User talk:Chris troutman/Archive 5

WikiCup 2014 March newsletter
A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. , who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. 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) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

COI and AFC
Regarding [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&diff=602242153&oldid=602240994 this message] on the AFC Help Desk: AFC is one of the few ways an editor with a COI can "start" a page that will later become an article. Once it's moved to the main encyclopedia though, the normal COI rules apply. If this page is accepted and a COI is confirmed, connected contributor and possibly COI should be used. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  21:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no exception in WP:COI for AfC. The username in question bears some semblance to the subject of the article and my guidance on that point is solid.  I can't imagine why we should accept inputs that appear to violate policy within AfC only to enforce those rules once the article is accepted.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The COI guideline is written with articles in mind, not drafts. In longstanding practice, AFC submissions have been "the place" for COI-impacted editors to "start" an article.  This sure beats the alternative, which is to find a related page and use it's talk page to recommend the addition of the material then recommend an immediate splitting the new content off into a new article, hoping someone would do it.  Such a technique would be explicitly WP:COI-compliant but be very WP:POINTy and much more disruptive than creating a draft in AFC or Userspace then asking for an independent review by a dis-interested, experienced editor.
 * You do bring up a good point: The COI guideline needs to be updated to reflect actual longstanding practice:  Draft pages outside article space are treated as if they were article-talk-page suggestions.  That is, 1) they are allowed, 2) disclosure is highly recommended (I would favor changing the practice and guideline to make this a requirement but that's a separate issue), and 3) there is no requirement that the draft be moved into article space (my observation in my years at AFC is that clearly-ready-for-mainspace submissions will be accepted, "marginal/maybe-maybe-not" submissions are more likely to be rejected than if they were written by a non-COI editor on the assumption that bias is present, and good-faith/non-blatantly-promotional-only COI-editors's accounts with obvious username-policy violations are warned/required to change their usernames).  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  15:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I noticed your question at AfC. I think this is the best way to start with the changes you intend to make. I'm not going to comment there since I'm not a "seasoned reviewer." I haven't been an editor that long and only started at AfC a couple months ago so I can't speak to what typical practice has been.  I will say that I'd rather make it widely known to the public that Wikipedia is hostile to self-promoters and POV-pushers than keep AfC as a gateway for those types.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 17:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * One issue that we have is that some people who have COIs are capable of writing in a neutral way and they are experts in their field and can write a decent article about a notable topic. For example, a biologist who is paid to research a particular family of animals and might have a COI if there was a greater awareness of the animals he studied.  As an expert, he would know where to find reliable source references and might have access to paywalled sources not available to most people.  If that same scientists happened to be able to write articles about all of the missing genuses and species in that family in a neutral way, he needs a place to do it.  He cannot do it in article space due to the COI. Note:  I picked animals for this example to make notability a moot point:  Species whose existence is generally accepted by the scientific community are rarely if ever deleted on notability grounds, and species with no articles are frequently presented as desirable red-links rather than non-wikilinked.  Now, I certainly agree with you, there is a huge amount of COI-contributed material that has no place in the project.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sunflower Student Movement
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sunflower Student Movement. 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, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Realpolitik
i did not think my edit was unconstructive it says on e.h. carrs wiki page that he was a marxist--121.220.66.99 (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. If you think I'm wrong, start a discussion on the talk page. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 07:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Heinecken
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Vakhtang Harutyunyan
Hi Chris, I am trying to get published in US in order to get Vakhtang Harutyunyan Article approved in wikipedia. Could you please explain why the following article for Vahan Artsruni was ever approved by wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vahan_Artsruni Vakhtang Harutyunyan is as notable if not more as Vahan Artsruni. looking at his page i don't see any sources but yet his article is approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lerysian (talk • contribs) 18:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * First, don't point at other articles to excuse your own problems. Secondly, the Vahan Artsruni article was created outright in 2008, not accepted through the AfC process. The AfC WikiProject was started to prevent articles like that from being created. I agree, that article lacks sources and doesn't indicate notability.  If you feel so strongly about it, nominate it for deletion.
 * I've already had a long conversation with you about what needs to be done to get Vakhtang Harutyunyan accepted and you've not made the changes I specified. At this point, I don't care to hear from you again on the subject. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

