User talk:Coretheapple/Archive2

Typo

"hope that it continues until or unless the WMF decides to bad paid editing" [1]

-you mean "ban", right? 88.104.29.107 (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. More errors like that and I get keel-hauled by the League of Copy Editors. Coretheapple (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Joan McCracken

Hello! Your submission of Joan McCracken at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. As I'm not sure if you're watching the nomination template, I'm just adding a note here as well. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Joan McCracken

Hey, thanks for your help with the DYK nom and especially for the cleanup in the article itself. I agree about deletion of the image for now, though I do think the deletion nomination was mistaken and I've taken up the issue on Commons. I enjoyed doing this, and in working on this article I found that this entire subject matter is really neglected by Wikipedia, so I hope to contribute in the area. Coretheapple (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. I'm no expert on screenshots from film trailers, so I can't help there - would if I could. After the DYK is finished, if you still need an image for the article, it might be worth looking at posters instead? Due to the dates of Miss McCracken's films, my guess is that her film posters would count as non-free here, but possibly you could still get a fair use template for a poster file page for this subject. If you haven't already done so, look at Wikipedia:Non-free content. You would need to write a rationale, to give full copyright details and authorship of the poster, and use this template: {{Non-free poster|image has rationale=yes}}. But I repeat I'm not an expert, and it would be worth getting a second opinion as there have been recent changes. Of course you'll already know that fair-use images can't be used in DYK articles, so it would have to wait, anyway. I agree with you that it's a worthwhile article, with or without an image. We're all doing a public service here - something to be proud of. Good luck. --Storye book (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Very good idea. I've posted a query at the film project, and I notice that images of deceased persons is an acceptable category (or something), but posters is an area I hadn't thought of. Coretheapple (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

That DYK sure got posted on the Main Page fast! You folks sure know how to encourage a guy. Coretheapple (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations! And having a popular-culture subject it should get a good number of hits for the DYK. I'm guessing that one reason for your article getting to DYK so fast is that we don't have enough regular DYK reviewers, so anything with a green tick is going to be taken up by admin fairly quickly. Maybe we reviewers should make more effort when we don't have DYKs of our own in the queue. I'm ashamed to say I'm no more heroic than anyone else in that respect. Researching new articles is too interesting!--Storye book (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Joan McCracken

The DYK project (nominate) 07:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

• In the media: WikiVIP; Art Feminism; Medical articles; PR manipulation; Azerbaijani Wikipedia

• Technology report: Left with no choice

• News and notes: WMF bites the bullet on affiliation and FDC funding, elevates Wikimedia user groups

• Featured content: Space selfie

• Traffic report: Sports Day

• WikiProject report: Game Time in Russia

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Kidd

Slight question on there, but very minor. Other than that seems fine. Message me when you've looked and I can approve it if someone else hasn't already. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I've responded. Coretheapple (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Feedback needed on using special characters

Hello. Thank you for using VisualEditor! Having editors use it is the best way for the Wikimedia Foundation to develop it into the best tool it can be.

While we always welcome general feedback (please report any issues in Bugzilla in the "VisualEditor" product or drop your feedback on the central feedback page on MediaWiki.org), the developers are especially interested right now in feedback on the special character inserter. This new tool is used for inserting special characters (including symbols like ₥, IPA pronunciation symbols, mathematics symbols, and characters with diacritics). It is intended to help people whose computers do not have good character inserters. For example, many Mac users prefer to use the extensive "Special Characters..." tool present at the bottom of the Edit menu in all applications or to learn the keyboard shortcuts for characters like ñ and ü.

The current version of the special characters tool in VisualEditor is very simple and very basic. It will be getting a lot of work in the coming weeks and months. It does not contain very many character sets at this time. (The specific character sets can be customized at each Wikipedia, so that each project could have a local version with the characters it wants.) But the developers want your ideas at this early stage about ways that the overall concept could be improved. I would appreciate your input on this question, so please try out the character inserter and tell me what changes to the design would (or would not!) best work for you.

The "insert" pulldown on the task bar of VisualEditor will lead you to the '⧼visualeditor-specialcharacterinspector-title⧽' tool.

This is the ⧼visualeditor-specialcharacterinspector-title⧽ inserter as it appears on many wikis. (Some may have customized it.) Your feedback on this tool is particularly important.

Issues you might consider:

• How often do you normally use Wikipedia's character inserters?
• Which character sets are useful to you? Should it include all 18 of the character sets provided in the wikitext editor's newer toolbar at the English Wikipedia, the 10 present in the older editor toolbar, or some other combination of character sets?
• How many special characters would you like to see at one time?
  • Should there be a "priority" or "favorites" section for the 10 or 12 characters that most editors need most often? Is it okay if you need an extra click to go beyond the limited priority set?
  • How should the sections be split up? Should they be nested? Ordered?
  • How should the sections be navigated? Should there be a drop-down? A nested menu?
• The wikitext editor has never included many symbols and characters, like ℗ and ♀. Do you find that you need these missing characters? If the character inserter in VisualEditor includes hundreds or thousands of special characters, will it be overwhelming? How will you find the character you want? What should be done for users without enough space to display more than a few dozen characters?
• Should the character inserter be statically available until dismissed? Should it hover near the mouse? Should it go away on every selection or 10 seconds after a selection with no subsequent ones?
• Some people believe that the toolbar already has too many options—how would you simplify it?

The developers are open to any thoughts on how the special character inserter can best be developed, even if this requires significant changes. Please leave your views on the central feedback page, or, if you'd prefer, you can contact me directly on my talk page. It would be really helpful if you can tell me how frequently you need to use special characters in your typical editing and what languages or other special characters are important to you.

Thank you again for your work with VisualEditor and for any feedback you can provide. I really do appreciate it.

P.S. You might be interested in the current ideas about improving citations, too. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Joan McCracken

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Joan McCracken 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 Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 03:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI, this will take me a few days, so no need to check in until you are notified that the review is finished. Viriditas (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks for taking this up so fast. It's my first GA review and nom, so I'll be interested to see how the process works. Coretheapple (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

In case the bot doesn't notify you (I think it will), the review is on hold, waiting for you to address the major issues. I think it can pass easily provided you fix the most glaring problems. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Michael Kidd

Thanks for your contribution Victuallers (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Smalltalk

Hi Core. I'm just making small-talk as it's not an issue of importance to anything really, but I wouldn't label Mr. Gregory Kohs as a "paid editor". He said himself he doesn't make any real money doing it. Rather I would say that he is a POV pusher, who accepts paid jobs (I would posture) mostly out of spite for Jimmy Wales, who embarrassed him in the media many years ago and created this vendetta-type relationship. My two-cents.

Anyways, I am working on a more comprehensive user profile now, which you are welcome to provide feedback on. It is a work in progress. My suggestion to you that I hope you will take to heart is that it is a common mistake for editors to respond to each editor that disagrees with them, such as user:Guy Macon, which leads to the kinds of combative bickering I noticed you find yourself in often. This has the effect of preventing thoughtful discussion, because editors are unwilling to read through the wall of text from only 2 editors.

