User talk:Chris troutman/Archive 3

GA Review of Ernest C. Brace

 * Hi Chris, if you renominate, I'm happy to review this in the next week or two. I agree that many of the issues Dan raises are things we could resolve in short order. Sorry for this frustrating experience. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * Thanks for the recognition! I'm quite proud to be a member of the best damn WikiProject in the English language.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 07:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sheldon Adelson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gallup (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) 10:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Great Dane
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Great Dane. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Stepping away
Hey Chris, I saw your note about stepping away for a bit. I hope this recent GA review wasn't a contributing factor; it sounds from your note on Ed's page that you've had some bad luck with these so far, but I wanted to reassure you that these sort of reviewers are not the norm. Hope all's well on your end, and let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Cheers and all best, Khazar2 (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:San Salvador Island
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:San Salvador Island. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Miniscule 3686
Hi. You created the article Miniscule 3686 but all other similar articles are named Minuscule. Is the name difference correct? If it's not I can change it if you don't have time. Aisteco (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess I named the article based on the sources but it appears you are correct. Minuscule is the better spelling. Go ahead and change it.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 14:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks.
 * Aisteco (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of interest
A discussion you may be interested in is this RFC, a proposal to make the second comma in a date/place optional. United States Man (talk) 05:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Line of succession to the Swedish throne
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Line of succession to the Swedish throne. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 October newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year! Our champion, for the second year running, is. Our final nine were as follows:

All those who reached the final win prizes, and prizes will also be going to the following participants:


 * wins the FA prize, for four featured articles in round 4, worth 400 points.
 * wins the GA prize, for 20 good articles in round 3, worth 600 points.
 * wins the FL prize, for four featured lists in round 2, worth 180 points.
 * wins the FP prize, for 23 featured pictures in round 5, worth 805 point.
 * wins the FPo prize, for 2 featured portals in round 3, worth 70 points.
 * wins the topic prize, for a 23-article featured topic in round 5, worth 230 points.
 * wins the DYK prize, for 79 did you know articles in round 5, worth 570 points.
 * wins the ITN prize, for 23 in the news articles in round 4, worth 270 points.
 * wins the GAR prize, for 24 good article reviews in round 1, worth 96 points.
 * The judges are awarding the Oddball Barnstar to, for some curious contributions in earlier rounds.
 * Finally, the judges are awarding the Geography Barnstar for her work on sea, now a featured article. This top-importance article was the highest-scoring this year; when it was promoted to FA status, Cwmhiraeth could claim 720 points.

Prizes will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition. While it has been an excellent year, errors have opened up the judges' eyes to the need for a third judge, and it is with pleasure that we announce that experienced WikiCup participant Miyagawa will be acting as a judge from now on. We hope you will all join us in welcoming him to the team.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. Brainstorming and discussion remains open for how next year's competition will work, and straw polls will be opened by the judges soon. Those interested in friendly competition may also like to keep an eye on the stub contest, being organised by Casliber. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Iraqi Kurdistan
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Iraqi Kurdistan. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

MOS:COMMA
I have opened a new RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § RFC: Proposed amendment to MOS:COMMA regarding geographical references and dates. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 08:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleting an inbound page
Hi Chris,

I am ready for my wikipedia page to go live, however, you told me not to copy and paste but to move the page. Before that, however, I am supposed to request the inbound page to be removed. How do I do that?

Also, what if I copy and paste very specific parts of the page as opposed to the whole page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obamishigbin (talk • contribs) 02:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a couple things in play. Since the article you want change (Shelley E. Taylor) already exists, you are welcome to be bold and make edits as you need to; it would be inappropriate to have that page deleted.  Be sure to use the edit summary when making changes.  As you make incremental changes, another Wikipedian may revert your changes after which the issue can be discussed and a solution identified.  However, if you wanted to make a wholesale rewrite (paste your version in, replacing the current content) you would need to post a message on the talk page notifying other editors what you intend to do and give them a couple days to respond, thereby avoiding potential upset.
 * Additionally, you are using your user page as your sandbox and vice versa. The edit history is primarily only important in the main namespace, so once you've made the changes you need to, you can copy the content from your sandbox into your user page.
 * By the way, don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes on talk pages so editors can tell who wrote what comment. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 08:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism Question
Hi Chris,

As I'm editing the Wikipedia article on Normative Social Influence, I noticed that the very first paragraph is the exact same as the definition found here: http://www.definitions.net/definition/Normative%20social%20influence

Not sure who plagiarized who, but how should I proceed? Should I just strip the first paragraph from the Wikipedia article, and resummarize it in my own words?

