User talk:ChrisGualtieri/Archive 4

a small warning
You know that constantly bringing me up in a discussion and making false assumptions is poisoning the discussion. Even if you think its true. This is a warning. Im not going to bring you to ANI right away if it happens again, but I might be inclined to give a final warning next time.Lucia Black (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Kindly remove yourself from my page and take your negative and spiteful attitude with you. You filed frivolous ANIs on me; you've threatened me and other editors, you insert false material into articles and me citing diffs which show this are not "false assumptions". You claimed to "see red" when you see my name and you want "justice" on me are clear warning flags that you have no intention of working together and building an encyclopedia. This is example referring to me, "I hate that editor, and I hate that editor with a passion. I see that editors name on my talkpage and I see red." You think everything is personal. You tried to justify inserting false material and reverted my undo of said material. You make frequent references to justice and use references like "showing signs of defeat" in a content dispute which you deliberately added false references to. You make tacit reference to a lot of things, like DBZ being a proxy for GITS and your new "deletion campaign" where you goaded me in to thinking you had turned over a new leaf and understood the community at the VPP. Fool me once shame on you; fool me twice shame on me. I'm not taking your bait; from now on every necessary interaction will go through DRN or 3O because you have a personal grudge which you refuse to check.
 * I've made a herculean effort to advise you, work with you and repair our relations only to be slapped with more attacks. Content should not suffer or be falsified because of personal grudges; I've extended the olive branch three times to you and your only response required me to lie and claim that I was destructive and mean as prerequisite to working together.You cleverly added that I do not have "beg"; just admit I "wronged you" and ask for your forgiveness... which would tacitly require me to admit to being a malicious/destructive editor. Then when a third party gets involved you reply with "Why should I work woth that editor? im done! Ive been pushed around too far with this editor and now he miraculously changes and expects me to work woth that editor!? NO!!!! GIVE ME WHAT I DESERVE OR YOULL SEE ME MAKE A BIGGER SCENE OR GET OUT!!!". I think that says volumes about yourself. I may disagree with you, but I don't hate you, but you clearly don't feel the same way. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Im not going to argue. But what i say is true. Did I wrongly put you in ANI? Did you not make 3 edit wars over a subject you knew perfectly well there was no such consensus? Did you not use ad hominem and constantly bring WP:INCOMPETENCE? Do you not currently still poison discussions by bringing up the past and try to ruin another editors reputation by constantly bringing up irrelevant topics? Can you even answer "No" to every single one of these questions?

Remember, the only advantage you have is bringing up links. if I had a computer, every single edit youve done, I wouldve brought up aswell. If sorry implies that you admit destructiveness. Then whats rhe harm? You constantly call yourself a humble editor, but your worried about credit, bring up the large estimate of edits you made ironically when you mention humbleness and that youve written research papers. I have every reason and right to feel what I feel about you. But it doesnt matter when it coes to fixing articles. I bite my tongue till it bleeds if i have to, just to fix the article. If I got you banned over a small misunderstanding, then im prepared to be hated aswell.

regardless, im not going in DRN, its a tactic more than a resolution. There are more editors involved, so just me and ryulong isnt going to cut it.