If you want to influence the community to take a stronger stance on COI, which I think you do, I would take a look at user:Jeremy112233's comment as a model. A single, cogent, well-spoken and compelling argument/position that was powerful enough to make several other editors including myself accept his premise. Now if he started jumping on every comment thereafter, it would have actually had a negative impact on his influence in the discussion. It comes off as aggressive and puts other editors in the natural position of taking an opposing viewpoint in response. This is actually a big part of why advocacy is not even an effective strategy on behalf of PR reps, because it puts editors in the position of taking the opposing viewpoint. And the stronger the anti-COI clique and the pro-COI clique advocate against each other, the more entrenched the opposition becomes on both sides and the more any progress breaks down.

That's an over-the-top analysis of a single short discussion, but it's a small representative sample of the type of thing I'm talking about. I suspect it may be offensive to you for a sometimes "paid editor" to provide advice, but I think if nobody has brought this up yet, somebody has to. Of course you are free to ignore it as well ;-)

Best regards. CorporateM (Talk) 19:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Well I can't really talk about the Kohs situation as then I would have to refer to conversations I've had with IPs, and that brings us into the realm of "outing" that is frowned upon. I have a suspicion that he engages in paid editing through other editors and perhaps through socks. I am glad that you have added disclosure to your user page, as I think it will help a lot. By the way, when I referred to "advertising" I was really talking about another user, not you. But I am glad that you have taken a giant step toward disclosure, I think that it actually helps things from your perspective in every way. I know of no one in the paid editing business who does that so you really should be commended for doing that. Coretheapple (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

On your second points I welcome any advice you may have to give. After all, you are paid to be here, a pro, while I am not! So by definition you manage your presence with greater care than one without a financial stake in the outcome. Coretheapple (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

And I too should commend you for thoughtfully considering my input! CorporateM (Talk) 21:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Good, thanks. And as I said on the other page, if you get unfairly razzed or hassled by making this disclosure, you should let me and other editors know. So far as I know, you are the only paid editor, apart from those employed directly by companies, who have this kind of disclosure and I think it should be encouraged. Coretheapple (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Nah, there are others. CorporateM (Talk) 04:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

His or her language is a bit ambiguous. "Potential conflict of interest"? Either he's paid or not to rep the company on Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Your common sense approach is refreshing. Keep up the good work!!! Atsme (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Why thank you! I don't know what I've done to warrant that, but it's appreciated just the same. Coretheapple (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Bravo!!! Indeed it is... petrarchan47tc 08:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Though this chap has a particular concern and I'm not sure I can help. Coretheapple (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Questions

To begin, thank you for responding to my question on the Administrator's Notice Board re: Islamophobia. I would very much appreciate your input regarding an edit I made on the Anjem Choudary bio in an effort to make it a more precise and accurate portrayal of the man, and what he represents. As expected, my edits were reverted overnight with comments from two different editors - one of whom responded to my question regarding the obvious bias in the very negative portrayal of Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) and Pam Geller noting she is Jewish VS the very positive portrayal of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, and Steven Emerson whose religious affiliation is not disclosed. That particular editor's response ended with the following comment:
"My impression is that both of those should be treated similarly to Pamela Geller and Stop Islamization of America such that all of these articles accurately describe the hate-filled vitriol directed at Islamic people."
I draw your attention to the words "...such that all of these articles accurately describe the hate-filled vitriol...". Wow - "ALL of these articles"?? I'd say that pretty well sums it up the bias, doesn't it? There is no distinction between extremist, or neutral in his response rather it appears to be a condemnation of anything considered to be anti-Islam. I won't deny there are instances when innocent people get lump-summed with the guilty, but that isn't always the case. There really are Islamic extremists who follow the Qu'ran and the Hadith literally. With regards to the other editor who reverted my edits on Choudary's bio, his only comment was that my edits did nothing to improve it. When you get a chance, will you please look at it? Also - is there a way to send you a private message, or is that feature disabled?

Before you respond to my questions, would you be so kind as to watch the following interview with Choudary? Thanks in advance….Ms Atsme (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I shall certainly try to examine that but you know, it is not my area of expertise. Coretheapple (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I've commented on the talk page, and as you can see I've commenced an RfC. It seems to me that you guys are involved in one of those heated battles involving a global issue that can only be resolved, at least here, by greater community input. Coretheapple (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Coretheapple. I have long since learned through personal experience, and by neutral observation that edit warring, vandalism, and personal attacks neither help the community, nor improve the readers' experience. I hope your call for input will help resolve the issue. Enjoy the weekend. Atsme (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The Bronze STiki Barnstar of Merit
		Congratulations, Coretheapple! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 5,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't even know there was a leaderboard. Coretheapple (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Coretheapple

Hello. I just want to know if it is legal or not. I see a lot of info, controversy, news, letters, but the things are not clear.

• Terms of Use ban paid edition?
  • If not,
  • then why WikiExperts and Wiki-PR outsource the edits?
  • Why the another companies not?
  • Why Wikimedia Foundation dont ban?
• If in a future Terms of Use include ban paid edition explicitly, then its illegal, and WMF can sue the paid editors?
• All paid edition are covert advertising, and therefore, is forbidden in Europe, among Directive 2005/29/EC?
• Are a future COI policy, or the actual guideline irrelevant because paid editing editors can argue WP:IAR?

I am thinking of opening a RfC. Any advice is welcome. Thanks.--JackT7 (talk) 09:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Is this new? First I'm hearing it. JackT7, if you're interesting in curbing paid editing I'd encourage you to continue making constructive contributions on the subject. I don't think that an RfC would be fruitful or helpful and I recommend against it. Coretheapple (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

• News and notes: Foundation takes aim at undisclosed paid editing; Greek Wikipedia editor faces down legal challenge

• Technology report: ULS Comeback

• WikiProject report: Countering Systemic Bias

• Featured content: Holotype

• Traffic report: Chilly Valentines

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Garamond Lethet
c 06:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I see it has been archived.[2] Coretheapple (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of LeRoy Prinz

Hello! Your submission of LeRoy Prinz at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Wasted Time R (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Auto revert

