User talk:ChrisGualtieri/Archive 19

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) 01:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Honor of the Family
The article The Honor of the Family 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 Honor of the Family for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 12:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sneak King
The article Sneak King you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sneak King 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 TheQ Editor -- TheQ Editor (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Roger Mowry Tavern
The article Roger Mowry Tavern you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Roger Mowry Tavern 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) 17:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shon the Piper
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Shon the Piper 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) 14:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Avery Homestead
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Avery Homestead 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 Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Avery Homestead
The article Avery Homestead 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:Avery Homestead for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shon the Piper
The article Shon the Piper you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Shon the Piper 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, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Avery Homestead
The article Avery Homestead you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Avery Homestead 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 Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of I Love Bacon!
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article I Love Bacon! 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) 22:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Restless Spirit
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Restless Spirit 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) 10:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

E-mail
According to your suggestion, I have activated mail access so please send the Questia access code. Thanx and regards.-- Mahensingha Talk 14:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Honor of the Family
The article The Honor of the Family you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Honor of the Family 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) 08:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23
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.


 * Jane Eyre (1910 film)
 * added a link pointing to Asylum


 * She Wanted to Marry a Hero
 * added a link pointing to Asylum


 * The Best Man Wins (1910 film)
 * added a link pointing to Martin Faust

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Restless Spirit
The article The Restless Spirit 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 Restless Spirit for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Restless Spirit
The article The Restless Spirit you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Restless Spirit 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) 18:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

re Enforcement Notice
I have mentioned you by name in an Arbitration request: Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification,, but I'd rather not be involved, and instead I'll just respectfully defer to community processes there and to the reviewing people. Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

re Possible AE matter
Given Cwobeel's attitude and disregard for WP:BLP, I wonder if these three edits to restore the Adam Sandler, Susan Sarandon and Nicolas Cage lists would be enough to show the user is not fit to edit BLPs. It is completely unacceptable to reference IMDb and the user was alerted to the sanctions already, but still saw fit to challenge it even after the BLPN discussion. The three diffs,, follow a discretionary sanction and warning for battleground behavior on BLPs. Your call, I already have him at ArbCom for something more complex and minor. This should be pretty clear cut in comparison. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with your assessment, and I agree that AE would be a good next place, but I'll defer to your judgment about how you want to go from here with regards to drafting your report to AE. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My stance is that those three edits are problematic enough. I made the mistake in bringing the unrelated non-incident to ANI. I won't put in the AE request - and my involvement would not be productive given unrelated ANI matter and that I presented evidence against Cwobeel which likely helped decide to issue the first warning. Cwobeel has claimed Huffington Post is a reliable source for BLP matters, but this IMDb thing is obvious and just combative - such edits are disruptive or indicate a lack of BLP competence. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Well, hopefully you see that not much except drama ever comes from ANI. AE is a better place because it's less Wild West with more defined rules. I hope you'll reconsider at some point regarding that idea. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I just did. This comment (made in 2 edits) is probably further evidence of a clear misunderstanding of WP:BLP and WP:IRS. A/E seems appropriate. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You may find this informative reading: Wikipedia Signpost/2010-01-25/BLP madness. Hope that's helpful for some historical background on where TPTB stand on things. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of First Ward Wardroom
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article First Ward Wardroom 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 23W -- 23W (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Potter-Collyer House
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Potter-Collyer House 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 23W -- 23W (talk) 01:41, 26 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) 03:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Potter-Collyer House
The article Potter-Collyer House 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 14 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Potter-Collyer House for things which need to be addressed. 23W 05:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fifth Ward Wardroom
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fifth Ward Wardroom 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 23W -- 23W (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Charles Payne House
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Charles Payne House 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 23W -- 23W (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pomeroy State Park
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pomeroy 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 23W -- 23W (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fifth Ward Wardroom
The article Fifth Ward Wardroom you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fifth Ward Wardroom 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 23W -- 23W (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

