser Logo.svg CheckUser changes

:File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg There'sNoTime

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Keegan • Ks0stm

File:Oversight logo.png Oversight changes

:File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg There'sNoTime

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ks0stm • Sphilbrick

{{Col-end}}

File:Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

:*The RfC on administrator activity requirements failed to reach consensus for any proposal.

:*Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.

File:Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

:* A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

File:Scale of justice 2.svg Arbitration

:*The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).

:**{{Nospam|paid-en-wp|wikipedia.org}} has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.

:**{{Nospam|checkuser-en-wp|wikipedia.org}} has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

File:Info Simple bw.svg Miscellaneous

:*Following the 2019 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Base, Einsbor, Jon Kolbert, Schniggendiller, and Wim b.

----

{{center|{{flatlist|

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

}}}}

{{center|1=Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)}}

Please tone down your language. Comments such as "...you need to just keeping rowing on your small task on the team and leave it to more-informed editors to fix the issue", "...your minority opinion has left you dis-attached from objective reality. I hope that you follow-through on your rant and become disassociated with The Signpost and perhaps WIkipedia, as a whole" and referring to fellow editors as "braying sheeple" are uncivil and inappropriate. I'm sure that it's frustrating to endure this level of pushback, especially from folks who are unwilling or unequipped to help publish the Signpost, but you need to find a more civil way to voice your opinion. –dlthewave ☎ 16:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[

:{{replyto|dlthewave}} I disagree. A small but vocal minority (in response to some inelegant words from people nit-picky about grammar with a bent toward awkward humor) alleges something on the scale of a hate crime occurred. The former group alleging hate speech, spurred mostly by political beliefs, has attacked editors like Barbara Page, Bri, and Kudpung as if Wikipedia needs to scalp the offending Signpost editors in order to punish thoughtcrime. The latter group of Signpost editors involved (volunteers, all) offered apologies and backed away from the issue only to be followed by more angry rhetoric from the former group. I, however, don't think we need to scalp volunteers providing a community service for their mistake when no malice or ill-will was observed. Had the angry crowd discontinued their assault, I'd've left it alone as I had nothing to do with the essay at hand. But I will not remain silent while innocent but mistaken editors are hounded by fellow editors under the influence of ideological blood lust. The president of my fan club stalks my talk page and will take me back to ANI when he finds evidence enough to block me for thirty days. I'm just recently coming off an unplanned break from Wikipedia after my last visit to the drama board. I feel I've been measured in my effort to restrain the worst instincts of our chattering class, though I imagine the angry editors will accept nothing less than Stalinist show trials and consignments to the gulag. I will not oblige. Certainly, as a free market guy I encourage the consumer to stop reading words that they don't like, especially when those words were provided as a service to help this community find its voice. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

::{{ping|dlthewave}} Chris. Come on. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

:My suggestion would be to think about what you're doing that would get you blocked for 30 days if someone took it to ANI and stop doing that thing. –dlthewave ☎ 01:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

May I ask you to close the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom? As publisher, you are the obvious person to close it. I'll make some comments over there in a while, but I'm chomping at the bit and think that some "approval from the top" is necessary for me to talk to potential contributors. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Smallbones}} {{done}} Welcome to the team. Assuming you turned in your direct deposit form when you onboarded at The Signpost you'll be receiving your salary for this job fortnightly. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I have closed your AN3 report as "no violation"; more to the point, had I been online at midnight last night I would have blocked you for violating the three revert rule : [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.191.95.230&diff=888194628&oldid=888194128], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.191.95.230&diff=888226953&oldid=888219540], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.191.95.230&diff=888249067&oldid=888235180], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.191.95.230&diff=888259037&oldid=888252298] - WP:BLANKING says specifically': "{{xt|Note: Restoring talk page notices, even if they should not be removed, is not a listed exception to the three-revert rule.}}" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Ritchie333}} Yup, that was my fault. I thought it was a listed exception but I can see it's not. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

::Okay, no worries. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I edited a fight result for Jason Von Flue in which he introduced the Von Flue choke to MMA, and it was reverted due to Sherdog's result being input incorrectly. When a "reliable source" is incorrect, why won't Wikipedia choose to be accurate and use the correct result?

Here is another source (besides the video) in which it is called a Von Flue choke: https://mmabouts.fandom.com/wiki/Jason_Von_Flue_vs._Nick_Gilardi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:83:8000:7100:5456:7268:4956:9C3E (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

:But mmabouts.fandom.com isn't a reliable source, per WP:SPS, so you can't use it. To your question {{tq|"why won't Wikipedia choose to be accurate and use the correct result?"}} I reply that Wikipedia does not care about what's true. This is an important, though widely unknown, rule here. For example, I was once editing an article about a person I knew and the article mentioned her daughter. She insisted that her daughter was born on a Tuesday but the Los Angeles Times said it was Wednesday. Maybe she was "correct" (like that matters) but she had no secondary source proof. (We don't allow people to upload birth certificates and such.) The reason why is, what if she said her daughter was born yesterday, or 200 years ago, or was never born? I, as an editor, don't know what really happened and it's not my right as an encyclopedist to determine the truth. I collate what the sources say, even if those sources might be wrong because I have no business performing my own research. Ultimately, if you're interested in the article saying what's true beyond what reliable sources say, then you show contempt for the encyclopedia preferring your own narrative of what you think is true. I would not arrogantly assert that the sky is blue or water is wet without having a source because in humbly doing my duty I show what the sources say, casting aside my own preferences and beliefs. This mode of thinking is difficult for many that don't regularly edit here but our rules are in place to protect the greater reliability of the project. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm... Interesting. I honestly didn't realize Wikipedia wasn't interested in truth. Thanks for the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:83:8000:7100:5456:7268:4956:9c3e (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

:Reductio ad absurdum (a common problem not helped by essay titles like Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, in my view). More accurately, Wikipedia cares about truth and gets its truth only from reliable sources. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

::{{replyto|Mandruss}} I suspect the IP is correct about the Von Flue choke. My point is that our adherence to sources is more important than propounding what actually happened, because the process is the most effective method we have to stop the RIGHTGREATWRONGS movement. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

::{{replyto|Mandruss}} Point 1: What do you do when the reliable sources become unreliable? In this particular case, Sherdog's Fight Finder (considered the reliable source to go to according to WP:MMA) has become less reliable. Although I have no way to prove this, of course, I was actually the person who entered the Von Flue vs. Gilardi result as an arm-triangle choke on the Fight Finder. I no longer have admin access, so I am unable to fix my mistake--though in my defense nobody knew what a Von Flue choke was back then. (Even Sherdog himself no longer has admin access to sherdog.com). Unfortunately, fight results have become less reliable on Sherdog under the new owners. For example, Naoki Inoue's latest fight (vs. Sean Santella) is not on there (but thankfully is updated here on Wikipedia). Past mistakes on the Fight Finder never get fixed. There are inaccuracies and omissions on Sherdog, and especially when it comes to older fights/events, it is often difficult to find other sources which list the results correctly in order to cite for changes here on Wikipedia.

::Point 2: In regards to this specific fight, I posted a video source as evidence, and Chris Troutman reverted the change and (rather dismissively) wrote "what you think you saw on the video is original research and not allowed; what the reliable source says, even if wrong, is what we go with per WP:TRUTH". Firstly, I found the idea that Wikipedia would willingly choose to be wrong kind of crazy. Secondly, if you show that video to 1,000 BJJ black belts, I would wager a bet that all 1,000 of them would call it either a Von Flue choke (more specific) or shoulder choke (more general). It's not what I "think" I saw; it's just what it is. Like how when you close your hand into a fist and land it on someone's face, it's called a punch. It's irrefutable. So I guess the question is: When is a video (especially when cited) NOT a reliable source? Anyone who watches it can see the truth, and yet it was reverted to a wrong result because of a mistaken entry on another web site. 2601:83:8000:7100:CC48:1DDA:6607:6D41 (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

:::In your point about Sherdog, we've received these complaints before and perhaps the issue needs to be re-litigated at WikiProject MMA. Most of MMA media isn't seen as legitimate by the wider world. We're lucky to trust Sherdog, let alone the other smaller commentators like Luke Thomas on the subject. To your other point, all editors are considered to be dilettantes. Our editors include an actual lawyer and and actual historian but neither of them get to use their own research or analysis here because all Wikipedians are equal and not endowed with privileged access to controlling articles. As for me, I don't know a Von Flue choke from a D'Arce choke and I can't be trusted to make that call. We rely upon sources, right or wrong. Contribute what you think you know to journalism and academia, rather than complain here about your preferred narratives. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of political parties in Cuba. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Dear all. Recently, {{user0|FR30799386}} was blocked for sock puppetry. Among their projects were a number of user scripts that they left behind. I (DannyS712) have copied the scripts, and have taken over maintaining them. You currently import one or more of FR30799386's scripts, and I thought that you might want to import a maintained version. Links to each script are provided below.

• User:DannyS712/communicator
• User:DannyS712/copyvio-check
• User:DannyS712/Undo
• User:DannyS712/Quick-undo
• User:DannyS712/Readonly
• User:DannyS712/Redirectify
• User:DannyS712/Section-strike

If you have any questions, please reach out and talk to me. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

{{You've got mail|dashlesssig=Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)}}

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of surviving Messerschmitt Bf 109s. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

After I fixed glaring grammatical errors like "The expression was coined in 19th century", you turned up and put them all right back in the article. Is it that you don't know or understand basic English grammar, or that you just don't believe correct grammar is necessary in encyclopaedia articles? 146.90.125.54 (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

:You removed cited content from mk.ru and zimamagazine.com, so I'm not buying your grammar explanation. If you have an issue with those sources, you're welcome to explain. edit-warring over it is not helping. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

:: Still unclear as to whether you comprehend basic grammar rules or just don't care about them. And how about WP:NOTVAND - is it that you are unaware of it or just believe you can follow your own rules? 146.90.125.54 (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

:::IP, see WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:CIVIL. As Chris has explained, your edits removed cited content and replaced it with unsourced content, a violation of our policies concerning verifiability of content. Ungrammatical content is a far lesser concern here than the introduction of unsourced, unverifiable and potentially false information. You can either address your own violations of our policies and comply with them, or not edit at all, but stop attacking other editors for enforcing those policies. General Ization ^Talk 00:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

::::" your edits removed cited content and replaced it with unsourced content" that is a lie. Why lie? 146.90.125.54 (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

:::::Study {{diff2|889945320|this edit}} very carefully. Then explain to me how that is a "lie." General Ization ^Talk 00:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

:::::Won't be back for a while; now blocked for 3 months. General Ization ^Talk 00:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

If you don't mind me asking, but how is it that I leave a comment on Howcheng's talk page and you respond in short order.

I did not flag you, so am I or Howcheng on your watch list? Or is there a latest posts page. Just curious. And I responded to your comment but shame on me I was not very attentive and did not flag you currently. Apologies.Oldperson (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

:{{U|Oldperson}} It'll be a watchlist item. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Oldperson}} TRM (noted above) is correct. I stalk talk pages, Howcheng's among them. I knew Howcheng and many others back when I lived in Los Angeles. Usually, editors don't mind if others (like TRM has) chime in on other talk pages. My watchlist shows me what's going on, which is how I engage on wiki. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Yonaguni Monument. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Republic of China (1912–1949). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

{{Col-begin}}

{{Col-2}}

File:Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

:File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Reaper Eternal • ThaddeusB

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Bogdangiusca • Christopher Parham • Necrothesp • Schneelocke • Siroxo • Sarah

:File:Pictogram voting rename.png {{noping|Mentifisto}} → {{noping|Lofty abyss}}

File:Wikipedia Interface administrator.svg Interface administrator changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Mr. Stradivarius

{{Col-2}}

File:ANEWSicon.png

File:Wikipedia bureaucrat.svg Bureaucrat changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-add.svg DeltaQuad

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Kingturtle

{{Col-end}}

File:Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

:* In Special:Preferences under "Appearance" → "Advanced options", there is now an option to show a confirmation prompt when clicking on a rollback link.

:* The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see :meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.

File:Scale of justice 2.svg Arbitration

:* The Arbitration Committee clarified that the General 1RR prohibition for Palestine-Israel articles may only be enforced on pages with the {{tl|ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice.

File:Info Simple bw.svg Miscellaneous

:* Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

:* As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.

----

{{center|{{flatlist|

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

}}}}

{{center|1=Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)}}

File:Ambox notice.svg There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Slatersteven (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

:I have closed this thread as "socks blocked, no further action". However, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.191.95.230&diff=prev&oldid=889309750 this comment] was not particularly helpful or constructive; I don't enjoy editors being disruptive at all, I find them to be a pain in the neck myself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

::{{replyto|Ritchie333}} It's a fair criticism and I take your rebuke to heart. Most editors don't like my tone. As I {{diff|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents|prev|891373341|mentioned to Bbb23}}, I have to get vandals to quit as I can't just block them. I suffer because of Wikipedia's foolish insistence on AGF and NPA in the face of ne'er-do-wells. But you're right and I'm probably not cut out for Wikipedia under our current rules of engagement. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, there's a new one for me. Why use the Undo process to make a substantive improvement in response to my request to do so? What you did was acknowledge the deficiency tagged by me by positively (and properly) fixing the deficient text. The edit by you had nothing to do with performance of an Undo. I am not inclined to accept this was simply a button-press error as your edit summary openly displays your mindset. Let's not have this repeated, please. sirlanz Sirlanz 01:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

:{{replyto|sirlanz}} why would I be concerned about what you are {{tq|"not inclined to accept"}}? Chris Troutman (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your thank-you note... It was interesting to unravel how many dedicated editors seemed to be working on the Peels and their projects. - Wacomshera (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gospel of Peter. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I hope you are not one sided [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_High_German&oldid=prev&diff=893656187].--Chianti (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Chianti}} And you imply what? That I'm a Nazi sympathizer? My suggestion to you, other than calming down, is that per WP:BRD when you boldly edit and are reverted, you should discuss until there's consensus. We often return to status quo ante while the issue is discussed. Further, you have added this bit of information despite two different editors (neither of which was me) reverting you. I'm only hoping good faith editors would avoid edit warring. Perhaps I was wrong and you're not a good faith editor, after all. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Solomon's Pools. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Theklan}} I read your piece about how unfair Commons is. I hope my stalkers read it, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

::Thanks! It's being hard, but I think my two cents are there! -Theklan (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:

• {{flagicon|Scotland}} Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
• {{flagicon|Wales}} Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
• 25px {{u|Adam Cuerden}} (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
• {{flagicon|Prussia}} Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.

Other notable performances were put in by {{flagicon|Chicago}} Barkeep49 with six GAs, {{flagicon|USA}} Ceranthor, {{flagicon|England}} Lee Vilenski, and {{flagicon|Saskatchewan}} Canada Hky, each with seven GARs, and {{flagicon|Denmark}} MPJ-DK with a seven item GT.

