User talk:ChrisGualtieri/Archive 18

DYK for Beaver Brook State Park
Mike V •  Talk  08:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

For reference
--RAN1 (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Also please read my comments at the ANI discussion. Honestly, Chris, as someone who hasn't been involved in the discussion or reviewed that much of it, if this were to go to AE, I think that of all those who might be sanctioned you might be one of the least likely to receive such sanctions, as removal of poorly sourced or contentious material is according to policy supposed to be done immediately. "Immediately" does not wait for consensus, flawed or otherwise. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I am strict about WP:BLP matters. As ArbCom is comprised of senior editors who deal with the most pressing concerns I think they would oblige my somewhat lengthy analysis of why much of the problems exist in the article. WP:RSOPINION is not a way to sneak negativity into articles to attack persons. While some of the issues may not reach legal "defamation" levels, much of the content has no place on Wikipedia. This is one of the most shocking BLP violations I've found in recent days and much of the arguments at the Michael Brown page are just less obvious forms of this. Overwhelming negativity is not an excuse to document excessive attacks on individuals or spin their arguments. Some of the sources are being really abused and twisted, like Rudy Giuliani and Ben Trachtenberg. Twice removed from context, they represent the exact opposite of the original argument. Eric Citron's uninformed and racism-infused argument used to construct an attack by using John Paul Stevens's arguments are horrendous - and so is its use in the article. But that is another matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment
Cwobeel often attempts to use administrative threats as a way to bypass policy or consensus. As you can see. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 15:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * - I see that. With three editors agreeing it a BLP and the fact that I have not edit warred over the page, it does show desperation. My problem is he inserted and created the section, people have been trying to fix it for days now. Not just me. The article is improving, but these threats and attacks on editors is most unhelpful. Thank you for pointing out the BLP issue, I was worried that I am the only one seeing the misuse. Gaijin42 also sees it, so I am glad good editors like you are able to clarify my arguments and highlight the details when I make an in-eloquent argument. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Immortal Alamo
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Immortal Alamo you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (December 2014)
Hello Wikimedians! The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:


 * Elsevier - science and medicine journals and books
 * Royal Society of Chemistry - chemistry journals
 * Pelican Books - ebook monographs
 * Public Catalogue Foundation- art books

Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today! --The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
 * This message was delivered via the Mass Message tool to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

I need to ask this question
Do you believe that opinions at http://www.truth-out.org and http://joeforamerica.com/ should be taken seriously when they pass judgement on the quality of our articles? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I take criticism of Wikipedia differently from you, I see it as an important part of self-regulation and allowing for self-reflection from those within and outside Wikipedia. It is no secret that the most senior and influential editors of Wikipedia's administration and body congregate and often discuss pressing matters with those critics. I became a different type of editor in response to 's criticism of my actions. I switched from gnoming to working on content and other issues - the words were a good nudge and I am happier for Carrite's criticism. It got me out the doldrums and my comfort zone. Because we are at fundamental odds over policy and in dispute, you will not believe me, but I am stricter than and other editors on quite a few aspects, but they help keep my perfectionism in check. Disagreement is not disrespect, on the contrary - I deeply value the intelligent opinions and criticism because it shapes a better understanding of the whole. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So, what you are saying is that outside opinion such from extreme right and left wing websites is something that you consider useful criticism of Wikipedia when they pass judgement on the quality of our articles? Did I get that right? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Loving that not-so-hidden implication, but I'll bite if you take the test and tell me the result - since I would like to see if my assumptions are correct. Deal? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't need to take a test to tell you that I have center-left leanings tempered in the belief of free markets, and individual freedom, and respect for human life. My score: Economic Left/Right: -3.00 - Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.00. Now, your turn (let me guess: total opposite) -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Economic Left/Right: -6.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49. The result hasn't really changed much over the years. I thought you would be a little more left given your stances - but this means you are just inexperienced in questioning sources. Framed properly, I am the exact opposite you think I am because I am not extreme, but far more libertarian than you. I'm actually quite open to criticism even from the far left and right as you claim, because they are not the "left or right" which I identify with. They are two sides of a coin from which I am caught between and do not identify with either - but an intelligent argument can reveal faults with a system you are familiar with. As for the article, this means it is complicated - I question every thing and don't believe what I read because so many times the sources get things wrong. Jimbo Wales's comment on this reflects my current stance, but User:Carrite would be something that you should entirely and completely agree with and find enlightening. If anything is actually disturbing then that is cause for alarm and a self check up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not a fan of Mr. Wales, and don't think he adds much value to the discussions about the project anymore. He is not an editor, he is a spokesperson. Sources getting things wrong is one thing, but significant opinions are just that, and we need to report them even if we believe "they are wrong". For example, many politicians get this wrong all the time, and yet we report their opinions (despite efforts by some editors to whitewash it). I think you have your heart in the right place, but your holier than thou approach (at least that is what you project) is not really a good way to go about editing. I have yet to see one single instance in which you looked for compromise, and that is bothersome to me. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  01:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Bacon and Hams
The DYK project (nominate) 11:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Precious again
  Spirited Away