Overall I didnt come here to defend or prove a poibt. "Small" warning. Dont bring me up and try to undermind, belittle, or defame me again. This is a warning.Lucia Black (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I asked you to stay off my page. You are arguing. You still do not know what "ad hominem" means and at the VPP you were instructed by another editor, not I, about how your behavior and reputation go with you. You've been warned a dozen times about your personal attacks; I'm sick of you using this "he's poisoning the discussion" issue. You are responsible for your own edits. I even had to correct your altering of my posts after your block, clearly you do not take other people's suggestions and blame others for your own faults. You have no respect for others if they disagree with you; and insist upon disrupting Wikipedia to get your way. That is why you are doing everything but addressing the DBZ content issue; because you have to get the WP:LASTWORD and you think that it is perfectly acceptable to make your own changes after other editors leave a discussion where they voiced their disapproval. These actions are clearly WP:DE. You lied to me and inserted deliberately false information into the article; that's the problem.
 * And who cares if I am a scholar? I'm not inserting my own opinion into any article; but the symbolism, philosophy and topics of such shows is indeed my forte. It is why you reacted negatively to my assessment of the GITS matter; because I am expert on the subject. You claimed the sources for Motoko's sexuality or the philosophy and meaning of the work have no RSes. Even when presented with one you avoid it. You think you know more about GITS then me; which is what you argued when I reverted your false insertion; to which you later admitted it was false. When proven wrong you re-assert the claim; make personal attack; and claim your superior all in the same post. Now; I've got better things to do then deal with; I'm beginning to lose my patience with you. You have demonstrated your bad-faith dozens of times and I have nothing more to say until you want to reform and work together. You've spat on me three times; I'll not shame myself further by entertaining your desire for drama. Do not ever purposely reinsert false material into any article ever again; next time I won't assume ignorance or competency issues as per AGF. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of use dates dmy
Can you explain why you removed the use dates dmy from the International Atomic TIme article? I am not challenging the removal just curious about why and if there is a new dates mechanism. DouglasCalvert (talk) 03:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't have the replacement on for that one; sorry. I re-added the template with the updated check for June 2013. I rolled back a bunch of them because I made a stupid error before; missed this one. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Workflow
I'm a bit curious as to your workflow. I notice that your edits whilst using AWB are quite varied. Edits with dmy fixes and mdy fixes are interspersed. How do you achieve that with no apparent detriment to productivity? --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I typically run multiple copies. I've run up to 8 at once to parse errors, database scan and work on a few. Though I decided not to do a typo run when I am testing and have different types of work flows to watch at once. I don't want to let a weird error through because the typo regex produces a lot of false positives and I need to wrap a lot of templates, like lang and nats. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked a user
Hey Chris, just thought I'd let you know that I blocked the guy that was vandalizing my userpage. I should have blocked him straightaway as a spam account, given that it was pretty obvious what he was here for, but I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm swiftly learning that the first inclination as far as blocking goes is usually the right one. In any case, I wanted to let someone know since I don't know if it was 100% kosher to block him since it was my userpage he was vandalizing. I guess this means I'm a bonafide admin now that my userpage has been repeatedly vandalized, right? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   15:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Mine gets hit every once and a while when I do some anti-vandalism work myself; I checked the contributions and it looks like the account was made only to harass your user page. So I dropped the final and it kept on coming. Either way; intention was clear. Didn't know you were an admin; guess it saves the trouble of the reporting the user. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

User: Samesex Marriage
Hi Chris, just FYI, even the talk page owner, who is an admin, approves of it. Cheers. PS- Thanks for stalking my talk page. Arctic Kangaroo (  ✉  •  ✎  ) 15:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the Village Pump post the user had made; I didn't know or see about the talk page one. Anyways; I tried to calm the situation. I just saw the revert at the pump of another user and tried to help out... but he's blocked. As not a troll or banned user at the time, I felt its reverting was a bit much. That's all. No issue now though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Edits creating whitespace
Please amend Your AWB run is making needless line breaks at the beginning of articles. Small matter, but one you should fix. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how it is doing it... But I'll go through and fix that. Its highly unusual for me because I didn't instruct any such edit and it only occurs on some of them, not all. Thanks for the heads up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Doing. Seems that the setting prepended 2 lines instead of 1, it didn't actually show in the window and AWB doesn't seem to auto correct it; even with plain general fixes. So I'm sorta confused on why this white space is visible yet unfixable by AWB. It's only on a few pages though. I've set it so it cannot happen again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Made useless whitespace with an extra carriage return which appears. AWB's general fix doesn't catch it on parsing through. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

REf dates
Please do not use AWB to format citation dates ( date= and accessdate= ) to a specific format unless it is clear the article should be using that format (as per your edit, which I know the bulk of such dates are in YYYY-MM-DD form); this is outlined at WP:DATERET. --M ASEM (t) 23:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is also not incorrect. And I've noticed you have done a lot of work on the article; but you seem to be blind to others trying to fix errors which are valid. I've marked to avoid later; but the change reduces ambiguity. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks ...
for cromulent!  davidiad { t } 03:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks and keep up the good work as well! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