So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics at 14:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future newsletters, please remove your name from the mailing list.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Populism. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

{{Col-begin}}

{{Col-2}}

File:Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-add.svg HickoryOughtShirt?4 • RexxS

:File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Necrothesp

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Bratsche • Kyle Barbour • Kzollman • Madman

File:Wikipedia Interface administrator.svg Interface administrator changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Pharos

{{Col-2}}

File:ANEWSicon.png

File:Wikipedia bureaucrat.svg Bureaucrat changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Primefac

File:Checkuser Logo.svg CheckUser changes

:File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Reaper Eternal

{{Col-end}}

File:Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

:* A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.

:* Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

File:Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

:* [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/adminstats XTools Admin Stats], a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/stewardstats Steward Stats] and [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/patrollerstats Patroller Stats].

File:Scale of justice 2.svg Arbitration

:* In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, {{tq|the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions}}; administrators found failing to have adequately done so {{tq|will not be resysopped automatically}}. All current administrators have been notified of this change.

:* Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

File:Info Simple bw.svg Miscellaneous

:* A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.

:* A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.

----

{{center|{{flatlist|

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

}}}}

{{center|1=Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)}}

File:Ambox notice.svg There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is 128.77.80.116 editing/deleting with strong POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Qizilbash. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cossack Hetmanate. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

In this RfC[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_R._Bolton#Survey], your sole response was "Neither per Ad Orientem. This editing violates NPOV." However, Ad Orientem expressed clear support for using the term "hawk", something which you then proceeded to edit-war out of the article despite overwhelming support for its inclusion. Would you mind clarifying your vote in that RfC and whether you actually agree with Ad Orientam's rationale? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Snooganssnoogans}} I get the sense you're a partisan, so there's little point in discussing this with you. I will point out that {{diff|John R. Bolton|897798652|897717649|your self-congratulatory edit summary:}} {{tq|"by my count, there are 7 votes in favor of "widely described" versus one editor who claimed that sticking to multiple RS is a NPOV vio"}} seems to plead for reversion. The RfC is still open. Further, you cannot claim that I {{tq|"proceeded to edit-war"}} when I made one reversion. Prior to that, I hadn't edited that article since early April. I don't feel I need to clarify anything else. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Please stop harassing me about the content I am working on. I don't know you and don't care for your input when you are blatantly rude. If I need/want help I will seek it out. I try my best to make good edits, articles, or content that abides by Wikipedia policies. This is something I do in my spare time. I do not spend all day on here like other people. You want to constantly criticize me. You act as if you own this website. I don't care. Go bother someone else. Just leave me alone. SneaselxLv94 04:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering, but given Hancock's crediting him for inspiration for Fingerprints of the Gods (see Flem-Ath's talk page). [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rP4lCwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Beyond+the+Robot:+The+Life+and+Work+of+Colin+Wilson&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjd7qKJq6riAhUdRBUIHfsQCcQQuwUILTAA#v=onepage&q=Flem-ath&f=false this} book by Gary Lachman and some Kirkus reviews, I think he passes our criteria. Plus some Skeptic Magazine stuff I need to acquire. His work seems seminal. Of course at the moment there's not enough in the article. Doug Weller talk 14:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Doug Weller}} I posit that if an editor places themselves at the service of our notability guideline and essays, the deletionist view is the correct one. To that end, I'm seeing neither GNG nor NAUTHOR, let alone ANYBIO. I appreciate your comment and will wait a bit to see if the article starts to demonstrate the subject's claim of notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

::I think the sources I found can show that he passes "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." We'll see. Right now I'm more concerned about the BLP violations made by Flem-Ath's comments. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Republic of China (1912–1949). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hello, I'm Farang Rak Tham. I noticed that you made a comment on the page :Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scripture_alone_the_source_of_authority that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, 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. Thank you. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Farang Rak Tham}} First, you might consider not leaving a templated message saying you've removed my comment if you're not going to do so (per WP:REFACTOR). Second, editors are expected to know policies and guidelines. That's not controversial. I didn't even point to WP:CIR. Finally, If we keep allowing editors to do whatever the hell they want, we'll only get more of the same. To protect this project, I have rebuked an editor for their poor decision-making. You're welcome. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Casualties of the Iraq War. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

== On my editing in the Zakir Naik page ==

I agree with you. I thought that by giving links the page would be more authentic. But you wrote that we aren't here to advertise Zakir Naik. Yes, of course. but we aren't here to criticize him as well. Zakir Naik's page looks like 'anti-Zakir Naik page'. This should be fixed. The page has a negative notion from the beginning to the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The revealer (talk • contribs) 10:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

:{{replyto|The revealer}} Wikipedia seeks to be neutral, so we can address where you think the article isn't fair to the subject. Please start a conversation on that article's talk page to discuss it. Adding YouTube links to Zakir's videos does not solve your problem. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. But why did you delete my edit on the heading 'Bibliography' and the section 'Lectures'? There are other wikipedia pages which have this kind of headings and sections (e.g. Jonathan A. C. Brown). — Preceding unsigned comment added by The revealer (talk • contribs) 07:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

:{{replyto|The revealer}} Your whataboutism regarding Jonathan A. C. Brown is an invalid argument. We seek to improve Wikipedia, not reduce our quality to the lowest common denominator. Further, you added links to videos in violation of WP:ELNO, which I stated in my edit summary for that edit. I recommend you address your concerns on the article's talk page as I do not agree with your approach. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Santa Claus. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Farm-Fresh eye.png You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll#Shut this down?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant9|Courcelles}}, who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:

1. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant9|Courcelles}}
2. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant9|Kosack}}
3. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant9|Kees08}}
4. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant9|SounderBruce}}
5. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant9|Casliber}}
6. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant9|Nova Crystallis}}
7. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant9|Iazyges}}
8. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant9|Ceranthor}}

All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:

• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant9|Casliber}} wins the FA prize, for three featured articles in round 2.
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant9|Courcelles}} wins the GA prize, for 92 good articles in round 3.
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant9|Kosack}} wins the FL prize, for five featured lists overall.
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant9|Cartoon network freak}} wins the topic prize, for 30 articles in good topics overall.
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant9|Usernameunique }} wins the DYK prize, for 24 did you know articles in round 3.
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant9|Zanhe}} wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant9|Aoba47}} wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.

Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 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. {{User4|Sturmvogel 66}}, {{User4|Godot13}}, {{user4|Cwmhiraeth}} and {{User4|Vanamonde93}}.

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• {{flagicon|USA}} L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
• 25px {{u|Adam Cuerden}}, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
• {{flagicon|Denmark}} MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
• {{flagicon|USA}} Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
• 25px Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
• {{flagicon|Ohio}} Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

File:ANEWSicon.png

File:Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

File:Checkuser Logo.svg CheckUser changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ivanvector

File:Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

:*An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.

:*An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.

:*An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

File:Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

:*The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.

:*Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

File:Info Simple bw.svg Miscellaneous

:*The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.

:*The 2019 talk pages consultation produced a report for Phase 1 and has entered Phase 2.

----

{{center|{{flatlist|

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

}}}}

{{center|1=Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)}}

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Richat Structure. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Sent by DannyS712 (talk) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 09:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I always reply to editors like you that revert things because it just shows the clueless and lack of ability on show here. Just so we are clear, I didn't add anything that was not already in the article.

But as you never read the article, you just don't know. People like you are the bane of this site. Rather than be shown up that you're wrong you'd rather have shite than readable good articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.167.128 (talk) 09:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:Robert_Rogers_(British_Army_officer)#Munterloney - please add any reply there. Alekksandr (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Just curious, why are your two entries for Ziggy 2milli's SPI separate? Falaluna (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Falaluna}} Because, in haste to stop your editing collective, I used Twinkle which creates separate entries for each editor reported. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

::He's questioning why you didn't put them all in one entry, but listed them separately, not why the reports were filed at all. 172.56.3.51 (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

:::Exactly. Twinkle makes separate entries, not combined entries. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of airliner shootdown incidents. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I provided sources as you requested for my infobox updates at Talk:Chemonics#Infobox. If my proposal looks good and you approve of the sources, can you update the article? I work with the strategic communications team at Chemonics, so I suggest edits where I have a financial conflict of interest instead of making direct edits to Wikipedia articles. If you have any other feedback, I'm happy to discuss! LW at Chemonics (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

:{{replyto|LW at Chemonics}} {{done}} Sorry; I had seen your ping before but just lost track. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

::Thank you! I will be back shortly with Chemonics' current logo. LW at Chemonics (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help and assistance-RFD (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Australia. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

sent by ZLEA (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

File:ANEWSicon.png

File:Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • {{noping|Floquenbeam}}¹ • Flyguy649 • {{noping|Fram}}² • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe

::¹{{noping|Floquenbeam}}'s access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

::²{{noping|Fram}}'s access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

{{Col-begin|width=90%}}

{{Col-break}}

File:Wikipedia bureaucrat.svg Bureaucrat changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg 28bytes • WJBscribe • Wizardman

{{Col-break}}

File:Wikipedia Interface administrator.svg Interface administrator changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg MSGJ • TheDJ

{{Col-break}}

File:Checkuser Logo.svg CheckUser changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Beeblebrox • BU Rob13 • DoRD

{{Col-break}}

File:Oversight logo.png Oversight changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Beeblebrox • BU Rob13 • DoRD • GB fan

{{Col-end}}

File:Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

:* A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.

::*In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

:* The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.

:* The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).

:* A request for comment seeks to determine whether Wikipedia:Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.

File:Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

:* The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

File:Info Simple bw.svg Miscellaneous

:* In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop {{noping|Fram}}. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.

----

{{center|{{flatlist|

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

}}}}

{{center|1=Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)}}

Why not help me rather than threaten me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

:I've been watching your squabble with {{noping|BD2412}} on Talk:Corporation. You're not making a convincing case. While you might be right, you make a lot of assertions, some facts, some synthesis of what you think sources say. You come across as a crank to me. If you could calm down and limit your frustration to what some website says, perhaps we could address this reasonably. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

::Please explain why you accused my of crap and deleted my request for comment. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia tries to keep conversations where they belong, per WP:TALK. That helps us make progress. What you're doing is repeatedly asking for editors to help you at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment‎, which is only meant for discussion on the RfC process in vioation of WP:NOTAFORUM. Had you read the instructions I gave you, you could have requested an RfC. As I've pointed out, your hostile method of communication has limited the number of regular editors who would pitch in and help you. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The third round of the 2019 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round needed to score at least 68 points, which is substantially lower than last year's 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• {{flagicon|Norfolk Island}} Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with 500 points derived mainly from a featured article and two GAs on natural history topics
• {{flagicon|South Carolina}} Adam Cuerden, with 480 points, a tally built on 16 featured pictures, the result of meticulous restoration work
• {{Flagicon|Cascadia}} SounderBruce, a finalist in the last two years, with 306 points from a variety of submissions, mostly related to sport or the State of Washington
• {{Flagicon|United States}} Usernameunique, with 305 points derived from a featured article and two GAs on archaeology and related topics

Contestants managed 4 (5) featured articles, 4 featured lists, 18 featured pictures, 29 good articles, 50 DYK entries, 9 ITN entries, and 39 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and it is imperative to claim them in the correct round; one FA claim had to be rejected because it was incorrectly submitted (claimed in Round 3 when it qualified for Round 2), so be warned! When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Populism. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Recusancy. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Constantinople. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes says "No more Wikimedia grants for travel..." and then says "the WMF representative announced that the rapid grant process for proposals of up to US$2,000 would no longer sponsor travel support...". Does this imply that the only grants are the rapid grants? Are they really not giving any grants for Travel, or just no rapid grants for travel? I would like the report to make this clear. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

:{{to|Smallbones|Bluerasberry}} Please advise on this content issue. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

::Acknowledged, let me look now... Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

:::I'll wait. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Chris troutman|Guy Macon}} The only "travel grants" are and have been for some time through the rapid grants process. There are other WMF processes for funding travel. "Travel scholarships" are a separate process, not classified to be grants, where the WMF makes a pool of funding available for travel to a particular event which they choose. Also, Wikimedia chapters can have project or annual plan grants which fund travel as part of a more broad plan.

::::What is ending here is the ability of an individual to apply for personal funding to attend an event, like a conference.

::::The text of the article clarifies that the change is to rapid grants. I think the title may be unclear. Also regarding India - programs in India can be funded but not to the chapter or through the chapter.

::::If anyone wants to propose another title which is more clear then I am ready to defer. I will think about this a bit more... Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

:::::"Wikimedia grants less accessible for travel, equipment, meetups, and India" is more correct and I changed it to that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

::::::I'll agree with that. It was implied all along since the announcement quoted was for rapid grants. Please go ahead. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

:::::::{{replyto|Bluerasberry|Smallbones}} Thanks so much for the quick fix! I'll continue publishing. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

::::::::Thanks Chris - It's great for everybody that the publication process was so smooth. if there's anything I can do for the process, please let me know. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

...at TropicAces Talk page. No stridency is intended in any of my scholastic edit. See that message. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:c700:2db2:8fd:2600:814e:293 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

new user... my page was deleted by this guy... please check.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulact (talk • contribs) 17:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

plese ckeck my page,..User talk:QueerEcofeminist deleted my page..without any valid reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulact (talk • contribs) 17:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

he didnt deleted the pic i requested to delete.. but he deleted my page.. please look into it..something wrong going on...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulact (talk • contribs) 17:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi There I have a few questions regarding how to upload. I am fairly new to this and ask that you have patience with me, so with that now I will ask my stupid question lol "how do I upload to Wikipedia and create a page with pictures and articles? Merge8productions (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Central Europe. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I would love to take a crack at a ribbon for the signpost barnstar. The project's page is very minimalist (I like that btw!), so I'd be kind of lacking for color ideas. Will take me about a week to put a set of 3 together. Will (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

{{replyto|Chris_troutman}} I've got a rough draft if you want to take a look at it. The overall background color is pantone's "old paper". Felt appropriate. The three Ribbons as requested! All done as svg so I can easily make changes and scale. I can also port this into a BoNM style medal if you would like (you can see my Quebec one on the same page). If you wanted to add levels to the award (similar to the devices on the service awards), it would be trivial to adjust the number of signpost icons on the ribbon and create 0/1/2/3/4 versions. what you think? Will (talk) 17:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Wegates}} Thanks for your submission. I like your design and would not want the BoNM style. Please clarify your idea about levels. Unlike WP:MILHIST, The Signpost hasn't adopted higher levels of the award. Very few editors have received this barnstar more than once. Was the idea to add more pointer signs on the post or to add more posts? Chris Troutman (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

::{{replyto|Chris_troutman}} The idea would be to add additional signposts. However, if a second is that rare (never mind 3rd or 4th) then I would say there's no real point to doing it. And certainly I can always come back later and set it up if you find a need for it. I can also adjust the design of the icon in general to add more pointers, I went with two as it felt it looked cleaner...but the customer is always right ;) Will (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

:::{{replyto|Wegates}} No, I like what you've done. We don't need either more posts or more signs, for my opinion. Please post your entry to WP:RB and I'll mark you the winner. Which barnstar did you want as payment? Chris Troutman (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

::::{{replyto|Chris_troutman}} I've put it up on WP:RB, and I would like the graphic designer's please. Thanks Will (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

You wrote:

{{blue|"Please do not leave messages on another editor's user page."}}([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jack_Sebastian&diff=913903655&oldid=913898005 1])

I am not sure what you are referring to, Chris. Could you explain? Please reply at my talk page, as I would like to track our discussion there. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Timelines of Chinese history. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation! I think I just became the 100th member of the Society. Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Edcolins}} Glad to hear it. That's an outcome I doubt you imagined when you started on this project in mid-March 2004. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

::Indeed! Thanks again. --Edcolins (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:U.S. state. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Century. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

{{User QAIbox

| title = Precious

| image = Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

| image_upright = 0.45

| bold = Six years!

