User talk:ChrisGualtieri/Archive 7

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! So much more merging to do still! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Also noticing you doing a lot of cleanup of articles on my watchlist. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 02:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject United States
I see you have been doing a lot of assessments for WPUS lately. Its your time to waste but if you want some free advice I wouldn't bother. That project is nothing but a waste of time and a reputation killer. Your better off just helping Military history or NRHP. 71.126.152.253 (talk) 02:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No offense, but I believe in the project. I don't see how its a reputation killer either. Care and maintenance of Wikipedia is what I like to do. I am currently working on things for the NRHP group and a few other areas. Military history is not something I am too big on though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC),
 * Hey Chris, I'm reviewing the four anime articles you listed for GA. A few days ago I decided I wanted to try to take on getting the article on the United States up to GA, after I get Rwandan Genocide to FA in time for the 20th anniversary main page appearance in April. Any interest in helping or being the GA reviewer? It looks like it's going to be a flaming mess but somebody's got to try, and I have some experience with country articles (got Madagascar to FA) and big flaming mess articles (got Rock music to GA), which should help. Best, Lemurbaby (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm... perhaps I could help or review. I've been frustrated from A&M, but I've also got a lot of work on the D&D area to do. It is not in the immediate short term, right? Let's see how we work together with the 4 GAs you got of mine, if it goes well, than I'll help as I can. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:47, 13 October 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) 23:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dragon Ball Z
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dragon Ball Z you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TonyTheTiger -- 03:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dragon Ball Z
The article Dragon Ball Z you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Dragon Ball Z for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TonyTheTiger -- 03:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would suggest WP:GAR. This article is quite deficient by WP:WIAGA, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine. Rather than make any comment you are just dismissing it after going outside the GAN criteria? And you did so in 12 minutes after waiting this long and having some IPs edit in the mean time? That's really sad. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't een like DBZ
Like, at all. Anyway, let me take a look. --Niemti (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dragon Ball Z, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Matt Smith, Don Brown and Naoko Watanabe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Your welcome. It's what I do! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're not an admin though.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 16:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Dragon Ball (anime)
There is no reason to have this article at all. It was only created when someone saw you had recreated Dragon Ball Z as a separate page and it is full of unsourced statements and most of it is already covered at Dragon Ball. I do not know why you constantly want to keep these shit articles around when they are better suited as sections of other articles but fine. It's at AFD now. !Vote "Keep" and I bet you will never edit Dragon Ball (anime) again, as your focus is clearly elsewhere.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 16:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your interactions during this mediation represent a significant departure from forming any cooperative and collaborative work in this area. I take offense to your posting and the way in which you are conducting yourself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are unnecessarily demanding that bureaucracy must be adhered to when common sense shows that it is a content fork, and a poor one at that. WP:AFD is not a requesite for WP:MERGE.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 16:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is why we are at mediation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Take care with AWB
[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=August_2012&diff=577979007&oldid=576833413 Your recent AWB-assisted edit] to August 2012 was partially reverted as the page is not a dead-end page. Please take care when using tools like AWB. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  16:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It has been listed as a bug on the AWB page. AWB checks to see if it meets the criteria and it did so by its definitions. I believe it is because the transclusion on the portal instead of actual wikilinks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Editors who use tools are responsible for double-checking the edits those tools make and fixing any problems if necessary.  Now that you are aware of the bug, you have an even greater responsibility to double-check and fix edits that might trigger this bug.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  17:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Already checked, because they would be listed at the dead end category page for October. John already took care of them and another editor confirmed the issue in the latest version. When such things come up we can quickly check and correct the issues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, I guess this was one of those cases where someone else noticed it before you went back and checked. By the way, categories whose entries are placed by templates can run hours or in rare cases days behind.  In other words, you might put a "dead end" template on a page right now and, depending on how bogged down the servers are, it might not show up in the relevant category for hours or days.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  18:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Your understanding will be appreciated!
Hi Chris, I'm working on Inverted Repeat as part of a Molecular Biology course with another student and we get graded on the content each week. The changes you just made to the article "broke" some of our references and we will get points knocked off for that. So, I will be doing an "undo" of the changes you made. I know your intentions are good. Perhaps you could hold off until after Christmas and then you can update as you wish. Thanks for your understanding! --Jim Perry (Jim892) (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting issue. The references you had listed were blank, but I think there is an issue with the way upon which the references were taken as mirrors of the journal. Let me try and fix it. Someone will break it on there next pass, I'll pass along the coding if I can't figure out why its happening. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've fixed it. I think the ref citing with the blank journal template was breaking it somehow. I also cleaned up your formatting a bit. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Chris. It is nice that you fixed it but not so nice that you ignored my plea to leave the article alone until we finish our course work.  What gives?  I was expecting your support and understanding on this.  --Jim Perry (Jim892) (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This may not sound the nicest thing in the world to say, but you do not own the article and fixing it now only prevents future problems. I've fixed this article several times and only your most recent edits resulted in an actual problem. I fixed it on the 1st and 17th of November; including removing the stub tag. I appreciate the work you do, but I maintain tens of thousands of articles and whenever issue comes up I am determined to fix it or make sure the mistake doesn't happen twice. You seem to have been aware that the format was causing issues. I merely took care of the rest for you. If that's such an offense than I'll try and leave this page off my lists in the future. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help Chris. --Jim Perry (Jim892) (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

