User talk:Chiswick Chap/TalkArchive2012

Washi Eggs
Chiswick Chap, Happy New Year! Thank you for updating the Washi Eggs article, I see some new links. I appreciate your time and help. Brian Jester. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianjester (talk • contribs) 20:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's my pleasure. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Fur Eel
Hi Chiswick. Thanks so much for editing my Fur Eel article. That was my first attempt at a Wikipedia article so I appreciate your help. I have changed all the bare links to include full references. Could you check that I have done this correctly? Can you also let me know how I have the bare links warning removed at the top of the article? Thanks, Erin --Erinharde (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Erinharde, and welcome to Wikipedia! Well done for the hard work on Fur Eel - it's a steep learning curve getting used to all the ref tags and such. It's a pleasure to be able to help. Yes, the references are all nicely dressed now, in warm little Fur coats... good work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

About Fahrenheitº (magazine)
I understand each Wikipedia is different, in Spanish I did an extensive text about the magazine, but they encouraged me to cut it to the current appearance. But I will fix it to fit into Wikipedia English standards but I have a question: how much time do I have for it? I would need few days to do it and to resubmit for a next review. Additionally I have already seen that something went wrong with the citations, I was quite sure they were fine when I clicked save. Thank you for your support. --Dan Prior (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, and welcome. It is an odd thing that some wikis don't seem to mind about evidence, but the .en one certainly minds a lot. Remarkable that you're working on three at once. If you are connected with the magazine that is not a crime but it is a conflict of interest and you should be careful to be objective and if necessary to tell people about it.
 * I fixed the citations - for some reason they were all duplicated, the first instance being without a text label.
 * I can't answer your question about how long you have - or even how long you need to spend on the article; but I would have thought that finding two or perhaps three comments by critics and putting those into the article with citations couldn't take more than an hour or two, given that you already know how to edit and cite. In my experience, a short article about a person or business that contains short clear quotations from named critics with clear citations is safe from deletion; whereas an article full of interesting detail with references only from the website in question is in serious danger. All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I recently resubmitted the article of Fahrenheitº, although it was accepted I was also encouraged to improve the article for its final acceptance, unfortunately I did not understand where is the mistake to fix, of course I know the article has potential to be improved, but in this particular case I cannot identify what I have to change in the article to receive the acceptance and final publication. About the image I'm just only waiting for the permissions of Wikimedia (but also in its Spanish and French versions). As soon as you tell me how I have to change I will definitely do it. Thank you in advance for your support. --Dan Prior (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hallo, I've had a look at the article (and copy-edited the first paragraph). I can reassure you it has been accepted; there is no "final acceptance", only a continual process of attention, editing, criticism and sometimes attempts at deletion. I think you needn't worry too much about the latter as you now have good citations. I have tagged the article as having "naked links", i.e. URLs without names or descriptions. It is very likely someone else will come along and tidy these up for you. About the images: please be very careful and attentive when dealing with image permissions - it's something that must be correct. with my best wishes Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Epigenome discussion
I am sending this message to you because you commented on Articles for deletion/Epigenome. In closing the AfD, said that: "The possibilities for merging are too diverse to be properly decided here by a simple merge close; --those interested should pick one or another of the relvant talk pages and decide how to do it." I have taken this on board, and have started a discussion at Talk:Epigenetics about this. You are welcome to comment there. Quasi human  &#124; Talk  21:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Azzam Pasha quote AfD
I have suggested on the AfD regarding the Azzam Pasha quote that the article be merged with Azzam Pasha and have already moved most of the material to that article. Please note your opinion on a suggested merge at the AfD.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * oh Yunshui, that's really nice of you. Thank you so much! Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK Battle of Cottonwood
Thank you for your kind words (and the barnstar). As you proposed a DYK on this article, perhaps the text (if not too long for a DYK) could be "... that Chief Joseph (pictured) and his warriors defeated the U.S. army in 1877 at the Battle of Cottonwood as the Nez Perce began their 1,400 mile (2,300 km.) fighting retreat." I will add the "1,400 mile fighting retreat" language to the article and reference it Thanks again. Smallchief (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That's 146 characters, which is fine for a DYK, so I'll propose it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Conqueror
Thank you for editing the article on Conqueror. Although I can still not claim to have written an article for Wikipedia (Blast, blast, blast!), at least a gap I feel was there has been filled (i.e. an article on what I believe is one of the finest paper manufacturers). I guess I'm not cut out for this job, for in all my Googling on "Conqueror", "C. Paper", "C. Distribution", &c., I have not come across any of the sources you have found. I guess it ends, then.

Matthijs Bouma (No idea how to link to my talk site) 15 January 2012, 22:03 (W.I.T.) Matthijs Bouma (talk


 * Au contraire, I think you've exactly written a WP article, well done. Remember that editing is collaborative - everything is up for revision, so the sooner it starts, tbe better really. You can simply edit your own page, I'd have seen it, or you can add a talkback gadget to my page as it's not ideal to have discussions spread over 2 places! Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC) (PS remember to write 4 tildes like this ~ at the end, that automatically adds your signature.)

DYK for Ammophila sabulosa
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Easywap - Second submission
Hello Chiswick Chap,

I was surprised that another editor was assigned to my easyswap article : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Easyswap. I tried to improve it in accordance with your suggestions. But now it has been rejected because the references are in French... Any comments or suggestions?

Thanks! --Shardy22 (talk) 10:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Shardy22, I've accepted the article. There is no reason at all why references should not be in French, indeed they can be in Ukrainian, Urdu and Uruguayan Spanish as long as they are correct and can be translated when needed. AfC does not assign people to reviews, people just pick whatever they like, but generally I track articles I reviewed earlier. If you translated the article from French I think there's a tag or template somewhere you can use to say so on the Talk page.

All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

SS Sirio
Thanks for your quick review! Like I said (I think), I'll gladly take hook suggestions... Drmies (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Help explaining something?
Hi CC! I just wanted to know if you could help me out with something. I've been discussing an AfD topic (Articles for deletion/Reuben Glaser) with the person who created the article and why I voted for it to be deleted. My point was that Glaser isn't notable enough to pass WP:BIO and that the one event that did get media coverage didn't have enough lasting notability to pass WP:EVENT and that even if it did, Glaser isn't notable enough outside of it to warrant an article. I have a feeling that the contributor (as well as the other voter) is either Glaser himself or a friend, so there's a bit of a COI going on here, and I'll admit that I'm starting to get frustrated and am beginning to bite the newbie. I'm not asking you to vote or anything, just help explain where I'm coming from with this. (I don't want this to be seen as canvassing- I just know that you're a lot more patient than I am when it comes to stuff like this and I definitely trust your opinion, which is why you're the first person I thought of as far as mediators go.) So far it's just been a constant and overly long back and forth between the two of us and I would really like it if some other editors were to step in and give their input. Even if you decide that he or the event passes notability guidelines, I just want to get another voice in there to kind of help smooth things out a little. I'm afraid that my most recent post sounds a little overly angry, which isn't what I meant it to sound like. There haven't been any revision wars to the article (I removed a LOT of sources that weren't usable for one reason or another), but there's been little snipes from each side. Wanna to dive into the line of fire? Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

DYK for Battle of Cottonwood
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Rating
Hi Chiswick Chap. I have recieved a C- class rating for my page, Defence Intelligence (company). I was curious if you could take a look at it again for me. I have made changes to my citation and a few other changes. If there is anything I could do to improve it, please let me know. Thank you so much! Tana9408 (talk 18:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Tana9408, yes, it's looking good now - I don't think you need fear any attempt to delete it as the citations look robust and largely independent of the company. As for ratings, few editors worry about them very much unless they're trying for Good Article (GA) status (I believe that's under 1 article in 1000, and frankly it's really only possible on special topics where a) a lot of people are willing to work on things b) there's a mass of good information out there in books and newspapers. Any rating like C or B is just fine generally; many articles are hastily given a Start-class without any thought and they stay that way. Hope this helps. Well done with your article. Hope you'll do many more. bests Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ishwar Sharan
Hi, I've just reverted your edit at Christianity in India. This is while I am still trying to sort out the mess at Ishwar Sharan, the creator of which article you seemed to be supportive of some months ago. Are you aware of the issues involving Hindu nationalism? I am concerned that you are perhaps unwittingly falling into a trap here. Whether or not St Thomas even existed has no interest at all to me, but we have to be extremely careful of the sources that we use in these situations. - Sitush (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Sitush, I take no side in any nationalism debate in India or elsewhere. However the Ishwar Sharan mention is supported by a reliable source in the national press so we are reporting a known fact, i.e. that Sharan did dispute the St Thomas account. I would therefore like to add it back in some form without edit-warring which I am equally opposed to. I have clarified the wording into a form which is plainly correct and non-controversial, viz that a paper reported that a claim was published in a book. These two facts are demonstrated to be true by the two RS supplied; and they are plainly directly relevant to the section of the article. Therefore the edit should be restored, please. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Neither do I. That was my point, in essence. The Pioneer is itself not particularly reliable as a newspaper, btw, as Jimbo found out only a few weeks ago. Basically, if it is not in The Hindu, Times of India, Hindustan Times or Indian Express then we're on dodgy ground, except for truly local issues and showbiz etc. I'll take another look at it but it might help if I point out now that (a) I have no connection with India, ever, and (b) I have no connection to any religious belief system. I realise that you can only take my word for it but feel free to ask around. - Sitush (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, and I am happy to take your word for it - I see your talk page has a laudable history of beneficial and civil editing, which we will certainly need in the context of nationalist politics. Fortunately we are both neutral so we can focus on reporting what has occurred; and I suppose you can hardly deny that Sharan did publish a book which made the claims about Thomas, nor that the Pioneer did indeed report on his book? I will be happy to collaborate on this.


 * P.S. I've just seen your sequence of edits to Ishwar Sharan. Firstly, let me say that there are certainly newbie failings of POV and tone in the article: please deal with them gently; I worked hard to deal with extensive failings of tone, sourcing and content, and was pleasantly surprised by how hard the newbie worked at finding sources and structuring the article. That failings remain is unsurprising, but I believe the article makes a substantial case for Sharan's notability and contribution, while unquestionably remaining a controversial figure. I'll be happy to work with you on this, too.