}}

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:International Brigades. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey If I want to remove something from a wiikipedia page which is protected then what is the best way to remove it semervinx (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Semervinx}} Same process. Leave a note on the talk page explaining what you want removed and why. WP:EDITREQ goes into more detail about it. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

:You are right wikipedia dosen't care about emotions but its policy also says those images should be added if they serve some purpose those images serve no major educational purpose and they are too many which does violate the policy

:And by the way that images hurt the image of wikipedia and discourage some users so I think the article will be just fine without the images semervinx (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

::{{replyto|Semervinx}} I can understand your frustration. It's best to realize that Wikipedia reflects the consensus of its editors and that the readers of Wikipedia are far more cosmopolitan and secular than you realize. While I am sorry that the content involved offends you, it does not offend either the majority of our editors or our readers, especially the ones that send in donations. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

:::I know that but this page may be read by many Readers around the world and many of those will have some emotions and will offend thousands

:::So I just want to make this site more good for humans who have some emotions

:::If it really is a educational and neutral site then I think those content must be allowed which is really necessary

:::But I try my best to remove this by legal way which follow wikipedia policy bcz wikipedia will understand only that semervinx (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

:::And Yeah it does offend majority of readers as Islam as the second biggest religion in the world.

:::Many readers will be muslims if you take it by statistics and it will somehow make bad and negitive impression on thousands and become an obstactle in the path of information and goals of wikipedia so it does hurt wikipedia but still it dosen't see it semervinx (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

::::Wikipedia does not support your viewpoint. What I'm telling you is that, of the editors here, not enough think that we need to censor articles so as to not offend religious sensibilities. Please ask your fellow Muslim editors about it. I promise you there's nothing you can do to change the content on Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, as offensive as that may be to you. Wikipedia makes $35 million in profit annually. They don't care if people in your part of the world are upset. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sturmabteilung. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Singapore. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The policies of US states are highly appreciateale but ignoring the current issues with regard to Humanity Rights and violations around the world.... M I Anjum Thaheem chairman international liasion committee LHCBA for Environmental (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:History of Christianity. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi greetings, thank you for sending greeting messages on the behalf of Birthday committee. Now there is a script to help the process -- User:SD0001/BDCS. Feel free to try it. If you have any suggestions please post it at SD0001's talk page. Thank you.--PATH SLOPU 13:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Manzanar. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:70th anniversary of the People's Republic of China. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello mr Troutman,

Is there a reason as to why my page has been reviewed Jay heisenburg 1 (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Jay heisenburg 1}} We patrol all new pages to ensure they don't violate Wikipedia policy. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

::Have I violated anything code or am I good? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay heisenburg 1 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

:::You're fine. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Right-wing populism. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:India. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The Wrong Michael T. Scott was listed as recipient. You failed to research properly.

The General Order was originally attached which should have made in confirmed.

I expect a change and apology since I am the rightful recipient. Mtsflorida (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Mtsflorida}} Two years ago I reverted {{diff|List of Soldier's Medal recipients|807406163|800998994|your edit which added a non-notable person}} to that list, which is against our need to only list other articles of notable subjects. {{tq|"The General Order was originally attached"}} You added no citation. Further, I see that yesterday you added the same unsuitable content and now {{diff|List of Soldier's Medal recipients|924476798|924449666|someone else reverted you}}. The lesson here is that you're not going to get your way. {{tq|"I expect a change and apology"}} Nope. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Chris [sorry that I originally posted this in the wrong place!], not sure whether this is the best way to contact you, although under 'pinging' it is given as one of the ways. I was disappointed by your message. Firstly, because Robinvp11 ‎was the first one to conduct discussion/argument by edit summary - I was just replying to him. Secondly, I have already continued the discussion on Robinvp11's talk page. Thirdly, what is this 'we' business? I didn't say anything about other editors, just Robinvp11. By saying 'we', you are automatically allying with him, which doesn't suggest fairness or impartiality. You are also, in effect, accusing me of saying I know better than all editors, which is daft - of course I don't, and nor would I claim to. Fourthly, there are several weaknesses in his version of the article, which weaken it - not least, by omitting an important quote from the writer he mentions, Walker, which alters Walker's intended meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanrhobson (talk • contribs) 09:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Alanrhobson}} I'm not making excuses about Robinvp11's edit summaries; that was bad form on their part. I'm glad you are in contact with Robinvp11 but there might be other interested audiences at that article that could chime in, rather than stalkers of Robinvp11's talk page. My reference to "we" was not meant to connote that I agree with Robinvp11 on the merits; Wikipedia as a community rejected the input of experts a decade ago. The few academics that edit here do so knowing that they have to win over those of us that aren't educated. I imagine that you are probably right about Theophilus Hastings, 7th Earl of Huntingdon. My interest is in calmly explaining that Wikipedia eschews appeals to authority (as Wikipedia is an adhocracy) and discussion should work out the content issue. No one has any personal grudge against you and, while reversions may feel like a slight, they aren't meant to be. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

::Hi Chris - thanks for your helpful reply and clarifications. I will switch the discussion to the public talk page for the article, as you suggest. I have also signed my piece on the public talk page, as you further suggest. Robinvp11 has not yet replied. If he doesn't, I shall probably appeal to third party arbitration. Can I request you to be the administrator who arbitrates, or is the choice of administrator a random process? Also, in my third party appeal, may I quote your helpful comment about 'bad form' ('an experienced administrator agreed it was 'bad form' ') or would the repeating o part of a private message be poor protocol? I would appreciate your guidance on these points Alanrhobson (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

:::{{replyto|Alanrhobson}} Just a small nitpick: I'm not an administrator, which is a formal, elected role here on Wikipedia. Also, please avoid assuming Robinvp11's gender. Many Wikipedians either prefer anonymity or do not identify here with a specific gender. It is common here to use singular they. If you decide to go to WP:3O, I would defer to the editors who frequent that board; hopefully that won't be necessary. As this is a content issue, I would post a note about your talk page discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History (though that WikiProject is largely moribund). All contributions, including comments, are captured in every page's history tab and you can cite those edits wherever you choose and without any permission, as all contributions are released CC-BY-SA. While you can cite my opinion, you are on firmer ground pointing to WP:SUMMARYNO about that conduct. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Chris - thanks for your last, and the useful reminder about use of gender, which stood me in good stead shortly afterwards. I wanted to ask you now about something that has bothered me for a while, and as you are an experienced editor you may be able to throw some light on it for me. On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb, it says that whilst citing many categories of IMDb as a source on Wikipedia is 'inappropriate' (e.g. Trivia items), using the cast lists for released films is 'disputed' - i.e. some administrators and editors think it's okay, whereas others don't. Now, I am puzzled at the stance of those who don't, because the cast lists are accepted as a reliable source by many people and organisations - e.g. the BBC quiz show 'Pointless', where thousands of pounds of prize money are at stake, accepts it as reliable. However, my main point is this: given that it is 'disputed', rather than 'inappropriate', why do some editors think it's okay to go round deleting other editors' references to IMDb cast lists? It hasn't happened to me for ages, but only because I am wary of using IMDb cast lists as a source. It happens to others, though, including one I have just come across. Why do those editors think it is okay to do this, given it is a disputed area, not a cut-and-dried one? I would appreciate your thoughts. Best, Alan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanrhobson (talk • contribs) 15:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Alanrhobson}} Before addressing substance, please be sure you sign your talk page comments by ending with four tildes. Simply putting your name after comments does not link to your talk page, which is required. For the substance, while WP:CITEIMDB says it's in dispute, that's not been my experience. IMDb isn't a reliable source because it's crowdsourced. People in that industry add content with even less verifiability that we have here. WP:RS/IMDB is clearer in prohibiting its usage. You can find inclusionists that will glom onto any website as a source. I've found that if it's content worth having here, you can find a reliable source to support it. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islands. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Thanks for the help but im still a newbie and don't know how to put your username but still thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Besjan Behrami 2005 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Polish–Ukrainian War. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, after three honest attempts, I give up. However I fail to understand why NMiTE is considered insignificant when it is a groundbreaking higher education institution which has been eleven years in the making and now has 40 staff, £25M in government and private funding, three buildings and has had a huge inauguration ceremony in Hereford Cathedral. It has attracted attention from national press, specialist engineering press, The Royal Academy of Engineering and professional engineering bodies (of course they don't write archival publications about it, but nor do they about the University of Cambridge!). I even wrote - as a volunteer - a history of the first ten years (about to be published - got an ISBN but not on the newsstands yet). Anyway - it's clearly not worth more of my time, but I would like to see an entry before I die (and I'm 76). Peter Goodhew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodhew (talk • contribs) 09:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Goodhew}} I noticed that you registered your account long ago, so I'm not sure why you haven't read our notability criteria after they've been pointed out to you. All the things you listed about NMiTE: its staff, its funding, its buildings; none of those things matter, at all. Wikipedia has never come to a consensus about organizations' notability based upon membership, revenue, market share, etc. even those are seen as common sense measures by those who don't edit Wikipedia. Please read our criteria and spare yourself heartache. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Polish–Ukrainian War. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, i have seen your declination on the page I was willing to create, i will add further references for it to qualify for a Wikipedia article creation. but as an editor, i will like to inform you that if this article is created, many editors will contribute to add more info and references, because the market exist in Kaduna state, Nigeria. Anasskoko (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donji Kraji. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Would you be able (when you have time)to look over this: Draft:List of Disney acquisitions, It says it’s wait time is 4 months, but would you please check it out and review the page for acceptance?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.54.163.113 (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

:{{done}} but please develop the lede per WP:SALLEAD. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

{{anchor|15:49:27, 18 December 2019 review of submission by Purple anka}}

{{Lafc|username=Purple anka|ts=15:49:27, 18 December 2019|declinedtalk=Draft:KARNA_(band)}}

Hi! My article was declined citing that the band is not notable due to not having a grammy, a gold record or chart positions. But it's a Ukrainian band. We don't have such things as gold records, obviously not a single Ukrainian band ever received a Grammy (wow what a requirement), and as to the charts - the band is constantly featured in Ukrainian charts, I can add a reference no problem.

Please help me add whatever references are required. Here's a chart reference where the band has been almost permanently with their hit songs for years now - it's the most major Ukrainian rock music radio - https://radioclub.ua/radio/jamfm/chart-nepopsa

Most other Ukrainian rock bands have their pages on Wikipedia without any Grammys or any better accomplishments than this one I'm trying to add. I assume they have to be accomplished in their respective countries which in this case is true.

Pls see here for some of the other bands that do have their own pages i.e. are notable enough https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_music_in_Ukraine --- there's almost no difference in accomplishments with Karna for most of them.

Appreciate your help&insights.

Purple anka (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Purple anka}} This is a conversation I often have with the authors of drafts and I wish the Wikimedia Foundation would do more to educate the general public. First, Wikipedia has many more articles than our volunteer editors can clean-up and manage. You could find articles about other Ukrainian bands that ought to be deleted and while I understand that those articles probably formed your guide of how we do things here, they are bad examples and many editors are hesitant to push for the deletion of so much content the fans in our readership want to see. Second, article subjects have to be notable and WP:NBAND defines that for musical acts. If KARNA has charted, then please provide citations to back that up. I ran into this with my work on Cilver; they did chart so it was no problem. Without that, we would have to make a case that Cilver is generally notable. The band does have coverage from multiple independent reliable sources so an argument could be made regardless of their one chart position. In comparison, your draft relies upon Ukrainian sources with which we (here on English-language Wikipedia) are unfamiliar. To us, these might be random websites. To that end, why not build this article on Ukrainian Wikipedia and develop it there until you have a solid notability claim here? Chris Troutman (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

{{-}}

I'm a new user and am therefore inexperienced with these situations, but I was editing Tarot and reverted a revision by User:82.39.111.158. However, the user responded with a threat. (almost 100% chance empty threat). You welcomed me to wikipedia, so i was wondering if you could sort this out as I'm not sure what is the proper protocol for where to go. Here's the revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tarot&oldid=931751518 Tridwoxi (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, another user took care of the situation. Tridwoxi (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Tridwoxi}} Welcome to the hate-filled world of the internet; I'm sorry I wasn't available at the moment. There are some good takeaways for you, though: first, all threats are empty threats. We get all sorts of clowns that will issue threats and none ever come to fruition. Threats are issued because there's no cost to someone hiding behind a keyboard. Don't worry about them. Second, the best thing to do is punish the offenders for their bad conduct. Each threat, even if in an edit summary, violates WP:NPA. Just like vandalism, just revert and escalate the warnings you issue. After a level 4 warning, further disruption can be reported to WP:AIV and an admin can block them. If what they said violates privacy issues or is particularly degrading, email the oversight team so they can erase the offending edit(s) from the page history. If the same sort of disruption occurs after the first account is blocked and you suspect it's the same person just from a different account or IP, file a case at WP:SPI. If you'd like a more structured and developed introduction to countervandalism, please check out WP:CVUA. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Tridwoxi (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the holiday greetings, Chris, but also for the helpful advice and support you gave to the previous User, Tridwoxi, a newbie who had been confronted by the IP editor and who must have been assured and likely assisted, by your response. Activist (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

{{-}}

200px FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Image:Peace dove.svg

:File:Appalachian Bewildered Cat.jpg (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)]]

:{{clear}}

Chris, thank you for all you do. I wasn't sure how to respond to your comments, hope this is the correct way. I apologize for the errors, I have done minor edits for years but this is the first page I've tried to create. You mentioned that notability would be met if confirmation of the Tesla Museum piece is made. How would I do that? Also, wouldn't the notability criterion be met since this artist has appeared on the Discovery Channel (Monster House), the series How It's Made (Science Channel), and the Emmy-winning show Texas Country Reporter? I agree also that there are too many images for the article, I can delete some of those.