"Active resistance to metrication"
I note that you made an edit to "Active resistance to metrication" after its recent re-creation. I believe that this article should be turned back into a mere redirect to the article on its founder, as I explain here in the talk page about the article on him. Feel free to contribute to the discussion there. -- Hoary (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I was just cleaning things up, I don't really care if it goes back to a redirect or not, but if contested WP:AFD is where you want to go. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, no it isn't. At the top of WP:AFD we read: For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately (my emboldening). (And again: Before nominating; checks and alternatives, part C.) Now I'm entirely able to "be bold" and turn it back into a redirect. (Indeed, wanting to avoid further time-wasting in the future, I'm highly tempted to do just that, and to protect the redirect to boot.) But of course my doing this without a discussion could well bring complaints and yet more timewasting. -- Hoary (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BLAR says if a blank and redirect is contested you should take it to AFD. I am not going to argue with you about some article that I do not care about, but that's my advice. Considering protecting the redirect with admin tools is highly unethical here considering that like it or not, enough Google hits gives the group at least a semblance of making GNG and the article was recreated after redirecting. I don't want any drama and I'm not a party to that article, so kindly keep me out of it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, WP:BLAR is a new one to me. Indeed it says what you say it says. It surprises me, because back in the day when I frequented WP:AFD discussions, these frequently ended with a decision to redirect but any nomination that started with such a suggestion was quickly slapped down as improper. Anyway, thank you for bringing it to my attention. &para; Believe me, I'm about as bored by drama as you seem to be. -- Hoary (talk) 10:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Orphan tag
Hi you added an orphan tag to the page about Rachel Jewkes, I've added some links now, I'm super new to wikipedia (a couple of days in) so is it OK if I remove it now I've added some links?

Cheers for any advice, just finding my wiki sea-legs.

Ladywikling (talk) 12:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Wilt (novel)
I noticed your recent edit on this article, so I'm contacting you here.

I've just removed copyright-violation text from Wilt (novel) manually (there have been edits to it since the text was added by an IP). Please could you check that I haven't removed/added/broken the wrong section? George8211what did I break now? 10:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

What to do?
Give your opinion, back it up with policy, hope sanity prevails ;) I was aware of it (its on on my watchlist) and I was going to comment on the weekend, I have been travelling for about 4 months due to a new work contract and trying to edit from a HTC Desire Z is...taxing to say the least. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We did resolve the issue between us because the community at large wasn't able to do so in a simple manner - the ultimate resolution came before Sven's comment about it and the claim that we work together only when it looks ominous is baseless - we never worked out the issues prior and we came to an agreement without any A&M drama. If 800+ edits to Tokusatsu without causing conflict with Ryulong isn't an indicator that we are working together consider the fact that almost EVERY edit spawned an issue prior to the RFC. The community should keep itself out of our business and let us figure things out because like it or not for several months of begging for community involvement fell on deaf ears; save for you and three others. Asking for community involvement to resolve the dispute looks like a bad idea because the community doesn't care about esoteric things and its kneejerk reaction to "noise" is to silence the source(s). I'm not going to continue this rant, but Wikipedia is not friendly to scholars and I'm not going to make a blog about the problem; as was done with Wikipedia's science. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Linked to article that was tagged as an orphan
Hi ChrisGualtieri, thanks for tagging the article Bhargav Sri Prakash as an orphan. I have since linked to Bhargav Sri Prakash from Sheila Sri Prakash and Shilpa Architects. Is there any prescribed number of articles on Wikipedia that should be linked to Bhargav Sri Prakash? Please advise...thanks! (Chippadum (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC))
 * I think it is three articles. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to improve "Anime."
My name's Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever. I wanted to improve the article "Anime" to good article (GA) status because you're involved in RfC, and did it per the reviewer's (Lemurbaby) suggestions, but then you reverted it because you thought I removed significant parts of it. I didn't completely remove the presence of any references, I was making it look like a GA. Why not edit something significantly without any reverts? &#124;&#62;(@&#34;&#60;) (talk) 05:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Chytridiomycota
Thanks for cleaning up my edits to Chytridiomycota! Chytrid Wm (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I do what I can, Doctor. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

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

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of Harlequin Romance novels until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=584142299 your edit] to Fred Schmitz 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].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * still held that position for what was now the Mutual Farmers' Fire Insurance Company in 1894 http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/WI.V037N01 Root, W. M., et al. "Sixth biennial report of

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.

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

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding citations
I noticed you were a recent editor to the Barbaralee Diamonstein-Spielvogel page. Trying to finalize the references on that page so that the warning could be removed from the top. Do you have any idea how it can be reviewed again since so many credible references have been recently added? Thank you for your help! Setting the record (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Setting the record (talk • contribs) 18:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * While I removed the tag, I noticed it has a large amount of content that is copy and pasted and only slightly modified - this is plagiarism and possibly runs afoul of copyright. Please rewrite the text in your own words. I noticed it was quite literally copy and pasted in because of the differences in tone, and the unique way in which wiki markup doesn't take to copy and pasted elements in. With that being said... I probably need to examine her work for my own studies. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Satoshi Kon
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Satoshi Kon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of New Age Retro Hippie -- 12:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of David Fuchs -- 16:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive
 Hello, ChrisGualtieri:

WikiProject AFC is holding a two month long Backlog Elimination Drive!

The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from December 1st, 2013 – January 31st, 2014.

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 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. EdwardsBot (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) at 09:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * On it. Looks like fun. Already did about 100... and a nice 100 day would make it disappear. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