Thank you for your help! Jblim23 (talk) 07:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking! Definitions.net has plagiarized Wikipedia and I can tell because Wikipedia has cited the quotes in the lede, thereby proving where Wikipedia's content came from.  I've run into this problem where the same unsourced quote was used in Wikipedia and other documents and it became impossible to tell which came first.  There's no need to re-write anything as several mirrors and blatant intellectual thefts of Wikipedia content exist so you'd always find cases like these.  I'm glad to see you're keeping your eye out for this sort of thing.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 07:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Iran–Iraq War
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Iran–Iraq War. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Galicia
Dear Chris. Please see my response to your message on my profile. That will be much apreciated--Martina Moreau (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Updating a stub
Hi Chris,

Normally I would just look this up on my own, but I figured it would be easier to just ask you. I am going to add quite a bit of information to the disconfirmed expectancy page later this weekend once I have finished polishing it up in my sandbox. When I do that, should I remove the STUB tags from the page/talk page? What is the general protocol for that?

Thanks, Adam Blake (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:STUB, there isn't a hard-and-fast rule for how much content makes a stub. I would say that if your improvements make the article more than a blurb, it's not a stub anymore.  Choose any of the listed possible criteria at WP:STUB if any of those grab your interest.  The DYK stub criteria is a good example.  Regardless, be bold and remove the stub template if you think it makes sense.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. I removed the stub tag from the page, but on the talk page the Psychology Project has it rated as class=stub. Can I remove that? Adam Blake (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's controlled by WikiProject Psychology. Any single member of the wikiproject can change it, but I would leave it to them.  Another editor will come by and rate the article and update the listing.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Rudy redux
You might not ever want to hear from me on this subject again, but I think I've now completed my gradual expansion of the Rudy Boesch article to reach the level of comprehensiveness I envisioned during the GA review. I'd be curious to know what you think. I've tried to keep to your article formatting and citing style as much as possible. I've also kept in mind your reluctance to embrace SEAL memoir sources, by using them when I think warranted but always attributing them in-text, and by buttressing them with more general sources. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "You might not ever want to hear from me on this subject again..."
 * You are correct. You've already had dozens of successful GA noms and this one appears to have been just another GA nom to you. This GA nom meant so much to me as it would have been my first successful nom and I'm bitter. I wish you had done your job as a reviewer per the published standards and later added additional content for an A-level review rather than hijack my effort. Moving the goalposts like that has helped drive me away from the GA project. Please do not review any nomination of mine in the future and don't contact me unless there's a real need. Don't even bother responding to this reply as I prefer not to hear from you.
 * Objectively speaking, you did a good job of incorporating all those memoirs. Mentioning the sources in the text is a good way of prefacing the material. I've not read those sources so I can't speak to how hard it was to find those mentions of Rudy or how accurate they are. As a history major, I find articles like these problematic because they're so recent and the sources are all probably unreliable. In 100 years we'll be able to use official documentation and those primary sources will have been vetted by good secondary source analysis. You added a lot of content to the article and it certainly gives a better impression to the reader of who Rudy is. I think you used an even-handed approach to address the claims that Rudy was brought in on the show as a ringer by Burnett. I note that you changed all instances of SEAL Team TWO to SEAL Team Two. I don't know why the Navy insists on capitalizing TWO, but I thought that sticking to their conventions for their organization made more sense despite looking silly. I am glad you kept the lede section emphasizing Boesch's military career over his appearance on Survivor even though he's more widely known for his time on the TV show than his naval career.
 * Regardless of my bitterness, you ought to submit this article for GA or better review. Rudy deserves more press and I think your efforts deserve credit, too. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * A week has gone by but I am still as dismayed by the intensity of your reaction as I have been by anything that's happened to me in eight years of WP. I've gotten bad negative reactions before, but generally by editors who are obnoxious, unstable, troublemakers, or socks.  You are none of those, so clearly something has gone really wrong here.  I know that WP has a norm that "Don't ever talk to me again" requests should be honored, but in this case I'm going to take a chance and violate that norm, because there are three things that I think are important to say:
 * I am really, genuinely sorry about what I did on this GA. I should not have jumped in and begun significant contributions to an article I was reviewing.  I went wrong by taking two truths – that GA reviewers have always been encouraged to step in and fix review issues directly if they want, and that no one owns articles and others can always join in – and combining them.  But this results in too many blurred lines, and occurs at the moment (article submitted for review) when stewardship feelings are naturally at their highest on the part of the nominator and thus most likely to result in hurt feelings.  And more than most editors, I believe that "ownership" or "stewardship" or whatever you call it is not such a terrible thing – without it, you wouldn't ever get really quality articles.  The uncomfortable truth is that in fifty GA reviews, I've done this not once but three times, and although the outcomes have varied (one seemed to end up well, one started well but ended not so, and this one was a disaster), I should not have been doing this at all.  So in the future, I will limit any edits on articles I am reviewing to superficial typo and formatting fixes and the like and nothing more.