Thanks again, and I wish you continued success in the coming New Year!

Lorrain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cluffs (talk • contribs) 23:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Cluffs}} Please read the criterion rather than imagine what the word "notable" means. We often have a disconnect with what the average reader thinks is passable and what our notability rules actually say. Appearing on TV doesn't count for someone that's not an actor. One of the criteria is an artist is presumed notable if {{tq|"The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."}} Show me a citation where Smith's works are explicitly in a permanent collection. If the weathervane he made is there at the museum in use as a weathervane, I don't think that's the same thing. Still, you'd need to show that to be the case (artwork in a permanent collection) with more than one piece in more than one museum. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Chris Troutman ,greetings from Zimbabwe ,you welcomed me on WP:HISTORY , i want to create AFC for some historical subjects ,what are the notability guidelines for historical topics? do we just use WP:GNG or there are also specific guidelines for historical topics?.Sorry for the trouble ,i want to make sure i follow the proper guidelines ,i hope you understood my question .thank youGeorgiamarlins (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Georgiamarlins}} I wouldn't rush into making new articles, just yet. Improving existing articles is a better way to learn how we do things. As for notability, GNG is the best way to proceed but please read WP:N and all the pages linked in the top right corner of that guideline for a more complete view. You can also read advice about notability at :Category:WikiProject notability advice. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Chris troutman}} ,Thanks a lotGeorgiamarlins (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

{{paragraph break}}

:

{{anchor|03:20:58, 31 December 2019 review of submission by Lullwaterfan}}

{{Lafc|username=Lullwaterfan|ts=03:20:58, 31 December 2019|declinedtalk=Draft:Lullwater}}

Resubmitted my page on the band Lullwater and took your suggestions and deleted the words you found inappropriate. Lullwaterfan (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)JoeyLullwaterfan (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Lullwaterfan (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)Joey

:{{replyto|Lullwaterfan}} I'm sorry I wasn't more fulsome in my message: despite fixing the tone of the article, I'm not convinced the subject is notable. The band hasn't charted, hasn't sold a gold record, and didn't win a Grammy. You have a couple of good references but I'm not sure it's enough for general notability. You stole two sentences from [https://betweenthenotes.blog/2014/10/23/interview-with-lullwater/ this blog], which is a copyright violation. You need to remove all those external links per WP:ELNO; you should instead use internal links. The entire "band members" section is unsourced and meaningless; please remove. I'm also not interested in reviewing your draft again, as I'm only reviewing drafts more than 60 days old. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

   {{resize|88%|Send New Year cheer by adding {{tls|Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.}}

{{clear}}

   {{resize|88%|Send New Year cheer by adding {{tls|Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.}}

{{clear}}

– Utopes (talk) 09:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

{{anchor|18:58:24, 3 January 2020 review of submission by Compy90}}

{{Lafc|username=Compy90|ts=18:58:24, 3 January 2020|declinedtalk=Draft:European_Poker_Tour_season_15_results}}

I am confused about what you found wrong about the page European Poker Tour season 15 results. The article is well-sourced from respectable publications and is a significant series of events that are broadcast to a worldwide audience, establishing notability. I've been editing these pages (not just EPT, but also World Poker Tour and World Series of Poker) for almost 15 years, and this is the first time an editor has said the pages shouldn't exist.

Compy90 (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Compy90}} I recognize that you think these events are significant. Neither I nor WP:N think so. Of the million things wrong with Wikipedia, one problem is that fans often congregate at their articles of interest, support dodgy notability guidelines to include their fandom, fend off AfD efforts, and operate with a belief about notability out of step with the rest of the editing community. In my work with WP:AFC and WP:NPP I've stumbled onto situations like these. But unlike many of my fellow patrollers, I take action when they would leave well enough alone. As a deletionist, I don't think two citations from Card Player and two from PokerNews pass WP:GNG. Perusing the dozen other EPT season lists, they're even worse on sourcing. The whole batch therefore fails WP:LISTN and WP:NLIST. Further, WP:POKER does not have a notability guideline that includes these events. I recall seeing prior issues with MMA articles because it's a niche sport; non-fans wouldn't recognize sources like Sherdog and SB Nation as reliable or connoting notability. They came up with WP:MMANOT to protect their fandom. As your fandom hasn't been likewise protected, I intend to send all those lists to AfD. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

dear plz see https://mr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%9A%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A8_%E0%A4%B2%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%87#cite_ref-5 and keep sachin lokapure draf

see notability in ref — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pat34552 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Interstellarity. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, User:Ninjas.Warrior, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Interstellarity (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

:{{tpw}} {{reply|Interstellarity}} But why? ——SN54129 13:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

::{{ping|Serial Number 54129}} I have unreviewed it by accident. My apologies. Interstellarity (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

{{anchor|02:58:30, 8 January 2020 review of submission by Glorymade}}

{{Lafc|username=Glorymade|ts=02:58:30, 8 January 2020|declinedtalk=Draft:Jay_Portal}}

You declined the submission of a page I requested review for for biased, subjective reasons.

Your rule of thumb of "no gold, no charts, no Grammy" does not apply to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Leon

That page is extremely similar to the page I have submitted. Both pages are the same topic. Canadian musicians.

The bias is now clear and I have resubmitted for review.

Glorymade (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Glorymade}} There is no bias on my part. Our notability criteria for musicians specifies what's required. Your argument, pointing to Sean Leon, is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS which isn't valid. Were we to agree with you it would create a race to the bottom as our content would deteriorate to the lowest common denominator. Besides, Sean Leon has been covered by Vice (magazine), The Source (magazine), and Uproxx which is more than you can say for Jay Portal. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi. thanks for all your help, comments, and input just now, at WikiProject History. I would like to make sure that any items that I do there will be done in a collaborative way, so let's be in touch about items there periodically. it is always good to be able to get feedback, input and ideas from another interested editor here. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi. You recently rejected my submission of the above page, with your reasoning being "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac or index of stuff. Each standalone article has to be about a notable subject. Engaging in your fandom here is webhosting.".

I really dont understand your reasoning for the rejection of my page, listed below is numerous pages doing exactly the same thing for underage international football teams. If there is something missing from my submission that these pages listed have, then please let me know and i will endeavour to fix it, because it seems that these pages are deemed acceptable on Wikipedia, the list i have given you is just a small sample of hundreds of pages of this type.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea_national_under-23_football_team_results

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania_national_under-21_football_team_results

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbia_and_Montenegro_national_under-21_football_team_results

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_national_under-21_football_team_results

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia_national_under-21_football_team_results

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbia_national_under-21_football_team_results

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Macedonia_national_under-21_football_team_results

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thailand_national_under-21_football_team_results

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepal_national_under-23_football_team_results

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar_national_under-23_football_team_results

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thailand_national_under-23_football_team_results

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines_national_under-23_football_team_results

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbekistan_national_under-23_football_team_results

--HateBigotry (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|HateBigotry}} You are correct that this problem is endemic to Wikipedia and I totally understand your confusion. Your argument, however, would lead to a race-to-the-bottom whereby our content quality would drop to the least common denominator. While I empathize that my rejection seems arbitrary in light of other pages, I am responsible for the drafts I approve regardless of the bad acts of other Wikipedians. If it makes you feel better, you are welcome to nominate those others for deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

hi {{u|Chris troutman}}. I saw you left this welcome message for a user to join WikiProject History. Could you please tell me the source for that? Also, I do appreciate your help. do you want to join the Outreach Task Force? I'd like to put you on our active list, if that's okay. Please advise. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Sm8900}} The welcome (as opposed to the invite) is Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Outreach/Welcome. You can find it listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Outreach. I don't want you to add me to any list, as I don't consider myself a member. I generally don't edit in the main namespace. In general, I don't think it makes sense to keep a list of members, as the lists constantly have to be updated and I cannot think of a reason I would need a list of members. Editors that respond to the WikiProject's talk page are those that are "active" as well as those actually editing the articles. A list adds nothing to that effort. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

::hi {{u|Chris troutman}}, all of that is totally true, and I do acknowledge the validity of your points. and yet....

::my one small thought on that, and the WikiProject in general, is that some WikiProjects are highly active in the areas usually ascribed to WikiProjects, and some clearly are not.

::I am not claiming that we are obligated to meet any mythical standard of activity; however, given the area covered by a project as broadly named as "WikiProject History," to me indicates we should try to fulfil at least some of the roles of a WikiProject. if people don't wish to do so that's fine too of course. but we are different from "specialized" WikiProjects that focus on one topical area; since we cover such a broad topic, we sort of are an umbrella group.

::obviously if people choose to participate in their own preferred way, or within their own preferred limits, that's totally fine too. I simply wanted to offer people an opening to get more involved, if they wish to do so. if people continue to take their own personal approach, that's totally fine as well.

::I really appreciate your fair-minded insights, efforts, and input. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I have revised my own role at Wikipedia:WikiProject History. I have added a note at the talk page to reflect this. Just wanted to let you know. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 28, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 04:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Chris. Just want to let you know, I did receive your email. I appreciate you taking the time to write. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on those topics. I appreciate all your efforts here. thanks very much. --Sm8900 (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Chris,

First, I wish to thank you for taking the time to review my submission of the Virage Simulation page. I sincerely appreciate the efforts of the Wiki community of editors to keep information as factual and free of bias as possible.

Now, I would like to respond to your review statement about lack of significant coverage. The two Montreal Gazette articles I cited are behind firewalls. These two articles essentially featured Virage Simulation as an innovator in the field of driver training using simulators, without any mention of another company. I believe that these articles meet the notability standard. Also, the notability standard does not specify a minimum number of significant mentions. Perhaps two feature articles in a large circulation newspaper in a major city could be considered sufficiently notable.

With the help of another Wiki editor, I deleted many other references from the submission you reviewed. I did so even though I believed the referenced described distinguishing and notable features of Virage Simulation, specifically, its dedication to transfer-of-training research that independently validates the effectiveness of the training programs. Transfer-of-training studies present a high degree of difficulty from all research perspectives. Two articles describe several transfer-of-training evaluations of Virage Simulation training programs were conducted by independent researchers. These two articles were published by the peer-reviewed Transportation Research Review (definitely not a predatory journal). One of these articles won the 2017 Deborah Freund Paper Award given by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine in Washington DC. I acknowledge that I cannot erase suspicion of bias given my employment status. But, at the same time, I need to ask, don't these facts speak for themselves?

Chris, I have two questions. Were you able to get behind the Gazette firewall? And, would you be open to reviewing another version of this article where I mentioned the above research?

Thank you again for efforts.DriverSafety (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Chris,

Please reply to my message (above) on my talk page. Thanks. DriverSafety (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Troutman, you came on my page with some interesting remark. Please know that I have nothing to say to Mr. Hackett any more, but when he leaves menaces on my page, I respond -- and this is so natural, that even if you menace me too, I could not accept it! A menace diserves a response, simple.

More important: I do not know much about this environment, people come and go -- but since you appear experienced, I would prefer from you some common sensic indication: what ressources does Wikipedia have, when you discover that a blocker troll has demolished your biography page, posting labels of "multiple issues" and "self-promotion", and other insulting unverified labels. And these hanged around for more than one year after the person was blocked on Wiki, and those who continued to bring remarks seem to be very allergic to helping. How much patience must the victim have, when not knowing how to get to responsible people and reliable information? I had to get angry, for some persons to interfere, who were willing at least to remove the damage! Which is good! But it seems that my anger worries them more than that there has been a quite severe error on the side of their colleagues. Sir -- I consider that leaving for years, malicious questions that are attacks to the integrity of living people, in their biographies, is not business as usual and should not be treated as such. Especially when it is very easy to confirm that the doubts are false: the page had all the required information in the bibliography, but it was not consulted. I had to shout to get someone to repair the page, but it happened -- I hate to shout, but I hate even more to see my biography in English mistreated with indiference. It seems though that it is impossible to bring your colleagues to accept that such offenses are not and cannot be business as usual: If every day on some biography page, a troll would post insulting doubts, and they would stay around for years, sooner or later someone would sue. So why not accept the situation, and try to draw a conclusion to avoid future trespassing. Maybe you can answer this dilemma of mine? Thanky you! If you want to escalate -- maybe with the proper information, and for the improvement of Wikipedia. Or maybe you know already an answer. Menacing me has no point, I do not care much about using this difficult editor more often :-) But I would love to see that the nerves I wasted in this event, could serve in the future also other people. Wikipedia is large, there are unfortunately smart trolls, and it can happen every so often that some get influence enough, to damage the biography of someone against whom they have an agenda. As happened with this Skirt89, which has been blocked since more than one year. It is good then, at least after discovering and blocking the person, to repair those damages! It is quite unpleasant to be warned by friends: "hey, someone wrote on your biography that you are "self-promoting", what's up?" I think you see what I mean: avoiding this to happen too often would be a great outcome. Where do I have to escalate to have this wish taken serious? Maybe inadvertedly, they brought me to the right person!?

Sincerely,

Preda Mihailescu (I appreciate being allowed to know your full name, it makes it more natural to relate to a person!) PredaMi (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|PredaMi}} I can understand your frustration, Preda (and you can call me Chris). I have known people who aspired to be written about in Wikipedia and I warned them against it because of situations like yours. Because you are the subject of the article you have a conflict of interest. Regardless of your motivations you should not edit that article, but rather ask on the talk page for edits to be made. I acknowledge that other editors might not respond quickly. As we are each volunteers who build this encyclopedia without so much as a thank you, we tend to stick to where we want to edit and perhaps neglect necessary chores like fulfilling edit requests. If you read WP:ER, you'll see that there are templates you could use to draw attention to your request in the future. Discussion on the talk page is the preferred method to address problems, because no one, not even the subject, owns the article; we operate by consensus. The problem here is that {{diff|Preda Mihăilescu|prev|936306837|you removed maintenance templates}} without addressing the concerns those templates express. Your edit summary told us that you didn't understand their purpose, which is why {{noping|Atlantic306}} reverted you. Those templates are never attacks against the subject of the article but rather help us, the regular editors, know that more work needs to be done. We care a lot about ensuring biographies about living people are correct. That the editor who placed the templates, {{u|Skirts89}}, was later blocked for advertising doesn't negate the purpose of the templates. Skirts89 ‎didn't place the templates there to anger you or otherwise malign your reputation. Many subjects of articles think the templates are an eyesore because they see the article as public relations space they'd prefer to manage. This is why we don't allow editors with these conflicts to edit: they cannot be objective about it. The warning on the talk page will stay there because of your involvement. The best thing for you to do is forget this article exists; honestly. Trust that Wikipedia will straighten it out. I hope this answers your concerns, though I know this doesn't fix the hurt from prior interactions about this. If you don't feel that I've given you a satisfactory answer, I recommend you post at WP:AN so a group of elected administrators can address your concerns. Wikipedia has, in some cases, deleted articles at the subject's request to avoid problems. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Chris, thank you for your pondered answer. I did not aspire to anything, people wrote me a biography, and most of my successfull and active colleagues are in the same situation. I do not know if it specific when you also teach: you have students, fans -- they write on you. I had the particular surprize to be shown by an assistant, that a student had written on a bench "fan of Mihailescu" -- 100 years ago it would have been a crime against the order, now it is a positive variation in the kind of things they write on benches (this as a diverting anecdote, to relax a bit from the other topic). Now you describe the process as viewed from inside: and I have all the undestanding for that perspective, I can understand your concerns. But we have a typical situation where the system built for avoiding some problems, creates other ones, massive ones. This is why, less for myself, since I payed the price of being a bit harrassed by some Wikipedia maintenars, but achieved my personal goal. But going through it, I cannot believe there is no simple solution which would allow to deal better with this particular issue: repairing the damage to a biography of a living person, since trolls doing this unfortunately will not cease to exist.