A Request
User:EEng - please block him because of personal insult. He called me Gnome. --Frze > talk  06:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That alone isn't enough, called others far worse, like MOS Nazi. ZOMG! Nice to see you around the Wiki, Frze. I think I've seen you around the watchlists before. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Backlog status table
I got it from User:TheJJJunk and modified it >. In my humble opinion user EEng with his -s belongs to the madhouse. Best wishes --Frze > talk  06:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the template, I'll find a way to integrate it and give credit. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Your assessment of The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker
I noticed that you assessed The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker as a Start-class article for Version 0.5. At the same time, Wikiproject Video Games currently assesses it as a B-class article. I've never seen two Wikiprojects give such startlingly different assessments, so I wanted to first make sure that this is the assessment you meant to give, and if it is, what criteria you used to reach this assessment. Is Version 0.5 that much more strict? I'll be watching this page, so feel free to respond here. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 07:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Its rather arbitrary, I can up it to B class to match, but I am wondering why it would be "B" given that all of "Gameplay" is unsourced and while the plot doesn't have to be sourced, probably should be. As the article was once FA during the .5 assessment that would likely have been why it was included in the release - though I'd say a B is fine. Don't worry so much over the assessments, having them "blank" instead of underrated is probably the worse issue. And I do not like going to B because some projects require a checklist for C or B and do not want to step on anyone's toes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd have gone with at least a C, considering the vast majority is cited, the quality of the prose is decent, and the amount of detail is far from lacking. Not a GA, certainly, but at least a C... maybe a B. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Your assessment of "Axial precession"
I noticed you used AWB to assess "Axial precession" as start class, while two other projects access it as B class. Superficially, this is disconcerting. First, automation being used to access an article seems odd. More importantly, WikiProject Time lacks an assessment scale. It seems to me that assessing articles in that project without establishing criteria is putting the cart before the horse. The practice also makes it difficult for people who come across the assessment and wonder what it means to determine the meaning of the assessment.

Perhaps you could describe your approach to assessment. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikiproject Time doesn't use assessment you say? What is WikiProject Time/Assessment for? And where there was no assessment, I provided one, but I'm not going to flag it to B just because that falls under the control of the official projects. Though I typically find issue with large lengthy segments lacking citations, yes there are plenty of book references to pages and that is my least favorite style, but if you are so worried of it not being rubber stamped as B when there was no assessment - why worry about start? The only real and pressing case I could be is that if its not a stub on the article (by template or content) than it should not be a stub on the talk page. Going to C is a safe bet, but I'm more than content to place it as "not a stub" than get involved in nitpicking C or B when project's like MILHIST have their own checklists and processes. And again, if it mattered so, why not just do this yourself? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I looked into Wikiproject Time further, and discovered there was an error in their project navigation sidebar, so that the link to the quality scale was a red link. I corrected that error. Having found the scale, I would say the quality is either start or C, so I'll leave your assessment as it is. Thanks for looking at the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, even if my assessments are subjective or "low", I'm not mirroring them. I noticed that some articles are rated B and they should not be, but previously one of my major tasks was, and will continue to be, monitoring the importance and assessment of WP:USA articles. I did not realize it was broken on WP:TIME's page... because I loaded straight into it. Basically, if the article is not a stub and is not rated, I've been doing starts - if they are unrated and are stubs I'll be placing stub tags on them after I finish the non-stubs. Assessments as a whole are supremely useful for project management and monitoring the gradual improvement of the encyclopedia, some like WP:SE have improved all their articles out of this low spot and a few more are almost 90% B or better. I'd just hate to put C or B on an article without being an active member of the project because I upset someone about it once prior. Though GA and FA get mirrored over, the one time I cross-rated one up as a B was when I got the "this does not meet our checklist, do not alter it from C". WP:ANIME is one area which does have a stricter B criteria as well and I'm happy to say I have a few GAs and hopefully soon some FAs from my work there. Neon Genesis Evangelion is one of the best articles in the space, but the GAR was intensive. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library's Books and Bytes newsletter (#2)
Books & Bytes Sign up for monthly delivery Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world. Wikipedia Library highlights: New accounts, new surveys, new positions, new presentations... Spotlight on people: Another Believer and Wiki Loves Libraries...  Books & Bytes in brief: From Dewey to Diversity conference...  Further reading: Digital library portals around the web...   Read Books & Bytes , 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Blastocladiomycota
Thank you for the general fixes applied to Blastocladiomycota and removal of the stub. TelosCricket (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Hope you have a good day. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Cough
*cough*here*cough*  The "Rechecked" label is new. It means a bot ran on the original list. What the bot didn't fixe is now listed and needs to be done manually. Bgwhite (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's cool, thanks for the heads up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi
My bad, I accidentally placed a level 1 warning for section blanking here, then when I re-checked the history for FK Sloboda Mrkonjić Grad I noticed I was reverting to your revision, not undoing your revision! NDKilla 03:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * , no worries. No harm done and thanks for giving me the heads up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Assessment of Variety (linguistics)
Hello, ChrisGualtieri. Thank you for assessing several WikiProject Linguistics articles, including Variety (linguistics). You rated that article "start" class, which suggests that it lacks important content, lacks reliable sources, contains irrelevant material, and/or "is weak in many areas". If you have time, could you leave comments at Talk:Variety (linguistics) specifying what areas you think are most in need of improvement? Thanks, and happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * , the article was not a stub so I made it a start class, but I do believe "start" to be the correct assessment. The article is confusing and doesn't really lend itself to a coherent or grounded understanding of what it is. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Cnilep (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You could move it to a C, but I would not push it to a B. Assessments are rather subjective, but GA and FA are peer reviewed and B is just before GA level. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Stub and start ratings
Wow, you've been busy reclassifying articles. I appreciate that you found a lot of articles that were incorrectly tagged as stubs and upgraded them to "start". Your efforts should make page ratings more meaningful across the entire encyclopedia.

I notice, however, that you reclassified a number of pages about U.S. places (mostly villages, towns, and CDPs) that strongly deserve the "stub" label. Articles like Winfield, Tennessee may be longer than the typical stub, but they truly have minimal content. These are articles that were created by some sort of robotic process back in 2002 and have seen no substantive alteration since that time. Their content consists of data harvested from the U.S. Census of 2000. The writing style is problematic and in many cases the data has not been updated. The only changes to most of these articles have been recategorizations and the addition of navboxes and pro forma infoboxes. Categorizing these as "start" could be considered false advertising - they are as deserving of the "stub" label now as they were in 2002.