 * What I should have done with the Rudy review is fail the article outright, list everything I thought was missing from it, and walk away. Because this is the article I saw at the beginning of the review.  It is 650 words long and, in my view of the GA 3a "broad in its coverage" requirement, was completely lacking in that respect.  It leaves out important elements of the subject's life and, more crucially, gives the reader no inkling of why he became a legend within the SEALs and one of the most popular contestants ever on a popular television show.  (By comparison, the current article, which in my view does do this, is 3,100 words long.)  And given that, as we both agree, sources are difficult for this subject, there was no way all the missing material was going to be found and added within a week, the usual GA review waiting period.  At that point, if I had done that, you could have, at your own pace, researched and added the things from my review you thought worthwhile, ignored the things you thought were not, and nominated the article again to see what the next reviewer thought.  And whatever happened  then, you would have still felt the article and the nomination was yours.
 * Don't let what happened in this episode drive you away from the GA process! I get that you feel extra bad because it was your first try, but WP can be a rough-and-tumble place at times.   My first FA attempt was torn to shreds.  Another was subjected to four hundred edits in a week by someone who had very particular views about grammar and usage.  I've had GA and FA negative reviews I could and did learn from, others I could respect even if I disagreed with them, and still others I could not respect at all.  It all comes with the territory; any of the WP review processes are by definition highly variable and reviewer-dependent.  You've just got to get up, brush off the dirt, and try again.
 * Anyway, the most important thing I am trying to say is that I really am sorry for my lapse in judgement that led to all this happening. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Ed tags
I noticed that you put the educational tag on the Atkinson-Shiffrin memory model talk page. It links to the 220 Social Psych course that I am in right now, but I didn't edit that page for the course, I expanded Disconfirmed expectancy. I'll go put the tag on the page I did edit, if you think it's necessary, but I don't know that it belongs on the Atkinson-Shiffrin page as I just edited that like any other Wikipedian would. I'd hate any reviewer to just assume that I am another high school student or undergrad --- it might unwittingly (or wittingly) bias them when they are reviewing the page, and I don't think that's very fair. In fact that's why I didn't put it on the talk page for the one I did for class---I may have been required to do it for class, but I put in a bunch time and effort researching other Wikipedia articles and attempting to conform to all the standards and whatnot, and I really don't want someone reading that article to see that tag and discredit it (however slightly) because of it. I think you can understand my concern.

Anyway, like I said, if you want me to put it on the one I edited for class, I can do that. The other article though, I edited on my own for my own reasons...

Best, Adam Blake (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's message templates are meant to communicate good-to-know items to other Wikipedians, not prejudice them against your work. Wikipedia in fact does not have a program for high school students, so no one assumes that you are in primary education.  Still, I understand your point.  I reverted my edit on the Atkinson-Shiffrin talk page.  If it's an issue for you, you may remove the message from 'disconfirmed expectancy' although I insist that no one thinks less of you for being a student.  Please continue editing as you have been.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry I sounded a bit disdainful there in my last message. I had just read some disparaging remarks about student editors on Wikipedia talk:Student assignments.  I might go suggest some rewording to the lead on Student assignments. The very first sentence seems pretty negative (not that it isn't a valid statement, I just don't know how I feel about it being the first thing you see on the page). Not a big deal though. I think the most frustrating thing is that it looks like some educators are dropping these assignments on students like another term paper, and learning to write in a neutral, well-sourced style is a pretty tough thing to do. Anyway, this project has definitely gotten me more interested in Wikipedia and editing here (as you can see I've already gone on to other articles and I actually have a queue lined up).  Thanks for volunteering your time and helping our class out with both the general and the more technical issues!  Best, Adam Blake (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Riga supermarket roof collapse
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Riga supermarket roof collapse. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 29 November 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)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2011_Helmand_Province_incident&diff=585295340&oldid=585289408 Article assessment]
Hi. Would the article pass B5 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Helmand_Province_incident&diff=585298038&oldid=585289308 now]? It Is Me Here  t / c 16:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Done. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 17:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Teenage pregnancy
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Teenage pregnancy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