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

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 696th recipient of my  Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

ps: I just loved Bacon and Hams, on the Main page now (finally, after 26 hours Opernhaus am Taschenberg), and recommended here --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Bacon and Hams
Hello. I just wanted to acknowledge your excellent and interesting work on Bacon and Hams, a book which was completely unknown to me. What a little gem of an article. I see you've also improved a lot of Studio Ghibli articles; I love those movies.-RHM22 (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I've been doing a lot of NRHP articles as well. Bacon and Hams was an interesting article with an unusual terminology aspect which was critical to the article's context. It presents a look at an industry almost 100 years ago that is very different from today and contains little relevant information to readers today, but still provides a good overview of what the book was about and indicates its coverage for historical researchers. A nice tidbit of knowledge with a good modern review. Wish more was known about the author even my archives came up empty. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * These sorts of obscure bits of culture are always a pleasure to discover, both from an educational perspective (regarding early twentieth century industry standards and practices) and one of pure entertainment. It's also interesting to note the humor, which plays against the thoroughly technical information. Unfortunately, the Flash animation on Cooking Issues doesn't work for me. I plan on getting back into FAs and DYKs, so I'm hoping to find an interesting local interest topic like this to ease myself back in.-RHM22 (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

opinions on grand jury misconduct
Sullivan/Toobin, at the very least, are fairly notable and I don't think we have any basis for excluding their opinions re: McCullogh's handling of the grand jury, even if the opinions are not entirely fair or play loose with their own factual basis. Currently they are given a skewed presentation with POV problems though, using prose to imply that certain elements are fact rather than opinion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 17:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is still a difference in advancing accusations and providing commentary - when the former does the latter, you have BLP issues. For example, Toobin's claims it is "unprecedented", but that is demonstrably false and a neutral overview of criticism proves that it was not in fact unprecedented by citing other cases. Framing it in proper context places undue attention on Toobin. Right? Better to get it right without making anyone out to be fools - just because they are "loose with the facts". Per BLP, better to omit with reason than to shame by public correction. And lastly, context - the context of these factual inaccuracies need to be taken into account when there are just too many unknowns in play. There are layers upon layers of reasons why removal is the best option. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And there are layers upon layers of reasons, why removing will be a violation of WP:NPOV. FCAYS, for example dismisses Nolan as a "anti-police activist" as a basis for removal, but Nolan (Ed.D. Boston University, Ed.M. Boston University B.A. University of Massachusetts) is actually a former senior policy analyst in the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties at the Department of Homeland Security, and a 27-year veteran, and former lieutenant of the Boston Police Department, and has written in scholarly publications on the subject, including the influence of the popular culture on criminal justice process. Hardly "fringe". -   Cwobeel   (talk)  18:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I can clearly poke holes bad arguments to discredit them without making ad hom attacks. I am still learning how to be eloquent and more direct. This is why six editors are now in agreement about the article and its content. This argument made in response to BLP concerns is nonsense. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are taking too extreme of a position, and that will hurt your standing. I suggest you follow my lead and disengage for 10 days. Opinions are not fact, of course. But it is a fact that there are significant opinions. And in Wikipedia we report exactly that, regardless if the opinions are falsifiable. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought you were done participating in that article and taking it off your watchlist and not responding to me? Spare me your "signficant opinion" argument when you tried to edit war this in]. Six editors now have called out the BLP issues and you fight tooth and nail over everything. I've spent a week trying to inform you of policy, but you just want to argue and continue to reinsert "sourced" commentary calling McCulloch a biased, deceptive, manipulating, and criminally negligent prosecutor who orchestrated the non-indictment of Wilson. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * yes, I have that article off my watchlist. You are posting on my page also, so why do you complain? Maybe you also need to take a break. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Stay off my page, Cwobeel. I've tried to help you understand and work with you, but you do not want to work together with me. Don't continue the farce. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your post at FCAYS's talk
Per what you said here [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFactchecker_atyourservice&action=historysubmit&diff=638740099&oldid=638710283 here], sometimes the best way to resolve a dispute is to bring in different perspectives. The reason I disagreed with you, and the reason I made my ANI post, was because I didn't feel there was a real resolution to the argument and, in my haste, I didn't really look over BLP all that well. I'd just like to say I'm sorry for doing that, it was ill-advised and I don't intend to pull off stunts like that again. --RAN1 (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. People make mistakes, people should get over them quickly as well. Heck I screwed up twice and shown a preferential treatment to criticism of McCulloch which I should have caught. I'm getting attacked for "support", but I use "said" for support side and "laid criticism" and such. Also, I used "believed" when trying to justify a sources inclusion when it was weak for the sake of compromise - I should have maintained it was unacceptable on its premise and was not usable.
 * The A/E issue is also complex, but I don't suppose you will retract it either? Factchecker used a quote which I knew and explained, but you didn't. All things considered... I have finally stopped trying to help Cwobeel understand the policies because it falls on deaf ears. I am strict... really strict about BLP. This can be made in error and I prefer the entire removal of a source which bases its arguments on BLP accusations as if they are in the article. This stems from verification checking sources so much. It really bugs me when a conclusion or irrelevant part of an argument is passed off as "the argument" or requires malice to stand. The words you actually say are not as important as the implications and order in which they are said. After awhile it becomes second nature when you find a "blank" in your thinking.... I can give you some tips on how to catch a lot of bad arguments if you want. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * - You are correct so I struck and marked it from the A/E page. It was not fair of me to put the test to your views on the matter. Sorry for that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough on the BLP. Though I'm not for removing direct criticism before scrutinizing, BLP says otherwise for good reason, and I'd still rather have the heavy accusations scrutinized before we leave them out for good. I don't have any intent on retracting the ARE request since the posts by Brianhe and TParis. FCAYS has been told numerous times now about his civility problems, but back when I decided to start the request, I didn't do my research far back enough to be aware of them. So I don't feel it's justified to retract it now. --RAN1 (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of the accusations are marginalized and we are at the point where it has gone from one way to the other. Balancing with Toobin should make it neutral enough for the time being. We need to start working on the witness accounts and the timelines and other sections. This, should be easier though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex - Solid State Society
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex - Solid State Society you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Immortal Alamo
The article The Immortal Alamo you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Immortal Alamo for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Immortal Alamo
The article The Immortal Alamo you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Immortal Alamo for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Haddam Island State Park
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Haddam Island State Park you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jsayre64 -- Jsayre64 (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Owl Of Accuracy and Integrity