 * Secondly, I have no brief for Hindu nationalism or any other kind, but edit comments like "(→Writing: let's make it clear how things stand, shall we?)" imply that you do have a POV on this matter. I was supportive of a newbie who drafted the article and was nearly put off by the AfC process. My concern here is to ensure that we have NPOV in the article, which means on both sides of the debate. By all means edit for neutrality, but please take pains to ensure that changes are properly sourced. With my best wishes Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not sourcing anything at Ishwar Sharan. I am fixing incorrect statements that misrepresent what the sources say. It is important when dealing with fringe theorists that we do at least put them into context. But I can assure you that the creator has a significant bias and an absolutely massive self-declared COI, hence some of my edit summaries. I have asked them to step away from that article but encouraged them to comment on the talk page. My POV is to be neutral, and that article was far, far from neutral. Even now, it is a mess and relies almost entirely on Sharan's acolytes - some of whom are declaredly extremists & (IIRC) in one case banned - and self-published sources. As for Nagaswamy, he was a respected academic but his actions in retirement gain no traction in academia, who seem generally to think that he has gone a little doolally. I do in fact doubt Sharan's notability, especially after a GScholar search, but am prepared to run with it for now & see how things turn out.
 * I have no idea how much involvement you have had with India-related stuff but mine is considerable and POV-pushing/misrepresentation/use of unreliable sources is both rife and often subtle. I have spent far too much of my time at ANI/DRN/SPI/AIV/RSN etc - including the first and last of those within the last 4 hours or so. On every single occasion my actions have gained consensus.
 * Sorry if this sounds prickly: it is not intended to be but, as you will see from late comments to the most recent ANI report, it is a subject area that gives rise to frustration even among admins. That's why I go away and write things like John Horsefield every now and again - they're something of a holiday :) Sitush (talk) 08:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your time and attention. I am very fond of India and do my best to support newbie and English-as-an-Nth-language attempts at writing articles through AfC and AfD and beyond. Of course OR and POV, even hagiography (not to mention sri sri honorifics) are the order of the day, but behind that are often figures who would easily make it on to the world stage in the West. FWIW I think Sharan is an extraordinary figure; whether he finally went Deolali/Doolally doesn't change that. And when I'm about to blow a fuse in Wikipedia, I try to go out and do something useful in the real world! all the best Chiswick Chap (talk)

Re: Catholic News - good find! - Sitush (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I have had a think, done some more digging around and am convinced that this guy goes beyond the pale in terms of WP:FRINGE. I am sending it for discussion at AfD. It is so complex that it may in fact survive the process purely because of the cottage industry surrounding him - which is fine, if that is how people feel. I'll keep tidying up in the interval because you never know what might turn up! - Sitush (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

SIHT Computers
Hi Chiswick. Thank you for reviewing my article. My name is Richard Gerhoff. I am a freelance journalist. This is my first article and I appreciate your insight. I interviewed Mr. Herzog in 2011 and have cited the interview in the article. I would like to know what I could do to make this a publishable article. I do not mean for it to be with commercial intent and am willing to delete the section on prototype 2k12 and make adjustments to the history and beginning of the article. What adjustments should I make for this article to be published? Thanks, Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksarsdeltatwozero (talk • contribs) 01:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SIHT Computers
Hi Chiswick Chap. Thank you for reviewing my article. My name is Richard Gerhoff. I am a freelance journalist. This is my first article and I appreciate your insight. I interviewed Mr. Herzog in 2011 and have cited the interview in the article. I would like to know what I could do to make this a publishable article. I do not mean for it to be with commercial intent and am willing to delete the section on prototype 2k12 and make adjustments to the history and beginning of the article. What adjustments should I make for this article to be published? Thanks, Richard Ksarsdeltatwozero (talk • contribs) 01:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Richard, good to hear from you and welcome to Wikipedia, even under the circumstances of a decline at AfC. Essentially the question hinges on "Reliable, independent sources" - see Verifiability. Herzog is not independent as he's in the company; your interview notes are unpublished, so have not "already been published by a reliable source". Therefore we have no Sources to support the article. That means that as soon as it gets out from AfD into main (article) space, it will be identified for deletion. There is another issue, which is that the article is to an extent gazing into the proverbial crystal ball, and "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". We're enjoined only to include future events if they'll definitely take place, like the Olympic Games. I think therefore you'll just have to accept that this article is WP:TOOSOON and to try again later. You have acted as a professional journalist here, which is a different role from being a Wikipedian - an editor, encylopedist, a reporter and summarizer and precis-er of what other people have reliably, independently, reported already in good secondary sources. I hope this is helpful, and I wish you a long and happy time as a Wikipedian. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jacobo_de_la_Serna
Hi Chiswick,

You helped out in the past cleaning up a rejected article. Maybe you have some friends? I think this article is good and notable, but it looks like crap so keeps getting rejected. It's not supposed to be that way, but that's life. I don't have time to take on anything more. :-(

I put it on hold for now. Thanks for any help you can provide,

:- ) DCS 08:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * OK,, yet another worthwhile cause. I'll give it a cleanup and see what happens. ;-} Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to bother. :-(  It's so beautiful. :-D  Bloody amazing.   The author must be so happy.  Can I buy you a beer?  I'll tell the author to buy you a beer.  Thanks  :- ) DCS  16:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh wow, that's really kind of you! Mine's a Budweiser Budvar, the proper one from the Czech Republic. Cheers! Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Chiswick! You truly deserve more than just a beer, how about an entire pub! I can not begin to thank you for your generosity in cleaning up my submission of Jacobo de la Serna. WOW!! I have made several little edits as you suggested. The citations on Mr de la Serna's web page exist for his Exhibits/Permanent Collections section. Also, the Citation for the Andrew Connors reference can only be accomplished by contacting him directly through the museum. This reference was made to me when I asked Mr Connors for any comment on Jacobo's work. I DO hope that this helps and that we are able to move toward fruition on this. Thank You once AGAIN you and EVERYONE who edited, critiqued and cared about this submission are all ROCK STARS! Henry aka Spanishwine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanishwine1965 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the gift...
Had my own reserach shown that topic as non-notable, a delete-after-60-seconds-in-mainspace AFD nomination might not have rankled so much. It is must be discouraging to any contributor of a notable topic when someone comes along and says of his article, "What?? Not perfect in 60 seconds??? Get this off of Wikipedia!!!" I'm happy to have shown the author that others were willing to give his topic the chance it deserved. Thank you for the Barnstar.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 10:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chip &
Dear Chiswick Chap, i understand that you have declined the article. would you be able to elaborate the reason why as the sources i have used are genuine?

i am not sure what i can to get accepted and looking around wikipedia there seem to be quite a few articles with a similar or without a source at all?

Would you be able to help as we had some request for company information and i would like to have this article on wikipedia.

thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Maisey (talk • contribs) 10:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * David, there are plenty of things on Wikipedia that need tidying up, but new articles get immediate scrutiny - not just here at AfC but outside, where the ravening wolves prowl, and believe me there are some pretty toothy grandmothers out there. But I digress. Sources are required. I have cleaned up the article for you to show that the links to other Wikipedia pages are not sources, just cross-references (after all, who says those articles are in order?), and where citations are needed. The most urgent, plainly, are the ones that establish that the company is notable; being a sponsor and so on can happen later. With best wishes Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chip &
Thank you very much for your help ill have a look into it and will submit it accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Maisey (talk • contribs) 13:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lullingstone railway station
This is my first attempt at writing such an article for which another "wiki" contributor has asked me to write. Suggest sending it to someone who can reword it in the form you require because I would not know what style of wording you require. If it is declined then I will not send in the further articles that I had planned.Steamybrian2 (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)]]


 * I've replied on your talk page. I really don't understand your comments here; "the form you require" - there is no such form, anything that's clear and readable will be fine; "form of wording you require" - the same thing, there isn't one. The problem is simply and straightforwardly WP:OR - you can't have an article based on personal research, opinion or observation, it's forbidden by the guideline. "If it is declined then..." sounds like a threat, which will do no good. If you write good, properly sourced articles, all will be well. regards Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Benedict Allen books
First off: you say "the obvious alternative is Adv", but what do you mean by "Adv"? Part of the reason that I declined the speedies is that you'd already declined to create many of them, and the rest I was confident would get the same response. I don't believe that advertising in Wikipedia talkspace is likely to get a ton of results, and since AFC submission includes a noindex command, I can't see how anyone would find these pages except by browsing AFC logs. The thing that finally led me to decide to decline them is that they're not blatant: none (at least that I can remember) told the reader where to go to find the book or to see why its author or publisher were such good people. Between all of these circumstances, I'm not convinced that they're advertising and I'm definitely convinced that they're not good speedy deletion candidates. Given the fact that you declined all of them (with which action I heartily agree), I don't see what more should be done, unless you want to go with a nomination at WP:MFD. Nyttend (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

some AFC stuff
Hi, please be more careful in reviewing AFC stuff. See AFD page ID Experiential. You should also warn the user User:Idexperiential because his account name fails WP:UPOL (our username policy!). Please keep that in mind, a really common problem. Regards, mabdul 11:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Mmm. That was a while back, and I would not knowingly accept that page today. I believe I came across the Username Policy a while after accepting that article at AfD - it looks glaringly wrong (not notable, advertising) to my eyes now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read the wording of AFC clear again: [I reverted your decline at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=474390147&oldid=474373591] - better CSD them with Twinkle since AFC clear is not correctly mention advertising stuff in that way. (or let the user write it new- again a UPol case!) mabdul 13:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I warned the user already. Will CSD it now.Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Arabia Weddings
Hello Chiswick Chap. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Arabia Weddings, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This is an AFC page, and should be allowed to be fixed rather than speedily deleted. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Reaper Eternal. I understand that speedy is correct for Attack pages, vandalism (if such is a threat at AfC) and straight CopyVio, so it isn't the case that AfC pages are immune to CSD, but I understand the policy isn't always to speedy Spam / Advertisements. However it is quite common for AfC articles declined as spam then to be speedied without a CSD request! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Gotts (surname) article
Hi there. Thanks for the work you've done on revising the article. I've enhanced the summary at the top, recognising you wanted a summary not an intro.

I have also refined the way the various surname dictionaries of surnames have been referenced: the Penguin dictionary is a distillation of the earlier ones I have cited, and many of the smaller ones do not even cover the name. I have checked a lot of them and included them where they make reference.

I note that the sense of the article has been changed from a history of the surname in UK, to look like the template Smith surname, as per the other reviewer's comment. It does mean that the detail of migration patterns and variations in the name has disappeared, partly because it is original research by me, which leaves the reader with no modern view of the surname's origins. Any thoughts on how this can be done, or if it is appropriate at all to Wikipedia?

I understand the comment that OR should not be published here, but does the information contained on the Gotts Family History website not constitute published work? There is little published work in the public domain, and I know I am one of the few sources of analysis of the data on the name. Maybe you can refer me to an article which shows how this can be handled.

Lastly, I understood that the article was published and therefore available to search for once it had been created, but I can't see it yet through the search engine: what else should happen? And lastly, as a newbie to creation of articles and talking via wikipedia I'm not even sure how you reply to this! But thanks anyway! IGotts (talk 21:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hallo. Yes, I've tidied the article up a bit, all part of the volunteer service. The principles of Wikipedia include No OR as you've seen; and sources must be reliable (major newspapers, etc); and INDEPENDENT, i.e. neither other Wikipedia pages, nor anything connected to the subjects themselves; and since you're part of the subject, no website or book or article by you can be considered independent. It could be used as a source of information, with caution about its reliability (you could be a liar, a madman, a fringe theorist or simply a fanatical self-publicist), but it cannot establish notability.


