User talk:Chris troutman/Archive 10

• OptimisticFuture (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jane Philpott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs
    )

• Her "A Coin for Every Country" initiative has been written about by Stephen Douglas in If I Had a Million Dollars...I'd Ease the Pain of HIV/AIDS in Africa: A How ...

• Her work on "A Coin for Every Country" was also the subject of an 8 minute segment on CBC Radio "Metro Morning" magazine programme in 2005 (exact date uncertain - not available on the web any more)

• She is praised by Stephen Lewis (former United Nations Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa and Canadian Ambassador to the United Nations) for her work as a "true leader in HIV/AIDS and social justice" - see [4]

• Heather Kohlmann writes about her work on the "Give a Day for AIDS" campaign in "this" Magazine

• Canadian Press article about "Give a Day for AIDS" published in The Globe and Mail

• Susan McClelland in Best Health writes about her as one of 5 inspiring women who are changing global health

• As Canada is one of the G8 countries I am having difficulty understanding how membership of the federal House of Commons (Parliament) of that country can be characterised as a "minor office" by Wikipedia. Every current Canadian MP has a Wiki page (see
  Wikipedia:POLOUTCOMES). Furthermore, members (not cabinet ministers) of Provincial Legislatures and even City Councillors appear to have their own Wiki page with no other credentials being apparent e.g. Lon Borgerson, Gary Crawford
  (who was a losing candidate in the 2007 Ontario Provincial Government election).

OptimisticFuture (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@

external links

in the body of the article. That the riding has been re-drawn does not necessitate an explanation in that fashion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Philpott is not a member of Parliament. If she were, I'd agree that she's notable per

nominate those other articles for deletion

.

On a separate note, I see that you are a

conflict of interest

you have. (Assuming you are associated with her campaign, etc.)

Many of the sources you use discuss the charities and such and don't talk about her or barely mention her. The YouTube video you link to (which isn't a

independent

or reliable. What their saying about Philpott is a public relations exercise. News sources are far better for notability claims.

I don't think this draft is any more passable then it was before. That said, I hope you realize that AfC is for unregistered IP users. After the

namespace without waiting for a reviewer to approve it. Of course, someone else would likely nominate that article for deletion but Philpott just isn't notable and there's nothing you can do. The day she takes up office in Ottawa you'll be set. Chris Troutman (talk

) 22:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Chris,

I wrote a page on the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment but I accidentally created the page as

Khwang17 (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Khwang17:  Done Article is now called UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

Khwang17 (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Wikimedians!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

• Elsevier
  - science and medicine journals and books
• Royal Society of Chemistry - chemistry journals
• Pelican Books - ebook monographs
• Public Catalogue Foundation- art books

Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on

our partners page

. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--

The Wikipedia Library Team

.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).

This message was delivered via the

Mass Message tool to the Book & Bytes recipient list

.

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:God the Son. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I have been a CVUA enrollee with Jeffrd10 but he said that he won't be able to teach me anymore. Would you be able to be my instructor? Thanks. You can see our previous CVUA page here. -24^Talk 23:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure. We'll continue training where your last instructor left off. I've posted a new section for you to work on. I'll assign new sections as you successfully complete what I've assigned. If you plan to be away from wiki for more than a week I expect to be promptly informed. Be sure to follow my instructions carefully through the training. I want exactly what I ask for. I probably have one of the more demanding courses of any CVUA instructor but if you can pass this you'll be ready for counter-vandalism. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The article Lord Kitchener Wants You you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lord Kitchener Wants You for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 08:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Alexchappel (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Slamboree (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there. I have added a lot more references from a lot more sources. Some do not meet the reliability criteria because, for example, they are just listings, however where this is the case I have tried to include more references for the same fact to help support it.

The problem/frustration I have with this article is that I know this group to be noteable, but I am also aware there is very little written about them as they are quite new. I always expected my article would be a seed which will grow as the group's noteability grows. In the meantime I'm hoping there is enough evidence of awards and a recent sell-out concert in a large, prestigious and established venue (Electric Brixton 15th November), along with a few reviews and previews in off-line press and reliable newspapers, to establish that they do exist and that I haven't written anything non-factual about them.

If not, could you suggest something that might help? there is a lot more material on the internet that I have not included as I didn't deem it appropriate, such as YouTube videos and also pictures. Please advise. Thanks.

I must emphasise also that I am not directly connected to the group/band. I genuinely was surprised when I tried to research them (as a DJ) that there was not a wikipedia page about them, and therefore created one to benefit people like me searching in the future, as I genuinely believe it is useful and noteable.