The problem is not negligeable: you understand, when a friend warns me that other remarked too "did Preda really do self-promotion, did he pretend notioriety?". Among people who know me, it is no problem -- but then again, some young guy can read that, and keep in mind a negative image of me. It is not something you want to allow to stay around, in Germany "self-promotion" is a severe academic crime, and germans tend to be sometimes very serious about words, so my taking it more lightly won't help: fortunately the German page is intact:-)

To the process itself: I must categorically contradict your statement "Trust that Wikipedia will straighten it out." -- My experience is you cannot trust them, and it is evident from what happened. The damage was done in March 2018, Skirts was blocked short time later, since then Atlantic and Wotan (I cannot recall all the figures and twists in their names) have discussed around the (insulting) stipulations, and done NOTHING. They did not even make a Wikipedia searchPredaMi (talk) 07:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC), and find out that my page in others languages says the same, but it was not damaged. Little to say, that the bibliogrphy solved all their problems, the books can be found even on line, with some search -- they did nothing of all that, just repeat the doubts spread by the troll, who had a clear agenda against me. And it is clear it works like this, Chris -- your average citizen has close to zero civil courage, he sees a doubt, he will not have the courage to remove it and stand to saying "I do not take this". Because he does not have the expertease to feel confindent -- and the people who have it ar hard to find, they are busy. But -- and that is human too -- he will play Sherlock Holmes, add his imagination to the bunch, raise new doubts, about which of course he does not feel compelled to investigate. This is what Atlantis and Wotan have done. Wotan also removed a reference to Mihailescu's Theorem from an other Wiki page, when I showed him he could have done a simple google search and find it on Wiki... You see, this is real life, and asking trust is a hazard! Do not get me right, I do not judge more than that, any of these people. But I am happy to discuss with someone to whom I can say: the motivation to responsible action against an attack like this, is close to naught. Fact of life!

Now, the Wiki environment is clumpsy as can be, for an outsider. But I am not totally illetrate, I tried to send some demands for action, and was treated like a dog with "read the manual" about policies that were estraneous to my concern. And I decided to go hard: I did not know the policies, but could imagine that removing the offense was something that the offended is not allowed to do, but there will be a reaction, and I will ride the wave. And this I have done, and it was efficient, at the cost of nerves, useless insults and so on. But I have no time, Chris, to wait and verify if someone acted -- nobody has that time, to "trust" the unreliable! You have two choices: force your way, or live with the offense.

So my question -- and this is the reason why I wrote -- is: Why can't it be done better. For instance: have some accessible indication where to complain by mail, in case of damaged biography, and offer help! I mean -- you will not trust the concerned, but in 99% of the cases, it will be a person with an actual reputation, and will be able to recommend you several sources and people who can assure you. And the problem is fixed within days or weeks! The was it is, chances are of 95%, that it never gets fixed! And then people cover each other, like in any institution -- with the difference that here they seem to be less exposed. In a company, if you act irresponsibly to the detriment of a customer -- at least acknowledgement of the error will be asked from you. This I lacked here. Just as a hint, I am beyond anger and wish for personal justice, I got may repair, and have seen how far the others are willing to go, I am done.

This is what I had to say, nothing personal to you, or even the people who acted, from my view -- with negligence and irresponsibility in my respect. These things bother me more than some hard word or punch. Maybe some of my suggestions make sense to you, and I stand to your disposal, case you are going to ponder on some improvement and want to exchange opinions.

Thanks for your time and have a good day.

PM PredaMi (talk) 07:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Unloading here, because I don't want to cause more of a stir where we started it. But the more that I look at it, the more the process for selecting that article stinks. Just for instance during the more or less closed discussion, the reason d'etre was {{diff2|937248626|it would look good for the project (it's decently sourced and lengthy), make the Foundation happy, make a good media story, and potentially cause more women to join the project.}} -- and an attempt to slow things down was countered with {{diff2|937256322|I don't see anyone in opposition}}. This was the "consensus" around the text on the Six million articles page. But at the Village Pump, after it's linked from the watchlist notice, it was a fait accompli described as {{diff2|937396148|(we) picked the best, most promising article}} over at least one objection. It's pretty obvious that a flat out PC decision as "good for the Foundation/good for women joining" was re-cast as "the best article" – I'm hardly even paraphrasing here.

So yeah, bottom line, political as hell and borderline shady.

Too late to undo or discuss now, of course, and the WMF has even given the thing their imprimatur by retweeting WiR. - Bri.public (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Bri.public}} Next time you're in the DC-metro area you can hit me up and we'll have a beer (or three). This website has told me multiple times that it doesn't care for my opinion. The president of my fan club watches this talk page and has dragged me to ANI over things I say. Anymore, I've chosen to disconnect from the community regarding stuff like this. I only ask the question if this is political so I understand what the deal is. I have grudging respect for these entrenched interests because they're winning while guys like me are losing. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

::The thing that burns me is, was thinking ahead on this for a potential Signpost item {{diff2|930659623|at least since mid-December}}, and watching it closely. The process for determining the 5 millionth article seemed straightforward enough. Never in a million years did I think that this time around, it would boil down to a "what's good for (name your constituency)" question. Save a beer for me... - Bri.public (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

So since the management has decided that the workers on the assembly line have no rights, including the right to collectively bargain through our shop steward, I've found it necessary to halt production. Wikipedia has taken so much away from me and I just am not going to give anymore. I plan to return at month's end to publish The Signpost but I cannot in good conscience continue here until the Board resigns, Katherine Maher is fired, and Jimbo apologizes for everything. You can email me if stuff gets better. Otherwise, I'm on vacation for the foreseeable future. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Chris troutman, thank you again for bringing a little sanity to the Wikipedia community. History DMZ (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Chris, The article on other account which i can not access anymore was in sandbox so was not published.

I shall not be creating any article about myself.

Many thanks for your kind words and guildance.

SC92Bonaparte (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your comment that

{{divbox|blue|3=IMDb and Twitter aren't allowed as sources, per WP:SPS, so there's no general notability here. Once The Wheel of Time comes out, Josha might meet our criterion for actors but per WP:CRYSTAL, we need to wait until the show has been published/transmitted.}}

How is IMDb not allowed as a source based on WP:SPS? And do you mean IMDb is not allowed on Wikipedia in general? Because this claim seems to be false as there are many references to IMDb articles on Wikipedia.

Furthermore regarding general notability, you ignored the other link that was to a notable secondary source, namely Nu.nl. Anyways I have now added yet another secondary source.

And could you please post your reply to this message on Draft_talk:Josha_Stradowski?Hg03u (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Chris. I saw that you recently added an invitation template to the talk page for a new editor, inviting them to participate in WikiProject History. I sure appreciate your terrific efforts!! thanks!! {{smiley}} If you wish, feel free to let me know if you would like to be added in any role there, whether formally, informally, temporarily, or anything you might prefer. I'm really glad to have you on board. by the way, as one suggestion, would you like to be added as a member of the Working Group for Outreach? Feel free to let me know. If not no problem at all. I just wanted to let you know that you are absolutely welcome at any time to be in touch with me, or to let me know if there are any volunteer roles there that you might like to try. I appreciate all your help. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Sm8900}} Thanks for your kind words, but I'm actually scaling-back my involvement on Wikipedia. I prefer pitching-in on WikiProject invites (as it helps direct new users) rather than sign up for any sort of role. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

All I wanted to do was make a page about the music producer LiL wing because I saw Nick Mira has a Wikipedia page so I wanted to make lil wing a Wikipedia page.

~Lilwingdoodles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:120A:2D6:2C53:2F5A:A552:5F03 (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Lilwingdoodles}} You're not Nick Mira. Next time, please ensure you're logged-in when you edit. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I've opened an RfC about how to describe the governance of the University of Pittsburgh in the article's Talk page. You participated in a discussion of this topic a few years ago so I thought you might like to contribute. ElKevbo (talk) 05:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello user! I'm editing at my sandbox page not at any main page, so Please Don't judge me for non-sense or sense edit. The wikipedia isn't only for you to judge at anyone! tuxr 16:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuxr (talk • contribs)

Errr, are you sure about [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Piotrus/w&curid=5760756&diff=946532122&oldid=946531429&diffmode=source this]? I am fine with them asking for help on my page? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Piotrus}} I apologize if my changes to a template in your userspace were unwelcome. Yes, it looks like my perfect coding solution using safesubst wasn't perfect; I've reverted. My concern was that I've used this template so many times not realizing it was hard-coded to send new users to you. I'm sure there's a way to have the template direct the welcomed user to whomever placed the template but I'm going to have to think about how. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

::Maybe a magic word or such, best to ask at WP:VPT and we can figure out how to make it more generalizable. I am glad you like the template, but of course I copied it from someone else and then just modified it a little bit. It was ages ago... :) PS. Actually, I think with REVISIONUSER magic code the template is designed to send people to the talk page of whoever uses the template. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion regarding "bad form" and "bad example". Something about the discussion, though, seems to have gotten under your skin. I am sorry if my warning about your personal attack irritated you, but I do feel it's quite important that such discussions remain civil and focused on the topic rather than the personalities. Let's move forward on a positive note to further our shared desire to build a better encyclopedia. Cheers. Cbl62 (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

:{{u|Cbl62}}, {{tps}} This is not meant to serve as commentary on the messages between the two of you, just wanted to point out you might want to consider this policy before pointing out a vote count in an AfD, as it creates an unnecessarily divisive tone. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 03:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

What Rail article[s] from Rochester are you on about?

Reply on my page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.185.122 (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

If that was meant as a private, gentle reminder that I'm currently being snippy, it was artfully done and 100% correct. If it was just meant an a "thanks" because you liked the note, and the timing was a coincidence, then you're welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Floquenbeam}} I found your note about the other talk page convo (more people on wiki because they're not occupied away from their screens anymore) to be enlightening. I'm rather blunt, so I'm not the type to judge other editors as {{tq|"snippy"}} nor would I press a button marked "thank" to passively-aggressively suggest that you telling two other editors to {{tq|"Leave each other the fuck alone."}} was overboard. Were it up to me, all IBANs would be worded that way as nuance will never likely bring a stop to conflict. I continue to appreciate your leadership on this project and I can safely assume anyone I've thanked has welcomed it. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear Chris troutman,

Thank you for your review of the Draft I've been working on, named "André Freire" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andr%C3%A9_Freire)!

Although you left a comment about the notability of the author, indicating that the subject isn't notable, I'm at odds with such reason, since the author I've written about does, indeed, fulfil the requirements of notability. As such, I'm listing some of the reasons for disagreeing with the evaluation of the article:

1 - his works are important to the political science field, namely in Portugal and Southern Europe, by being able, among other research, to show comparatively, how these people's behave within these countries, especially after the Sovereign Debt Crisis (see the publications about this on the article);

2 - he and a few colleagues (like Pedro Magalhães and Marina Costa Lobo) were the first ones to publish about electoral behaviour in Portugal (Freire, André, Marina Costa Lobo & Pedro Magalhães (editors) (2007), Portugal at the Polls. The 2002 Legislative Elections, Lanham, MD: Lexington.). This means that they changed the field and are among the most cited in the area, and are, as well, internationally recognised;

3 - he's been an important political commentator and writer, along the political scene, in Portugal (as the quotes actually show);

4 - many of his articles are of Q1 and Q2, being quite cited on the international level, meaning that his notability, when it comes to research within both national and international political science, is quite high.

5 - he's been an important figure (as the newspaper articles show) to citizenship initiatives, such as the Catalonian Independence movement, and his support of it, or the privatization of TAP (the portuguese air transportation company).

As such, I'm writing to you to ask you if you could revise your evaluation, as it seems, to me, that there's good reason to understand the notability of this' subject and, thus, help students and researchers of the area do research the topics studied by this researcher.

Thank you so very much for your time and attention, and I hope we're able to work on this!

Best, and hoping you're in good health,

KaiserViriatus (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|KaiserViriatus}} I wish you had read what I've already posted. To further underline my comment on Draft:André Freire, all your external links are in violation WP:ELNO. Listing all the subject's publications as well as linking to his various websites is always seen as puffery. Notability is not what you think it is: we have our own rules and you should have read them. Interviews don't count towards notability. Brief mentions don't count, either. Blogs aren't allowable, at all. If you want to make a case for notability, find a source that says the subject is important rather than think you've provided evidence that we should conclude ourselves that the subject is notable. Please also announce your conflict of interest on your user page. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I added on my page that I had a conflict of interests. I sent you new editings added to the draft page of Paolo Marraffa in order to receive a new review.

Thank you in advance

See you soon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleonoracacia98 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I tried to improve my page with some information that you advised me to add. Like Eleonora Cacia said, I invite you to a further revision.

Thank you in advance

Kind Regards

Paolo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolo.marraffa (talk • contribs) 16:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I and Paolo are engaged. We don’t have any sockpuppet Eleonoracacia98 (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Eleonoracacia98}} Lies, Paolo. Why would Eleonoracia say {{diff|User_talk:Paolo.marraffa|950191229|950186254|"I talk about my creation on Wikipedia.... I want to improve my web reputation..."}} if everything there is about Paolo? It's because you're operating two accounts, Paolo, and you keep forgetting which account you're logged-into. There are better frauds than you on Wikipedia that at least keep their roles separated. Such deceit, Paolo, and is it for your glory or for God's? You do the Church no credit by lying on its behalf. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Chris Troutman, Thank you very much for your suggestions. I have removed all the Youtube video links from the Page and have kept verifiable sources only. Sorry, earlier, I wanted to keep the Youtube links so it would be easier for people to listen to the bhajan/devotional song easily. As it is a very popular song sung by many renowned Indian singers. Please let me know the correct way to have those links in the Wiki page if it's allowed to have such links as per Wikipedia policy. Once again Thanks. (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Tannaray68}} Our rules prohibit links like that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place to help readers find music, buy products, or anything else. The problem remains that there are not enough independent reliable sources that discuss Thumak Chalat Ram Chandra for us to keep an article about it. You should search for other sources to explain why this song would be notable. The sources you find don't have to be in English and don't have to be online but we do need sources like books and newspapers or the article may be deleted. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Chris thank you for your help, I dont want to disrespect any reviewer, but the reviewer that cheked my draft told me the first time that videos from social media cannot be used but the videos are comming from reliable sources not personal social media and podcadsts,videos, articles can be used if they are reliable according to wikipedia, and the information that I am stating is accurate, I beg the reviewer didn't listen or watch the sources, you cannot have 2 different opinons in less than ten minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanitarian2 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Humanitarian2}} I acknowledge that you think the sources you provided are sufficient. Ignoring Sulfurboy and short-circuiting AfC was the wrong way to deal with your frustration. It's not simply that social media sources aren't usually allowed, it's that the sources you provided still don't show notability. That's why I nominated it for deletion. This way, you'll have multiple other editors looking at the article and you'll get a fairer judgement. However, if the article is deleted you cannot create it again, which is the price you pay for doing what you did. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

::I didn't know the consequences I just thought that he didn't give me good and specific reasons for the decision, I apologize for the inconvenience !!

