User talk:ChrisGualtieri/Archive 2

Godskitchen
hi Chris i am Rich Orange former resident performer for Godskitchen in Code Birmingham England, The MET Bar County Armagh Ireland  and also in Ibiza Spain me and Birdy worked for them for qabout 3and a half years as their resident performers at Global Gathering too

please revert my addition to the page ..i think i still need to figure out

please message me when you get this cheers ^^ Rich 'Orange' Whitehead — Preceding unsigned comment added by R1ch0rang3 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The revert was already done because of a few issues, you have a conflict of interest (as a performer) and because you did not provide a source to your information (you are not a source, sadly. See WP:RS. While the tone was not encyclopedic, it wasn't entirely bad, I just want to make sure the content was correct is all. Because of the way in which it was written it actually was flagged for possible vandalism. Wikipedia is rather serious and doesn't like adverbs or emotion, we are supposed to be in tone to that of the BBC. Let me know if you need help. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Dead or Alive 5 redux
So I worked more on it, there's also a portable game now. Care to take a look? --Niemti (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking good. I'd probably resubmit for GA. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

TrackingPoint et al.
Hi, I noticed that you reversed the COI tag on TrackingPoint. Thank you. I just saw today that all 5 articles I've created for Wikipedia were given a COI -- or worse -- tag by the same editor. In all cases, no reason was given. I can assure you that I have no personal connection to any of these subjects. I attended a lecture by Everett L. Fullam (about 50 years ago!!) and became an instant fan. I was surprised to see that he wasn't represented on Wikipedia, so I did the research (a lot of research!) and wrote what I believe was a strong encyclopedia article, complete with strong references. That article was not only given a COI tag by the editor, but also much of the text was deleted. I don't want to sound dramatic, but I do feel like I've been attacked - that these pages have been vandalized. The other pages I created (and, again, all of them have been given a COI tag, and, in some cases, large amounts of text have been deleted) are Precision guided firearm, Employee Benefit Research Institute, Allan Singleton-Wood, and, as I mentioned already, Everett L. Fullam. If you could possibly review those edits, I would really appreciate it. When I saw what was done to those pages, I was quite shaken. My husband suggested I contact you, since you had already seen the wrongness of the COI tag on TrackingPoint, and he thought you might also be able to address the tags placed on my other pages. Thank you so much Factual1979 (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've actually asked the user responsible for placing the tags as to why. It doesn't seem to be a valid use of the tags and namely because I noticed the gun being tested and detailed in a very neutral manner from Ars Technica. Anyone that has never fired a gun and can hit a dinner plate from 1000 meters on their first shot and consistently pop targets off at long ranges is clearly being assisted with the gun, to the point that the whole PGF is very much real and very interesting. I'm going to go ahead and remove those two COI tags now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Since the Everett L. Fullam article suffered actual damage, I've undid those changes he made and have begun implementing my own changes. So far I've cited the source from The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements: Revised and Expanded Edition and split the work out, cut a bit of the peacocking terms. Such as 'extensive' being used to describe the stroke and that part about his 'vast knowledge', clearly his appointment was unique, but if you really want to stress it, you could add the interview part in. His 'Early life' section needs more citations. Otherwise, nothing is really wrong with it, its a good page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Employee Benefit Research Institute was fine, I've removed the tags. So was, Allan Singleton-Wood. I'm going to keep an eye on this for a bit. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

 * Yay, thank you! Will continue to improve it, just for that! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Mapping the Global Economy
Hi Chris Gualtieri, I am looking for volunteers to re-create the link below for all 196 countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States The goal of this project is to map out the global economy. Here is the project page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Economic_Map — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcnabber091 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

DRN organisers
Hello. I am just letting you know that I've made a proposal to create a rotating DRN organiser-style role that would help with the day-to-day running of DRN. As you are a listed volunteer at DRN, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, and the other open proposals at DRN. You can read more about it here. Thanks! Steven  Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 00:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Pear article.
Hello there. I think I may have just learned something from your last change to the Pear article. I wasn't aware of the use of the triple single quote sequence as a way to bold (in place of the B html tag I used). I'm afraid I'll have to go and change a few more articles :-(, as I used it more than a few times. I'm glad you caught it, thanks. Chango369w (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edit of Ogunquit, Maine
Hi, Chris.

In, you changed &amp;frac12; to ½. I had intentionally chosen to use &amp;frac12; instead of ½, because using the HTML tag shows other editors who may not know how to create the ½ character one way to do it.

Most of what I've learned about how to edit I've learned by seeing how other editors do things&mdash;much more than I've ever learned from WP's hit-and-miss help pages. By changing that &amp;frac12; to ½, you eliminate that potentially useful bit of information for an editor who may want to type ½ but have no idea how to do it.

(Another reason I sometimes use HTML character tags is to help me and other editors distinguish between visually similar characters, like dashes. It's very hard to distinguish dashes of various lengths just by looking at them&mdash;especially with the fixed-width font here in the editing box&mdash;so I nearly always take the trouble to type &amp;ndash; instead of –, for example, so other editors can see immediately that the character is an en dash, not a minus sign, a hyphen or an em dash. The end result for WP readers looks the same either way, but in some cases I think using HTML tags makes editing a lot easier.)

I'm not trying to tell you how to edit; I'm just explaining why I entered the ½ in the awkward-looking way I did it in that article, and I'd like to know your reason for changing it. It certainly makes the text in the edit box easier to read, although that text is more for editing than for reading. But if somewhere in the MOS or elsewhere we're advised not to use HTML tags for creating characters, please point me to it. I've been working on WP fitfully for several years, but I still feel like I know hardly anything about how to edit.

Your edit summary just said "General Fixes", which reveals nothing at all about why you made the edit. Would you mind explaining why you made that specific change? If you don't mind, put your answer here and then paste

in a new section at the bottom of my talk page, here.

Thanks very much.

Jim Martin—Jim10701 (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, Jim. I use a semi-automated Wikipedia browser called AutoWikiBrowser or WP:AWB. This tool enables me to find and make changes to specific errors very quickly and easily. The issue fell under 'General Fixes' which are WP:MOS compliant. You can actually insert fractions and other data like that ½ by going to the top of the edit window and clicking Special Characters and going to Symbols. Some issues like small and big tags are covered under WP:HTML as being obsolete in HTML5, and others are just changes made so that math and other functions are easy to read in the editing window, including foreign languages which have converted UNICODE so that editors can understand them easier. Its all in that big MOS book, but the use of the special characters to insert right into the editing window cuts down on the difficulty of rendering them in HTML. Does that answer your question? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, that answers my question. Thanks for taking the time and trouble to give such a complete and helpful answer.—Jim10701 (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Its what I do, people that do this sort of thing is the reason that Wikipedia code is very much readable. Some people insert brackets via html code and all math symbols and temperature readings through it. If you are not familiar with the codes, it is awkward to read it. Though I believe the hard space is the only HTML code we actively inject in for reasons of display. Seeing nbsp can be a bit weird, but it helps more people viewing then editing and it is the major exception that is prevalent. If you see people with AWB in their edit summaries making this change, it is because AWB suggests it. Wikipedia is huge, even if you try to get away from all the editor squabbles and such, people like me spend the majority of their time trying to correct tiny errors, typos and make sure the wikicode and markup is functional, clean and readable. Its not glorious, but its a janitor's role of sorts. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion
Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=551014272&diff=prev reverted] my fix to Aston Martin.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both  and one or more   referring to it. Someone then removed the  but left the , which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining  with a copy of the  ; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add  to your talk page.
 * ✅ Bot error. Reported. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Italics
Why are you changing these? (e.g. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battleship&curid=4054&diff=551034637&oldid=549536834], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battlecruiser&curid=4057&diff=551034689&oldid=549850179]) It has no actual effect on the article, and as far as I know, we're supposed to put the apostrophes inside the brackets. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MOS, the changes are part of the AutoWikiBrowser/General fixes. Strictly speaking, placing formatting outside the interwiki link reduces clutter and conforms to the style much in the same way example renders fine, but is improper and unnecessary. While I can't find the easy nice example, WP:NOLINK has an example of what not to do with a piped link that is shows formatting outside of the interwiki link. I believe that it is proper to hold formatting outside all interlinks, and it extends to piped links as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

General fixes using AWB
Hi. Do you know which of today's changes to the Brian Aldiss biography triggers a visit by AWB? Although I'm curious, I ask mainly because I have saved hundreds of adjacent templates Authority control and Persondata, and created at least dozens of them. --P64 (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing special. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Changes to Casa Mila
Chris: I've been slowly trying to work on this page in my spare time. Like you, I found the whole history section to be poorly translated garbage from the Catalan version. I've been working on it using my sandbox. If you're planning on more edits, I'll hold off - I'm a rank amateur (I had to look up what "AWB" meant), and my progress will be slow. But I had checked into Casa Mila (among other Barcelona sites) in preparation for a return trip there in June, and was just too appalled at the English Wikipedia site to let it go as is. Let me know what you're planning. Thanks. Fromthemitten (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it was just a quick check to address certain issues, some trivial and others important. Things like unambiguous citations, formatting and brackets. You can edit it, I just read it through and noticed some really bad English and a lengthy section which referred to an individual as a snob among other unsourced things. Go ahead an edit it! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Chris - thanks for the quick reply. And I also deleted the "snob" comment. :-)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fromthemitten (talk • contribs) 02:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I was online, that's all. I'm doing just a lot of minor things, hopefully bringing Wikipedia up to newer standards and making it appear better, even in the edit windows. As noted above, such little changes are done by many people, but I find great enjoyment in it. I get to read a lot of interesting pages and fix a lot of broken brackets and formatting errors that irk me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

GITS
Sorry, I've been busy and kinda sick lately. I've undone your unmerging. Just because Lucia is being stubborn on this issue does not mean we have to throw out all of the work we have done. Having a separate article just to cover the three manga is really unnecessary.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 03:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm working on this. See the construction tag. I've entertained this for too long. Lucia is wrong and I'm going to improve it. Please do not interfere right now. I want 24 hours to fix this mess. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You removed my construction tag... Seriously, wait 24 hours. I want to fix this and its not going to be easy to do. Sandbox if you are so worried, because my changes will be hard to unsandbox and will go over the whole. You will not be disappointed where it goes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is entirely unnecessary to have a separate page just because Lucia is being stubborn and unhelpful. The information should be entirely contained within the main Ghost in the Shell article and anything on any other page should just be dedicated to the chapters and not a thorough discussion of the manga. You made a bold edit and I reverted it. We are not going to have a content fork, again.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 03:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am once again restoring the merge. You should be putting this crap in a Sandbox not me. There was a bold edit (your unmerge), and I reverted it, and now we discuss.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 03:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ryulong, I am not done with my bold edit. You are interrupting construction and I do not need to sandbox the entire article. You are interrupting changes and causing edit conflicts while I am merging in content and updating it. I asked for it before and I did say I wanted 24 hours to fix this. Debating is useless with Lucia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm being nice here and I'm working on it. For MONTHS this has gone on and I've sat by and discussed it. Lucia has stonewalled and fillibustered for months, I took a wikibreak for a month and the GITS page is one of our top articles on Wikipedia. 60000 people see it a month. I simply refuse to let Lucia have her way and put it back to just the manga. The page even as it was does not do the franchise justice, and it is a franchise. The template goes to the franchise page, this page was a franchise before Lucia and Lucia is disrupting it. Let me make my changes. Please. I am asking for one day. This is not much to do a LARGE amount of work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't get to be "done" with your bold edit because I do not like the way it is going, so I've reverted it and now we're going through WP:BRD. I've put your last edition of your version of the article at Talk:Ghost in the Shell/Sandbox (and I reverted your other bold edit at Ghost in the Shell (manga) anyway). If you want to convince anyone that this is the right way to go you make the finished product in the sandbox and do not disrupt the mainspace just because you can't seem to make headway with another editor.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 03:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete that. Why did you even make it? The content is already in my sandbox. You agreed to this before, you are changing your mind. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I made it before you even touched your user space sandbox— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 04:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Does not matter. Do not touch my sandbox. Calm down and do not curse at me about it as you did on your talk page. You should still speedy it or I will PROD it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If you are saying my edits to the about template on Ghost in the Shell are edit warring then I'm giving up on trying to find a compromise.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 18:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not my problem, you are edit warring after a DR was filed at the DRN for this EXACT reason. I'm not going to bicker back and forth. WP:WAR covers this. This policy is a policy you have to follow. I'm not going to explain every little rule for you, these are major guidelines and should be apparent. You have been warned for it. If you continue you can be blocked. Revert yourself and let it be handled at DRN, discussion can continue on the talk page. Calm down, and take a breather Ryulong. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How is this edit warring? I didn't even realize you reverted me int he first place. It feels like you're just seeking any method to get your way in having this "franchise page" by completely ignoring the standard practice on every other article.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 18:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucia Black (talk • contribs)
 * Of course, you're not required to respond, and sometimes that's the best response (hint, hint). NE Ent 02:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. I'll formulate a reply. Lucia is dramatic. I made this comment earlier to DragonZero on the talk page, about arguments and our willingness to compromise. I really do think Lucia Black has some competency issues (English second language?) because Lucia has really poor comprehension, of even policy. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is clear example, its not even about formatting of an article and that essay is contradictory and laughable. Even pointing it out that it wasn't a policy and it was an essay, she replied, "OTHERSTUFFEXIST is an essay but in a nutshell, meaning commonly accepted." Sad, because I brought this exact issue to DRN earlier today. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Mystifying edit
I'm mystified by the utility of this edit. Would you mind demystifying me? Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:MOS, formatting should not be inside interwiki links, they should be outside, this includes piped links. example is one such matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