use dmy dates template
Hi. Why are you placing this at the foot of every article, when the template instructions clearly state "Place this template near the top of articles that use the dd mmm yyyy date format"? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 06:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed; is another case. According to WP:FOOTERS, the only things that go after categories are the stub templates. -- Red rose64 (talk) 07:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * From reading the conversation on the template it didn't seem to matter where it went because it wasn't really confirmed to be an edit notice or an instruction to editors, but I'll place it at the top. If it bugs anyone to have them place otherwhere... as many of them had been previously above the Persondata template, I guess I could swing by and alter their placements. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Going forward, I'll switch them all, but I didn't think it really mattered because of the placement for these 2010 templates were all set different, with being close to the bottom comprising a majority, like this. Anything else; let me know. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * When you say that you'll "switch them all" - where do you intend switching them to? At the very bottom goes against WP:FOOTERS; at the very top has the backing of the template doc, but has at least one disadvantage that I've seen: some editors, on seeing this at the top of the wikicode, believe it to be a cleanup template like ; so they go through the article, carefully checking the dates - and then remove the template believing it to be the correct action. If it's tucked away between the navboxes and the cats, it does achieve its desired effect of categorising the article; and in that position, it will be alongside the and/or, both of which are like  in that neither produce visible output in that position on the page. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've chosen to prepend per the doc, but if anyone removes it that can be dealt with later; I don't want to have a huge fight over placement of the tag. The last discussion was in Nov 2012, but if its really a problem I can start a discussion and ask Mag about sticking it in somewhere... but then it doesn't serve as a notice and makes it hard to find... despite not intended to be a notice either. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Functionally, it doesn't matter where it goes, but many now are accustomed to it being at the top, and there was a brief discussion a while back at the template talk pages about positioning which seemed to endorse putting it at or near the top to remind people, like a banner, to "use dmy dates". --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 23:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please be careful, because violate WP:AWB item 4. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It does not violate any rule because that edit's the intended purpose is clear. The page was not checked for adherence in 3 years; updating the template signifies that page has compliance and that it should not be re-checked and waste another editors time verifying it. This template serves two purposes and I am doing everything I can to prevent mere tag updating. I am running Gen fixes, check wiki fixes, unicode fixes, tagging fixes, mos fixes and date fixes in addition to manually checking each article for its compliance. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've raised a thread at WT:AWB. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

MDY removals from radio articles
We at the WPRS have kept years in radio in the infoboxes' section for the date a radio station started in the radio articles, just F.Y.I.. Have a good day!Stereorock (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Give a reason and an article for me to examine this problem; the overlinking is typically problematic and the link to years are explicitly mentioned. Without examples and details I am unable to respond properly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand about a reason & an article. Do you mean a discussion or other articles where this occurs?  I haven't seen overlinking as a problem.  If anything, there isn't enough linking.Stereorock (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This edit removed a misleading pipe in an infobox. Years should not be piped in this manner. If you want the year in radio to be linked, the way to do it is by adding it unpiped as a link in the 'See also' section. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 14:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What does "unpiped" mean?Stereorock (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and yes, that is not how years are supposed to be linked. I agree with Ohconfucius on this. Even worse is that WEAN-FM is not even listed on that article, so it does absolutely nothing for the reader who clicks it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The station is there. It is listed as WUAE which was its callsign in 1995.Stereorock (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You split the discussion in three segments, but I will reply here. First, Ohconfucius found an example - I wanted to see what was being disputed. That was all for that. Secondly, a piped link is words for link the | is a "pipe" and separates the elements. Redirecting to something that the reader does not expect is misleading; even if it seems tangentially related. Such pipes should be in the "See also" section and not be masked. That was what Ohconfucius pointed out. The last one was my inspection of the link itself; given that you used a different callsign but provide no context, the reader is not likely to get any useful information out of that link. Though at that point, I was just splitting hairs about the matter. Please read WP:OVERLINK, WP:DATELINK and WP:YEARLINK, though everything in WP:LINK is worth a few minutes of reading. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Backlog
I thought you were working on the backlog, then I found this, which surprised me. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 14:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have the catagories loaded from AWB a few days back. So the list has not been reloaded, I just save the settings and continue from where I left off. That's why. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also that was back when I had append rather than prepend on. The move must have dropped it down to the end of the change so I didn't see you had updated it already. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