::Chris please don't delete the article, I am new here and I didn't know what could happen, I promise to improve the draft. Give me an opportunity. In the past (6-7 years ago) I used to write the biographies of dominican models and beauty queens but I lost my past account now I am back to wikipedia, to write the biographies of young dominican entrepreneurs, humanitarians and activists, my next biography will be about Rainier Mallol. I spent a lot of time recruting references and I didn't understand what wasmy article was being declined, I never had that problem with beauty queens, with two references everything was perfect. But everything has changed.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanitarian2 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

:::{{replyto|Humanitarian2}} Perhaps six to seven years ago, the sourcing standards were not enforced quite as much. Please explain what you mean by {{tq|"recruting references"}}. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I wanted to say (looking for references), I literally translated a word in Spanish to english that is not used in the context of what I wanted to say. I apologize for the inconvenience, things have changed a lot, give me a second chance, I want to continue in Wikipedia, and I want to write this biography, I have a personal project to include notable young dominicans here, and Benjamin is one of them. Please If you can, move the article to draft, I will improve the references. If you want I can apologize to Sulfurboy.In the past, I never had a situation like this. Humanitarian2 (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Humanitarian2}} This isn't a personal vendetta. The deletion discussion has already started and should end in less than a week. We can see then what the outcome is. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

:{{tps}} {{u|Humanitarian2}}, How can you be new here if you created multiple articles in the past? The article was moved back to draftspace with full explanations of the process that needed to be undertaken for approval. You submitting it for review twice showed that you understood this process. You ignored this advice twice and moved it back to mainspace. As such, moving it back to draftspace is no longer an option. It will now have to go through the AfD process. This is a train in full motion and it can't be stopped by Chris, you, or I. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear Sulfurboy as I stated, I have created biographies in the past but it was years ago, this account is totally new, I never have this kind of problem, just with 2 o 3 article links everything was fine to create a BIO for a beauty queen. I was not understanding the reasons that you were providing me to decline the article, the first one was that the article had social media and videos, but wikipedia says that if it comes from reliable sources it can be used (podcast, videos, speeches, tweets, etc), the second time that I send the article, you stated that the references were totally unreliable so I got confused. I am going to respect the process and the final decision, but I never had this inconvenience in the past, and I did a lot of biographies... things have changed, it was not my intention to offend you or to be disrespectful Humanitarian2 (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

If someone is constantly trolling me, making absurd accusations and stalking my edits, then me leaving them warnings is the mildest possible action I could take. Why on earth would you leave me a message telling me to stop doing that, while saying nothing to the troll? What on earth is your interest in pestering me, having never previously interacted with me? Taresantia (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

:{{ec}} {{replyto|Taresantia}} First, I'm a talk page stalker; I involve myself in lots of places. I'm also not defending Qwirkle/Anmccaff's actions. Second, when an editor earns a warning, you post said warning and move on. Per WP:OWNTALK, if they remove the warning you don't put another in its place. Another warning is only placed for another incident. Thirdly, you shouldn't template regular editors. Finally, Qwirkle saw your message and is ignoring you. Posting to a noticeboard might result in resolution. Continuing to post messages because you're mad is only going to get you blocked. If you think my one message to you is {{tq|"pestering"}}, imagine what Qwirkle thinks of your messages and where he might go to shut you up. Hint: he's not going to let you continue editing. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

::Yeah well don't stalk my talk page. Busybodies are not welcome. And if they leave an insulting edit summary when removing my warning, I will leave them another message warning them not to make personal attacks. And threatening to block me, for admonishing a troll? Wow. Obviously, you are not here to build an encyclopaedia. Taresantia (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that OSBO there can, in fact, control themselves, and the more time Sockie spends trollicating, the less it spends time damaging mainspace. Maybe the extra pings are worth it, all said? Qwirkle (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Apropos nothing, there's an AN/I open. Guess why. Nothing to bother about. ——SN54129 17:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Chris,

It seems like you declined the page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Christopher_E._Mason

But the subject is highly cited and he meets WP:PROF. Can you please let me know what changes do you suggest in order for it to be moved to the mainspace?

Regards

Robertpass2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertpass2 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Robertpass2}} Stop trying so hard; the subject isn't notable. Being "highly cited" doesn't count towards notability. The citations you've been adding strain credibility because they don't discuss the subject. This is why I suspect you of being a CoI editor, because you keep pushing at this obvious promotion. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Im corrected a article HK Lovosice . Please give it back Míla česko (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Míla česko}} Declined again. Making the minimum effort to push a non-notable subject is just going to annoy me. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

::And now,please give it back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Míla česko (talk • contribs) 19:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

:::{{replyto|Míla česko}} Declined again. Do not bother me further. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

PLEASE DELETE IT, WHEN NOTHING IS GOOD FOR YOU. WHAT DO YOU WANT MORE ACTUALLY????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Míla česko (talk • contribs) 20:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir why you have declined my draft . I have make it more notable and cited it properly.

Please approve now.

Thanking you Aroundwoods (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Aroundwoods}} You've made no effort to improve the draft since I last declined it. Please don't waste my time asking for reviews if you cannot show us the subject is notable. You're a partisan and should not be editing Wikipedia, at all. Please return to editing the Wikipedia of your home language before attempting to edit here, as we have many more rules. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear Chris troutman, thanks for your remarks. I make some changes and I hope that now the presentation is more encyclopedic. Please, let me know if there are others mistakes or if you have others suggestions. Stay safe in this difficult period!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Christian_Lavernier --Kastalia81 (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Kastalia81}} I don't get the impression that you read my prior comments, at all. You are required by Wikipedia to disclose your conflict of interest regarding this draft. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear Chris, I found the info about his birthday and birthplace on his website (see Biography). It's not so difficult to find, this info is also on Fbk and in some articles. I add also reviews about his albums. However, if you think that it's not enough for an encyclopedic article, I will wait to find more info and relevant articles about this subject. If you have any other suggestions, please, let me know.

Thank you again. All the best --Kastalia81 (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

i translated that page i did not write it maybe you should not be rejecting drafts in wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baratiiman (talk • contribs) 19:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Baratiiman}} In the future, read what I wrote. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• if this is not a page for Wikipedia then fast delete original article i translated into English https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A6%DB%8C%D9%84_%DB%B2%DB%B5_%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%84_%D8%A2%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%87_%D8%B1%D8%A7_%D9%86%D8%AE%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%87%D8%AF_%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%AF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baratiiman (talk • contribs) 17:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Baratiiman}} I don't edit fa-wiki. What goes on there has nothing to do with what happens here. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be outlining the FACTS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayleyjedwards (talk • contribs) 19:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Image:Copyright-problem.svg

{{Quote box|quote=

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on :User talk:Dr.adi aditya requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://health.clevelandclinic.org/5-things-to-do-every-day-to-keep-your-heart-healthy/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Finngall ^talk 15:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

:Is this Twinkle gone toxic, {{ping|Finngall}}, or are you really barking up the wrong tree yourself? Qwirkle (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Finngall}} I created that user's talk page because I issued them a warning. Obviously, we can't allow COPYVIO content anywhere on wiki. I would think the better alternative to page deletion is requesting REVDEL/OS to remove the disallowed material rather than delete a talk page. Generally, we should never seek to delete a user's talk page, for any reason. Further, by using Twinkle (which I do all the time), you sent this notification to me although I guess the editor involved is already aware. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

::Revdel definitely preferable and hereby implemented. Favonian (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

:::Sorry about the brain cramp. --Finngall ^talk 16:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Chris. I truly appreciate it. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Ambox notice.svg There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Incidents#FloridaArmy_and_AfC_woes. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Chris,

I have updated the draft at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Benedict_Macdonald

Can you check if everything is correct when you have a chance

Thanks Hastuk3poslswusticet (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Hastuk3poslswusticet}} Please stop wasting my time. You added one citation. That's not nearly enough to correct what's wrong with that draft. I think you have more of a claim that the rebirding book is notable than for the author. Please re-read my prior comment on the draft and tke that to heart, because what I see from you looks like what a paid editor would do. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Farm-Fresh eye.png As someone who participated in the newcomer introduction proposal at WP:SIDEBAR20, you are invited to join the follow-up discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Left sidebar update follow-up. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

[https://xtools.wmflabs.org/editsummary/en.wikipedia.org/I'm%20Aya%20Syameimaru! My usage of edit summaries is now at 54.9%], I'm improving. Iias!:,,.:yyI 00:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

:Yes, it's an improvement over {{diff|User talk:I%27m_Aya_Syameimaru!|946205473|946079291|where you were months ago}}. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

FYI. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|ThatMontrealIP}} I'm watching Mitzi's talk page. Your post here looks too much like canvassing, so I cannot comment on that AfD. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

::OK I will not notify you in future. It looks like WP:APPNOTE to me.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Chris, thank you for your message on User talk:Ews23, and your addition of me to WP:MISS. While I at first balked at the idea of being considered "missing" (retirement is treating me just fine), I read through Wikipedia talk:Missing Wikipedians and saw your motivation for keeping up that page. I appreciate being remembered and recognized, as the period of time I was most active is filled with happy memories. I doubt I'll ever be a full-time editor again, but I have a new account (unaffiliated with User:EWS23) if I ever see anything that needs to be fixed.

Thanks for doing what you can to try to keep up morale, and for continuing contributions to the encyclopedia. I'm going to make some small edits to my entry on WP:MISS to better reflect my retirement, and then I'll be on my way again. Grace and peace to you. Eric (EWS23) 17:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Could you point out the unsourced material I added to Bay of Biscay? You will find the material verbatim in the body of the article already sourced and WP:LEDE says explicitly repeated sourcing is not required. Please try to be more constructive with your time on Wikipedia. 94.9.146.6 (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

{{anchor|23:14:09, 2 July 2020 review of submission by 142.112.147.67}}

{{Lafc|username=142.112.147.67|ts=23:14:09, 2 July 2020|declinedtalk=Draft:Lndsliu}}

It's regarding the submission Draft:Lndsliu

"The comment the reviewer left was:

The subject fails WP:GNG. None of the awards he won are notable. Stuff written by him doesn't matter."

All awards he won are National most NOTABLE awards in China! If you don't have related information about this. Please do not simply saying it's not notable. JIYUAN LIU's works are in the early days starting from 1950 in China. Thanks!!!

142.112.147.67 (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Chris, you recently declined the submission of Draft:School of Advanced Wargfighting. I'm reaching out to see if you can be more specific on what you mean by, "no claim of notability; this draft says more about what the author wants to see than it does about what's germane to our general knowledge audience." The school is part of a group of schools, one for each of the U.S. Armed Services, each of the other branch's schools have Wikipedia articles, so if they are notable enough, there's no reason that the Marine Corps' school isn't notable as well. This article is written for the general audience, and mimics the outlines used for the other schools' existing pages. Thanks for your time, Kirbywmills (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Kirbywmills}} I'm sorry about your confusion on this point: we get this issue pretty often. You cannot make estimates about your draft based upon the bad example of other articles. Probably a third of Wikipedia articles should be deleted because their subjects don't meet our notability criterion and many articles are in bad shape. It's very common for new editors to look to other articles as a guide rather than read our instructions, but we, the permanent volunteer editors, continually struggle to keep up with the flood of junk material the visiting editors create and we've never been successful at getting everything cleaned up. From your limited vantage point, I can see how my declination seems unfair regarding what you perceive as a well-written draft by you. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Chris,

I saw you recently declined Draft:Cambium_Networks. A prior "voter" approved the page but it was a blocked page:

Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: This looks good to go, but the page is currently page protected. I've requested the protection to be removed. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Sulfurboy is an experienced editor.

But far more important, all that's needed is a name change. Cambium Networks is the renamed Motorola Canopy, which is live at:

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

The value of the AFC draft is the content, which is on Cambium Networks.

Let me know what you recommend here, since a rejection of the draft is incongruent with the fact that this company already has a live page, just under its former name. 172.84.212.158 (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

:First, you are required to disclose your conflict of interest regarding these articles. Second, Motorola Canopy isn't notable and that article is apt to be deleted. There is no transitive property for notability. Thirdly, I have a great respect for {{noping|Sulfurboy}} and I stalk his talk page but I can decline a draft if I choose to; I've been a Wikipedia editor for seven years and have probably declined hundreds of drafts by now. Because I am opposed to the corporate entity making money on articles, I don't accept drafts. So, if you came here to plead your case, you're wasting your time. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Chris, You rejected the article with this explanation:

"Comment: Subject fails WP:GNG. Please wait until the subject dies. Stuff the subject wrote doesn't count. I don't think AAAI Fellows are notable, either. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)"

I posted a complaint on the "advice" page, but have had no response.

How can you ask me to wait for a person to die, in order to approve a Wikipedia article about him? How can you say that the "stuff" a person writes doesn't affect their notability? Have you seen the impact of his writing on Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?hl=en&user=rlCW0SkAAAAJ Over 3,000 citations for his book with Nils Nilsson. In what sense does that not count?

