This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Chris, thank you for reviewing the page I created on AMBOTS, to which you commented "these don't look like reliable sources". Can I seek some clarification on what you are referring to and how I can improve the article to make it acceptable? Also, I noticed you left a message on my Talk page saying that "you may have a conflict of interest (COI)". Can you clarify a bit further? AMBOTS is a local company in our area that has made it to the international stage with worldwide recognitions. It has inspired many kids here around the area. It would be nice to create a Wikipedia page to make it easier for more people to know. Thanks for any further assistance you can provide.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NewAge2001 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
@NewAge2001: One of your citations is General Electric so we know who they are. 3dnatives.com, fabbaloo.com, additivemanufacturing.media, and all3dp.com are just websites. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and we expect to see primary sources like newspapers and magazines, not corporate entities in industry. You also cite the subject's website, which is a no-no. Based upon your promotional language ("a local company in our area that has made it to the international stage with worldwide recognitions. It has inspired many kids here around the area.") it seems you do have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia takes a dim view of people and businesses exploiting us for their own ends. After all, every article is written by volunteers who get absolutely nothing for their hard work. You are legally required by the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use to disclose your affiliation with the subject, if any. I will not be reviewing this draft again so please do not continue to ask me about it.Chris Troutman (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I have to say I am truly offended by your ignorance. 3dnatives.com is just a website? It's the largest news media covering an entire industry. CBS is not notable? It is the largest TV network in the US. So I can't be proud of the subject I am writing about? Which part of the article is promotional language? The subject's website is part of the company description, as in the standard template for most of the companies on Wikipedia. It seems you don't even know your own area.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NewAge2001 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Backlog drive update
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, hope you are doing good. It seems you have recently updated 2021 Backlog Drive leaderboard. You placed Theroadislong on the second rank while my username appears on the first rank. This is clearly not true. All credit goes to Theroadislong because he reviewed complicated AfC submissions that i couldn't. Please place my username on the second place on Leaderboard. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Help with draft
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I saw you reviewed my draft Draft:07102010 (Crown the Empire album). I've removed the social media references, but I was wondering if you could help me proofread it and fix problems with the draft. If not, do you happen to know of anywhere I could ask for help with this? Thank you! Moony483 (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
@Moony483: Thanks for making the cleanup so far. I was only participating in a backlog drive, so I won't be involved with drafts for the forseeable future. However, you could ask for help at the Articles for Creation WikiProject help desk. I also recommend offering a reward at the reward board for the work you want done. It was a good idea of yours posting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal as that's the best way to get experts in the subject familiar with Wikipedia. Good luck. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: Thank you! I'll ask for help there. Again, thanks for your review and advice :) Moony483 (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Chris--I wish you'd pinged me. I fully agree that they are not notable, which is why I made the redirect, but I didn't know and so couldn't help make the case. If you're going to send it to AfD, please do ping me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Someone pointed at the category of regional awards, claiming that meant it's notable. The first one I clicked on was this, 31st Midsouth Emmy Awards, and it's awful. The second one was this, Lower Great Lakes Emmy Awards, also awful... Drmies (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Adding my birthday
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi
I hope you're doing well. I recently noticed that you had added my birthday. Well, thank you. But can I ask how do you know when is my birthday? I'm just inquisitive.
Thank you and please stay safe. -- Mouryan (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
@Mouryan: Thanks for asking. In July of 2016 you added your birthdate to the list we used to keep at WP:BDC. My recent editing has been moving listed dates like yours from that single page to the various calendar date subpages which the Birthday Committee volunteers now use. We, the committee, are glad to recognize your birthday and the many others as part of our ongoing editor retention efforts. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: Ahh I see. Thank you very much. Please stay safe. -- Mouryan (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Basque
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hey, Chris Troutman, I'd like to discuss a few things concerning Basque and it's classification among world languages among other things. Deutschland1871 (talk) 04:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
The reviewer, Chris troutman, made a judgement that has no factual basis when he or she wrote "This looks like yet another paid-for puff piece" in his review. I was not paid to write this article, and the reviewer must show evidence that I was paid to do so. The reviewer was critical of the factual basis on which my article was written, but he or she in turn has no such standard in writing the review. Even the first sentence has a spelling mistake, but the review did not bother to check. I feel that the writing is also too informal and impolite. I would like to request an independent review of the reviewer's capability to objectively evaluate an article.
It seems that you have written 25 Did You Knows and no one has noticed. That can never be the case, thousands of people will have seen your DYKs and thousands will have read your work. You have improved the front page, the DYK project, and to top it all, helped to build an amazing free educational resource. So thanks Victuallers (talk) 10:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
@Victuallers: Thank you so much for this recognition. I am heartened that our community not only builds this amazing free educational resource but also takes the time to thank and recognize each other. Thanks for bolstering the DYK WikiProject in this manner. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I know I shouldn't ask, but
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Is there any way that you could publish The Signpost in about an hour? HaeB and I both are in our final phases, but it's a big issue. The holiday mess me up (lame excuse) Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
@Smallbones: Sorry, but no. I have the time just now to publish but I gave up my massmessage rights when I stopped actively publishing, so those (both en-wp and global) would have to be restored. Do you want me to re-pursue those userrights for later use? Chris Troutman (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
For later use - why not? But I obviously have to figure out a better way to get publication done on a regular basis - which is up to me. Sorry to bother you. All the best. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Mass message sender granted
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. Your account has been granted the "massmessage-sender" user right, allowing you to send messages to multiple users at once. A few important things to note:
Messages should only be sent to groups of users who are likely to be interested in the topic.
For regular mailings such as those for WikiProjects, localized events, or newsletters, users should be informed of how they can unsubscribe from future mailings.
The mass messaging tool should never be used for canvassing with the intention of influencing the outcome of discussions.
For more information, refer to the guidance for use. If you do not want mass message sender rights anymore, just let me or any other administrator know and we will remove it. Thank you and happy editing! --TNT (talk) (she/they) 23:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Merry Christmas Chris troutman
Hi Chris troutman, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and healthy New Year, Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia, –Davey2010Talk 21:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Christmas Room
All best wishes for the holiday season, and good fortune in 2022, Chris! Thank you for your Wiki work over the years. Uncommon fritillary (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!
Hi Chris troutman! May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2022.
Happy editing! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Merry Christmas
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Merry Christmas Chris troutman
Hi Chris troutman, I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, ★Trekker (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Please do not attempt to create or re-create articles about non-notable subjects. You would have an easier time improving existing articles. If you are only here to promote a game engine you would do well to quit Wikipedia altogether. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
WTF, I came to look at the Far Cry 6 wiki page. Some info like the game engine info was missing. I searched on Google, it uses the same as Far Cry 2-5, "Dunia", just the latest iteration.
Then I found out that some cancel-artist deleted the wiki page in 2018. Why? A wiki page doesn't cost any money to store. You seem to be one of these admins that fall in the same category on Wikipedia. Just deleting pages you don't like for whatever reason, but not create any content. Great job. Merry Christmas. For all that matters, Dunia Engine is from Ubisoft, and is used in popular gaming franchise (Far Cry series). I am not related to Ubisoft at all, just a regular gamer with computer science background.
Also why have you deleted/archived my comment from today on your talk page? --81.10.234.233 (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Please allow me to unpack all this. First, you need not copy my comment on the IP talk page over here as I could have responded to you over there. I haven't "deleted/archived" any comment you left here today. You made a comment on User talk:Ferret which I moved to the bottom of the talk page as all new comments belong at the bottom per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#WP:BOTTOMPOST. Second, I'm glad to hear you don't have a conflict of interest. We get a lot of paid editors, most of whom lie about it. Third, regarding the article about "Dunia engine", nothing has been deleted; it's still saved but that entry was first redirected in May 2017 and has been redirected a couple more times because the subject is not notable. There are no "cancel-artist"s deleting stuff just to do it. Rather, we have a cohesive wiki where all pages and editing comply with our five pillars and a series of policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is not a "webhost" where you get to have a page all for yourself because you figure it doesn't cost anything. Our gardeners, new page patrollers, "recent changes" patrol and other editors continually look at articles they themselves know nothing about just to enforce our community rules. Surely you don't begrudge us that those of us that edit regularly create our own community rules. As for me, I quit after having created 34 articles because I realize that Wikipedia has cancer. I'm not going to keep working for free. Now I only occasionally edit to deal with those like you who make trouble for our other editors. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
you are right, Wikipedia has cancer, because of people like the ones who "care too much" about "their pages". It's a community effort, isn't it? I helped Wikipedia occasionally by adding new content since 2004. But first those cancel-artists destroyed the German language Wikipedia, now this cancer took over even English language Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia that is digital, and has no space problem like the old printed encyclopedia's. And yes some topics are interesting like game engines, and for what ever reason there seems to be certain persons who hate such technical details, and delete them from Wikipedia. It seems almost as there is a conflict of interest by the person you mentioned in your link. The same guy who is behind Wikipedia is also behind the off-split Fandom wiki (former Wikia). And of course, those specialist articles get now deleted from Wikipedia, because his company can earn more with ad-loaden wiki pages on Fandom.com. But even there the deletists started to delete pages, and it's only available there in russian (which I don't speak): https://farcry.fandom.com/ru/wiki/Dunia_Engine . And yes there are a lot of references on that and the "Dunia_Engine" page on Wikipedia you deleted the day before yesterday. It doesn't count, it seems. Notable article is what the admin decides. On the other side, I am pretty sure Wikipedia contains a wiki page for all minor Marvel Comic characters, even if there a mentioned just on one comic book page. For some reason, certain topics get a free pass, while technical topics get deleted and summarized left and right. It appears we can't have a nice Wikipedia, because there too many accounts that got admin rights for some reason or another, and turned rough over time and now just delete pages left and right for their wikipedia-political agenda or what ever it is. I am not judging you, random admin and I am not reverting your change either. Because Wikipedia seems to have cancer, as you mentioned. And I agree with you on that. --81.10.234.235 (talk) 11:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Happy Holidays
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Chris troutman, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010Talk 00:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey,
I think you got mistaken. I meant how to remove the first note added to the page, not the actual page. The actual page has been running fine and was accepted and has been on Wikipedia for several months. I’d like to page kept please. It was accepted originally and suffered some vandilsm, but it got sorted and has been fine since. 217.70.248.154 (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
No, I understood you clearly; I was being a bit flippant in my reply. You see, I once used to be a paid editor (back before you had to disclose that fact). I wrote an article about Len Forkas for about $300 and it lived on Wikipedia for years until the subject, himself got greedy and tried to promote himself even harder than the fair appraisal I wrote for pay. Len's stupid interference brought unwanted attention and the article was deleted so now Wikipedia doesn't have an article about Len. The lesson here is, this encyclopedia is written by insiders. You aren't allowed to promote yourself here and you better not attract our attention lest our editors turn on you. You should have stayed hidden rather than post a self-serving message to get a banner template removed. But hey, that banner template will be gone, and that's what you asked for. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Happy Christmas!
Merry Christmas!
History DMZ(HQ) † (wire) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Diff
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Chris—I came across this diff in my watchlist, and found the edit summary rather concerning. WP:BITE is an extremely important guideline—it's core to our philosophy, and without it we won't be able to recruit new editors and survive. Could you speak to your edit? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.
AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.
Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks!
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I couldn't figure out why my comment wasn't posting. Probably never would have. Thank you, Mr. Troutman! Hope you're well. Julie JSFarman (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
March 1 2022
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for your note on Ukraine invasion. The invasion is in daily progress and my post on the Military history talk page was to discuss the invasion in terms consistent with Wikipedia usage in other military articles under the changing circumstances of the invasion. At present, the on-going invasion is being described as shifting from a first phase into a second phase and I changed the wording in my post to the Military history talk page in accordance with this development. What is the best way to describe the invasion is still the question to be determined if there are any editors at Wikipedia in military history who have dealt with similar military situations in the past or in other Wikipedia articles. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
@ErnestKrause: As I pointed out on your talk page, WP:REDACT prohibits you changing your prior comment in that way. Discussion about the article takes place at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, not MILHIST or here. Your question, itself, is inappropriate. Wikipedia, a tertiary source, summarizes what secondary (and sometimes primary) sources say. You cannot assert that the invasion looks like an encirclement to you and lament that the sources cited don't call it that, asking other editors to suggest how you should characterize it. My recommendation is that you stop editing the article entirely, wait a few weeks or a month or two, and then make another survey of available source material. Perhaps by then, a military journal will have published an article and you can summarize what they say. While I understand many editors make "updating" Wikipedia daily a therapy they indulge, it's irresponsible encyclopedism. Not waiting for better sources, especially when the event is ongoing, leads to uncertainties like the one with which you struggle. I have often said that the best Wikipedia editing is done when neither you nor anyone else cares about the subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
WikiCup 2022 May newsletter
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The second round of the 2022 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 115 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top seven contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 11 featured articles and the 79 good articles achieved in total by contestants.