 * Thanks. I want this article to be a GA or FA, but it will not be a quick or easy process. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Above All State Park
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Above All State Park you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 11:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Above All State Park
The article Above All State Park you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Above All State Park for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Haddam Island State Park
The article Haddam Island State Park you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Haddam Island State Park for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jsayre64 -- Jsayre64 (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Shooting of Michael Brown
That could be a good move. Except that you have left the live version behind. And it's a very dynamic page, and constantly in and out of the errors list (like now). And has WP:OWNERship problems.-- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Tue 18:42, wikitime=  10:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * - Eh, its a draft copy since most the issues are out and I can throw drafts up periodically to replace the live with. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex - Solid State Society
The article Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex - Solid State Society you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex - Solid State Society for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Just a friendly reminder my initial review has been complete for over 4 days now. Unless you either begin to address concerns at the review or request an extension I will fail the nomination in 3 days time. Have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 05:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of &#123;&#123;U&#124;&#125;&#125; to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list


 * Thanks! Merry Christmas to you to. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Bristol County Jail
 Harrias  talk 12:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gardner Lake
The article Gardner Lake you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Gardner Lake for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Totally unfair ...
... to pick up an edit I did not made, and that I would never make, as the highlight for your report on AN/I. That was nasty and uncalled for. I enjoy a good argument, but that kind of tactics are WP:BATTLEGROUND and quite appalling. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You made the edit the diff shows it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It was a mistake. I would never have made that kind of edit. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop the vendettas, man up and collaborate with me and others. -  Cwobeel   (talk)
 * - Look, I don't want to be a grumpy sourpuss or an ass, but I'll close the ANI as resolved if you agree to one thing - refrain from editing the article space for a week as originally stated. I want to work with you, but your reinsertion of BLP problems and announcement of a clear bias is getting in the way of the article's improvement. The article should be non-judgmental and as plain and disinterested as WP:NPOV - you've been involved in the article since August and are deeply and emotionally invested in the case. Me? I think the whole thing is like a curio - something to examine and research because I cannot comprehend the entirety and it becomes more intricate and nuanced as a research. Simply, the interactions and public response is fascinating! While McCulloch certainly inflamed the people with silence I've found that this divisive case was a focal point while several very similar and other situations were ignored. There was one which concluded in the middle of the grand jury proceedings in which a white officer shot an unarmed black suspect and it didn't get even a peep in comparison! McCulloch's bias accusations did not extend that one either. It is all so terribly intriguing! Now pardon the Mao references, but really - distance yourself for a bit is all I really ask. I like intelligent criticism because I do make mistakes - we all do. I want this article to be a GA or FA and I would hope you would like it to be that way. Have you ever had your work on the main page? Wouldn't you like it to be a featured article? Have some faith in others - I cannot do this all by myself and do not intend to. It'd be one heck of a featured article! Let's have it done for a main page on August 2015. Mmkay? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is way too unstable to be any sort of a GA or FA and all this fretting over trying to make it one is probably making things worse. Walk before run and all that. And Chris, I'm sure you have an argument for that, but don't. Just take it as an opinion, give it some consideration and leave it at that. – JBarta (talk) 08:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no intention to stop collaborating on the article, and I am not "emotionally vested". We have discussed at length the purported BLP violations, and progress is being made. Will this article ever be achieve GA? probably at one stage in the future,; there are no deadlines in Wikipedia. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Apologies
I wanted to apologize for my hasty edit summary on the Shooting of Michael Brown. I do not believe that it was your intention to misrepresent the source and should not have accused you of such. Nevertheless, I think that the the current version is a more accurate summation of the sources and is consistent all accounts (including Wilson's testimony: "After Brown reacted so strongly to Wilson's instruction to walk on the sidewalk, Wilson said he took a good look at him and saw he was carrying cigarillos, the item that had been reported to have been stolen just minutes earlier. Wilson then looked in his mirror at Brown's friend Dorian Johnson and when he saw he was wearing a black T-shirt, he put two and two together"). Dyrnych (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * - There is nothing wrong with the edit summary or your new wording. This is inline with the August 10 interview from which I read. I was more intent on dispelling that "claim" arose from August 15 when Jackson's words were taken out of order. Your wording is better than mine. I do not claim to be a great writer, but I also do not take much stock in Wilson's account because it has a self-serving aspect and he is suffering from PTSD symptoms in his statements. Cwobeel instead changed it to "testified" in this edit which is still inserting that which gives credit to the Huffington Post allegations of a coverup. He not only testified it was repeated recorded in the interviews and grand jury. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do we have a source for PSTD? It is clear than in the first interview, he did not mention any of that. I posted a new section in talk. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not disclosing what I have or do not have when you are bringing up more false coverup stories from very unreliable sources that push an agenda and disregard facts. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Covered Bridges Today
The article Covered Bridges Today you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Covered Bridges Today for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. It was a fortnight since I made my original comments and I thought that, as you had not responded, you had decided not to proceed with the nomination. You are welcome to ping me if you want to renominate the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I can add a breakdown of the sections since you were concerned about 3a to balance it out. There is not too much written about the writing or details of the book, its just one of the best books on the subject to exist. Though it is not a complete catalog and now it is a historical record for many which have been destroyed. The subject of covered bridges is one which is often disjointed catalogs of failing structures and their histories which were (for the most part) undocumented because they were private and not regulated. This may sound funny, but it is like the historic barn project, which serves to document the vernacular designs and the style of the 18th and 19th century barns that evokes thew classic New England countryside look, the same way these bridges embody the early years of the nation and civil engineering. I'll try to fix the 3a in a few days for you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex - Solid State Society
The article Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex - Solid State Society you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex - Solid State Society for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Above All State Park
The article Above All State Park you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Above All State Park for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Above All State Park
The article Above All State Park you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Above All State Park for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Haddam Island State Park
The article Haddam Island State Park you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Haddam Island State Park for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jsayre64 -- Jsayre64 (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 launch newsletter
Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! , and