When you say that you "don't think AAAI Fellows are notable", you are expressing a subjective opinion. But isn't Wikipedia meant to try to achieve a balance of opinions, and not be determined by the subjective judgement of one individual who believes the subject of an article would fare better if he were dead? Compulogger (talk) 08:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Compulogger}} Most people walking the Earth are not, and never will be, notable. The media writes inordinately about some people (entertainers) but not others (teachers, construction workers, receptionists, cooks, doctors, etc.). Unless a regular person gains notoriety they'll never be written about in reliable sources until they die. For example, one of my fellow Wikipedians, {{noping|Wadewitz}}, was a fixture at our Wikipedia in-person events in Los Angeles. She was a literature professor at Occidental College. She, like me, wasn't notable. There are lots of professors at Oxy as there are lots of literature professors in SoCal. It wasn't until she died in an accident at the age of 37 that newspapers wrote obituaries about her, providing source material for an article about her. This was a woman I talked to a few times at events and I still voted to delete that article. So, my point about people not being notable until after they die stands. As to your point about publications and citations, WP:NPROF doesn't provide a hard-and-fast number about how many citations are enough. It's subjective. The same is true for h-index. Our editors have had discussions about hard numbers for notability but we cannot come to consensus. NPROF does mention fellowships as a presumption of notability but notable societies like AAAS are certain. The article about AAAI doesn't show me that the society, itself, is notable, so I wouldn't feel comfortable trusting that for notability purposes. Other Wikipedians might see it differently and I recommend you ask them. I do not accept drafts anymore; I only decline them. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

News source for Egyptian actor and for tour guide. Draft:Ali Mansour (actor) --197.192.122.92 (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Chris, thank you for reviewing my article on Dave Eanet, the long-time play-by-play announcer for Northwestern football and basketball. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dave_Eanet

The article was rejected, and I received this comment:

"Subject fails WP:GNG. Most of the cited sources are from his employer, WGN, or the school who's games he calls, NU, so none of those are independent of the subject. None of the awards or honors claimed are notable (meaning Wikipedia doesn't have articles about those honors)."

Your explanation makes sense, but there's one thing I would appreciate some additional clarification on. I've found several other college football play-by-play announcers that have published pages while using similar cited sources as I used (directly from the school/local media outlet). Based on the information provided in these articles, I think it's fair to say Eanet has a comparable amount of notability/coverage to these men. In fact, there are several that seem to have less coverage/accolades but still have articles published about them. Examples below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Keels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Blaha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Brandstatter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_McConnell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Carlin

Would you be able to help me understand these decisions a bit more? I've added a few more independent sources to the article and I'm hoping that helps!

Thanks for your help! Steveeanet (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Steveeanet}} I'm sorry for the confusion here. Your point is one I hear often: that there are other comparable articles and why therefore would I reject your draft? The problem here is that not all of Wikipedia is properly curated. Being an open encyclopedia, we received many contributions and we haven't sorted through every article to be sure they are all notable subjects and that the articles comply with formatting and content policies and guidelines. I guess Wikipedia has more rules than the average one-time editor wants to follow, because many editors write their drafts by copying extant articles, most of which are crap. Probably a full third of Wikipedia should be deleted. Subject like Chris Carlin, George Blaha, Paul Keels, and Joe McConnell don't look notable and I've tagged them. Jim Brandstatter was inducted into the Michigan Sports Hall of Fame, passing WP:ANYBIO. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

::{{Reply to|Chris troutman}} Thanks Chris! One last question after reviewing WP:ANYBIO. Could my article be reconsidered as Eanet won a Regional Emmy Award? Not sure if that fits the criteria for a well-known/significant award but thought it'd be worth a try!Steveeanet (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

:::{{replyto|Steveeanet}} Your thought process is correct but the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Regional_Emmy&redirect=no Regional Emmy awards] aren't notable. They are a subsection in the article about the Emmys, which is notable. If Wikipedia doesn't have a standalone article on Regional Emmy awards, then you'd have to convince editors that the Regional Emmy is still {{tq|"a well-known and significant award or honor"}}. I think most Wikipedians would say if it was that well-known or significant, then we would have an article about it. Exceptions might be made if it were a foreign award well-known outside the US for which there wasn't much source material in English but plenty in other languages. In this case, the market for the awards speaks English and the source material I find online are just outlets trumpeting that they won; there isn't coverage about the awards, themselves. Regardless, I don't accept drafts anymore; I only decline them. If you re-submit your draft you'll have to wait for the next editor to find it in the queue as I won't be giving this a second look. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

::{{Reply to|Chris troutman}} Understood. I appreciate your feedback! Steveeanet (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but Paul Keels is very notable.

1. 30+ years calling NCAA Division 1 Big 10 football and basketball (between UM and OSU)
2. called 2 National Championship games (2002, 2014 with OSU)
3. called MLB games for the Cincinnati Reds

Just being in the profession he is in makes him notable...not like everybody and their uncle has called NCAA D1 football/basketball or Major League Baseball.

Vjmlhds (talk) 22:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Vjmlhds}} {{tq|"Just being in the profession..."}} Please know that neither WP:NATH nor WP:NRADIO have carve-outs for broadcasters. The subject fails WP:CREATIVE and I don't think WP:SPORTSPERSON applies. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

{{ivmbox

|image = Updated DYK query.svg

|imagesize=40px

|text = On 14 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article American Spaces, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in a survey, a Pakistani stated that a visit to one of the American Spaces under increased security conditions was "like going to jail or getting into Fort Knox"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/American Spaces. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2020-07-04&end=2020-07-24&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=American_Spaces American Spaces]), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

}} Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Chris, you sent me a note;

We need a reliable source to prove he's an FRSA; a self-published certificate isn't trustworthy. Otherwise, the subject fails [{WP:NPROF]] and WP:ANYBIO. His book Steel Engraved book Illustration in England might be notable; you should write about that, instead.

I have an email from the Royal Society with Hunnisetts application attached, along with a board members proposal and a copy of the acceptance document but thought that instead of bogging the article down with all of these, a simple copy of the original certificate would suffice. If anyone was particularly interested and wanted to confirm the authenticity of the scan, the Royal Society would, I'm sure, be happy oblige with an independent verification. Happy to make a change to the draft with your recommendation.

Notability

I’ve not been able to find any independent articles about him, hence the request to create one, and other than a well-qualified professional career, I would agree that the page as it stands if the books were excluded, does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia,

His books, however, are noteworthy and the page is intended to give the readers and a new generation of researchers and students background to the author, his qualifications and experience in the Genre as the books are still regularly referenced some 40 years after original publication.

If I was an academic or student, I would want to know who Hunnisett was and with what authority he could make the claims, conclusions and statements; are the books a reliable source of information? I had written the page in a way that hopefully addresses this issue.

An option might be to just write about the books as you suggest but bearing in mind the two statements above, that may rather defeat the object of the exercise?

Still currently referenced

In addition to the 16 citations listed under Legacy and another 15 that have not been listed in the article, the books are still being used as reference works in new articles in Wikipedia as the ten entries spanning from 2003 to 2017 below show. They demonstrate that the books contents are still relevant and regarded as a bench mark to modern research into the subject and their contents and information has not been superseded from an alternative source.

Wikipedia articles citing Hunnisett's books as reference

Wikipedia article on engraver Joseph Swan created 2017 cites

[2] Steel engraved book illustration in England, (Scholar Press, London), 1980 ISBN 9780859675383

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Swan_(engraver)

Wikipedia article on engraver Charles Heath created 2009 citing

[5] and Engraved on Steel: The History of Picture Production Using Steel Plates. Ashgate. p. 40. ISBN 9780859679718.

[6] Hunnisett, Basil (1980). Steel-Engraved Book Illustration in England. David R. Godine. p. 48. ISBN 9780879233228.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_publication Wikipedia entry created 2004 citing

[2] Engraved On Steel, Ashgate, Basil Hunnisett, ISBN 0-87923-322-2

[3] Steel Engraved Book Illustration in England, Ashgate, Basil Hunnisett, ISBN 0-85967-971-3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Holl_the_Elder Wikipedia entry created 2016 citing [7] Basil Hunnisett (1980). Steel-Engraved Book Illustration in England. David R. Godine. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-87923-322-8.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perkins_Bacon Wikipedia entry created 2003 citing

[1] Hunnisett, Basil. Steel-engraved book illustration in England, David R Godline Publishing, 1980.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Bryan_Hall Wikipedia entry created 2010 citing

Hunnisett, Basil. A Dictionary of British Steel Engravers (Leigh-on-Sea: F. Lewis, 1980) cited in Bibliography

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siderography Wikipedia entry created 2015 citing

[8] Hunnisett, Basil (1980). Steel-Engraved Book Illustration in England. David R. Godine. ISBN 0879233222.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri-Lucien_Cheffer Wikipedia entry created 2012 citing

[8] Hunnisett, Basil (5 September 2018). Engraved on Steel: History of Picture Production Using Steel Plates: History of Picture Production Using Steel Plates. ISBN 9780429859052.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Mote Wikipedia entry created 2011 citing

[10] Hunnisett, Basil. Steel-Engraving Book Illustration in England. Boston: David R. Godline, 1980.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havell_family Wikipedia entry created 2006 citing

[15] Hunnisett, Basil (1980). A Dictionary of British Steel Engravers. F. Lewis. ISBN 0-85317-067-3.

https://wikivisually.com/search where there are 10 articles citing Hunnisett

Wikitia

I came across this site from wikitia, I assume that it is nothing to do with Wikipedia but wondered how they got hold of the information if our article is still in the draft stage?

https://wikitia.com/wiki/Dr_Basil_Hunnisett

Best Wishes Harpysett Harpysett (talk) 09:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Harpysett}} I'm afraid there are some basic point about Wikipedia you misunderstand. First, your claim that {{tq|"the page is intended to give the readers and a new generation of researchers and students background to the author"}} is contrary to WP:NOT. Wikipedia, because it's a tertiary source, is a trailing indicator of notability. We only regurgitate what reliable sources say; we don't publish original thought. One of our key policies is WP:V which requires published sources. We cannot accept an email from someone or scanned documents because our readers should be able to go and verify for themselves what is true. It makes absolutely no difference what other Wikipedia articles say about the subject, per WP:CIRCULAR. I know very little about mirrors of Wikipedia but it's my understanding that many of them simply copy Wikipedia's content and apparently they copy material from draft pages, as well. Do you have a conflict of interest regarding Hunnisett? Ideally, any article you write should be something you don't care about, at all. Why not learn more about editing by writing about his book? Writing an encyclopedia is exactly that. We're not here to praise particular subjects, we just write. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I present you the barnstar you deserve! Wynn Liaw (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I was attempting to allow others know who I am, so there is no confusion. Especially if they are trying to get information about articles that I had created.

BlackAmerican (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey Chris,

{{Talkback}}

I appreciate the response you sent me in regards to following the guidelines and I will be more aware of that. This is my first day on how to using Wikipedia. I am all for keeping everything neutral and linking sources appropriately. Based on that wiki page, I dont think i was promoting anything, I was rather making it more neutral based on links such as WebMD. As you probably see on the page, it is pretty one sided.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CounselorJustice (talk • contribs) 18:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

hello Chris troutman, Thank you, . Draft Meets the standards, and I have modified the references And she has enough sources. Draft rejected before adding sources to it.

tour guide and actor in Egypt , Trusted sources , and have Fame And sources more than Ali Mansur for example. I hope you look again, and We want to accept articles, and Thank you very much. --Mohamed Omar 3 (talk) 07:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Mohamed Omar 3}} No, Ali Mansour is not notable which is why I prevented you from re-submitting your draft. You appear to be promoting the subject without concern for the guidance given you. I suggest you try [https://ar.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%8A+%D9%85%D9%86%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1+%D9%85%D9%85%D8%AB%D9%84&title=%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%B5%3A%D8%A8%D8%AD%D8%AB&go=%D8%A7%D8%B0%D9%87%D8%A8&ns0=1 Arabic-language Wikipedia]. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not promoting, I am trying to add a prominent actor and tour guide, and there is no problem , Well thank you very much. Mohamed Omar 3 (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Why you decline this Naveenlambasahb (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

why do you prefer to lead a MIS-SPELLED redirect to a SERIOUS attempt off KNOWLEDGE?

you REDIRECT FALSLY!!!

there is no wiki-LAW that says a page has to be perfect at once.

STOP REDIRECTING DIFFERENT SPELLINGS

Massada is with TWO 'ss' written

SO THE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THIS LATIN PLAYING BAND IS IN PLACE AND AT PLACE

exept that YOU AS A PERSON

BLOCKS THIS BAND

i think you are the one that MIS used the ability to break pages, even when they are only 1 minute enbetterred.

YOU REMOVED KNOWLEDGE

YOU ARE THE VANDALIST

GO SHAME YOUR SELF

i am seroius about this. the BAND Massada HAS THE RIGHT TO BE MENTIONED

are you an extremist your self? are you extreem religious?

becouse some people dont aqccept OTHER views on REALITY

so

please REMOVE THAT REDIRECTION TO A RELIGIOUS PAGE

AND GIVE THE 60 YEAR OLD BAND SPACE OFF KNOWLEDGE AND OFF BEING !!!!!

THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH A FORTRESS

THEY MAKE MUSIC

IF YOU KEEP BLOKKING KOWLEDGE I WILL TAKE ACTION!!!!

its not tha the 'masada' is is removerd or blocked, NO ITS REVERSED OTHER KNOWLEDGES IS BLOCKED AND APPERENTLY FGORBIDDEN TO BE KNOWN

AND YOU

YOU ARE THE ONE TO BLOCK!!!

GIVE ME BACK MY PAGE

IT DOES NOT BELONG TO YOU !!!

IT BELONGS

TO

MASSADA

THE BAND !!!!!

85.149.83.125 (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

:Please {{tq|"take action"}}. This will be fun. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Chris, thank you for reviewing the Draft of TaxWatch on 23 July 2020.

You have stated "Comment: You cannot make a claim for notability using so much of the subject's website. Stuff the think tank has published doesn't count for notability. Cases where the media picked up on what the think tank published doesn't count. The citations provided should be on the articles about Blizzard and Netflix but TaxWatch wasn't the subject of the coverage."

After reading Wikipedia guidance on notability I am of the belief that TaxWatch research is TaxWatch's product. Wikipedia guidelines state that Product reviews should be significant, independent, and reliable.

I believe articles about TaxWatch research is analogous to a review of a product, as research is what TaxWatch does. TaxWatch research has been cited in many news sources from around the world (thought primarily in the UK), and there have also been multiple references to the think-tanks research by Members of Parliament while debating in the House of Commons. I have updated the 'Publications' section of the draft so that the examples given demonstrate more of the coverage and also the impact.

As a Non-commercial organization TaxWatch meets both standards in that the scope of their activities is national in scale, and that the organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization.

If this is not sufficient, then I'm keen to learn more, and any advice is much appreciated.

--Alex0190 (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Alex0190}} I follow your argument but I don't agree. The media coverage is about how companies like Rockstar, Blizzard, and Netflix have been paying extraordinarily low taxes. Those sources [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/01/14/netflix-funneled-330m-tax-havens-think-tank-claims/ like this citation] do not {{tq|"review"}} TaxWatch's research because they don't talk about forensic accounting. We don't learn anything about TaxWatch's research as the subject of the sourcing remains the companies caught in the cross-hairs. If the sources don't provide significant coverage about TaxWatch or its analysis, how would you write about the company? All you can do is say that they wrote that some firms aren't paying their perceived fair share, which is a classist argument, anyway. I will not be reviewing this again and perhaps if you resubmit another editor will see it differently. You have a conflict of interest as you are employed by them, so please consider that your objectivity is limited here and that being a zealous advocate for your company really just wastes our time. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

::I do not understand what you mean by a 'classist argument', if anything the argument for a 'fair share' of taxes is that everyone pays into the system equally. Regardless, the argument is irrelevant as the TaxWatch Wikipedia page does not comment on what a 'fair share' is.