Our top scorers in round 2 were:
Epicgenius, with 1264 points from 2 featured article, 4 good articles and 18 DYKs. Epicgenius was a finalist last year but has now withdrawn from the contest as he pursues a new career path.
AryKun, with 1172 points from two featured articles, one good article and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews.
Bloom6132, with 605 points from 44 in the news items and 4 DYKs.
Sammi Brie, with 573 points from 8 GAs and 21 DYKs.
Ealdgyth, with 567 points from 11 GAs and 34 good and featured article reviews.
Panini!, with 549 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and several other sources.
Lee Vilenski, with 545 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and a number of reviews.
The rules for featured and good article reviews require the review to be of sufficient length; brief quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and CwmhiraethCwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
New messages go at the bottom of the page
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Chris. Let me know if you want to meet up for coffee, or have a zoom session. Truly appreciate the time you have carved out and spent looking at my article. @x72153 — Preceding unsigned comment added by X72153 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
11+ year old tag on Avon, MA
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I updated the tag to be current, instead of just yelling "Add more citations!", we should keep the tags current then. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 15:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
@Th78blue: Hi. If you read {{More citations needed}} you'll see that the documentation says that the date parameter is dated to when the problem was originally identified thereby "allowing the oldest problems to be identified and dealt with first". Unlike other templates, this template does not have the date parameter to indicate when the article was last checked and found to be deficient, so it does not need updating. I have since reverted you. The fact that you originally removed the template without addressing why it was there indicates you misunderstood why we have maintenance templates in the first place. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thank you for pointing me in the right direction. I was of the understanding that we want users to understand the currency of the issue, whatever that tag may be. Thanks Chris. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 15:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you!
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Have this cup of tea as compensation for my error. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 15:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
please Help Me!
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@Amir ghpro: How many more times would you like me to decline it? You have to make a case for notability, not just spam citations from unknown sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
hi. thanks for your great help with WP:HIST! I was wondering, could I please list you as a "coordinator" there? your terrific work with helping to maintain the project, and manage the members list, shows that you are already fulfilling a valuable role there. I hope that's ok. feel free to let me know. you can ping me here, if you reply here. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
@Sm8900: I must decline your invitation. I am not a member of that WikiProject and am no longer contributing in the main namespace. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you!
Thank you for your note on my 10th anniversary of my first edit day! Can't believe it's been 10 years. It was great to be notified about it. LovelyEdittalkedits — Preceding undated comment added 21:04, 12 April 2022
A cookie for you!
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@Mr Reading Turtle: Thanks for the thanks! While some editors don't care at all about receiving recognition in a general sense, some editors really appreciate it; some crave that personal message. The work you and I and others perform is editor retention, as it is quite normal for some folks to get disillusioned on this website. After all, the encyclopedia only exists because of our fellow editors. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
In Appreciation
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I wish to thank you for bringing to my attention the mistakes I made on Missing Wikipedians. I very much appreciate it and I have learned from it all thanks to you. Hope to see you again, thanks! IMiss2010 (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
@IMiss2010: Your quite welcome. I appreciate your contributions to WP:MIA and I'm happy to see you continue. I always want to encourage everyone be the best that they can be. If ever you want help learning other aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to ask. I (and those editors who stalk my talk page) would be glad to point you in the right direction. We're all in this together. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Notice of ANI discussion
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Chris. I was looking through some stuff on Quarry and noticed something funny about you: You're notextendedconfirmed. In fact yours is the only active account that lacks extendedconfirmed but has other rights (excluding confirmed, bot, and sysop), other than two former admins who haven't edited since they were desysopped and thus haven't been autopromoted. I took a look at the context, and I see that you requested having your MMS and extendedmover rights removed; shortly after, your MMS and extendedconfirmed rights were removed. It's been about 18 months since then, so perhaps you've already noticed by now, but just thought I'd point it out in case you hadn't. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 13:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
@Tamzin: Thanks for pointing this out; perhaps there was indeed a mistake made by the admin involved. I might at some point look into getting the matter resolved so my username isn't a spurious entry on that query. That said, I gave up editing in the main namespace with rare exceptions, so I don't need to be extendedconfirmed as it would be a userright I would not use, in contravention of Wikipedia:HATSHOP. Thanks again for your careful attention. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Your comment at BN
Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I genuinely don't understand what you're saying and have enough respect for your username to be interested to know what you mean. Would you mind explaining it? In my defence, I'm tired (you can probably tell... this comment is unnecessarily tangled) and it's probably obvious, so I'll apologise now! --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 20:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@Dweller: I've been carefully considering my response. I realized that a fulsome reply would involve much research into the past discussions about 'crat discretionary range that brought us here. In the interests of providing a useful answer now, I'll explain that my earlier comment pointed to the 2019 expansion of discretionary range taking adminship requests out of the hands of editors and into the hands of 'crats who can now divine the voters' intent as well as disregard votes which shouldn't count. If RfA were a pure vote 158 supports and 72 opposes is still 68.7% and we live with the math deciding. Those who make too much of adminship couldn't accept math and they pushed ever-expanding "discretionary range." The 2019 RfC was the final straw for me and I quit paying attention to RfA. Now that RfA is a political decision, the bureaucrats are thoroughly politicized, far from the boring button-pushers we as a community used to trust. Perhaps this is why they're talking now about picking someone else for that button-pushing job. Questions like how much should bureaucrats weigh re-confirmations misses the point that 'crats can just argue for their preference. There is no math involved because the entire system was compromised. I hope that helps. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Wow. There's a lot there. I disagree with a lot (most) of it, but I'm grateful for you taking the time to explain yourself and I didn't come here for an argument. Peace. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 19:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
There is a lot there. You seem to be proposing a purely formulaic approach to deciding consensus with any consideration of strength of argument? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Strength of argument is fine for XfD, where you often have few comments either way. RfA's get plenty of participation. And while you might like to make or break candidates based upon particular criteria, what actually happens is a political discussion where we collectively decide which candidates will bear a huge ego inflation as they can block our accounts and delete our content. I've never had one of my votes at RfA thrown out but I'm not going to participate in a system where my input can be so easily disregarded on such a weighty matter. ARBCOM is straight vote. What good is accomplished by not allowing RfA to be a vote? Perhaps it is you, not me the misanthrope, who doesn't trust the community of your fellow editors. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey! i saw that you reviewed my page. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiegoonusRHF (talk • contribs) 01:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
A goat for you!
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Great feedback showing a newbie how they're missing the mark and their relative value to the community overall. Thanks! Here's a goat.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages.
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Chris, I meant to email you but saw you didn't have email enabled. Could you drop me an email to my gmail account? The gmail account name is the same as my account name here, i.e. jayen466. Best, --AndreasJN466 12:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Signpost tagger
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I saw you mentioned that you use this script to tag articles, which I've never heard of before. This is significantly embarrassing, since I am the co-EiC of the Signpost, so I apologize for my ignorance -- what's the deal with this thing, and how can we support your use of it? We are planning to improve some of the technical aspects of the publication, so would appreciate hearing from you. jp×g 17:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
@JPxG: Thanks for asking! As to the tagger, please see my prior statement at the Newsroom and Headbomb's discussion from 2019 at the Newsroom. The tagger only works on published Signpost pieces, not drafts. Meta-tagging content makes past issues more-readily searchable by subject. Anyone can tag Signpost content once you install the code. We are caught up to current pieces but have a significant backlog in 2019-2020. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Request to move draft intro a article page
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey! i saw that you reviewed page Soufia Taloni
Please i just finished the code source and articles in Draft:Soufia Taloni all its correct ? I will now continue to ask for upto move a draft merga a page
Thanks! 160.161.232.190 (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not interested in helping you; please stop asking. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. Just read your review. I appreciate your comment but I must say none of the reasons you gave is correct. Sorry. Regards. Iberastro (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
New Page Review queue June 2022
Hello Chris troutman,
Backlog status
At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000[a] at the end of May.
Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.[b]
In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).
While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).
Backlog drive
A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.
TIP – New school articles
Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.
Misc
There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:
Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 11171 articles, as of 18:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot
There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
No one is trying to promote themselves, which is why I was asking for someone to help that wasn't biased. If that was the case I would have wrote the article myself. I am following the rules one hundred percent. It literally says in the help section "If you want to write an article about yourself, ask for help" I did just that and have been completely honest, yet you want to come to my talk page and try throw shade? Then to say that I shouldn't have a Wiki, I think having two hit songs on billboard top 100 is Wiki material. Wiki literally has a page for Adin Ross that is nothing more than a marketing scheme to promote his Twitch pages. Trust me I looked up what "Wiki deems Notable" and I fit the bill or I wouldn't even be asking for help. You have serious issues my friend, and seem like a very toxic person in the Wiki community. Wezleymusic (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
@Wezleymusic:WP:MUSICBIO accepts claims like charting. Do you have the URLs to show me where Billboard says you charted? Does Wikipedia already have articles about those songs? Chris Troutman (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi. Do we have an update on what's happening? It was thrown out of Phab because someone decided it needed yet another (3rd) RfC although the previous ones had clear consensus. Apparently one was started at the VP but I can't find it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I finally located the post at the VP. It was indeed only a notification about the RfC at WT:NPR, which still has consensus as did the earlier original RfC which got somehow swept under the carpet. So as far as I can see there should be no reason for anyone to post at Phab in order to stall the request. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
WikiCup 2022 July newsletter
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The third round of the 2022 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 180 points, which is a lower figure than last year when 294 points were needed to progress to round 4. Our top scorers in round 3 were:
BennyOnTheLoose, with 746 points, a tally built both on snooker and other sports topics, and on more general subjects.
Bloom6132, with 683 points, garnered mostly from "In the news" items and related DYKs.
Sammi Brie, with 527, from a variety of submissions related to radio and television stations.
Between them contestants achieved 5 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 51 good articles, 149 DYK entries, 68 ITN entries, and 109 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article nomination, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. WikiCup judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Friend, Greetings, I’m really pleased to write for you, I would want to request this page to be created by you, because it was previously created with a DJ Kelblizz and was deleted for reasons I don’t really you but I think there was no much references then, please help to create DJ Kelblizz (Disc jockey), with this references to reliable sources. Thanks
@Demiles224: No. I don't write articles, anymore. You can post your request to WP:RB and offer a barnstar or some such. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
talkback
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Whoever put a link there for a page to be made. Which, by my check, was just an IP address. MushroomMan674 (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
@MushroomMan674: Not every red-link demands to be made a blue-link. Articles still have to pass WP:N. You could, instead, remove internal links if they're not appropriate. You could also ignore them. Even WP:Requested articles would be more circumspect. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Chris troutman. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Maya Alcantara, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Playing for the Philippines women's national football team is enough for A7 not to apply. Thank you. BangJan1999 16:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Chris troutman. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Finswimming at the 2022 World Games – Men's 100 m bi-fins, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. BangJan1999 20:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Chris troutman. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Finswimming at the 2022 World Games – Men's 400 m surface, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. BangJan1999 20:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This AfD closed before I could respond to your concern. I absolutely did not mean to suggest anything "nefarious" about the bulk nomination. I was simply suggesting that the 11 articles may not qualify under WP:BUNDLE given that the content is not identical and the GNG analysis would vary from one year to the next given such variables as (i) championship seasons tend to garner more coverage than other seasons, (2) the article on the 2022 season deals with future events and thus seemed less likely to pass GNG at the present time, etc. I do apologize if my comment was mis-interpreted. Cheers. Cbl62 (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
@Cbl62: Your point is taken regarding BUNDLE; I was in error. Apology accepted; no hard feelings. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
ORCP
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for being one of the regulars who does in-depth due diligence. Posts on Wikipedia like this rambling diatribe by wannabe admins make me cringe. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
@Kudpung: I am always thankful that editors will tell us quite clearly what they're about; we wouldn't want to be fooled. After past complaints against me I've tried to make my contributions useful so if I'm doing a better job at that now, then I'm glad. Poll requests like that one which ignore the banners at the top happen frequently enough that I've come to believe that denizens of the internet often seek the shortest path to where they are going, ignoring ads and other messages. While I've come to understand people's vain desires for encouragement coupled with wishful thinking in a general sense, I'm not clear how adminship on Wikipedia is perceived in the modern era as easy to get. Hopefully Ill be able to use that "in-depth due diligence" on a worthy candidate. Thanks for the compliment and your contributions to this movement. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
People are always ready to complain. Some Wikipedia witch-finders general look under every stone to see if they can find the slightest fault. Some people pay a high price for just doing their job because the judge-jury system here refuses to do proper due diligence. My choice nowadays is to contribute as little as possible for this Wikipedia but I'll be damned if I'll let CIR users into NPP or adminship. Adminship is not easy to get but its process scares a lot of potentially good cadidates away. ORCP does its job though, but while many of the contenders are just trolling, there is occasionally the rare gem. Most users who successfully pass RfA don't bother with ORCP because they've already done their homework. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC).
