User talk:ChrisGualtieri/Archive 8

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Archive 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 20
• 30

Update: Barbarlee Diamonstein Spielvogel Article

Chris, the article Barbaralee Diamonstein Spielvogel now contains a message at the top indicating a possible copyright violation. I've contacted the site: http://www.livable.org/livability-resources/best-practices/310 and they have in fact added an attribution to Wikipedia at the bottom of that page indicating that they wrote the base portion of the wikipedia article and the livable article, therefore there should not be any copyright conflict. Is this your assessment as well? Thank you for looking into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Setting the record (talk • contribs) 20:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Content on Wikipedia cannot be taken from somewhere else, it needs to be in your own words. This is a more complex matter, but I do not have the time to look into it too much. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia. Thanks for the cleanup work you did on my recent submission - I picked up a lot from the changes you made. Tbojustin (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

regarding "picture vinyl" release in Ghost in the Shell (video game)

Its not about the "picture" but i can't verify the promotional release of the promotional limited edition picture discthrough reliable sources, only through blogs. The source shown in the soundtrack only verifies the first three. The regular edition, the limited 2-disc CD edition and the limited 2-disc vinyl LP edition. But not the picture disc. Since you reverted, its best to discuss it there, i made a new section for it in the talkpage.Lucia Black (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Appreciate the edits to my article Robert Spencer Oliver. Still getting to grips with Wikipedia so it helps me to learn. BierInTrout (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC) BierInTrout

Talk:Not Dark Yet

Hi, can you let me know how you assessed the above as "start" class? My feeling is that as there is nothing about "the song" it barely warrants a stub class - it becomes merely a discography entry which could be merged in any event. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It has a lot of coverage in popular culture and "covers", it includes a good snapshot in the infobox, it also covers the releases. Now, its not the best article by far and I'm not certain it meets notability, but it is not sparse enough to be a dictionary definition and it begins to inform the reader of several different aspects. Its lacking in content, but stubs are nearly useless. You can revert it back to a stub if you want, but it is one of those subjective things. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for response. I don't want to revert you, and quite frankly there are enough song articles that need re-assessing/badly assessed, it would waste both our times. Anyway, I was using this particular article as an example. I was more hoping we could agree - Popular culture and covers do not make a start-class article and it is worth checking out WP:SONGS to see what is expected. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Lee Harvey Oswald

Can we keep out the fringe material from this article? Bearian (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't add the content, don't ask me. But it is typically for the best. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

You probably know about it

But anyway https://web.archive.org/web/20110720031859/http://www.animeresearch.com/ --Niemti (talk) 09:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've gotten most of those books, but I didn't know about the old snapshots. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Precious

Spirited Away
Thank you, tireless janitor of more than 100k edits, for quality articles such as Spirited Away, for upgrading "stubs", for your spirit to correct "multitudes of errors" and to ensure "the integrity of Wikipedia", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I do my best for Wikipedia because I believe in the project's goals and that Wikipedia is for the benefit of all mankind. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

A great concept in general. It's the details, as you know best, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

True. But remember "that great conflicts stem from trivial things." ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Define trivial. In this case, I meant to honour a great composer and have a nice Christmas card. Doesn't work unless a miracle happens. The way the composer styled his title is not compatible with our holy MOS, so can't be shown at all because there's also holy consistency ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, trivial... some people get so upset that some work being done on articles to fix issues is not "enough". I've been doing different things because I don't want a bunch of people mad at me for fixing grammar and typos or some of the other issues that plague Wikipedia because I'll have someone threatening to ANI me over fixing a typo that is not a regional spelling. Last I checked, "manoeveur" is one such example. Though I don't go running around placing commas after "In (Year)" despite the British and the English saying it is technically correct because it indicates a pause for a proper reading. You wouldn't say "In 2012 Christmas trees caught fire" all without pause, so what's Wiki's obsession with continuing on bad punctuation. Bah! I've been reading too much Eats, Shoots & Leaves. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Re:A&M

I agree that there are some extreme stances taken by the project editors. I can only hope that with reasoning, their stance will change for the better.

In regards to Satoshi Kon, I have access to my university database (with 603 newspapers and journals on him) as well as full access to Mechademia (See doi:10.1353/mec.2010.0023, doi:10.1353/mec.0.0012, doi:10.1353/mec.2010.0013, Volume 4 of Mech is free access for now). Extremepro (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It was 10 months before I gave up thinking they would change with reason. Several hundred pages of text and back and forth. I've got a thousand better things to do than argue about it though. Wikipedia is a huge place and I much rather enjoy my time fixing things up, sorting, categorizing and maintaining things that have been neglected for years. Those sorts of things are the backbone of our development after all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Minor barnstar

For your continuing and invaluable work re-rating stubs, a mundane and laborious task which very few people will ever notice. The project should notice, because how can we move forward if we do not know the value of what we already have? So that's why I, Acather96 (talk · contribs), award you this Minor Barnstar! Wear it with pride. :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 18:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Glad to know people care about the re-rating and little things that make the administration and organization of the project easier. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem - how do you find them and set up AWB to do it out of interest? Also, it would be great if (and I mean 'if', as I am very ignorant when it comes to advanced AWB user) once you remove the stub template you could also re-rate the talkpage, as this seems to be the factor that affects the table at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Statistics. Or is this automatically picked up by a bot and fixed later? Thanks, :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 15:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It's all manual. You can query a bunch of stubs by downloading the 18.5 gigabyte database dump and open it up to 99.2 gigabytes and search for the stubs. Since AWB does not always have the removal of non-stubs coded (and its a higher ratio for automatic removal without any talk page updating) you'll have to go through and pick them out. Sometimes I screw up, as I did on a pretty clear stub instead of skipping. Though I include AWB's general fixes as well. Once I get a block of ones that I've checked and edited, I have to grab the list of all thoseedits and switch them to talk pages and run a stub to start class checker. Since I've already done the hard part of checking the article, the stub to start reassessment is really easy and I can do this much faster. Sometimes I notice some vandalism or spam in the talk page and I'll stop for a moment and remove it with a non-AWB edit with a reason. To basically do what I am doing, you do need to do all of this... and I actually started doing it three weeks ago. I've had plenty of experience, by re-rating a large part of WP:USA and cleaning up the broken templates and the articles that were listing bad or incorrect importance tags. So in summary, yes, I will be returning to the talk pages of the articles that I've removed the stub tag from later today and updating with start or "list" in the case of a few dozen pages. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• I second your barnstar. Thanks so much for doing this! I've noticed your work on the WikiProject Opera pages on my watch list and it's a huge help. I'm sure we have many, many more articles with out-of-date/erroneous stub tags. I've been checking the talk pages of the opera articles where you've removed the tags and updated the project rating where necessary. Once again, your work is much appreciated. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• @Voceditenore: I am not forgetting to update them, its just that when I do a run I have to recheck that they were listed as stubs and the rechecking places them in alphabetical order and my original list is unsorted. Reduce the strain on the watchlists of the project watchers, I have purposely ensured they would be random because I do not want to bloat or spam them. This was the easiest way in which I could do the task with the least amount of "shock". So if you do update them, I'll be passing over them on my return, but I'll get them within 48 hours. I just was busy this week so it slowed me down quite a bit. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I assumed you'd be going back, but I was so chuffed to be able to lower the stub category of WPO articles, that I couldn't wait. Anyhow, thanks again and best wishes for a very happy Christmas and New Year. Voceditenore (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of DAICON III and IV Opening Animations

The article DAICON III and IV Opening Animations you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:DAICON III and IV Opening Animations for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gabriel Yuji -- Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks you and thanks for reviewing it! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, Chris. Hm... only a little detail: since you changed every "DAICON" to "Daicon" in the article, would be correct if I moved the page to "Daicon III and IV Opening Animations", wouldn't it? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