OOP
hello, you say the H7N9 virus in turkeys in USA are different with the case in China, do you have clear description about this topic ? thanks ---goodforak


 * That was not a case in humans and that case there did not actually detail information, usable for an encyclopedic article. It was simply the recorded sample from 1988 that was processed in 2006. Turkeys in the USA are not know to have transferred the H7N9 to humans, the type is avian so it does regularly infect avian populations. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is your opion. I do not agree with it .---goodforak

Mystifying edit
I'm mystified by the utility of this edit. Would you mind demystifying me? Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:MOS, formatting should not be inside interwiki links, they should be outside, this includes piped links. example is one such matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't mind, but I've restored this thread, since it is still active, and somehow, in a perplexing way, it disappeared. You say MOS does not allow formatting inside a piped link. I can't find where it says that in MOS. Would you mind pointing out where it says that. Thanks again. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. I believe the matter is at WP:MOS and WP:AWB/GF the General Fixes page has it under simplify links. I believe it is just style and standard formatting. Example is breaking, so why should example be used? Though The USS Adder (SS-3) was a submarine. is correct. I think it may be hitting on the fact that the entire interwiki piped link is used to format it, putting it outside as would be if it were NOT piped. WP:MOS lists correct versions (a piece of the interwiki link text being italicized) whereas if the entirety is to be italicized that it precede the interwiki link in the same manner that a singular interwiki-link requires italics to be outside the brackets. I could raise the issue if you really wanted at the AWB talk page, assuming you have an issue with it. And sorry for moving it, I thought this was addressed because you didn't reply again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:MOS says it is incorrect to replace   with   and WP:AWB/GF makes the same point when its says it replaces   with  . Clearly you can't code like that, because it breaks the link. But that is not at all the same as replacing   with  . We are not talking about formatting the actual link, just the bit that is to be piped. I am concerned about this rule, if it exists, that the formatting of piped links must be done externally and not internal to the pipe. I can see no point to it. And the matter has non-trivial consequences, because there are instances where formatting a piped link externally won't work at all. For example, what would be your alternative for a table header coded with a break, such as  ? --Epipelagic (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: Epipelgic that is incorrect it says to replace   with , the reason being that the markup will look for the page Turandot . Try it yourself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Cases of where AWB would do  ->    have now been turned off in the development version of AWB.  Information on this can be found at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser.  However, the preferred way would have the '' outside of the wikilink.  As Epipelagic pointed, this cannot always be the case.  Using the span tag for text color is another case.  I don't know why it was turned on or off. Bgwhite (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Can you explain why the preferred way would have the '' outside of the wikilink (just so I know)? --Epipelagic (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Style concerns and either way, previous edit or mine, did not change the rendering which is why I don't know why it is a problem. Consensus may not be decided for it right now, so the current version as is seems good to me. Though it is worth raising the issue at MOS, and if it picks up steam at MOS it could probably end up back in the general fixes, but for now it is outside the decided scope it seems. But I'll wait for Mag's input. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for replying. Does this mean the next snapshot of AWB will be fine to use again or do I have to try an update my current AWB to do so? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Most likely you will need to get the next snapshot, when it is released. Last time, there was a severe bug in the official release, so they quickly did another official release. Bgwhite (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Fun, I am also aware of the title stripping matter from level 2 headings and have found a few of those that need manual fixes or adjustment, but other ones are not a problem and AWB tried to strip them out on me. I know that other fix is for the next version as well. And TypoScan or some typo list needs to be seriously run, any chance we could get that done for the April or upcoming May dumps? I'd prefer April so I got something to do in May. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I was one of the people who requested AWB not do title stripping. I sort of regret it as it sure adds alot of alerts and red in the edit box.  I've been meaning to ask Reedy about typoscan.  I'll bug him on it.  You could work on WP:WikiProject Fix common mistakes to get your typo drug hit. Bgwhite (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I rather have a lot more alerts and issues be flagged then accidentally strip something out. Though there are a good amount of other issues to fix in the mean time. And yes, I did bug Reedy about it before but never got my list. So many thousands of typos go unchecked... I'd actually like a the entire list and not in parts. 200000 pages would not be a problem for me... and Reedy probably is aware of that after my run with TypoScan. I suspect 300000 pages would be in the new list. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

As said above AWB won't be changing the place of italics markup from inside the wikilink to outside or visa versa expect the  case for simplicity reasons. I have no strong opinion for the placement of the italics markup. I have noticed in the past that it's more difficult to spot unbalanced wiki markup inside the wikillinks but or that some wikilinks had double markup. Anyway, we 'll try to make a new release soon to stop making this change. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It does seem to be the preferential for clarity and structure as non-pipes break and this applies ONLY to ones that have entire format change and not internal emphasis. So I do see the technical reason to be preferred as Bgwhite noted and there has not been an expressed concern on the technical merits, just confusion on the edit itself. I think of this as the non-breaking space issue, is it really necessary for EVERY case, no, but it does strengthen existing markup form and standardization of that markup. Which is half the reason why WP:MOS exists. Thanks for the input. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Outing claim was bogus
Obviously intended to keep me blocked and prevent me from defending myself at ANI. LittleBen (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

AWB
Chris. Could you please not save such edits, etc. (there is quite a number). They do clutter watchlists, and are actually not allowed per AWB rules of use. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 04:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * They are allowed according to WP:MOS for simplification of links and nbsp is non-breaking spaces. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really. See "An edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page is generally considered an insignificant edit." Materialscientist (talk) 04:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * According to, WP:PIPE the change is preferred due to it simplification and non breaking spaces by definition do have an effect on rendered pages, namely the matter that they prevent awkward breaks. WP:NBSP for that, it is advisable to use it in that exact case. Why does this bother you? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Because your edits fill up watchlists and cover up (recent) edits made before you. You don't check them when you save an edit, don't you. Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not be mean or insinuate such things, the edits are well within policy and I cited them as such. Also I do many other things besides edits. Such as reverting terrible vandalism like this. I am concerned that ANY edit is liable to upset someone even if it is beneficial, I've actually had someone argue with me about correcting typos as it is 'trivial' or adding Persondata. By the same nature, my minor edit to persondata would upset you as well. And yes, that is not a fun road to go down. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Chris, no slight intended. Please understand my point - it is counterproductive to save minor cleanup edits, because they bring little improvement but can potentially cover up major vandalism. You don't have to save any AWB edit, and as an AWB user you must have a good judgement of that. This is explicitly covered in the AWB rules (and it is not just about AWB, but also about attitude to editing - unfortunately, vandalism, spam, POV, etc., are major issues). Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 05:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I do agree that the edits are not the most useful thing that can be done, but I have long wished I could be free of disturbing editors with clean up of such matters. Though you must admit, when people take issue with Persondata and typos, I do have a concern that 'anything' deemed trivial by a person automatically makes me look bad. Performing such tasks are actually relaxing for me and given how I'm waiting for DR and other responses a little clean up here and there is not so bad. As an admin, do you know of a way I can still edit manually and not have the watchlist trigger? Previously, I inquired about this, but it wasn't taken far. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, even bots trigger it. So I doubt anything can be done... Bah, I don't know what to do. I did previously push for and re-write some of the rules for AWB for clarity, but if you are worried about it I suppose I could ask about such minor edits. Yobot flags more for me then others, not sure why it seems to be a double-standard for a machine which actually has more use and more false positives then I as a human make. Just musings on my part though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec)Many people edit articles simultaneously. This is an intrinsic feature of a wiki; it causes all sorts of conflicts, and there is no solution to that. If you edited a hot article from WP:ITN you probably understand that. I do style fixes daily, and my approach is to take a low-medium traffic article (meaning edits, not access rate) and apply a set of fixes. AWB is rather inefficient for automatic improvements. I usually run an article through reflinks (manual mode), tweak it manually using suggestions from my head, checklinks (and sometimes AWB), then run it through three scripts: citation, dates and range dashes, and only then save (no, I don't ask anyone to follow my ways :-). Urls do expire, and with the recent recoding of citation templates it is quite easy to find extra things to fix.
 * Yobot is dancing on the edge and was blocked more than once per WP:COSMETICBOT. A few other bots ended up permanently blocked. Materialscientist (talk) 05:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So Wikipedia as a community is more content to let various errors exist then to actually address them? Whether it be human or bot, just because said tweaks could potentially disrupt talk pages and such? AWB I think is set to skip pages if a page is being edited during the check, but I am not certain. I just want to go through, deal with the backlog and be done with the pages. What would I have to do, or should do, to edit in a manner to reduce the issues, I still want to address the actual concerns for which CHECKWIKI and other fix issues are noted. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you believe that absence of nbsp is an error, then I can't help you. There is no use polishing a door knob in a house under construction - workers will get through the door (and break and replace that knob in the process :-). The vast majority of articles need basic copyedit, extra references, completing and fixing existing refs, etc. If you are not up to adding information/references, you can always do routine fixes, not in the AWB way, but using reflinks/checklinks, or just copy/paste the output into MS Word and run a spellcheck - this is much more efficient than AWB (even Firefox spellcheck is often better).

Backlogs are numerous, e.g. Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit, Category:All articles needing link rot cleanup, and many others.

There is a default saving threshold in AWB, but it depends on individual user settings. Operators of bots that use AWB are expected to tune the autoskip threshold.

CHECKWIKI is a minor game of a few editors; most of those "fixes" border "minor changes", and Yobot has been blocked before for fixing CHECKWIKI. Materialscientist (talk) 06:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yobot never got blocked for fixing CHECKWIKI. CHECKWIKI fixing is an approved task for 2 bots plus some more bots doing partial CHECKWIKI fixing plus a lot of active editors contributing manually. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll see what I can do. Things like typos and such just do not sit right with me being on Wikipedia, as a matter of professionalism. I guess I can work on the other pages a bit, I'm just not that great of a copyeditor. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have begun a separate run through the database scanner so that I don't come across anything 'cosmetic' until the matter can be settled. This will give me plenty of time to address other concerns. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Just wanted to say thank you very much for splitting and making the "List of Cardfight!! Vanguard Characters" page.