possible "problems" with IP editor mass-assessing milhist articles as "start" class
Hi Chris - could you look into this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Problems_with_ip_assessments please? Given your qualifications as a GA reviewer I would have to assume you'd understand better than me if what's being alleged or suggested (a pattern of abusive or perhaps fraudulent assessments/reviews of milhist articles) is taking place, and if so, what can or should be done - if anything. Thanks. JDanek007Talk 23:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to thank you for responding to my request to check-out what was happening. I appreciate that and simply wanted to say so here. nntr. Cheers! JDanek007</b><sup style="color:olivedrab;">Talk 20:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Memorial for Adrianne Wadewitz
Hi Chris, please email me regarding Adrianne's memorial service, we would love to have you attend if possible. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbjamesphoto (talk • contribs) 02:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Shamrock Summit
On Shamrock Summit, its a he-said she-said with the Ottawa anon IP. However, if you think some parts of my edits are incorrect, by all means critique and correct it. Brimspark (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the content you removed was sourced and you've inserted your own unsourced POV content. After being reverted you re-inserted the content.  Per WP:BRD, you need to discuss on the talk page.  If you're going to be a problem editor, why don't you just leave Wikipedia?  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Requesting input at the discussion: !Vote requested to clarify matters about awards sent. NorthAmerica1000 00:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:False flag
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:False flag. 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, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Dominic de Guzmán's year of death
Hi Chris,

I've changed that date from 1234 to 1221 because 1) later in the article his year of death is given as 1221 2) if someone clicks on his name, his year of death is given as 1221

As far as a reference goes: http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=178 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.66.169.157 (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You are correct, he died in 1221; I self-reverted. Catholic.org isn't a reliable source and it appears to be a questionable website. The correct source is Jean Guiraud's 1909 book Saint Dominic. (It's on page 175).  I had reverted you because the 1234 date was included in the cited source. I'll update the source accordingly.  Thank you for contacting me about this so I could fix it properly.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 07:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

UCLA course
Hi Chris,

Thanks so much for offering to be a campus ambassador for my course, and helping my students engage with Wikipedia. Would you be interested in perhaps talking to my class (10 students, and a few more who are auditing)? I teach T/Th from 11 am - 12:15 pm. We could also meet, either at UCLA or in the vicinity of Culver City (where I live).

Thanks again!!

Jfk nl80 (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

. It would indeed be great if we could meet.
 * I'm in class on Tuesdays and Thursdays and I could more easily meet on Mondays, Wednesdays, or Fridays. I have off class this Thursday so I could also meet you then. Finally, I have a break the week of 11-17 May so we could schedule something then, as well.  Please advise.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If you're interested in talking to my class about wikipedia, then this Thursday (11 - 12:15 pm) would be perfect. Otherwise, I'm flexible all day Monday from ~9:30 - 5 pm, Wednesday from 11 am - 12 pm and 1 pm - 3:30 pm. I usually work from home on Fridays(this Friday being an exception, when I'm unavailable). Let me know what works for you. Thanks! Jfk nl80 (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll see you on campus this Thursday (17 April) at 1100. Please advise on your class location.  Also, I have a short presentation I typically give.  If there's any specific points you'd like me to address please let me know.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Fantastic, looking forward to it! I am in 7142 Math Sciences Building, and the class is in 7121 Math Sciences. Here is a map with the building I'm at (the "to" address), and the information booth where they can point you to the nearest available parking. I'll be happy to reimburse your parking if you keep the receipt. A detailed campus map is here. Also, if possible, it would be great if you could perhaps come a bit earlier (maybe 10:40 am?) so that you and I can also chat before my class. Finally, is it possible to send me your presentation beforehand so that I can have an idea what you'll be discussing, and can see if there's anything I'd like you to discuss? My email is at the bottom of my personal website.
 * Thanks so much! Jfk nl80 (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

This Month in Education: April 2014
Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription.

Battle of Lodz OOBs
I see that you have deleted my OOB additions to the 1914 battle of Lodz entry for the reason that they are not reliably sourced. Would you please elaborate.

Here's why I'm puzzled by your reason: Most of the Central Powers OOB info comes from Weltkrieg, the multi-volume German Reicharchiv work on WWI. This is a recognized source for for information on teh German side of WWI. Most of the Russian OOB info comes from the Annexes to Korolkov's book; the annexes are based on documents from the Russian archives.