That is a good idea. DAICON is incorrect because it is not an acronym and it was just stylized as such. I don't particularly quibble over such small things, but you are completely correct to do so. I seem to remember that the move over redirect is not something I can do, might need an admin. I would be happy to work with you anytime, you're a good editor. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I was able to move the page. Thank you for the compliment. You are great, and I would be glad to work with you too. Keep the nice work! Cheers, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Robby Müller may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [Interview [http://bartvanbroekhoven.com/index.php/en/extras/16-interviews/59-interview-robby-muller-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Franklin Peale may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Guthrie preferring charges against Peale, and that Guthrie in turn wrote to the President <nowiki>[Franklin Pierce who, having no one else to write to, dismissed Peale at once ...</nowiki>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hewa kurdistani may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * [https://www.facebook.com/hewa.ghafor Facebook] account]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Human resource consulting may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ; [http://www.cipd.co.uk/ Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development]#Membership grades|MCIPD]], [[PGDHR]] [[DHR]]{{disambiguation needed|date=June 2013}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Free Flow of Information Act may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• com/2013/05/16/us/politics/under-fire-white-house-pushes-to-revive-media-shield-bill.html?_r=0#h[|accessdate=18 July 2013|newspaper=The New York Times|date=15 July 2013}}</ref> The legislation

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Coreley may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 1883 |location= UK |url= http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/census/table_page.jsp?tab_id=GB1831ABS_M[1 |accessdate= 2 May 2012}}</ref> 1881 industry in Coreley was also engaged in mining which

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Viola Baskerville Article Assessment

I noticed that you removed the stub template from the article I created on former Virginia Secretary of Administration Viola Baskerville with the explanation in your edit summary that the article has been assessed as Start-class or higher despite the fact that the article is currently assessed as Stub by two out of the three WikiProjects which it has been added to, and I was wondering if you are suggesting the need for a re-assessment of the article. --TommyBoy (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

@TommyBoy: Was currently in the process of re-assessing, but I do those in alphabetical order after they've been re-rated, but I skip quite a lot and than do them in large blocks to reassess. No worries. I'll up the assessment soon. I just got a lot on my plate. Should be all done within 36 hours. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Khadaklat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marathi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you and invitation

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		Thank you for your cleanup efforts on articles about women footballers/soccer players. Your contributions are much appreciated. Hmlarson (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to women's football/soccer articles. I thought I'd let you know about the Women's Football/Soccer Task Force (WP:WOSO), a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women's football/soccer. If you would like to participate, join by visiting the Members page. Thanks!

Hmlarson (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've almost completed the back log. Its well worth the effort to know doing this is appreciated by other editors! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much

Thanks for your helpful edits at Plus JEDEN DEŇ, much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Outing attempt at COI

Binksternet is attempting an outing at COI. He is publicly trying to say AcademicReviewer is x. It seems inappropriate. 108.77.58.83 (talk) 13:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm showing that an editor has a conflict of interest. I have not made any statement about what is the real life identity of someone, just that there is a strong connection. What's your interest in the matter? Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Why is this on my talk page? I do not even know what's going on. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

NHK Cup (Shogi)

Hi,
You came along and made some changes to a page I am creating called NHK Cup Shogi. I am not sure why you did that? Did you just happen to stumble upon it or did I set off some kind of alarm? I thought I had set this up as a practice page for me to work on this article, but maybe I didn't. Anyway, I appreciate the help, but I was in the middle of adding some more stuff to that page and now I kind of stuck in a "Edit Conflict" with you. I don't want to lose all that I've added so if you can tell how to save it then I would be most grateful. Also, if you come by again can you, leave something on my talk page about it. Thanks -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: When did you move it to the sandbox? I only edit mainspace articles and I was just doing some clean up. I did not know you were currently working on it. Though all you have to do is save over my edits. You can hit the back button and then copy and paste it into a new window (overwriting mine). There was no "alarm" or anything, I just do a lot of clean up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: I thought by putting in one of my user pages that it would be as if it was in my sandbox and therefore would not be on the main line. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and still getting the hang of things. I want to put it in a place where nobody can edit it, but not really sure where that is. I tried my sandbox, but the I could figure out create/edit to separate articles within the same sandbox, So, I moved it. Sorry about that. --Marchjuly (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Chris, Could you please take a look at my page and tell me (1) if I have correctly added the external links and (2) if the links I added are suitable enough for removing the "orphan tag"? Also, I have discovered that this page in coming up in google searches which makes me think that I screwed up by moving it from my sandbox to a userpage. Is it too late to reverse that process so that I can only see it until I am finished working on it? Thanks---Marchjuly (talk) 13:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: External links look fine, other than the fact they should be in English. Orphan is incoming links to the article, not outgoing, so as long as it is in your userspace it shouldn't have any incoming links. The orphan tag is not too important and will be changed soon enough. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

By "should be in English", do you mean the link description or the actual pages the links are for? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Link description. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

OK. Have already done it. Thanks -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Celebrate your hard work!

	Take a moment to celebrate
	Thank you for all your hard work this year! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. It's been good working with you this year as well! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Article on Vincent Plunkett

Hello, ChrisGualtieri ... You've kindly edited my pending article on Vincent Plunkett, and I'm taking your suggestions on board when I can. But I seem to be caught in a loop about one thing: the article is an "orphan" because, I think, it doesn't yet appear. That is, I have created a link to the article from the "Robert Levenson" page, but on that page the link is in red. So the Plunkett article is an orphan because it can't be found by Levenson—or so it seems to me. Have you any suggestions for how to remedy this? Wfbrooks (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I made a redirect for Vincent Plunkett to Vincent C. Plunkett fixing the red link. You can remove the orphan tag, but it should have 3 incoming links to the page. The orphan tag is not too important, but it is just making sure the article is not isolated from the rest of Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm still learning the subtleties about redirects. The page will be linked eventually to and from D. W. Cooper, for whom a page is in preparation. That will be two links; I'm not sure there is a plausible third link, though, unless someone (not me, at present!) writes an article on Earl Comyns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfbrooks (talk • contribs) 15:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

		Holiday Cheer
		Victuallers talkback is wishing Chris Season's Greetings! Thanks, this is just to celebrate the holiday season and promote WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - Vic/Roger inspired by this - you could do the same

Thanks. Merry Christmas to you! It might be the one day I am off wiki spending time with my family, but I always do play a good Santa! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Article on Bert Potter

Unfortunately (for you!), you've now become my source for expert advice. I'm creating a page for "Bert Potter (composer)". Do I need to make a disambiguation page distinguishing Bert Potter (New Zealand criminal)? He doesn't have a page as such, but his name dominates the page "Centrepoint (commune)." Many thanks for your help thus far (and in the future, if you're willing ...).Wfbrooks (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Always willing to help. For this case, you do not need a disambiguation page. I would take over Bert Potter and make a link to the other Bert Potter at the top. I can do it if you make the page not a redirect. Though to be fair... that article it links to is terrible. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement

A typical Nepali meal Hello, ChrisGualtieri. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Meal Previous selections: Recorded history • Micronesia Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: Northamerica1000(talk) 22:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
116		Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Summoner (talk)						Add sources
101		Shin Megami Tensei II (talk)						Add sources
608		Shin Megami Tensei (talk)						Add sources
87		Shin Megami Tensei: Imagine (talk)						Add sources
230		Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne (talk)						Add sources
73		Shin Megami Tensei: Digital Devil Saga 2 (talk)						Add sources
513		Atlus (talk)						Cleanup
191		Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Summoner: Soul Hackers (talk)						Cleanup
908		Catherine (video game) (talk)						Cleanup
759		Shin Megami Tensei: Persona (talk)						Expand
193		Guilty Gear XX (talk)						Expand
91		History of E3 (talk)						Expand
31		Random encounter (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
16		Stewart Murray Wilson (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
76		Crime in New Zealand (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
153		Escape the room (talk)						Merge
6		Catholic abuse cases (talk)						Merge
728		Catholic sex abuse cases (talk)						Merge
32		Kartia: The Word of Fate (talk)						Wikify
93		Cult video game (talk)						Wikify
166		Arc System Works (talk)						Wikify
17		Murder of Christie Marceau (talk)						Orphan
2		National Communications Corporation Limited (NATCOM) (talk)						Orphan
9		Task Force Argos (talk)						Orphan
65		Shōji Meguro (talk)						Stub
24		Kazuma Kaneko (talk)						Stub
33		Seiji Kishi (talk)						Stub
37		Shin Megami Tensei: NINE (talk)						Stub
420		Shin Megami Tensei X Fire Emblem (talk)						Stub
13		Fo Guang Shan Temple, Auckland (talk)						Stub

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Christmas

Hafspajen (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Need your help on an article

Hi ChrisGualtieri, I recognize your commendable contributions on articles. I have an issue with this article; Flower Girl (film). The article contain references, but they are not cited properly (no inline Citations). I don't know if there's anything that you could do about it.