World Digital Library-Wikimedia Partnership Newsletter
Hi ! Thanks for participating in the World Digital Library-Wikimedia Partnership. Your contributions are important to improving Wikipedia! I wanted to share a few updates with you:
 * We have an easy way to now cite WDL resources. You can learn more about it on our news page, here.
 * Our to-do list is being expanded and features newly digitized and created resources from libraries and archives around the world, including content from Sweden, Qatar, the Library of Congress, and more! You can discover new content for dissemination here.
 * WDL project has new userbox for you to post on your userpage and celebrate your involvement. Soffredo created it, so please be sure to thank them on their talk page. You can find the userbox and add it to your page here.
 * Our first batch of WDL barnstars have been awarded! Congratulations to our first recipients: ProtoplasmaKid, ChrisGualtieri, TenthEagle, Rhyswynne, Luwii, Sosthenes12, Djembayz, Parkwells, Carl Francis, Yunshui, MrX, Pharaoh of the Wizards, and the prolific Yster76!! Thank you for your contributions and keep up the great work. Be sure to share your article expansions and successes here.

Keep up the great work, and please contact me if you need anything! Thank you for all you do for free knowledge! EdwardsBot (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Caution when converting mistagged articles
Generally looks like good progress with date auditing, however I had to fix your edit on Wolfgang Reitzle - seems the article got contradictory date format tags in Sept 2010, so I have restored the previously established format. Generally, if you find yourself applying mdy to a non-US subject article, that should be treated as something of a red flag for further investigation. Dl2000 (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well its not contradictory. TIES accounts for some, but it is DATERET which prevents me from updating or establishing my own preference, especially when such edits are controversial and go against DATERET. The first contributor to impose a style (in this case the template and format) is the one I abide by. You are welcome to change the format and do as you wish, but I will not be a part of the contentious issue. If the date template had been switched as it should have been, the MDY would be DMY in my AWB pass and the dates would not have been flipped. Either way, your comment means well, but puts me in a position that would break numerous policies and become a major disruption. This case is sufficently rare, and I am not going to get into "per article" dmy/mdy disputes. The tag change makes sense, but not under TIES and would be off by the template and changing this per DATERET would be a big mess. So let's just say, any future articles I tag have the format changes included- if you disagree or have forgotten to swap the template - notify me and I'll address it if you don't want to be troubled. Thanks for your understanding of the situation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Dl2000 for having spotted and corrected that example. It's quite one thing to change the format tag, but I hate it when people add wrong tags in that way. Fortunately it doesn't happen that often – this is the first time I've actually come across it. It's true that the incidence of mdy dates is low in European articles, so my default for same is dmy. Please once again refer to my talk about my understanding of how dmy (and mdy) dates are generally applied in practice. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 14:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Richard D'Oyly Carte
Thanks for your note. I see that in my absence Ssilvers has explained the reason for the change. I could have phrased my edit summary in a less peremptory manner, and I'm sorry if my hoity-toity wording upset you – my apologies. Tim riley (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh it is perfectly fine! No worries. The date issue should have been flipped, or at least I thought, because not of the quotes, but because of the how it was reported. I thought the correct reference was Supreme Court of Judicature's 1 August release, not part of the title. I see a mention in the Case Law records which do use August 1 and others which use 1 August as international formats do. I was in the wrong, but suggestion: could it be pushed to a template's title form to make it more clear? I wasn't sure if it was two references or one. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that nice reply. Point taken, and worth investigating. I'll put it on the to-do list. Tim riley (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited British Comedy Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Best in Show (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

MOSDATE and year articles
Much of the linking rules do not apply to year articles. I'm going to your edits today (in the last 15 hours) to year articles which quote MOS, as they most likely remove agreed-upon linking. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:DATELINK and WP:YEARLINK seem to say otherwise; however as you note intrinsically linked items (i.e. templates and such) are 100% perfectly okay to contain such links, but links to January 8 on 1002 is not germane. It is not even relevant in the least; the most information that could possibly be obtained from it is other events that occurred on that date; but nothing about the year in question or the subject of that line. Birth/death linking is essentially the same thing, and at best the page would have Adolf II of Lotharingia's death on listed on 1041? Right? However, it does not. You do not see this issue on the 1940s or 1950s articles or the 1970s which are much better examples than the individual year. Also, the example for January is completely fine as well, linked and relevant dates are marked in the template; but not every single date or year are linked. It seems that 1789, the individual years themselves, are the only example of problematic linking. And the least you could have done was not toss back all the edits but instead just reverted and kept the template for July 2013. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually... given that it would take more time for to alter rather than revert... ignore my comment about that. When this is resolved I'll gladly do as needed. I'm going to ignore individual years and such until this can be resolved. The template issue is trivial compared to your concern and I endorse the mass revert. I just wish you had notified me so I could have manually done them instead of making you work hard to undo them yourself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's always been an anathema to me... I'd dearly love to know just how many readers take fright that the sea of blue links in those that takes them through a myriad of articles whose only connection is coincidence or serendipity. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 14:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that the given situation is fair enough. Its use as an off-example in apparent violation of the MOS policy seems to be concerning. I'll avoid the ones you reverted for now, but I see little reason in having such irrelevant terms linked like that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=562550232 your edit] to Common Snipe may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Category:

Anime Episode list style
Hi, I was hoping to have your opinion for List of Persona 4: The Animation episodes. At first, I didn't care since it wasn't doing harm, but now there is Devil Survivor 2: The Animation and soon Danganronpa: The Animation to follow. There is something wrong with the Persona 4 list and multiple users have bought it up and been shot down. Before I bring this up to the anime wikiproject, I want to see your opinion if there is some sound argument to bring up on why the format is "not right". Thanks for the time. DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 09:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I rather not get involved with Lucia Black again - Sorry. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I was just weighing opinions. You don't have to discuss this with her or even at the articles. Most likely I'll lose interest in those articles and do nothing myself. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 08:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The summary for each episode is too long. I'd go with 100-150 words at maximum for a stand alone list, but right now it doesn't seem that it meets stand alone list requirements. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Dummy edits with AWB
Please review Edits like this don't change any content to pages so unless they're coupled with something useful style- or display-wise, then you should probably avoid them. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please review the edit again. The edit itself updated the template, there were no other issues to correct. And that template should not have been wedged in there anyways. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Justin. Updating the dmy template and moving it around is not necessary and makes work for everyone watching the page.  Every day my watchlist is lit up with these changes from you.  I suggest that you wait until you have a substantive edit, and do whatever cleanups you like at that time.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And my watchlist changes frequently as well; it is included in the documentation and has been intended as that since its inception. I'm currently running many fixes in it, perhaps not every single edit changes a lot, but it does not run afoul of the rules of use. The concern that "it causes turnover in my watchlist" may be inconvenient, but bots do the same thing - every day. The last signpost push did this. The last pass of Yobot did this. The last pass of "anyone" doing "anything" causes the watchlist to change. When I do many updates to a large batch of content I still would get issues and I quote 's response at the talk page, "To oblige the editor engaged in such routine maintenance to ensure at least some change is made is thus rather unreasonable, and could result in contrived changes for changes sake. What's more, it would severely damage productivity."
 * If you are so concerned about this, why not just update the template yourself? I'm auditing the page for compliance; yes, but if I made other content changes like placing citation needed tags or other issues, would that change your stance. No. If I were to update every article on your watchlist with content or tweaks; we'd still be having this discussion. Could you please explain why you want to suppress the changes to your watched articles - to the point that problems are left purposely unaddressed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've asked for a 30 on the issue from an admin, also if it wasn't obvious, the issue was raised here which pointed the individual no other change (a fairly rare case) was supported per rule 4. I try to limit those as much as possible, but will not make spurious changes to advance a reason for it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking through Chris' edits, the edit you link is not the most useful edit in the world, I'll give you that, but still cleanup. The vast, vast majority of his AWB work is on the other hand great, and should be done. If you have tons of changes on your watchlist, chances are that the great majority of them are fine edits. The one or two where the only change is the location and date of a template are negligible. I really don't understand the deal about having a small number of watchlist items which have a less-than-worldshocking change, which are marked as minor, and easily recognisable as AWB edits through the edit summery. 18:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, although some may technically argue such a change is inconsequential, I would consider such a change important for compliance purposes. FWIW, I've already built in as many small style fixes as I dare into the script without triggering false positives all over. The truth is that some articles don't get much attention, or don't change much over the years because of the nature of the content, but I know of no way of identifying them. The tagging in itself may be inconsequential, but practically when someone passes with a whole suite of verifications, it means someone has deliberately visited the article for a purpose. That's true even if they don't find anything. I ask you to look at it like you would a health check – you're happy if the doc finds nothing wrong with you; you're happy if the doc finds something wrong with you and is able to fix it before it escalates. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I will hold off for a bit... I have a project to work on for right now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * List of horror anime (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Wicked City