Film notability
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Thank you for making your points at the deletion discussion for Good Night Malvinas. You have interpreted the guidelines in NFILM in a clear manner and helped me understand them better. I wish I had read your comments before I voted at WP:Articles for deletion/Art Machine - I probably would've plagiarized your text, as it was pretty much what I was trying to say! Wes sideman (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
@Wes sideman: I'm glad my comments were helpful. Deletion discussions are half knowledge of the rules, half subjective determination. Although our editing community has been slowly ending our subject-specific criteria (WP:PORNBIO, WP:SOLDIER, WP:NATHLETE) there are still many others which remain and it takes time to learn them like NFILM, WP:NRODEO, and WP:ANYBIO among others. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
AfD also requires the right people see and respond to the nomination. Two people who just don't want something deleted without a reasonable argument is enough to stop a low-attendance AfD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Chris and @ScottishFinnishRadish: I did end up quoting Chris in a reply at WP:Articles for deletion/Art Machine - I think most voters don't understand that two reviews do not make a film notable, and yet, many voters seem to use exactly that as justification for "keep" votes. Wes sideman (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Chris. I was wondering if you could tell me why you changed the loona tour section? As you deleted two of the tours on the list as they were "Junk" and took all the info from two pages(Loonaverse: From & Loonatheworld) and copy and pasted and put them on the Loona page? Do you have a reason for this? wanted to ask before i reverted the changes. matt. (talk) 05:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Ah, okay. also i did not revert the loona page i simply removed the redirect on the loonatheworld as that redireced to loona matt. (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
The Deleted User talk has been fixed
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Chris, I searched for "Song of the Cane Fields" and was ready to !vote "delete" when I realized one of the poorly formatted sources on the article page was this review from The North American Post. And then I found this book which discusses the 2003 TV movie as well. I started searching for additional sources (specifically looking for books and journal articles on portrayals of Okinawan history) when the article was deleted. I've sent a note to the AfD closer and I haven't looked closely enough at the sources and guidelines to understand whether these 2 sources would have contributed to notability, but had been hoping to have some additional time to search. (Or is it really not worth it?) I was just struck by the fact that the movie seems so popular among school teachers as well, so that was another possible avenue of inquiry. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle: As you can see, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Song of the Canefields closed as soft delete, so you can request to have the article at WP:REFUND. In my personal opinion those two sources would not be enough to satisfy NFILM or GNG but you could develop an article in your user sandbox until you think it's ready. We often get editors who think that a particular thing is popular among their own cohort but they lack the sources to make a case for notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! I actually just want to leave the article creator a message. Is there any way to find out who that was? Cielquiparle (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
@Balu12345: I wish you had read what I wrote. You just added a lot of unsourced info to the draft and internal links. None of that matters. My contention is that Gil is a low-profile person who got coverage for once being a Jew in Mecca, which is unusual. That's not enough for a biography and it doesn't matter how many sources you provide for that one event. Stuff the subject wrote doesn't count towards notability, nor does anything his employers say about him. Please wait until Gil dies. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Dear Chris troutman,
I plan to write more about this journalist. However, I would like to know how many sources should be added in total.
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
This award is given to Chris troutman for 124 reviews and 27 re-reviews in the July NPP backlog reduction drive. Your contributions played a part in the 9895 reviews that took place during the drive. Thank you for your contributions. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 08:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
@Zippybonzo: Glad to see this, but this award is only for the 124 reviews. The awards section says I'm owed a Teamwork Barnstar for the 27 re-reviews. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I’m going to do those tonight. I nearly killed myself doing all of them so I took a little break. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 14:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
NPP Drive Re-Review Award
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion
The Teamwork Barnstar
Awarded to Chris troutman for re-reviewing 27 articles. Thank you for your contributions. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 15:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
There you go. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 15:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
New Page Review queue August 2022
Hello Chris troutman,
Backlog status
After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.
Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.
Coordination
MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.
Open letter to the WMF
The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.
TIP - Reviewing by subject
Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.
New reviewers
The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Chris troutman,
Invitation
For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Chris Troutman. Thank you for your tips on improving the article, which have now been taking into account. I would appreciate if you can review the text and if there are suggestions for improvements. 197.249.39.91 (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
August 2022 GOCE blitz awards
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Chris troutman for copy edits totaling over 10,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE August 2022 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
The Copy Editor's 10K Star
This barnstar is awarded to Chris troutman for copy-editing at least one individual article of more than 10,000 words during the most recent Guild of Copy Editors' Drive or Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments4 people in discussion
I noticed that a message you recently left to DuckTwacky may have been unduly harsh. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see others making a common mistake, consider politely pointing out what they did wrong and showing them how to correct it. It takes more time, but it helps us retain new editors. Thank you. Thinker78(talk) 15:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, certainly don't template someone for WP:NOTAFORUM when they continue WP:NOTAFORUM disruption off of the talk page where they normally take part in WP:NOTAFORUM disruption. The Palmer Report disruption of that sort has been a long running issue, it's bad enough on the article talk page, but on unrelated talk pages it should certainly get a notaforum note. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
@Thinker78: So, you templated a regular. Why? You weren't using Twinkle so it wasn't a semi-automated edit. You chose to use a template to address my conduct. Perhaps you thought a boilerplate templated message was the best way to communicate your concern. As for me, I tend to anger and sticking to boilerplate prevents me from telling editors what I really feel. Your complaint is centered around my use of a boilerplate template. You can see the apparent hypocrisy here. I bite newcomers; it says so on my user page. I have always told anyone who comes here about me being harsh (and there have been several over the past nine years) to take their complaint to WP:ANI. I have been publicly rebuked before by the aggregate and I won't be too surprised when it inevitably happens again. Do you want to make a run at that, or will you instead ponder our templated warnings? I, for one, hope you choose the collegial path. I stand in solidarity with our editors, including you. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry I used a template. But these sort of templates have already been thought through, so I find them more useful than thinking the correct words to say without offending. The issue I posted here is not because of your use of a template. It was because you bited a newcomer who had one sole edit, warning them without even welcoming them.
I understand if you want to be harsh; after all, WP:NOBITING is only a guideline, not a policy. But then again, if I want to be harsh on newcomers, then I wouldn't mind others communicating with me. I do choose the collegial path and I didn't come with the intention of bringing this further. I stand in solidarity with you as well in everything good you do and I did notice you are an accomplished editor. Cheers! Thinker78(talk) 23:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Thinker78, I worked on a major project some years ago to reword most template warnings to make them sound less caustic. Like you and me, Chris is also a Mesopedian and one for whose work I have the greatest respect. He has a high edit count, is an expert editor, and like me can therefore make the (hopefully) rare error, but which however does not demonstrate a pattern of carelessness - he doesn't need to be reminded of things like this. It is understandably exasperating for us old timers however, when new users barge in and refuse to read the the blatant 'in-your-face' page and edit notices and other instructions - we even see it all the time from aspiring adminship candidates at WP:ORCP! One could easily say in this instance: 'Don't bite the regulars' and doing so about an established editor on a new user's tp is IMO rather disparaging. BTW, the preterite of 'bite' is 'bit' ;) Thank you nevertheless for being vigilant and expressing your concerns. Keep up the good work :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, we all make mistakes. I am a former union official and as such, due to my experience in authority matters, I have a tendency to treat everyone equally, with certain context. And because we all make mistakes, we need to be indicated stuff from time to time. But I do agree that Chris is a great contributor for what I can see! Regarding grammar, I am bited. I mean bitten!! Thinker78(talk) 00:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Thinker78, I don't disagree with Chris's use of the template because template:uw-chat1, the lowest level warning, concerns article talk pages only, but perhaps an additional welcome message would have been, well, 'welcome'. Perhaps I'll get round to rewording them one of the days, unless someone else does it first. It's always a challenge however, to convey the right message while keeping them as absolutely short as possible. Given the context, pointing out your grammar was too tempting to be resisted. Despite being a professional grammarian, it's not something I would do on Wikipedia ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Chris, and @Thinker78 and ScottishFinnishRadish: I think Template:Uw-chat2 can stand as it is but I have gone ahead and reworded Template:Uw-chat1 to make it more appropriate for new users which would have been a better choice in the case of User talk:DuckTwacky. Aimed at new users, it addresses all tp, not just article talk pages as it did previously. I have simplified it and also taken into account that they do not have access to the reference desk. If you can think of anything better please feel free to revert or edit. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
It looks nice. That was a nice initiative. Thinker78(talk) 16:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Decline request
Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, you recently declined, Nyombi's page, i was asking since am not the perfect editor why don't you find someone to rewrite instead other than freezing him forever. Do you guys work for only those you know. i think Nyombi has all information needed, why can't atleast get someone to edit and return his page online. it doesn't make sense for sure, i tried updating it but all my request were declined, its now five days no one bothering to add in the information required. Rewrite if you want but return in back online. Alien234 (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
@Alien234: We don't need to have an entry about Nyombi Morris because if we did, we would have written it. You should have read about Wikipedia's rules before attempting to write an article. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
This is a classic example of the discussion that is taking place on my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Your response doesn't make any sense to me. revise your typo Alien234 (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
@Alien234: I'll assume this wasn't a clumsy personal attack and rather a reading comprehension problem of yours. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and does not need an article about Nyombi Morris. Wikipedia is not a directory listing everyone on Earth. Nyombi Morris does not own or merit an article on Wikipedia. He doesn't have a page so your request is mistaken. If you are not competent to edit here, you should try a wiki in your native tongue. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I will continue to ask, when an article is dropped in draft, it means its nolonger available, i don't understand what you mean that Nyombi Morris doesn't own an article on wikipedia. Alien234 (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
@Alien234: This is explained in WP:OWN. We Wikipedians are just hobbyists writing about whatever we want. We give away our writings for free and the Wikimedia Foundation owns the servers. No subject of an article is allowed to influence what that article says. Adidas, the footwear company, isn't allowed to control our article about Adidas. This encyclopedia belongs to the editors, not the subjects. Also, we as a community decide notability. No one can argue that they deserve an article; we just don't care. Granted, Wikipedia has lots of articles about many people, but that doesn't imply that other people like them ought to be written about here. Your draft can continue to be improved as time goes by and better source material is published. If all you want is SEO, then you need to stop. If you still need help, try posting to WP:RB. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Your, explanation indicates it clearly that you help create wikipedia when someone pays you or when you know someone, that it. Alien234 (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
@Alien234: That is quite the accusation. I suppose if what you say is true, you should report me to WP:COIN so that everyone else knows that I "help create wikipedia when someone pays you or when you know someone". Of course, if you are wrong there is an excellent chance that you'll be blocked from editing. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Wrongful removal of edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Now listen here mr American. My edit absolutely has a source directly backing it why would a league 2 player be talking about international callups? I don't know if you understand football but that's unheard of. I'm not trying to come across as rude just measly highlighting that factor i come from a place of wanting to give readers a better understanding. TheVeryYesLad (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
@TheVeryYesLad: I can see your opinions got out ahead of your reading comprehension. Yes, the cite says the footballer refuses to play for England. The cite does not say why this might matter. You have an opinion about it. "i come from a place of wanting to give readers a better understanding" Maybe you should try journalism. Get yourself a podcast. This is an encyclopedia and we only regurgitate what sources say. If you don't like that, don't edit here. "I'm not trying to come across as rude" but you are. Do not address me or anyone else on this website with this "Now listen here" nonsense or I will report you. Just to underline how important that is, you'll find a warning from me about it. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
WikiCup 2022 September newsletter
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The fourth round of the WikiCup has now finished. 383 points were required to reach the final, and the new round has got off to a flying start with all finalists already scoring. In round 4, Bloom6132 with 939 points was the highest points-scorer, with a combination of DYKs and In the news items, followed by BennyOnTheLoose, Sammi Brie and Lee Vilenski. The points of all contestants are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.
At this stage, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For the remaining competitors, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and importantly, before the deadline on October 31st!