A query about formatting on Figurative system of human knowledge
I noted on this article that you changed the format of the list which resulted in a lot of dots appearing on the screen where before there was just white space. Is there any particular reason for this? I ask because my initial thought was to return it to the way it use to be then I realised it was a deliberate change made by someone who has been here longer than I have. Jodosma (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I reverted it back - I like the flow, but it is no big deal and probably looks better to you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ciao. Jodosma (talk) 07:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pomeroy State Park
The article Pomeroy State Park you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pomeroy 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 23W -- 23W (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Potter-Collyer House
The article Potter-Collyer House you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Potter-Collyer House 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 23W -- 23W (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Charles Payne House
The article Charles Payne House you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Charles Payne House 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 23W -- 23W (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of First Ward Wardroom
The article First Ward Wardroom you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:First Ward Wardroom 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 23W -- 23W (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Across the Way
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Across the Way 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) 09:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Across the Way
The article Across the Way 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:Across the Way for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of I Love Bacon!
The article I Love Bacon! 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:I Love Bacon! for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Sharif Abdullah
Hi. Which tag would be applicable for this badly-sourced article? 67.131.235.220 (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Cwobeel fixed it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Winter's Tale (1910 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Martin Faust. 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) 08:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Emerson
Hi, Chris - It was good to see you at Emerson. The hive is angry and swarming over his gaffe. I noticed how active you've been in GA, etc. and that's exactly what WP needs - more editors like you who know policy, can write prose and source it properly, and knows what an encyclopedia is supposed to look like. I'm concerned WP's own open source editing can be destructive at times because it opens the door to anyone who holds a grudge, or advocates a cause, etc. Anyway - just wanted to drop by and say thanks! Atsme  &#9775; Consult  23:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That is why I avoid BLPs for the most part. As an editor we must consider the reader for all articles, but for BLPs we must go even further and consider the subject as if they are the reader. There is a high chance that said subjects do read what we write and a dedicated site to Wikipedia criticism is routinely pressing how broken the process currently is. BLP enforcement and procedures have strengthened, but maintenance and care of them are still open to those who want to push the ball around. Everyone has a "point of view", to say you don't implies that you are blindly constructing a page. Where I stand is different from most others, I don't even know Emerson or his work - so I believe that impartiality is something which I have. BLPs suffer from WP:DIRT accumulation and a clear sign is WP:CRITS. Wikipedia is not a battleground per WP:BATTLE and I don't want to entrench in "right or wrong" with editors who seek arguments, who have an agenda, or simply cannot figure out what policies actually mean. Anyone intent on Wikilawyering and splitting hairs over things like "Salon" articles for BLP criticism is not in the right place. Getting it right is what is most important, but those that disagree have yet to understand or embrace what Wikipedia strives to be. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, and you can rest assured there are quite a few BLPs who read what we write. I'm trying to decide if I should reactivate my E&O policy I dropped last year when I semi-retired (writer/publisher/tv producer).  I figured I'd fly low where the chances of needing it were slim to none.  Have you read any of the WP litigation?  I try not to get embroiled in the controversies, but it's hard to avoid with all the different POVs.  WP has some brilliant editors, some who really shine writing code, or specialize in a particular area, etc. but may suck at writing.   I also see how difficult it is for some to grasp the concept of "encyclopedic".  I cut my teeth (literally) on Britannica back when salesmen sold them door to door.  Anyway, I'm always open for collaboration if you ever need help. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  00:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Litigation... I seem to remember some, but getting the identity would be hard and then making a case would be harder still. See, just like BLP has a Public Figure matter - so does many people who have an article. A defamatory claim or libelious act needs to be proven and rooted in some form and many "sourced" claims may be a tangled web. Most problems are handled through OTRS and in other channels. Suffice to say, many of the best editors do not deal with these issues unless it comes to their attention - running around trying to put out fires is not our jobs. We are volunteers, but not everyone has high standards or good motives. Some people think I am a bot, and an Italian writer thinks I am an administrator and scholar. Well... maybe the latter is true. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't want to mess up your pretty list of GAs by adding a question at the bottom of your page, so I'm adding it here. Besides, it's sort of related to Emerson; i.e., the IPT which is in desperate need of good collaboration. I've written a draft here: User:Atsme/Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation. Last year, I tried to get the existing IPT merged into Emerson, but was met with great resistance from an editor who wanted to keep it a coatrack for the Islamophobia template. I already explained how/why the template was finally removed. Renaming the article was suggested, but that didn't happen, either. I let things rest for a while. As you can see, nothing of any significance has happened to improve or expand the article since I stopped editing. It was a stub when I started, and it's not much more than that now because most of what I tried to include was reverted. Where/what is the "organization" that was founded in 1995; i.e., the Investigative Project on Terrorism? All I've been able to find is The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation which was founded in 2006, 10 years after the so-called founding date for IPT which appears to be a dba for Emerson.