Buso Kenshin 88 (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC) 

Oops
Thanks for your pickup. It was an honest mistake. Keep up the good work. Regards David.moreno72 (talk) 02:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Change =
Re:, on my computer, I can't see any difference. (I'd like to understand. Can you describe so I can see?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for proving my point. The previous edit (not the dummy edit) was a test of AWB's cosmetic changes, the dummy edit was to note to editors the purpose of the previous edit. The other edit addressed spacing and appearance matters. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We're not communicating. I linked the link above for value of your edit sum only. (I understood it was referring to the previous edit. It is the previous edit, where cosmetic improvement was supposedly introduced, but on my computer, I cannot see any difference. So I'm confused and like to learn what I'm missing.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the point. It didn't make a noticeable change, but is termed non-cosmetic. The changes do not show in the AWB edit box for me, but they show in the article when clicking change. The edits themselves are also supposed to be non-cosmetic, which they did not seem to affect the page at all. Got it? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary was: "The preceeding edit was a test done in AWB for cosmetic changes, the changes do not show in the edit box, but show in the article." (So when you said the changes were cosmetic and show in the article, I was looking for cosmetic changes in the article, and could find none.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * They were done, but they do not register for most people. Hence my earlier statement. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

CHECKWIKI request for help!
Hi ChrisGualtieri! It seems you follow the effort to fix common syntax errors. CHECKWIKI provides a list of suggestions found at User:Magioladitis/AWB and CHECKWIKI. We update the list every month. This month we still need to fix errors 28, 46, 80 and 84. Unfortunately, these errors cant be fixed by AWB's general fixes and therefore Yobot fails to fix them. They need user attention. AWB provides error alerts to aid this effort. Maybe you could help us? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Mag I could and would if not for the earlier AWB issue as noted on this talk page. I'm sorry, but as of right now until the matter of AWB rule #4 is addressed I do not wish to be engaged in conflict with other editors, even if it is something I believe is important. It just is not worth it at this time. Perhaps you could assist in brainstorming revisions to rule #4 with me? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All the errors I mention above require non-trivial editing. So there will be no accusations. Some of the edits done by Yobot and you linked shouldn't be done and merely the result of bad coding by my side. On the other hands, some edits you did look just fine to me. Like the one that you added a non-breaking space. I find it non-trivial and welcome. I don't like the fact that some editors discourage these edits. For example when I print articles from Wikipedia I would like them to be as perfect as possible. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I've done that as well because while a print version is useless as a whole, individual articles of length are decent overviews of complex subjects, especially our FA's being used in classrooms now. I'll take a look at it, right now I am stuck fixing the hentai article... much to my disappointment and disgust. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I know what you're doing
And it's not going to work. Personal attack? Prove it. Otherwise, don't bother. Everything I said were events in the past that happened. Nothing "personal" and not an "attack".Lucia Black (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not know to what you are referring and as said at the last ANI, your post about me contained two personal attacks. I should not see my name come up with disparaging remarks about me. Your reputation is not because of me or Ryulong 'defaming' you, its because of your frivolous attempts to get people like Niemti in trouble a full 10 days after you already read and replied to that particular discussion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Stop misinterpretting things. Just because you see your name come up doesn't mean its a personal attack. A personal attack would be me saying hypothetically "You're an idiot", "You're stupid" "Focus on your personal life if you can't handle wikipedia" etc. I reported Niemti because I just saw DRN to discredit me after I gave him a warning. You can have th last word for all I care.Lucia Black (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't me who called it a personal attack either. You were warned by Bushranger, and now me for the latest one. Removing that warning means you acknowledged and read it. Carry on. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * looks back at history* nope, no mention anywhere by bushranger for personal attacks. Don't lie.Lucia Black (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here, "here's two personal attacks in your point 3 there - please be cautious lest this report WP:BOOMERANG on you. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)" I'm not going to go through the trouble of grabbing the diff. You made personal attacks on me there and again at the unrelated ANI, now. Don't do it again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. That's been long archived and if you claim Bushranger gave me a warning, why are you going to give me a formal one? Reason why I brought Niemti was because I gave niemti a warning before hand and recently just noticed DRN mention again (disregarding warning). You're looking for things to take to ANI but that incident already happened within ANI. ANI isn't going to listen to you if you don't practice what you preech. I know when an editor just wants to block someone for the sake of being to edit what he wishes rather than seeing a major issue in behavior that will affect in the long run.Lucia Black (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Its been TEN days since that post and you just took it to ANI today. Talk about being stale. Furthermore, I warned you for TODAY's personal attack. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And in Ten days I didn't notice until now. So Niemti ignored the warning. Today there was no personal attack. What's wrong with you?Lucia Black (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Lucia I am done. Get off my talk page. Don not bug me again. This is a personal attack: See here. Also, this is bad form. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri. Just stop. You're no saint. And you've done worst. Its hipocritical for you to call this a personal attack. I mentioned you and Ryulong for indirectly attempting to defame but for the sake of the topic, not for defaming for the sake of defaming like Niemti. Just stop. Ok? I done nothing "personal" towards about you. So just leave it.Lucia Black (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * See again? WP:NPA Read it Lucia. You are attacking Niemti here, after I just warned you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Just stop. You're not helping your point. Your convincing no one because you constantly change ur point. I reported Niemti to ANI.Lucia Black (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

ANI
Your mentioned in ANI.Lucia Black (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Vertical bar in category
Just as an information thing, the vertical bar in the category which you removed and was reverted here, is actually there for a reason. Putting the | and then a space after it defines that article as the primary article in a category and places it at the top of the list. Without the pipe it will just go into the list in alphabetical order and it can't easily be established which is the primary article without hunting for it. Just saying it's not an unnecessary edit, it actually does have a valid function. Thanks. Canterbury Tail  talk  13:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So essentially Ryulong replaced the defining tag of the original franchise article which he and Lucia were trying to purge and replace with the imbalanced weight of the original article? Fun. I really need people to weigh in on the matter of scope on the talk page. I've trying for months to get this done, but no one will provide input. Least I learned something important for Gundam and other articles. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

DR
Attempting to open a dispute resolution, but puting the "request DR" button appears to take me to a blank wiki page. Could you elaborate the correct process? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's the link. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * when I push that button/link I get a blank wiki page that is read onlyGaijin42 (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not know. Maybe script related? Ask on IRC? WP:IRC. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Ryulong
As far as I'm concerned the dispute resolution is useless at this point because we have no outside input.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 23:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Too bad. Lucia took me to ANI last time I did what you were doing. But since I have your attention, can I ask you to consider something and entertain me for a brief moment? About the 'two articles' matter. Between us, not Lucia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Take a look at these version of GITS. Oct 2012 Jan 2013  Lucia unilaterally moved and expanded the manga content. I LIKE that version of the manga page, we have pushed it farther, but the Oct 2012 GITS material was well... incomplete and out of shape. I want Ghost in the Shell to be more like that Oct 2012 one and the manga page to be its own manga page. Though I want to give the manga and original works more prominence. Your thoughts? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There are two articles. You just don't like that one isn't a franchise page. You've made that abundantly clear.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 23:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no reason why "Ghost in the Shell" cannot booe the "manga page" and a "franchise page". You've yet to explain that to me in any fashion. All I've been doing is making the page in line with the rest of the project's anime and manga pages.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 23:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Its the balancing act. I do not see how the reception and original plot are needed if we will not discuss OTHER plots of the 20+ works. Lucia thinks lemon and lemonade are redundant forks, but I think you disagree. If you do not see this critical point, we will never agree on anything. If Ghost in the Shell comes to contain the information of all works the page will eclipse 400k and be HUGE. Then Lucia or you will cut everything down anyways. I'm trying to prevent any more content loss, we have already lost a lot of key information because of this matter including Lucia's previous edits. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No. You're putting words in her mouth. And would you at least look at the latest version I had instated before you reverted everything so you can see where those 11,199 bytes went?
 * I tidied up the "Setting" part to be a general discussion of the setting of all of the works, rather than focusing on how one version is different from the others.
 * I sent all of this information to the chapter list.
 * I cut out some fluff from the multimedia section that seemed unnecessary.
 * I summarized the manga's plots better.
 * And I added the kanji you discuss in this section.
 * At least in this form the article somewhat resembles other anime and manga pages, like (as you previously pointed out elsewhere) Sailor Moon and Fullmetal Alchemist.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 23:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not my fault if Lucia attributes a direct adaption or close relationship with, "Ghost in the Shell, on the other hand, are all alternate tellings of the original (with Arise being the only one that's a prequel). All spin offs are directly related to the original manga (except for the spin off media based on the original spin offs)." A casual reference is fine, but any such "alternate tellings" have to be routed in reliable resources. So the 1995 film and Innocence count. SAC says otherwise according to production I.G. by explicitly labeling SAC as a separate continuity. Canon issues aside (as you said), I am not against mentioning them and giving 300-400 words on EACH work. This is basically half the manga. I just do not think that the films deserve two sentences each and the reception of the three books gets paragraphs. And we lost many reviews and links to said reviews. Censorship of the manga is also purely off-topic for the whole of GITS. And you KNOW how the sexuality of Motoko is depicted. Characters and world should be greatly expanded, but lets not cripple our key navigation page with overly detailed manga details.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * But the films don't get two sentences each. They have their own separate articles. The reason that we can't come to a compromise is because you have it so set in your mind that the manga needs to have its own separate article one article needs to solely be dedicated to navigating amongst the others. I'd be willing to move the plot summaries I made for the manga on the main article to be used on the list of chapters and further summarize the content on the main article but even that I don't think would suffice for you. You need to look at Ghost in the Shell and List of Ghost in the Shell chapters both as articles on the manga, the latter dedicated to the publication history and the former dedicated to everything else about the manga, which includes the anime that followed.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 23:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not want one article to be solely navigation... which is why I think the franchise part pisses you off, I just want the excessive detail somewhere else. What I want and what you want seem to be the same, but we call it different things. I want somewhere between FMA's coverage of the original manga and what was done to DB GT. DB GT being related by characters and theme, but not being original. The issue comes to Stand Alone Complex which I think should be given distinct alternate universe sections totalling about 3000-5000 words covering it. With Arise universe comprising 1000 words for now. 10000 words being about the limit for the page length. Most people lose concentration on freely engaged searches in about 20 minutes, so 10k is my WP:LIMIT. You agree with some of these points? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's only excessive detail because you want it to be a franchise article and cover everything rather than be like 75% one thing and 25% five other things (or however many you're going to count). It's not necessary to have all that coverage you are proposing for the SAC or Arise sections on a central Ghost in the Shell article, and your comparison to DBGT doesn't work because DBGT was a sequel that vastly differed from the source material and you want the original form of Ghost in the Shell to be split off onto its own separate article. We need something more like Sailor Moon and Fullmetal Alchemist. We don't need to go into so much detail of how the Stand Alone Complex setting and the Arise setting are different from the manga setting. They're all in a cyberpunk world with cybernetically augmented brains and hackers and semi-sentient robotic tanks.
 * Here is my compromise:
 * We move most of the plot summary of the manga off to the list of chapters, and we keep that article called the list of chapters. However, there is still some brief description of the plots of the three books on the central page. Such as saying book 1 is about the investigation of the Puppet Master, book 2 is about the Major's new job elsewhere, and book 1.5 is a collection of short stories set between 1 and 2.
 * The plot section gets brief mentions of how the animated adaptations differ, as we are still relying on the other articles to provide that information. Such as how the movie is based on book 1, Innocence is based on book 2 to an extent, SAC lacks the puppet master and its wars were different, and Arise is an original prequel. None of this thousands of words crap. They have their own articles for that.
 * The main article keeps the reception, production, and censorship sections dedicated to the manga. Reception of the films, video games, and TV show should remain on their respective separate pages.
 * We continue to flesh out the article Ghost in the Shell with content primarily regarding the manga.
 * Any other media that come from the massive list you wrote up should be discussed on the page of whatever version it was based on. This means the SAC novels and manga should only be discussed on the SAC pages, the Innocence novelization should only be on Innocence's page, etc.
 * The switch of the publication history content still happens (extensive coverage on the chapter list, summary of Japanese only content on the main article)
 * Thoughts— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 00:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I agreed with you up until you said the main article keeps the reception, production and censorship parts. The reason I do not want the original manga plots to be discussed in over detail is the same reason I do not want the other aspects to be discussed in over detail. Basically this is what I want in sections. And so on with a short plot, reception and other key details in each subsection with the main splits going to the proper pages. 1000 words for GITS manga. If you can keep it under 1000 words. For perspective as is, the plot 550, creation/dev 237, publication history is 630. censorship is 98, and reception is 377. Total is about 1900 words, so it is twice as long as I want it to be. I do not want to lose that 1000 either, I want it on the other page. Comparatively, FMA has 500 to the manga, 352 to the anime, and 400 to brotherhood. I will not count plot, production and others as they integrate content themselves in a meaningful way, bringing the about section further while doing so in a natural way. If you want it to be stylized after FMA, I do agree if you are willing to cover ALL the media in such a format. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Lede
 * Table of Contents
 * Setting/Character/Theme
 * Original Manga (include all three if you must...)
 * Short plot, reception and relationship sub-sections
 * Film
 * Innocence
 * Stand Alone complex