Core - Is it possible for someone to have an "auto revert" set up on page to prevent other editors from changing an article? Also, when you're in View History on a user page, and you just want to see what changes have been made, does clicking curr or diff actually revert the curr edit to the previous edit? There are some strange things going on at Choudary, and it could be I'm doing something that's triggering it, and don't know, but it looks like I'm edit warring cause I saw where someone put a red vandalism notice on it when in fact, a little while ago was the first time I went to the View History page. Would you take a look at it, and see if you can figure out what's going on? Choudary's View History Atsme (talk) 06:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Atsme, viewing an previous version of a page is not a revert. Hitting "Undo" serves to revert changes made in the previous edit(s) to a page. It looks like you have reverted several times including reverting your own edit! There is no "auto revert" feature but a page can be protected, usually for a limited period of time. It looks like this is what happened. Unless it is an article that is frequently vandalized, this protection is not indefinite. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Liz - thank you for your response. I'm sorry to be a bother, but I felt it was important (even at my own expense) for others to know that it was never my intention to edit war with either of the editors who reverted my initial revisions - I promise. There were only two revisions I made intentionally. How the others happened are still a mystery to me. I find it rather odd that the reverts under my name occurred when I was simply viewing the article's View History, and comparing the curr | prev revisions by clicking on them for the sake of comparison. If that caused the reverts, I apologize, and ask the obvious - how does one compare revisions and reverts if not from the View History, or Read options? Like you, I thought an (undo) was required to make a revert, or a save page after editing, but that was not the case in this situation. I neither used the (undo) command, nor have I edited and saved more than twice on the page in question. Again, I never intended to edit war. I know better. There are a few other rather strange occurrences I've encountered, and would like to discuss, but cannot because it requires sending jpeg images from screen captures. Thanking you in advance….Ms. Atsme (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm also a little puzzled by what's going on on that page. It seems really heated, but in a kind of odd way, with personal nastiness. Not really my area and I just can't get involved further. Sorry. Coretheapple (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Faulting and Deepwater Horizon

I left a message regarding your response to my editing on the Deepwater Oil Spill talk page. Geogene (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

• Forum: Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?

• Featured content: Odin salutes you

• WikiProject report: Racking brains with neuroscience

• Special report: Diary of a protester: Wikimedian perishes in Ukrainian unrest

• News and notes: Wikimedia chapters and communities challenge Commons' URAA policy

• Traffic report: Snow big deal

• Recent research: CSCW '14 retrospective; the impact of SOPA on deletionism

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for LeRoy Prinz

Thank you from the DYK project and me Victuallers (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Joan McCracken

The article Joan McCracken 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 needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Joan McCracken for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'll look. I've been monitoring as you've gone along, and made mental notes. thanks! Coretheapple (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Concerns about Parrot of Doom

Hi Coretheapple,

You recently started a RfC on the Anjem Choudary talk page and had a brief conversation with Parrot of Doom, in which you expressed concerns about his contributions to the page and the negative effect that they were having on the dispute in question. I appreciate that you withdrew from the discussion following his insulting comments to you and I hope that you do not mind me bothering you about this issue again.

I have only had limited contact with him but, on every occasion, he has been as equally insulting and rude to me as he was to you. This is matched by both the experience of other editors and by reviewing his edit history. There seems to be an ongoing pattern of behavior concerning a refusal to abide by WP:OWN or WP:CIVIL, not helped by his stated refusal to abide by these and a stated belief that they do not apply to him. I am attempting to address his concerns with him on his talk page, without response so far (though this is not surprising given the banner headline stating that anyone with concerns about his behavior "will be told in no uncertain terms where to shove it") and, if I am unable to do so, intend to take this to ANI (again, despite his stated intent to refuse to engage in any form of dispute resolution). I am concerned that he has driven off many editors with attitude, tone and choice of language and this is having a negative impact on the articles that he has adopted as his own. I see ANI as a good starting point to try to get some more community involvement to moderate his actions and hopefully get him to agree to stick to Wiki policies.

However, I am unable to take this forward unless at least one other editor raises this particular issue surrounding his conduct on the Anjem Choudary talk page and attempts to resolve it with him. I have no desire at all to whip up a posse but if you share these concerns and do not mind taking the time to do so, would you consider attempting to address them with him? At best, involvement from an experienced editor may carry more weight than one with my limited experience and may persuade him to reconsider his refusal to abide by WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL. At worst, this will then allow me to bring the issue before a wider audience so that more people can become involved in trying to put back on the right track an experienced editor who seems to have become very disruptive to the collaborative process.

If you do not share these concerns or do not wish to become involved, then please accept my apologies for having troubled you. Thanks Robinr22 (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the protocol but I think you can ask for intervention concerning a noncivil editor at any stage. I really am not involved in that article and don't want to be. Coretheapple (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the tip, I'll see if I can take that forward. Completely understand you not wanting to be involved.Robinr22 (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure. By the way, I stopped in on the page and noticed that somebody hatted the RfC. If you disagree, I suggest that you unhat. RfCs are supposed to run for 30 days. Coretheapple (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Joan McCracken 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:

• alumnus, who would soon co-found the [[Actors Studio]] with [[Elia Kazan]] and [[Cheryl Crawford]]). That fall, at Lewis' invitation, McCracken would became one of the Studio's charter members. In

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Michael Kidd

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Michael Kidd 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. |2ndopinion|2ndopinion=Hello, I want to tell you that I need a 2nd opinion on whether the article you nominated as a good article, Michael Kidd, meets the good article criteria or not . Another experienced reviewer like me will look at the article and see if the issue that I need a 2nd opinion on can go through or not. See Talk:Michael Kidd for the issue. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Secret -- Secret (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The message above seems to have been malformatted when originally posted, preventing display of the end of the message, and of subsequent text on this page. I have corrected the unterminated comment. It seems to have been the same bot error as reported at User talk:Legobot#Bug with transcluding GA notification. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Ott's Title

What do you call a law school graduate that works in a library? A librarian. What do you call someone with marine toxicology Ph.D. that fishes for a living? A fisherman. A professional political activist? An activist. A degree is a necessary but not sufficient condition for claiming a professional title, and it's a stretch to say it's disparaging when that's what she seems to call herself. Geogene (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

She also calls herself a toxicologist, as do the reliable sources, and that is the relevant point here. You don't determine her qualifications for that position. Coretheapple (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The..."reliable sources" are another issue on the horizon, but thanks for that explanation. Putting it aside. Geogene (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Joan McCracken

The article Joan McCracken you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Joan McCracken for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

• Traffic report: Brinksmen on the brink

• Discussion report: Four paragraph lead, indefinitely blocked IPs, editor reviews broken?