Thanks. --Oyesunkanmi (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Error

Hello, I'm HMSSolent. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Li Dongsheng because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The reverted edit can be found here. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 15:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that, Chris. I was about to address a content removal when I accidentally pressed the revert button on Igloo, hence reverting your edit. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 15:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I noticed it and was like "huh", but got edit conflicted with your correction. I've done that before. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Merry christmas to you! Could you please fix the ref on Musikhjälpen that is not formatted. And do a checkwiki of Oba Chandler, would be appreciatd. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 18:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 25 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Jannie Engelbrecht page, your edit caused a wikilink error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

A coffee break to a tireless janitor! Thanks for keeping Wikipedia tidy. DPdH (talk) 08:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Satoshi Kon

The article Satoshi Kon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Satoshi Kon for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of New Age Retro Hippie -- New Age Retro Hippie (talk) 11:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Nowell Parr

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Chris, you deserve this barnstar. Whenever I open up my watchlist, I find you applying "general fixes" using AWB. Hats off, mate. Ethically (Yours) 07:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Dear Chris; Thank you for applying minor fixes using AWB on the article about Andy Irvine and, more generally, for helping to keep our encyclopaedia as tidy as possible. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee. (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy holidays by the way! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You're most welcome, Chris! Thank you for your wishes, wholeheartedly reciprocated!

With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee. (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

USRD assessments

Sorry about all the reversions. I was trying to think of a way earlier to tell you about it without coming across as a jerk. Below B-Class, USRD doesn't exactly assess articles the same as other projects. We've even had a few C-Class articles that were tagged by the stub-sorting project because of length, and that's OK. Don't worry, though; it's not personal. –Fredddie™ 18:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

@Fredddie: I didn't realize it was different and you are not being a jerk. I was just getting really alarmed while in AWB with the notifications going up like every other click. I'm skipping all the Roads ones from now on. The difference in assessment means that the other projects have to scale back to you (not the other way around) because of your specialist criteria. The exceptions are GA and FA ratings which have to take into account your specialist criterion for roads before passage and all rating are then uprated to match. No worries, if I screw up, let me know - I'll see the reversions and rate the WP:USA down to match. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding! –Fredddie™ 18:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I got a big cloud over my head with WP:USA in general. I'm seriously considering splitting it out since the main template is like 400 kb in size and the majority of the projects put their bad assessments onto WP:USA and broke the importance and functionality on a more national level. Kumiko is one that I need to speak with, but with the communities pushing back against him and this "i'm not editing Wikipedia" anymore thing I doubt a unilateral reorganization of something so big will go well. Roads has stayed out of the merger and your criterions are interesting, but I wonder what the back-end assessment, categorization and optimization can be done for something as complex and as large as it. I miss my lighthouse articles... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for your independent assessment of the article on 'Andy Irvine (musician)'.

Dear Chris,

When you have the time and at your convenience, please may I ask you for an independent assessment of the current quality of the article on Andy Irvine (musician) ? It was graded as 'start class' before I began improving it on 22 July 2013, when it had only 7 references. I have read this and it seems to me that the article's quality might perhaps now have reached a 'B' class grade as a result of my efforts, although I am no expert in assessing the quality grade of WP articles.

If it helps, you can find a project log at my user page, here (click on 'Show' to open the section for "Current Project - Improve the existing Wikipedia article about Andy Irvine (musician)").

If you conclude that its current quality level is higher than 'Start class', then please would you kindly point me to the guidelines on how to get an article's status upgraded? Any other advice will obviously be gratefully received (you will probably tell me that it needs more photos...).

Thank you very much in advance for your helpful assistance and guidance whenever convenient, Chris.

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee. (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I've upped to it C, but I was considering making a B until I saw that there were significant portions that were not cited or sourced too well. The format for the timeline is a bit unusual, but that is alright. Things like the LAPD set, the play list, is probably not the best for the biographical article. Though I am no expert here, but I bet it could meet B criteria with some checking. Articles before GA are rather subjective - so don't be too concerned, I always liked accurate assessments of individual pages. It is still pretty from the the Good Article criteria, but I'd consider the Featured Article criteria in your editing going forward. It will spare later pain. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Chris;

Very many thanks for your extremely prompt action and review; I am very grateful.

I hadn't realized you have authority to upgrade articles but I am very pleased it is now anything higher than 'Start class', which I was sure was no longer appropriate; thank you very much.

If/when you have the time, please would you kindly give me a few brief pointers to some of the areas you felt were not sourced too well? Also, please would you also point me to an article that has the sort of timeline you would have preferred to see? I take note of the comment you made about LAPD; it's just that, until they've released an album, their maiden set list is all we have to give readers an idea of their choice of material. Perhaps I should present the list in the same format I used for album tracks?

Please forgive me, but your sentence "It is still pretty from the the Good Article criteria, ..." seems incomplete; did you mean to write: "It is still pretty far from the Good Article criteria, ..."? Thank you for confirming your intended idea in this case.

Thank you also for pointing me to the 'Featured Article' criteria; that's the standard I would always aim for anyway, although I am quite sure that the paucity of photos will be the killer in the end. I find it quite challenging to comply with the legal requirements for uploading images onto WP and I have given up trying; some other editor(s) will have to take on that effort, I am afraid.

Finally, shouldn't we now move this section from your Talk page to the article's Talk page? Thank you for your advice here.

With kind regards for now;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee. (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

@Pdebee: Just off the top of my head Bob Dylan. And I started getting a bit concerned when I was looking through "Mozaik - Live from The Powerhouse" and "Mozaik - Changing Trains" and "Parachilna". Some of the content seems right for a discography page with how detailed it goes, but that is also a lot of work to do. My main issue is that much of the content is analysis of the album and it detracts from Irvine's biography. So its not altogether coherent, making these little tangents to discuss the work. A good example is paragraph 3 of "Rainy Sundays... Windy Dreams", with this line: "The Balkan set begins with Romanian Song (Blood and Gold),[18]:68–69 based on a Romanian song collected by Béla Bartók, re-written by Irvine and Jane Cassidy and set to the music of a Bulgarian dance tune in the 'paidushka' rhythm of 5/16; the song then segues into Paidushko Horo, an extensive collection of musical phrases borrowed from Bulgarian dance tunes in that rhythm and performed at breakneck speed." This is not really appropriate for a biography in my eyes, great for a discography or an analysis of the work itself. Read through Bob Dylan, you'll probably be stunned by it, it is a featured article after all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri:

Dear Chris;

Thank you once again for your prompt reply, and for pointing me to the Bob Dylan article. I have reviewed it and also reflected on your helpful suggestions; here are a few initial comments.

Yes, if the Dylan article is considered a standard, then I could easily emulate it. However, I didn't really set out to write a biography of Andy Irvine (I definitely didn't want to delve/intrude into his personal life, for example), but rather to provide an overview of his music career with emphasis on his artistic production; this, in my opinion, is a somewhat different objective.

Besides, a major problem editors would face is the limited number of quotable sources in the case of Irvine (a handful of books and lots of newspaper reviews of gigs, tours and albums), compared with the mountain of published material about Dylan.

The structure of the timeline I adopted is the same as in the Dylan article, except that I broke down each decade into further sub-sections for each major project. I adopted that approach because of a comment made on 8 August, 2013 (here, highlighted in green on the right) that the article suffered from "impenetrable walls of text" (see the ensuing discussion and agreed-to solution here).

Thank you for pointing out the 'discography' nature of the details I supplied about album tracks. Yes, I could easily create a separate article for each album (like someone else already did for EastWind) and then re-locate the details there. This would have the benefit of streamlining the main article to a format closer to the Dylan example. However, a major problem I see with this approach is that I would then have to supply an image for the cover of each album, which takes me back to the intractable challenge of uploading images into WP, a task I am not prepared to undertake. Therefore, I would receive complaints about the fact that these 'album' articles are incomplete because they don't feature the cover image.

I will reflect some more on your helpful suggestions but, for now, I feel somewhat reluctant to remove the prose that highlights Irvine's ingenuous artistry, which was what motivated me to enrich the article in the first place.

In any case, I am grateful to you, Chris, for your helpful advice and guidance, as it can feel quite lonely here on WP!