 * Ugly Dave Gray (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to All at Sea

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

General Fixes + MOS + DMY changes using AWB
Could you explain why do you reset the date= in Use dmy dates? Sometimes without any useful contribs such as in ​. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Per the template and the three discussions we've already had on it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Should I dig for these discussions myself? Hint: it is you who makes mass edits with very vague edit summaries, not me. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. the doc says about updating the visit date, but it does not explain the reason. To me, it defeats the use of templates as “since…” markers, especially if no changes were made. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * AWB talk, my current talk page, etc... Secondly, the template documentation specifically notes that it should be updated when checked; which I am doing. I am conducting a check, like an audit, even if I do not find dates that require swapping the updating of the template will prevent needless passes by future editors. My edit summary is extremely accurate for what I am doing; I am doing General Fixes (AWB changes; each has consensus) MOS changes (specific hand picked ones for compliance with hyphens, punctuation and such), and the last is DMY updating which is the focus per MOSDATE. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Chris, as I pointed out to you before (in an edit summary), you need to be careful of material in quotations when making changes to format dates. Again you have created an error that another editor fixed: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D%27Oyly_Carte_Opera_Company&diff=564014493&oldid=564012755  Again, this error seems to have been prompted by your eagerness to move dmy templates.  I have seen you make this type of error twice, and I only see a tiny fraction of your edits.  I imagine that you have made this kind of error many times, and I would ask you to try to review your edits to make sure that you have not changed quoted text, which should remain exactly the way the author wrote it.  Not introducing errors is, of course, far more important than the position of the dmy template.  Thanks.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have already addressed that concern and I have been reviewing my edits - I actually hit okay even after I saw it. It is not my intention and this specific case is extremely rare because it contains a date in the title and it is not in a template and it differs from the expected source material. I avoid all instances of quotes and entire pages simply because I am not sure; a collection of these skips remain as evidence of it. I've asked about preventing this from occurring again; I do not seek to repeat such an error, but I stupidly hit okay on it and realized the mistake only later. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Chris has graciously submitted to my throwing a (quite small) brick at him in re D'Oyly Carte and the ipsissima verba of Times reports. Good luck, Chris, with getting the templates sorted. Best, Tim riley (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you, Chris. I appreciate your diligence about this.  Happy editing!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not doing any more of those till I get some assistance from OC. I got plenty of other tasks to keep me busy on Wikipedia for right now. I just need to focus my efforts on something. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, permit me to say your work is truly appreciated. Tim riley (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I try to do my best - I have a lot of research to do for studies in real life and I also want to do some biographies of 18th century politicians at the same time! Ha, content is a big thing for me as well. I want to limit my date runs to 1-2 days a week to prevent some watchlist turnovers for others - seems to be doing well so far in fact. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "Date runs" (that is, with a bot or automation) tend to be a bad idea because of the intricacy of Wikipedia conventions. WP:MOSNUM calls for date format to be based on strong national ties to an English-speaking country that uses a particular date format. In the absence of strong national ties, the style established in the article is maintained. This style might or might not be indicated with use dmy dates or use mdy dates. If the style is currently inconsistent, the correct approach is to look through the article history to see if there was a consistent style that has recently been corrupted. Finallly, the citations are a different matter. If used consistently, the YYYY-MM-DD format may be used in citations, either throughout, or just for access and archive dates. Also, as explained at WP:CITEVAR, citations may be in any consistent format, such as a printed style guide. For example, the APA Style would write the publication for a source published today as 2013, July 13. It's a tall order for any form of automation to sort through these intricacies. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Citations should have one consistent format. As for DATERET vs TIES, I'm not going to debate it. The tag is swapped the issue is resolved. Thank you for your concern. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Untitled
Obey WP:STRONGNAT. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It was templated (twice) for years and DATERET says to respect the original form. TIES or not; maintain your own interested pages and please assume AGF in the future. I'm not going split hair hairs on MDY and DMY format. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