In 1995 or thereabouts, Emerson acted independently as an investigative reporter/terrorism expert who headed up his own think-tank called The Investigative Project. The Investigative Project on Terrorism did not exist at that time. See for a bit of that history. Apparently, IPT became Emerson's dba at some point, and it combines all of Emerson's work and archives under that one title, but it's Emerson, not a nonprofit organization that I can tell. The IPT Foundation is a Sect 501c3 nonprofit organization recognized by the IRS, and it is the funding arm of IPT, but again, what is IPT? See which uses WP:SYNTH to lump sum everything under the one umbrella. The documents at the website verifies the existence of The Investigative Project (think tank), and also of IPT, and IPT Foundation. The only true separation as a legal stand alone entity is the Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, which is IPT's funding arm. Then you have to ask, "funding arm for what?" For Emerson dba IPT? And if so, does the IPT really need to be a stand alone article, or does it suffice as a section in his BLP? Atsme  &#9775; Consult  06:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * - This is actually pretty common. It formalizes the process and gives purpose while distancing itself from Emerson despite being reliant upon him. Such a project exists in my own Thanhouser articles under Ned Thanhouser who really is the head of the preservation - but work done with and through it are legally distinct. And sources do not commit WP:SYNTH - but I get what you mean. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

, I just read The case of Philip Roth... Goshes, I didn't know you were an admin. Atsme  &#9775; Consult  04:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I know right! Though some people won't appreciate the argument I made. In terms of perspective - its not the first or last error about my work. Even the NYT mentioned me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why am I grating on your patience? My response was to X to provide the sources he believes supports his contentious material.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  01:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * - Sorry, but it s true. Graham's hierarchy of disagreement shows what path you should be taking. I am making counter arguments or better, but you are veering off the main point and lacking evidence. The "fomenting Islamophobia" is done and over with - let's end that discussion and close it. If they want to discussing the accusation part - let them open a new discussion. A moving dialogue is a rambling one and will not end with consensus. Reject the "fomenting Islamophobia" per V and its dead. Refute the central point - the claim is unverifiable in all four sources given. Boom done - move on. Okay? Arguments will be simpler - clearer and better since most of what is being written is not being read by the others. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Excuse my ignorance, but considering the fact x didn't even realize Fear Inc was a report by CAP, I thought it best to remind him the burden of V was his. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  02:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * - For almost all intents and purposes WP:V means "does the source say that" instead of WP:BIASED. You'd want to claim a bias and that they are non-neutral, then provide evidence to back that argument up. Either way - the best that can be done with the sources would be to cite the person and properly attribute the contentious claim in context. Policies matter little when someone is trying to insert false material in. When situations get tense or go long - stick to refuting the argument and insisting new issues get new discussion pages. A "too long, didn't read" discussion results in people who jump in without reading the entirety. That causes the entire issue to be redebated over and over again - and it weakens your position each time you repeat it. Less words the better. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  02:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Chris and. Stopped by to let Chris know I've answered his query, and I noticed the discussion above. It is apparent that Atsme is still operating under a few misconceptions. (1) Atsme saying "x didn't even realize Fear Inc was a report by CAP" is false. In fact, I was the one who told Atsme that the report was by CAP, in the very same sentence where I also explained that the report wasn't "self-published". (2) Atsme's advice "to X to provide the sources he believes supports his contentious material" is nonsensical, as I don't have any contentious material. In fact, I've never edited the article nor proposed a single word of content. I'm just working with the sources and text you guys, and other editors of that article, have produced - and nothing more. If I ever do produce material, contentious or otherwise, then that means I've already provided the sources; you should consider editing that way as well.