With kindest regards for now;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee. (talk) 02:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Featured articles are among the best, but there is no "standard" appearance for most articles. Wikipedia is a large place and its not lonely - but you probably do not want to tread into the drama-filled nexus of discussion. It's like the nine layers of Hell, the deeper you go the worse the punishment! Though in all fairness, working on Wikipedia is not so bleak, especially on the content side. It is to further access and cover the sum of all knowledge after all. If you are willing to put in the work, you typically get final say in its appearance. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Tianjin Goldin Metropolitan Polo Club

Are you sure this is a start, not a stub? It looks very short to me.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Rather borderline, but it does have enough detail for me. Put it back to a stub if you want. Its one of those more questionable cases. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Using AWB to auto-uprate article quality on multiple WikiProjects

Hi Chris,

I've run into to a couple of articles that are watched by WikiProject Spaceflight where you have used AWB to auto-uprate the Spaceflight project quality rating to the higher rating of some other project or projects that also watch that article.

Question: Are you using AWB merely to find the articles with unmatching quality ratings, and then manually assessing the article quality prior to changing the ratings? Or are you simply running with the (implicit or explicit) algorithm that IF there are multiple WikiProjects on the Talk page, ANDIF one of them is of a higher quality rating than the others, THEN the quality rating of all WikiProjects ought to be INCREASED to the higher rating of the others? Or are you perhaps doing some other process altogether?

The reason I'm asking is that in the two cases I've run into (and I've not done any careful search using AWB myself), I've found that two WikiProject Spaceflight articles that were clearly no better than Stub quality, were uprated to Start quality. (The two that I happened to observe on my Watch page were Talk:Euroluna and Talk:Bulgarian astronaut program, FYI.)

I'm definitely assuming good faith here, but would like to get a better understanding of how you are handling this, and then perhaps discuss it somewhere with a group of similarly interested editors to see what process for doing this kind of work on Wikipedia might be advisable. Thanks for your interest in making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

If one project is listing it as a start than it match other project's ratings. Though they do seem to have slipped by in error. I'm running through to check to see if they are larger articles, but since I have to check them, if I don't remove them from the list it can cause some issues. There is no set "skip if X words" function in AWB's manual run, but there is a skip if less than X characters and I run skip if 1500+ and check the talk page to make sure that they were at start PRIOR to the re-rate. So the error here is really that someone else incorrectly re-rated the stub and that I came along and put it in the wrong pile and upped the re-rating. Even doing assessments by hand I've rarely screwed up by hitting save instead of skip. I double check my work afterwards as well. I'll run a parse on all of the Spaceflight articles and then go through by hand to check to see if there are other cases. Its not too hard to do... just a few hours worth of work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Caught some vandalism on Airtel digital TV. Running through with a lower scan now and yes it appears that some are of questionable rating and others are plain wrong. I personally go quite low on the "stub" barrier. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Here is a list of pages that I lowered from start to stub class. Many of them I did not uprate yet, some of them were skipped and this was a fairly low end assessment on the stub rating.

1. Astrium Services
2. Beyond Einstein program
3. CALIPSO
4. Georgy Dobrovolsky
5. Euroluna
6. Expedition 21
7. Exploration of Energization and Radiation in Geospace
8. Explorer 33
9. General Purpose Heat Source
10. Mark Hempsell
11. HYLAS 2
12. Intelsat 901
13. Lambda (rocket family)
14. LUCID
15. Mercury-Atlas
16. NASA Exceptional Technology Achievement Medal
17. On Orbit Mission Control
18. Pioneer Venus project
19. Gerhard Schwehm
20. Scorpius Space Launch Company
21. Scout X-1A
22. Soyuz 15
23. Soyuz 26
24. Soyuz 38
25. Soyuz T-10
26. Soyuz T-7
27. Soyuz TM-14
28. Soyuz TM-15
29. Soyuz TM-22
30. Soyuz TM-23
31. Soyuz TM-27
32. Soyuz TM-28
33. Soyuz TMA-17M
34. Soyuz TMA-19M
35. Soyuz TMA-5
36. Soyuz TMA-6
37. SUNSAT
38. Aleksandr Viktorenko
39. Waxwing (Rocket motor)
40. Boris Yegorov
41. YF-73

Shouldn't be an issue with re-rating them down. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Chris. I've been rather pre-occupied off-wiki since I wrote you the day before Christmas. Thank you for your comprehensive reply. I didn't understand all of it, but I really appreciate your sensitivity to not uprating WikiProject Spaceflight article quality ratings only and merely because some other project may happen to have thought the article at a higher quality level.

As I get back to editing, I will try to take a look again at all you said, and see what it all might mean for me and the Spaceflight project. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Tin Can Cathedral

Hello Chris, I noticed that you helped out with my article not long ago. I was wondering if you might be able to help with contact information to the Agiou Panteleimonos Russian monastery at Mount Athos. Do you know of any Wikipedian's working in that Russian monastery or at Mount Athos in general that I could contact. I'm looking for possible records they may have of Stefan Ustvolsky (Bishop Seraphim) or the Holy Anphim who consecrated him a bishop; something I could add as an external link to the Tin Can Cathedral article. Thank you. Nicola Mitchell (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

That's an unusual request, but I doubt that anyone in the monastery would be an editor here. Typically, I turn to the church libraries like the Vatican for those records. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Nicola Mitchell (talk) 12:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Different matter

Dear Chris! I just got a number of upgrades on language-related articles, changing stub of WPLANG to fit a start class rating of other projects. I have exerted a lot of time to appropriately rate articles as stup for WPLANG, and I can explain why I did so on sufficiently firm grounds. If other projects have other ratings, I'm of course fine with that, but it is extremely detrimental to all my efforts if you now go ahead and rerate stubs without even checking their content. You need to be an expert to rate Southern Mongolian language at all, and For Eastern Yugur language it should be very very clear that the start rating is wrong. I reverted both of these, because I have all Mongolic languages in my rating list, but I really cannot assess the harm you're doing to the ratings of other articles. As for WP languages, I would simply suggest that you entirely desist rerating if you are not a member of that project and, ideally, a linguist yourself. To reassess any articles for that project, you ought to be qualified. If you are in doubt whether a given rating still holds, just remove it, then others can look at the WPLANG project page and see which articles need to be rated. Without even taking a look at the article yourself, NO REASSESSMENT should be undertaken at all. Best, G Purevdorj (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

@G Purevdorj: assessments should match. I can understand an error with the Mongol group, but it is still an article on a neologism! I'll rate it down for you. Though Buryat language is most clearly not a stub, so start class is fine. I'll avoid your project, but I don't like saying that I am causing harm and that I need to be a linguist to rate YOUR pages. That's ownership and rating are meant to be unified for class and not individual. Stubs are nearly useless entries in Wikipedia and other encyclopedias, they do not typically even address the bare basics of what it is or why it matters. Start is more fleshed out, but still incomplete. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you could argue that Buryat language is Start class, though: the phonology section doesn’t really give a proper overview over the phonology of Buryat, while the heavy focus on stress (while useful in a B class article or higher) does not really contribute the basic information that most readers will be looking for first. The grammar section is so tiny as to be uninformative within the greater context of Central Mongolic, and the info provided on numerals is just a table without explanations, thus basically worthless. You’re left with the intro and the section on dialects as functional sections. Ok, I suppose I agree: start class, but very very basic. Southern Mongolian language is a neologism in English, but as there is no English term and the concept is highly significant within the language policy of China, there has to be some kind of term. If the content was a bit more elaborate, it might make start class even though it is a neologism.