So do you finally the main article should not split the manga? I disagree with weighing sections by their article size. Adding the key info will inevitably balance the size out between series. Plus its less necessary to add extensive detail when they have their own article. You have to understand proper weight is relevant when there are no other articles. So if the manga isn't split, then all manga info can be in the main article.Lucia Black (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The grammar is.... difficult to understand there, but if I understand you correctly, you want the manga at one page... all of it? Umm no. WP:DETAIL suggests TWO pages. I'm agreeing with Ryulong, not you. I'm willing to try and work with Ryulong on this, because I know it will meet WP:SPLIT one way or the other and I'll be able to deal with it later. If it somehow makes it to FMA style and in a meaningful integrated way, then yes, but you know what... let's see how 200 kb of text feels? It seems the only way to prove my point, but anything that gets converted or axed GOES to the list of manga. Got it? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm using a respectful tone, as I expect you to do. WP:DETAIL is a guide for when articles are divided to express level of detail. It does not support your claims of split. I'm in the same boat as Ryulong, so this pro-Ryulong and anti-Lucia is being just far too childsh for even you to take seriously. Ryulong agrees that the article shouldn't be merged and has discussed it as thorough as I have. This anti-Lucia view is getting you nowhere. You deny me yet accept Ryulong, despite him having similar views as mine about the article and against yours. Not only that but you mention I reported you to ANI. It was well deserved about the third time you edit warred without consensus. Do you think other editors should let it slide? Let's not forget ryulong contributed to that ANI report aswell. For once stop being so stubborn and accept the facts that Ryulong isn't saying hardly anything different from what I am.Lucia Black (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * But it is different. I really grow tired of this endless back and forth. So until we get a new DRN person, I'm going to be working on a personal project of mine. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You say that...but you don't prove it.Lucia Black (talk) 05:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Already did, you don't seem to be reading my responses. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No...you didn't...and I have a big feeling you're never going to explicitly say it. (Probably becase you know there's no difference).Lucia Black (talk) 05:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)\
 * Because GITS original manga is notable and distinct enough from the whole as to warrant inclusion under N and GNG. Furthermore, the detail is excessive for a topic-broad page and should be split for numerous reasons. Here is some of them SS states, "it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability, and thus can be split off into their own article". Also do not forget that SS also contains this gem, "Where an article is long, and has lots of subtopics with their own articles, try to balance parts of the main page. Do not put undue weight into one part of an article at the cost of other parts. In shorter articles, if one subtopic has much more text than another subtopic, that may be an indication that that subtopic should have its own page, with only a summary presented on the main page." it also states, "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list."


 * "This style of organizing articles is somewhat related to news style except that it focuses on topics instead of articles. The idea is to summarize and distribute information across related articles in a way that can serve readers who want varying amounts of details, thus giving readers the ability to zoom to the level of details they need and not exhausting those who need a primer on a whole topic. Breakout methods should anticipate the various details levels that typical readers will look for. This is more helpful to the reader than a very long article that just keeps growing, eventually reaching book length. Summary style is accomplished by not overwhelming the reader with too much text up front, by summarizing main points and going into more details on particular points (subtopics) in separate articles."


 * "The parent article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in child articles and in articles on specific subjects. This can be thought of as layering inverted pyramids where the reader is first shown the lead section for a topic, and within its article any section may have a or similar link to a full article on the subtopic summarized in that section ..... The child article in turn can also serve as a parent article for its specific part of the topic, and so on, until a topic is very thoroughly covered. Thus, by navigational choices, several different types of readers each get the amount of details they want."


 * Basically, the entirety of WP:SS says that it is proper to split the manga to its own page. You don't seem to read the policies. Citing WP:SS means you should check it because it IS my argument. I've explicitly stated the reason every time I bring up the policy, it is not my fault you don't read it or fail to understand what it means. Basically, if its notable it can have its own article, if it is disproportionate in scope from a topic it can get its own article, if the subtopic is notable it can get its own article, and before you start any protesting: MOS-AM does not count because SS trumps it and WP:CFORK is helpful to my argument and not against it as you claim. There is an acceptable coverage as noted as SS about the summary of the subtopic, its that last part I quoted. If you ever say I didn't explicitly state my position or case I will refer to this post and every other instance of WP:SS and other policies that contain the information. I have restated my point over 20 times to you, the majority with policy, but it seems you have not read them or else you would have known the argument I presented. Any other 'objections' you want me to explicitly state with quotes? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay I'm awake. And basically we're never going to get to a fucking resolution because you want everything manga on one page that is not Ghost in the Shell. You are right that the original manga is notable. That's why we have it without a disambiguation anymore. You keep quoting WP:SS without acknowledging the fact that because it is the original work it should be the main page of everything. And no this does not mean that you should make a Ghost in the Shell (franchise) page. We should not move the reception/production/censorship stuff off of the main page because the main page should not be a massive summary of everything Ghost in the Shell.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 07:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I've restored my edits to the article and performed the changes that I suggested above, including moving a lot of content to List of Ghost in the Shell chapters (production, censorship, and reception remain on the first article). Rather than reverting me, again, maybe we can come to some sort of conclusion as to what sections you don't want on the page or how we can make the existing sections more to your liking.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 07:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * How about you make your case at DRN. I will probably revert your edits back anyways because as is... the majority of the content that has been stripped or altered is not being held in thin air. As is, a major reworking of all pages will be needed once this dispute is over. Any scratching around that is done is purely in sand. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm voting for mediation now. Its the only way this will get solved.Lucia Black (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

H7N9
ChrisGualtieri, I've noticed that you and Gandydancer have had a bit of disagreement about what, if anything, should be said in the introduction of Influenza A virus subtype H7N9 regarding elderly males stricken with H7N9. In the article discussion page I've proposed a compromise. I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at it and maybe add your thoughts to the discussion. —RP88 (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Your tagging of WikiProject Hentai articles
You seem to be mistagging several articles. Specifically, just because the series has either yuri or yaoi in it does not automatically make it hentai or ecchi related. If that was the case, then any work depicting heterosexual romance would automatically be considered hentai or ecchi. If there isn't any sexual content in a series, don't list it under this WikiProject. Some examples would be Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl, Sweet Blue Flowers, Maria-sama ga Miteru‎, etc.--  十  八  21:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I already told you why. Not all yuri or yaoi related series are hentai or ecchi related. "Yuri" just means "girl-girl" love; similarly, "yaoi" just means "boy-boy". Just as a genre, they have nothing to do with hentai/ecchi.--  十  八  23:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, no worries. I was going through the category recursively, I avoided Clannad because while Air and Kanon are such works, the coverage of their graphic content is secondary for their articles. The notification window from echo is slow and not obvious when a user page is changed (since it was flooded out), I didn't even see the first post. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you should check the WP:ANIME talk page again. Seems like there's a RFC going on about this. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Too much free time
My contribution to the sex offenders inhabiting Little Diomede Island was completely true. I had a reference included as well. Please reverse the changes you made regarding my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.190.206 (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

mail
sats 01:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * my apologies - mixed up confused id in another space - sats 03:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Homosexual Offences Order
Hello. Please excuse me, although I've had this account for a while I've never really used it and I'm struggling to work it out.

I don't know if the reason you undid my edit was because I didn't reference it, but I'm not yet sure how to include a reference and I thought the update (clarifying that only male homosexuality was illegal and thus actually de-criminalised by the HOO) was too easily verified and undisputed a fact for anybody to want to change it in the short time I hoped it would take me to discover how to do it. There are also already certain references on Wikipedia (including in the article I updated) to the fact that homosexuality was only ever illegal for men in any of the UK, and this further bolstered my confidence that it would be an uncontroversial clarification to make.

Here is one example of a source I could link to, so that you know the update is legitimate. Could you perhaps direct me to any instructions for adding it? http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/4/newsid_3007000/3007686.stm

Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optifog (talk • contribs) 16:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Puppet Master/Puppeteer clarification
Their the same. Solid State Society plays a similar role to how Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence is loosely based on robot rondo chapter of the original Ghost in the Shell. The only difference is their origin. Original Puppeteer was a program evolved into AI, in SSS it was a collective conscious. Both hacked the major with only SSS implying that they've merged.Lucia Black (talk) 03:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Its an unverified claim, different entities and Project 2501 was completely different from the Noble Rot hub cyberbrain. You are the 'expert', so you should be able to prove otherwise if true. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no direct source. But its like sourcing "Bateau" and "Batou" are the same. Both are "The Puppeteer" with only the film mentioning him as "Puppet Master" and highlighting the name "Project 2501" where the manga only mentioned it briefly.Lucia Black (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In the manga and the film, the AI which merged with Motoko lead to a new entity. SAC is an alternate universe with the explicit mention that there was no Puppetmaster case. Motoko's subconscious was the Puppeteer in SSS, by explicit reference. It was not the Puppet master at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but that was the source for the first season. And it was based on the assumption that Motoko never met Puppeteer (past tense). Similar to how a series has sources that confirm that there will never be a new series and they release 1 anyways. I now because I was the one who added that source.Lucia Black (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop squirming, are you denying that Motoko's subconscious was the Puppeteer, yes or no? Also, if you are, aren't you neglecting the Solid State matter entirely? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying that. But "the Puppeteer" origin may have changed, but their roles are practically the same. And in the end, both merged with the Major. Idk why the Solid State Society article cuts off the end.Lucia Black (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * But placing them together is the problem. Its straight from this lines:

Kusanagi: I'm surprised. Your thinking is so arrogant and self-righteous, yet you have so much drive. Being a bureaucrat is a waste of your talent. Plus, you know all about me... Who the hell are you?!

Puppeteer: You still haven't pieced it together? Come now, Motoko Kusanagi... Surely there can't be an overabundance of people dwelling within your memory, burning with this overwhelming egotistical rightfulness.