 * I'm not sure I'm an expert on history of surnames, but in principle there's no limitation on WP content - an article on history is perfectly allowable if it can be shown to be notable with reliable sources.


 * The article was renamed Gotts (surname) to comply with the manual of style.


 * BTW please sign your name with four tildes ~ - they get translated into your signature and date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Syd Barrett genealogy
Hi. This was my first new article and I submitted it before to finish it, generating confusion. Now I've accomplished it. You ask me "why the subject is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia". I've added a line in the beginning of the article, hoping it helps to answer: "Knowing something about his relatives was subject of research for many of his biographers, but the interviews was annoying for him and the subject indiscreet for his family." — Preceding unsigned comment added by PCMorphy72 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand that family trees are not commonly used by biographers and rarely seen in biographies of such important persons as Syd Barrett is. But I guess that who knows how mammoth he was maybe understand the mine would be a good first attempt to do such family trees for many other important persons. After all the mine is done in a complete form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PCMorphy72 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think some replies to your statements are already in the name of my subject, splitting it in two parts: Syd Barrett and Genealogy: ''' Q1. This submission doesn't sufficiently explain the importance or significance of the subject. See the guidelines on notability. Please provide more information on why the subject is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.'''

R1a. If you mean the importance of Syd Barrett please read I've given you some introduction in my second post above, but you haven't reply yet. I've given a number of Barrett biographers in the article other than Luca Ferrari, but it seems it is not sufficient to you: perhaps the Syd Barrett Wikipedia article may help.

If you still don't think so, please say me if you think that something in that articles (Syd Barrett and Genealogy) has to be changed, or at least give me a reply. PCMorphy72 (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for the information. Since I've already declined the article twice, and haven't changed my opinion, I feel it will be best to leave it for one of the other AfC reviewers to consider: I shall not be involved further. However I can tell you what the reason is: notability. This key concept in Wikipedia's rules (WP:N) means that each article has to show for itself why it's worth including in a global encyclopedia. However worthy a dozen closely related topics, notability can't be inherited. Thus for instance, however important genealogy is, or a man's father or son or grandson, it doesn't make the man notable. The only thing that can do that is reliable independent evidence. If such exists (I have no opinion on the matter) then the reviewers will accept the article. If they mistakenly are persuaded to accept an article which plainly isn't notable, that article will undoubtedly be deleted in the Articles for Deletion process, generally very quickly. Mistakes may occasionally be made but they are generally soon rectified. I hope this helps. with best wishes Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Kangaroo Island, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Endemic and Ligurian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Article on market governance mechanisms
Dear Chiswick Chap,

Thanks for taking a look at my wiki entry on market governance mechanisms. I'm struggling to find any sources other than IIED sources (though I've now added one from the Uni of Edinburgh) because IIED is one of the few research institutes that uses this term and writes about it. How many 'external' sources (i.e. non IIED) are needed to ensure the entry meets the verifiabilty criterion. Emmalouiseblackmore (talk


 * As many as possible. The minimum is probably 1 at a pinch, but that often causes arguments (threatened or actual deletion), so 2 or 3 is the realistic minimum. The guidelines say reliable, verifiable, substantial, independent sources, plural. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Sucré
Thanks for your comment on the review. I'm at a loss for what more can be done. The group is made up of 2 very notable musicians from artists releasing multiple records on major labels and from the notability guidelines should demonstrate notability as a new group (#6 of said guidelines). I've added and resubmitted a few times and it seems each reviewer has a different mentality of a reliable source or what makes a musical act notable. I think if someone spent the time to look at the articles referenced (including links to AOL's Spinner and prominent music sites such as Purevolume and Absolute Punk), and look at the members other pages already existing on Wikipedia (which are linked), they would see the group is notable, just very new.

I understand there must be an overwhelming amount of pages being put up, but meeting these standards and still not seeming "notable" makes this seem not like the future of information but a rather archaic type of media. I suppose once the album is released and more articles written someone else will submit something, and until then Wikipedia's standards will help keep people searching for information uninformed. I appreciate any insight or recommendations you have for possibly improving this towards approval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.102.117 (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thought I was logged in when I posted this, seemed I wasn't and wanted to let you know. User:Grassrootsrpj


 * Oh, I'm so sorry, I had missed the fact that it met #6 - to be fair, it wasn't obvious and you're right about the tide of articles to review. I'll go back and accept it now. No need to blame Wikipedia as archaic, it's right up to date but we humans are made according to cave-man requirements and are having trouble keeping up! Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I admit I was at wits end a bit, and wasn't really sure what more I could do to point out that this was in fact a notable article. The archaic comment was out of frustration from getting a different denial every time and very little help in what would and is absolutely a suitable reference. However, your reply and attentiveness is awesome, just wish the review process had a way to connect with the people reviewing it a little easier without barraging them. I'll try to pop back over and reference the labels associated with the acts, as that would probably make for a better article anyway. Any other advice would be great as I don't wind up doing a ton of article creation/editing, but try to stay on top of all the preferences/rules. Thanks again! User:Grassrootsrpj


 * My pleasure. I would just say, since you ask advice, that it'll be best to expand the article with reviews, details of record sales, chart listings etc as soon as you can. (by the way, to sign a post, just write ~ ) Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Tin Man Was a Dreamer
Hi there. I realise that such things are subjective but I have to say I'm very surprised at your decision to reject this article. I'm new to wikipedia, I admit, but one of the things that made me want to contribute was that there are so many insubstantial articles on subjects I happen to be interested in - existing articles that I've added to in the last week or so are good examples, I think: the On the Road to Freedom album by Alvin Lee and Mylon LeFevre, and the Apple documentary Raga (film). As I say, I appreciate your point of view, and that there are wiki guidelines that support it; my point is that example articles like those I've given here have been accepted, obviously, and they offer less (considerably less, I'd say) than the Tin Man Was a Dreamer piece I submitted ...

Never mind, I'll address the points you raise − yes, my focus was on interest by association rather than identifying the merits of the album in its own right, but it's quite an association, no?: (Nicky Hopkins, super-session player + ex-Beatle George Harrison + the latter's Material World album + Rolling Stone Mick Taylor + Beatles' Apple Studio + Rolling Stones 1973 Pacific tour + other big names from the period, such as Voormann, Keys, Price, Cooper, etc). Sorry, just felt the need to raise this(!). JG66 (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello. Among the several surprising things about Wikipedia for newcomers is the principle that "Notability is not inherited". That a person is famous does not, for example, automatically make all their books, juvenile poems, epigrams and holiday visits worthy of separate articles - each one is required to justify itself independently. Why is this so? Because if article A depended on article B, which it assumed was so obviously splendid as to need no introduction, then why, article B could in turn depend for all its sources on article C, which ... and very soon we'd have a hypertext by association, with nothing actually defined or sourced anywhere. Back to reality... your article has to say, and prove, that it itself is notable. Relying on The Beatles or anyone else won't do. All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Cleaning symbiosis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Planes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Fairy tale link
Hey, I'm not sure that this link will work for you, but here's a link to the book "In Quest of Indian Folktales" that the article mentions. I'm searching through it right now, but then I'm at a branch of the college right now. I figured that if you could access it, it'd help out a little (and probably be fun to read) and if not, then no harm trying.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Hi, sounds great, but the link needs a VCU login! Maybe you'll find a few things ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I found the story and I can see where the story has some marked similarities but a lot of differences. This is pretty much to be expected since even the most tried and true fairytales have multiple different tellings and I would say that it'd be useful in showing that this folktale has been recorded somewhere. In any case, I summed up the story and posted it to my sandbox User:Tokyogirl79/sandbox. It can be condensed more, but this is pretty much the story in a whole. I put down the title of the story that the teller had given, so hopefully that can help somewhat. If we can find this story told somewhere else then it'd pretty much cement the notability of the story. I'll try and see what I can find inbetween study sessions. This will be kind of fun since I absolutely love folktales.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Yes, and of course, if the story you have is a second version of what is told in the article, then (note) we already have interesting evidence of diversity and richness in the folk tradition, if not of scholarly attitudes to it.... fun as you say. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Bostich
I was actually in the process of turning it down, but that's alright. I do hope you noticed how extremely weak the sources are atm; none of the important parts (awards, album recognition) are even remotely decently sourced, and many are just flat out fluff. If we can source the Grammy noms, that would be great but right now there's maybe a couple decent sources in there.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  14:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yikes. I did read through the sources and noted there were several 'mentions' rather than much in the way of 'substantial' discussion. I guess there's just about enough to scrape by, but you're absolutely right about finding some better sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hehe, big backlogs do funny things to everyone's head. As it turns out, I'm finding plenty of Grammy stuff pretty easily, so its just as well - I'll add what I can. Cheers, and thanks for all your work. :)  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  14:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's really good of you. Appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Requirements analysis
Thanks for feedback re: my edits to Requirements Analysis. I'm new at this, and unsure of the rules. Appreciate the guidance. Couldn't figure out how to simply reply to your note.

I agree. It needs a major rewrite! I regret that I don't have the time to find and cite references. At this point, I only have time for some minor improvements; editing for grammar and syntax, removing some errors, and editorial comments. I want to be able to refer colleagues to this article for very basic info. Hope that's ok, until someone finds the time and makes the effort. signed, TOYOTAWAGON TOYOTAWAGON (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hallo, good to meet you. Yes, I wish the article were better, if folks are going to be relying upon it. Unfortunately most of the requirements articles are in a terrible state. I've done something to improve Use case and Goal modeling; most of the rest need rewriting. We soldier on... Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The Shops at Park Lane
Take a look at the article. I've added some sources and notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sigurd
I'm looking at the article The Story of Sigurd the Volsung and the Fall of the Niblungs as a possible GA in the near future. One concern I have is the unreffed middle paragraph in the "influence" section that you added. Can you take a look and maybe ref the Tolkien statement? The article's creator is going to expand the synopsis, while I work on ref formatting and links. Thanks. INeverCry  22:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've done better - there's a quote with citations instead, pointing to the mediaeval sources. If anyone feels like mentioning Wagner, they're welcome. Did both M and T use W? Arvidsson thinks so. I wonder. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cleaning symbiosis
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

DeepDyve at AfC
To address your review of my DeepDyve submission: I added independent references confirming that several major academic publishers work with DeepDyve and provide their content.

To address appropriateness v.s. advertising: Wikipedia has pages about companies which created similar disruptive change to content delivery over the internet, e.g. Amazon for electronic books, Apple iTunes e.t.c.

I came across DeepDyve while searching for particular articles myself. I am a professor at University of Alberta, and in no way related to the comany.