DRN needs your help!
Hi there. I've noticed it's been a while since you've been active at DRN, and we could really use your help! DRN is going to undergo some changes soon, so it'd really be great if our backlog is cleared before the start of August and we have as many people on board to help with the changes (they include a move to subpages and the creation of a rotating "co-ordinator" role to help manage things day-to-day. Hope to see you soon! Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 11:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I got one case there myself! I guess I could help out there though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eve Karpf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill and Ben (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Odd request but
I need help communicating with Black60dragon. He is not acknowledging anything that I say to him regarding a deliberate word I used on that stupid list and now he's edit warring on a template used on that list, and 8 others, nearly 700 times, because some IP added parameters that had been deleted in 2007 and he began filling them out for this particular list.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 04:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggested DRN... if you can't get through, what makes you think I will be able to help? I just walked into a pile of mess now that my work-in-progress, the skeleton form of a tabular list of anime and the recreated List of anime (unsalted and redirect to Lists of anime) has been noticed before I finished my work. I am stretched thin as is... but... what do you want me to do? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think DRN is going to bother with the fact that I'm telling him "I did not use 'forme' for a reason" and "stop modifying a template that's in use 700 times just because you want to add height and weight for every Pokemon". I just cannot seem to get him to understand why these are bad. He just keeps saying "stop warring" to try to get his way, because it seems he was recently warned for edit warring and now sees it as some sort of "get out of jail free card so I can restore what I think is right". I don't want to direct him to WP:BRD but it seems useful to bring up.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 04:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Messing with the weight one? Okay, 700 pages being affected rises to it. I was going to add the weights to the lists later, I noticed they are all unused and visible on the printed pages. Silly, yes, but this is a bit much. I'll try to help out... we may disagree from time to time, but it is not an "odd request". So don't worry about such things in the future. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The template is used 700 times, but only on around 8 pages. I've requested it to be fully protected because there's really no need for anyone to futz around with it. But this inanity over "form" vs. "forme" is getting annoying.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 04:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, just the List of Pokemon ones then? I see the first 50 or so were fine, but after that the null fields rendered as or some such and are plainly visible in the records. The height issue had Height: 1 ft

8 in in some entries like Jigglypuff and Ninetales. It irked me, but I didn't fix it myself and it seemed a pain to do it for American measurements only. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The IP who modified the template to include the height and weight fields (Imperial measurements only at that) also edited the Bulbasaur to Dugtrio page to add every single height and weight. Height and weight were also randomly still included on some other page, but I took care of that and deleted all the content responsible. Height and weight were added to the template once in 2007 and deleted shortly after because it's not really important how tall or heavy they are on Wikipedia. We don't have Link's height or Donkey Kong's weight so why should we bother with approximately 700 Pokémon? Also, he keeps screwing with the form/forme thing insisting that Awakened Mewtwo is a "forme" like how Deoxys has Formes, but it's never been described as such and he will not accept that for an answer.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 05:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hope it helps Ryulong. I'm going to drop off of the wikiproject boards some, I rather not deal with the mess that comes up there. If I get scattered I will never finish the lists and the year articles. I got the information, but not the time to add it. I did List of horror anime earlier, but I haven't added the Japanese and I swapped the demographics for the year released type. Should I lang template the Japanese on each one, or no? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this work really necessary though?— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 05:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Lists of anime" is among our more popular feedback postings. I know of over 4000 such works exist, but I doubt managing and splitting up them will work unless we go by a last calendar year approach. For genres... I was thinking a capped list of various works is suitable, it prevents genre warring anyways. As for the individual year articles - this is rather critical and will be better than any singular "history of anime" which is itself a wreck. And just so I am clear, I don't think any singular "list of anime" will work out well, I've tried by "release date", but the Javascript keeps breaking on certain aspects over at List of anime by release date. Not sure what's the best way to resolve it... but it would be good to have an index of all releases on one page and links to each one and have it sortable by year. It seems exact date won't work. Just implementing it seems to be the hard part. Once I got the technical issue down, it will be very easy to fill it out. Any ideas? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

He still won't back down over the fact I purposely did not use "Forme".— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 17:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