Puppeteer: We've synchronized with countless consciousnesses over the years. So, it shouldn't come as a big surprise that your deep collective subconscious came to life. And with it, the Solid State is complete. It's time for us to go forth. Let's become a vanishing mediator and go take an active hand in the next society.

Also... for the SSS article, I'll look for an unclosed ref tag... its usually the cause. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you clarify why you're quoting that? I already said I'm not denying that its not her subconscious. However, it doesn't contradict that they've merged (or became once for the second time). Her subconscious that recorded all the other consciousness she syncronized became a collective entity. Its like if an apple tree's apple grows into a tree and merges with its parent.Lucia Black (talk) 04:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It is no use arguing with you. The burden is on you to prove the Puppetmaster/Puppeteer are the same. Do not re-add it without citing it. I do not enjoy arguing with you. If you are not going to be serious then I'm through with you. I shouldn't have to waste my time explaining plot points to someone who claims to be more knowledgeable about it then I. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * A) He's only known as "Puppet Master" in the film, he is still referred to as "Puppeteer" in the manga. B) I am taking this seriously. You don't enjoy "discussing" because you hold a grudge. You're quick to call someone disruptive and a troll. You're quick to assume bad faith. C) And yes, I do know more about the topic than you. You've proven that time and time again.Lucia Black (talk) 04:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:NPA, What is a troll?. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

My essay covers your ad hominem tactics to avoid talking about the main issue at hand. So even though it ain't official, doesn't mean you're not using evasive discussion tactics. I made my point. Their both "The Puppeteer". Their both a form of evolution and both merged with the Major. Citing what a troll is not helping your case. I'm done.Lucia Black (talk) 05:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll repeat myself here. If there are factual errors in the prose, fix them. Just don't change the scope of the article.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 03:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It has been established you won't let me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 *  So long as you don't unilaterally change the scope of the article back to the franchise form, you have complete freedom to make the page factually accurate .— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 03:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean the original change supported by a majority that the three of us marginalized with our discussion? No, place the tag, because I do not want to fight. If you want to improve the article, then I will dictate the changes, but I am not going to risk 3RR. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just fix the mistakes yourself without altering the scope of the article.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 04:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Or if you are going to continue to be stubborn, at least explicitly state the changes that need to be made instead of just saying "this section has mistakes, that section has mistakes, etc.".— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 04:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That still hurts my feelings, I am not being stubborn for the sake of it, its like how Lucia said the Puppeteer was the villain of SSS instead of Motoko's subconscious. The plot is Oshii's though, start with that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What needs to be changed? Because all I did was remove some unnecessary side story stuff from the original version. Explicitly tell me what needs to be changed or I'm just going to listen to my friends from /m/.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 04:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Easy fixes
" led by protagonist Major Motoko Kusanagi, in the early 21st century of Japan." Aramaki.

"The world has also taken on vastly different forms, with Japan emerging from both a nuclear World War III and non-nuclear World War IV relatively unscathed, save for the loss of Tokyo and surrounding cities. The government's creation of a nuclear fallout scrubbing nanomachine called the "Japanese Miracle" gives the nation sway in the global sphere, with the American Empire, one of several nations to emerge after war has split the United States, vying for the technology to restore their nation to its former glory." GITS 2, canonicity dispute originally raised by Lucia way back.

The story runs the manga together and gives nothing outside of the main case.

"The first film Ghost in the Shell, written and directed by Mamoru Oshii, generally follows the Puppet Master plot of the first manga The Ghost in the Shell, but the interpretation of characters is slightly different." Very much different is more like it, the comedic tones and rebellious nature is lost.

" Its sequel Innocence is an original story inspired by a chapter from The Ghost in the Shell." - Might as well use the reported AE account with Robot Rondo.

"although a similarly named entity appears in the made-for-TV movie." - Sorta... Kanji is different and translation matters, but I don't know about the subconscious link here. Or the Noble Rot matter.

The plot misses the other works, Man/Machine Interface should really be covered in full. The forty page matter as 'episode' is accurate but underscored and confusing with SAC and other works. Clarify. Though that's the simple stuff. The reception you know how to fix it with AE's coverage and that is a RS. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The Major is still the main character, so this is really nit-picky
 * It's still a general part of the setting that I'm finding all over
 * The plot section only needs to be a base summary not a full summarization so I ignored any side cases as they are not important per WP:SS
 * Okay, so remove the word "slightly"
 * It's not important to say what chapter it is
 * Over all, it's not that important to include that much detail on the main article. What do you mean AE's coverage though? AnimeEncyclopedia?— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 06:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much
Thanks for your helpful source suggestion for additional references at the new article I've created, Urofsky v. Gilmore. Much appreciated, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Lolicon/Shotacon
Do you have a reliable source that places these under the Hentai genre? Yes there are lolicon anime and manga that are considered hentai per sources but as for the word lolicon its-self I don't think so. Also it is not disruptive to remove projects that are out of the article's scope, I gave a reason in my edit summary which you never answered. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This has already been addressed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI venue
Chris, by telling Bunny "ANI is a dice roll", aren't you in fact conveying to him that ANI was an okay choice of venue for his concern? (When it clearly isn't?) Please explain. (I've seen numerous Admins in numerous ANIs inform users that content issues are not venue for ANI, only behavior issues requiring immedidate Admin intervention. Are you saying they have been wrong about it?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Content issues can, have and will been resolved at ANI despite it being for conduct matters. The reason? Policy is cited as by Nyttend and it supplements talk page discussion when brought up. So while it is not ideal, it is valid and issues with that decision would be no different from the talk page, but when the person makes an ad hom attack questioning your qualification its more likely that WP:BOOMERANG would apply. The opening post contains it, and you are not being very civil yourself which is probably why the ad hom is being avoided because both of you are getting emotionally involved and puffing up for a battle. ANI is not perfect, it never will be, but two wrongs don't make a right. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You've got to be kidding. I have read countless times Administrators reminding editors they were inappropriately going to ANI with content issues, closing the threads on that basis after giving said reminder what ANI is for, what it is not for, and what venues deal with their issues. Are you unilaterally re-constructing the purpose of ANI venue? On what basis? Because the venue has many times alreay been misused? (Or on what other basis if not that? Can you show me in policy or guideline that content issues are appropriate for ANI as a "supplement to article Talk pages"?) For the record, I never felt at all the user "questioning [my] qualifications" as being anything at all, because the user was clearly confused and perplexed, least of all a PA. You are the only one saying that. (And why are you?) So the BOOMERANG thing you mentioned, is completely baseless, no one is thinking or saying that, it is completely your solitary idea. (And why?) You are missing something here ... I was accused of making "persistent [revert] deletes" at ANI. No one has found it appropriate to examine how it might make me feel having an ANI thread opened to sanction me based on complete nonsense and false accusation. No one sees it fit to see the incivility of that. No one sees that being on receiving end of a false accusation, and the subject of an ANI thread for many eyes to see, that is totally mistaken, might at least deserve an immediate close of the thread, and an apology. No, no, no. Instead, it is better course for you to take my question here, on the purpose and proper use of ANI, and use it to threaten me. "Puffing up for a battle"? What are you talking about? I have no interactions with that user, save one revert, and anticipate none either, since the user is clearly averse to using Talk, user or article. And the content matters have already been enumerated by other users, so there are no words I would even consider necessary to have with that user. "Puffing up for battle"?! That is amazing. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * From WP:ANI: "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." (How does that translate to handling content disputes, Chris, especially a content disupte where there was no article or user Talk page interaction -- none?) The fact Admins have reminded users they were in appropriately coming to ANI because ANI is not a venue for their concerns, and then you now have defended telling a user it is okay to bring a content dispute to ANI ... How can both be right, Chris? Are they all wrong in your estimation? If you like, I can name several Administrators who have instructed users their opening threads at ANI was not proper venue and so inappropriate, and sending them elsewhere. Would you like to have a discussion with them and tell them they are wrong? Because it would be nice, oh so nice, to have a little consistency here. You are contributing to the inconsistency, that ANI is a "free-for-all" (including any content issues with or without any discussion having first been attempted), and that is why I opened this item here on your Talk. (Do you really think somehow that I'm in error or wrong? Becasue I would really like to have my understanding corrected about the purpose of ANI, I thought this was clear at the top of that board in the doc there, but apparently, you have a more accurate view? How does that happen? And if you are right, Chris, then how are users to know, when the doc on the board is missive, and many Administrators have told users they were misapplying the purpose of ANI with the threads they have opened there.)


 * Apparently you see things consistent here. Do you really think your view of conduct issues being okay at ANI clears my understanding of it? Or do you think it might add to the confusion, and indicate to me that you are very wrong in your understanding, or the other Administrators are very wrong, or there is complete chaos, and know what is wrong, and there *are no rules*? (What?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion of my warning template was not done before it went to ANI, as it should be, but rather then argue on procedure and such, I fess up with my mistake and apologize. Consistency is preferred but disobedience to technical procedures seldom warrant removing the issue from ANI. Wikipedia is part chaos, Wikipedia is part bureaucracy; no different then the real world. Transparency does not mean coherency either. While content disputes are best left off ANI, it has come up before and for the simple reason that a content dispute slips into behavior of the revert. It may not make sense and may be excessive, but ANI gets other eyes on it, problems like the one I alluded to in ANI have been going on for more then 4 months and has even been through WP:DRN. Is it fixed, no, but describing how ANI works and how it relates to each and every case is the job of someone with more experience. Clear cut edit wars are behavior (3RR), but slow and persistent disputes not breaking any fine lines are subject to relevant boards. ANI is the 'immediate' board and that often means actions on things that can't wait for 24 hours to get its first response. ANI is the 'drama board' of Wikipedia; and that reputation will be affirmed by almost every editor who frequents it, participant or otherwise. Discussion of what it is and why, are not so important as what it is'. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I'm having hard time understanding your answer. (So badly, it seems to me you might be replying to someone else, and not to me.) I don't know what warning template you're referring to, I don't know what mistake you're apologizing for. Does it take a "technical procedure" to follow & undestand that "ANI is not a venue for dispute resolution issues"!? Because "Wikipedia is part chaos", does it mean the header to the WP:ANI board is unaccountable jibberish!? Does it mean "Hey! Interpret anything the way you want, 'cause there are no rules or protocols here and we make it up as we go along ... nothing is inappropriate"!? "Problems like the one I alluded to in ANI" -- I have no idea what you are referring to. "How ANI works and how it relates to each and every case is the job of someone with more experience". My gosh that sounds complex, so "ANI is not a venue for dispute resolution issues" is not something that can be discussed, because it would take an expert to discuss that!? "Discusson of what it is and why are not so important as what it is". So we get to do whatever we want, there are no rules or protocol, and we can take the header off the WP:ANI board now, because it tends to say things, and hey! we circumvent them because we wanna!? Sorry, this is all Alice-in-Wonderland stuff, nothing is as it seems, and nothing seems as it is. I'm just wondering why confuse all the new users, and the users who like to obey the protocols, with nonsense at the top of the WP:ANI board then?! Is all of this supposed to make any sense whatever, to a fairly clear-thinking individual?! Because it doesn't. And I am. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ANI is not ideal system and will deal with things out of procedure and even if it shouldn't deal with such things. ANI is just a board for editors and admins, what happens on it is not like a court case, but more like a forum. And I got sent there today as well, as you can see. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Chris, I didn't read the specifics of the ANI thread against you, so I don't know the particulars. But I did see there that you apologized, and admitted to doing something wrong. For my thread, I did nothing wrong to arrive at ANI, and so have nothing to apologize for. My grievance here is *how* ANI is being used. (For a mistaken, non-discussed content disupte? As in my case?) You say the ANI is "not ideal system", but there was plently of time for Admins to usher the complaining user to a different venue, and inform him that he attempted no disucssions at article or user Talks, which are prerequiste to opening an ANI thread. That fact that I somewhat believed after hearing out of mouths of numerous Admins at ANI, not only Dennis Brown, that "ANI is venue of last resort" and ANI is for emergencies, not for content issues, and the like, is a betrayal of sorts. (Why have Admins gone thru the motion of saying that stuff, that gunk, when it is fiction, opinion, and no consensus or policy or protocol is agreed, as to proper use, or improper use of that venue??) What you are telling me is there are no rules here, so anyone who would tell me there are, should be told firmly they are totally wrong, and to quit preaching fiction in order to manipulate someone to behaving how they want. All of this "lack of rules" stuff in this environment leads to stuff like Malleus being voted for sanctions, as the result of a "Clarification" request at Arbcom. There are no rules here. Just traps and tricks if one is stupid enough to believe when someone ways there is process here that the community follows. I bring up consistency to Dennis Brown, and he turns it personal, presumably as escapist to not think about it, not reply, and to not see and acknowldge maybe there is a problem with definition and process, and no consistency, and inherent confusion caused by the WP:ANI board instructions at the top of the page, or with Admins and contributing editors interpreting those instructions any which way they want. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * While ANI is supposed to be a last resort, I got taken to ANI after placing the warning and WITHOUT discussion. Which is why I mentioned it, it was not ideal and was out of process, but it doesn't change that actions can still occur. ANI is serious, but it is chaotic, you don't want to wind up there or make a scene. It is public and it bypasses of all other DRN processes. It is what it is. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * In relation to the ANI report - I agree with Knowledgekid87 that edits like this are not constructive. Please read over NPA if necessary. Also, templating a user who calls you out on a personal attack is equally nonconstructive. Don't do that again, please. Regards, m.o.p  19:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't just for that. That's false, continued removal of the Wikiprojects tags was the real issue. I warned before, but I forgot to tag him. It isn't tit for tat. I'll remove it now, though.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. m.o.p  19:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Was bad context on my part... so many of the yuri and yaoi works were avoided carefully by me on my tagging run, I intended a formal warning to follow up my posting at WP:ANIME because the way in which they were done concealed them from notification. Probably unintentional on his part, but all I can do is apologize now, even if he didn't disclose is involvement in the dispute and active role, the misunderstanding is still a misunderstanding. And its my fault for templating it.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Merging Pearson Language Tests
Hello, ChrisGualtieri. You recently nominated Pearson Test of English Academic, PTE General, and PTE Young Learners for deletion via AfD. But in each case your nomination suggests that what you would really like is to merge the content to Pearson Language Tests. The merger seems like a good idea. However, AfD is not the place to propose mergers; Proposed mergers exists for that purpose, and less controversial mergers can be handled without nomination, perhaps facilitated by discussion on the article talk page. It might be appropriate to withdraw the three AfD nominations if you are not actually looking for deletion. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 05:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have merged some of the content, but there was some concern about them possibly passing N, so I wanted the community to get involved. They have existed for years and do make claims of notability. Since I have merged the content already, I do think they are fine to delete. But yes, I wonder if I should withdraw them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Untitled
Hi Chris,