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gardner Lake
The article Gardner Lake you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Gardner Lake for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost
This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Articles for creation

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (tell)  @ 20:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Brown
[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown&diff=641051309&oldid=641045342 This] is about the least appropriate comment I've seen from you on this topic. Your signature (and the out-of-context Jimbo quotes, for the record) is not a substitute for current consensus on dispute resolution, which is that everything is best solved through consensus. I'm being blunt, there's only one common thread to the why discussion has broken down on the topic over the past several weeks (one and a half if you count Cwobeel, and no that's not the point). Please quit treating this topic as an area where only you are right, because that line of thinking has only resulted in walls of text of talk page discussion and these articles going nowhere. --RAN1 (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Poor sources containing contentious information about living persons is indefensible and should be removed. WP:BLP and WP:IRS - Editors are to be tough and demand better sources than the Huffington Post, for BLPs in particular. Cwobeel defends Huffington Post as a reliable source. The article has been vastly improved and even though it has dozens and dozens of issues, at least Huffington Post ain't one of them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me make myself absolutely clear. This is not a content dispute. This about your conduct in this topic. I could not care less that you think HuffPost is an awful source; I care that you don't put any effort into consensus-based decision-making. Instead, you treat the opinions of editors who disagree with you as indisputably wrong, which is not how consensus-making works. Please stop it. --RAN1 (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a content dispute because Huffington Post is an awful source and is not to be used for BLPs. A local consensus that Huffington Post is a reliable source will not override WP:BLP and WP:IRS. I do not need to compromise or allow the inclusion of such poor sources just because Cwobeel and you think it is fine. The August 15 thing was sourced to Daily Kos and Huffington Post. The entire thing was a farce and to continue to defend such poor sources is inexcusable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * BLP allows you to remove sources before discussion. It does not allow you to circumvent discussion, nor does it shield you from the consequences of discussion. --RAN1 (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please show me an example or stop making insinuations. I said I would no longer debate with handicaps. Tread cautiously. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My example is at the top of the page section. I'm not insinuating anything, I'm calling you out on your treatment of consensus as optional and respectfully asking you to stop. --RAN1 (talk) 05:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Where? Link me, directly, to where I am not discussing the material that I am removing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI. --RAN1 (talk) 06:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Should I take your lack of comment to mean that you think my link to the definition of consensus is irrelevant? --RAN1 (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The "did Wilson know" debate was sourced to Huffington Post and Daily Kos - I discussed it and others agreed that should be removed. Consensus worked and it was removed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That isn't what I'm calling you out on. You seem to think consensus is optional, i.e. consensus works when it is in agreement with you, consensus doesn't work when it is not. Again, please stop with this behavior. --RAN1 (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an allegation of bad-faith and I ask you back it up. Articles are not battlegrounds. There is no "winning or losing" - there is only an article which needs improvement. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, a few examples: your interpretation of WP:BLPCRIME is out-of-line with consensus established both in the spirit of the policy page and on the talk page, yet you insist there’s a violation and that the relevant quotes be stripped here [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown&diff=641121528&oldid=641121004], with an additional call for an edit request here [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown&diff=641195082&oldid=641194847]; in this instance, you decide to throw out discussion altogether because I happen to have an opinion with which you disagree in an unrelated discussion [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShooting_of_Michael_Brown&diff=640548008&oldid=640545068]; and then this instance where you disregard WP:CIVILITY, supplanting consensus with out-of-context Jimbo and attacks on Dyrnych and Cwobeel, with a clear battleground mentality [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShooting_of_Michael_Brown&diff=641051347&oldid=641045342]. I consider my point justified; could you please stop now? —RAN1 (talk) 07:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