Martin Jagersand

Martin.jagersand (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Robert Hunter (Encyclopædist) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Free Church of Scotland


 * Ulla Winblad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Michael Roberts


 * Vulcan Iron Works (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Preston

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Nant-y-cwm
Hi, thanks for your comments about what is obviously my first attempt at an article. The issue of notability has been noted and I am going to give it another shot with a couple more references. Also noted is the idea to include the material in the article on Clynderwen. I had a look at that and I was wondering why there is so much unreferenced historical 'fact' stated in that piece? Do I really want to go to the effort of making my piece worthwhile to slot it on to another more dubious piece? Thanks for your patience, thecelt001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecelt001 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, yes. But villages and other geographical entities are basically automatically notable (as long as they are real) so unlikely to be deleted even if dreadfully badly written. Feel free to chop the unreffed stuff though. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
NTox · talk 10:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Shiva Ayyadurai
Hi there, I'm not sure I'm doing it the right way but here is: In your recent updates on Shiva Ayyadurai's page, you've made a little change that slightly changed the meaning of existing sentence. There was:

"In 1981, a year in which every Unix system included networked email, Ayyadurai's short paper on his software...blah" (with a refence to version 7 of UNIX man pages, copyrighted in 1979)

that you replaced with:

"In 1979, email (local and networked) for the Unix operating system was copyrighted" (keeping same reference)

I think it's misleading because the original intend was to show prior art, to explain that in 1981, when VA Shiva wrote is paper, UNIX mail was already existing (proof this 1979 man page, etc...).

But how it is now, it just tells UNIX 'mail' was copyrighted in 1979.

First, I'm not sure UNIX (and included mail command) was copyright that year, and anyway what's important is that UNIX was providing a mail command well before 1981. See this older 'mail' man page from first version of UNIX (1971): http://man.cat-v.org/unix-1st/1/mail

Shouldn't we restore previous sentence?... Yours, Eric Evoisard (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Go right ahead, I shan't object. But please don't just revert as I made several unrelated edits also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, quick reply! Ok, I'll do the change and keep your other edits... thanks Evoisard (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

editing Scott Williamson (hiker)
I condensed the article after you marked it as needing copy editing. If you think it does not require more, feel free to remove the tag. —hike395 (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Animal navigation, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mole rat and Ammophila (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Cleanup

 * Thanks for joining the project! Northamerica1000(talk) 07:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

 * My pleasure. Merci beaucoup! Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Sargelu Formation
Just to let you know that I've just speedy deleted this article, which you dealt with at WP:AFC, as a blatant copyvio (G12) of. Dpmuk (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry I missed that trick. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
thank you for the article john martyn. it was only my 3rd in 3 days :) very encouraged. many thanks! DoscoinDoon (talk) 09:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and welcome to Wikipedia. Remember Kipling's poem 'IF' ... triumph and disaster, and treat those two impostors just the same... there are many ups and downs in WP editing, believe me. Good Doon articles, keep it up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :) And though, as my name suggests, I'm from Doon but I assure you there'll be no conflict of interest. Going exactly by the rules of Wiki....:) Yes, truly said, I love 'If'.....after all, I'll be a man someday :P DoscoinDoon (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Animal navigation
Orlady (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

External links in Carl Michael Bellman etc
I have read your criticisms and will add no further links to Andersson, Bellman and related articles.Pfa (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Smoothing Sigurd
You additions about Tolkien in The Story of Sigurd the Volsung and the Fall of the Niblungs have been mentioned by the GA reviewer: see Talk:The Story of Sigurd the Volsung and the Fall of the Niblungs/GA1. Can you take a look and see if there's anything you could [do] to adress this context question? I guess basically a few more details about Tolkien and his version may be needed. Thx. INeverCry  07:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've added a bit of lead-in to the quote with an additional fact and citation - hope everyone finds that a bit smoother now. There are not many direct mentions in Tolkien of Morris's Sigurd, and it seems the general resemblances may be due to general admiration and shared sources; there are specific borrowings from The House of the Wolfings, such as Mirkwood, but those would be better mentioned in William Morris than in Sigurd. So I guess we've done what we can. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your renewed work on Influence section, which is now looking very shapely. How odd of Arvidsson, by the way, to talk about Morris's prose, of which there is none in The Story of Sigurd.  Perhaps his English isn't as good as he thinks it is! --Antiquary (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. I shall have to take some of 'my' articles to GA Review and see how far we can get! Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigurd is now GA! Thx for your contribution. INeverCry  08:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! Happy to learn by helping. I've submitted Camouflage to GAR and am dipping my toe in the water by reviewing Transitional fossil! Thanks for getting me started... Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for John Marley (geologist)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Bolckow Vaughan
The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/scs super computing solutions
Take a look at the edit history, I reverted their restoration of the deleted (copyvio) content, but thought you would want to know. Shearonink (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

 * Oh, thank you! That's really nice, just what I needed. Welcome to Wikipedia, I'm sure you'll have a lot of fun here. with best wishes Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Stephen Hislop
Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

April Masini
Hi Chiswick Chap! I read your comments on the original April Masini page stating that if some additional references turned up you would be willing to reconsider your vote and I was wondered if you might be willing to offer me your opinion on the page now? I just finished adding over 50 references to the page (including excerpts) and I would be incredibly grateful if you would take a look at it and tell me your opinion? Thanks so much in advance. Jennyspencer (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi - I've had a look again as you ask. You have certainly done a *lot* of work on the article. My opinion? It's that it seems that Masini has written a lot, but not that a lot of reliable, independent sources have written about her. If that's true then she's not notable. There does seem to be a fearful argument going on, and without wishing to study the very many sources in great detail, or to understand all the points of view, I think I'll keep away from it this time around. What can be said straightforwardly is that if you (or anyone else) can find two or three good sources (imagine the New York Times...) which discuss Masini in some detail then notability will be beyond question. At the moment, it seems that it remains in question. with best wishes Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to take a look. I sincerely appreciate it. Jennyspencer (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sigurd the Volsung
Sigurd finally is a Good Article. Thanks for your work in helping to make it one. --Antiquary (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Well done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. When you recently edited Camouflage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sparrowhawk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Aaron Manby (ironmaster)
Orlady (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Losh, Wilson and Bell
Hello! Your submission of Losh, Wilson and Bell at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Boneyard90 (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There's a new issue there. --Orlady (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Roots Blower Company
The DYK project (nominate) 00:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Camouflage
I have taken on the GA review for the article Camouflage and would welcome your response to the points I have raised. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Just back from holidays, will attend to it urgently. Regards Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You OK?
Hey Chis, I noticed that you haven't been on for a while. Are you OK? I'm just a little worried since usually you're a daily presence on Wikipedia. I hope that you're doing well and have been off the wiki for reasons that are fabulously fun.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Tokyogirl, thanks for asking, in fact I'm just back from holidays and trying to catch up with my mail! Could use some help on Losh, Wilson and Bell, see above! Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Losh, Wilson and Bell
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Invensis Technologies for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Invensis Technologies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Invensis Technologies until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. mabdul 14:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC) PS: You were the acceptor/reviewer, only informing you!
 * Thanks Mabdul. Somehow it looked better at the time. I believe Invensis is actually one of the largest employers in IT outsourcing in India, but since what's on the web is so terribly scrappy, the article is probably unsalvageable at the moment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know, since October many water is going down the river... You were young and we had the first really big backlog after my "stupid" change of the userspacedraft. ^^ From time to time I recognize the same problems at my "approved" articles. <b style="font-family:Courier New; display:inline; border:#009 1px dashed; padding:1px 6px 2px 7px; white-space:nowrap; color:#000000; font-size:smaller;">mabdul</b> 00:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Patterns in nature
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Didn't we do well!
Astonished to see that within half an hour of posting an image of the Abbot House, you'd followed up with the motto above the doorway. I had to go back to the page to fix a disambiguation link from an image on the Robert Henryson page, and lo and behold! Quick reflex action! Kim Traynor (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Kim, I'd been following the article (I visited Dunfermline to find and photograph Viewfield House which an ancestor built (mmm, an article we could do together?) and so I was stirred from slumber by your image. Well done! There's room for an image of the whole of the front (of AH), too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I've just got your message on Viewfield House. I've had a quick look at the article and it seems fine to me. It's not a property I know, but if anything occurs to me to help out, I'll get in touch. Meantime, I've just spotted your reply above. I have images of the Abbot House from the front, but, to tell the truth, they are not as impressive, I think, as the rear view which gives the impression of an extensive, unified range. I hesitated before posting the rear view rather than the front, but since I came to it from the link I was creating in the article on Robert Henryson, it seemed right, as that's the view one sees when approaching from the Abbey. Kim Traynor (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Well, perhaps a detail of the front door or something would be nice. Viewfield Ho. needs a picture of the Adamesque interior, if we can find a free image... Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Structural coloration
Orlady (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Viewfield House, Dunfermline
thanks for getting in touch. i feel there isn't enough information around about the house to justify its existance as an article.

i would focus on improving the Dunfermline Abbey, Dunfermline Palace and Pittencrieff Park pages. (i think it would also be a good idea to look into creating a new article on the Abbey and Palace; incorporting info from three existing articles, namely the Abbey, Palace and Abbot House) Kilnburn (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for considering the matter, and for your suggestions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably could've predicted this...
You're right. No matter how hard we try, it's like talking to a brick wall. I feel bad saying that, but that's what it feels like.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * All we can do is to speak plainly and calmly, and do our best to see things as they are. I've been working mainly on visual stuff like Patterns in nature, Structural coloration which I find fun and people seem to be appreciating. All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Consett Iron Company
Yngvadottir (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Nessie
Just wanted to thank you for taking on the Loch Ness Monster review, and if you need any help, don't hesitate to ask.Oakley77 (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! The review is stuck with several Citations Needed in the Searches section. So far nobody has come forward to supply them, possibly because they must be in old newspapers rather than online. If you can help or recruit others, I'll be happy to extend the period On Hold a little longer - let me know what's afoot. with best wishes Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for assistance with Dean Bridge article
Thanks for streamlining the reference list on the above page which I didn't know how to do. You were quick off the mark yet again! Kim Traynor (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've now encountered a problem you may be able to help me sort out. I have clearly done something odd with the move of the new Dean Bridge article from my userpage. When I log into Wikipedia now and click my username at the top of the page, the article appears. If I click My talk, up comes a redirect to the Dean Bridge page. I've know idea why this is happening. Would you know how I revert my pages to their original state? Kim Traynor (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