::I disagree that I am a 'zealous advocate' and that this exercise is a 'waste of time'. Regarding conflict of interest, my edit history shows that any references to TaxWatch (On Rockstar North's page for example) were made as a suggestion, rather than edited directly, as per the Wikipedia community guidelines.--Alex0190 (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

:::I'm not suggesting any wrong-doing on your part. What rankles me is that I review drafts in order to pare down the AfC backlog. We want to retain new editors whose experience may hinge on the acceptance of their draft in a timely fashion. I don't want anyone to have to wait months. I don't seek to interact with any editor but I try to provide comments explaining why I decline drafts and I'm prepared to provide further guidance if needed. AfC reviewers like me did not sign up to be argued with by CoI editors trying to promote their product, brand, etc. And yet, for every ten drafts I decline I get one or two editors like you who have no background in Wikipedia and still chose to argue with me rather than just take my advice and try better next time. We are not a government service that is obliged to give you a hearing. We are a volunteer-run website and operate based upon our own rules. If you don't like it, go to a different website. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Chris! The External links were removed. Just wanted to let you know. Is there anything else? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABrandNewDisease (talk • contribs) 22:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|ABrandNewDisease}} You missed a link to Ole National Classic. I will not be reviewing that draft. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the error of my ways - and it was an error, I didn't realise. I may have been on the site long enough but I really don't appreciate that being pointed out (I'm not a trained Wikithingy) and being all but accused of 'vandalism' - this could be considered very rude, accusatory and insulting - but it seems this is how you all talk to those of us who are just doing our best. I'm the Associate Editor of one of the Wiki Journals and I was just trying to reach out to the person as best I could - being 'helpful' as I thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwatson1955 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Rwatson1955}} You could also learn to sign your comments, another innocent mistake. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

{{Lafc|username=Pravega|Draft:Patang Hotel}}

Please have a look at this discussion on AfC help page. I added some more references and content as per advice/guidance.❯❯❯Praveg ^A=9.8 11:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

:Waiting for your comment. You should visit the draft, I edited it to justify it's notability.❯❯❯Praveg ^A=9.8 21:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

::{{replyto|Pravega}} I will not be reviewing that draft again. You would fare better with a different set of eyes looking at your draft, and I stopped accepting drafts a while ago. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

:::Glad to hear you. I asked for justification on AfC help page.❯❯❯Praveg ^A=9.8 21:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Though I'm sure this was done with the best intentions, it's not needed and has been removed. I'm sure there are more pressing matters to which you can attend. Thanks, nonetheless. Vertium'' ^{When all is said} _{and done} 19:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

A few months ago, you participated in an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:University_of_Pittsburgh#RfC_about_the_description_of_the_governance_of_this_university RfC] asking how we should describe the governance of the University of Pittsburgh. That RfC was closed as "no consensus." Another editor has opened a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Higher_education#Request_for_Comment_about_using_the_word_%22public%22_to_describe_universities_in_the_CSHE new RfC] asking a similar question for this and a few other universities; your participation would be welcome. ElKevbo (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Chris, I was wondering if you could extend a belated TYS invitation to Chongkian? I would do it myself but I already gave him a post-failed RfA barnstar, plus it would mean more coming from a long-term editor. Thank you, History DMZ ^{(talk)+(ping)} 21:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|History DMZ}} {{done}} Chris Troutman (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_V._Politzer&type=revision&diff=963413368&oldid=963325299 this edit]. I will support a deletion of the page if nominated. Only primary sources. Photos like [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:David_Politzer%27s_video_installation_titled,_%22Observation_Station,_From_the_Rim.%22_Installed_at_Artsapce,_Cleveland._5_of_6.jpg this one] seem stolen -- 2simple (talk) 09:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

{{anchor|09:05:00, 24 August 2020 review of submission by 79.179.51.51}}

{{Lafc|username=79.179.51.51|ts=09:05:00, 24 August 2020|declinedtalk=Draft:Joseph_Yanai}}

In order for me to improve my article, I need to be clearer as to what is wrong with it. Are you saying that citations from peer-reviewed journals are insufficient proof of his research accomplishments? I honestly don't understand what you want.79.179.51.51 (talk) 09:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Feibush ben Nachum}} As I explained in my comment on the draft, the citations you provided are from the subject when what we need are citations independent of the subject. Just being a professor and publishing stuff that other people cite doesn't necessarily pass WP:NPROF. We don't have an objective cutoff for the number of citations in a given field that helps us presume notability. To my mind, professors only become notable if they hold a named chair, they win a notable prize, or if other media outlets talk about them as if they were a celebrity. How can we write an encyclopedia article about someone if we don't have third party sources telling us about them? This was the issue with associate professor Donna Strickland. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Re your comments at Special:Permalink/975002646, what did happen to WP:GARC? Seems like a pretty helpful idea at a glance. There's quite the backlog at WP:GAN and I imagine one issue may be that people without experience reviewing find it pretty daunting to jump head first into reviewing, especially by themselves. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|ProcrastinatingReader}} It seems that {{noping|Dom497}} unilaterally {{diff|Wikipedia:WikiProject_Good_articles/Recruitment_Centre/Recruiter_Central/Archives/User:BrandonWu|prev|607413255|closed GARC}} back in late April/ early May 2014 in part because a shortage of trainers left requests for training languishing for months. I agree, GARC was a needed process to help WikiProject GA function, as many new editors have stumbled into reviews, ultimately annoying experienced editors. {{to|Figureskatingfan}} did you have any comment? I noticed you discussed GA recruitment at that time. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

::Yah, I was working with Dom to try and improve the backlog at GAN. The GARC was a good idea, but it never took off and wasn't very successful. Then we started the GA Cup, which was pretty successful, but there wasn't enough people interested in continuing the work it takes to sustain it. Dom, he went off to bigger and better things, and me, I just got busy and lacked the motivation to continue it when my time freed up for editing again. The GA Cup has been the most successful way the backlog has decreased, and I regret that it petered out, but I still lack the motivation to do anything about it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey Chris, thank you again for your feedback on the article I was working on for Flighthouse. I wanted to ask you - what did you mean by Fast Company's list came out to early to be significant? Grimothy29 (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Grimothy29}} "[https://www.fastcompany.com/90457904/social-media-most-innovative-companies-2020 Most innovative of 2020]" but published in March of 2020 doesn't make sense. You can't list the best of a year until December. Is Fast Company updating their list each month? Chris Troutman (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

And the answer is no , you are not. Govtindiabihar (talk) 05:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Could you please take another look at Dawn Gentry, which you marked as "reviewed"? IMO it is an attack page about a low-profile individual who has been accused but not convicted of crimes. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|HouseOfChange}} It's already been deleted, but for your question, WP:G10 requires the attack page to be unsourced. The claims made on the page were substantiated by reliable sources, which is why I went for an AfD. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

::Thanks for your informative reply. I had not noticed that you were also the person who filed the AfD. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Chris. Thank you for reviewing my submission to create an entry for the filmmaker Carson Davidson, and for your constructive feedback. I've removed a link to be avoided, and I've added citations from the New York Times, The Washington Post, and Davidson's local newspaper, the Rutland (VT) Herald.

I've also made a note about the fact that a collection of his films is held not only by the Academy Film Archive, but also the New York Public Library, both of which I think go a long way way toward satisfying the requirement that this filmmaker's works be "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." As for the other requirements, I believe that his role as an "important figure" is confirmed by his multiple Oscar nominations, and underlined by the unrelated but also significant fact that he was a pioneering conservationist whose homestead has, since his death, become a Vermont State Park.

I certainly understand the need to have significant and independent outside sources writing about and referring to a figure to confer notability, but independent and for-hire documentary filmmmakers were rarely the subjects of newspaper profiles in the 1950s to 1970s, when he was active, and it has fallen to independent scholars (like the one I had cited in the link to be avoided that I've since removed) to gather information about them, often fairly informally. I would hope that the coverage that has been cited, in the New York Times and Washington Post, among other publications, between the 1950s and 2010s, is sufficient to grant notability. Thanks, and I appreciate any further feedback you can provide.--Btmeacham (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Btmeacham}} You've done a good job of adding sourced content. Be advised that I don't mind providing guidance but I will not be re-reviewing your draft as now I only decline drafts. (The folks that own the servers have been disrespectful toward volunteer editors; writing articles for free only provides them perverse incentive.) That said, let me clarify my understanding of notability criteria: a subject only has to pass any one of them to be presumed notable. If you have a conflict of interest, you are not only legally required to say so, but it also impacts how your editing could proceed. The subject fails WP:GNG because not enough is written about him. We don't have a sliding scale to account for the uneven media coverage. We need sources upon which to write articles. If the media is more concerned with the latest pop princess than with documentary filmmakers, that's not Wikipedia's fault. I did find other sources like [https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/rutlandherald/obituary.aspx?n=carson-davidson-kit&pid=181738419 this Rutland Herald obit] and [https://anr.vermont.gov/node/904 this from Vermont]. [http://www.afana.org/davidsoncarson.htm This] might even be acceptable. You need to use every reliable source you can find. If you want to hang the subject's notability upon his films, then more work on your part is required. First, you make mention in the lede about two Academy Award nominations but in the body of the draft only one, 3rd Ave. El is described in that way and there's no citation with that sentence. Citations should be in the body, not the lede. The lede should only recapitulate what the body says. Wikipedia doesn't have an article about 3rd Ave El or Help! My Snowman's Burning Down so it's hard to see the subject qualifying under WP:FILMMAKER. You really need to make a case in your draft that either of those are in {{tq|"permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums"}} as the couple or few that you cite still fall short of several. The two Academy Award nominations also fall short of WP:ANYBIO because the guideline requires the subject be {{tq|"nominated for such an award several times"}} and two noms isn't "several". The snowman film might arguably pass WP:NFOE so an article about that film would help make the case for Davidson. Beyond notability, you still have a few external links in the draft, two of which are in the lede; remove all! External links are for your citations, not for the readers to click to go outside of Wikipedia. User internal links instead. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

::Thanks for the feedback, Chris. I've taken your advice and removed external links, and I've added citations for a number of the sources you linked to. I've cleaned up the lede and added a Biography section. I've also included a note about more collections which include his films, clarified his two Academy Award nominations, and created articles for his two nominated films. I appreciate your help and though I'm not sure I understand what you're referring to about only declining drafts, volunteer editing, and perverse incentive, I'm going to re-submit this draft for publication. Thanks. Btmeacham (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. I want to apologize for how I spoke to you. It was disrespectful and doesn't reflect well on me. Further, upon reflection, I agree that my attempted edit to the GP article was unwise. Hope you have a good rest of your day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:C100:C610:DC93:F9A6:2830:E85B (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Seven}} --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey,

I requested 2607:FEA8:6521:4330:EDE2:AA61:F54C:502 to be fully banned. Is this something you could help me with? Suden13 (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Suden13}} On Wikipedia, when you revert vandalism (not just edits you disagree with), you can also warn the user using one of our user warning templates. Traditionally, you start at the lower end (a level 1 or 2 warning) and go up a step each time the behavior continues. After the level four warning, you report the IP/editor to WP:AIV. You haven't done that, at all. You put a message on the IP's talk page, which no one will notice. I also see that the IP hasn't been sufficiently warned, so I placed a level four warning. If there is any more problem from them, you can report to AIV. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

:: Oh, if you follow their history, you will see what I mean. There is a lot of messages they deleted, did you see the vandalism he left on my page? Suden13 (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

:::{{replyto|Suden13}} No one has deleted any messages on that IP talk page, so far as I can see. I saw the vandalism from the IP, which is why I issued the 4im warning. That IP stopped editing, so I consider the matter done. I've already explained to you what you can do if it continues. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

:::: Thank you. They actually deleted everything that was posted on their page, before it was reverted by ClueBot NG. They didnt really stop, that user will be back shortly. He left a message on my wall just last night. He left some other messages on my wall which I had reverted. In retrospective, I should have left them. I assume they will be back in a few days. I appreciate your help and I will keep an eye on that IP. Thank you for your help. Suden13 (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

::::: Told you he'll be back. There is only one course of action at this point. Suden13 (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

::::::{{replyto|Suden13}} Right you are; {{diff|Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism|prev|977764734|Your report at AIV}} should be the final nail in the coffin. I've reverted and warned the same user hiding behind another ip. Patiently and thoroughly following our steps of reverting, warning, and reporting make blocking easy for the admins. Eventually, the troublemakers find themselves frustrated and they leave, if only for awhile. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

:::::::{{replyto|Chris_troutman}} Thank you for all your help. It is a good thing Wikipedia admins can track things like that, otherwise trolls would never go away. Suden13 (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

::::::::{{replyto|Suden13}} {{diff|Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism|977803282|977801804|Apparently, your report came too late after the vandalism}}, so no blocking happened. It seems the vandalism has stopped, which was our goal. If this individual ever pops up again, you'll want to make the case at AIV that this follows a pattern of abuse from a range of IPs. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::{{replyto|Chris_troutman}} I just read it, how can they consider it a stale report as, according to them, the user has not done anything in 2 weeks, but he vandalized my page on Sept. 3, 2020 and then on Sept.10, 2020? Suden13 (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::{{replyto|Suden13}} I understand your frustration with this. Please understand that blocking an IP is done for prevention, not as some sort of retribution. The vandalism has, for now, stopped so a block isn't useful. Other people might be using that IP. Blocks are temporary, in any case, so the block could expire well before that individual ever returns. A rangeblock can be requested should this vandalism ever recur; I don't think it will. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey, just to let you know, he's been banned for 3 months. Suden13 (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Why have you removed/reverted the message I left on Gamaliel's talk page?Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Rja13ww33}} That was a mis-click from my watchlist I thought I had successfully stopped. My mistake. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

::No problem.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! {{clear}} --Drevolt (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Chris, you placed the GA templates on this articles review page three weeks ago. Will you be reviewing, I was wondering what is happening? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Norfolkbigfish}} I fully intend to review that article as part of the ongoing backlog drive. As {{oldid|Talk:Crusader_states/GA2|982706933|I indicated in my edit summary}}, I requested sources from the library and I am waiting for them to arrive. I cannot control the inter-library loan system here. If you prefer, I can CSD my review and let someone else take it. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

::Thanks Chris, happy to wait until you are ready, there is no urgency. I just wanted to check there were no other reasons that required action from me. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

:::{{replyto|Norfolkbigfish}} The books finally came in so I'll be able to finally finish the review I promised. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)