What makes you think I haven't been discussing this shit with him?— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 05:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I know you have been discussing, but the problem is getting annoying... So from this point on I'd prefer you discuss it only. Your "preferred" version is the current one, and I don't care enough to act as a 3O on that particular matter, because it is really irrelevant at this point in the release structure. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How can I discuss it when he doesn't respond to me outside of edit summaries going "IT'S FORME BECAUSE LEGENDARIES HAVE FORMES"? I've sent him at least 6 messages in the past 24 hours going "'Forme' has not been used in association with 'Awakened Mewtwo' in the sources I have found" but he does not answer. Frankly, I was about to go to WP:AN3 myself and face getting a block of god knows how long as well just so he would get a fucking clue.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 05:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't think I can personally go to WP:RFPP to request protection due to edit warring but there's no harm in trying.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 05:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * He reinserts it, then I may do it, but you are involved and refraining from doing something you know is risky or stupid is a good reason to let me try and handle it. I'm just a third party in this, but leave it be for right now. You getting yourself blocked won't fix the problem and I am sure you have other pages that need tending in the mean time... besides walking into it fully expecting to be blocked doesn't look good and you'd be more likely to get slapped with a week as a result. I'd prefer you to remain unblocked... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I've made a request at RFPP with full disclosure.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 05:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Help Needed With A Name Change
Could you please remove the period punctuation mark in the abbreviation "Jr." for my name in the wikipedia article below https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Kenneth_Lucey_Jr. When this link is pasted into an email, the period often is omitted when a mouse clicks on the link and an error message results. I put the same request on my Talk Page and noted you were a prior editor for puctuation, so a direct appeal is made to your Talk Page Best regards, Luceyg (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but per the MOS, the usage of Jr and Jr. is acceptable for article usage, but Jr. is required in the article title. Sounds weird, I know, but is this particularly important for a reason? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Chris Click on the link above and see what happens. It gives an error message because the "." is not picked up. By running the mouse over the entire name and the "." it can be made to go to the page. Will the redirect take care of that, if so, I will have to learn how to do the redirect since it does not seem to be something I can test in the sandbox. Previous editors did not like me dinking with the article - said they discourage autobiographies, even though it was started by someone else without my knowledge. Maybe the easiest thing to do is make a shorthand of the link when I want to email it to someone. Luceyg (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect made! It is actually very simple. To create one you just pick the target of the redirect, in this case the link you provided. Then you create it by this code: #redirect Target page - Replace "Target page" with where you want it to be directed. Now anyone clicking on the link arrives at the page. I'm surprised it wasn't already made. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh and just so you know - Wikipedia is not really supposed to have autobiographies... chances are that I or someone else may improve or work on the page. I have a few people who keep an eye on my page, but the amount of work needed really falls to sourcing and such. You might also want to disclose the connection and confirm your identity with OTRS. That is more complicated, unfortunately. Famous editors come up from time to time, but the communities practices are very difficult to pick up - and change periodically. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Sephiroth
Ok! I think I got the issues resolved, let me know if there are any others. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Passed. I'll do the other in a bit. I'll leave it to you to fix the weird talk page history, I do not know how to do so myself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

A minor change to DRN
Hi there, you're getting this message as you are involved in a case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard which is currently open. Today DRN has undergone a big move resulting in individual cases on subpages as opposed to all the content on one page. This is to inform you that your case is now back on the DRN board and you will be able to 'watch' the subpage it's located on. Thanks, Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 13:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

 * Yay! Cupcake. Congrats on the GA. Sorry that you had to wait so long for it. I've been mulling around that area and trying to help out some more. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and glad to hear it! I'm hoping to dive into that backlog this weekend myself. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Brattata, Jet Pilot, and Okay Hot-Shot‎
Thanks for starting the WP:GAC review. Have you ever done a WP:DYK review. If so, have a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Brattata, Jet Pilot, and Okay Hot-Shot‎.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Guh... doesn't look good. DYK seems to be a broken process anyways - what with this QPQ and all. It is probably better that I don't try to do anything in this area as I am a bit of a reformer. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you!--Cattus talk 15:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Prabash. Akmeemana   15:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Another one on my talk page :) Prabash.  Akmeemana   01:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I have also put the GA topicon on your userpage. --Prabash.Akmeemana  23:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yay and thank you! I've had a good day today and I am glad to see that the page was also approved today. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * 2007 in anime (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Lucky Star, School Days and Moonlight Mile


 * 2005 in anime (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Black Cat and Loveless


 * 2002 in anime (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Yukikaze


 * 2003 in anime (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Green Green


 * 2004 in anime (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Black Jack


 * 2006 in anime (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Princess Princess


 * 2008 in anime (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Soul Eater


 * 2009 in anime (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Black God


 * Hentai (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Yuri

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)