But I think I want to ask for clarification on one point: IS there a policy that postulates that article ratings should be identical across projects? As far as my understanding is concerned, every project has its own expertise, so ratings between projects might differ widely. There are even a few articles on a larger entity such as a tribe whose tribal language does not have a separate article. Those articles are stubs within WP languages, but may be B class or more for a project that gives priority to ethnographic or historical information. G Purevdorj (talk) 10:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

@G Purevdorj: Well, from recent discussions - assessments should match, but they don't entirely have to per say. While GA and FA are supposed to match, some projects use different assessments from the standard and you really can't force them to label the same way for "Future" or "AL" class. For 1.0, standardization helps understand where Wikipedia as a whole is, and the Future and AL class is not represented, nor is the template and other classes. The best thing I've been able to see is that while consensus for peer reviewed articles is supposed to be unified, the lower ratings should include the applicable ones or be rated down to the will of opposing or special criteria of a Wikiproject. This was something I didn't know with Highways. The stub tag is to be removed by length, but stub class carries its own definition there - so I skip over them. Basically, whenever a conflict comes up, I feel better to have it unified to the stickler's point of view because they have a better gauge of what it should be. As for a neologism... yeah, I may personally dislike that a language spoken by less people than in my school gets an article, but it does have three sources and that's GNG. It may be short and tiny, but I guess a stub is warranted. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Start/Stub

Hi. Just to be sure we are on the same page. As far as I recall a stub class differs from a stub page. Some projects may tag in "stub class" pages that are not stubs i.e. they contains some good amount of text. Moreover, not all projects have the same criteria for stub and start classes. Am I wrong? Things may have changed since the last time I did a mass tagging based on instructions given to me by a WikiProject. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Stub class indicates a stub, its nothing more complex than that. While everyone has a different definition of what is a stub, WP:STUB seems to be fairly clear. A Wikiproject can ask for a new type of stub for a category, but if the article is not a stub you should clean up the stub tag. This was part of the "re-assessment" part of the latest drive and I've done it that way since the previous year. Other editors have been actually telling people to remove the stub tags once you re-rate, so I've been doing it that way all along. Oh, and since I have you here, why do people keep posting this kind of comments on the talk pages but they are not removed? I need some more help with checking category intersections. You able to help me out there by any chance? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

On messages: I keep removing a lot of these by myself. Most of them are prior to 2011. Talk pages need a lot of cleaning. On category intersections: I would like not to get involved. I worked on this some years ago and the structure is chaotic. Moreover, I did not find a way to stop editors from mass adding categories to categories destroying the category trees. I know my answers are not that helpful :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: It's okay. I'll figure it out or something. There is a lot of grunt work to do to maintaining and organizing the project. Do you think it'd be possible to restart TypoScan in Jan or Feb with a database dump and parse it against the Typo Regex from AWB? It is important and needs to be done once every 3-6 months and I can't possibly do this from my PC. I asked once about it going to labs, but I don't remember if it was ever done, much less with the AWB Typo Regex. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I think Reedy was involved in the TypoScan. Better ask him. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've bugged Reedy previously for many months until I gave up about 5 months back. Even just a list of articles to run through would be a better help than nothing. I estimate about 150,000 articles with typos, but running through them all one by one is inefficient and terrible for the servers. It really needs a proper dump processing for sanity's sake. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work that you are doing on the articles relating to opera. as a member of WP Opera, I've been updating and expanding many of these articles over recent months, but it hadn't entered my mind to look at the classification on the talk page until you started all this - so I'll be more observant in the future. Keep up the good work! Viva-Verdi (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject NRHP assessments

You're doing valuable work for WP by going through and trying to update ratings on articles, and for the most part I agree with what you've done. However, if it wouldn't be a large headache for you, could I ask you to change your protocol in re-rating WikiProject NRHP (National Register of Historic Places) articles? After a rather lengthy discussion involving lots of editors at the WikiProject, we've come up with a rating scale that probably puts the stub-start boundary a little higher than it is in most other WikiProjects. Too, when I'm assessing an article, I consider only how it bears upon the NRHP aspects: for example, an article on a railroad station might go into loving detail about the current train schedule, but devote only half a sentence to the building's history and architecture; I'd rate such an article as a stub for our WikiProject's purposes.

Could I suggest that, rather than uprating NRHP stubs to starts based on other WikiProject assessments and on overall article length and/or presence of section headings, you just remove the WikiProject NRHP rating and leave it unrated? In that case, it'll show up in our category of unassessed articles, where someone from the WikiProject can check up on it.

Thanks for doing the maintenance work that you're doing for the encyclopedia. It's much less fun than researching cool subjects and writing articles, and it's not going to produce compliments from fellow editors like you'd get for a nice thorough well-written article. However, it's making the encyclopedia a better place, and it's to your credit that you're willing to do it. Ammodramus (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

@Ammodramus: Did you forget I do a lot of work in NRHP like for the lighthouses and boats? For the re-ratings up, I'll go through and re-parse those to unassessed if you want. I've actually finished the entire backlog and I think only a handful were actually NRHP. I've done a similar task before... and I stress, this is actually something I do by hand. This was more bringing them up into alignment rather than re-assessing manually, but some of the ones which I put up to start really were rather questionable than my preferences. When I did do the lighthouse ones, I did make sure I updated them quite a bit before jumping to start. I suggest re-rating all those of questionable start status down to stubs for the other Wikiprojects as agreed upon with USRoads. The project specialty takes precedence over a more generic project in my eyes. Same as I've done with A&M. If I step on anyone's toes, I got logs to make sure I can quickly and efficiently handle the requests. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't known of the extent of your work with NRHP subjects, and I apologize for telling you lots of things that you probably already knew. (Since I do much of my work in Nebraska, where boats and lighthouses are scarce, I hope you'll forgive my unawareness of your work.) Don't revisit your work on my account: of the things you've uprated from stub to start that've appeared on my watchlist, there's only been one where I disagreed, and that was a borderline case: Calvin Memorial Presbyterian Church, which had a section heading in it, but which to my eye didn't meet the WikiProject NRHP Start criterion of reasonably detailed coverage of at least one major aspect. Ammodramus (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it is rather questionable. It only has 253 words in the actual body text so I wouldn't normally rate it as a "Start", but I think it'd be best to rate all of the other projects down to stub given the issue. I was sitting out the latest dispute matter with the new barely sourced stub articles, mostly because I found that such pages are useful, but I have been gnoming away in the background even though we have so many NCIS only stubs to deal with. You might have noticed me from the talk pages asking about Coast Guard images and such for lighthouses and I am doing some nautical work. Got a book on all the knots of the world... just not sure how to use it! Haha. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've de-stubbed Linoma Beach, which is Nebraska's only NRHP-listed lighthouse property (and, to the best of my knowledge, one of three lighthouses in the Platte River watershed). Now that I think of it, we've got a NHL boat, the Captain Meriwether Lewis, which is on the long, long list of stubs that I'd like to expand as well. Ammodramus (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for doing that. So much to do, but it gets better every day! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Come to think of it, the Lewis might be in one of my books... I'll have to look into it and see if I can destub it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Please observe CONSTRUCTION banners

Extended content

My last two new starts have been negatively impacted by your gnome work, the first with an edit conflict six minutes after launch (!!!) so you could insert a useless nonbreaking dash (!!!), the most recent when you dropped an orphan flag on me. I'll be more polite here than I am off wiki about these things. Please stop. Seek help if you can't. If you observe a CONSTRUCTION banner at the top of an article, get thee to the next article, because that means that an experienced content-writer is working. Having to battle edit conflicts and gnome gunk only adds to the complexity and frustration of the process. Thanks. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC) I note that you have made over 163,000 edits this month. No wonder you are tromping over people's work like a sleep-deprived buffalo on a six-day methamphetamine run... Shut the motherfucking automation down and start doing some reasoned, considered work or this will end up at AN/I... Carrite (talk) 07:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC) No. I personally did this with a delayed "new pages" pull and I just pop it into AWB. About 10% of the pages qualify for a speedy and while I am patrolling I didn't see an inuse and I didn't know it was only 6 minutes - I don't get time stamps there. Could you please point out the page? I didn't know I went all the way through the backlog. I've been doing more patrolling than normal. So calm down. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC) Really.... so that's what working on Wikipedia 8+ hours a day gets you. The last couple of days have been more like 16 hour days because I've had off. Quaint... not that it matters because the argument assumes that its automation (it is not) and that I don't do other edits like build content, de-stub, and work with other editors on a constant basis to improve Wikipedia. Edit count means nothing. Whether or not I manually update pages like Trychnopalpa seems to be beside the point I guess. Wikipedia is and should be the new "Wonder of the world", it is a great project and its goals to have the sum knowledge of all mankind is something I believe in. This is why I balance maintaince with growth. Though I wonder about your claim. And you undid the edit to add two characters to split the reflist?[1] Anthony Bimba was too close - I didn't know I was through the backlog, but that was on the night of December 22. I'll try better to avoid your pages and skip them on the page patrol - I avoid "in use" because that's different from construction, but with NPP I suppose both don't hurt. Since I check them daily. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC) The number of edits does matter because it is a dead-giveaway that you are working too fast. 163,000 edits / 28 days = 5,820 edits/day; divided by 10 hours a day would be 582 edits an hour; divided by 60 minutes an hour gets us right around 9.7 edits a minute. That's about six seconds per edit. Yes? Not enough time to read, consider thoughtfully, and take appropriate actions. Barely enough time to throw something in the wood chipper. SLOW. DOWN. Carrite (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC) I'm not going to argue with you; I'll avoid your construction tags.