And a big thanks from me
Thanks for your emails on the problem I had losing my Userpage, and for restoring it. I haven't digested the advice yet, so I don't quite know yet how you worked that little piece of magic. I am just so grateful, as I wouldn't have ever been able to work out the solution on my own. I appreciate your advice on how to avoid the problem in the future. Thanks also for the Barnstar. I've just had a Wiki email telling me the article contains British English which is unknown in America and should therefore be changed. I have no idea yet what words or phrases are being referred to, but it will be interesting finding out. Kim Traynor 09:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification regarding 'Fred'. I was wondering why the link didn't work. Now I know. Somehow I managed to create a page on which to work on an article for which I've requested a move: User talk:Kim Traynor/Fred It now seems to be being discussed and, to my surprise, an immediate objection has been raised. It's funny how people have entirely different perspectives from one's own. I wouldn't have seen the problem this person has noted. Anyway, it doesn't matter if the article is accepted. The main thing is that my userpage still exists in its original form, thanks to your assistance. Kim Traynor 09:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Loch Ness Monster Solution
I asked this user for some help citing some of the searches, please hold off on the failing of the nomination, Thanks! Oakley77 (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, I failed it some days ago. There is no obstruction to reapplying for GA once the citations are in place. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears you must be mistaken, as the GA Nominations page still shows the review as ongoing. Also, would you be interested in reviewing an article together? Oakley77 (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'd completed the scoring but hadn't tagged up the article. all the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Reference request for the Cesare Beccaria article
Hallo there, I read "between lines" a token message asking me to provide a reference for the changes I applied yesterday to the article. I browsed the web a bit in my spare time but couldn't find anything yet: but I was just looking in english web pages. Let me check in the italian web pages which I guess are considerably loaded about his biography. I will try to provide a reference in 24 hours time. In the meantime please feel free to undo my change. I will understand. Cheers. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review closure
You are the reviewer at Talk:Loch Ness Monster/GA1 where you indicated that you intended to fail the article and the nominator thinks the review is over. However, the review hasn't been closed yet and is therefore still listed at WP:GAN. If this review is indeed closed, replace the GA nominee with the FailedGA template at Talk:Loch Ness Monster. maclean (talk) 02:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help, have done as you suggest. Curiously, I had actually followed the instructions at Template:FailedGA on the talk page - not with your t1 though - so maybe the instructions are at fault: there was already a FailedGA on the talk page. It does feel a confusing mechanism - one might have hoped that marking FAIL in the scorecard would be enough really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Aaah, if not AAARGH.... I'd put the template on Talk:Loch Ness Monster, not on .../GA1. So it didn't do anything. And your advice was to do the same, actually, which still didn't work, naturally. I'm now going to read the FailedGA template instructions for a fourth time and see if in fact they make sense, or whether they are what they say they are, failed instructions for GAs... ;-} Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

visible compromise
Rather than stating a bogus definition of patterns as "visual" phenomena, Patterns in nature could have a statement after the lead sentence to the effect that "This article confines itself to patterns which are salient to the human eye". —Tamfang (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * OK we'll try something like that. It's kind of a klunky mechanism - an article talking about itself - and the idea had occurred to me; not something I like to do but perhaps it's necessary. I shan't be surprised if it causes trouble, in which case I intend to revert to Plan A, but the experiment can be tried.


 * On the matter of fact, I don't agree that the visual nature of pattern is bogus at all, actually: it's the primary meaning of pattern to most people, patterns on cloth, patterns of tiles and so on; but certainly (like "nature") it's a word with dozens of meanings, and scientists, engineers and, ahem, mathematicians clearly use it in other ways. For that reason it seems to me entirely valid to specify that we simply mean that definition of pattern, that particular audience. But we have to exclude the non-visual in the lead or all hell will break loose, it's a critical boundary for the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Rhythm in music is a pattern....
 * I hope you don't mind my preference of visible over visual. The latter implies that vision is the thing's raison d'être, which is clearly not true of (e.g.) the shape of a seashell! —Tamfang (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Music: certainly. Visual: carries no feeling of teleology for me, and visible feels clearly the wrong term, but then such things are about cultural connotations, as with all words: the whole of natural language is a philosophical minefield. Lead-ins are much harder to write than article bodies as a few words have to stand for a lot of meaning; we shouldn't be surprised when they crack under the strain. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If 'teleology' is too strong, how about intrinsic vs extrinsic? —Tamfang (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Inside what, I wonder? But since we're agreed on the wording it doesn't matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of JoomlaShine for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article JoomlaShine is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/JoomlaShine until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. <span style="font-family:Courier New; display:inline; border:#009 1px dashed; padding:1px 6px 2px 7px; white-space:nowrap; font-size:smaller; color:#000000;">mabdul 11:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: I'm only informing you as AFC accepted, but I was really confused why you accepted this submission after original declining it. See my big two edits of copyedit and it still needs major work. Please keep in mind: that 'draft' still doesn't get above GNG! <span style="font-family:Courier New; display:inline; border:#009 1px dashed; padding:1px 6px 2px 7px; white-space:nowrap; font-size:smaller; color:#000000;">mabdul 11:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. There are independent sources so I felt bad about simply turning it down; I see there has been a debate at AfC about excessive rejections, and I certainly feel we should not be harder at AfC than in real life, as it were. Obviously I can see both sides of this particular case as you know. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * YK the simple rule: accept all stuff which survives CSDs and then a afd/*fd. And I'm really not sure if some "independent blogs" are reliable enough to pass GNG. Seeing that stuff I would say no. <span style="font-family:Courier New; display:inline; border:#009 1px dashed; padding:1px 6px 2px 7px; white-space:nowrap; font-size:smaller; color:#000000;">mabdul 15:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, glad to hear the CSD, AFD rule - I don't believe I've ever seen it stated before, and certainly agree it's the right rule. But I think AFC is often harder to pass than that in practice. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK
Thank you for your review. A minor point is that you may need to add a signature there. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Great work on...
...Tasmania's Wilderness Battles. If you happen to have time, would you care to look at Articles for deletion/Power, Profit and Protest... thanks... Johnfos (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks!


 * I'll take a look at it now... Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for En vänlig grönskas rika dräkt
Yngvadottir (talk) 08:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Major Rohde Hawkins
Hello! Your submission of Major Rohde Hawkins at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath Template:Did you know nominations/Royal Victoria Patriotic Building; Major Rohde Hawkins and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!   Wikipelli <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   15:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hang on... reviewed wrong article... sorting it out now. :)   Wikipelli <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   16:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok... I"m a little confused about the nomination(s). Are both articles nominated (Major Rohdes Hawkins AND Royal Victoria Patriotic Building)? I'm ok with RVPB but MRH is on the short side (1466 characters according to DYK check) Sorry for the mess!   Wikipelli  <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   16:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the hard work. It had been my intention to nominate both articles, but if MRH is no good, don't worry, I'll be quite happy with RVPB on its own. But I think it would make sense to leave the link (not bold) to MRH in any case. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Even better, MRH is now a fuller article with more detail and more references. I believe it will now meet the criteria. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Meltemi (operating system)
New deletion discussion. Lumialover (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Royal Victoria Patriotic Building
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Major Rohde Hawkins
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Johnston
SlimVirgin, you've done your usual careful, considered job on both the AfD and the Lucy Johnston article, which is now hugely improved and certainly much quieter. However ... if anything it now under-represents the fact that she's been pretty controversial. I don't wish to reopen old wounds so recently closed; so I wonder what we could add to describe her role in the battles? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, and I've replied on your talk. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

-

Hi CC, thanks for your note. Which issue and sources did you have in mind, in terms of adding more to the article? Feel free to reply here; I'll look out for it. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess the BadScience mention in 2009 is pretty noteworthy, and it could simply tag onto the last para in Reception. The point we should make is that this is a serious riposte to LJ (and her paper), whatever anyone thinks about the particular issue: the LJ talk page makes clear that the issue remains live and debatable, which we agree is not the subject matter of the LJ article. It's not the only Ben Goldacre item on LJ but it would do as an indication. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The Ben Goldacre article (the version that appeared in the Guardian) is used as a source for the final paragraph, so anyone wanting more information can read it. I'd be reluctant to expand on that issue in the text, because it's the thing that caused all the trouble, and if we add more details from one side, we have to add them from the other. I think it's better to say -- there was a complaint regarding issue X, the complaint was upheld by the Press Complaints Commission, and the newspaper apologized. Then readers can read the two Guardian articles and the PCC decision for more details. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, we're deliberately and tactfully refraining in this instance; and we're asking readers to do a lot to understand our Delphic utterances. I understand the reason for that. What the elegantly cryptic solution misses, I'd suggest, is the repeated nature of the thing, that (let's paint a picture) the boy in the story has caused three playground fights (involving parents and teachers) already: an unusual occurrence. The article as it now is tells a very different story: that all kinds of nice cakes and lemonade were consumed, and that the boy's parent once had to say sorry to a little girl in the playground. Clearly the latter story arouses less interest: but unfortunately it's distinctly less true. Could we find an elegant way to hint that our boy is a teeny bit of a troublemaker? Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)




 * Well, it's difficult, not least because over the years the boy has helped a large number of kids who were being picked on, and was three times given or considered for prizes from grateful parents and teachers. Labouring the playground fights might be unfair.


 * Which additional sources would show the repeated nature of the thing? SlimVirgin (talk)


 * Mmm, yes, that's true. Sources: there are many to choose from here as you know, and fraught with danger. In the AfD I listed both +ves and -ves, including some -ves not yet used from 2007, 2009 and 2011, which should do as a startingpoint..... perhaps we could just list them as refs, like 'She has been involved in repeated controversies about medical claims.[1][2][3]' with no specific detail of any of them. Would that not be proportionate? Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Would you mind posting here which sources you had in mind? I looked at the AfD page again, and most of the sources posted there have either been used, or are personal websites or similar (which can't be used per WP:BLPSPS). SlimVirgin (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, and most of the serious sources are just brief mentions or only point to J's pieces. The most serious rebuttals (paper in Pediatrics, ...) are indirect, and in any case we don't want to go there (into the med. controversies themselves). We've already agreed to differ over how much to say on Goldacre, easily the best of the sources. Let's leave it until more emerge (2013, 2015, 2017, ...) Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, see you then. :) SlimVirgin (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Adaptiv
Yngvadottir (talk) 09:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Question regarding your revision of SpiderGraph chart.
Dear Chap,

Just curious, was your 24 February 2012 Major work over & removals of the SpiderGraph chart article meant to be a Rescue or a Sabotage?

Sincerely, Gregory L. Chester 00:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

Armored vehicles
I'm guessing that the majority of armored vehicles are civilian, not military. You can create that article but it might end up like tracked vehicle. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   01:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Mmm, yes, that's a sideline I hadn't considered. It certainly suggests, however, that many if not most armoured vehicles in that case are wheeled, not tracked. There's a cloud of concepts which heavily overlap but do not coincide, I think. Not sure I feel like going there just now, however! All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

How can I transfer images from Berthe Weill anglophone towards Berthe Weill francophone ?
Hello !

You uploaded those files :

thumb|235px|Portrait of Berthe Weill with paintings in the background

thumb|235px|Early 1900s Poster depicting a nude artist and a man in top hat for a Berthe Weill exhibition

to the article Berthe Weill (English)

How can I put the same images on the French equivalent Berthe Weill ?