Is there some way of mass-undoing some of your recategorizations? I've restored the stub label for Winfield, Green Hill, Tennessee, Stanton, Tennessee, and a few others that I noticed on my watchlist, but there are many others like them. --Orlady (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have the list, but I hope you understand that I came to that conclusion only after a careful analysis of what a stub is. According to WP:STUB, a stub is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of the subject - note that is different from "adequate coverage". In short, a stub is useless for obtaining even the most basic of information on any topic. Some people go with 250 words, some go with "1,500 characters" as per DYK. Now, rather than explain the rule of thumb I go by, let's take a look at what the pages in question convey. The article tells you where it is, when it was incorporated, its size, it population circa 2000 (out of date, yes), its zip code, area code, a map containing its location. The article goes deeper into the population density and diversity and the per capita income. I'm not going to lie and say that's wonderful information, but it is actually encyclopedic and it is very useful for establishing a basic idea of the town. It is better than City data's coverage and is actually more than I'd find in most reference books. You may see Huntsville, Tennessee as a better "start", maybe a "C" at best, but either way these articles convey in a very broad and specific aspect of the towns. Stubs are nearly useless and require outside consultation for even the most basic information, but that article is quite useful for many general use purposes besides "would I want to live here". Does this help or should we debate this some more? I'm actually finished with all the reassessment of Tennessee, Michigan, Oregon and such... but I'll hold off on others while we discuss. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * On a related noted, I removed this from WP:STUB because enwiki hasn't had that functionality since 1.4! That was a long time ago. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your informative and thoughtful reply. You make some excellent points. I've been cogitating on your reply and looking at illustrative articles, but it's past my bedtime, so I won't be responding tonight. (Probably not until Monday evening.) --Orlady (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for being understanding; my view of stubs rests heavily upon those that I've seen in the WP:NRHP project which often have three or four sentences maximum despite many lengthy pages of history being all but required to establish the why something is important enough to be listed. L. A. Dunton (schooner) is somewhere between stub and start; I'd say stub. Some like Nellie (sloop) are of seemingly questionable notability, but such ships are usually the last of their type and in this case is a museum ship with considerable history. I like to think of it this way, a stub doesn't prove or often back up its own claim of notability because it is too small to be of use. Use and value are not the same, however. The value of a stub is that it sows the seeds of growth better than the untilled soil of a red link. After about 500 words the article typically can tell you about the topic, enough so that you might learn something - hopefully its got some good references to further the reader - but still a start is lacking. C is when you start getting into the broad aspects and begin to develop fuller ideas, hence why my Huntsville example was leaning towards a C. While this is all very arbitrary assessment, please consider that after 500 words most articles are not stubs and take into account the WP:CL-RULE. If this was New York City we were comparing it to, it'd most certainly be a stub. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Assuming no further issue, I will begin re-assessing the WP:USA area towns and cities later today or tomorrow. I've kept busy doing other things and working on the Articles for Creation and Stiki backlogs. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry that it took me so long to respond. As it happens, my concern about these pages is related to the concerns I've had about some "NRIS-only" stubs included in the NRHP Wikiproject. Some NRIS-only stubs contain a fair amount of prose that is nothing more than an elaborate description of the database entry. Similarly, these place pages that were created from Census data and GNIS entries contain a lot of words, but those words (e.g., "...12.5% had a female householder with no husband present, and 33.1% were non-families. 29.8% of all households were made up of individuals...") are nothing more than verbose descriptions of the data in a database entry. I am uncomfortable about passing off either type of page as anything other than a stub unless there is a clear indication that a sentient human has provided some ground-truthing or other verification and context for the information obtained from the database. As with NRIS-only stubs, when a stub about a place is based solely on a database, it is not necessarily reliable. The geographic and demographic information from the Census may go farther than an NRIS entry toward giving a user what they might be looking for, but I'd still like to see some human-supplied context before these pages are determined to be "start"-class. (Keeping a database-only article in "stub" class may help garner attention from humans who can use personal knowledge and sources to put the information into a meaningful context.)
 * Winfield might not have been the best example, as the infobox contains that incorporation-date factoid. I've been exploring articles about places to remind myself of some other good examples of why I'm uncomfortable with calling some of these pages anything more than a stub:
 * Oxoboxo River, Connecticut is a CDP. The CDP apparently was given a name that isn't actually used as a place name. The article became the subject of contention (over the article name and redirects related to the article) between people in the local area who insisted this wasn't a real place and editors from other states who took the position that the census is always correct. The current configuration of articles and redirects seems to have resolved the contention. However, my experience with this article helped to form my opinion that neither GNIS nor the Census should be treated as a singularly reliable basis for an article.
 * Eagleton Village, Tennessee is another CDP, not far from where I live. I think I've been there, but didn't know it. I've never heard anyone from that local area talk about Eagleton Village as a place, and I couldn't tell you if it's a residential subdivision, a former municipality, an old factory village or farming community that has subsumed by suburbia, former military housing, an old plantation, or what. Web searches haven't helped. I'd like for articles like this one to remain as stubs until such time as someone can supply some sort of meaningful information to supplement the database dump.
 * One that perplexed me for a long time was Central, Tennessee, a CDP whose name is not an effective internet search string. I don't know the local area, I'd never heard of this place, and I wondered what the its reality might be. In the last few days (while looking at examples), I found sources that indicate to me that "Central" is an actual place name (not merely a label that a bureaucrat decided to slap on a census date collection unit), so I edited the article to add a modicum of information about it. The article is still vestigial, but I guess you could call it a "start" now because there's been some verification of the basic content.