If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. The judges are Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Edit regarding 2022 Asia Rugby Championship division tournaments
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. I want to explain regarding the article 2022 Asia Rugby Championship division tournaments. It's quite a long time ago but I have forgotten about it.
I understood those articles were to be merged but wanted to strengthen the document before moving the contents.
I was still finding some references, but it was only seven minutes that you undid everything.
I hope this resolves the misunderstanding.
You left a message to me in the 'edit summary' of the article. If you left a message on my take page, I could have seen it much earlier.
Thanks.Regpath (talk) 05:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
@Regpath: There is no "strengthen the document before moving the contents". The AfD is more-or-less final. The content of the former article is always available in the history tab so you can grab content from there at your convenience rather than send the impression you intend to ignore consensus. More than once I have run across editors who reverted redirects because they want to keep the article live. This is not permitted in our collective project and this causes offense to me for which you ought to apologize. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
wow! thanks so much for the shout-out on the Birthday Committee page! and it is sure nice to hear from you, but that's as usual! many thanks for your very thoughtful consideration! cheers! Sm8900 (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Relayball
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Can you please help me with my first article I’m creating Relaybola (talk) 11:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I left you a message on your talk page. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I see it thanks if you see the draft it’s on cp of the north country website and also North Country Now Relaybola (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I moved the page to another spelling alternative. Please review it, thank you
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Chris Troutman,
I am thankful for your latest instructions and suggestions. I will do my best to improve the quality of the edits I am doing here in Wikipedia. I want to get you attention to the article "Utkirbek Kakhorov". I have just moved the article to this spelling. I suggested it for deletion when it was "Utkirbek Qahhorov", now I understood that information about the person the web is all from Kakhorov (I guess it is an alternative english spelling of the surname) so it seems not notable enough with the other spelling. Can you please spare some to to research about this article. And I respect your desicion in terms of this article
Thank you very much. Lostinniagarafalls (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have no idea what you are referencing. I deleted my profile details to update it with accuracy if that is what your concern is. That said, I appreciate the concern and for calling it out as if it were founded I’d surely hope people are on top of things like that to ensure the validity of submissions. Cheers. 2600:6C60:50F0:8120:5D43:376B:74A6:5BA2 (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Careful, Chris...
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I've been taken to ANI before to be officially rebuked by the community. If you want to hang me with the same rope you're using to hang Athaenara, that 's fine. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry! You used the winking smiley face in your original statement and I missed it. Yeah. Note on her talk page aren't disputing the issue so much as explaining that she's not allowed to say those things in public. That's what really concerns me: not one loudmouth screaming incoherently about an issue or the one person who will disagree with the screaming, but the 99 others who also disagree with the screaming but caution that we musn't say anything. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
DS alert
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments3 people in discussion
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
@Tamzin: I have no interest in a gender-related dispute. I expressed an opinion about how some beliefs on this website are praised and others are silenced. I wonder if the Arbs who created DS to cool disputes in articles realized editors like you would misuse them to intimidate anyone who expresses unpopular beliefs on a user talk page about a fellow editor getting blocked. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
I would hope they realized that when editors say things like "first they came for Athaenara but I wasn't a TERF so I remained silent", before going on to call colleagues opposed to transphobic personal attacks "neofascist", those editors would be made aware that their comments fell under a DS area, yes. If you think that was not their intention, you are welcome to inquire at ARCA. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Just to be clear, if Tamzin had not placed this necessary, neutral notice today I would have done so (and I'm confident others would as well). Referring to the consensus of the RS and on Wikipedia itself - that gender identity is real - as a neofascist orthodoxy in the context of was done is at the very least "participating in a gender-related dispute", and goes some way IMO towards the author's being allowed to participate in GENSEX disputes in the future, as it was an inherently disruptive rhetorical move (and the point of ACDS is to prevent future disruption). Newimpartial (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
My Wiki birthday
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hello! I have October 14th as my Wiki birthday because I had a previous account Orson1234. So is it ok if I add my name to the calendar on October 14th? Orson12345 (Talk • Contribs) 18:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
@Orson12345: Go ahead and make that change. Please let me know if you need help. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Ha! I don’t actually know how to do this, could you help me out? Orson12345 (Talk • Contribs) 18:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
@Orson12345: No worries; it's easy. First, this is my edit adding your 12345 account to November 6th. Undo it, put in the edit summary that you're going to be listed on a different day because of your other account (or words to that effect), and hit "publish changes". Next, go to Wikipedia:Birthday Committee/Calendar/October/14 and edit that by putting your current user account under the First Edit Day line replacing the word "none". You might also use the edit summary that you're going to be listed there because of your older account. That's it. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Awesome! Thank you so much! I’m going to add my real birthday as well. Have a great day! Orson12345 (Talk • Contribs) 19:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022
Hello Chris troutman,
Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.
Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.
Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.
NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022
Suggestions:
There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.
Backlog:
Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!
Reminders
Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Warning messages
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Wikipedia only issues warnings regarding vandalism or bad behavior. The edits you reverted were not wrong so your warnings were. I think you know this. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
We've seen that happen before. Please take a look at WP:ORES. You should never need to revert established editors so if you're trying to automate this and see these outcomes, think again. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Sorry to hijack Chris. IP user - you are responsible for all edits you make on Wikipedia. You can't just revert good edits and then warn people with blocks as you did when reverting a few edits, including [1]. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 22:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
WikiCup 2022 November newsletter
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The 2022 WikiCup has drawn to a close with the final round going down to the wire. The 2022 champion is
Lee Vilenski (1752 points), who won in 2020 and was runner up in both 2019 and last year. In the final round he achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on cue sports. He was closely followed by
Bloom6132 (1732), who specialised in "In the news" items and DYKs, and who has reached the final round of the Cup for the past three years. Next was
BennyOnTheLoose (1238), another cue sports enthusiast, also interested in songs, followed by
Muboshgu (1082), an "In the news" contributor, a seasoned contestant who first took part in the Cup ten years ago. Other finalists were
Sammi Brie (930), who scored with a featured article, good articles and DYKs on TV and radio stations,
Kavyansh.Singh (370), who created various articles on famous Americans, including an FA on Louis H. Bean, famed for his prediction of election outcomes. Next was
PCN02WPS (292), who scored with good articles and DYKs on sporting and other topics and
Z1720 (25) who had DYKs on various topics including historic Canadians.
During the WikiCup, contestants achieved 37 featured articles, 349 good articles, 360 featured article reviews, 683 good article reviews and 480 In the news items, so Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors. Well done everyone! All those who reached the final round will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or the overall leader in this field.
Lee Vilenski wins the featured article prize, for a total of 6 FAs during the course of the competition and 3 in the final round.
Kavyansh.Singh wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 2.
Adam Cuerden wins the featured picture prize, for 39 FPs during the competition.
Z1720 wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 35 FARs in round 4.
Epicgenius wins the good article prize, for 32 GAs in round 1.
SounderBruce wins the featured topic prize, for 4 FT articles in round 1.
Lee Vilenski wins the good topic prize, for 34 GT articles in round 5.
Sammi Brie wins the good article reviewer prize, for 71 GARs overall.
Sammi Brie wins the Did you know prize, for 30 DYKs in round 3 and 106 overall.
Bloom6132 wins the In the news prize, for 106 ITNs in round 5 and 289 overall.
Next year's competition will begin on 1 January and possible changes to the rules and scoring are being discussed on the discussion page. You are invited to sign up to take part in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to have a good turnout for the 2023 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners and finalists, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
You had a good rationale and didn't need to include a bad one.
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Regarding this revert, "substantive change without prior discussion" is not a valid rationale for an objection. SeeWP:PGBOLD. That said, I agree with your substantive objection to the text change. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out PGBOLD; I was unaware of it and I disagree with it. I'm not sure why editors would allow changes to policies or guidelines without discussion. I'll keep this in mind, however. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Teamwork Barnstar
Thank you for your help with the Robert Wilson page! Bcallrobert65 (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Bitey reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This reply on User:Fastily's page was bitey. That isn't how we deal with newcomers. I'm not trying to be sanctimonious; I just couldn't not say something. —Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 03:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, this is probably an SPA for promoting a (non-notable) African individual. There have been an unusually high number of these in the past few months, so Chris' exasperation is understandable. -FASTILY 05:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
I was not exasperated; I'm just a mistanthrope without much compunction. I've been biting n00bs since 2014, which is why I put it on my userpage. Confronting these nonsense accusations was, in this case, ultimately successful so I think you, Mr. Guye, are mistaken about how to deal with newcomers. Regardless, I acknowledge your criticism. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
New message from DHSchool2003Student
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, I saw your invite but can I ask something first?
I'm mainly using my mobile as my lap top need throwing in the sea. Can I still join if I'm using my mobile (switching to desktop) or will I struggle keeping up with such a small screen?
I'm getting a new laptop soon but not until after Xmas.
Thanks, Knitsey (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
@Knitsey: I have never used a phone to edit although I know some do. To that end, I can't speak to what your phone shows you using various tools. Please ask your question at the CVUA talk page or once you have selected a trainer. Were it me, I'd wait until you have something other than a phone or tablet but again, that's my experience only. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Ok thank you. Knitsey (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I do most of my anti-vandalism work on my phone. Twinkle and redwarn work fine using the desktop site on a mobile device. You just have to be careful with your fingers so you don't accidentally roll back. The most difficult thing is watching recent changes, as you don't have access to multiple open tabs or Windows at once. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}}
Hello, Chris troutman! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! ★Trekker (talk) 09:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2023!
Hello Chris troutman, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2023. Happy editing,
I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and healthy New Year, Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia, –Davey2010Talk 11:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.
Happy Holidays
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hope it's splendid for you and yours! JSFarman (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year - Thank you!
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
— That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Dear Chris,
Thank you dearly for the Christmas message on my talk page. Very much appreciated. May God bless you and your family this season and forevermore. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 16:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Chris troutman, Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours!~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Chris troutman, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010Talk 00:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2023 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk·contribs·email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk·contribs·email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Chris troutman!
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Chris troutman, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
—Moops⋠T⋡ 20:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I hope 2023 brings you all good things, Chris! Thank you for the WikiLove! Uncommon fritillary (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!
Hello Chris troutman, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, DHSchool2003Student (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I can not change the 2024 to 2023. DHSchool2003Student (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Original Barnstar
Congratulations, you have completed your two-step award! This barnstar is in recognition of your meticulous and thorough work of fully streamlining the Birthday Committee's Wiki-project pages. Cordially, History DMZ(HQ) † (wire)
P.S. This barnstar is awarded retroactively with a start date of 20 August 2021. Better late than never! History DMZ(HQ) † (wire) 22:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
Thank you for participating in Articles for Creation's January 2023 Backlog Drive! You reviewed 39 drafts, for a total of 57.5 points. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 00:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023
Hello Chris troutman,
New Page Review queue December 2022
Backlog
The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.
2022 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!
Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)
New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js
Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.
Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.
Reminders
Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
WikiCup 2023 March newsletter
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
So ends the first round of the 2023 WikiCup. Everyone with a positive score moved on to Round 2, with 54 contestants qualifying. The top scorers in Round 1 were:
Unlimitedlead with 1205 points, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with two featured articles on historical figures and several featured article candidate reviews.
Epicgenius was in second place with 789 points; a seasoned WikiCup competitor he specialises in buildings and locations in New York.
FrB.TG was in third place with 625 points, garnered from a featured article on a filmmaker which qualified for an impressive number of bonus points.
TheJoebro64, another WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points gained from two featured articles on video games.
Iazyges was in fifth place with 532 points, from two featured articles on classical history.
These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. The first round finished on February 26. Remember that any content promoted after that date but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.
If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
10! 💎
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Happy Wiki Birthday!
Happy WikiBirthday! Hi Chris troutman! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy birthday! Enjoy this special day! User:Brachy0008 (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
@ToBeFree: Thanks so much for all this! I had entirely forgotten about our exchange months ago and I was pretty sure I wouldn't have gotten the Ten Year invite but you were true to your word. This made my day and helps me feel better about this project as my interest has really dropped off. Rest assured that you did your bit for editor retention today. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi @Chris troutman, I have created this, which incorporates the text from your UBX; I hope that's alright with you.