Thank you in advance.

Francoisalex2 (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, the images are I think not free, so I didn't put them on Wikimedia Commons (the ideal). Instead they are hosted on English Wikipedia, which means I had to write a "Non-Free Usage Rationale" for each one. You will see an "Upload file" link in the 'toolbox" on the left of the screen. I presume that French Wikipedia has the same thing; you will need to upload each file, making use of my NFUR text which you'll translate or rephrase in French, and then you will be able to include the images in your article. It sounds a bit complicated but it is not very difficult. You can ask the French helpdesk for advice, too. Good luck/Courage, mon vieux! Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello ! thanks for your advice ; I understood that the concept of "fair use" does not exist in France !Francoisalex2 (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Then I think your best hope is to ask the Berthe Weill museum to put a few small images up on Flickr with a free (CC 2.5 ...) licence so that everybody can use them. Or just to stick with the English Wiki which is after all available to everyone around the world who can read a little English. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

HMS Quebec (1781)
Hi Chiswick Chap! Back in January you commented on the talk page of this ship article "It would be nice to have one of the fine paintings of Quebec" (the ship) in the article on HMS Quebec (1781) which implied that you knew where to find such. Do you? I have been unable to find any. Any help gratefully accepted! Viking1808 (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Viking1808, all I know is that if you google e.g. for ""HMS Quebec" 1781" you'll find AgeOfSail and other websites with magnificent oil paintings of HMS Quebec vs Surveillante ... I think you could simply assert fair usage and write an NFUR; if you can take a photo of one of the paintings it can be uploaded to Commons.

Good luck! Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it was the previous HMS Quebec (of 1760) that fought the Surveillante in 1779. So back to square one!  I will try for an infobox with what I have, but alas no pictures (yet) Viking1808 (talk) 07:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Rhadinoceraea micans
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
For Chiswick Chap, my buddy, my favorite and best copy editor. THE BEST!!! Have a kitten on me. He did not cost me much, so don't be too flattered. My gift to you for all your help over our long history together of several months.

Do you feel the hook coming? Someone put, "may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling" on the ONLY article I have written: Somewhere I Have Never Traveled. I'm an WP:SPA who got hooked. I'm no Hemmingway, but I have visited his cats in Key West.

I freely admit, I am boring. I write technical stuff. When you are bored, could you look and pass judgement? I really wanted to do a good job on the article, and I have more to add sometime, but time... never waits.

<span style="color:rgb(60,200,200);font-weight:bold;"> :- ) Don 04:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC) <br style="clear: both"/>


 * Hi Don, well that's really a nice surprise, thank you. I've ce'd the article as requested. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You zapped all my double spacing. :-( Now, I have to get more stuff in it and shoot for Class B.  Let me give you a hand on something some time.  I can handle pretty much anything, especially fixing up citations, tables, and wiki markup stuff.  Good writing I leave to others.  <span style="color:rgb(60,200,200);font-weight:bold;"> :- ) Don  14:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. There's certainly not a shortage of articles needing citations! Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * My pleasure. Have taken a look - everything looks to be in order, both with the article (very nice) and with the peer review (most people pretty happy, someone a bit grumpy with some refs (not an unusual condition for editors!). Nothing stands out as needing urgent attention, unless there was something worrying you? Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Whitley Castle
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify and the future of wikification
Hi! There is an ongoing proposal at the project talkpage concerning the future of wikification, including possible deprecation of the wikify template which is being discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 10. Your input would be greatly appreciated!

You are receiving this message because you are listed as an active member of the wikify project. To update your status, go here.

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC) on behalf of Project Wikify

DYK for List of camoufleurs
Yngvadottir (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Camoufleur
I have red with a lot of interest your articles on the Camoufleurs. Great work. I have noticed you uploaded this picture:thumb|150px| (now corrected) This picture is not from  André Mare but from Fernand Léger. This is imho a picture from Mare:. This photo is looks closer to Mare's portrait by Léger. --Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. If I have Andre Mare wrong, I'm deeply embarrassed . I will have a look and try to fix things as soon as I can. Of course, you are free to replace the image with a suitable explanation - the existing rationale will probably be sufficient. With best wishes Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

ArchiveUpTo2011
Chiswick Chap, could you please have a look at ArchiveUpTo2011, I think you moved it to the wrong place. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, it should be a child of

Talk:Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan

- I'll see if I can get it there now, if not feel free to move it there. Sorry. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, thought it might be worth letting you know :). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Alex Leger
Dear Chiswick Chap, please could you take a quick look again at Alex Leger. I've added references as per Wiki policy and I hope the page now comes up to required standards for a living person biography. Best Bobby987 Bobby987 (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Bobby987, these are worthwhile additions and they are certainly strengthening the article, so I'll review progress in a day or two and see if I should change my vote. Meanwhile, there's no reason why you shouldn't say on the AfD discussion page what you've done, and that you believe the article is now worth keeping. Even better, if you can provide a source that explicitly discusses Alex Leger in some detail; the main issue in my mind is simply that the existing sources are rather brief mentions. All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for the GA review and the great copyediting that came with it. Instead of leaving you a kitten or a cookie, I am feeding the cookie above to the kitten above to keep it happy. mew! nom nom nom mew! mew! &mdash;<font color="#0c0">Cup <font color="#630">co  21:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
<div style=" border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:#E6FFE6; padding:1em; padding-top:0.5em; padding-bottom:0.5em; width:20em; color:black; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.5em; width: 90%; "> Alan Marshall (scholar), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! <span style="color:rgb(60,200,200);font-weight:bold;"> :- ) Don 16:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.


 * Well, what a surprise! Never had one of these before ... and I don't really deserve it now, as all I did was a tiny bit of copy-editing. But I'm very glad the article has made it into life. All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

 * Oh, that's really kind of you. Thank you very much! Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If my link (and my writing) is not relevant - it is a spam. Ben Tamari, 27-09-2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Tamari (talk • contribs) 06:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Brucefield House Dunfermline Fife Scotland.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Brucefield House Dunfermline Fife Scotland.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for your care. NFCC#1: I am pretty certain we won't find any other image of the house - the web shows several more or less fuzzy copies of this one image, and we know nobody will ever take any new ones to replace it. I suppose one might come to light but at this distance in time - a century - it would be a rare event and I doubt your hope of a free one will ever be realized.


 * But even if I can show you wrong there, we must address NFCC#8: is the article understandable without it? Well, nearly anything can be done without; it is a great pity; the text will be the poorer without it; I suppose we can include an External link to it, a sad apology for the real thing. I can see that an article on the man is not the same as an article on the house; were anyone to write one, I guess the picture would be more robustly justified there. The words of NFCC#8 "to fully understand the article" do allow me some leeway - the article WILL be less fully understandable without the image, with the incredible image of spacious comfort that it conveys: and were I to use words like that in the article, no doubt someone would start bleating about OR. The truth is, it would be better with the photo. Would be glad to hear what you think: whether beefing up the NFUR with the reasoning here would do the job. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, firstly, are we certain that this image isn't in the public domain? Two possibilities are that we identify the author, and check their date of death- if they died more than 70 years ago, it's public domain. Secondly, we could identify the initial publication of this photo; if it was published before 1923, it's public domain in the US. As for the NFCC#8 issue, I'm sure that the fact he lived in this house is significant, but I'm not convinced that the appearance of the house is; it doesn't look so drastically different to how one would expect a manor house to look. You claim that the article is made better by the photo, but I can't really see how it is increasing reader understanding. While having a picture is always a nice addition, I question whether the article would really be severely lacking without it. J Milburn (talk) 07:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Mmm, yes. I'll see if I can track down the history of the photo and if so put it into Commons. Till then I'll remove the photo from the article. Thanks for your advice. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Great- best of luck finding out some info. J Milburn (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Harald Hardrada
Because Matthew Paris is mediaeval too, but a couple of centuries later, which is why the illustrations are all chivalric? Maybe you're thinking of some modern scholar, or have I missed something? Thhist has been making a lot of changes and I may be befuddled. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see, that's fine then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Loch Ness Monster
Thanks for the explanation. Sorry for the trouble. Trying to get used to knowing what to post and the rules. I appreciate the explanation. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiUserThinking (talk • contribs) 01:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Deepak Tripathi
Dear Chiswick Chap: You might want to look at Deepak Tripathi's updated biography at his blog. There are some additions, including a PhD in social science, his dissertation title etc., affiliations and the next book which completes a trilogy, to be published in 2013. In case of any interest to Wikipedia. Best, Deepak Tripathi — — Preceding unsigned comment added by SussexResearcher (talk • contribs) 17:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Roth
Replied on my page. Span (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work. I note we have two ref'g systems going on. I'm not much up on the new syntaxes but could we stick with a system that doesn't have the page numbering appearing in the article body? It seems to impede reading more than having page numbers in the notes. I guess there's a short cut ref'g system that does that...? Best wishes Span (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, if you don't like it, I've created separate short text refs with embedded nos - less flexible but also less obtrusive. In return, a job for you: Para 2 of Early life ends with 5 refs... I remember reading a note by some crusty old Wikipedian back from the wars at XfD that a sure sign of trouble was 5 little blue numbers lined up side by side! Perhaps you could carefully sprinkle them back where they exactly belong in the paragraph. Sorry. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, mean to float it as an idea rather than an outright request. Sure, I can put the refs by the right line. There is an argument to suggest that it makes for easier reading to have all refs gathered at the end of the para but maybe not when there are too many. I really need to bone up on short refs - how is the second system less flexible? I still use long hand refs. Is there a guideline page you frequent that outlines the current systems most in favour? Cheers Span (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That's fine, did it already. Not sure I can remember where I found out how to do refs, the hard way mostly. Still trying to learn to be consistent - 'fraid it means doing everything with cite template. The finest examples are in major articles like Napoleon where all refs are listed AT THE END and then called out by name from within the article! It works really well for books and scientific papers. And that too can be automated somehow. all the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Congrats on the GA, btw. Span (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! They're fun but a lot of work, done properly. Very glad to see progress on Roth: I think we might get a bit more from the NYT article that's already cited. But I fear she's mainly from the years B.W. (Before Web).... Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Structural coloration
The article Structural coloration you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Structural coloration for comments about the article. Well done! Tomcat (7) 10:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

AOA - indeed IS constructive relevant and factual for Wiki
{Hello, I'm Chiswick Chap. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Angle of attack because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices. }

Hi - I flew AOA for a quarter century, and grad school in Aero, and based on that background and experience... I think the addition is constructive, factual and relevant -- because it makes Wiki accurate and factual. The Cobra is not a High AOA maneuver, but something different; there is no real wind over the airfoil relative to the chord of it. The Cobra is more of a thrust vector change, akin to rocket launch dynamics. Too many people don't know what AOA really is, see: http://www.advanced-flight-systems.com/Support/AOAsupport/AOA%20slides.ppt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_attack If you add in a thrust vector to make this maneuver occur, you are NOT employing Angle of Attack to fly. While this maneuver is not always implemented with gimballed thrust, it uses this effect by either maneuvering the tailcone, or the whole airframe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_vectoring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_Turn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermaneuverability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pugachev's_Cobra http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/Thrust_Vectoring.html Which all corroborate my change. This maneuver is not a High AOA maneuver but thrust vectoring in whatever form it is executed. If you want Wiki to remain factual, I would recommend you leave my changes, or take out the Cobra line altogether. I have edited Angle of Attack further to make it clearer. All in the name of Wiki's accuracy. Thanks. Paul Shankland, Ph.D., Flagstaff, AZ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.81.138 (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, good to meet you. I was responding to the sudden appearance of an incomplete fragment, unsupported by evidence. I am glad to hear this was "in good faith" and to see that you are now providing evidence. (Actually, refs to other Wikipedia pages can't be used as proof, as they too can be edited by anyone, so they aren't "reliable sources", but I see you have non-WP sources here also.)