• News and notes: Wikipedia Library finding success in matching contributors with sources

• Featured content: Full speed ahead for the WikiCup

• WikiProject report: Article Rescue Squadron

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

• News and notes: Wikimedians celebrate International Women's Day, Women's History Month

• Traffic report: War and awards

• Featured content: Ukraine burns

• WikiProject report: Russian WikiProject Entomology

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK

Would you kindly take another look at this?: Template:Did you know nominations/Big Fish, Little Fish (play). I added myself as a co-creator and made a suggestion about the hook in a comment at the bottom of the page. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. I've commented on the page. Coretheapple (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for 1963 Chualar bus crash

Best wishes Victuallers (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Deportee (Plane Wreck at Los Gatos)

Coretheapple, I saw that you have interest in the 1963 Chualar bus crash, and I thought you might also be interested in the sad foreshadowing of January 28, 1948, immortalized as Deportee (Plane Wreck at Los Gatos), poem by Woody Guthrie with later tune by Martin Hoffman, most popularly performed by Pete Seeger. (The song's Wiki page covers the event fairly well; the event has no separate page, as far as I can tell.) JackGavin (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! That's an excellent idea. Coretheapple (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

And thank you for creating it. sad, the names not being known till now, and WP not having an article.(mercurywoodrose, trying to be on leave but failing miserably)99.14.216.20 (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for catching that crazy edit of mine. Don't know what happened there. DonIago (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it puzzled me. By the way, your latest edit removed the Cinemascope category. That's actually a very important and defining characteristic of the film, one that is always mentioned when the movie is discussed by film writers, as the director made full use of the screen in framing the shots. It needs to be discussed further within the article, and while the category's existence or not doesn't bother me too much, you might want to be aware of that. Coretheapple (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd encourage you to participate in the current discussion at WT:FILM. While the discussion is very new (I started it today), we're currently moving towards proposing the various "Films shot in..." categories for deletion, as in many cases they're being applied in situations where we don't belive they constitute defining attributes of the films in question. The best recourse would likely be to discuss the shooting methods in the articles with appropriate sourcing...but I have a feeling that's not likely to happen in many (most?) cases. Unfortunately in many cases we had IP editors mass-tagging articles as well, suggesting the cats weren't being well thought-out.

That said, I'm certainly open to reconsidering the categories if they'll be handled a bit more carefully (i.e. not mass-tagging), and my original "unsourced" edit was just completely bizarre...I wouldn't intentionally mark a removal of 4K characters as a minor edit. :p DonIago (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I've commented. I think that as a general proposition it's helpful to have that particular kind of category. Coretheapple (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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…
		Deepwater drilling (talk)						Add sources
		John Coleman (news weathercaster) (talk)						Add sources
		Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (talk)						Add sources
		Corexit (talk)						Add sources
		United States offshore drilling debate (talk)						Add sources
		Ixtoc I oil spill (talk)						Add sources
		Black or White (talk)						Cleanup
		Castrol (talk)						Cleanup
12		Critics' Choice Television Award for Best Actor in a Drama Series (talk)						Cleanup
		Kenneth Feinberg (talk)						Expand
		Offshore oil spill prevention and response (talk)						Expand
		Petroleum (talk)						Expand
		P-Xylene (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
		Dance Moms (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
		White Hispanic and Latino Americans (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
		Louisiana barrier island plan (talk)						Merge
		Cats 101 (talk)						Merge
		Natural resources of Ireland (talk)						Merge
		Supreme Court of New Jersey (talk)						Wikify
		Why (3T song) (talk)						Wikify
		New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (talk)						Wikify
		Tokyo Pub Crawl (talk)						Orphan
		The Guy from Harlem (talk)						Orphan
		Tony Buzbee (talk)						Orphan
		Midstream (talk)						Stub
		Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. (United Kingdom v. Iran) (talk)						Stub
		Bartley Crum (talk)						Stub
		Wild Well Control (talk)						Stub
		Compañía Española de Petróleos (talk)						Stub
		Shallow water drilling (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) 11:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

• Forum: Wikimedia Commons mission: free media for the world or only Wikimedia projects?

• WikiProject report: We have history

• Interview: Nate Ott: the writer behind 71 articles in the largest-ever good topic

• Featured content: Spot the bulldozer

• News and notes: Foundation-supported Wikipedian in residence faces scrutiny

• Traffic report: Into thin air

• Technology report: Wikimedia engineering report

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Date format for citations for article for Fort Lee lane closure scandal

To be consistent with all other dates in the Fort Lee lane closure scandal article and its citations, the current format is Month Day, Year. Other date formats eventually get corrected by other editors. If you could follow this format in the future, it would be appreciated. Thanks for your contributions to this article. 20:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wondering55 (talk • contribs)

To be consistent with all other talk page posts on this page, you need to sign them. Coretheapple (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

• Comment: A foolish request

• Traffic report: Down to a simmer

• Recent research: Wikipedians' "encyclopedic identity" dominates even in Kosovo debates

• News and notes: Commons Picture of the Year—winners announced

• Featured content: Winter hath a beauty that is all his own

• Op-ed: Why we're updating the default typography for Wikipedia

• Technology report: Why will Wikipedia look like the Signpost?

• WikiProject report: From the peak

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Johnny Broderick

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles for Creation and COI and Signpost and things

Good morning Mr Apple. Just dropping a note here that you may be interested in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#How the Signpost might be able to help - feedback wanted, or possibly more likely in the later stages of the proposal mentioned there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that's interesting. Coretheapple (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, I assume you're aware of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#COI that might need more than COIN, but if you aren't, you now are. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to follow. Coretheapple (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

• News and notes: Wikimedia conferences—soul-searching about costs, attendance, and future

• WikiProject report: Deutschland in English

• Special report: On the cusp of the Wikimedia Conference

• Featured content: April Fools

• Traffic report: Regressing to the mean

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing ANI Thread

You're unusually chatty today. I'm curious about what you're trying to accomplish over at the ANI thread. You're not being as aggressive as I'd expect. We've established that you don't agree with me. That's okay, but it's redundant. Maybe it's to try to prevent outsiders from getting involved in our dispute by boring them to death. Well, I'd actually rather have some outside participation, even if it boomerangs on me. That is why I went to the noticeboard in the first place. Geogene (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, you might start by assuming good faith. Coretheapple (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If everyone could do that, we wouldn't have this problem. Geogene (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

...and the world would be a better place. Coretheapple (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Please respond

Please provide your reasonable suggestions in response to the items below. I have demonstrated that I am flexible and open to different solutions. This continual effort to try and portray my intentions and my edits in an unflattering fashion needs to stop.

You have good insights. Just because I may disagree with you on something does not mean I am only trying to do it my way. I try to be guided by past Talk agreements or editing agreements, but even more importantly by current circumstances, reliable sources, and reasonable explanations. I continually look for and listen to alternative and compromise solutions. Maybe it takes somewhat longer than you would like, but ultimately we can find a solution.

Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Ignoring past talk discussion agreements

Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Motives for lane closures

Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Need for any additional details in this Bridgegate scandal article about Zimmer allegations about Hoboken Sandy relief aid— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wondering55 (talk • contribs)

Please stop

Instead of responding, as I requested, on the "Fort Lee lane closure scandal" article to the content issues that I raised in the three links in the "Please respond" Talk that I opened earlier today on your Talk page, you go on my Talk page and make more false and unwarranted allegations and implied threats about my personal behavior on Wikipedia.

I have also repeatedly indicated on my Talk page and in the article page to simply focus on content issues that I raise and not engage in personal attacks.