I thought it might be funny, copying for the CopyVio topicon. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
@1AmNobody24: That's fine. The image is not mine as it is not copyright although you could thank Xander89 for uploading it originally. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Shirleene Robinson
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
WP:COPYARTICLE says deleted content should not be kept indefinitely in user space. – FayenaticLondon 16:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
@Fayenatic london: I'm not opposed to what you suggest but I do not understand why. Why not just CSD nom it in my own userspace? Chris Troutman (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. This method reunites the article with its (deleted) talk page, and makes it easier to find in case anyone else wants to work on it. – FayenaticLondon 07:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Procedural notification
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for the invitation while back to join the Ten Year Society. I sorry that I'm a little late at responding--I was away from Wikipedia for a long time. But, I am now back. Incidentally, I am very thankful for the invitation, and would like to join the Ten Year Society. When you invited me I was editing as User:Garagepunk66. I've now changed my user name to User:GloryRoad66. I noticed that my name is not currently on the list, but is there a way I could join? Thanks, GloryRoad66 (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
@GloryRoad66: The invitation is to you, the editor. You are still editing with the same account dating back to 2012; the name change doesn't erase your edit history. Please feel free to add a topicon or other template as you choose and thereby join. On behalf of Wikipedia, thanks for your efforts over the past ten years. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Sir/Mam. You have told that my article Draft:Chanda Sahib invasion of Travancore doesn't have a professional level of English. I don't understand what you meant. I have seen many articles with simple English. Ajayraj890 (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
@Ajayraj890: Other editors have left comments on the draft which you should read. I have already stated that the issue is sentence structure, specifically the subject-verb-object structure which gets old sentence after sentence after sentence. For these reasons I think you ought to try Simple English Wikipedia, which is a project specifically designed for editors new to the English language who are conversant but not professional. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
That is really helpful. Thank you. Ajayraj890 (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
assistance WRT WP:V & sourcing
Latest comment: 10 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
At some point in the past, you assisted me in a discussion about sourcing an article whose name has been lost to time. I scratched your name onto a list of helpful editors, and come now, hat in hand, to seek your input again on a matter of article sourcing. Would you mind if I made such an ask, again? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Beginning in early April 2020, I've been involved in a slow-motion edit war at "The Pet Goat" with another editor who won't allow the removal of uncited claims in the section that they added to the page. Would you mind taking a look at the article history, its talk page, and weighing in? I feel like I'm going in circles, and would really appreciate the perspective of an uninvolved party. Many thanks, — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Notability of Businesspeople
Latest comment: 9 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi @Chris troutman,
Thanks for reviewing my article. I am just curious as to what exactly makes a person in the business world "notable". I ask this because all of the articles that I have written have been rejected for lack of notability, yet I see many other businesspeople on Wikipedia that appear to be far less notable/popular. Is there a specific thing that is needed in order to make a businessperson notable, or what is used to determine this? I have read the notability page and still cannot see why a couple of mine have been rejected. (For reference the article you rejected for lack of notability was Draft:Paul Rivett (businessman), but I have had several others rejected for the same reason.)
Thank you Qgrunklebert (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
@Qgrunklebert: Notability on Wikipedia is typically never what any new editor thinks it based upon their life experience. Your argument WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is unacceptable here and you are welcome to nominate other biographical articles for deletion if you find it so egregious. Subjects are either notable via subject-specific guidelines like WP:NRODEO or WP:NMUSICBIO or they have to qualify under our general notability guideline (GNG). GNG requires significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Across the billions of humans who have lived, the vast majority will never be notable. Not only do we not have a specific guideline for businesspeople, we volunteers take a dim view of perceived attempts by the monied classes to self-promote. I often caution editors to wait until a person has died before trying to write an article about them, as obituaries and historical study happen after death. Surely, there is no good reason to write about a living person unless you can point to unambiguous criteria mentioned in WP:N. Of the 26 biographical articles I've written, most qualify under WP:NPROF or WP:NARTIST. If you're getting many drafts rejected for this reason, why not instead find a good reference book and then write based upon what you find there? Chris Troutman (talk) 02:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Chris troutman, Understood, I will focus on dead people from here on out, it was just frustrating sinking time into four different articles that all got rejected (which I now understand is mainly my own fault). For the article that you reviewed on Rivett, under the criteria established by the General Notability Guideline (GNG) and Notability (people) Guideline (BIO), he qualifies for a standalone article. His professional career includes a variety of notable roles, as demonstrated by reliable and independent sources (GNG), including his term as president of Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited and his active participation in the acquisition of Torstar as well as the split from Torstar. Beyond a single event, Rivett's career encompasses several significant moments in the business sector, aligning with the criterion in BIO which considers "People notable for their role in specific events". As such, his professional trajectory holds public interest, underscoring his suitability for an individual Wikipedia article. Qgrunklebert (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
You hadn't convinced anyone else, so no purpose in telling me. I think if Wikipedia needed an article on Rivett, one of our longterm editors would have written it. Regarding your editing, please stick to improving extant articles rather than create new ones. You could gather your references and improve a sad-looking article into a GA. I have found that Wikipedia editing remains enjoyable so long as neither you nor anyone else cares about the topic, so best stay away from anything controversial. Books that address a specific topic, especially when you have more than one, do a lot to solidify notability. Well-reviewed books are themselves great subjects for articles. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Do you deem me not ready to be a New Page patroller?
Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
If I'm seen as unfit for the New Page patrolling, I would gladly contribute by only assessing and cleaning up Grammar, tagging articles that need more citations, removing poorly sources material In articles, the works.
Regards UncleCedric (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)UncleCedric, you have been editing for one day and have 29 edits credited to your account. You don't have near enough editing experience to be a new page patroller. Consider applying in a few months. LizRead!Talk! 22:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Could you please explain why you think I'm a sock puppet
Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey there Chris, just a quick question and a true concern of mine.
If this is the case, I have warned this user with a tag found under the vandalism project and have tried to be the inclusionist that I am by moving it to draft for the user to improve and properly explain it's Notability.
Or
If it's because I used the Vandalism tags/badges in my user page than I apologies to the encyclopedia. As I truly had no idea It needed to be given by another wikipedian. I have since removed it until I have earned it.
Please explain to me what it is and how I can avoid being penalised for trying to improve the encyclopedia? WHAT AM I DOING WRONG??? UncleCedric (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Chris, I stumbled upon your page from the new page reviewers list and am hoping that you can answer a question I have regarding my first article Cody Snyder. It was accepted into the main space but still remains on the Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reports/Easy reviews page under the "Unreviewed AFC-accepted articles" list, and from what I can tell is preventing it from being indexed by search engines. I am not 100% clear on the difference as I thought that it was reviewed when it was accepted into the main space, which drove me to the new reviewers page and ultimately to your page. Is there a different submission process similar to the AFC process to have it reviewed that I missed?
My apologies if this is not the correct medium to go through, I am still new to this! MollyMylo (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
@Chris troutman That makes sense, I was not aware of that backstory. I am not overly concerned with it being indexed, more my own personal excitement to see it show up on search engines as it is the first article I have created and curiosity as to the rules/process behind it. Appreciate the insight and the prompt reply! MollyMylo (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Draft Review
Latest comment: 8 months ago13 comments2 people in discussion
@Wikischolarrr: Neither of the sources you added are acceptable because they quote the subject's press releases. Wikipedia needs sources that the subject didn't ask for and probably doesn't want. Until you have that, the subject isn't notable. I still suspect that you have an undeclared conflict of interest. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
No, I have nothing conflict of interest with this article. I am a resident of India and according to the news published in the newspapers, I have made this draft after reading them. And the sources that I have provided are the trusted news agencies of India. There are many Wikipedia articles from India on such type of sources. Wikischolarrr (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
My draft is being rejected without any valid reason. You can search about this organisation by typing in Hindi on Google. Wikischolarrr (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
"without any valid reason", @Wikischolarrr:? You have two problems: first you evince an unreasonable desire to get this draft approved and second AfC reviewers like me are the gatekeepers. Tough break for you. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
In fact, I can also say that your problem is also just to reject the article. I am asking you for help but you are arrogant. Wikischolarrr (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Can you read Hindi language? Wikischolarrr (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Not at all. If you can't read Hindi then you why declining my article again and again? Wikischolarrr (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
@Wikischolarrr: I'm not interested in being harassed by you because you cannot accept facts. I'm not going to review your draft again. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
You should not even do articles related to Hindi when you do not know Hindi. Wikischolarrr (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Please take back the reason you have given on my article. Because of this you do not know Hindi. Wikischolarrr (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Only you cannot review, there are many other people who do work on Wikipedia apart from gatekeeping. Wikischolarrr (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
How you said that the page is paid.
Latest comment: 8 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hey Chris, how you said about my article that "The more I watch, the more I'm sure that the subject paid for this coverage". Who gave you this permission to call anyone's work a paid article? What proof do you have of this? I have spent my time on this article, how did you say that it is paid? Remove your comment immediately.Wikischolarrr (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
"Remove your comment immediately." And what if I don't? Chris Troutman (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Because I don't know how to remove it. It is not like that, so I am asking you to please remove it. Wikischolarrr (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
You have been on Wikipedia for a long time, you know better than me. I don't even know how to work on Wikipedia, so who will pay me, you can understand. Wikischolarrr (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
We are a Wikipedia family. You should not say to me that I am doing this for money. Wikischolarrr (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you note
Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for giving your presious opinion. I am really happy to see your statement. Yes the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia mainspace which is written by the same user (me). Yes, obviously I can improve it at Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education.
But can you tell me the reason why not this Wikipedia article is showing in google? Supriyomj16022008 (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@Chris Troutman: I surely accept all the Privacy & Policy of the Foundation.
This is a College. This is an Unit of Ramakrishna Mission Boys' Home, Rahara which is the Branch Centre of the Ramakrishna Math and Ramakrishna Mission, Belur Math, the World Wide Charitable Organisation. I am the Monastic Member of this Organisation. Now presently I live in Ramakrishna Mission, Rahara. Supriyomj16022008 (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
@Supriyomj16022008: Then you should not be editing the article. If the school were notable, other editors (including many from India) could write this. Wikipedia does not want your help in this regard. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Request
Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Why am I not write this article. If I do anything wrong then you can tell me but I don't. Please tell me the reason. See as a monastic member I am serving GOD. This College is belongs to him only. Supriyomj16022008 (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
@Supriyomj16022008: Wikipedia is a private entity with our own rules and does not adhere to religious belief. The requirements of disclosure have been made clear to you more than once and despite your claims to religion, you dishonestly hid your association. Further, your school does not meet Wikipedia notability rules and will likely be deleted. You can see the problem here. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Battleground
Latest comment: 8 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I'm Pbritti. I noticed this reply at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism. While I agree that stub creations that lack sources should generally get the axe and I'm certainly not going to undo the redirecting (per WP:SNOW), the way you responded was unnecessarily personal. Specifically, the content of your reply stating It serves you right and an edit summary that reads an editor of your era needs to learn it's not 2006 anymore are not conducive to productive dialogue. I do not know if you have a history with the editor in question, but whether you do or no does not excuse the confrontational language used responding to a politely phrased inquiry on a relevant noticeboard. I'd encourage you to consider striking the portion I quoted, though not doing so is entirely your prerogative. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
@Pbritti: I take your criticism in the spirit it was offered. You are not the first person to complain about my perceived harshness. I find Thriley's efforts to be an affront to the editing community: their user talk page is still full of notices of drafts being deleted which apparently has long been the case. Our page patrollers have enough to do without this sort of un-necessary foolishness. My comments directed at the Thriley get to the heart of the problem. I wish you sought to defend our useful contributors rather than our ne'er-do'wells under misguided principle. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. To be clear, I'm not defending their actions. You're right: this is a problematic editor with problematic page creation practices that may have to be addressed with the appropriate steps. Thank you for your civil reply to me and understanding that I have no grievance towards you. I'm glad you added your voice to that discussion, and I couldn't imagine raising this further than the above message on your talk page (personally harsh and outright nasty being very different things). For what it's worth, I've defended the stub-to-redirect edit at the deletion discussion for the redirect itself. If you have anything else you want to discuss, please feel welcome to ping me. Again, thank you for responding productively to what can be a frustrating message on one's talk page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello
Latest comment: 8 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello and thanks for the response yesterday to the issues regarding edit warring. I will discuss my side here. I am a fan and never meant to hurt anyone or get myself in this situation. I have been reverting my edits if the pics I uploaded and I am in the process of getting all of them taken down to avoid any further problems with him.