McCulloch
Seems appropriate to this section - You are aware that BLP is not a magic incantation you can use to ignore discussion, right? Especially as you've been tossing around incorrect accusations and facts. --Neil N  talk to me 06:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I gave you 48+ hours to reply and you ignored it. Per WP:BLPREMOVE that stuff is to remain off the page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I ignored your incorrect interpretation of BLP (and pointed out your other mistakes) and waited for you to take it to BLPN. --Neil N  talk to me 06:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Discuss it there - I gave a rational on each removal and clarified the problems of each piece all over again since we just had it at BLPN and it concerns the same sources which were just removed per BLP and IRS on the other page. Op-eds are poor sources and should be replaced and that is what I was doing when I was interrupted with this little fuss. I had everything ready to go (as replacements) as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Blood Red Tape of Charity
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Blood Red Tape of Charity you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 10:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey ChrisGualtieri. I know you are busy but could you please respond to my suggestions in the review? Thanks. good888 (talk) 09:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sneak King
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sneak King you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheQ Editor -- TheQ Editor (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Chuck Carter (artist)
I know BLPs are touchy, but I'm still awaiting approval after 59 days, and I've eliminated the challenged references (published video interviews on YouTube). If it's not too much trouble, kindly make another pass. Thank you. jeckert55 01:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea about what you are referring to. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You asked me to correct an article en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Chuck_Carter_(artist) 60 days ago. I did so 60 days ago, and the entry is due for another look. I need your help, because I've done the best I can, and I've brought this short article to the standard of dozens of others I've read. If you still need me to change something, please let me know. Thank you for your kind assistance. jeckert55 08:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

DRN needs assistance
You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

We have a backlog of cases there which need volunteer attention. If you have time available, please take one or more of these cases.

If you do not intend to take cases or help with the administration of DRN on a regular basis, or if you do not wish to receive further notices of this nature, please remove your username from the volunteer list. If you later decide to resume activities at DRN you may relist your name at that time.

Best regards, TransporterMan 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Renaming the titles of all articles related to the 'hurdy-gurdy'.
Dear Chris,

Happy New Year; I hope you are keeping well?

You helped me greatly as a reviewer of the changes I applied to the article on Andy Irvine last year, and I wonder if I may impose on you once more for advice on something I have never done before. Thank you in advance for any assistance you can afford to offer.

I have been working for some time on the article about the Hurdy gurdy. One of the changes I have wanted to apply to this article (and others associated with this instrument) for quite a while, is to make the spelling of the name conform to the entry in the Oxford English Dictionary: hurdy-gurdy (plural: hurdy-gurdies); that is, with the hyphen.

Of course, it was easy to correct the text inside the article and also in its associated article, Recordings featuring the hurdy gurdy, except that now I must also get the titles of both articles renamed, along with the title of the disambiguation page, and also the category:.