Disambiguation link notification for December 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dutch sloop Havik (1784), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Teneriffe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for getting that for me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• No problem - I see that you have been on a tear getting work done, and didn't want you to be interrupted over a little thing like this. Actually, though, it would be great if you would devote that editing firepower to fixing disambiguation links for a month - at the rate you are going, you could cut our list in half! bd2412 T 00:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Stevia

I have seen many of your edits making small corrections here and there, and the vast majority of them are fine. However, I disagree with your latest edit to the article on Stevia in which you added a comma after the phrase "In 2012". A comma after an initial prepositional phrase is an optional. I usually do not use a comma when the prepositional phrase is short, as this one is, and I sometimes use a comma when the prepositional phrase is long (three or more words). I really don't think a comma is necessary here. –CorinneSD (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You can remove it if you want, but I was always instructed as such. A comma denotes a pause that instructs the reader about the context. Though it was used in the lead, with "In 2011," and "Prior to 2008," "In 1991," "In 2006," and "In 2012" in the "Controversy" section. Though it seems that a lot of the text is inconsistent with its italics of stevia and its comma usage in general. My edit to "In 2012," was a minor thing, but I got better things to do than spend 10 minutes worrying about the placement of the comma and the professionalism of Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Regarding the varied fonts, italics and non-italics, of "stevia" throughout the article, that is something I noticed, too, and posted a question about it a while back, I believe on the Talk page of the article, and received an informative answer. I thought, since you seemed to make so many edits to punctuation, spacing, references, etc., that you cared about this sort of thing.CorinneSD (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion regarding fonts for "stevia" is not on the Talk page of the article. If you're interested, I had posted my question on the Talk page of User talk:Anomalocaris on November 22, 2013, and received an informative reply on my Talk page, Archive 3.CorinneSD (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'll pass. I was just fixing what I believe was an inaccuracy in the prose. It's not an FA, so it really doesn't matter. I have no intention of copyediting it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Your review

Here. I have provided detailed feedback and appeared to conflict. I feel it might be useless to repeat what the contributor already heard about 4 times and ignored. (If you like the format, see User:Gryllida/doc/AfC and User:Gryllida/js/afch/afch-helper.js.) I'm writing here in query of your feedback on the things we did differently. Many thanks, --Gryllida (talk) 08:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I can take the axe to that page to fix it up, but I don't think the user understands what reliable sources are. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Sanity

Chris, you've typically been a good, sane contributor. Therefore, can I ask why you've created a bunch of "<YEAR> in anime" articles that are completely empty? Seriously. Don't create such articles unless you have some content.

This is your chance to explain to me why they shouldn't be deleted. DS (talk) 12:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtyseven: I made them some time ago as a matter of fact, but I particularly disliked the A&M conflict. I had all the information ready to go and to implement it, but I never did after the dramaness. You see, there is large gaps of coverage missing in the topic area coverage. I'll go and add the content, because I am tired of being pushed around and made to feel bad by the drama in that area. My intention was to have proper articles and when I was filling in the details for 2012 in anime, only half complete, it distracted me enough to say "I'm done with A&M". The problem in the area almost went to ArbCom. I don't say this lightly, but Wikidrama is a pain and we waste too much time bickering over trivial matters. I'm here to maintain and improve Wikipedia. Thanks for notifying me that those pages are still incomplete. I'll address the matter pronto. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I pulled out some work and started going through adding things. Anything pre-Kanto quake is really hard for me to get information on. Most of the films were destroyed and I've worked hard to get as much information as I can on some of them. Many works are simply not covered well or at all in English. Like Obake no Q-tarō which has had over 700 episodes spanning three series and like most of the duo Fujiko Fujio's works, are really obscure in English. Though I am pretty much satisfied that while I got 1927-1945 on started, some of the pre-war films were deliberately destroyed at the end of WWII and many more were lost during the war itself. Some of the films have only been recently re-discovered in the last decade and 1958 in anime now has the new Mole's Adventure which was a rumor for years, but proof came this July. It was the first televised anime and the first in color, something that wasn't done for years after. So, for today, I'll pause cause I got real work to go to, and 1965 in anime is the last section I worked on. From 1966-1979 and 1983-1993 is still missing. So 25 years left to go, but those represent a lot of important history. I'll take care of the rest shortly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of On Your Mark

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article On Your Mark you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hmlarson -- Hmlarson (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of On Your Mark

The article On Your Mark you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:On Your Mark for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hmlarson -- Hmlarson (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

preferred way of using wikilinks...

hi chris, thanks for your interest in Ambisonics and related articles and for polishing little inconsistencies with respect to refs and punctuation. this is much appreciated! one question: you repeatedly changed links such as [[Microphone|microphones]] (where the link text was changed to match the context) into [[microphone]]s, which looks a bit odd to me in the source (although it renders the same). is this actually recommended practice, and can i rely on the wiki parser always "fixing" the link text to include the part after the brackets and not change color in the middle of a word? regards, Nettings (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It is a general fix, its something that is preferred and loaded when I view the page. Though its not the reason I come to the page. Wikilinks have this ability to take the text attached outside of the brackets without going red. So [[American]]s renders as Americans instead of [[American|Americans]]. It saves reading time and space, but don't worry about such things - someone can and will always fix it if possible. They just have to find a reason to check the page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Citation for Ephemeralization entry

Hello Chris,

Newbie here trying to figure all this editing stuff out (unsuccessfully), but since I saw you last edited the page, I'm trying this route, sorry!  ;-)

The "citation needed" for the description of Ephemeralization appears on page 272 of Fuller's "Nine Chains To The Moon" book Arcturus Books (Southern Illinois University Press).

"This history of measurement exemplifies the trend progression factor which I have entitled EPHEMERALIZATION. This progression, evoluting (sic) from compression < tension < visual < abstract-electrical, is typical of all evolutionary trends: from might makes right to right makes might, to technology, to science, and to pure mathematics, the latter being contactable only through mind-functioning."

Thanks for all your work!

SDCountyFF PM (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Jamie Edmonds

(talk page stalker) Ah, so then it's a neologism - in this case, one person's creation of a word to describe potentially-linked processes. Meh, not-encyclopedic. ES&L 17:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank You!

	Giving Thanks
	Thanks for your help and the great work you do for the Wikipedia community! Sewingregenmg (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Emanuel Schary

Hi Chris - please could you provide a source for your G12 on this AfC submission? Thanks, Acather96 (click here to contact me) 09:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Problem resolved. The bot had flagged it with the duplication detector. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem, thanks! Acather96 (click here to contact me) 23:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 30 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the 1st Georgia General Assembly page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
390		General Grievous (talk)						Add sources
52		Bricks Are Heavy (talk)						Add sources
33		Mentone, Texas (talk)						Add sources
1		Malkhedi (talk)						Add sources
21		Sarita, Texas (talk)						Add sources
16		Garden City, Texas (talk)						Add sources
17		Flag of Western Sahara (talk)						Cleanup
32		Standards-based assessment (talk)						Cleanup
21		Umaria district (talk)						Cleanup
20		Kountze, Texas (talk)						Expand
33		Sonora, Texas (talk)						Expand
51		Gatesville, Texas (talk)						Expand
567		Gun control (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
43		Gun politics in Finland (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
148		Galactic Republic (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
63		Jedi Council (talk)						Merge
139		Great Jedi Purge (talk)						Merge
148		Automatic firearm (talk)						Merge
101		Martín Palermo (talk)						Wikify
50		Mariano Pavone (talk)						Wikify
77		Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (talk)						Wikify
2		K-Commerce (talk)						Orphan
3		2013 European Junior Cup season (talk)						Orphan
11		Umashankar Gupta (talk)						Orphan
12		Francis Allotey (talk)						Stub
16		Boston, Texas (talk)						Stub
2		FIM Veteran Motocross World Cup (talk)						Stub
16		Sagar division (talk)						Stub
145		Flag of Kenya (talk)						Stub
3		Flag and coat of arms of Mayotte (talk)						Stub

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Your tagging of irrelevant articles for WP:USA

As explained in my response to your comment on Jim Henderson's talk page, I am rolling back your tagging of artoicles which have no relevance to WikiProject USA. That project should concern itself with subjects and articles which have to do the the United States as a whole, not with everything made or done in the US. There is no justification for your tagging. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: One moment. So you are saying that New York City culture, building and such are not related to USA? When we have plenty of articles in WP:USA that specifically encompasses: "coverage of topics related to the United States, with an emphasis on subjects with regional and national significance?" How's one project going to say that it is incorrect another project can't tag it? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Just because something is IN the United States does not make it relevant for that WikiProject, which should be about The United States, the country, the nation, its people as a whole, NOT about every thing in every state in it, every thing in every city in it. every film made in it, every sports team of every college in it. It's too damn much and a completely unreasonable interpretation of the purview of the Project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Then why do I get hell about removing stuff from it then? There is no consensus either way and its a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. It'd like WP:USA to be split, but unified for AA. Though I'm a bit stunned by this matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that some of the stuff that you tagged WP:USA was already tagged WP:Connecticut and I assume that the WikiProjects for the states are subsets of WP:USA. So it seems unnecessary to tag something WP:USA if it's already a member of a subproject. Dewey Finn (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

A Connecticut subproject that does not report to WP:USA. Many are dead Wikiprojects that simply do not have the editors or the ability to watch them. A larger discussion is at WP:USA, but the thinking that it is a redundant tag simply isn't the case. WP:BIO has over 1 million articles and the tag is just "people". BLP is better managed despite its large size because there are no gaps in its coverage, but its standards are a core part of Wikipedia. I suggest you take a peek at the discussion to see more sides of the argument. I didn't do this without discussing first and this is just the most recent in a long history of discussions about WP:USA. In particular, NYC does not report to NY or to USA, so those pages are not even listed and if something happens to those pages only members of NYC would know, but Wikiprojects do not own articles and while there are such things as taskforces which manage in the similiar way, WP:USA should not force them to become taskforces just for better organization. MilHist does a lot of taskforces and WP:CANADA forcibly took over the other Wikiprojects. I don't want to force anyone to do anything, but WP:USA should not be prevented from placing tags when its definitely within the USA. I still think it is a bad oversight to not have Japanese directors in WP:JAPAN, WP:ANIME and WP:WPBIO. Albert Einstein has no less than 11 different Wikiprojects with tags, not counting the 1.0 project. These include Switzerland, Germany, New Jersey (not reporting to USA) and Mathematics and Physics, Astronomy and History of Science. The argument that its a sub-project doesn't hold up because its not a taskforce that reports, a Wikiproject is a standalone entity with its own systems and tracking categories. It does not report to WP:USA and thus even Albert Einstein is not listed as being within WP:USA. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You keep on using OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments which just have no relevance here. That any particular article has a lot of different tags on it may or may not be justifiable, but it's got nothing to do with the legitimate scope of WP:USA. For instance, the article on Cinema of the United States should certainly be tagged by WP:USA, but not every film ever made in the US. It's a matter of the proper scope of the project, and if WP:USA can't find it's proper place, and continues to try to suck up everything in its path, it has better be retired as useless. If WP:CONNECTICUT is moribund, the answer is to get editors interested in Connecticut excited about it, not to bloat WP:USA by merging the two. Then you've got one semi-inactive project taking on another semi-inactive project, and editors who are generalists being responsible for articles that are specific. It's a silly, absurd no-win situation that never should have been initiated. That the initiator went all diva, and now blames everyone else in the world for the problems, except, of course, for himself, just made things worse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

After checking with others who agreed and the standing consensus was and has been that tagging was acceptable. Specifically WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN states: "...if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner. No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people." It seems a like you have a horse in the race and those comments about someone seem to be rather harsh. WP:BIO has 1 million pages and they are all "people", and with the way RFC went shows that other Wikiprojects even like LGBT, far more controversial, is allowed to tag. While I think national level tagging is the upper maxima for inclusion in a Wikiproject, it is very much the status quo for every other nationally related, regardless of the context. The whole "its Chinese" get's it into WP:CHINA and if its Japanese its in WP:JAPAN. Whether or not it is "sucking up everything in its path" is something that is a bit dramatic when every other state entity has all their articles, big to small, represented in the exact same fashion. I'd like to discuss this more, but it should be on the project page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your remarks on Raphie Etgar's page

Hello Chris, I am new in wikipedia, so first of all, I would like to thank you for your remarks regarding Raphie Etgar page! It's nice to know that I have some guidance in this new realm... I added links to other pages on wikipedia, and added more references to support the validation of the content. I also edited some parts of the text in order to make it more factual.

I would appriciate your further comments!

Best Regards,

Einat --Eofir2013 (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

@Eofir2013: The article looks good. I do not see anything wrong with it, the issues I had placed were just because the problems existed and they were already fixed up. Wikipedia is a big place, but I don't know Etgar or his work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 1975 in anime may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | [[Adventures of Pepero the Andes Boy] || アンデス少年ペペロの冒険 - Andes Shounen Pepero no Bouken||TV || ||

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2014 WikiCup!

Hello ChrisGualtieri, and welcome to the 2014 WikiCup! Your submission page can be found here. The competition will begin at midnight tonight (UTC). There have been a few small changes from last year; the rules can be read in full at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring, and the page also includes a summary of changes. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work, and nominated, in 2014 is eligible for points in the competition- the judges will be checking! As ever, this year's competition includes some younger editors. If you are a younger editor, you are certainly welcome, but we have written an advice page at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Advice for younger editors for you. Please do take a look. 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! J Milburn (talk · contribs), The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 17:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Some are still stubs, in truth

I appreciate your patrolling stub articles and promoting some to Start, but I disagree with a few of them:

• Return (2010 film) is still a stub, IMHO, because as I indicated on its Talk page, it lacks info about production, release, and reception.
• Essex Freight Station is still a stub, IMHO, because it lacks any proof of notability, or details about its role in any significant historical event(s). Even a presidential whistle-stop would help. my error - see below

Stub-to-start is an inexact science, unfortunately. For film articles, the MOS:FILM guidelines list the minimums which should be present. I'm less familiar with geographical place article guidelines, but I'm pretty sure most articles which mention nothing about historical significance should stay at stub status. It's a bit too easy to go fast with AWB. Spot checking a few dozen of your promotions, they're mostly fine. But the really scrawny articles should be left back. --Lexein (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

@Lexein: I disagree with Return being a stub, but I defer to your assessment there. Now... Essex Freight Station? I didn't rate it as a stub. I just tagged it as part of the WP:USA project... and more importantly it is clearly a stub, so I won't be rating it as a start. I'm not sure why you think I did so. See? I'll swing by later to integrate it into the banner and pop up the ratings to match. Though, yeah, definitely not doing start on that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Doh! - my failure faily fail about Essex. Moving forward, I mentioned MOS:FILM to avoid being subjective about it - Return is lacking even the section headings to get it out of stub status. IMHO The People's Voice (internet TV station)‎ should remain tagged as a stub, as it doesn't include any description of facilities, management, production, ratings, audience, ongoing funding, social impact, or even politics. It barely met GNG (WP:CORP), didn't survive a speedy deletion nom, and recently, and deservedly, had a sizable chunk of unsourced POV removed. It has only six sentences, which qualifies as "a few sentences", per WP:STUB. I mean, I worked on it and advocated for its restoral after CSD, and still sincerely consider it a stub.

In general, I think "stub" status for undeveloped articles is a positive service to both readers and the encyclopedia: it serves as notice that the article has not received enough time and attention to adequately represent the aims of the encyclopedia. The key words, to me, from STUB are: "encyclopedic coverage". We should not be shy, and indeed should be bold, about tagging stubs as stubs: not to do so is a disservice to readers, and indicates that we can't impartially assess our own content. --Lexein (talk) 07:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). I know little or nothing about films and the criteria for stub, start-class, but on a general level, Lexein must be right about Return. It fails WP:5PILLARS (only some of the festivals are referenced) and WP:PROSE before we start considering its status. Again as Lexein points out upgrading incorrectly does a disservice to WP, having seen one of your "uprates" to start that failed to have any references, and tagged as such, I do suggest you read up the relevant policies, stick to one project that you understand. Admittedly I have only seen about 20 of you "uprates" but I would guess I am reverting about 50% of them. At that rate you would be better stopping doing it, and better still, actually review the "work" you have already done. Depriving stub- and start-class of any meaning is not helping WP. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, there. I would not re-stub 50%, only (so far) 2-10%. I haven't checked all, but as I said, most de-stubs seemed good. It's really not an exact science, so some slack and discussion is merited, perhaps on a per-article-category basis. We've discussed Film, so . . . next? --Lexein (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I tagged it with WP:radio, but I'm not sure that's the best WP for it and its still a stub-class. Rather questionable so its fine. And I'm not re-rating anymore, but I did reinstate the tags. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh and @Lexein: the number of challenged assessments (in total) is less than .01%. Though at least several of those were because I hit "save" instead of "skip" including one very obvious one-liner that I messed up on. That's the problem with doing it by hand, my personal assessment criteria is low and some are much higher, but I haven't had any problems with 600+ words in the body text except for a few instances on Highways which I did not know had a "big three" criterion for start and stub which is rather unique and that's where I actually messed up out of assuming that it was the typical definition. I've actually rated a lot of articles down and been re-tagging and working on the categories. I'm not sure why Connecticut Culture includes NYC culture, but that's a different matter entirely. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Yep, as I said, I'm satisfied with the majority of the destubs. --Lexein (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Chris, just to add to the above, I have come across a number of your edits to article class, particularly this unreferenced BLP, which you upgraded to Start class. It hasn't really helped that you tagged as Start, did you consider the existing tag you applied to the other project was not correctly given? Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment states that "the article should satisfy fundamental content policies, such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability.". Please keep this in mind when upgrading stub-class articles. Thanks, C679 19:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year ChrisGualtieri!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello ChrisGualtieri: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 04:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thank you! Happy New Year! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year, ChrisGualtieri

Pratyya ^(Hello!) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2014. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2014 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2014 goes well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4

The article Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of David Fuchs -- David Fuchs (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year ChrisGualtieri!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello ChrisGualtieri: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Frze > talk 20:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I love your work, thanks for helping day to day! :) Craftyk (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Premium Reviewer Barnstar
		Dear Chris; Very many thanks for your recent advice, guidance and support in enabling me to raise the quality of the Andy Irvine article from 'Start-class' to 'B-class'. Your helpful assistance is very much appreciated. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee. (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year! / Article on 'Andy Irvine (musician)'

Dear Chris,

Happy New Year to you and all very best wishes for 2014.

Since you last upgraded the article on Andy Irvine to 'C-class' quality (on 26 December, 2013), I have applied 164 changes that took your advice into consideration. Mainly, I have:

• increased the number of reference citations from 74 to the current 115;
• de-italicized all track names and put them within double quotation marks (as per the guidelines);
• completed the section on Marianne Green's Dear Irish Boy;
• made the 'LAPD' set list much more compact and meaningful;
• and even found a photo of 'LAPD', which I have also added to that section!

The only change I have not (yet) applied is to create separate articles for those album descriptions which you found too detailed for a biography article (such as: Mozaik - Live from the Powerhouse, Mozaik - Changing Trains and Parachilna). This is because I won't be able to commit to doing this work until I have figured out the mechanics of creating a WP article for an album.

However, I would appreciate you having another look at the current version of the article, in hopes that you might now assess it as being ready to be upgraded to 'B-class' quality. After all, you had previously stated that it was close to a 'B' already, and I'd like to think that the recent improvements will now convince you that a 'B' is justified.

Thank you very much in advance for your time and consideration, whenever convenient, Chris.

With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee. (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

@Pdebee: Problems solved, moved to B-class. You should consider nominating it for a Good Article review. WP:GAN for details and WP:GAC to check against the criteria. Another editor will review the entire article and assess it, this is an important classification that is on the road to featured article status. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: Dear Chris;

Thank you *so* much! (You have made a sexagenarian Wikipedian very happy! )

Seriously: I very much appreciate your extremely prompt action and reply and, of course, your helpful advice now to aim for GA. That will therefore be my next goal; however, I'd first like to embark on the task we discussed earlier: 1) create separate articles for some of the albums and 2) move the 'discography details' from the main article out to these 'album articles'. In many ways, I agree with you and would like to achieve that goal, but will keep these details in the article for now as I don't want to lose them.

When that's done, then I will carefully review all the other tasks associated with aiming for GA, and take it from there.

Once again, very many thanks for your kind support, and for all your helpful advice and guidance; it's all very much appreciated.

With kind regards for now;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee. (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

@Pdebee: Thank you for being so nice and helpful! I've been doing all I can for Wikipedia, but I do get some drama here and there on this big site. I've been reviewing some articles to see if they pass the muster lately, but I don't dare go into the "big-boy" pool with the FA editors. Some of those elite Wikipedians are professors and doctorates. It is a bit of a different environment as you go closer to the heart of the community, since people like me are a bit eccentric, but well-meaning in general. Most of us are cheerful and dedicated, but a Featured Article on the main page is the pinnacle for most editors on Wikipedia. It's a lot of work and a labor of love, but you've come this far so quickly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: Dear Chris;

Thank you for your kind words of encouragements. Yes, I have seen some of the scrapes you (and other admins and such like) get into and sometimes it's quite scary! For now, I am quite happy to remain a 'coal face' editor of content; I suspect that, one day, I might get invited or nominated to become something else, based on my track record. Until then-and like you-I'll keep beavering away at improving articles and logging my various projects at my user page: at the very least, this demonstrates that I strongly believe in quality, transparency and accountability.

Please keep up all the good work you're doing yourself; it's quite an inspiration for newbies like me!

With kind regards for now;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee. (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• @Pdebee: You've seen some of my work right? Like Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (film)? It's not easy though, took me more than 6 hours to rewrite it in a single days run. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

1974 in anime (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jim Button

1978 in anime (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Adventures of the Little Prince

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Anime years

Hi. Good idea you had creating the anime by years articles. I was thinking of adding other columns to the tables, like studio, release date, something like this. Maybe it's too ambitious. What do you think?--Cattus ^talk 23:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

@Cattus: I've been sorting them by release date actually. I just haven't added the functionality and the data to do so, because it would require a lot of sources and such. But I think this would be a good idea to do. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I see. I just created 2014 in anime with the two extra columns. And sorted by release date. By requiring sources, do you mean adding sources for each anime to the lists or just finding them? I think as long as the sources are in the respective articles, it should be ok.--Cattus ^talk 23:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

For GA or FA they will need to be sourced, articles should be self contained and verifiable as if they were in a print encyclopedia. Don't worry about it so much for right now though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand. Well, a source column can always be added at a later date.--Cattus ^talk 00:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Reviews

If you are going to take some old ones, I would prefer if you didn't take sports ones.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, it was a learning experience. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Regarding fair use images in BLPs see Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#rfc_EF5DDE1.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of On Your Mark

The article On Your Mark you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:On Your Mark for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hmlarson -- Hmlarson (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Interaction Ban

Consensus has determined that an interaction ban is necessary between you and User:Lucia Black. With the exception of dispute resolution and reverting obvious vandalism, you may not make any edits related to Lucia Black, including reverting or undoing their edits, comment on them, reply to them, or otherwise address them in any way. This is an indefinite interaction ban.--v/r - TP 18:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

@TParis: I don't want to alter your edit - but I assume the copy paste went wrong. Could you please fix it? Thanks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we've decided to finally put an end to your multiple personality disorder, you may no longer talk to yourself! Kidding, but that's what I get when I try to be lazy.--v/r - TP 17:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Fish & subspecies

Hey! I'm editing Draft:Doryrhamphus excisus and was wondering how I could note the species' subspecies. Where do I put it? Thanks! Bananasoldier (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

@Bananasoldier: Easy: Just add: | species = | subspecies = to the info box. Preferably on separate lines. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Dave Chappelle GA review

Thanks!--Aichik (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)