I wouldn't presume to comment on the aeronautics, but I can observe that the paragraph in 'high alpha' repeats some phrases several times, and seems to go backwards and forwards across the "critical" line, which is definitely confusing. Perhaps you could rework it to start "below", move up to "critical" and then continue "above"? All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar for You

 * Thank you. I much enjoyed reading it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of camoufleurs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fauve (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Oh, that's very nice of you, thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating James Humphries Hogan, Chiswick Chap!

Wikipedia editor Buster40004 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Good job. This fellow rose from the bottom to the top. Are there any images of his work that can be added to the article? Buster40004  Talk  04:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)"

To reply, leave a comment on Buster40004's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Stained Glass
Thank you, Chiswick Chap! More of the Same!

Amandajm (talk) 08:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Glad you liked it. There are plenty more unsung artists out there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Very nice. Stained glass is almost indescribable without an image. Thanks!  Buster40004  Talk 15:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Bertram
This is a little off-topic for the FAC :) so I hope you don't mind me popping here. To what extent was Barkas involved in the southern camoflaging? e.g. two of the subsidiary ops. involved digging gun pits and creating a fake water pipeline, I don't have clear sourcing for who was tasked with this. Does he mention Pioneer Corps? (who were the formation tasked with driving back and forth in the south to fake the build up). --Errant (chat!) 10:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he did all of that. I have a pile of notes and am constructing Bertram, Barkas, Sykes and more all at once, my head is spinning! Give me a chance to get it down (I'm doing Bertram now) and I think it'll be a bit better. Odd how neglected all this is, another bit of Systemic bias I'm afraid, as the latest Signpost makes clear. all the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure! My current focus is Bevan anyway, so that's fine. I know the feeling of head spinning, the pile of books has reached desk height :) The Latimer book I mentioned has some good coverage of the bits (that appear to be) missing from Barkas' account. I can probably send you a copy if you can't get hold of one. --Errant (chat!) 12:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I've ordered a Latimer for 10 pence (plus p&p) from Amazon... but yes please, details of the relevant bits would be very helpful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Another source you might be interested in: Rankin, Nicholas (1 October 2008). Churchill's Wizards: The British Genius for Deception, 1914–1945. Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-22195-5. Has a whole section on Bertram, which discusses Barkas and his team etc. --Errant (chat!) 10:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Operation Bertram
The DYK project (nominate) 08:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it's now also featured on Portal:Germany, please feel free to add other DYK related to Germany there yourself, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Precious

 * Oh, thank you so much, that's really nice to hear. It's a beautiful cold clear sunny Remembrance Day here, I shall take your thoughts with me on a walk. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Geoffrey Barkas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Stevenson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

CDL comment.
Thanks for taking the time to add the comment on my addition to the Canal Defence Light talk page, however the info was from memory and I don't have a reference. IIRC, it is true though.

BTW, I no longer contribute to Wikipedia and my user page is no longer used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for letting me know. All the best and you're welcome any time you feel like dropping back into Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Funny coincidence, I used to live in Chiswick back in the 1980s. Used to almost live in the Barley Mow back when Welsh Rob had it. Great times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Those Jat clans
I'm glad someone has picked up this list and decided to assist with bringing it under control and into a properly cited state. Welcome to the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! It seemed such an obvious 'Keep' that I thought someone had better tidy it up a bit. I'm hoping not to spend the rest of my life on Indian clan history and genealogy, mind you... Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As I'm sure you appreciate, I am as happy if it is kept as if it goes. I've been striving for ages to make sure it has references, that's all. I support any and all attempts to make it referenced! This is a complex area, though, in terms of those who edit. We seem to meet those who have partisan views over what is and is not a Jat, for example, hence the need to have 'every entry a referenced entry'. What seems to happen is if an editor, almost always an IP editor, sees his neighbour's name there, he wants his name there too. And so he shall, if it is notable and is cited!
 * The other complexity is that there seem to be a dozen different articles containing 'the same' list. Somehow this needs to be consolidated into one list, but gaining the co-operation of drive by IP editors is like herding cats.
 * The AfD? I'm 90% sure it will close as 'keep' which is absolutely fine by me if we can get the references in. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for IP editors, nor for the other articles. What I can say is that a list of bluelinks very rarely has a complete set of individual item references, and WP policies do not require such. I broadly support excluding redlinks from lists, though that doesn't necessarily mean removing the items, unlinking can be sufficient. We must also be sympathetic to South Asian editors who have English as their second or third language. all the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I've never been unsympathetic to those who have the excellent fortune not to have English as their first tongue :) The challenge with this list is that many of the bluelinks themselves are not or were not of themselves Jats! That's the reason the consensus at the time drive towards the same need as in Alumni which has an obviously different purpose, but whose logic is reasonable here. If we choose to change that consensus I'm against it, will argue against it, but will be as content as the next editor to abide by whatever is determined. Obviously we'll do that on the article talk page. I just wanted to give you some background. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't suppose so. The situation with templates is very different from that of lists; templates are far more sensitive and can reach many thousands of pages, so there's no reason why any consensus on templates should be thought to apply to lists of any type. Obviously any bluelinks to non-Jat articles don't belong - I checked quite a few just in case. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I must have been less clear than I thought. I mean that the Alumni template, a template which is applied to lists of alumni (which this is obviously not), insists on references to show that the stated alumnus is actually an alumnus. Of course I knew what I meant when I wrote it, but I wasn't the bloke reading it :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's vital for <alumni of xyz School> articles to be strict, but even there in practice a bluelink is enough -- the linked article should of course prove the claim of schooling is true, but it's often not practical. Realistically we can't expect 100% refs there or I suspect here, but certainly some refs is better than none. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * All we disagree on here is the strictness of the inclusion criteria, I think. I have a firmer line than you. I doubt we will convince each other, which is why we have consensus. I'll seek to influence it, and will then be bound by it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!  Wifione  Message 17:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, have you had any thoughts on undertaking administrative chores? Wifione  Message 17:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Reviewer
Hello, following a review of your contributions, I have enabled reviewer rights on your account. This gives you the ability to: Please remember that this user right:
 * Accept changes on pages undergoing pending changes,
 * Have your changes automatically accepted on pending changes level 2 protected pages, and
 * Administrate article feedback.
 * Can be removed at any time for misuse, and
 * Does not grant you any special status above other editors.
 * You should probably also read WP:PROTECT, since this user privilege deals largely with page protection. As the requirements for this privilege are still in a state of flux, I would encourage you to keep up to date on the WP:REVIEWER page. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions! Happy editing! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Guirand de Scevola
Hi! You might be able to help out at User talk:John of Reading. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Adaptive Coloration in Animals
The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Changes to Mermaid Images
I noticed you've made major changes to the images and gallery at Mermaid. In particular, you've reduced the number of images in both the article and the gallery, eliminating some entirely, and moving some excellent pictures from the article to the gallery. You've also placed all of the images on the right and made them uniformly small. This makes the article much less visually-appealing and more like a wall of text with postage stamps on the side. Before the images were somewhat balanced, and each set to a size that allowed them to be seen in reasonable detail. I'm particularly baffled by your decision to replace Weguelin's Mermaid of Zennor with a picture of the mermaid chair (and the approximation of the date was rather important, so making it more definite when dating it is actually quite uncertain seems to be a mistake as well). The other Weguelin paintings in the gallery were added because they were some of the best images of the classic mermaid depiction available on Wikimedia commons. Removing them on the grounds that there should only be one image per artist seems rather arbitrary; where did this rule come from? The gallery was intended to present a wide selection of images, not just a choice of artists who happen to have painted mermaids. Relegating one of the most prolific artists in the genre to the gallery, and confining that to a single image visually impoverishes the text mere days after it had been approved as a "good article." I'd like to ask you to reconsider some of these choices, in favour of a more richly-illustrated article and gallery. P Aculeius (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hallo, thanks for writing. I can feel that you are quite concerned about the article, so let me explain a couple of things. Firstly, I was the GA (Good Article) reviewer who assessed (and passed) the article, so I had to take a long, careful, and balanced look in the context of the GA criteria, and made a number of changes that seemed to be necessary to bring the article up to standard - for example, by reinforcing the history, and adding the coin and Melusine images, which I hope everyone can agree are attractive. Secondly, the Zennor chair is clearly and definitely centuries old, and as such constitutes a strong (and I think beautiful) element in the mermaid story, easily worth fitting into the main part of the article. Thirdly, there is a general constraint on all articles, but especially "Good Articles" to achieve balanced coverage of a topic, not too much on any one aspect. I considered that we ought to aim to balance old and new - the old being unquestionably under-represented; and to balance the different artists, having as many as possible in a reasonable space. Given that there were many artists with a claim, I constructed the gallery with images as different from each other as possible, i.e. avoiding too many in the same pose or from the same artist. I did that, by the way, not "mere days after" but as part of the GA process.


 * I'd remind you that a Wikipedia article is not intended to be a list - we could certainly have a "List of mermaid paintings" if you felt like starting one. Also, images on Commons remain available for people to enjoy, and indeed this is an important reason for Commons to exist - it contains not only images, but categories and pages of images, so I'd encourage you to build a Commons page of Wequelin mermaid paintings, etc, as you consider suitable. Being popular or prolific is not reason to have a heavy representation in an encyclopedia article; if anything, those are reasons to be wary, and to wonder whether other aspects of the topic are not being under-represented in consequence.


 * Finally, it may be helpful to point out that the standard "thumbnail" images are not necessarily smaller than images sized to a given width in pixels. On the contrary, as screen resolutions increase, images with a fixed pixel width will steadily appear "small" to more and more users, while the standard thumbnails will automatically resize as standards change. And of course, the standard Wikipedia thumbnail image size is chosen to give articles a particular look and feel, so we need rather good reasons to use other sizes. I moved some of the images to the default size today for that reason. Hope this all helps a little Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar...