I see you've been going around putting "Untitled" section headings at the tops of talk pages, when the talk page started without sections. Um ... why? I'm not going to revert, because that would be just as pointless, but it's a little annoying to see my watchlist churn for this sort of thing. --Trovatore (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The comment sections should have there own sub header, and I am also removing vandalism, like this and this From the pages. I don't intend to 'churn', but some of them have really messed up the flow of banners and those should be collapsed, others switch and swap places and conversations should not come up before the Wikiproject banners for instance. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * To Chris: (1) Do not put the talk page archives into a section of talk as you did at Talk:Continuum hypothesis. I reverted you there, but do not do it again. (2) A section header of "Untitled" is not helpful. If you want to add a section header (as I have often done), then look at the subject discussed and make a title specific to that subject. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I am sorry for the mistake, I thought I had skipped that one; AWB tries to autofix it because the section does not have a sub heading. I've replaced it with the archive box as usual. Next time, will you please not call me a sockpuppet and actually discuss this before you assume bad faith and call me a blocked user. That is not civil and you wouldn't like me calling you a sock puppet of a banned user. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I have never used AWB. Were that program not responsible, it would be a very remarkable coincidence to have two different people make exactly that same mistaken edit. I am sorry that you were inconvenienced. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted. Thanks, I'm going to fix the archive issues in the future with the archive box. And actually, the 'mistaken edit' part is more common then you think in main space. I've had to modify many a math article or computer code article to avoid code and weird words that are not a typo. Hence why the not a typo wraps exist. Its a useful program, but I am most certainly not Rich. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for resolving the dispute at Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. I am quite an old editor at wiki with more than 1600 edits. I have been involved in various projects. Recently I am having certain troubles. Soham321 who had brought the earlier mentioned dispute, has constantly been stalking my Contributions page. At several discussions at talk pages he has been using bad language against me and alleging me of being biased. In fact sometimes he has accused me of being biased for few pages, for fighting vandalism at which, I have been praised. He constantly keeps visiting my contributions page and keep making disruptive edits at those pages which is troubling me in making edits. Once he was even blocked for such action which involved him reverting my edits. He edits almost all pages I edit where he finds that his political issue is involved which I may not name at present. I am sure he shall be continuing this and would also be reading this present post. Is there any place I can complain this at or prevent him from accessing my page? Any help shall be very helpful. Thank You--Mohit Singh (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no way to prevent a user from reading a page, Wikipedia is transparent except in very special circumstances. I do not know enough about India to become a major editor in that region, but I able to assist as needed. If an editor makes unwanted and disruptive talk page comments on YOUR page, it is best to revert the comments and avoid replying at all. Do not feed the fire, essentially. If it becomes a problem RFC/U is an option. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC/U
So, how to do it? --Niemti (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Guidance and read everything. I do not want to give you a short version because you need to know exactly what it means in full detail. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

RE: A Wikiproject can tag ANY article...
FigureArtist (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The tag was placed by an anonymous IP user, so I do not understand calling this a Wikiproject action.
 * 2) I see a "porn" tag as an unsubstantiated opinion. Anyone with the opinion nude=porn can add this tag to a fine art article, e.g. Michelangelo's David?
 * It would be outside of the scope of the project, I think. Nude photography is the basic underlying element of photographic pornography. While you could argue that David is an erotic sculpture of sorts based on its realism, their is no controversy claiming it to be pornographic. Nude photography DOES carry that association and stigma; why compare to a famous statue serves to detract from the more obvious connection. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose that, rather than reading only the title and assuming the content, anyone might actually read the article? The title is Nude photography, but the content is fine art (90% of which I contributed), hence the name change request so that my efforts will not have been in vain.FigureArtist (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because you added to the article doesn't mean you should rename or move the page or remove wikiproject tags. Improvements are fine, but SEX is on there because it covers an aspect of sexuality as a broad medium. PORN is valid because nude photography is often considered pornography and while often lacking explicit nature, is a form that appears as such, internationally. Idols being a popular form which nude photography often is attributed as plain pornography even if clothed, so the definition is broad and the article is not always fair. It'd be easier to have a fine art section, medical section and of course pornography section as these are aspects of nude photography. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

SEPERATE ISSUE BUT ONLY PLACE I CAN POST IT
ANI related I am writing here, to say beyond any words of your "users" that have lied to you and to me about me. I am Giovanni Strassini, I have NEVER-EMPHASIS ADDED, added a thing to your site. your "gnomes" and "sock" chasers, added my name back when all I did was remove it from your site! This is 100% truth, and I have proof through many attempts I did not add anything here. I can speak to anyone of authority to show this neyond even your "users" what I am saying is truth. F.T.C complaints, F.C.C complaints, NC Attorney General complaints and CMPD complaints, started by myself againt the true name identity theft I was victim of, from 2000, until now. user JohnInDC, lies. I have never made an edit to ADD things to your siter, only to remove my name!!! I asked him, bender235, and materialscientist to stop adding my name or even use my name on your site. I removed it and THEY, NOT ME, added it back. I did NOT threaten legal action, I priomised it if they did not stop lying about me and re-adding my name here. That is MY RIGHT, AND PRIVACY LAWS PREVAIL. I can be contacted through this site if given contact info where I can provide it back to you. I have nothing to hide, only your "users" that have lioed do. They showed what others did, and then claimed falsely it was me. Lies and libel. − I make this statement under the penalty of perjury of the United States of America and deem this to be true and correct=Giovanni Strassini − The IP addresses were at least 4 used in this and only one shared PC was used by myself here. This should stand as warning to the over-zealous "users" and abuses they can perpetrate on innocent people such as myself. Allow me to remove my name or do so yourself. Keep honesty at the front, and you will not have problems like this in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.131.150 (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I direct you to WP:OTRS. That is the place to bring up most sensitive matters and they will need to verify your identify and understand the background. I'm not even related to this matter, but quite clearly the IP added it here and you claimed it was yours and removed the names here. You inserted false material into Wikipedia and when discovered started threatening legal action. You are now evading your blocks and lying to me, a third party, about this. I'm not a representative of Wikipedia and I am a volunteer who commented on this matter at ANI. That's all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

you are the liar. i told your users named already i am pursuimg legal action. i have and am, i stand by my statement i never added any information to wiki, and it was done from a multi-user area and not me. you calling me a liar will come back to haunt you. untrue statements that harm are recoverable. you are a fiduciary of wiki and therefore make wikimedia liable. i copied and pasted all your statements including the "award" given to johnindc and all the wiki guys bragging about spreading the lies. you are the liar and one who jumps to wrongful and harmful conclusions based on others lies to you. a reckless disregard for the truth will not stop the theft of pictures and hijacking accounts and mass spreading of lies to harm only. bender-john-material-yourself are all part and parcel to the harm that cannot be undone. i can prove i never added information here, you have an ip address used by thousands. get the point now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.218.250.83 (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello, I'm 70.19.122.39. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Horus Heresy (novels) because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please note also section reasoning for reverting edits of 2013/05/16 in that article's talk page. Thank you. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read WP:OWN. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=556114007 your edit] to Ero guro may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=556358680 your edit] to Akiba Girls may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

Foundation Pit by Platonov
Hi friend, I noticed you reverted my edit on Platonov's Foundation Pit in the 'Genre' category back to 'historical fiction'. I do not know whether you have read the novel, but it is in no way a piece of historical fiction, considering Platonov was writing about his own time, not the past. Moreover, Platonov is not a realist writer, as are most writers of historical fiction, but a modernist, even surrealist, writer. Most importantly, Foundation Pit does not meet the criteria detailed on the 'historical fiction' page. Although I believe '(meta)utopianism' to be the best genre for the novel (itself a form of 'meta-parody'), another option could be 'satirical socialist realism'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wearebasiclight (talk • contribs) 21:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah okay. Thanks for the explanation. I'm restoring it now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Resort Boin
Just came across this one I think you may have overlooked. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh? Oh. For tagging? I'm still working on other things, I'll go ahead and tag it. It has nice coverage at JA wiki to. Might be easier to improve. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes just for tagging, I saw reliable sources for it as well and can see improvement potential in it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks! I've been trying to compile a list of websites, but the Japanese papers do not keep the content around forever it seems. Archives are going to be necessary for a good amount of things. I was just cleaning up a few other issues. I was thinking that for the small publishers, we should start articles on them and move the questionable ones into them instead of deleting the content, a few not tagged do not seem to warrant the GNG... even in Japan. But it is really difficult to figure out which is which at this early point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