Respectfully, Asayoelson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asayoelson (talk • contribs) 18:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear on the reliability of the website. How do I know that this info accurately reflects information in the archive or in a book?  Archival sources are not recommended for use in Wikipedia because they necessarily require analysis. If information comes from a book, why not cite that book?  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok; I see your point. I have changed the footnote to cite both the book & the website. Does that satisfy you? I cited to the website for several reasons: 1. The book is not widely available and it's in Russian. By citing to the website those who i) do have no access to the book, or ii) who cannot read Russian, can read the electronic version of the book (Russian-illiterates by using Google Translate). 2. I read what is on the website, not the book. I learned years ago to cite my actual sources not a source I did not actually read.

Your point about websites not being reliable is well-taken. I regard that particular website as reliable for several reasons: Over the years I have read its electronic versions of books and have found no obvious mistakes or recitation of facts that do not jive with other sources. In at least two instances I read various portions of Falkenhayn's & Wulffen's books in German and compared them with the relevant parts of the Russian versions on that site & found no significant differences. It may be that the website operator has cleverly altered key parts of some of the books posted there but I think that's unlikely.

lastly, you deleted all of the OOB info even though I footnoted to Weltkrieg for both sides. Since your objection was confined to the website cite I wish that you had deleted just the website part of the footnote rather than all the OOB info.

asayoelson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asayoelson (talk • contribs) 02:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're citing the website not the book. I can understand that. The problem is, we only have your word to say the website is reliable. Is the website associated with the publisher or is the website a copyright violation?  If you were citing the book it wouldn't be a problem.  I removed all the OOB content because it's all dependent on that source.  If the source is suspect, so is the content. Rather than continue the conversation here, I'd prefer to discuss this on the article talk page.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sheila Dixon trial, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WBAL (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) 08:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Palestine (historic region) topics
Template:Palestine (historic region) topics has been nominated for merging with Template:Palestine topics. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.GreyShark (dibra) 15:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 5
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 5, March 2014 by ,

<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * New Visiting Scholar positions
 * TWL Branch on Arabic Wikipedia, microgrants program
 * Australian articles get a link to librarians
 * Spotlight: "7 Reasons Librarians Should Edit Wikipedia"

Education Program technical update, April 2014
Since the last update, development of the editor campaigns project has been continuing, and it's almost at the point that it will be useful to users running edit-a-thons and other non-course outreach events. (If you are planning such an event soon and would like to beta test it for tracking the contributions of newcomers, get it touch.) In the meantime, we've made a few small improvements and bug fixes to the Education Program extension:

The default end date for courses is now approximately six months in the future, instead of immediately. This will prevent the common problem where a user creates a new course page but does change the default dates, resulting in a course that is immediately considered "ended" and thus cannot be enrolled in.
 * Default course end date

Whenever a user gets added to a course by someone else, they will now receive a Notification.
 * Notifications when you get added to a course

The student profile special page (Special:Student/Username, not to be confused with Special:Students) is a page that lists the courses a student editor is enrolled in, and is also supposed to list the articles that user is working on. However, the list of articles can include incorrect data in cases where an instructor or volunteer assigned the articles to the student editor. These profiles are being removed from the extension altogether. This change should go into effect Thursday, May 1. (Logs are still available to find out which courses a user is enrolled in.)
 * Disabling individual student profiles

A nearly complete patch from Facebook Open Academy student Jeff Lloyd will add a new type of Notification: students will be alerted to edits made by others to the article(s) they are assigned (as well as the corresponding talk pages). Expect to see this feature within the next several weeks.
 * Article edit notifications for students coming soon

Bugs in the course page creation process (now fixed) led in some cases to duplicate listings for the same course at Special:Courses. This happens when the same course page had two (or more) different course ID numbers. It is possible to clean up such duplicate entries using by making calls to the API. I've documented this process and written a Python script for it.
 * Duplicate courses and API deletion

If you have feedback about these changes, or other questions or ideas related to course pages, please let Anna Koval or me know!--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Subscribe or unsubscribe from future Wikipedia Education Program technical updates.

Please comment on Talk:Right Sector
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Right Sector. 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, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

List of UFC champions
What's the reason for reverting my edits? Besides the new information on José Aldo, the format I've used is way better. Evenfiel (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why I did that; I must've mis-clicked. I reverted myself. Thanks for pointing this out.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

not sourced "All four AC generators power was synchronized to the same phase"
In article Folsom Powerhouse State Historic Park the line "All four AC generators power was synchronized to the same phase" is not sourced and is wrong as originally used. In fact the article states later that the early transmission to Sacramento was sent on completely isolated 12 lines.