 * Oh, thank you so much, it's very nice to know one's efforts are appreciated in the hurly-burly. Many thanks again Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Countries that Britain has attacked
Could you explain your comments further to me? For example, the article lists, by country, occasions where Britain has attacked and so lists for Argentina in 1806 when //"A British expeditionary force of 1,700 men, under Home Riggs Popham, occupies Buenos Aires, without official orders. Locals cross to Montevideo to raise support to successfully repel the occupation."// and for further information one can click through via the date the campaign or the places mentioned. What is wrong with that? I want to understand. Are you saying that the event might be notable in the context of Argentina but not notable in a list of countries that Britain has attacked?Davroche (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the Wikipedia policy of WP:NOTINHERITED (please take a look at it), for which I am in no way responsible, simply states that every article has to stand on its own two feet rather than relying on any other articles, no matter how closely related or comprehensive they may be. The reason for this is that they may change or be deleted, and of course anyone may edit them. The only way, therefore, to ensure that an article is WP:VERIFIABLE is to provide sources in the article itself. This is part of one of the WP:PILLARS of Wikipedia, so I do hope it doesn't come as excessively bad news. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Sir Lowthian Bell, 1st Baronet
Hello! Your submission of Sir Lowthian Bell, 1st Baronet at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BabelStone (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Sydney Barber Josiah Skertchly
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Sir Lowthian Bell, 1st Baronet
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The Camouflage Cup
Thank you for the clever award. The artwork is very nice; and the ptarmigan bring back memories of life in a Newfoundland outport where our hostess fed us with ptarmigan and home-made jam from what they called ptarmigan berries which grew in profusion on the tundra. I believe the outport families subsisted largely on fish caught off the Grand Banks, but they offered us ptarmigan because they considered it a treat from their routine diet.


 * Oh good, I'm delighted it has resonances for you. I hope to make the Cup a reasonably regular event. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Link anchors for ship measures
I'm less enthusiastic about the modifications you have made to the United States Navy second world war ship camouflage measures article. I believe you over-reacted to the tag rather than referring the editor back to our previous Talk:Ship camouflage discussion regarding the best way to describe individual camouflage measures. Your present edit has cut off the individual measure links and substituted a general article link which I feel is unsatisfactory considering the number of measures within the article. This is a wider problem than the links within the ship camouflage article; since I intend to link these measures from individual wartime photos appearing in articles describing individual ships and battles. If you know a way to link an individual measure within the present format, please do so with the measure 32 link in the ship camouflage article. If not, I propose to restore linking specificity within the original format.Thewellman (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I've messed up. I do think a table is generally a good way to handle lists; and probably the very best way when there are images for each/some of the items. There is no problem in linking each measure specifically - all we need to do is to put a link at the end of each "description" text, in the usual way. I'll attempt to "reverse engineer" the right links now, but of course feel free to modify those in any way you see right. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

--- oh, do you mean link TARGETS? I believe we can do that, too, using link anchors. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The syntax in the table is |- id="measure123"   etc.
 * The syntax for linking to that is article name as usual.
 * I will insert the id="measure123" anchors in the list now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for trying to correct the linking problem. There appears to be a bug in the link anchors preventing proper functioning of the United States Navy second world war ship camouflage measures links.  On several computers I have tried, the link anchor appears to initially bring the bottom of the table onto the screen, and then jump up to the appropriate table row. In the bottom table, however, something (possibly the appearance of the page ratings box) appears to be interrupting the jump up to the appropriate location; and the screen remains at the bottom of the table.  This is a fairly serious problem because of the large number of warships wearing measure 32 during the period of best photographic documentation.  Can you devise a work-around to restore link functionality within the tabular format?Thewellman (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Very demanding! I've checked the table and anchor structure there, and the bad news is, it's not broken. The odd behaviour (not especially serious, one could argue, given that navigation is actually to the right part of the right page...) may be caused by a problem calculating the height of the table cell with multiple images inside it, or as you suggest by being tangled up with the end of the article. We could go down to one image per table row, either by removing 2 images or by splitting the measure into its sub-measures? Or live with it. This looks to me like a typical HTML page rendering glitch - it could sort itself out as browsers mature, or not......


 * Oh, a possible work-around: we could make measure 32 point to the top of that table, which would only be 1 row (and a header row) higher. Easy to do if you'd like that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for The Colours of Animals
The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for welcoming me. I liked your article very much indeed. 86.133.51.163 (talk) 07:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That's very good to hear. I hope you'll join in and write your own articles as well as contributing to existing ones. All the best - Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Dazzle camouflage
I am willing to wait for response on the definition, for I have lately perceived a decline in the number of active knowledgeable editors. Perhaps my generation is dying off. I greatly value your perspectives and contributions on this subject. I am hunting for sources explaining reasons for between the wars denigration of dazzle camouflage for ships. I suspect that might be a reasonable chronological boundary differentiating dazzle camouflage from later disruptive schemes. As you pointed out, Cott's 1940 text marks a similar divide in nomenclature. On the basis of personal experience, I suspect primary motivations for discontinuing dazzle camouflage included a lack of visual appeal to the military mindset preferring a parade formation of spotless uniformity, and the comparative difficulty of maintaining a two-tone paint scheme rather than a single color more forgiving of drips and spills. These underlying preferences were likely masked by alleged statistical studies of combat experience; although military studies of the period often lack scientific method controls. In any event, I am searching for sources which might support or refute my hypotheses.Thewellman (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, you noticed it around the place too? At times I feel like I'm walking a ghost town. I guess I've given you my pennyworth on the matter. On the decline between the wars, there was a 'postmortem' analysis by the Admiralty, and they found very weak evidence that dazzle did any good. The Peter Scott trials you know about; and then UK/US studies in October 19441 on whether dazzle could really confuse aim. Peter Forbes' Dazzled and Deceived (Yale, 2009) talks chattily through it all (chapter 11, pp170ff).


 * 1: Trials of British Admiralty and US Navy camouflage measures, Chesapeake Bay, October 1944, NA/ADM 212/137.

Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

T-shirt!

 * I just found out that this exists and if anyone deserves one, it's you!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yay! Sounds great!! I really appreciate the thought. I think you'd better check the nom though as it doesn't look complete (never having done one myself...) - many thanks - Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Help with an article?
Hi CC! I want to ask a favor from you. I'm interested in creating an article for Rabbi Jack Spiro, who is also a professor. I'm finding tons of sources that confirm that his work has been considered to be notable in that he's name dropped in a ton of books as a resource, but I'm not sure how that would translate into notability here on Wikipedia per WP:PROF. The biggest issue here is that he is/was one of my professors at my college and is someone who I look up to and respect a great deal. I know that this means that there is a COI here and that I might be seeing more notability than might actually exist. Because of that, I don't think that if an article is made, I absolutely should not do so by myself. I know that you've edited articles on people and you're a good judge of sources, so I wanted to ask if you could look at some of the sources I've found and if there are enough that would show he'd pass notability guidelines, review the page (or contribute or write it) before it hits the mainspace. I'd love for there to be an article, but I really don't want to jeopardize that with bad COI editing. I know I can edit if I have a COI, but I would be more comfortable if I had at least one other editor, if not several, going behind me to keep it from turning into a love fest. If you know anyone else that would be helpful in this, please let me know! I've started collecting book mentions here, but I haven't fully looked at every source just yet. (JSTOR, etc)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Tokyogirl, I've had a look at your list of sources and nosed around Google too. Google news doesn't find anything; general googling and many of your list give small mentions. One of your books was barred to me, seems people have been there too often! I'd say at the moment that notability is a bit doubtful as a newsworthy person. He might pass WP:Academic if he has written many oft-cited papers, otherwise I'd say probably not. If there are more book citations that could be a way in too, as you suggest. All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Hugh Lee Pattinson
The DYK project (nominate) 16:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Concealing-Coloration in the Animal Kingdom
Hello! Your submission of Concealing-Coloration in the Animal Kingdom at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cdtew (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC) I'm a fan of your article, which is really well-written, but the image chosen appears to require further explanation of its Public Domain status to check out. Cdtew (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Done, I was looking at the top half of the page... of course it was published in the USA before 1923 so it's PD-US. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

A cup of Rosie Lee for you, you'll have to add the milk yourself.
Ah, that's very sweet of you. Thank you so much. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

GAs
We may be able to wind up the GA review of John Struthers (anatomist) before you go away for Christmas. I have also taken on the GA review of Animal coloration. This is a rather longer article and the review can be more leisured. I will endeavour to review it before you return from your Christmas break. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, that would be super! I am down to the last item on Struthers, working on it now. Happy Christmas. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for both. Not at all sure what to say about "Coloration" - the old form "Colouration" just looks strange to me but it does have the advantage of saying "I'm not an American spelling". I'll take a look at the ref style when I'm feeling strong..... Thanks again - Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Decorator crab
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for The Naturalist on the River Amazons
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Sri Aurobindo
Hi Ch r is, I am going to have a look at your questions at the article and have started some work over it, I believe it would be better if you can help me in bringing the attention of other involved editors over the topic, as i am also quiet new to the guys and perhaps the last working together for an FA went bad, so it would be a great help if you can notify them.

And I wish you a Advanced happy new year, and thanks for starting the long pending review process.

Shrikanthv (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll try to work out who else may be active editors of the article and invite them. One thing: the "long" process is meant to be put on hold for "one week", though we can extend that a little if there are realistic signs of progress. All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Thank you for your patience. i have edited much part of the article (almost re-written) and have last bit to be cleaned please give me some time hope i finish this by 3 days . Shrikanthv (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your half Barnstar, but you were right, as i dwelt inside could see the amount of work needs to be done!!.

thank you for all the help Shrikanthv (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It was a pleasure reading the article and seeing it develop. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Reminder: Snuggler IRC office hour - Friday, Jan. 4th
See you there! -- EpochFail (talk 22:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Friday, Jan. 4th at 1700 UTC/11AM CST
 * #wikimedia-office

DYK nomination of Deimatic behaviour
Hello! Your submission of Deimatic behaviour at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Rosiestep (talk) 06:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Concealing-Coloration in the Animal Kingdom
( X! ·  talk )  · @309  · 12:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Operation Bertram is now a Good Article
Congrats, and good work! Please do consider going back and filling in the alt texts for the images though. It's good to have for accessibility reasons.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  03:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thankyou! Of course I'll fill in the alt texts with pleasure. Many thanks again. - Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Deimatic behaviour
 Harrias  <sup style="color:#009900;">talk 08:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Animal navigation
I've begun the GA review for Animal navigation; you can see details there. Thanks for working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Oh, thank you so much. I was just about to write you a thankyou letter for doing the review. I'll see what I can do, and you've reminded me to go and do some GA reviews myself. Thanks again - Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for James Wood-Mason
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)