 * Awesome! I joined up. This looks fun! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yay! I'm so happy to see you did. Let me know if you need help with anything. I created a huge to-do list, which will continue to grow as WDL adds new content to their website almost weekly. You can find the general to-do list here. I know you're into mythology and by doing a simple search on the WDL website I found 49 results. So you might find something that strikes your fancy here. Thanks for all you do for Wikipedia and I can't wait to see your outcomes for WDL!! SarahStierch (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Islamism
There's a RfC at Talk:Islamism you may be interested in --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, commented there with a solution for the future. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
SarahStierch (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you want to be administrator ChrisGualtieri?
Hi, Chris. I saw that you were blocked on accident and concerned of RfA. Well, I've decided that if you accept, then I'd like to nominate you. You'd be a great admin. Even if it fails the first time, wait 6-15 months and then try again. Thanks. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 02:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would like to. I'm a very policy oriented person and a wikignome of sorts. My focus would be on administrative backlogs like WP:FTCG, merges, undeletions and improving that content with access to Highbeam and Questia as graciously given to me through Ocaasi's work. I would like to be the subject of mentoring and branching out, I do work at WP:DRN and have been a frequent commentator at WP:ANI. I'm a bit of an idealist and a real janitor type; most of my administrative work would be on reviewing undeletion requests and working on improving them a recent example would be Ashen Empires which was just undeleted the other day, but I decided to spare 45 minutes to add and improve content with some sources so it wouldn't be PRODed again. I am in a bit of dispute with Lucia Black; so that may hurt me, but I'm improving as a person and as an editor all the time. I wish to be more like Dennis Brown and MBisanz. I'm not one to block; and I don't intend to ever use that right as an admin despite my work with vandalism patrol. Not sure if that makes me weird, but my ideal functions are housekeeping, peaceful dispute resolution and assisting editors. Even today I started Codex Huamantla and helped an IRC editor get Robert Mustard (martial artist) in line with Wikipedia's policies, only to have the lack of admin rights mess up the move because of the existing redirect. I'll be a boring, but useful admin at least. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool. I'll nominate you tommorow when I'm on my computer, since I'm currently on my iPod. Thanks. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 02:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This all moves so quickly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Given Lucia Black's personal crusade; she asserts that I act in bad-faith, call her edits bad-faith and call her a troll; despite it being completely false as seen in this conversation. After addressing the deliberately false information she reinserted and proving beyond any doubt it was false, Lucia tried to brush the matter off as she was right to do so. I simply asked for her to be serious, which she accuses me or her being a NPA and a troll. I countered by simply pointing out the page by listing the policy and that essay; because Lucia doesn't even know the meaning of the word troll and still doesn't understand WP:NPA. Same as she doesn't understand what "in a nutshell", "consensus", and what "notability"(as in WP:N) mean. Just as I had to point out not only her insertion of material was knowingly false, it was disruptive to reinsert and try and justify that indefensible position. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Youve accused me of a troll in the past out of mere opposition. You use NPA when it best suits you, but it doesnt stop you from making erroneous claims such as me not understanding notability, in a nutshell and several other things. Even if you bring up a thousand situations where my judgement was wrong, the one who has done the most disruption is you. An admin wont start an edit war, wont be quick to use NPA, or call an editor a troll. And im ralking about several discussions when you did.Lucia Black (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That is false. You did this to RexxS. Here is one accusing me.  You brought it up, you started it. You do not even know what a 'troll' is. Judging your previous confusion over policies and terms like "in a nutshell", its plainly obvious you aren't a troll. We may disagree, but I have never called you a troll. I think action is in order because you are actually spreading false information to attack me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Brunging up a discussion where you didnt isnt helping your case. MOST of the issues were I the ghost in the shell article. And I know im not the only editor to know how disruptive you can be.Lucia Black (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, first - since the reputation of the nominator is very important in an RFA, WT101 probably should be waiting at least a couple of years/5,000 edits before suggesting to nominate anyone. Second, Chris, I'd have to say that your posting at ANI probably torpedoed any chance in the next 12 months ... certainly not the tone/style/levelheadedness one would be looking for in an admin candidate (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 18:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the comment. I do think I need some mentoring and I want to be instructed. I suppose I could alter the tone to improve it, I do see it is a bit rough in places. DRN failed and I was preparing for RFC/U, but it is deeply concerning that Lucia Black is allowed to make blatant personal attacks time and time again after being explicitly warned about it. Given the dozens of instances, and the lengthy failed discussions, I simply do not know what to do with Lucia Black. I've asked numerous times for advice, and have done the best I can to defuse the situation, even begging for cooperation. I don't want the tools for blocking or anything; I just want to handle the administrative backlogs for things like FTCG. I really could use mentoring; because this is the single biggest issue I've ever had on Wikipedia by quite a large margin. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I dont think Chris should be made and administrator. Hed abuse his authority and attack other editors as he has with User:Lucia BlackKuroiNekoko-chan (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

DBZ
The closed RFC at WP:VPP does not in any way mean that it overturns any prior consensuses. You still need to form a proper consensus to restore the content which you do not have. The fact that you requested someone formally close it so it has an air of officiality is really telling of your intentions as well.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 06:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Gosei (Japanese diaspora)
It appears that you have copy-pasted a response to this AFD from the other AFDs on articles by the same user under the concern that other pages were suggested to be deleted as they are dictionary definitions. This is not the case for this particular article. I would implore you to properly assess this article instead of just disagreeing because you saw a pattern of edits.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 01:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

As a courtesy, I have mentioned your name while raising this issue at WP:ANI under the title "AFDs not being properly considered due to assumption of bad faith".— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 01:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Clearly it was an error; the cites I pointed to directly went to "mountain out of a molehill" instead of Gosei. Just like how I proved notability for delegitimization; each AFD post was specific to the article and came with unique sources and comments. Your assumption of bad faith is itself bad faith; I don't see how your accusation even remotely applies to me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Petrus Albinus
Chris, no problem - good that you were able to replace it. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/George Colby
Snuck your comment back in there. Mkdw talk 20:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I wrote it while it was open on my end and didn't see the close. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
{||}

Nicoleta Luca-Meițoiu
Hello Chris, I understand that you had to delete the above mentioned page due to lack of references. Yesterday I found references of her artistic biography in the following book: Maria Georgeta Popescu - Musicology studies vol IV, Iași, PIM Publishing House, 2009, ISBN 978-973-716-524-4, p. 17 and in Romanian Impact Magazine, Year: 3 - No.7 (30) October 2003, Center Focus Publishing, Niles, Illinois, USA, ISSN 1532-9852, p.5 (both in Romanian). Is it possible to restore the page? I also found on Youtube an excerpt of Mozart's concert No.23 played by her with the Pitesti Philharmonic Orchestra. Other excerpts on her Facebook page. Thank you, RodicaB (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I opted for userify because the page was best suited to be worked on; which would have meant putting it back into the sandbox; but I cannot view either article; if you could provide a scanned copy, perhaps it will meet GNG and the page can be recreated. Both sources would probably have to be 250-500+ words about Luca-Meitoiu. I found a minor source here and one which backs it up as well. I think its very close to GNG, but because of the history, we need more proof of GNG to ensure it remains. Let me know; I cannot dig up too much, but a few good sources or one great source can change everything. Just right now; it doesn't seem to "exist" for AFD, which I disagree with in practice, but its not my decision. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see the references from the article in German Wiki and in Romanian Wiki.

I have the printed references (book and magazine) in my hands. What shall I do next? Thanks,RodicaB The page is Nicoleta Luca Meițoiu RodicaB (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a scanner to scan the document so other people can confirm the source? If you do, then I'd probably recreate the page, add all the sources and provide the scan to anyone questioning its existance. You could also go the WP:DRV and ask for it to be undeleted, I'd support that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have a scanner (HP 4110 deskjet all-in-one) but only for A4 pages. I'll try in the next days to get a scan from that page and covers. RodicaB (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

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? Thanks, RodicaB (talk) 11:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiLove...
It pleases me to see young people so obviously in love. Happy days! And good deeds never go unpunished. Drmies (talk) 05:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh!? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I was referring, obliquely, to your valiant attempt to make peace with Lucia Black... Drmies (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah. Arguing is useless, so I hope we can work together. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Dew (politician)
Do you have sources for the birthdate/birthplace you just added? Articles like this have a tendency to pile up unsourced bits of stuff over time, and eventually they turn into a mass of uncertainty. Thanks. Rklear (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Its in the info box; probably in the main source, and its circa 1600. The Dew family seems to use that date as well in their history. Was just basically matching the infobox to the category that's all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Possible hit for 1603... but not positive. I'd need the national archives to confirm anything like this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You added both the category and the infobox. I wrote the original stub from the only cited source, and it had no birth information at all. I still don't understand. Rklear (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. I added the data from the infobox to the Persondata template and updated the category. The information was already present in the infobox prior to this; I merely updated the category and persondata to reflect the infobox. If the infobox is somehow wrong; then it is apt to remove them from both the persondata and category field. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I see it now. Some IP added the unsourced birth info in January. I'll take it all out. Sorry about that. Rklear (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The information may not be wrong; but the information is again... old and in archives. But for accuracy I guess that 1600 circa would be best. He also appears to have held the rank of Colonel. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * One more for that title. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

AWB: powerful but sometimes wrong
Your recent change to James Kelley using AWB was incorrect. AWB is powerful but sometimes wrong. I know, because I have made incorrect changes myself, which my talk page confirms. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone screwed it up. The code is: Bbad|58|1991|5|14 Which messed it up. Let me try and fix this; I've seen it on a few before with 2013 and 2012's but skipped them, must have hit the wrong key for this one. Thanks for letting me know; EVERY awb pass will hit this until it is fixed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll bring it up to the devs of AWB, it seems that it is reading the code at 1991 for the birthday when it is saying he was 58 in 1991, or that's what I think. An inaccurate measurement, but something AWB needs to be able to handle properly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Category order
Hi Chris, your AWB edit to Brett Reid put the birth category after the living people category; they should really be the other way around. Graham 87 01:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of that; its not even in the General fixes matter; I added a category that didn't exist. AWB's placement is usually a bit anal anyways, but I cannot find any requirement of category order. This does not follow the case on thousands of other articles including FAs were such practices would be common. To prove my point, AWB organizes interwiki outgoing links. If categories applied, I'm sure it would do that as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not really codified, but it's standardized (that's the way the cats are ordered in most articles). Perhaps I'm the only one who really cares about logical and standard category order, as I've previously suspected. Graham 87 15:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Start something on MOS for it? I've gotten pushback for actual genfixes (as below) despite them all being approved by MOS and citation parameters. Sometimes things seem trivials, but enhance the professional appearance and flow of Wikipedia. Referencing reordering so they don't come in [25][26][17][27] order or 51,7 may seem a bit trivial, but its a simple fix to make a GA better in preparation for an FA. The order of categories are arguably more trivial because they are subject to change and HotCat and other tools add or subtract without bias. When I make books from Wikipedia the errors I am correcting do show up in the hard copies, so that's why the professionalism bit gets held up higher then the undisclosed category order. I recently went and did the Pokemon book which is 924 pages long and found literally hundreds of errors which I've been addressing with a genfix run. Broken parameters on the pokemon which ends up altering it into " 3 in" for the measurements. Others have broken templates which shouldn't be active or appear; like Weight: lb . These kinds of issues won't be fixed by AWB either, but some of them can be. So if you are concerned; research how things affect distribution and appearance and with proper backing it might make it into MOS-AM, and eventually into a gen fix. I sorta doubt it, but the idea and drive to explore it is what counts. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