gun control rfc
As you were involved in a previous discussion on this topic, I am notifying you of a new RFC on this topic. Talk:Gun_controlGaijin42 (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy holidays


''' JianhuiMobile talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. ''' JianhuiMobile talk 07:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Merry Christmas! Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 07:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Holodomor
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Holodomor. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


Mediran ( t  •  c ) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Mediran ( t  •  c ) 08:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Your TPS response to my question
Hi Chris, Firstly thank you so much for getting back to me with an answer, I appreciate the heads up about the get to know wikipedia thing also... very amusing... I can't wait to get past chapter 1. Anyway I found an article which I was reading, I went to the reference to find the information mentioned and it wasn't in the article at all... In fact the name didn't even appear in the particular article... It could be an intentional error to create a valid reason for a link from wikipedia... Which seams a little fishy... I am asking as my grandfather who is Iranian suggested the information is incorrect...

article: Iranian Australian The first case of an Iranian to enter Australia and gain Australian citizenship was Jacques Cadry in 1951.[2] ^ Hassall, Graham; (ed.) Ata, Abe (1989). Religion and Ethnic Identity, An Australian Study. Melbourne: Victoria College & Spectrum. pp. Chapter "Persian Bahá'ís in Australia" The article cited does not mention Mr Cadry at all... I don't know if this is a useful edit to make but I thought the fact may require a little more checking? Thanks Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danomitey (talk • contribs) 10:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see what you mean. I removed that sentence and the spurious reference.  In the future, be bold and make changes when needed.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Union of South Africa
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Union of South Africa. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote
Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi !  We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

--

Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue
Books & Bytes ''Volume 1 Issue 3, December/January 2013 (Sign up for monthly delivery)'' Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!

The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:
 * Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%
 * Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC
 * New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers
 * Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors
 * Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration
 * Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting

...Read Books & Bytes!

Happy New Year!


Jianhui67 talk ★ contribs — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Jianhui67 talk ★ contribs 09:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Bisk Farm
Wish You a very happy new year Bisk Farm is my article,Please do not change any thing.All the details are related to originality.

Anurag Chakraborty talk ★ contribs 11:13 am, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You do not own that article or any other. If you wish to contribute to our encyclopedia, that's fine.  You may not, however, fence off articles as if they were yours.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 05:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

GA review for Audie Murphy filmography
Chris, per WT GA suggestion that this article be renamed after the GA review to Film career of Audie Murphy, I believe that will be a good idea. But so I don't get into a move-move back war, could you please make a mention on the review that this was suggested at WT GA. Thank you for your help. — Maile (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind. All the opinions aren't in yet. — Maile  (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Broadway (New York City)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Broadway (New York City). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13
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.


 * Norman Adams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to National Geographic, Harpers, Boy's Life and Argosy