As a result of this. I have opted to leave as was originally before I updated everything and I am considering leaving this site for a while. I need a break. Not sure if I can sued on here or anywhere online but I chosen to respect his wishes under the edit warring.
anyways thanks and I hope I clear shell on pictures. Thanks for speaking up. A.R.M. 14:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
@ARMcgrath: I understand that editors like you contribute here to re-ify your fandom. To that end, I can see how this argument with supposed guitarist (if it's actually him) is hurtful. Sometimes the subjects of articles will interfere here; that editor should have been more friendly to you. My larger concern is that the Wikimedia Foundation shakes down suckers to the tune of $35 million in profit during their annual beg-a-thons. All of us volunteers who have been adding content are being taken advantage of and so I encourage everyone to stop writing, editing, and protecting articles. As for me, I only do stuff like he reversion on your talk page and other behind-the-scenes stuff that doesn't generate profit. I think volunteer editors should be respected whether that's by the people who own the servers, by your fellow editors, or by the subjects of the articles. You cannot really get the consideration you are owed here and that's sad. Feel free to quit knowing that it's for the best. Your 8000 edits over the past five years were meaningful and you owe us nothing more. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: I appreciate you. I have deleted everything I have regarding the band and the dude himself and I feel betrayed that some people don’t like the contributions you make to their pages and pictures.
You are absolutely correct though. He should’ve been more friendly and asked my intention instead of telling me it’s his page and he has the right to sue me on Wikipedia. I wanted to say originally when he did it back in July that I was a contributor and I meant no harm and that his page was free for everyone to contribute, I was helping the pages by contributing to the pages.
Honestly I might come back at some point when all of this gets situated. A.R.M. 18:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Always precious
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Defold message
Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Well, I had selected to leave the message for ferret and the article creator, because ferret had asked for the acceptance to be reverted. That is, I was letting ferret know that their request had been satisfied. But oh well. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
And I think boilerplate which mis-states the case is the wrong way to go about that, especially when aimed to the editor who pointed out your error in accepting the draft. I don't think you should try to explicate what you did because no explanation is worthwhile. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Mistakes are common. Figbiscuits (talk) 05:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Advanced emergency braking system
Latest comment: 6 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hi,
Regarding your copyright violation tagging for Advanced emergency braking system, were you aware that article was demerged or split from Collision avoidance system? The material that was split was acknowledged in the edit summary with a link to the specific version which the material was split from so attribution has been provided. Or are you saying the material is a copyright violation independent of the split? Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
@Whpq: As I noted in the CSD nomination, the copyright issue is whole paragraphs taken from multiple external websites. There's no issue regarding the split from the other article, which is duly noted in the author's edit summary. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I'll have a look at it. -- Whpq (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorry @Whpq, I didn't realize you were already looking into it.
I'm not seeing the copyright violation in attributed block quotes. Yes, they are whole paragraphs but they are presented as block quotes and they are attributed. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
I started looking into it but only had enough time to list on CP to look at later. Thanks for reviewing it. -- Whpq (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
hi
Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 6 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Notability? - Altenmann>talk 05:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
@Altenmann: You can nominate it for deletion if you like. I'm trying to get points enough from this backlog drive to get the barnstar I want. If it shows up in the queue, I will probably return the redirect or nom for deletion; that's my jam. When the backlog drive ends, so my participation in NPP ends. You know why? Former admins like you making WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments; Knee-jerk inclusionism at DRV; the sort of poorly-attempted harassment like you see above. I don't need to hasten the day because editors like you are way ahead of me bringing that about. Look in the mirror and realize what you are. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Colleague, you are spewing hatred big time. Someone needs a trout. - Altenmann>talk 05:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
@Altenmann: We are not colleagues. I am following instructions that someone else wrote because I do not arrogantly place my personal judgement ahead of the judgements of the community, right or wrong. You, on the other hand... Chris Troutman (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
C'mon, the judgment of the community is that WP:NPA applies to all editors. It's comments like these that get someone called to a noticeboard and I assume you'd rather spend your time editing articles than defending yourself. You don't have to like other editors, you don't even have to respect other editors but you have to be civil in your communication. LizRead!Talk! 20:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For just in general being a down to earth editor who is not afraid to say what they mean and get their point across to people who just don't get the point. Seawolf35 (talk - email) 02:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
November Articles for creation backlog drive
Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Chris troutman:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2500 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
October 2023 NPP backlog drive – Points award
Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
This award is given to Chris troutman for collecting more than 100 points during the October 2023 NPP backlog drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to the drive! Hey man im josh (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
October 2023 NPP backlog drive – Re-reviews award
Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Teamwork Barnstar
This award is given to Chris troutman for doing over 25 re-reviews, in the October 2023 NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to the drive! – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Draft:Atlantic Core Network Corridor
Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hey! I made some modifications on my draft of the Atlantic Core Network Corridor. I added a source called "What is the Atlantic Corridor?" (by Leonoticias), which is just about the corridor, despite focusing on the the Spanish part. I added a source called "Mapping out Europe's TEN-T Core Network corridors" (by Railway Technology), which is all about the main corridors of TEN-T, including one of the parts of the Atlantic Corridor. And I added an external link which is an in-depth coverage of the Atlantic Corridor in Castilla y León (by adfersit). Can you take a look to check if it already follows the necessary parameters? Petnog (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Nevermind. It has been approved. Thanks anyways! Petnog (talk) 09:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Please wait until the subject dies?
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@Curb Safe Charmer: Hi! I saw that the author of the draft declared a conflict of interest but I see no admission that they are the subject. I wasn't trying to make some creepy/ threatening suggestion. Regarding biographies, most people will not be notable while they're alive and as we've seen in other cases, obituaries provide the multiple, independent, reliable coverage needed for notability. I make this suggestion quite often when I decline drafts. Typically editors bristle at this because they seek to advertise the subject rather than write an unbiased summary and what I say gets to the very heart of their CoI. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Chris. Since your review I added three new in-depth sources to the draft ([1],[2],[3]). They are reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject and intellectually independent one from another (i.e., their authors did their own research and fact checking), and also intellectually independent from the two initial publications on the subject (as Washington Post disclosed, "The Brattleboro Reformer first reported on Holt’s donation in late October. The Associated Press followed with its own story Tuesday, sparking a new wave of interest."[1]). In total, the subject is covered by seven in-depth articles in independent regional or national media outlets. Thus, I believe the article's subject satisfies WP:BASIC notability criteria.
Now about WP:BIO1E to which you referred in your decision. As I read it, it is about situation where notability (of an event and/or individual's role in that event) has already been established but "it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both."
Finally, Geoffrey Holt's living wastly below his means on Social Security while secretly sitting on c. $4M for 22 years since quietly written away in 2001(sic!) to the community is truly, quoting 2nd paragraph of WP:BIO, ""remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life."
I'm going to resubmit the article. Yamfri (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
November 2023 GOCE drive awards
Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments1 person in discussion
The Cleanup Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Chris troutman for copy edits totaling over 12,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE November 2023 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 10:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Long Articles, 1st Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Chris troutman for copyediting 3 long articles during the GOCE November 2023 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 10:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Longest Article, 3rd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Chris troutman for copyediting one of the five longest articles – 16,678 words – during the GOCE November 2023 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 10:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Failed ping?
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, Chris. Ignore this if you already know about it, but seeing this edit made me wonder whether you might not know that a ping doesn't work if you don't post ~~~~ in the same edit as the ping. In that situation I usually revert my edit and then redo it with the signature. JBW (talk) 10:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
@JBW: I know (though I failed to notice in the moment) and I'm disappointed Echo didn't warn me of a failed ping. I'm confident the editor saw what I wrote. Thanks! Chris Troutman (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Expert editors
Latest comment: 5 months ago12 comments3 people in discussion
Hi; Thank you for introducing this page, it was useful for me; I have a question for you, is it unethical if, in a specialized subject, an expert cites the findings of his scientific research that "completes" that subject and includes a "valid journal reference" from his published article (Not too much and advertising but honestly with the aim of promoting science)? And is it considered unprofessional? Mohammad Mansourmoghaddam (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
@Mohammad Mansourmoghaddam (talk page watcher) Papers vary in their character. A correctly peer reviewed paper tends to be an acceptable reference. a "Pay for a review" paper is not. However, Wikipedia does not embrace the aim of promoting anything. It has the simple function of recording facts that are reported in reliable secondary sources which are independent of the subject matter. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your response; If I understand correctly, the articles that have been published in reputable journals (if the criterion of credibility is such as universities, prestigious indexes such as JCR or Scopus, etc.), if they are really used for the purpose of promoting scientific articles, no matter what Someone is the author of it, it is unimpeded to use right? Mohammad Mansourmoghaddam (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't see any reason you ought to be citing journals with your published material. If a cite from you was also included with other cites, it might be permissable. It's very case by case, as I'm not a scientist. If you're an actual academic you should not see Wikipedia as an alternative venue to publish nor should you be trying to boost your citation count/ popularity. Wikipedia welcomes you to make useful edits to articles, starting now. It helps if you establish good editing before you start citing yourself as an expert. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer. You are right, my question was also general so that I would know the appropriate action in case (if) it happens.
@Mohammad Mansourmoghaddam You may find WP:ACADEME a useful read. While aimed at generalist editors it helps the expert editor understand that their expertise is valued precisely as much as all other editors' expertise.
Indeed, the sole expertise that has real value here is the ability to write articles from a stance of absolute neutrality.
Academic and expert reputations cannot be made here. The true academics and experts may be recorded. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the page, it helped me, but the exact topic of my question was the ethics/immorality of using the "authentic" articles published by the editor himself in articles he writes related to his expertise (of course, not for the purpose of advertising, but in cases where it is probably necessary) be). Thanks again for your reply and sharing your experiences. Mohammad Mansourmoghaddam (talk) 08:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
If you edit articles and all the citations you add are to your published works, it's going to look as though your real goal is to advertise yourself as an academic. You are not prohibited from adding a cite or two, but that needs to be in a larger backdrop of edits improving the encyclopedia. Our longterm editors (and I've been here ten years) simply improve articles and they have no stake in them whatsoever, so the citations I add are because cites are needed and there is no pattern in my 55,000+ edits of trying to advertise. Everything you have done has been in an effort to tell the world about your expertise, so what are we to conclude about you? And since Wikipedia is a tertiary source free of any original thought, why would you as an academic want to edit here, anyway? You might take this up with noted historian Rjensen who is a longterm editor and has dealt with this same issue. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
@Mohammad Mansourmoghaddam May I be a little more direct than the advice you have just been given, even at risk of upsetting you?
It is my genuine hope that you and/or your work can be shown (WP:V) to be notable (WP:N). If so, please leave someone else to write about your person and your work.
If not, please stay well away from any temptation to add yourself or your work to any article on Wikipedia.
From experience, ignoring either piece of this firm advice generally leads to tears.
By 'tears' I mean having all your work deleted as WP:COI material, with administrators considering removing all editing privileges. Once lost, editing privileges are hard to win back.
Thanks, this is valuable advice. But I don't mean "direct advertising" or "representing research" in a Wikipedia article (whether newly created or edited (with the aim of completing/updating)). And I don't think anyone wants to do that. Because 1- the reference that is recorded in Wikipedia has no scientific value and is not counted for the number of citations of that article/person (so it is not valuable in terms of the number of references) and 2- usually people are not interested in viewing or following the reference and want to They use the summary and essence of the topic, so it is not so much advertising. Of course, I agree that if someone unethically tries to add their own research for no reason and excessively, they deserve a "tears"! But if an editor or creator of a Wikipedia article ( which, ironically, has research in the same specialized field as the article) that can fill the void of a Wikipedia article or add more up-to-date information to it. Why should it be a big problem? ((of course, I clarify that I do not mean unpublished research and the first source, but the use of information from previously published in valid publishers)). "leave someone else" is cool! Of course, this was just a question and it may happen in certain cases and I was eager to hear the opinion of more experienced people like you and @Chris troutman Thanks a lot. Mohammad Mansourmoghaddam (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
@Mohammad Mansourmoghaddam "it may happen in certain cases" The person in control of whether it will happen in your own edits or will not happen is you. Thus it is not a "may" nor is it a "may not" thing.
My firm suggestion to you is to ensure that it is something that does not happen.
I note, below, that you say "I desperately want you to balance your negative view of me." and I would counsel you that, if writing about your own field, you do not include your own research, nor references to papers you have written or co-written, or contributed to. That is all you need to do. At the moment a quotation from Hamlet is firmly in my mind. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Dear @Chris troutman That is the most accurate answer I was looking for. Thanks a lot. Of course, I desperately want you to balance your negative view of me. I've only made a few edits on the English wiki, and you can't (probably) see the rest in another language. Maybe I should understand you that too much daily vandalism on the wiki and encountering people like what you think of me has given you this perspective. But be sure that I am not here to advertise and introduce myself. I am currently gathering information to create a page that does not exist in Wikipedia, and I eagerly came back to Wikipedia to create it (and for several days I have been explaining the reason for my presence:(( ), I hope you will change your opinion after seeing it. And: I mean by "editing", improving and completing articles in any way (If necessary or if I can, like the others). Mohammad Mansourmoghaddam (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I go through over 50 autopatrolled articles of random autopatrolled users every day to review [check] their quality, and I noticed you are also doing great work finding UPE/COI editors. So, here's a barnstar for your outstanding efforts! – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
@DreamRimmer: Thanks! To be fair, UPE/CoI is often so unintentionally obvious that to the sufficiently-distrustful, it's a like duck quacking into a megaphone. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!