AWB
Chris, you're spamming my watchlist with "useless" edits like   , etc., etc. Please reconsider your skipping threshold. Materialscientist (talk) 04:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine, I go back to just the b/d cats for right now; I skipped many of these pages over a hundred times manually, once they are fixed they are off the CHECKWIKI and the gen fixes don't need to be performed again. There is no way to really address the problem without alerting your watchlist; perhaps you could hit your own watchlist and fix the broken brackets in the process? I'd like to fix these problems and move on, completely. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked through the archives and found that the gen fixes I am making do impact the page and are proper; as mentioned above, referencing order, citation templates and such should definitely be fixed on GA, FA and core articles. Here's the brief run though: Actinide was Reforder on 51, 7. Bird was Reforder on 11, 8. Bridge was reorder template, and to correct an issue with citation as per Template:Citation. Berkelium - Ref order again [25][26][17][27] Brunei - First is minor whitespace(skipped if alone), fix punc/ref, fix link whitespace, and fix citation templates for journal. Now that these issues have been corrected they won't show up in future offline versions and will appear better in the Wikibooks. It is also very likely that I will not be touching the articles again for many months. I do have avoid whitespace and casing changes as part of the gen fix options; the issues actually were beyond the "cosmetic" fixes as well because they imparted changes to MOS compliance. I don't want to cause a bunch of drama, but I like doing this kind of work and correcting the broken brackets and other issues that go with the fixes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Proper? Chris, don't take me wrong, I do not want to sound unfriendly or threatening at all, but repeating such edits will eventually result in revocation of your AWB license. Materialscientist (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I explained the above edits before; I've been addressing in the articles and the gen fixes help standardize and address issues. I've skipped some of these articles hundreds of times before; and I'm not going to use AWB's auto summaries before I continue to work on the pages. I'll fix broken brackets and stuff in that edit, but no more. I don't know why this bothers you so much. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And don't think this is me being hostile; but I have a clear pattern of improving the articles that I go through by this; whether it be adding sources and tinkering with wordings and such, expanding content or addressing concerns. I felt that the original issue was resolved in British English so I removed that old tag; (the Proper English) matter was removed as well. I did this Barbara Olson and added a source and some tweaks. I did this with Bodybuilding as well. I am not out for edit count or something frivolous; I'm trying to improve Wikipedia and if some of these issues are never fixed then they will remain. Fixing them solves that problem; I won't return to those pages again without valid reason. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. In my last post I am referring to this edit (and similar, which I see going through your edits). Materialscientist (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Adding sources and other information do not fall under the semi-auto edit summary of AWB. I'm not saying every edit is pure gold, but I've pointed out that the last ones you were concerned with had rationals and a reason. I don't particularly like updating the templates or reorganizing them as they seem a bit weird for me as well; but I've set AWB to avoid cosmetic fixes and it still hits things like this. Some of it may be related to voice readers; parsing or whatever issues. I didn't even know that some of the changes were important like the anchor for Harvard until I realized they actually cause issues with Wikibook collection. Thanks for beating me to the Abraham Darby matter, also. But I do not know how to best address edits in AWB when I follow them up with manual edits. I don't think AWB auto-summary with "possible manual additions" is a proper. As is, I avoid the math articles because I don't want to attempt and fix the math coding without breaking something else. All the -1's and such AWB tries to alter and I have to skip them and other cases. Perhaps the issue is because I don't understand how this bugs you so much; I researched "why" the last edits were supported by MOS, so I thought the issue was addressed given the past discussions by other users on this subject. If I did them without AWB; it'd still be the same, result. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I got an idea. Please check this edit. I manually removed the bracket issue and the skip if "only cosmetic changes are made" actually hit on the page for fixing that spacing matter. While really small; it seems that this edit impacts readers and the HTML matter as per AWB; so I always address the brackets when I can as well. Could you give me your thoughts? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Of the first 5 examples given by Materialscientst, 3 of 5 were inconsequential (don't say "useless"). These should not have been done. #9 did fix a broken bracket. #12 did move punctuation from after to before the ref. #10 is in a gray area. It did fix the comma in a date. In this instance, I wouldn't have done it, but I could see arguments for it.

Only looking at the last 50 edits done by Chris, over 1/2 were inconsequential. The most common was only renaming a template, such as cn -> citation needed. Going further back to the 13th, I see mostly good edits, but there is a higher rate of inconsequential edits that would make a liberal/conservative AWB rule interpreter give pause. If the edits only rename a template or move a wikilink from hemispherical to hemispherical, don't do it. Bgwhite (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

AfD talk
Hey man, I noticed that you also supported deletion at Articles for deletion/Salaf in favor of Nikah Mut'ah after Muhammad. What's happening now is that some other users have suggested scavenging such articles - there are maybe a dozen - and forming one main article from what can be kept instead of deleting all of them entirely. Please take a look at my talk page and tell us what you think; the idea might have some promise. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Operation Red Hat
I noticed that you put a factual accuracy dispute tag on the Operation Red Hat entry. Can you be specific as to which facts are in dispute? Thank youJohnvr4 (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Umm no; I don't need to, the issue is raised at AFD. The factual accuracy of the article in it dispute and the mere issue of WP:TNT points that problems may be so ingrained that delete and create may be required. Its not shared by one or two editors either. The tag is valid because even cut down to 1/2 size the likelyhood of problems remaining is great as noted at the AFD. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject AFC needs your help... again
 WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive! The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from July 1st, 2013 – July 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive. There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code cleanup, and more page cleanups. If you want to see a full list of changes, go to WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. Delivered at 13:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC) by EdwardsBot (talk), on behalf of WikiProject AFC

CN v Citation needed
I note that in Little River, South Carolina you have expanded templates to the full text. This makes no difference to the appearance of the text on the page - is there any reason I should be using the full text rather than the abbreviation? If not, what is the purpose of expanding the text? Arjayay (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I hit upon the typo in the article, but general fixes have preference for full templates for clarity and ease of use, even though they do not render differently on the reading page. If you can, I'd use it, but I wouldn't be troubled by it. Those additional changes are really minor by themselves and general consensus is that they should be fixed only when other issues are. So I wouldn't worry about it at all. Actually, that page really needs a bit of a copyedit, but I don't know how to address it myself. It just reads poorly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks - just wanted to be sure I wasn't doing anything wrong. Arjayay (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

And we're off!
Reminded them about local consensus, which covers all of their arguments so far. I say arguments, its not really an argument so much as 'Well its been like this way forever.' Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the tactic that they use to prevent changes and tire editors out; they have no argument and expect opposing alone will make it appear that their is actually a reason to prevent creation of the page. N and GNG, SIZE and DETAIL are all important and when I read them the policy, Ryulong becomes irate with comments like, "You don't have to start quoting shit at me either. I've been here long enough." and upset with my calls that we root arguments in policy. Their argument is IDHT and WP:JDLI. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I was a bit flabbergasted by the tactic of 'Consensus can change' then when I point out that consensus has clearly changed, he switched to 'those editors dont matter'. That is textbook IDHT. My opinion? Take the article live, remove the re-direct (For dragonball Z) and go from there. Its not a CSD as its not previously deleted material, and its been substantially re-written anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll probably do that later; but what do I do when he reverts it back off as he's done before. He wouldn't discuss it on the talk page and he's distinctly in the minority (including Lucia Black) and lacking any argument against N or GNG. I'll probably throw some more refs and work into the article before I make it live... just to deal with the issues he already presented. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your decision of course :) But my understanding is that where the article exists you cant have a redirect away from its title unless the article itself is deleted. I have said my piece there but its not really getting through to either of them. As an aside, I have just watched the first 10 episodes of 'Attack on Titan', its turning out quite good. But I do like a quasi-military dictatorship, when you throw in giants biting people in half, I am sold. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to have made their IDHT that obvious and proven that their is no valid reason to prevent creation at this point; they can fix the perceived flaws when it goes live. There is no rule that an article has to be perfect before it goes live; and that is their current opposition because the "non-notable" argument is entirely and completely dead unless they want to deal with it to a larger community review. Its just moving the goal-post as you mentioned. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't bother responding at Talk:Dragonball anymore to be honest, its all heat and no light, going round in circles is just winding people up. Discussion there is irrelevant for the purposes of a DBZ article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You do not have consensus to create a DBZ article, regardless of what you and Only in death have been talking about here.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 00:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * See you at DRN. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Minor or inconsequential edits
Chris, I'm hoping to enlist your help to further mutual goals. I note that your AWB edits have been more than occasionally challenged as being 'inconsequential'. On the other hand, there is a lot of work to do with sundry style fixes that are not part General fixes. I have created two custom AWB modules (see User:Ohconfucius) that I would invite you to use when you run AWB. Not only will this lighten the workload for other gnomes like me, it would considerably reduce the risk of you making inconsequential edits. The downside is that you will have to be more careful in selecting articles to process when using the modules. I don't use these as often as I could because I spend 90% of my time on MacOS computers. But if you are interested, I could help develop more functions or similar modules that ensure compliance with the MOS (or MOSNUM). Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 05:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Is that the 'Customised "General Fixes"' one? If it will reduce the likelihood of being called "useless" then by all means I'll try it out if I can figure out how to work it. I suppose this does more then just the "skip cosmetic edits" right? I have a list of ones with non-cosmetic fixes; but I am not certain that those will fair any better from scrutiny given the last issue. If so, I'll definitely try it out, I rather be near 100% certain they are fine before I parse the list again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * They are modules custom-made by yours truly that you load into your AWB client. The most elaborate one and one I would recommend you to start with is User:Ohconfucius/AWB modules/dmy, which broadly follows the aims declared at Date formattings but to which I later added some formatting fixes. The code functions aren't so tightly scoped as in each my scripts, but the 'dmy' here means that the code will unlink all the dates and align them to the dmy format. In addition, it does some unlinking of chained links, downcase "==External Link==" and transform Salt Lake City, Utah -> Salt Lake City, Utah (please see the code narration). I am also proposing that you could help me by running this; you could also be of great help in further developing the functions that you feel are necessary, and advise me to take out ones where false positives occur. Some of the code in my scripts can be easily adapted for use in AWB modules, so once you get started, you can look at the documentation to those. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 06:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You do realize that you've done what I've asked for... for well about a solid year on Wikipedia? I'm hopefully not going to go overboard with this; but such fixes give me great satisfaction and I always report false positives when ever I can. I got a bunch of ideas; but I'll have to try this out before I can get a feel for what's in it and what can be added. Thanks! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I can only apologise that I haven't been monitoring WT:AWB like a hawk, and it only just occurred to me to share my AWB codes with you. Good luck with your test drive, and let me know how you get along. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 07:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Chris: excellent man. Tony   (talk)  09:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Grammatical bugbears
Not intending to attack, but rather good-faith pointing out things you can fix, two things stick out at me about your writing: an overuse of semicolons (see for example this page about it, and an overuse of “would” indicating either the conditional mood or future tense where neither seems particularly appropriate. Not particularly big deals, but I’m a bit OCD when it comes to grammatical errors. I hope it helps to make you aware of it. Take care. —Frungi (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not the best writer of encyclopedic prose; I'll go address that now. When I write, I don't submit it to an editor; someone has to be on my back about such changes. I wasn't even aware that I was doing this. I think the issue stems from the sourcing claiming it will occur in the future and I am mirroring a past "future". In the case of Showdown / Rival, that unexpected title swap messed with a post-release source as well; I try to be concise and precise for the sourcing... seems to be getting me in tense troubles. Thanks again; time to go chop some "would". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Date formatting
Chris, some of your recent edits have changed date formatting from MDY to DMY on articles involving US subjects where the MDY convention was in long use. While I recognize the logic of the DMY convention and use it myself on UK subjects (even though British monarchs have been known to use MDY), it would be best to leave existing longstanding usage in place. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've noticed this and am looking into the matter myself; so I've asked about it and need more research into that before continuing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Chris. Here are links that may help:   WP:STRONGNAT and WP:DATERET.  Best wishes, Kablammo (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)