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

New proposals at Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014
Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/United Nations at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Southeast Africa
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Southeast Africa. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for United Nations
Thanks for helping the wiki Victuallers (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Original Research
Hi Chris. Belated welcome back to Wikipedia. You may recall that, back in September, you suggested that I had tried to publish original research in the Thomas More article. That accusation is completely untrue, and I would appreciate it if you could withdraw it. You responded at the time, which I appreciate, but you didn't withdraw the accusation regarding original research. In fact you compounded it by suggesting that I had attempted to edit the More page "according to my own opinions" and that I had done so "as if what [I] believe is unquestionably true". As it happens, you're mistaken on that score too: there are very few things I believe to be "unquestionably true" - Cogito Ergo Sum and Pythagoras's theorem would be two contenders, and I'm not even certain of those - so the idea that I regard my beliefs about Thomas More as being beyond question, let alone that I would edit Wikipedia accordingly, is very wide of the mark. But I don't want to spend too long debating your assumptions about what I believe. All I want is to tackle once and for all the suggestion that I attempted to publish original research in the More article. Could you therefore please substantiate that accusation or withdraw it. I think I've been quite patient in waiting two months (and counting) for this to be resolved. I fully accept that you felt the need to take time away from Wikipedia in October, and realise that you could not respond at that time, but now that you are back I'd appreciate it if you could resolve this outstanding question. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry. You deserved an answer long ago and I failed to get back to you.  I had begun developing a reply but I wanted to be precise since there's been disagreement.  Sadly, I was overcome by events.  I've already posted to the More talk page so the audience can see it there. I'm going to be brief, so please no tendentious replies.
 * Take for instance your deletion. You went on a long explanation of why you thought that content was biased.  You never provided sources beyond your own belief about More.  You never provided any academic criticism of Marius's book.
 * I previously brought up your deletion at Catherine of Aragon. The text communicated what the cited sources said.  It's not up to Brooklyn Eagle on behalf of the English-speaking world to determine the sources didn't mean what they said. As I suggested back on 8 October, you are welcome to remove improperly sourced content or use the inline templates to raise questions about particular sentences.  I've looked at your edit history and I agree that often you've helpfully removed POV and bias from various articles.  This time I think you're stretching too far, especially considering you haven't brought a single source with you after all these weeks.
 * In conclusion, if you felt I claimed you were writing original research, consider that rescinded. I think you can go on at least using inline templates and raising questions on talk pages about POV issues.  And please, adopt a nicer tone.  I'm trying to appreciate your zeal for getting this right but you don't come off well at all and it makes a difficult discussion needlessly harder.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, and also for the gift of sugar, which was a nice gesture. No worries about the delay, I realise you were busy. Besides, as you can see from this, I'm not exactly lightning fast when it comes to replying either.

With regard to what you say, you keep bringing up Catherine of Aragon, despite the fact I've already acknowledged I might have erred on that occasion. I stand over trying to correct the ludicrous idea that we can have any idea at this remove whether CofA was beautiful or not, and particularly the patently untrue suggestion that Shakespeare (who was born after CofA died) described her as such, but I accept that I should have handled it differently. So I repeat my question from last time: are you going to keep bringing it up forever, or can we get back to the discussion in hand? The discussion in hand was about Thomas More.

With respect to your request that I change my tone, I'm sorry if I sound harsh. As I've said several times, I take very personally the suggestion that I tried to publish original research. I'm glad that you've now acknowledged that that accusation is untrue, but your statement (on the Thomas More talk page) that you never said it in the first place does rather undermine the apparent goodwill you showed by rescinding said accusation.

But I'm prepared to offer you the benefit of the doubt, to accept that because of the passage of time you've forgotten the occasion on which you suggested that I'd tried to publish original research. So let me refresh your memory. Here's what you said of my attempt to edit the More page: "It is not the job of editors to philosophize about St. Thomas More." What you meant by "philosophize" might possibly seem open to interpretation but, fortunately, we don't need to do any interpretation. You very helpfully and clearly spelt out what you meant by "philosophize". You'll note that that passage is in blue font, and if you click on it you will be redirected to ... yep, Wikipedia's prohibition on the publication of original research.

I hope that jogs your memory. Like I say, I do appreciate the retraction, but perhaps you can see why it doesn't sound entirely sincere when that retraction is along the lines of "If you think I accused you of something then please consider the accusation rescinded (but in fact I never accused you of it in the first place)". Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

PS Further to the above, I note that the person who originally wrote the paragraph that I was objecting to (in the Thomas More article) has come forward to explain himself. He states (with disarming honesty) that he unilaterally decided to "balance" the article because, in his opinion, Marius was not as "reliable" as other sources and did not reflect the "standard" view. Like I say, his honesty is admirable, and he also comes across as genuine and sincere. Unfortunately, he also stated that he was "not sufficiently interested" to find sources to substantiate this opinion, which was based on a "recollection from many years ago". This vindicates what I've been saying all along, namely that the paragraph in question was clearly agenda-driven. An acknowledgement of that would be much appreciated.