 * Green Hill, Tennessee is another one that I managed to convert to what I would consider "start" class over the last few days (see diff). I don't know this community and I didn't add much, but I think my edits added a bit of the kind of minimal ground-truth information (e.g., that it's a community, that it's in the western part of the county, that it's near Nashville) that a person should expect to find in an encyclopedia.
 * It's late again, but I hope I've managed to clarify at least part of my thinking. --Orlady (talk) 06:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Very interesting points, but I already went through all of Tennessee and I did not re-rate Green Hill or Eagleton Village. However, Eagleton Village was assessed as a start back in 2007. Oxoboxo River, which while I haven't arrived at, should probably be mirrored as start for the other wikiproject, but your points all give merit to the argument about census data. Now, I've recently seen an editor who believes that stubs need 2 or more references and need more than 1500 characters to not be stub, but WP:STUB doesn't make that distinction. Even 2000 words of gibberish would still result in a page being a stub if not a speedy deletion target, but for these cases you list, CDPs at least, the residents may use the term, but they are clearly within larger town. Given that the page is a CDP page and that's about all that it really can do or be, perhaps merging them to towns and listing them within might be the better option - but given the aspect and data, isn't it still accurate and encyclopedic? I hate to really split hairs over very specific things like this in a somewhat arbitrary way, but I think we lack the manpower and time in order to really resolve a larger issue that exists here. I'm still new to the NHRP project, but more than 10000 articles are basically NCIS stubs and many more are just plain olde stubs, some starts are really stubs. I'm going to do some more work on this and try and get some of these lighthouses and historic vessels to start or maybe C, but I think the lack of interest is probably the real reason these articles are not as well maintained as WP:MILHIST's articles. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, you did re-rate Green Hill as a "start". I restored it to "stub" status, but subsequently re-rated it as a start after I added sourced content to the article.
 * As for the other pages I named, my purpose was to present examples to illustrate the reasons why I believe that no article that was robotically (or pseudo-robotically) created from a database should be classified as anything more than "stub" until a sentient human has edited in a fashion that validates the robotic content and augments it with some sort of contextual information. The creation of articles from NRIS database entries has been a serious concern, in part because many of the topics are very obscure and some of the database information has not been checked in more than 35 years. However, I believe that the same principles need to be applied to articles that were auto-generated from databases like census data -- if no human has validated the information or added to it from other sources, Wikipedia should not pretend that the article has more than the most minimal information value for any user.
 * As for your suggestion that CDP articles should be merged to articles for towns or other topics, I suggest that you keep that opinion to yourself -- because there are some users who will fiercely oppose that kind of initiative. Census-designated places are supposed to be recognizable communities that lack a legal existence. Many CDPs are well-defined villages -- some are even cities. I simply happen to contend that no article about a CDP should be regarded as anything other than a stub until the article consists of something more than a boilerplate description of a census data table. --Orlady (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe that to be pretty reasonable given the argument and I do apologize, I did not check the history on Green Hill. I thought I had skipped the more questionable ones already. NRIS ones, as you've probably noticed, are something I've almost entirely skipped. I've been slowly going through the articles and pulling out information on them, but it will be a long while before I can get many to GA or FA - and I rather do them one by one than shotgun them out with a second or third source to remove that new tag. It seems that I may be unable to actually complete my run given the limitations of Wikipedia and its systems and I need to add several hundred thousand new tags and really work on the importance issue of WP:USA before too much longer. I don't know if you are aware of it, but I've been one of the few editors trying to maintain such a massive project space as that. Without admin tools, I am not able to actually load the data to do the analysis required before really tagging them properly - I don't want to make multiple passes for it either. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Stalk- no, not actually
I've seen you so often on my watchlist I thought you were stalking me! Good work on the cleanups. --Lexein (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm highly active and I do a lot of different things. I do see you online a lot as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of DAICON III and IV Opening Animations
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article DAICON III and IV Opening Animations you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gabriel Yuji -- 03:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Assessment of Sting (musician)
Hi Chris! I noticed that you updated Sting (musician) with an assessment for WikiProject Religion of Start, while the other assessments are B-class. Per WikiProject Religion/Assessment, that would mean the article is "An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources" and "The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent." Would you mind posting to Talk:Sting (musician) with your suggestions for how the article could be improved before being reassessed? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't listed before, so it wasn't a downgrade, but I do not myself understand why Sting, who says he is "agnostic" is part of the group. I'll just move it up to a B, I didn't down grade it at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent point! I was so focused on the assessment that I wasn't thinking about that.  I see BetaCommandBot added the WikiProject Religion template in  in 2008.  Since then, the article has changed about his religion, so I'm going to remove the WP Religion template.  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. Glad that something like this resulted in a net improvement without any squabbling; its been tough for me in one area as of late. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Please rerun AWB on the Sikhism page
Please rerun AWB on the Sikhism page as I had to revert an edit. Thanks, Jujhar.pannu (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll do it later, but its alright. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * - ✅! GoingBatty (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Review
Hi Chris, just wondering if you wondn't mind reviewing my article. Thank you so much. The Extreme Sport Challenges Association Kieran3004 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kieran3004 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