Chris, I see where you have said "I don't even know Emerson or his work". Same here; I've never heard of him before this week. So when either of you start casting accusations like "you want to discredit him" or "you want to accuse him of bigotry", it not only sounds silly, but is also quite off-putting. A little calm and civility would be great. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * For the record, (re: Fear Inc report), I stated: (3) it is a self-published source, and BLP policy clearly states: Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person.
 * and x replied: (3) No. The Fear, Inc. report isn't self-published; it's published by the Center for American Progress. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It escapes me how x surmised CAP's "Fear Inc." report (which he acknowledged is published by CAP) is not self-published. It is CAP's self-published report.  WP:V also states, Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.
 * Read what Time wrote about CAP: It is difficult to overstate the influence in Obamaland of CAP, a group with roughly $25 million in annual funding from mostly anonymous individuals, corporations and unions. Podesta himself is leading Obama's transition effort, holding press conferences to speak for the President-elect, with an operation beneath him filled with CAP alum. The transition's operations director, the general counsel and the co-director all have come over from similar jobs at the think tank.
 * My position has always focused on the sources of claims that are nothing more than contentious opinions like that stated in a think-tank's self-published source. Regardless, this discussion has strayed beyond my question to Chris, and belongs on the article's TP. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  11:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * - it is not the self-published, but it is a biased source. I reject your argument on that ground. it is not casting aspersions to state that you do not know of Emerson's work - I did not know of it until I looked into Atsme's claims to fact-check the material he was disputing. Emerson's work is against the jihad elements and actually has been repeatedly found to be advancing the notion that only extreme elements are infiltrating and providing a way for disenfranchised and susceptible persons to be rallied to a cause. The Emerson debate is clearly politically divisive and complex - which is why I advance a "no opinions" aspects to BLPs of this nature because I frankly dislike every "side" in the debate. There is nothing neutral or disinterested in such material - I know not how to deal with it in any other way than letting context and facts go through. Like all that false and manufactured drama about Michelle Obama in Saudi Arabia - Emerson is surrounded by this same political bullshit and the mainstream media is frankly unreliable about such topics. Yes - that is correct, I go so far as to state the media itself is nothing more than a poor Primary source and all opinions should not be used per WP:BREAKINGRS or WP:QS. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well at least that was sincere. My suggestion? You need to advocate for changes to NPOV and BLP to include wording about the unreliability of the "mainstream press" as you argue (good luck with that). But until these changes are made in these core policies, we will have to abide by the current policies which makes no such distinction. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The link is WP:NEWSORG and the concept exists. Wikipedia does not have strong rules and not everything will be a cookie-cutter approach to fit a policy because common sense and professional practice should lead us, ethically, to better articles. Just because a source is verifiable to exist doesn't mean it will be included per WP:ONUS - especially when it has a misstatement of fact. Without context - there is no purpose or form to articles of this nature. I've proven the New York Times (and other reliable sources) repeatedly wrong on numerous topics, but I usually notate the error if it is small and move on. You do not write thousands of articles in such detail without coming across a very striking fact - opinions and context are often lacking. When a pattern of such sources coupled with partisan issues exist - I prefer to avoid all that drama and remove such commentary as a primary source as other historians do. It is not a strange concept, but is foreign to most Wikipedia editors. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , Saying the Fear, Inc. report is "self-published" by CAP is as silly as saying the Time article you just linked is "self-published" by Time. Is CAP a biased source? Oh, most certainly, but that doesn't mean it can't be cited as a reliable source. Per policy: reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. And by the way, it was Chris, not me, who raised the idea of using the Fear, Inc. report, and he said it was already being used in the BLP. All I did was correct the misconceptions that it was "self-published" (wrong) or that it can't be used because it is "biased" (also wrong).
 * Chris, it would be so much easier to edit Wikipedia if we could use your "no opinions" philosophy, but that unfortunately isn't the reality here.This more closely describes the way things are. When an article subject is as "divisive and complex" as this, we can only describe all significant aspects of the matter, without getting enmeshed in it. You say you've looked into (fact-checked) the material and concluded that Emerson's work is exclusively about extremist terrorism, and nothing more? If you could point me to the sources you feel were the most influential on your understanding of the subject, I would appreciate it. From the brief research I've conducted so far on things that have been done, said and written by Emerson and his organization, I'm drawing a somewhat different conclusion. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * - Sources are not reliable if they do not reflect fact. This has been discussed and shown repeatedly to be the case. The Guardian ran an early and deeply inaccurate account of the Gamergate matter - but Guardian is "reliable", but it doesn't change the fact it is wrong and published days before a decision was actually made. A source cannot be reliable while making misstatements of fact and it would be highly inappropriate to make a misstatement of fact in Wikipedia's voice or to gloss over such misstatements of fact while using such a source. That's my objection to the cherrypicked line from a 300+ page book. There is no argument being made - just a label attributed to a multitude of people without any example or evidence. I question the intentions of anyone who wants to use such trivial mentions in a completely undue and out of context fashion. When the author of the supposed accusation actually agrees with Emerson - this becomes a clear problem with attribution and more questions arise. It is just a disruptive and wikilawyered way to slip accusations without evidence or backing as if they were an actual arguments being made. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Reliable sources" in this context is a description of sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements for fact-checking and accuracy. Are reliable sources 100% accurate 100% of the time? Of course not, which is why our policies guide us on what to do when a reliable source conveys information that is refuted or contradicted by other equally reliable sources. With your Guardian article example, if that source contains inaccuracies as demonstrable by other reliable sources, I'm confident that incorrect information cited to the Guardian article will not last long in a Wikipedia article. Now back to our Emerson case, and this "cherrypicked" line: since you used the cherrypicked description, that means you found a contradictory statement within the same cited source. Could you give me the specific page number of that contradiction? (...and my question to you in my previous post is still one I'd like you to respond to.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Sources are not reliable if they do not reflect fact - You got that completely wrong. WP:NPOV tells us to describe significant viewpoints, not just facts. You may need to take a few minutes and re-read WP:V to remind you what our core content policies say. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Cwobeel, you have proven yourself to repeatedly confuse fact and fiction. This diff shows you removing the existence of the FPD report with its source and included pdf from the ACLU to instead insert an incontrovertibly false assertion that it does not exist. - I expanded it on the talk page, but for your sake, please check this diff by Cwobeel - who has been inserting false material and removing accurate and verifiability material repeatedly. WP:RS extends to the claims and the claim is being challenged because it disagrees with known facts, a source which is provably false is not a reliable source for its claims. Theodore Marston has numerous claims to Thanhouser films, but no records exist to support it. The original source of the error confirms it was made in error, yet other sources continue to reflect and cite the original source - perpetuating the error. The verification "it says this" doesn't change the fact it is provably false. We note the issue and move on - not spend days and weeks arguing over simple facts. Cwobeel seems to not understand sources are fallible and to use caution when using them - and to not use knowingly false information just because it exists. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Chris, I checked that diff as you instructed, but it links to an edit on a completely unrelated article (and that matter was handled by administrative action elsewhere, if I am not mistaken). If you are alleging that an editor has been "inserting false material and removing accurate and verifiability material repeatedly" in the Emerson matter, may I see a diff to that behavior? (That brings the count up to 3 responses from you on which I am now waiting.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Chris - how would you classify this report?
 * Lot of citations, but it is still a source with an agenda and is biased and open to context issues. Without reading through it - it does seem to cite its sources often case documents and research documents - not my ideal style, but WP:USEBYOTHERS needs to be evaluated. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Granted, but what is it called? OR, Tertiary, Primary, Self-Published (a report by IPT (Emerson) and published by IPT), a Website, or.....?  IPT isn't a magazine, or a news source.  We can't say they have an editorial staff looking for fair and balanced reporting since IPT and their reports are what newspapers report about.  So what is this type of source called by Wiki standards? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  01:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Depends on use, but WP:BIASED would be a simple concern. If it appears to have factual accuracy issues WP:QS or WP:ONUS. I know policies, but commonsense supersedes it because Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Documents from organizations like this are not self-published, but are often questionable given the nature of the work - regardless of the persons involved in it. A wide view of the topic is needed for context and most editors do not have that. I have a good view, but far from complete. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, thank you. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">Atsme  &#9775; Consult  02:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Chris - will you take a look at IPT and see what you think about the last round of edits? I'm concerned over a doubling down of criticism both at IPT and Emerson.  Also, I included the following to expand the lead to summarize what's in the article, particularly about the funding, but it was reverted as undue and fluff.   Your thoughts? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  20:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Let them complain - just disengage for a bit. They are repeatedly making plenty of errors and being disruptive - I'd go work on others article and clean it up later. Those two articles are really low importance and any BLP issues can be dealt with by Arbitration Enforcement. We have already proven the material to be unreliable and biased - they are simply being aggressive because you have erred and stirred them up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Investigative Project on Terrorism
That's the more appropriate place to have that discussion. Thank you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Sea Urchin (1913 film)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Sea Urchin (1913 film) 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) 12:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Actor's Children