Please could you help me with this task, Chris? How do I go about changing the titles of these three articles and one commons category? Do I need to ask an admin to do this for me? What's the best approach you'd recommend, please Chris?

Many thanks for your time and advice; this is, of course, not urgent, so I will wait patiently for your reply.

Until then, please keep well and happy.

With kind regards for now;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk) 21:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I moved the article over, but not Hurdy Gurdy Man (The Spectres song) or others because these do not have the hyphenation. Hurdy-Gurdy Hare is already there. Updating commons would be a simple move request as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Chris,
 * That's wonderful; very many thanks for your very prompt action on the main article and its 'Talk' page!
 * At your convenience, please would you kindly apply the same correction to the titles of the following/associated articles (and their respective 'Talk' pages) also?:
 * disambiguation page,
 * Recordings featuring the hurdy gurdy,
 * and also the category: ?
 * Thank you so much, in advance, Chris!
 * Once again: I am very grateful to you for your helpful assistance, as always!
 * With kindest regards;
 * Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk) 16:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * All set except the commons category which I do not know how to fix. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Chris,
 * Thank you so much for your prompt action and feedback. I really appreciate it!
 * For the category entry, I have asked Russ to consider helping in this area, and I'll keep you posted.
 * Thank you once again for your generous and supportive assistance; you're a real star!
 * With kindest regards for now;
 * Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk) 21:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 9
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 9, November-December 2014 by, ,

 Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * New donations, including real-paper-and-everything books, e-books, science journal databases, and more
 * New TWL coordinators, conference news, a new open-access journal database, summary of library-related WMF grants, and more
 * Spotlight: "Global Impact: The Wikipedia Library and Persian Wikipedia" - a Persian Wikipedia editor talks about their experiences with database access in Iran, writing on the Persian project and the JSTOR partnership

Disambiguation link notification for January 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Blood Red Tape of Charity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Evening Gazette. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Blood Red Tape of Charity
The article The Blood Red Tape of Charity you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Blood Red Tape of Charity for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Ways of Fate
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Ways of Fate you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Poor Jake's Demise
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Poor Jake's Demise you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Shame on you
If you're going to ask for articles from a local paper, it would probably work best to leave a message at the talk page of the relevant WikiProject, wouldn't it? But nooo, you asked at RX for material from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, but apparently didn't contact either WikiProject Missouri or WikiProject St. Louis. Shame. ;) There actually are quite a few articles in the PD related to McCulloch, and I just e-mailed myself ten of them, including the one you asked for. Drop me an e-mail so I can forward them to you. John Carter (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Haha - fair enough. Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.

 * Thank you, I saw the AFD only through notification given to the creator of the page and thought best to try and improve it some. AFD may not be a tool for improvement, but I am glad the article is improved by my small efforts. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree and that's why you got a star. . That nominator becoming disruptive through seeming naivete is becoming its own issue.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 03:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying
Thank you for helping out with this issue. The Dick Black page was nothing but a stub before the Mother Jones article, then all of the sudden this whole attack page sprang up citing that one article heavily. I have tried to clean the page up and make it balanced, and I admit I was a little overzealous early on before I read up on the rules. Now I am trying to add things that accurately reflect information and provide balance without removing properly cited information.Ashburnian (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, I did a lot of work on the Michael Brown page and on McCulloch - this one was a lot easier though. I don't like controversial things much, but disinterested encyclopedic articles are desirable for a reason... it sucks the life out of conflicts between editors and readers. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your work here on Dick Black (politician) was outstanding, and I thank you for it. We should never cherry-pick sections of quotes to make someone look bad. I might personally disagree with this guy about 95% of the time, but I do not want his Wikipedia biography to be a hit piece. Cullen<sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  07:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It has everything to do with professionalism and accuracy and not liking or agreeing with the person in any shape or form. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Nicoleta Luca-Meițoiu
Hi Chris, Happy New Year! I finally got the article and book covers (with ISBN) scanned in .pdf format. How can I send it to you, so that you can recreate the page? All the discussion in your archive 2013. Thanks, RodicaB (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Poor Jake's Demise
The article Poor Jake's Demise you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Poor Jake's Demise for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gnome Motion Picture Company
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gnome Motion Picture Company you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Poor Jake's Demise
The article Poor Jake's Demise you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Poor Jake's Demise for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Ways of Fate
The article The Ways of Fate you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Ways of Fate for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gnome Motion Picture Company
The article Gnome Motion Picture Company you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Gnome Motion Picture Company for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sneak King
The article Sneak King you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Sneak King for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheQ Editor -- TheQ Editor (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Adrift (1911 film)
 * added a link pointing to William Tracey