invite
Hello, if you are still interested, I've opened up a talkpage discussion about an article you edited in the past, Active service unit, which currently covers military units within the Provisional Irish Republican Army from 1969-20xx. Please see this link. Talk:Active_service_unit. Someone else has proposed a new article about historical ASU(s). Hope this helps. p.s. As you probably already know, emotions can run high on this sort of topic, please do your utmost to be WP:NICE to your fellow editors, and stay serene. :-)   Appreciate your time, thanks for improving wikipedia. &mdash; 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I replied on the first matter, but I am not knowledgeable enough for the second. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And I'm not knowledgeable enough for either one! :-)   Sigh.  Anyhoo, appreciate the pointer, I vaguely realized there was such a thing, and looking through the wikipedia articles on acronym, there seems to be a pretty good explanation for why 71 feels like the British press is always trying to downplay the ASU units of the PIRA... *their* style-guides tell them to use Asu and Nato and Cobol, rather than the uppercase versions I would have expected.  Putting your knowledge together with my legwork, maybe we can resolve some of the slow but persistent WP:BATTLEGROUND in mainspace, which would be nice.  Thanks much, and see you around.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Aquapod (bottle)
AWB ain't gonna fix this, eh? ;-) Skarebo (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Edward Pellens
Hi Chris,

As you asked me, sources are mentioned. I hope it's OK now ? Grtz

Manfred GrL (talk) 06:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Somehow the wikicode didn't work out too well, but it looks better. Though by AFC policy you'll have to resubmit, I can't jump you to the top of the pile. If you could reference them, inline, that'd be best. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi
Do you happen to have any offline references with English airdates for List of Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion R2 episodes? I had to stop in my efforts on improving that article after I exhausted all online sources. DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 01:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll check, but most of my sources are 3-4 years old and are scholarly analysis. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, what is the current status for your GAs. They seem to have been stale for a while now. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 07:37, 9 December 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.

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

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4
The article Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of David Fuchs -- 14:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Article Class assessment using AWB
Hello! I've noticed that you, like myself, have been re-assessing Stub-Class articles for the Stub Contest. There's even been a couple cases where I've made a list with AWB, and you have already reassessed an article before I get to it! However, there are some articles in WikiProject Animation (such as Polar Trappers and Hippety Hopper for example) where you have updated the classification on the talk page, but left the stub tag on the article. If an article is no longer a stub, please consider updating the article as well as the talk page. Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Also noticed several in WikiProject Comics such as All-American Comics and Randy Glasbergen. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I swung around on many but I'll double check mine now. Thanks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Gage stuff
I see you are busy working on the Gage bio. I was going to remove all the open access templates (because they favor Macmillan, and they are unneeded) but I will ask you to do so because of the very likely edit conflict I would have created. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not really worry about favor of one over the other, but I do not think removing the templates represents a net improvement to the article. It'd come across as more of a knee-jerk reaction to the COI. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of DAICON III and IV Opening Animations
The article DAICON III and IV Opening Animations you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:DAICON III and IV Opening Animations for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gabriel Yuji -- 21:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

an article you created is up for merge
Since you created Bleach (anime) I thought you should know that after failing to get it eliminated by AFD, it was taken to a merge discussion. Since a merge in this case would be exactly the same as deleting it, nothing likely to be merged over, I think the article's creator should be contacted, as is standard practice in cases like this.  D r e a m Focus  23:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

University of Miami
BRD says that the first person to challenge the revert has to start a talk page discussion. Not someone who has to revert a revert by someone who isn't following BRD, last I checked.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

As I was going to say over at Mark Arsten's page, the only reason I said I was not discussing it any further is because I did not expect an IP editor who I got into a dispute with on the Bleach pages this weekend would suddenly decide to start wikistalking me. I am not in the mood to deal with this nonsense. I did not expect you to escalate things as they have and I feel as if you have completely ruined the attempts at reconciliation we had put forward a couple of weeks ago because you now feel the need to police me.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ryulong, if you cannot control yourself than all the reconciliation in the world (between us) will not help your situation. Notice I did not ask for you to be blocked and I did not file a report that would have 100% caused you to be blocked or bring the choo-choo-drama-train to Arb Com, but if we are going to work together, I'd much appreciate you refraining from edit warring in general. This goes double for pages on my watchlist. You asked for assistance on the Tokusatsu stuff, and believe me, I don't like Tokusatsu - but I explicitly told you how to deal with that IP editor and you've ignored it. 3RR does not allow you to go to the brink repeatedly or cross over it. You've said you would try to control yourself better and I'll not be taken hostage over the circumstances. We've not had a conflict, but you and other editors have, and Arsten is someone I respect, but he doesn't want to deal with it. It's just Wikipedia, but you are making this out to be some life-or-death situation and I think your "retired" post is indicative of how much wiki-related stress you have. I'm really busy with real-world things, and I think it would be in your best interest to take a non-block enforced break. Contrary to what you believe, Wikipedia does not need the latest Tokusatsu updates to which you seem a slave to. Without "Ryulong" to pick on, the problems go away and your self-destructive reactions only spur more drama - be the better person here. [[User:ChrisGualtieri|ChrisGualtieri] (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Telexfree article
I noticed you placed the "orphan" tag on the article. We just had up to today an "overlinked" tag, and it was requested a clean up, which I worked on it. I removed duplicates, and it was requested to removed red links that had had little chance to becoming an article in the future.There are still, however, a good number of links to other wiki articles. Could you address a bit more especifically terms which you think could be linked more? Thank you for your contribution.--Frontiersanders (talk) 06:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Replying on your page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hentai
The article Hentai you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Hentai for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lemurbaby -- 18:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Anime
The article Anime you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Anime for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lemurbaby -- 18:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yaoi
The article Yaoi you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Yaoi for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lemurbaby -- 18:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

second rejection?
Hi,

Just to clarify, was my article rejected for the second time or is it still under review?