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Actor's Children 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) 12:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Actor and the Rube
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Actor and the Rube 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) 12:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Adrift (1911 film)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Adrift (1911 film) 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) 12:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of St. Elmo (1910 Thanhouser film)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article St. Elmo (1910 Thanhouser film) 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) 12:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Actor and the Rube
The article The Actor and the Rube 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 Actor and the Rube for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of St. Elmo (1910 Thanhouser film)
The article St. Elmo (1910 Thanhouser film) 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:St. Elmo (1910 Thanhouser film) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 15:21, 1 February 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) 02:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Adrift (1911 film)
The article Adrift (1911 film) 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 (1911 film) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Sea Urchin (1913 film)
The article The Sea Urchin (1913 film) 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 Sea Urchin (1913 film) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of I Love Bacon!
The article I Love Bacon! you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:I Love Bacon! 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, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Sea Urchin (1913 film)
The article The Sea Urchin (1913 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Sea Urchin (1913 film) 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) 14:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Actor and the Rube
The article The Actor and the Rube you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Actor and the Rube 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) 09:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Adrift (1911 film)
The article Adrift (1911 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Adrift (1911 film) 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) 09:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of St. Elmo (1910 Thanhouser film)
The article St. Elmo (1910 Thanhouser film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:St. Elmo (1910 Thanhouser film) 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) 09:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Actor's Children
The article The Actor's Children 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 Actor's Children for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 09:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Daddy's Double
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Daddy's Double 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) 21:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jane Eyre (1910 film)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jane Eyre (1910 film) 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) 21:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Best Man Wins (1910 film)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Best Man Wins (1910 film) 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) 21:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Question
Are horses people? (I kind of wonder, personally, but not sure the wiki guideline on this):  (FWIW, I created that article, heh)  Whatever you think. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think AWB is confused - I skipped most of them, but AWB always tries to put the categories on those for some reason. I rolled it back, but I'm keeping the log. Thanks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Across the Way
The article Across the Way you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Across the Way 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) 09:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Daddy's Double
The article Daddy's Double 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:Daddy's Double for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jane Eyre (1910 film)
The article Jane Eyre (1910 film) 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:Jane Eyre (1910 film) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Good888 I think these are fixed. Indeed, I think the article is substantially better than when you posted your note. I did not respond to the question about photographs.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 18:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to undo your quote on this one, but the 1909 Italian adaptation predates this one so I had to remove the quote for accuracy because I cover the issue in the body. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Put back the quote, and said it was "second." The quote does not really deal with the Italian version.  In any event, if there is controversy we should just note it citing the WP:RSs.  Cheers.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 22:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel it is a bit odd in placement, since it is in the lead and not in the body... but whatever. If it works it works. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried to add a website on the Italian film as a citation. Unfortunately, it is a blacklisted site.  I sent you an e-mail on it.  I've never tried to unblacklist an article (it's above my pay grade).  Any suggestions?  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 01:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw that website and I got around it with a more reliable source anyways. So often, I am stuck correcting the finer points of history. It may seem subtle - but Wikipedia's prominence usually results in "correcting the historical record" on such things pretty quickly. In the case of vandalism... setting it back. I hope you can watch how that 1909 film gets additional citations over the next few years, it is always fun to sit back with some tea and scan your old work's impact. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7
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.