Please stop making false allegations and unwarranted threats about my personal behavior on Wikipedia and misrepresentation of how I have tried to repeatedly work with you to address content issues. You continually refuse to focus on content issues that I raise, and instead make false allegations and unwarranted threats on my Talk page about my personal behavior on Wikipedia. You also make further denigrating comments on the Fort Lee article Talk page about my edits. You repeatedly revert my edits without any substantiated reasons and which are in contradiction to article Talk discussions where you participated.

That is simply in violation of Wikipedia guidelines for Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Consensus, and Wikipedia:Edit warring.

You are the one making ad hominum attacks, not me. I simply indicate exactly what you have done based on the incontrovertible facts of Talk discussions, your editing, your personal attacks on me & my editing, and your refusal to address content issues that I raise.

My recommended edits that I present in the article and its Talk pages are supported by reliable sources, past editing practices of responsible editors, including myself, that have made so many contributions to the Fort Lee article without any personal attacks or edit warring, and article Talk discussion and consensus. I have always been flexible in allowing other editors to make improvements to my edits without any contentious arguments.

You have taken your contentious and invalid arguments and personal attacks to a level that I have never seen before in any of my extensive editing on Wikipedia.

In the future, please direct all comments about my editing and content issues to the article Talk pages or in your History edit comments.

You are no longer welcome on my Talk page. If you post anything further on my Talk page, I will report you. Wondering55 (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I remember you said the same thing before you were blocked. Coretheapple (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Your statement about me making the "same statements" is inaccurate. They are new and updated statements based on new facts, your statements, and your actions. You are entitled to believe what you want to believe and even put it in writing. Others need to see if your beliefs are valid or contradictory to the documented facts. I am not here to argue with you about what you believe.

I have repeatedly asked you to address your comments about content based on reliable sources, facts, and past Talk agreements in the article talk pages. Instead, you continually came to my Talk page with false derogatory allegations that focused on personal issues.

I look forward to see if you can make your case for content updates on the article talk page and History edit comments. If your actual or proposed updates contradict reliable sources, facts, and past Talk agreements, I will simply point it out in the article simply based on content issues. I've learned a lesson from my interactions with you. I am now working within Wikipedia guidelines. Hopefully, you will too. You have added a lot of good content to the Fort Lee lane closure scandal article. Hopefully, we can work together in the future. Wondering55 (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh you provided new and updated "droning on and on about nothing" before you were blocked for edit warring? Excuse me. You've were told by the administrator who revoked your talk page access that you're fortunate that you aren't still blocked. I agree. Please stay off this talk page. Bye. Coretheapple (talk) 12:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Postcript Coretheapple (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wondering55 (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess I was reading too much into your actions. Were I in your place, after enduring all of those responses I would have given up on that article! WP:COMPETENCE is definitely an issue here, sad to say. -- llywrch (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I have to say, it's tempting. However, the other editors on the article are good people and do their best under the circumstances. You are right about WP:COMPETENCE. I just don't know the answer here. Compulsory mentorship? Coretheapple (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Good fellow editors alwys help amke that occasional problem editor bearable. ;-) Anyway, let's see what WP:AN/I comes up with: I'm hoping there is an alternative to simply banning him indefinitely, which is all my unimaginative mind can come up with. :-( -- llywrch (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm staying out of that discussion! I'm almost glad I had to go away for a few days, as I might have been tempted to participate. The other editors indeed have been good, and frankly I don't like the idea of being driven out of an article by one rogue elephant. Coretheapple (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Postcript Coretheapple (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

• News and notes: Round 2 of FDC funding open to public comments

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Law

• Special report: Community mourns passing of Adrianne Wadewitz

• Traffic report: Conquest of the Couch Potatoes

• Featured content: Snow heater and Ash sweep

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for All the Way (play)

The DYK project (nominate) 01:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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…
22		107th Infantry Regiment (United States) (talk)						Add sources
36		Everything's Ducky (talk)						Add sources
110		Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography (1940–49) (talk)						Add sources
51		Americathon (talk)						Add sources
214		Warner Bros. Cartoons (talk)						Add sources
116		UV degradation (talk)						Add sources
18		Abraham Buford (talk)						Cleanup
48		Menninger Foundation (talk)						Cleanup
7		Who Scent You? (talk)						Cleanup
1,130		Chris Christie (talk)						Expand
15		Hurricane Sandy relief bill (talk)						Expand
48		Freedom of information in the United States (talk)						Expand
1,043		Broadcast syndication (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
155		Looney Tunes Golden Collection (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
1,111		New York City Police Department (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
17		Liverpool City (rugby league) (talk)						Merge
8		1897 Challenge Cup (talk)						Merge
13		1994–95 Rugby Football League season (talk)						Merge
3		Engage Mutual Charity Man of the Match Award (talk)						Wikify
26		Spanaway Junior High School (talk)						Wikify
17		Daffy Duck for President (talk)						Wikify
0		Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council (talk)						Orphan
5		Looney Tunes Collection – Best Of Bugs Bunny (talk)						Orphan
5		Charles Monnett (talk)						Orphan
3		Rachel Abrams (talk)						Stub
16		The Essential Daffy Duck (talk)						Stub
52		Siosepol (talk)						Stub
33		Usual, customary and reasonable (talk)						Stub
15		Patrick Foye (talk)						Stub
25		Bugs Bunny's Looney Christmas Tales (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) 12:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thank you for your help at WP:ANI and for helping me get a sense of perspective on my talkpage. The vitriol shocked me for a second. Rest assured, I will continue to go and improve the encyclopedia. :) OrigamitePlease talk here 00:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Well thank you! That's appreciated. And delicious! Coretheapple (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

• Special report: 2014 Wikimedia Conference—what is the impact?

• Op-ed: Five things a Wikipedian in residence can do

• News and notes: Wikimedian passes away

• WikiProject_report: To the altar—Catholicism

• Wikimania: Winning bid announced for 2015

• Traffic report: Reflecting in Gethsemane

• Featured content: There was I, waiting at the church

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

OER inquiry

Hi Coretheapple, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick drive-by....

...to say Hi from a newbie you helped back in March. I never did get to edit the Choudary article, but other editors did, and there was improvement. I consider it "indirect editing". I have since finished my first article that was nominated for DYK, and I'm trying to learn how that process works. --Atsme☯ talk 02:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Great! Glad to hear it. Take care. Coretheapple (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Just want to say thanks for bringing the terrible article whose name I don't even want to type to Jimbo's attention and for your support in what I was starting to feel was a solitary and losing battle. I didn't care if they did kick me off WP if it was going to have such things on it anyway but I am glad I started that AN/I thread which brought the matter to your attention. The action that has been taken should alleviate the problem. All best Smeat75 (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You're very welcome! I've gotten yelled at a lot over that article but I am glad that things seem to be moving ahead to address that article's problems. Coretheapple (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I dare say you've earned this one

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		Your week seems to have been just lousy with acrimony and bad energy involving tendentious editors, seemingly as a consequence, at least in part, of dedicated efforts at WP:ANI. For keeping your calm and staying on point, I offer you one of the most well-earned barnstars I've yet awarded. Made from asbestos, same as your hide. ;) Snow (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Why thank you! Yes, I've gotten yelled at a lot. But hey, that's the way the cookie crumbles. Coretheapple (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

• News and notes: WMF's draft annual plan turns indigestible as an FDC proposal

• Traffic report: Going to the Doggs

• Breaking: The Foundation's new executive director

• WikiProject report: Genetics

• Interview: Wikipedia in the Peabody Essex Museum

• Featured content: Browsing behaviours

• Recent research: Wikipedia predicts flu more accurately than Google

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

How would you prefer I approach this?