Hello Chris troutman, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing,
–Davey2010Talk 22:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thank you for participating in AfC November 2023 Backlog Drive
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Invisible Barnstar
Thank you for your participation in the Articles for Creation's November 2023 Backlog Drive! You made a total of 23 reviews, for a total of 31 points. – robertsky (talk) 06:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Happy holidays!
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
– robertsky (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!
Hello Chris troutman, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Chris troutman! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Chris troutman, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello Chris troutman: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Chris troutman, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010Talk 01:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello Chris troutman: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, — ThatCopticGuyping me! (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I'm PamD. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:NoorStores that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. She's right; that's bullying. Please retract your "Please do leave", which is no way to talk to another editor.PamD 17:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
@PamD: I did strike that comment at your request. It's worth pointing out that you seek to defend someone who recently defamed you. That editor is arguably not here to write an encyclopedia if it's all POV-pushing and passive-aggressive threats against detractors. Neither of these is the collaboration upon which you say Wikipedia is built. I often do the community a favor and deliver rebukes, knowing full-well most of you will deplore me just the same. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
She does seem very ready to take offence where none was intended, but when she's away from the Clanchy et al row she seems to be contributing usefully, even if she's a bit slow to remember to put her references after her punctuation! I think she can be a useful editor, and she's genuinely excited by contributing. Just as long as she keeps away from the Clanchy stuff (which is how I first came across her, adding bare URL refs to Monisha Rajesh which was on my watchlist as I'd created the article.) PamD 18:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Regarding GA instructions revert
Latest comment: 3 months ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Hello,
In your revert,[2] this was the edit summary, "No, articles still have to meet policies. The linked discussion wasn't a community RfC nor did it come up with that result. Your editing is sloppy, if not dishonest."
Why do you say that the linked discussion did [not] "come up with that result".
Here is an archive ofCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). the linked discussion: [4]
Rjjiii (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC) Added [not] 01:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
@Rjjiii: In the discussion you linked, Prhartcom pushes to explicitly say that policies and guidelines have to be met, as a compromise to specifying that subjects have to be notable. The "change to the instructions" you linked above is the change Prhartcom made accordingly. Your edit, however removed the Prhartcom's addition "Ensure all articles meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines as expected of any article, including neutral point of view, verifiability, no original research, and notability" which you replaced with "If an article does not meet Wikipedia's notability policy, instead of reviewing you may nominate the article for deletion or propose merging." I imagine you meant to just remove notability from the list and add your idea that the GA nominator instead send to AfD. The 2014 discussion did not develop consensus for you to remove content nor did the consensus agree that the nominator should send to AfD, hence my edit summary. In fact, no one who wants to nominate an article for GA would send to AfD per WP:ATD. New editors need not make changes to Wikipedia-space instructions, so please leave this to other editors. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Regarding "I imagine you meant to just remove notability from the list" Do you think that my edit removed WP:V, WP:NPOV, or WP:NOR from the process? Also, what level of discussion would you like to see before a change to the instructions? Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Also, did my "per talk" seem to you a reference only to that discussion? Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I posted about this change on the talk page a week before making it, in case others had objections or insights.[5] The most recent proposals to add notability to the criteria were not supported.[6][7] The discussion I linked in that first post and the edit summary is what resulted in the addition of notability to the instructions.[8] I hope this makes things more clear, but in the future, if I am doing something that seems confusing or mistaken, you are welcome to ask for clarification, Rjjiii (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
@Rjjiii: Thank you for pointing out your proposal on Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_30#Proposal:_clarify_instructions, as that's the best practice. I'm sorry no one seemingly chimed in. While I watch that talk page I don't scour every edit and that's one I missed. I was unaware of what you posted on the talk page when I reverted you, as your talk post was archived automatically a week later. I get your point. I think I'd prefer to leave the preparation instructions as they are, as removing them might lead to more quickfails. Yes, a review is going to examine each of these things including notability. It's not too much to ask that the nominator to ensure these things are already met. Regarding the 2014 conversation, the discussion of only ten editors seems to prefer that non-notable topics are simply quickfailed instead of being reviewed and failing for notability. This was underlined by Tezero who provided the example of Wisp which was a GA and had been an FA candidate until anyone bothered to question the notability of a character in a video game franchise. This is why these instructions are meant to be proscriptive, as opposed to being descriptive as you suggest. Any nominator is apt to be fan of the subject and will unconsciously ignore notability unless we make a point of it. As for me, I automatically reject changes to policies, guidelines, or instructions when I haven't seen a fulsome conversation (ideally an Rfc) on the topic. Thank you for clarifying your points and I hope my reply per WP:BRD resolves this issue. Now that I've interacted with you I won't treat you as a stranger in the future. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
You're welcome and thanks for the explanation. Since you view it as a change rather than a clarification to the reviewing instructions, I will attempt to generate a broader conversation sometime down the line, and won't remove or modify that part of the instructions unless there is more clear consensus to do so. Rjjiii (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Portal Fernandez Concha
Latest comment: 3 months ago9 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for your review of the Portal Fernández Concha article. I appreciate your feedback on source reliability and notability concerns. However, I believe there's a need to clarify a few points:
The reference for recent crime coverage is not from Facebook but from T13, a reputable Chilean news outlet. This report sheds light on the current social and urban issues surrounding the Portal, underscoring its continuing relevance and notability. Here's the correct link: T13 Report on Portal Fernández Concha.
The YouTube documentary you referred to is produced by CHV, another major TV channel. Such documentaries offer credible, valuable content and contribute significantly to the Portal's cultural and societal impact.
Furthermore, I respectfully disagree with the notion that the Portal lacks notability. Portal Fernández Concha is an integral part of Santiago's cultural and historical landscape. Its architectural evolution, changing roles over the centuries, and recent crime coverage highlight its importance in Chilean urban history and society. These aspects, documented by credible sources, establish its notability within Chilean heritage and urban studies.
I will review and revise the draft to align with Wikipedia's standards for reliable sourcing and notability. Your guidance is invaluable in this process, and I look forward to your advice on further improving the article.
Based on the Wikipedia Notability guidelines and considering the case for the notability of Portal Fernández Concha, notability is justified as follows:
Significant Coverage: Portal Fernández Concha has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. This coverage is not trivial and addresses the subject directly and in detail, fulfilling the requirement of significant coverage under the general notability guideline (WP:SIGCOV). Sources include historical archives, academic studies on Chilean architecture, and reputable news outlets reporting on the Portal's cultural and societal impacts.
Reliable Sources: The information about Portal Fernández Concha comes from reliable sources with editorial integrity, allowing for verifiable evaluation of notability per the reliable source guideline. These include peer-reviewed journals on architecture and history, books published on the cultural heritage of Santiago, and articles from established news organizations.
Independent Coverage: Coverage of Portal Fernández Concha comes from sources independent of the subject, ensuring objectivity and compliance with Wikipedia's requirement that sources be independent of the topic (WP:INDY). This independence assures that the coverage is not influenced by self-promotion or conflict of interest.
Notability is Not Temporary: The Portal's historical significance and its role in Santiago's urban fabric are enduring, meeting the criterion that notability is not temporary (WP:NTEMP). Its historical, architectural, and cultural relevance has been sustained over a significant period, establishing its lasting notability.
Presumption of Notability: Given the significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, Portal Fernández Concha is presumed to merit its own article (WP:PRESUMED). This presumption is based on the depth of coverage and the quality of sources, even if some aspects of the Portal might require further sourcing or expansion.
Subject-Specific Guidelines: While general notability guidelines are paramount, subject-specific guidelines for buildings and structures also support the notability of Portal Fernández Concha. These guidelines consider the architectural significance, historical value, and cultural impact of structures, all of which are well-documented for the Portal.
Notability Requires Verifiable Evidence: The evidence of notability for Portal Fernández Concha is verifiable and documented in accessible sources (WP:NRV). This verifiability is critical in establishing the Portal's eligibility for a Wikipedia article.
I appreciate your efforts in reviewing the draft for the Portal Fernández Concha article and your commitment to upholding Wikipedia's content standards. However, I believe there's a misunderstanding regarding the nature and reliability of the sources used, particularly concerning the guidelines on self-published sources (SPS).
Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources rightly advises caution, given the potential for bias, lack of editorial oversight, and the inherent unreliability associated with personal blogs, social media postings, and similar platforms. However, the contention that the sources cited in the Portal Fernández Concha draft fall squarely under this policy may require reconsideration.
The cited sources from T13 and CHV, while shared on platforms like YouTube, originate from established media outlets with recognized editorial standards and journalistic integrity. These are not akin to content from personal blogs or social media postings, which are typically user-generated without editorial control. The distinction lies in the content producer's credibility, not the medium through which the content is disseminated.
Moreover, the general skepticism towards sources like the tourism site may also benefit from a nuanced analysis. While promotional in nature, information from official tourism websites can be considered reliable for factual data such as historical details, architectural facts, or geographical information, provided they are used judiciously and corroborated with other independent sources.
In light of Wikipedia's guidelines, the argument here is not for an uncritical acceptance of all sources but for a more differentiated approach that considers the nature of the content and the reputation of the content producers. Dismissing sources solely based on the platform (like YouTube) without considering the content's origin and quality may inadvertently exclude valuable information that meets Wikipedia's reliability and verifiability standards.
The aim is to build an article with a foundation of credible, verifiable information that enriches Wikipedia as a resource. I believe that with a careful, nuanced examination of sources, we can achieve this goal for the article on Portal Fernández Concha, ensuring it reflects the notability and significance of the subject in accordance with Wikipedia's standards.
Thank you for considering this perspective, and I look forward to any further guidance or suggestions you might have.
@TraceySear840: These walls of text are unwelcome and unconvincing. I assume you're abusing AI to write what you cannot, yourself, manage. That's a shame because ability to write directly implicates literacy and is indicative of cognitive ability. Don't be surprised if the editing community turns against you in rapid fashion as we'd more likely just block you to silence you. Do not post here ever again. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
I must express my disappointment and frustration with the recent interaction over the Portal Fernández Concha article. It's disheartening to dedicate considerable time and effort to a submission, only to perceive the review as hasty and not fully engaged with the provided content and sources. I feel your attitude is discouraging and unhelpful.
I acknowledge the importance of adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines, including the evaluation of sources as per WP:SPS and WP:RS. However, I would like to point out that the dismissal of certain sources without apparent verification of their content or relevance to the article's notability seems to undermine the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. The fact that the links were not checked is particularly concerning because it suggests a lack of thoroughness in the review process.
Moreover, the reference to the Chilean Congress discussing the Portal Fernández Concha underscores the significance and notability of the subject, which seems to have been overlooked. Such discussions by a national legislative body highlight the cultural, historical, and societal relevance of the Portal, reinforcing its eligibility for a Wikipedia article based on notability guidelines.
I understand that disputes are a normal part of the Wikipedia editing process, and I am committed to resolving this matter constructively. In line with Wikipedia's dispute resolution guidelines (WP:DR), I am open to engaging in further discussion, seeking a third opinion, or exploring other dispute resolution mechanisms to reach a consensus on the article's content and sources.
It is incredibly disheartening when substantial effort is met with a response that feels dismissive. I had hoped for a more collaborative approach to improve the article, rather than a quick dismissal. My intention remains to contribute valuable content to Wikipedia, and I am more than willing to address concerns and work towards an article that meets Wikipedia's standards.
I kindly ask for a re-evaluation of the article, taking into consideration the points raised here, and for a more engaged dialogue moving forward. I believe that through constructive discussion and collaboration, we can enhance the quality and accuracy of Wikipedia's content.
Latest comment: 3 months ago8 comments2 people in discussion
If this is not how someone asks a question, can you please advise on how? The exercise was simple. Post information about a school. Then it was deleted. I'm not a Wiki expert. Just trying to do a good deed. It's a school.