Bst, Sven Lillepalu Lillekas (talk) 07:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

DAICON III and IV Opening Animations
Hi, ChrisGualtieri. Have you seen I started the GA review of DAICON III and IV Opening Animations on December 7? I put it on hold on December 9 due to your lack of response, and if you don't correct I'll have to fail it. There few and easily correctable issues only, and sincerely I don't want to see it failing. I hope you haven't abandoned it. Cheers, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed it the other day actually. I've been extremely busy and haven't abandoned it. I'll fix it up today or tomorrow, I've been stuck with 15 hour work days. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can figure out it now. Don't worry so much with it. You have until December 16 to fix the issues. I only came here to notify you just in case you didn't noticed it. Now, as you are already aware about it I'm more relaxed because I didn't want to fail a article that seems very fit to GA status. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will definitely fix the issues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

AWB edits with non-substantial changes
Your recent edit to the article for Delaware Township, Hunterdon County, New_Jersey was one of many to several articles on my watchlist, where the only change was to rename a link from Template:USCensusPop to Template:US Census population. This type of edit, which changes a redirect, does not effect any change in the article and is the type of edit that is generally discouraged. If the template name is the only thing changing in the article, can I suggest that the change be bypassed. Alansohn (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Question. This edit is listed specifically as a "non-cosmetic" change for the purposes of AWB. I did take a look prior to actually doing these, but I still cannot figure out any documentation on as to why and after looking and looking I still cannot find out why is it so. I believed, perhaps wrongly, that it was something to do with the way the template operated. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the rapid reply. From where I see it the one template merely redirects to the other, a common phenomenon that is treated as cosmetic. I sometimes change these in AWB if I'm doing other substantive edits, but I'm not sure why this one is deemed non-cosmetic. Where are you looking to see that this change specified as non-cosmetic? And as long as I'm talking to a power AWB user, why doesn't my AWB make hyphen and other cosmetic changes as part of my editing using AWB? Alansohn (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * the only thing I know is I run with the Skip if no Changes made, skip if only whitespace is changed, skip if only casing is changed and skip if only cosmetic changes are made. The skip is cosmetic seems to change the commons category, template as well, but it does seem to do nothing more than correct a template redirect. This sort of thing has confused me before, but like removing underscores in wiki-links is a visible on page hop that means it is proper fix. Hyphen changes like endashes? Those are non-cosmetic and should be run if you have the general fixes loaded up. I noticed from the Phineas Gage matter that you need to run a manual find and replace for templated instances of endash and emdashes. AWB is much about fixing all sorts of different problems, but there is no be-all-end-all edit, but if you are looking for more "cosmetic fixes" to be included, do you have unicodify whole page set to on? And AWB only does the hyphen changes in certain instances, some may be Regex built in, but I don't know for certain. I'll stick to a new task for awhile after I finish the Checkwiki 61 backlog, but I do need to consider learning how to make and run my own script for new fixes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * They say you only use 10% of your brain (true or not) but I know that I'm not using anywhere near the potential of AWB. I will look through the documentation and settings again for some of the items you describe. Are you doing the hyphen/endash correction manually (with an assist from AWB)? Alansohn (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * For that, I did not personally make the switch with AWB, but I basically used my word processor to fix the specific issues with find and replace like the shy templates. You do use 100% of your brain, but different regions and areas are for different tasks - so don't believe everything people say. You could always run the hyphen and dash correction manually by replacing – or — with the character. I like AWB for finding and fixing typos, punctuation and other errors. I actually picked up a book today on punctuation to help me write better prose. I've been really busy lately though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Teesside Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Outfit (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) 08:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

AWB edit summaries
I'm not familiar enough with AWB to know whether this is a bug, a design limitation or human error, but you seem to be making a lot of inaccurate edit summaries with it right now, where your only change to an article is to remove a stub template, while your edit summary is "Remove stub tag(s). Page is start class or higher + General Fixes + Checkwiki fixes using AWB". Just a heads up. --McGeddon (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It does list in in the Stub category for having the template. I'll switch it to "stub template" for better wording. I am also running general fixes and checkwiki fixes on it. By definition, an article that is beyond the definition or is not rated as a stub on the talk page should not carry the stub templates (and thus the stub tag) on its article page. The effect of the tag places it into Category:Stub categories. Articles like Château de Chavaniac and East China University of Political Science and Law are start class types and removing the stub tag is part of the re-assessment process. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I've no problem with the removal of any of the stub tags I saw, it just seemed like an inaccurate edit summary to say that general and CheckWiki fixes were also being made, when they were not. --McGeddon (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I still need to do a return pass and correct all the tags on the talk pages, which I am doing now. The edit summary was kinda tight, because I didn't like hitting the edit summary cap, but every edit did check for CHECKWIKI fixes and do General fixes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

TWL account coordinator
Hey Chris, thanks for signing up for the TWL AC position! I'd love to get you involved. Would you
 * Review the AC how-to page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TWL/AC/How
 * Email me through Wikipedia so we can cover a few more details offline
 * Set aside 30 minutes for a skype or google hangout chat this week?

Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 14:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not have a webcam and I do not have Skype or Google hangout, I typically use IRC for chatting. I'll follow up with an email to you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice talking to you! Ocaasit &#124; c 19:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Quick tech support note for Questia:
 * To access your account, type your OFFERIDPROMOCODE together with no spaces at this page: https://www.questia.com/specialoffer

Stub class talk pages
If you're going to delete stub class templates in articles, don't you think you should also change the talk page categories for those articles accordingly? 70.134.227.2 (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am. Just give me a bit of time to go through with this pass. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Questia
I had an account which expired.
 * When I try to follow the link from email, I get error message: "You have already an account with this isername".
 * When I login to my existing account and try re-activating, I get error message: "The code you provided cannot be used on this page. Please use this code at the Web address provided to you with the code." Tito ☸ Dutta 03:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Questia does not have the option to extend your current account with a new code. It is requiring everyone who is re-applying to sign up with a new e-mail. Is that going to present a problem - I could try and work this out with Questia if need be. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

thanks
I just wish Questia would let us use the prior email address for any re-activation of the free account . Folks who do not have spare emails seem to be in a fix. Collect (talk) 07:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. I have missed it. I too got confused by not getting my current email accepted, but easy to fix. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 12:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Re Email
Hello ChrisGualtieri. I think my mail is enabled, I did it some months ago. Can't you send me an email? Best regards. --Shalbat (talk) 09:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sent. Enjoy! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Email active now
Thanks for your message. I've now turned it on. Rgds, --Bill Reid | (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sent. Enjoy! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