Hey Core, as Bishonen has directed Wondering as to how to file more formally for a removal of his block, I was considering linking to our recent discussion on my talk page as to the issue, to note for the responding admin my mixed perspectives on the issue without bothering to replicate them at length on Wondering's congested talk page. However, as Wondering has a particular way of reacting to criticism, I can take another approach if you would rather not have your comments there highlighted in the general discussion. I figure as most everything you said on the talk page has already been amply reflected in discussion about wondering elsewhere, by both yourself and multiple other parties, you probably couldn't care less, but I thought I would accord you the consideration of asking anyway. Snow talk 22:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Just saw this, as I was away. I certainly have no problem with that. However, I think that events may have overtaken us. I see from the Wondering55 talk page that you've asked for no further posts on the Wondering55 page. I'm not going to participate there even though I've been invited, but I have to say that I am not happy with him being unblocked unless he switches entirely from Fort Lee lane closure scandal and any other article where he has been disruptive. If I have a voice in that I'd be happy to express it, but it seems a bit unseemly for me to do so. Coretheapple (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, as things have quieted down on his talk page and he seems to want it that way, I think it inadvisable to add those comments now. As to the Fort Lee article, I shouldn't be surprised if he walks softly there even if he does get unblocked; he's been blocked for a week and appreciates now how easily and swiftly it can happen if you prove unable to collaborate. I'd make use of the time you have to get to work on pruning it down to consistency with summary style though. Snow talk 10:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I couldn't disagree more about W55. He was blocked for 36 hours for edit warring, and after his return he stopped reverting and instead figured out new ways of being obnoxious. That's his objective- it's not going to stop. He's like granite; that's what makes him unique. By the way, I thought that your posting in the AfD on Jews and Communism was extremely perspective! Coretheapple (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2014

• News and notes: New system of discretionary sanctions; Buchenwald; is Pirelli 'Cracking Wikipedia'?

• Traffic report: TMZedia

• In focus: Foundation announces long-awaited new executive director

• WikiCup: 2014 WikiCup enters round three

• In the media: Google and the flu; Adrianne

• WikiProject report: Singing with Eurovision

• Featured content: Wikipedia at the Rijksmuseum

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You're really amazing, you know that?

Not sure how you dealt with Wondering55--I'm in the middle of a smaller conflict and still pulling my hair out. If you have any free time and want to check out User talk:Mitrabarun, come by. It's almost entertaining, until the guy doesn't stop. Any wikistress tips? Thanks, Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 05:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks. I'll take a look. Coretheapple (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Cease and desist stalking and harassing me

Coretheapple-you have sent no less then 20 harassing and stalking messages to me in the last 12 months. This is a violation of Wikipedia and Wikimedia terms of services as well as a felony. Cease and desist all contact with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C07A:25C0:D438:96AE:828D:708A (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

1. You only need to post it once.
2. They're not harassing messages, they're templates that are standard.
3. It's not stalking--you're making nonconstructive edits to pages he watches.
4. Please read WP:NLT.
5. They can't tell if it's you or not-these are the first edits on a new IP.

Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 11:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

That's right. I don't even know what this IP is talking about. I haven't done any vandal-hunting in a few weeks. Coretheapple (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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…
6		Communications in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (talk)						Add sources
274		Reliance Communications (talk)						Add sources
35		American Ninja Challenge (talk)						Add sources
47		Paul Drake (detective) (talk)						Add sources
1,041		Bharti Airtel (talk)						Add sources
38		Morocco (film) (talk)						Add sources
109		Pakistan and state sponsored terrorism (talk)						Cleanup
17		Communications in the Isle of Man (talk)						Cleanup
56		Internaut (talk)						Cleanup
279		Rialto, California (talk)						Expand
75		Mahanagar Telephone Nigam (talk)						Expand
98		Conrad II, Holy Roman Emperor (talk)						Expand
5,245		Al-Qaeda (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
897		Mustard (condiment) (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
233		Bharat Sanchar Nigam (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
45		Deepwater Horizon oil spill response (talk)						Merge
121		Florida State Prison (talk)						Merge
74		Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (talk)						Merge
50		Starcastle (talk)						Wikify
223		True Crime: New York City (talk)						Wikify
46		Secessionist movements of Canada (talk)						Wikify
4		National Gay Basketball Association (talk)						Orphan
2		Mike Bunce (talk)						Orphan
1		Maćkowiak (talk)						Orphan
6		James Barnet Fry (talk)						Stub
71		The Gangs of New York (book) (talk)						Stub
14		Liudolf, Duke of Swabia (talk)						Stub
152		Ballers (talk)						Stub
127		Sana Javed (talk)						Stub
15		Hedwig of Saxony (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) 12:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Coretheapple. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 15:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Why thanks, you bearer of good news you! Coretheapple (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

... though I am having a bit of problem registering... if you can help it would be great. Note my email. Coretheapple (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2014

• Investigative report: Hong Kong's Wikimania 2013—failure to produce financial statement raises questions of probity

• WikiProject report: Relaxing in Puerto Rico

• News and notes: 'Ask a librarian'—connecting Wikimedians with the National Library of Australia

• Featured content: On the rocks

• Traffic report: Eurovision, Google Doodles, Mothers, and 5 May

• Technology report: Technology report needs editor, Media Viewer offers a new look

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Note of appreciation

Core, I just wanted to let you know that I observed you, over the course of the whole divisive affair of the article-that-shall-henceforth-not-be-named, to have been one of the most tempered and even-keeled personalities involved. You kept to the substantive issues and avoided the more non-productive of the emotional pitfalls that frankly a considerable majority of the other involved editors all fell into at some point, for one reason or another. You managed to marry deep concern over the issue with a calm and level-headed and respectful approach to resolving matters. I hope you'll continue to contribute here for a long time as I think your priories are exactly the type which serve the community's needs best and that your contributions are just generally of great value to the project. Snow talk 06:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Both of you! Thanks for such level-headedness. Binksternet (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks guys! Greatly appreciated. Coretheapple (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2014

• News and notes: "Crisis" over Wikimedia Germany's palace revolution

• Featured content: Staggering number of featured articles

• Traffic report: Doodles' dawn

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2014

• News and notes: The English Wikipedia's second featured-article centurion; wiki inventor interviewed on video

• Featured content: Zombie fight in the saloon

• Traffic report: Get fitted for flipflops and floppy hats

• Recent research: Predicting which article you will edit next

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC/U on User Director

I checked with an experience user. Request for comment on user's conduct shoulf follow the RfC/U. Now the RfC is pending for approval and this approval is under the condition that two users certify the issue is real and consistent to what I posted.