Why is this un-sourced material not challenged and my correction is? I think this article is largely filled with un-sourced conclusions that are not unlike mine.

This article has very little sourced content and there should be a warning template to add sourcing.

For what it is worth, please review my credentials in my user page.

I should use the "talk" service to get consensus on a deletion. How long should I wait for "talk" to allow me to delete wrong stuff?

Douglas Nelson Turner (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I moved your comment from the subpage you created to here, which is my talk page.
 * Please read WP:CRED. Not only do I not trust any claimed expertise, Wikipedians in general oppose experts of any stripe.  This is an encyclopedia written mostly by dilettantes.  Besides, on the internet anyone can claim to be anyone.  For all you know, I'm actually Anne of Cleves. I might have some formal education but I never cite it when I'm arguing a content issue, even if I'm talking to some 12-year-old with a limited vocabulary.
 * The problem is that around 2005-2008 a whole bunch of new editors created a lot of new pages with little or no sourcing. I can't help that as what's done is done.  I'm not mandating that you add in-line citations as per WP:CITE it's not required.  I only emphasize it because the reliability of the project improves as we become more professional in our methods.  Without in-line citations it becomes harder for editors to dig through the general sources to verify what the article says.  We have sneaky vandals that add innocuous looking crap  into articles (like slightly changing the term dates for James Madison) and sourcing helps prevent that.  The only reason we haven't been mass-removing unsourced content is because we'd end up deleting half of Wikipedia and perhaps lose good content.  You are welcome to remove unsourced content without question; no approval needed.
 * It's hard to give guidance on how long you should wait because it depends on how active the talk page discussion is. On popular articles you could post and get answers back in less than an hour.  On some talk pages you could be left waiting for years.  I would recommend posting to the talk page only if you're adding controversial material or you're making a massive change.  Wait maybe a couple days then go ahead.  Often it's ok to go ahead without posting because another editor can revert you and then raise the discussion.
 * Based on your edits, I believe you actually are a technical expert in this field. But my instinct doesn't substitute for provable fact. I hope when the other dilettantes come calling that you'll be as patient with the edits they make. I'm not in authority here and I only point to our policies and guidelines.  You may want to check out the Teahouse to ask questions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully third time is the charm...
... or not. I don't mind continuing to work on this. Just notify me as you did on my Talk thread on other improvements needed. Take your time if you are busy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Vitaphone_Varieties#1932

Again, thank you for taking the time to respond. There is probably no easy way of making an article of a large group of theatrical short subjects, but I tried to make it comparable with "like" articles covering the Looney Tunes, Merrie Melodies and many TV episode lists also found here. If necessary, this article can be broken down to "Vitaphone Varieties" and "List of Vitaphone Varieties", much as List of Bewitched episodes The information is all basic. The Internet Movie Database has about a quarter of the film titles listed with more information, while the books referenced at the bottom list a lot more information on individual films, song titles, more complete credits... although the dates were gathered from different sources... also referenced here. If something looks "disastrously wrong", I'll fix it. My goal was to supply an outline of titles for those referencing them, including those available on DVD. Other editors can improve upon it over time, after it is posted... that is, IF it gets posted.

Jlewis68 23:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlewis68 (talk • contribs)
 * ✅ Congratulations. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your help! I will wait a bit to see how much "tinkering" is done with it by other editors. Then I will cautiously post a few (about four) similar, but smaller and less lengthy, articles built with the same "model". I reformatted two past ones done earlier (and already reviewed and approved by veterans here) with the same chart format. Jlewis68 12:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlewis68 (talk • contribs) Minor addition. Cited a few "in" sources. You can still keep the warning you posted on the article if necessary (and I doubt it will ever be "perfect"), but at least nobody reading will think I gathered all of the facts from a crystal ball. Jlewis68 12:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlewis68 (talk • contribs)

Notice of RfC and request for participation
There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated: Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Talk:Gun_control

Notice of RfC 2 and request for participation
There is an RfC on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page which may be of interest to editors who participated in "RfC: Remove Nazi gun control argument?" on the Gun control talk page. Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * RfC: Replace existing Nazi gun control paragraphs?