Anyway, since the contributor has, by his own admission, done exactly what you accused me of back in October - namely approaching articles with his own opinions and editing accordingly (with few if any sources) - I look forward to you delivering the same lecture to him as you did to me. No doubt you'll tell him that, "it's not up to you, on behalf of the English-speaking world, to say that Marius is unreliable" etc etc.

Finally, it's also interesting that another user has come along and deleted (without any discussion on the talk page) two sourced quotes (one by Marius), dismissing them as "POV verbiage". This is exactly what I did back in September, the edit that you instantly reverted. Or rather, it's almost exactly what I did. The difference being that the stuff I deleted was, as you now acknowledge, improperly sourced in at least one respect (and not at all sourced in most others), whereas this latest edit has removed sources that are 100pc accurately reproduced. Again, I await with interest your lecture. No doubt it will be along the lines of, "In Wikipedia, we consult on the talk page before deleting referenced content".

After all, you're completely even-handed, right? You're not, I assume, the sort of person who reverts "incorrect" edits merely because he disagrees with them but ignores equally "incorrect" edits he agrees with. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm going to answer your accusations on the article's talk page. Don't bother me about this again. Seriously. Don't contact me ever again. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 07:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles December 2013 Backlog Drive
Hi everyone, I've noticed that a few of you haven't updated your totals as several reviews have passed but on the backlog page, it still says that the article is under review or on hold.

Please update your totals and continue to do so until February 1. If the status of a review is under review or on hold according to the backlog page, even though the article may have passed/failed, it will not count towards your final total.

For those that made pledges during the drive, the final donation amount will be determined sometime in February.

Thank-you. Sent by Dom497 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Brazilian Expeditionary Force
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Brazilian Expeditionary Force. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Shipping_Wars
Chris, I am having trouble with a web page. Some one keeps adding a lengthy summary to a table Shipping Wars and I keep deleting it. can you rectify the problem? Mphsmeister (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)memphismeister
 * OK. For future reference, when you have problems like this discuss it on the talk page.  Placing warnings on talk pages is the best ammunition you can give sysops to block a problem user.  Sometimes a talk page discussion resolves the issue.  I've put warnings on the talk pages of the offending IPs. If the behavior continues, apply vandalism templates (level 2 up to level 4) until a sysop is needed.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you move a review page?
Audie Murphy filmography has just been moved to Film career of Audie Murphy. GA review is now a redlink. Can it be moved? — Maile (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. — Maile (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Seeking comment on an area of your expertise
I'm doing a graduate research project on Will Eisner's PS Magazine. I see from your editing history you are familiar with the publication, and I'd love to pick your brain on the subject. Would you be interested in touching base? I'm Graham, stecklei@usc.edu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CED9:DC30:C40D:875:3E5C:DB97 (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Check your e-mail.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Take a Cake Break

 * Many thanks! I was glad to see it.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Page Approval for Vakthang Harutyunyan
The article for Vakthang Harutyunyan was resubmitted for approval with additional references showing his notability through tv interviews and newsletter articles. Is that enough to establish notability or is another type of reference needed? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lerysian (talk • contribs) 06:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of a discussion that may be of interest to you
There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Multiple accounts
Hi Chris, first thanks for accepting my article on Tove Dahlberg. You also noted that I have used multiple accounts. Yes and no. I originally used one for English, one for Swedish and one for Wikimedia. It used to be that there was no alternative. Then I have had a long discussion during the last couple of weeks with a couple of editors re my accounts since one of them is too easily recognizable. We jave jointly determined that from now on I will use only Klättermusen. Klättermusen (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kate Fodor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety (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) 08:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 January newsletter
The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer, whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:


 * and were the first people to score, for the good article Tropical Storm Bret (1981) and its good article review respectively. 12george1 was also the first person to score in 2012 and 2013.
 * scored the first ITN points for 2014 North American polar vortex.
 * scored points for an early good topic, finishing off Featured topics/She Wolf.
 * scored the first bonus points of the competition, for his work on Typhoon Vera.
 * has scored the highest number of bonus points for a single article, for the high-importance Jurassic Park (film).

Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.

Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup points.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Richard Keech
I have added Murder of Nicholas Candy to the deletion discussion. I made up my mind (a bit late) that the two articles should be discussed together. Could you take another look at the AfD? Thank you, —Kusma (t·c) 20:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Opium Wars
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Opium Wars. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)