If you wish to certify that this issue is real, you just need to go to [[3]] and fill the section "Users certifying the basis for this dispute". Thank you in advance for your help (the deadline is the 4th June 8:30am). The certification must have place before the 4th of June 8:30am or the RfC/U will be archived. --Silvio1973 (talk)

I would find it hard to certify this particular RfC at this time because you haven't summarized what your cause of concern is. I suggest encapsulating what your problem is with Director, summing up your concerns, and then editors can look at it say "gee, I've had the same problem" or "no, I haven't had those kinds of problems with the chap." For example, not to prompt you, but I have found that he has exhibited WP:OWN and threatening behavior, saying he will "report" editors as an intimidation technique. That's my own problem with him and hopefully he's not doing that elsewhere. You may have other problems with him. But any problems you have need to be shown by diffs. Coretheapple (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Whatever the problems are, you have to show that you've raised it with him and tried to solve them. However, I'm just not up on all the techniques and intricacies of this thing. Keep in mind that if you're not a saint, the guns of Wikipedia will be turned on you! So be ware of the ides of Wikipedia, as Shakespeare said. Coretheapple (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Blanc

I have doubts about the legitimacy of the five figure offer, however I think it is generally a bad idea to mention it, because it serves as free advertising for the offer and entices editors participating in the discussion to consider it. The craigslist link is an example of this. The IP that posted the Craigslist post was actually the author of it, and even while they were criticizing it, they were most likely actually advertising the bribe to their target audience of Wikipedians. CorporateM (Talk) 16:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Free advertising? I don't think so. I can't find it, and anyway, that is pretty much moot at this time. Coretheapple (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2014

• Special report: IEG funding for women's stories: a new approach to the gender gap

• News and notes: Two new affiliate-selected trustees

• Op-ed: "Hospitality, jerks, and what I learned"—the amazing keynote at WikiConference USA

• Featured content: Ye stately homes of England

• In the media: Reliable or not, doctors use Wikipedia

• Traffic report: Autumn in summer

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for "old school values and a common sense approach focused on what will help Wikipedia survive the long haul". Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Petrarchan47 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Coretheapple as Editor of the Week. Coretheapple comes equipped with old school values and a common sense approach focused on what will help Wikipedia survive the long haul. He has over 8200 edits (46 percent in article space), and has made 9 "Did You Know" nominations. His current interests range from the Fort Lee lane closure scandal to Joan McCracken, an article he created and nurtured to GA status. An active and involved participant at varied important articles and at Jimbo's talk page, he concerns himself with COI and paid and commercial editing. His ability to be flexible, keep calm, remain civil and stay on point should be an example to all. I am not alone in finding Core's comments at various WP talk pages to be "must-read" material. No one is better at encapsulating a problem and explaining it in clear terms. His intelligence is a rare gift to the pool of WP volunteers. I am honored and delighted to nominate Coretheapple for Editor of the Week.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Apple Corer

Coretheapple

Editor of the Week for the week beginning June 8, 2014

You may not always agree with his stance but you have to respect his affability.

Recognized for

A common sense approach and fresh perspective within a civil framework.

Notable work

Bringing Joan McCracken up to GA status

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! Go Phightins! 17:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Congratulations! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
• Indeed! Well deserved! ```Buster Seven Talk 19:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Congrats, Core - no one deserves it more. (I believe he is on a mini-break right now, btw). petrarchan47tc 23:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Congrats! You're one of the users I rely on most and one of the most sensible and nice. You deserve this! Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 23:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks very much guys. This is terrific and totally unexpected, in addition to being (as many will concur) totally undeserved. Appreciate this amazing recognition. Coretheapple (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

SPA notifications on HistorianOfRecentTimes

Hi There,

I noticed that you are slashing the {{SPA}} notifications that I placed on Historian's comments on BDB. Those were in fact placed by me in [[4]]. I would appreciate the differentiation between my activities and those of other users. Thank You BDBJack (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

1. You, as a corporate employee, should not be placing SPA tags on anyone and certainly not critics of your company, per WP:BATTLEGROUND. 2. You, as much as anyone, deserve an SPA tag. Stop the nonsense. You should not even be editing the encyclopedia at all, and are lucky you are not banned. Stay off my talk page and don't let the door hit you on the way out. Coretheapple (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Well said! And kudos on the well-deserved editor award!--Elvey^(t•c) 02:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! This editor and an army of socks were indefinitely blocked shortly afterwards. Coretheapple (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2014

• News and notes: PR agencies commit to ethical interactions with Wikipedia

• Traffic report: The week the wired went weird

• Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Moderator: William Beutler

• Special report: Questions raised over secret voting for WMF trustees

• Featured content: Politics, ships, art, and cyclones

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	You are awesome! Atlantictire (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Well thank you! Not sure what I did to deserve this, but you're very nice. Coretheapple (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2014

• News and notes: With paid advocacy in its sights, the Wikimedia Foundation amends their terms of use

• Featured content: Worming our way to featured picture

• Special report: Wikimedia Bangladesh: a chapter's five-year journey

• Traffic report: You can't dethrone Thrones

• WikiProject report: Visiting the city

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Inexplicable

You appear to be a normal user (not a part of the core group at Wikipedia) and removed legitimate work that I've done. I've hyperlinked text, included secondary and tertiary references and cleaned up the article only to see that you removed ALL of this work. I received no forewarning and no explanation. I would greatly appreciate it if you respected not only the editors but the audience who are pursing information through Wikipedia. It's how the site generates funding and continues learning and research -- through the creation of work, not the destruction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Habitatsun (talk • contribs) 00:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that you appear not to be a normal user, but rather seem to be functioning in a public relations capacity, and are adding promotional content. In so doing, you removed maintenance tags, and included unsourced material and puffery. You may feel that "Mr. Seitel is an active consultant for projects spanning the private sector, public sector and academia. He is considered as a subject matter expert by his peers within the Public Relations industry and often used as a third party authority," but we need reliable, secondary sourcing for that kind of statement. Also I see that you've been around Wikipedia for several years, long enough to know that we don't call people "Mr." Your reinstating that, after I removed it, indicates to me that you have some kind of relationship with the subject of the article, as does your statement "I received no forewarning." We do not gives subjects of article and their promoters "forewarning" before removing inappropriate material. I've removed the puffery and unsourced material again and please do not edit war to insert promotional material in articles. Coretheapple (talk) 12:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Habitatsun, I disagree. It is equally important that we maintain the site by removing content that is not compliant with Wikipedia's standards as it is that we add content that is. CorporateM (Talk) 14:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple. This isn't as conspiratorial as you'd like this to be. The mere mention of this just makes me think that you have a personal vendetta. In the spirit of this, I appreciate the feedback re: Mr. CorporateM, thank you for the feedback. I understand this and will have a closer look at the standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Habitatsun (talk • contribs) 23:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd have a greater sense that you are here to improve the project, and not to push an agenda, if you abided by site policies and did the little things like sign your name. Coretheapple (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Signing your name is a minor technical item that most new editors don't know about (you sign your comments with four tildies like this: ~~~~). Most editors on Wikipedia have a certain degree of vendetta against the profession of PR, due to our generally negative experiences with the field's representatives on the site. However, in the overwhelming number of cases, PR professionals are the ones with an "agenda" and a "bias" who lodge these accusations against others who may appear as such from their perspective. If you are submitting an article on a person or company you are affiliated with WP:Articles for Creation is the appropriate place to submit those pages for consideration by an impartial editor. CorporateM (Talk) 00:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually this is not a new editor, but a three-year-old account. Older than mine. Coretheapple (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yelp