 * Another Gay Movie
 * added a link pointing to American Pie

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gnome Motion Picture Company
The article Gnome Motion Picture Company you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gnome Motion Picture Company for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Adrift in a Great City
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Adrift in a Great City you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

 * Thanks, I ran across the "hurdy-gurdy" the other day in The Actor's Children, but it was only by error in a published synopsis! You better believe I hyphenated. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if there were a 'Hurdy-gurdy Barnstar', there is no doubting that you'd have deserved it!
 * Thanks once again for all your kind help, Chris!
 * With kind regards;
 * Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk) 20:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Adrift in a Great City
The article Adrift in a Great City you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Adrift in a Great City for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Adrift in a Great City
The article Adrift in a Great City you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Adrift in a Great City for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Honor of the Family
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Honor of the Family you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of American Thermos Bottle Company Laurel Hill Plant
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article American Thermos Bottle Company Laurel Hill Plant you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cptnono -- Cptnono (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible review of cloud article for B-class rating
I remain grateful to you for the help you gave me last Nov/Dec with the GA review of the Wikipedia article Cloud. However, it seems I couldn't get the job done fast enough to satisfy one senior editor who came on a few days ago, falsely claimed I had done no work on the article for 20 days or so, (I had taken a few days off from Christmas to New Years but resumed full-tilt by the time of his intervention) and unilaterally shut down the review. I would be the last to claim the article is yet ready for full GA status, but if the article has come as long a way as you assured me last month, I'm wondering if it can be considered for a B-rating? I've looked at quite a few B articles on Wikipedia and believe the cloud article has about reached that level. The editor who shut down the GA review left the cloud article as a C-level, but the hastiness of his actions leaves me thinking he acted in a somewhat prejudicial manner and never gave any consideration to the possibility of upgrading the article to a B. Do you think the article can be considered better than a C-grade yet? I don't want to waste my time applying for a B-level review if you don't think the article is yet good enough even for this more modest upgrade. However, I think I'll be more motivated to keep working on improving the article if I can apply at some point for a B-grade instead of trying to make the huge leap from a C-grade all the way to a GA. It would be very helpful if you could give the current article another look and offer me an update about the areas where it is still deficient. Many thanks! ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 00:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * it most likely would work as a B-class. The only real classes which matter are stub, GA and FA for most editors. It is a maintenance issue for Wikiprojects to try and have everything "current". Also, it is a somewhat arbitrary evaluation of a topic and page. I typically hit the ground running when producing content and run for a GA without worrying about updating classifications along the way - outside of "stub" because that causes category and other issues if I do not address it promptly. But to answer your question again - B works. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of American Thermos Bottle Company Laurel Hill Plant
The article American Thermos Bottle Company Laurel Hill Plant you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:American Thermos Bottle Company Laurel Hill Plant for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cptnono -- Cptnono (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Nicoleta Luca Meitoiu
Hi Chris! I finally got the article and book covers (with ISBN) scanned in .pdf format. How can I send it to you, so that you can undelete the page? All the previous discussion in your archive 2013. I would appreciate your answer. Thanks,RodicaB (talk) 09:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not an admin so I cannot undelete things. I would just create the page again and reference the material. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Roger Mowry Tavern
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Roger Mowry Tavern you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Roger Mowry Tavern
The article Roger Mowry Tavern you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Roger Mowry Tavern for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)