Hannity
Chris, I don't know how to reference Wiki itself... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies I think there needs to be a statement of bias where needed. I think Rachael Maddow and Sean Hannity are the most biased and polarized when it comes to politics. Sean doctors video and edits recordings to make his point. It is documented. How do we document this? I made the edits last night after Sean said that Pot is 1,000x worse than alcohol... More of his old white male pandering... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msjayhawk (talk • contribs)
 * You can't reference wiki itself, per WP:CIRCULAR. If what you claim is documented, then get your citations together and discuss it at Talk:Sean Hannity. See our help section on piped links to link to Fox News Channel controversies. Nobody cares what your opinion is.  This encyclopedia runs on facts.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

May 10 edit-a-thon -- able to help out?
Hi Chris! I'm helping organize an edit-a-thon on May 10 (Meetup/LA/APA), part of a nationwide effort by the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center. I'm working with a librarian at CSU Long Beach who is doing most of the leg work. I was hoping to help out in person, but now I'm probably having surgery May 6 (nothing terribly serious) and not sure how I'll be recovering four days out.... Would you be available to help out at the event? I was hoping to have at least one experienced Wikipedian there to possibly give a tutorial and to be able to answer questions. Thanks!! Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but no. I will actually be receiving my BA in History on that day and all my family is flying in to see it. If it were a day earlier I would make an effort to cover it but I can't attend that Saturday.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on your graduation! I'll see if I can track down someone else. :) Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

GoldDragon Sock Report
I was doing what I had understood another admin had told me to do: Cut and paste the report from the talk page to the main page. If I misunderstood, I apologize. Please let me know what I should have done. 99.224.51.134 (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know the SPI process, so perhaps I misunderstood. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Level 4im warning for IP
Hello, you left a level 4im warning on User talk:99.224.51.134 for blanking Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/GoldDragon. I believe that although the user's blanking of the page was misguided, it was done in good faith. S/he wanted to open a new SPI on a user that has already been investigated for sockpuppetry and it appears s/he assumed the need to use the Wikipedia talk space since IP users cannot create new SPIs. I advised this user to go ahead and add the SPI information to the existing SPI page.

Please consider withdrawing the warning from the IP user's talk page. Thank you. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 17:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn due to edit conflicts. Cheers, &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 17:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * After the fact I took a look at WP:SPI but I didn't see an outline of steps for SPI. Can you recommend a good place to read an explanation?  Thanks.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I must admit it's been several years since I've looked at that, and most SPIs I open are done with Twinkle. It looks like the process has been streamlined since the last time I did it manually. If you go to WP:SPI, click show on "How to open an investigation", then click show again on "If you are an anonymous..." Enter a username (perhaps your own just to be on the safe side) and click Submit. This will not create an SPI but will take you to another page with more detailed instructions and an editing box to create the SPI. If you enter a username in the box under "If you are an anonymous..." the page will be created in the WT space, if you enter the username in the upper box the page will be created in the WP space. I hope that helps. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 02:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alex Dey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page El Universal (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) 08:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bell of Batoche
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bell of Batoche. 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, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI courtesy notice
Hello Chris, you have been mentioned at ANI: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My complaint and the resulting counter-complaint was archived without action.  Please advise.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that they seem to have stopped editing, just watching for now should do. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Feysalafghan has stopped editing for now, just as he did the last time he deleted content at Deobandi. He's a partisan; he'll be back. I just don't see the need to have to revert him again and issue another request for intervention when he returns.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for [not sourced "All four AC generators power was synchronized"]
Thank you,

Please forgive me if this is not the right pace for a thank you.

I'm sorry for putting article edit stuff in your talk page. I'm learning slowly. Thanx, for your kind explaining regarding [not sourced "All four AC generators power was synchronized to the same phase"].

I will delete my article creation effort " /Rotating Armature Alternator" for now. I don't know another way to remove it from creation submission.

Best regards, Doug 66.81.132.131 (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 April newsletter
Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's was Round 2's highest scorer, with a large number of featured picture credits. In March/April, he restored star charts from Urania's Mirror, lithographs of various warships (such as SMS Gefion) and assorted other historical media. Second overall was Pool E's, whose featured list Silver certificate (United States) contains dozens of scans of banknotes recently promoted to featured picture status. Third was Pool G's who has produced a large number of good articles, many, including Falkner Island, on Connecticut-related topics. Other successful participants included, who saw three articles (including the top-importance Ian Smith) through featured article candidacies, and , who saw three lists (including the beautifully-illustrated list of plantations in West Virginia) through featured list candidacies. High-importance good articles promoted this round include narwhal from, tiger from and The Lion King from. We also saw our first featured topic points of the competition, awarded to and  for their work on the Sega Genesis topic. No points have been claimed so far for good topics or featured portals.