2nd Artois
Dear Chris, thanks for your attention to the 2nd Artois page. To avoid any more piecemeal edits I've copied the page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keith-264/sandbox3 and will complete it before pasting it back onto the main page. Keith-264 (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

E-mail enabled
Hi ChrisGualtieri, my e-mail has been enabled for a long time. Best, --Queeste (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it was an error with the server. I've sent it out now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Arrived, thanks! --Queeste (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Class ratings
Hi. What exactly are the criteria you're using to rerate stub-class articles? Herman Long (baseball) is less than 900 characters of prose and definitely still a stub (on my list of articles to expand when I get to it), so I'm not sure why you re-rated it as start-class. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I go by the aggregate whole and generally anything with more than 350 words of content excluding templates, infoboxes and such are more than the definition required at WP:STUB or any of the assessment categories. A stub is near useless for a reader, it may be "nothing more than a dictionary definition". Specifically, "A stub is an article containing only one or a few sentences of text that, although providing some useful information, is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject..." Another metric is "Editors may decide that an article with more than ten sentences is too big to be a stub or that articles with more than 250 words is too big to be a stub. Others follow the Did you know? standard of 1,500 characters in the main text." - Everyone has different standards, but that infobox alone is enough of a reason for a start class so I included it in my assessment. With that being said, if you disagree, you are welcome to reset it to stub - which I see you have done. I may not agree, but that doesn't mean we have to fight about it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Stubs and prose content
You have been removing the stub tags from a number of articles, such as Clibanarius, Lysianassidae and Phacops, claiming in your edit summaries that they are "start class or higher". WP:STUB is clear that "stub status usually depends on the length of prose text alone – lists, templates, images, and other such peripheral parts of an article are usually not considered when judging whether an article is a stub." You are evidently failing to take this into account; although the article as a whole are relatively long, almost all of the content in each case is a list, which should not really be taken into account when determining stub status. These articles clearly are stubs, because the amount of prose content is very small. I trust you will take this into account in future. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll refrain from that area for now, but they are most certainly lists as it stands and should be rated as such. I did others like Ascidia and a handful not listed. Though I assume ones like Angophora cause no issue with you? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Angophora has sufficient prose content, I would say, but I have restored the stub tag at Ascidia, and cleaned it up a bit. Such articles are not list articles (i.e. ), because we would expect them to eventually contain much more than just a list of species; this isn't Wikispecies, after all. (Any true taxonomic list article would not bear the direct title of the genus name; rather, they would be titled along the lines of list of Daphnia species or list of Carex species.) A decent genus article, such as perhaps Homarus, not only lists the species but discusses them, leaving the species list as only a small proportion of the article. The articles themselves are not lists, and should not be treated as such; nor are they long enough in the parts that count to be anything other than a stub. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I am almost done getting my list of results back for possible errors and will recheck them and revert as necessary. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up redundant stub tags (I can't believe that Waskaganish, Quebec was marked as a stub for so long!). I like to suggest that when you do this, it is a good time to change also the WikiProject class on the talk page from stub to start, for example Talk:Waskaganish, Quebec. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I see you have been updating WikiProject classes, Waskaganish was just 1 you forgot. Thanks again. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Should be all good to go. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

FAC comment?
Hi. Would you be interested in voicing your support (or oppose/comment) at the FAC page for the article Of Human Feelings? If not, feel free to ignore this message. Dan56 (talk) 06:30, 16 December 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.

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

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Article ratings
Chris, Having watched many of these articles for years, it appears that there is very little being done to update either quality or importance ratings. I would suggest that when you are removing these bogus "Stub" tags from the articles because "it is at least a start" you take a look at the talk page and fix that too. I've been following your edits when you happen to cross my watch list. Just a suggestion. Keep up the good work. 7&amp;6=thirteen (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 13:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been checking and updating all the talk pages, but I do it on a return pass because already I've skipped quite a few articles by hand and many of the ones listed as stubs are already actually labelled as starts and do not need to be updated. Since its very easy to check for "class=stub" or about four variations, I can simply pre-parse those out on the return path and find and replace them. Though its about 1/7 that actually does need to be replaced, so its a pain to skip so many all at once. Some examples right before you pinged me are Talk:Ghent (Norfolk) and Talk:Mary Had a Little Lamb (Paul McCartney song), but Talk:Taz-Mania (video game) is listed a stub despite having a section on gameplay and development. I'll swing back around and probably finish those within 24 hours. I keep track of them with a list that I use - I had finished a block of them yesterday and have done so for quite some time. I'm not forgetting about them - trust me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It was not a criticism. I do trust you.   <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

 * Thanks. I have to make a note to return and actually update all the stub articles that do not have their proper stub tags on the ones that I skipped. I think we have about 10,000 something articles missing them which should have them. It seems that all the back-end categorization and checking of Wikipedia for editors and those category navigators are largely in a state of disrepair. Ser Amantio di Nicolao has been updating the categories on some of my created pages, something which I still don't "get", but with time and a little patience I'll learn. I recently found the worth of such categories because they are better than navigational templates on articles for more broad groupings. I've been a bit busy as of late with the holidays coming up, but I find it very enjoyable that people appreciate what I do. Thanks for noticing this humble little gnome. ^-^ ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The lack of due recognition of Gnomes seems to be endemic to Wikipedia. Go back under your mushroom and enjoy your cake. {:>{)>  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Your efforts are appreciated

 * Aww, thank you! That's a really cool picture, where did find that? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Higher than stub class?
Hi Chris! Would you care to have a look at WikiProject Pharmacology/Assessment? Articles like Metildigoxin‎ (2 lines of text on my screen are far away from Start class IMO. What do you think? Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right, I rolled it back. I wanted to hit skip on that one. It has got only 67 words in the body and that is most clearly a stub. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I screw up sometimes, the skip and the save are close together. Thanks for letting me know about it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)