What I will probably do is create a Notepad section on Talk and just start putting everything I find in reliable sources that is missing onto the Notepad. Editors can add or cross-out stuff in real-time, or they can wait for me to cull through it and come up with a more formalized Request Edit in smaller digestible chunks. Than I will cull through the article for unsourced/poorly sourced content etc.

However, I would like to wait at least a few days to a week. Basically I'm waiting to see if the infobox thing goes through the same endless debate as similar mundane or obvious things have done in the past. If it does, that is a good indication that my time will not be well-spent on that page. Such arguments between editors cannot be resolved without bold editing and sometimes even then. CorporateM (Talk) 14:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Well I just moved it. I don't see what possible objection there can be to that. It just looks weird to have two infoboxes piled on each other. I think that the article is somewhat lacking, though, in general. It seems to be written from a corporate-vs-critics perspective, and generally doesn't give a sense of the phenomenon that Yelp has been, how it polices reviews more than anyone else to prevent businesses from writing their own reviews. It's sort of dry, if you know what I mean. Coretheapple (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I can tell you that Tripadvisor doesn't police its reviews. You believe a Tripadvisor rating at your own risk. I like your Notepad idea. Coretheapple (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Cool, I'll come back with more stuff later this week. Yah, they are very aggressive about protecting the integrity of their reviews from spammers, paid reviews, etc.. I love that when they catch a small business owner paying for reviews, they put a badge of shame on their review telling the site's readers that they were busted doing so. And they are aggressive about cooperating with law enforcement to shut-down paid review rings. On the flip side, my wife use to manage the Yelp profile for a small business she worked at and many legitimate reviews were being filtered out as spam because students were entering in coupon codes and they were constantly working with Yelp to get reviews posted by their competitors shut down. I think a neutral way of covering this issue would be similar to Reliability of Wikipedia and the problems are very comparable. Some small businesses genuinely have unfair reviews written by disgruntled former employees, while others are just unhappy with reviews that accurately describe their service as lackluster. And there is constantly drama, lawsuits, etc. in the media about disputes over individual reviews. CorporateM (Talk) 14:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, ResearchGate is in "ok" shape now and the COIN/Talk post on Yelp didn't attract any drama, so I'm ready to work on that tomorrow or this weekend at the latest. I noticed it has almost 120 citations, whereas I've done articles on Fortune 500 companies with only 80. So my initial impression is that it doesn't need more research, but less (in a sense). What I will need to do is cull through all 120 cites one at-a-time, to find out which have content that should be added and which should be trimmed. This is very tedious/grueling work and I'm not sure how to practically present the items on the Talk page, but I will find a way to do what I can. CorporateM (Talk) 04:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You must be following the discussion string on the Talk page of the COI guideline. There are no privacy concerns here and I am happy to provide a fuller disclosure, in case I have not elsewhere. I was hired by Yelp to improve their page following COI best practices. They were especially concerned because they experience a lot of deceptive practices on Yelp that are similar to what we often experience on Wikipedia and they wanted to make sure they were following the same types of best practices they would expect from businesses on Yelp (who can disclose and engage with reviewers ethically). After an RFC was closed in favor of a "Controversies" section, I felt that was a strong indicator that there was a bias against edits I proposed as a result of a COI disclosure. I say this having seen a good dozen identical RFCs that have always shown clear and unambiguous consensus against Controversies sections. I cancelled any billings and advised to Yelp that we just back off for a while.

While I do still have a financial connection (I hope to bill them again in the future at some point), it wouldn't be accurate to say "Yelp did this or that", because they have not seen the draft I prepared on my birthday, nor did they prompt it or have any meaningful input. I am not their "representative" and do not make contributions "on their behalf" which would be a group account. My edits are my own and whether I will get fired for them or make money from them is up to speculation - any COI editor that wants to do the right thing has to take the risk that they will get fired for making honest contributions that do a dis-service to their employer/client. Six months ago, I would have used words like "on behalf of" and had a different opinion on it.

It is a perfectly reasonable criticism that I am splitting hairs here, but I hope, if nothing else, that provides a sufficient disclosure for your needs. As you know, it's a complicated topic with no clear silver arrow solution, so I just do the best I can from my position. CorporateM (Talk) 17:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You're right about controversies sections. They are not favored. Perhaps some alternate title can be found for that section, or it can be divided into others. Thanks for clarifying your COI status on the article. As you know, I have a COI because I'm a consumer of the Yelp brand and, OK, I confess, I occasionally contribute. But I've never received an remuneration as some Yelp contributors have (which reminds me - that should probably be in the article if there is an RS!). Coretheapple (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Well... everyone has used Yelp. If what you say is true, that you feel you have a COI, because you have used the service, than any editor likely to take an interest would have a COI and nobody would be able to improve articles. I am of the opinion that the "Everyone has a COI" argument is generally bogus. I have also had a lot of experiences with Yelp as a consumer, but I did not think such a disclosure was of any remote utility. I could disclose that as well if you like, though I would say that crosses over from "disclosure" to idle chatter. Anyways, RE the gifts, parties and perks for prolific reviewers, I do have some stuff about that at the bottom of the Community section. Don't you wish WMF did that too! Well, I guess they do do "sponsorships" for going to conferences, which is somewhat comparable to the free parties, but Yelp's version sounds more fun ;-) However, there's also this aspect "The system has led to criticisms that business owners can bribe reviewers with free food or discounts to increase their rating, though Yelp users say this rarely occurs.[58]" (quoted from the draft). CorporateM (Talk) 18:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I was just being slightly facetious. No way just being a Yelper gives one a COI. If I were writing about a small message board that somehow became notable enough to be on Wikipedia, and I was one of the administrators, even if unpaid, that would be another matter. Coretheapple (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Aww, ok. Thanks for clarifying. CorporateM (Talk) 19:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)