I'm new to this so apologies for any missed protocols. It appears you reviewed the page for The Red Oaks School (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The Red Oaks School) but it was subsequently deleted. Do you have information as to why? It was a short, unbiased description of a small elementary/middle school in New Jersey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.20.204.242 (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Please read my answer at the bottom of this page I left an hour ago. Please also read the message I left on your user talk page. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm new to this so apologies for any missed protocols. It appears you reviewed the page for The Red Oaks School (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The Red Oaks School) but it was subsequently deleted. Do you have information as to why? It was a short, unbiased description of a small elementary/middle school in New Jersey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.20.204.242 (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand how a simple description of the school is perceived as an advertisement, particularly relative to the other schools linked to from the Morristown site - Delbarton, Peck - plus Pingry and others in the area. It's a small school. It is not written about extensively. What sort of sources are required? 149.20.204.242 (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
The article relied entirely upon the school's website. Per WP:BEFORE, I searched for other material independent of the school but only found routine listings and mere mentions, so the school is not notable per WP:NCORP. Further, because the malefactors were associated with the school and they drew from the school's website, the content they provided was not a fair summary. Again, maybe in a few dozen years someone will provide meaningful source material for an article but thus far, it doesn't exist. While your baseline is other schools listed in Wikipedia, those other schools might not be notable but no one has inspected the articles to check. Wikipedia is not an arbiter of good or bad. We don't write to either praise or condemn subjects. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we don't need to have articles on every person, place, and thing which exists although we understand how convenient that is for the reader. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Just for you, I took a look at Pingry, Peck, and Delbarton. Peck probably should be deleted. Delbarton won a National Blue Ribbon and it's been covered in the press (albeit for sexual assault and sports). Both Pingry and Delbarton also have long lists of notable alumni, so the article could just exist as a list of alumni; deletion would not happen. Again, you might think that this situation is unjust. You cannot insist however, that Wikipedia (a private website, not gov't run) should cover Red Oaks. I'm sorry that's not the answer you want to hear. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate the clarification. It sounds like third party coverage of the school would validate its existence and justification for publication, as well as other sources of information outside the school's site. I have seen many articles that reference the subject's own site, but perhaps additional source material reinforces the legitimacy as an unbiased report. I do not work at the school. 149.20.204.242 (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
January 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Working Man's Barnstar
This award is given in recognition to Chris troutman for collecting at least 10 points during the January 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 16,070 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
January 2024 NPP backlog drive – Re-reviews award
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Teamwork Barnstar
This award is given to Chris troutman for doing over 25 re-reviews, in the January 2024 NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to the drive! – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
The Taking of Page Seven Six Zero Zero Seven Four Nine Nine
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
(not quite as catchy as the original) I hope you found that thread as funny as I intended it and that I didn't make you feel like I was dismissing your valid concerns. To give you a serious explanation: My thinking was that if the draft were G13'd in 6 months, that would take up hours less of net editor time than deleting it via MFD (between participants and closer), plus it gives 6 months for anyone (who meets the requirements) to work on it if they want to, plus -- and this third reason is the most important one -- it avoids the unnecessary argument that was developing between editors. As you no doubt have seen many times, sometimes a page is created and then editors who previously were not fighting with each other come to the page and fight with each other, sometimes leaving with lasting hard feelings. Sometimes, this is a necessary part of the encyclopedia building process. But other times, the fight is stupid, over something that doesn't matter, and everyone would have been better off if the issue had never been brought up in the first place. When I see an insignificant issue become an unnecessary fight between editors who otherwise would have no reason to fight with each other, I think the best thing we can do is to close the discussion, to put out the fire, as it were. I thought this was one of those times. But yes, it was a rather aggressive move by me, and I won't be making a habit of it. :-) Levivich (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Because the new editor was mentioned as a possible sock, I looked at the edit they made to the article AND the cited source. Unless I misread it, the change they made was correct. You should self-revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Right you are. I re-read the source and saw I was wrong. I struck my comment on the user talk page accordingly, as my edit to article was reverted. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi @Chris troutman and thanks for being mindful about notability of Xu Ruiyun! I would agree with you that the subject does not satisfy WP:ACADEMIC, but I wish to say that Xu Ruiyun satisfies GNG, and to quote WP:ACADEMIC, It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under the general notability guideline or one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines.
As for GNG, we have one newspaper article and one book chapter (published in two different books) devoted to our subject. She was discussed in depth in two of the journal articles I cited.
Kindly let me know what you think! Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
@TheLonelyPather: I tagged it after having looked at the sources because I'm not sure about GNG, either. The content about her in the chapters seems to cover only a few pages and I'm not sure about those publishers. The publisher in Ann Arbor is an NGO I've never heard of; it seems the content is someone else's monograph/ memoir. I don't speak Mandarin so I cannot make out the newspaper article. The journal articles, while perhaps editorially-responsible for scientific purposes, contain comments made by the authors which might be true but they don't lend notability. I also don't buy the "first x person to do y thing" concept of notability. I've written plenty of content on academics with similarly-tenuous grasp to notability. I didn't nominate the article for deletion because I doubt the consensus would choose deletion, but still, I don't know that I see GNG reaching that low. Good people will disagree how far GNG stretches. It's a maintenance template so hopefully others with the needed skills and resources can improve it. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Dear @Chris troutman: I understand your concern and I appreciate you being open about it. I am okay to have the article tagged so others could perhaps have a look at it, as you said. Just one more thing about the book chapter that I want to talk about:
The content about her in the chapters seems to cover only a few pages and I'm not sure about those publishers. The publisher in Ann Arbor is an NGO I've never heard of; it seems the content is someone else's monograph/ memoir: I cited the book published in Ann Arbor because it contains a chapter on the subject originally published in 2000 in a different book. That different book is cited right above it in the "Book chapters" section. I put the Ann Arbor citation just for the sake of public access (I don't have access from the original 2000 publication, but the Ann Arbor-published one is out there on the internet).
I agree with you that the Ann Arbor publisher is quite unknown. I just use it for the particular chapter. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Happy First Edit Day! Hi Chris troutman! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
February 2024 WikiProject Unreferenced articles backlog drive – award
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Citation Barnstar
This award is given in recognition to Chris troutman for collecting more than 50 points during the WikiProject Unreferenced articles's FEB24 backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing 14,300 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! – – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please do not attack other editors, as you did in your edit at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Users that make ad hominem attacks may face blocking and banning. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 01:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:
If Jimmy wales isn't completely and utterly ashamed
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Do you really, actually believe the bullshit big-pharma/corporate propaganda that's on the Robert Malone page right now? Or is someone paying you or controlling you in some other way to push these blatant lies? YOU ARE EITHER EXTREMELY STUPID, like Idiocracy level stupid, OR A PIECE OF SHIT LIAR AND ACCOMPLICE to probably the biggest and most cowardly crime ever committed against humanity in its entire history.
In these past 10 or so years ESPECIALLY since the covid pangimmick i've watched this wikishittia go from an ok-ish but extremely biased source for SOME forms of information on a few topics, to yet another complete shithole of a mouthpiece for globalist propaganda & lies just like all of mainstream media. If Jimmy wales isn't completely and utterly ashamed of what this has become, he very damn well SHOULD be. Delt01 (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Sorry you had to get involved in the recent mess on my Talk Page. That's a downside of being a stalker! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
@Michael D. Turnbull: No problem, at all. I'm a stalker by choice. (There's even an award for it!) Wikipedians should be free from harassment and it takes a team effort to enjoy a robust defense. I'm glad for your sake it was some harmless spam as opposed to the hate-filled vitriol our admins get. I don't get much drama on my own user talk so I find a few good watering holes where trouble congregates so I can get my fill when hungry. I've also found that deranged newcomers often think that they're successfully pressuring a single Wikipedian so when help shows up from out of the woodwork the offenders find themselves rightfully chastened. I, myself, enjoy the aid of those Wikipedians who stalk my user talk and I am grateful for that friendship. It turns out that it was me who welcomed you to Wikipedia almost six years ago, and you've been drawing the right sort of attention since then. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
A beer for you!
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for your help with the edit request on Data breach! Buidhe paid (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Data breach GA
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Chris, I note you took a careful look at Data breach while doing transfers of its old content. It has been nominated for a GAN, at Talk:Data breach/GA1. I thought I'd let you know in case you would like to make comments here or at that page (and to be clear this is a notification, not a request!). Best, CMD (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Yes, I am against biased editors who allow their beliefs to drive editing, when it should be that a complete survey of sources drive our editing. More than once you've made claims of psychological projection which, I think, speak to your inability to persuade. If you don't like my responses you can file at WP:ANI. Otherwise, just admit you got in over your head and find somewhere else to edit. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Re-review
Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Chris Troutman – I'm sorry if this is not the right place to do this, but I was told if I want my article about Betsy Taylor to be re-reviewed I should ask the original person who rejected it (you) to read it again. I have changed a lot of the language to both establish the subject's notability, add sources of people talking about her, and remove a lot of the content that was "peacocking." I would really appreciate you taking a second look at it, thank you so much. Jeanvaljeanjacket (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
@Jeanvaljeanjacket: I get the sense that you did not carefully follow the instructions I already provided. I should not have to repeat myself. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I did my best to follow your past instructions and those changes are reflected in my latest version. As you suggested, I removed all the external links, removed many citations that were from articles she wrote or was quoted in, and removed language to suggest that this is a vanity project. I am not sure what else to do to prove her notability – I would think that her inclusion in United Nations conferences on topics that she helped develop, interviews on national news sites like CBS, and multiple published books would be sufficient, but maybe I am just missing something. I don’t mean to make you repeat yourself, and I am just genuinely at a loss! Thanks. Jeanvaljeanjacket (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
@Jeanvaljeanjacket: Yes, you did those two things. What else I had said explained that notability on Wikipedia is not what you think it is. The boards she sat on don't matter. Where she went to school does not matter. What TV shows she was on doesn't matter. You might think that they would matter but I'm telling you Wikipedia does not care. We need significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, so that excludes all her employers and any interviews, appearances, or publications of hers. Sources like what she published (her website, The Grist piece you cite, her contributor bio at HuffPost) are all unallowable. Citations like this page from The Summer Chronicle does not even mention her. So you have no claim of notability, which is why I rejected you submission with no hope of appeal instead of simply declining your submission so that you could re-submit with changes. I posit Betsy Taylor won't be notable until we have obituaries published. I'm not saying that to be dismissive or macabre; most people will never be notable and the few that are won't have sufficient source material until after they are dead. I don't see a way this could be published so you should find something else to write about. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
Hello Chris, I'm leaving you a quick message on your talk page to let you know that your recent edits on Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/2 were without consensus. Please dispute any changes to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/2 on the talk page. Thank you! Telefocus (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Epicgenius, with 1264 points from 2 featured article, 4 good articles and 18 DYKs. Epicgenius was a finalist last year but has now withdrawn from the contest as he pursues a new career path.
AryKun, with 1172 points from two featured articles, one good article and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews.
Bloom6132, with 605 points from 44 in the news items and 4 DYKs.
Sammi Brie, with 573 points from 8 GAs and 21 DYKs.
Ealdgyth, with 567 points from 11 GAs and 34 good and featured article reviews.
Panini!, with 549 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and several other sources.
Lee Vilenski, with 545 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and a number of reviews.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Húsönd 23:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
.jpg)
Barnstars will be awarded.
BennyOnTheLoose, with 746 points, a tally built both on snooker and other sports topics, and on more general subjects.
Sammi Brie, with 527, from a variety of submissions related to radio and television stations.
many thanks for your very thoughtful consideration! cheers! Sm8900 (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Muboshgu (1082), an "In the news" contributor, a seasoned contestant who first took part in the Cup ten years ago. Other finalists were
Kavyansh.Singh (370), who created various articles on famous Americans, including an FA on Louis H. Bean, famed for his prediction of election outcomes. Next was
PCN02WPS (292), who scored with good articles and DYKs on sporting and other topics and
Z1720 (25) who had DYKs on various topics including historic Canadians.
Adam Cuerden wins the featured picture prize, for 39 FPs during the competition.
SounderBruce wins the featured topic prize, for 4 FT articles in round 1.
You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:DHSchool2003Student. DHSchool2003Student (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Happy Yuletide! 
.jpg)
Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC) 
_(14573454469).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(14752756965).jpg)
.png)
Unlimitedlead with 1205 points, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with two featured articles on historical figures and several featured article candidate reviews.
FrB.TG was in third place with 625 points, garnered from a featured article on a filmmaker which qualified for an impressive number of bonus points.
Iazyges was in fifth place with 532 points, from two featured articles on classical history.
LunaEatsTuna, 
Thebiguglyalien, 
Sammi Brie, 
Trainsandotherthings, 
Lee Vilenski, 
Juxlos, 
Unexpectedlydian, 
SounderBruce, 
Kosack, 
BennyOnTheLoose and 
PCN02WPS. It was a high-scoring start to the competition.
~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg)
.svg)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TraceySear840 (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did in your edit at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Users that make ad hominem attacks may face blocking and banning. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 01:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