192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. 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) 17:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for defense in RHaworth talk regarding the deletion of my name page.
Thanks again,

for asking for an apology toward me, after the deletion of my name page. I'm sorry I have created trouble for you, out of my slow learning. I will try to go on editing, although, more carefully now.

Best regards,,, Doug Douglas Nelson Turner (talk) 09:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It was no trouble for me. You might consider attending one of Wikipedia's meetups if there's ever one near you.  Learning how this community does stuff while using the wiki for communication can be difficult.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 09:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=607162910 your edit] to Mitanni 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]. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

probl
thanks, but i can change only the word, but not the colour? why? it does not work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durfhd (talk • contribs) 15:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * See H:HTML for instructions on using html code to change the colors. You can work out the coding in a sandbox before pasting it into preferences. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

"Kurdish" jews
dear chris! There is no rule here at wikipedia which means that you must be an old user before you can nominate anything for deletion, also has this article on Kurdish Jews been discussed for deletion and was voted for deletion or merge to another article, but has only been given a deaf ear. Tilobittes (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're not disallowed from nominating an article for deletion because you're new. You're disallowed for doing it without citing relevant guidelines.  If you feel this article should be merged into another article, propose a merge and discuss it on the talk page.  I can't emphasize that enough.  Finally, what you refer to as "given a deaf ear" could also be called "everyone disagrees with you." We do things here by consensus, so you'll have to find a willing audience. Finally, where has this been discussed before?  I don't see you participating in those discussions in your edit history.  Are you socking?  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gun control
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gun control. 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, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

CSD nominations
For the current RfA candidate, I found seven CSD nominations in the last one year. Please see my "Oppose" !vote. Axl ¤  [Talk]  11:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Ta-Nehisi Coates
Hello Chris troutman,

Your comments on that talk page were a bit confusing. Do you support or oppose adding a description of juvenile arrests and school suspensions to a WP:BLP, cited only to the writer's blog posts? Thank you.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  05:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I support it. I must have misread that section.  I thought the nom wanted to water-down the text. Thanks for letting me know. I've amended my !vote.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 06:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Coates is not a "criminal" and Wikipedia can in no way describe him as one. Please refrain from inserting inflammatory and false BLP violations in edit summaries. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, but I encourage you to rethink your position in light of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Why should a juvenile mistake sourced to a blog posts be included in a brief biography of a writer with a much richer life story and career? Don't you see that this is a cherry-picked factoid selected by an editor with an agenda precisely for the purpose of making the subject of the article look bad?  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  06:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow. I just saw your edit summaries. Coates was convicted of NOTHING and your edit summaries are an egregious BLP violation. I encourage you to formally withdraw those BLP violations right away. I will be waiting.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  06:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Moreover, there is no evidence he was ever even charged with a crime. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm now aware of WP:BLPCRIME so I'll admit we don't have independent sources indicating that Coats was either charged or convicted of anything. I find claims that the provided sources are just a blog laughable because it's written by Coats himself on Atlantic Monthly's website. Coats admits committing assault against one teacher and threatening another teacher, which is why he was kicked out of school twice. I doubt Coats lied about those facts and I don't believe it would violate WP:UNDUE to mention these facts as was proposed. In fact, Coats seems to write that his disciplinary history was interesting in light that he still became a successful journalist. For your education, I was responding to this RfC as I participate in the Feedback Request Service. I don't need to justify my !vote, perhaps beyond clarifying when what I wrote was confusing. I further find it distasteful to see the both of you arguing with disagreeing editors. You appear to have consensus on your side on the Coats issue, so don't continue to darken my talk page. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 04:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I will respect your request to stay off your talk page. You are always welcome on mine. Take care.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  04:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Have a nice day. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There's actually 3 editors (me being one, you being another) on record as supporting a more explicit mention of the whole assault/arrest/suspension/expulsions stuff, in some form or other. So consensus is certainly not on their side.  I have asked them to work with me to find phrasing that will work for people.  Useitorloseit (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm having no more of this debate. Leave me out of it.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

This Month in Education: May 2014
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC) <div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription.