Committed identity: 53034b2749273e66509e3f88fd103b4882f16345902df017ef05f53fcdaa37eb69268ba4777ee04b32c2a6d6fc308063da7f51adb04a5addd52649c095c47659 is grammatical article for the hash function SHA-512 commitment to this user's real-life identity.
Modern clock chris kemps 01.svg Chris troutman uses the Wikibreak Switch template, and plans to update this notice if a wikibreak is taken.
If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

Today's Events

August 5, 2020

AxG, Dinoguy1000
Adminship Anniversary
First Edit Day
Buckshot06, Caknuck, GoldenRing, Mjs1991, Rivertorch

Other events:
Depiction of W?F destroying Wikipedia with Visual Editor and flow.
Stop the Spread of Germs (COVID-19).jpg

review pleaseEdit

hello Chris troutman, Thank you, . Draft Meets the standards, and I have modified the references And she has enough sources. Draft rejected before adding sources to it. tour guide and actor in Egypt , Trusted sources , and have Fame And sources more than Ali Mansur for example. I hope you look again, and We want to accept articles, and Thank you very much. --Mohamed Omar 3 (talk) 07:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mohamed Omar 3: No, Ali Mansour is not notable which is why I prevented you from re-submitting your draft. You appear to be promoting the subject without concern for the guidance given you. I suggest you try Arabic-language Wikipedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

School of Advanced WargfightingEdit

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

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

Motorola Canopy is Cambium NetworksEdit

Hi Chris,

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

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

Sulfurboy is an experienced editor.

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Minor barnstar
Chris troutman, hello once again, its been a few months! This small-sized barnstar is in recognition of your meticulous work streamlining the Birthday Committee's Wiki-project pages. I believe that you alone managed to complete half the work that needs to be done.

NOTE: feel free to upgrade this award to a normal-sized Original Barnstar either when you finish the work (sooner) or when someone else does (later). History DMZ (talk)+(ping) 21:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Rejection of Draft Genesereth articleEdit

Hello Chris, You rejected the article with this explanation: "Comment: Subject fails WP:GNG. Please wait until the subject dies. Stuff the subject wrote doesn't count. I don't think AAAI Fellows are notable, either. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)" I posted a complaint on the "advice" page, but have had no response.

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

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

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

New additions in the articleEdit

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

Follow up on article rejectionEdit

Hi Chris, thank you for reviewing my article on Dave Eanet, the long-time play-by-play announcer for Northwestern football and basketball.

The article was rejected, and I received this comment:

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

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

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

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

@Steveeanet: I'm sorry for the confusion here. Your point is one I hear often: that there are other comparable articles and why therefore would I reject your draft? The problem here is that not all of Wikipedia is properly curated. Being an open encyclopedia, we received many contributions and we haven't sorted through every article to be sure they are all notable subjects and that the articles comply with formatting and content policies and guidelines. I guess Wikipedia has more rules than the average one-time editor wants to follow, because many editors write their drafts by copying extant articles, most of which are crap. Probably a full third of Wikipedia should be deleted. Subject like Chris Carlin, George Blaha, Paul Keels, and Joe McConnell don't look notable and I've tagged them. Jim Brandstatter was inducted into the Michigan Sports Hall of Fame, passing WP:ANYBIO. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: Thanks Chris! One last question after reviewing WP:ANYBIO. Could my article be reconsidered as Eanet won a Regional Emmy Award? Not sure if that fits the criteria for a well-known/significant award but thought it'd be worth a try!Steveeanet (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
@Steveeanet: Your thought process is correct but the Regional Emmy awards aren't notable. They are a subsection in the article about the Emmys, which is notable. If Wikipedia doesn't have a standalone article on Regional Emmy awards, then you'd have to convince editors that the Regional Emmy is still "a well-known and significant award or honor". I think most Wikipedians would say if it was that well-known or significant, then we would have an article about it. Exceptions might be made if it were a foreign award well-known outside the US for which there wasn't much source material in English but plenty in other languages. In this case, the market for the awards speaks English and the source material I find online are just outlets trumpeting that they won; there isn't coverage about the awards, themselves. Regardless, I don't accept drafts anymore; I only decline them. If you re-submit your draft you'll have to wait for the next editor to find it in the queue as I won't be giving this a second look. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: Understood. I appreciate your feedback! Steveeanet (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Paul KeelsEdit

Sorry, but Paul Keels is very notable.

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

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

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

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

DYK for American SpacesEdit

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

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

Dr Basil Hunnisett Draft PageEdit

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

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


I’ve not been able to find any independent articles about him, hence the request to create one, and other than a well-qualified professional career, I would agree that the page as it stands if the books were excluded, does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia, His books, however, are noteworthy and the page is intended to give the readers and a new generation of researchers and students background to the author, his qualifications and experience in the Genre as the books are still regularly referenced some 40 years after original publication. If I was an academic or student, I would want to know who Hunnisett was and with what authority he could make the claims, conclusions and statements; are the books a reliable source of information? I had written the page in a way that hopefully addresses this issue. An option might be to just write about the books as you suggest but bearing in mind the two statements above, that may rather defeat the object of the exercise?

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

Wikipedia articles citing Hunnisett's books as reference

Wikipedia article on engraver Joseph Swan created 2017 cites [2] Steel engraved book illustration in England, (Scholar Press, London), 1980 ISBN 9780859675383

Wikipedia article on engraver Charles Heath created 2009 citing [5] and Engraved on Steel: The History of Picture Production Using Steel Plates. Ashgate. p. 40. ISBN 9780859679718. [6] Hunnisett, Basil (1980). Steel-Engraved Book Illustration in England. David R. Godine. p. 48. ISBN 9780879233228. Wikipedia entry created 2004 citing [2] Engraved On Steel, Ashgate, Basil Hunnisett, ISBN 0-87923-322-2 [3] Steel Engraved Book Illustration in England, Ashgate, Basil Hunnisett, ISBN 0-85967-971-3 Wikipedia entry created 2016 citing [7] Basil Hunnisett (1980). Steel-Engraved Book Illustration in England. David R. Godine. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-87923-322-8. Wikipedia entry created 2003 citing [1] Hunnisett, Basil. Steel-engraved book illustration in England, David R Godline Publishing, 1980. Wikipedia entry created 2010 citing Hunnisett, Basil. A Dictionary of British Steel Engravers (Leigh-on-Sea: F. Lewis, 1980) cited in Bibliography Wikipedia entry created 2015 citing [8] Hunnisett, Basil (1980). Steel-Engraved Book Illustration in England. David R. Godine. ISBN 0879233222. Wikipedia entry created 2012 citing [8] Hunnisett, Basil (5 September 2018). Engraved on Steel: History of Picture Production Using Steel Plates: History of Picture Production Using Steel Plates. ISBN 9780429859052. Wikipedia entry created 2011 citing [10] Hunnisett, Basil. Steel-Engraving Book Illustration in England. Boston: David R. Godline, 1980.) Wikipedia entry created 2006 citing [15] Hunnisett, Basil (1980). A Dictionary of British Steel Engravers. F. Lewis. ISBN 0-85317-067-3. where there are 10 articles citing Hunnisett

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

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

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

The Barnstar you deserveEdit

  The Original Barnstar
Thank you for addressing an article in Category:Articles needing additional categories from November 2018!

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


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

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

Thanks for the info (talkback)Edit

Hey Chris,

ERROR: Please enter the username parameter when using the {{Talkback}} template - thus {{Talkback|<username>}}.

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

re-directing as if its a mis-spelling is vandalismEdit

why do you prefer to lead a MIS-SPELLED redirect to a SERIOUS attempt off KNOWLEDGE? you REDIRECT FALSLY!!! there is no wiki-LAW that says a page has to be perfect at once. STOP REDIRECTING DIFFERENT SPELLINGS Massada is with TWO 'ss' written SO THE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THIS LATIN PLAYING BAND IS IN PLACE AND AT PLACE exept that YOU AS A PERSON BLOCKS THIS BAND i think you are the one that MIS used the ability to break pages, even when they are only 1 minute enbetterred. YOU REMOVED KNOWLEDGE YOU ARE THE VANDALIST GO SHAME YOUR SELF i am seroius about this. the BAND Massada HAS THE RIGHT TO BE MENTIONED are you an extremist your self? are you extreem religious? becouse some people dont aqccept OTHER views on REALITY so please REMOVE THAT REDIRECTION TO A RELIGIOUS PAGE AND GIVE THE 60 YEAR OLD BAND SPACE OFF KNOWLEDGE AND OFF BEING !!!!! THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH A FORTRESS THEY MAKE MUSIC IF YOU KEEP BLOKKING KOWLEDGE I WILL TAKE ACTION!!!! its not tha the 'masada' is is removerd or blocked, NO ITS REVERSED OTHER KNOWLEDGES IS BLOCKED AND APPERENTLY FGORBIDDEN TO BE KNOWN AND YOU




IT BELONGS TO MASSADA THE BAND !!!!! (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

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

TaxWatch NotabilityEdit

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

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

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

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

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

If this is not sufficient, then I'm keen to learn more, and any advice is much appreciated. --Alex0190 (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Alex0190: I follow your argument but I don't agree. The media coverage is about how companies like Rockstar, Blizzard, and Netflix have been paying extraordinarily low taxes. Those sources like this citation do not "review" TaxWatch's research because they don't talk about forensic accounting. We don't learn anything about TaxWatch's research as the subject of the sourcing remains the companies caught in the cross-hairs. If the sources don't provide significant coverage about TaxWatch or its analysis, how would you write about the company? All you can do is say that they wrote that some firms aren't paying their perceived fair share, which is a classist argument, anyway. I will not be reviewing this again and perhaps if you resubmit another editor will see it differently. You have a conflict of interest as you are employed by them, so please consider that your objectivity is limited here and that being a zealous advocate for your company really just wastes our time. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I do not understand what you mean by a 'classist argument', if anything the argument for a 'fair share' of taxes is that everyone pays into the system equally. Regardless, the argument is irrelevant as the TaxWatch Wikipedia page does not comment on what a 'fair share' is.
I disagree that I am a 'zealous advocate' and that this exercise is a 'waste of time'. Regarding conflict of interest, my edit history shows that any references to TaxWatch (On Rockstar North's page for example) were made as a suggestion, rather than edited directly, as per the Wikipedia community guidelines.--Alex0190 (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting any wrong-doing on your part. What rankles me is that I review drafts in order to pare down the AfC backlog. We want to retain new editors whose experience may hinge on the acceptance of their draft in a timely fashion. I don't want anyone to have to wait months. I don't seek to interact with any editor but I try to provide comments explaining why I decline drafts and I'm prepared to provide further guidance if needed. AfC reviewers like me did not sign up to be argued with by CoI editors trying to promote their product, brand, etc. And yet, for every ten drafts I decline I get one or two editors like you who have no background in Wikipedia and still chose to argue with me rather than just take my advice and try better next time. We are not a government service that is obliged to give you a hearing. We are a volunteer-run website and operate based upon our own rules. If you don't like it, go to a different website. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Alternative BaseballEdit

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

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

Re: messages go on TALK pages, not user pagesEdit

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

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