 * Daddy's Double
 * added a link pointing to The Daily News


 * The Girl of the Northern Woods
 * added a link pointing to The Evening News


 * The Little Hero of Holland
 * added a link pointing to Lost

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Daddy's Double
The article Daddy's Double you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Daddy's Double 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) 09:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jane Eyre (1910 film)
The article Jane Eyre (1910 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jane Eyre (1910 film) 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) 09:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of She's Done it Again
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article She's Done it Again 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) 15:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of She's Done it Again
The article She's Done it Again 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:She's Done it Again for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of She's Done it Again
The article She's Done it Again you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:She's Done it Again 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) 16:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Coming soon: yet another AE complaint
Looks like some people just hate WP:BLPCAT :) see Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement  and my favourite (later retracted) diff:   to show how infinitely careful some editors are about accusing others.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Best Man Wins (1910 film)
The article The Best Man Wins (1910 film) 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 Best Man Wins (1910 film) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 10:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Girl of the Northern Woods
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Girl of the Northern Woods 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, 8 February 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) 07:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Girl of the Northern Woods
The article The Girl of the Northern Woods 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 Girl of the Northern Woods for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fuller Houses
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fuller Houses 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 Wilhelmina Will -- Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Foster-Payne House
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Foster-Payne House 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 Wilhelmina Will -- Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fire Station No. 4 (Pawtucket, Rhode Island)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fire Station No. 4 (Pawtucket, Rhode Island) 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 Wilhelmina Will -- Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fire Station No. 4 (Pawtucket, Rhode Island)
The article Fire Station No. 4 (Pawtucket, Rhode Island) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fire Station No. 4 (Pawtucket, Rhode Island) 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 Wilhelmina Will -- Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Actor's Children
The article The Actor's Children you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Actor's Children 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, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Uncle Tom's Cabin (1910 Thanhouser film)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Uncle Tom's Cabin (1910 Thanhouser film) 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 Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Uncle Tom's Cabin (1910 Thanhouser film)
The article Uncle Tom's Cabin (1910 Thanhouser film) 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:Uncle Tom's Cabin (1910 Thanhouser film) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Uncle Tom's Cabin (1910 Thanhouser film)
The article Uncle Tom's Cabin (1910 Thanhouser film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Uncle Tom's Cabin (1910 Thanhouser film) 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 Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Silent films task force
Hello! Thank you for all the work you've done, in adding articles about silent films to Wikipedia. I invite you to consider joining the Silent films task force, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of silent films. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I signed up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Best Man Wins (1910 film)
The article The Best Man Wins (1910 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Best Man Wins (1910 film) 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) 11:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Girl of the Northern Woods
The article The Girl of the Northern Woods you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Girl of the Northern Woods 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) 11:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Mad Hermit
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Mad Hermit 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) 15:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Art's Auto
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Art's Auto 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) 02:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Art's Auto
The article Art's Auto 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:Art's Auto for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Eustachian tube edit
Hello! the information I added in the article was written after noticing others (including my otologist) could hear it if they were close enough. It appears on Ear clearing too; The 'clicking your ears' can actually be heard if one puts one's ear to another person's ear for them to hear the clicking sound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.61.205.24 (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That is your case, but it is not sourced to a medical citation and it is really not the best place for that material. Sorry, but this is like saying other people can hear the the cracking of your knuckles. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers.com
Hi, do you have access? I always find it useful for old films and finding reviews.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep. I've added hundreds of references to it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)