Alex Alexchappel (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@Alexchappel: Let me disabuse you of a couple concepts.

"I know this group to be noteable, but I am also aware there is very little written about them"

This isn't so. The word notable specifically means that they're written about. If they're not written about they're not notable. Maybe you're a fan and you think more people should care about them. Wikipedia doesn't care. We're waiting for people and subjects to make a name and then we'll write about them. Local bands frequently have this problem and they all go home disappointed.

"I always expected my article would be a seed which will grow as the group's noteability grows." Yes, I've heard that, too. The problem is the article has to be sufficient to stand on it's own. A few years ago anyone could write new articles and many of our current articles pre-date our draft process.

I don't have any suggestions for you as the subject simply isn't

Plymouth Herald, and North Wales Pioneer is a good start but even in those articles Slamboree is just a mention. Those articles don't center on them. Typically I'd say that if the source isn't itself notable then the source doesn't help confer notability on the subject. Selling out concerts isn't a criterion; charting is. Chris Troutman (talk

) 21:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Alexchappel (talk · contribs)
  • User:Alexchappel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

y Hello Chris. Thank you very much for your reply and for clearing up some misconceptions. I'm not sure if I am replying in the right way, but I'm sure you'll see this message and hopefully correct me if not.

Just to clear up one thing: I am aware that an annoying number of "fans" must post about their favourite band/group/act before they reach notability simply because of their enthusiasm for the band ("Maybe you're a fan and you think more people should care about them.") Just to clear this up, I understand this and would not have written the article if that were merely the case - I have a professional interest in Slamboree as a DJ and in other professional areas and therefore sincerely thought an article would be useful to others too. I also want to get better at writing wikipedia articles. I have a few suggestions and questions regarding this, and realise you're probably busy but would really appreciate if you could answer or point me in the right direction....

1. For me and possibly others this article is useful, but it probably does not belong on wikipedia until I do some more research or they become more notable. Is there an alternative wikipedia-like site or sister site which would be a more appropriate repository for such material?

2. Is there an official page where I can make suggestions to improve wikipedia's policies or guidelines? The difficulty is, I think the music industry has changed a lot in recent years, with bands/groups/acts becoming important or acclaimed despite not charting, winning major awards or being the sole subject of articles in off-line press (although I admit that the latter is probably an important indicator). Many may even exist as live acts only, meaning that their success is difficult to track or judge based on sales figures of music and also may sell their wares completely independent of any established charts or awards. It is a generally well-known concept now in independent music that bands may not be signed to a major label, and indeed may not even aspire to be, and therefore much of their success both financially and in terms of esteem is measured in the success of live performances. I would suggest that selling out a major venue (and maybe certain venues, or those over a certain capacity, could be regarded as reliable in same way that certain publications are) perhaps should or could be a viable criterion for inclusion. After all, you point out that "Coverage in Lancaster Guardian, Plymouth Herald, and North Wales Pioneer is a good start" and I would venture to suggest that being booked by a 1,700 capacity venue and selling it out is a much more difficult achievement than being covered by those publications. Hope you see what I mean! I hope I'm not being presumptious and always willing to learn.

Thank you in advance

Alex

Alexchappel (talk) 01:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Alexchappel: To answer your questions first:

1. I'd try Rock Music Wiki.
2. To make a request for a change in the criteria, post at
   talk page discussions without the formatting seen at the AfC help desk. You can also list your draft at our "Requested Articles" page
   .

Don't get me wrong, I understand what it is to be a fan. I found out about Jim "The King" Brown back in the late 90s and I loved his schtick. I had wanted to write an article about him for quite awhile but couldn't until I could scrape together the sources. It's not the best article I've ever written but I'm proud that I could share his act with others. Sometimes you have artists that fly under the radar and our guidelines don't allow for those. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Monaa Hassann (talk · contribs)
  • User:Monaa Hassann (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

21:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into my article Mr. Troutman. I am writing an article on this subject and I have quoted a Professor who have discussed the term in terms of Passive sponsorship. I have seen a couple of more places this term has been discussed, how many articles (ball park estimate) it needs to be discussed in to be able to make it to Wikipedia.

Regards,

Mona

Monaa Hassann (talk)

@

independent journalistic or academic sources. Chris Troutman (talk

) 01:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not going to argue with you, but Wikipedia has history that doesn't match not only my personal memories, but written ones, too. So have fun with "Davison," and if I'm the one who's wrong, it's not my fault. It's whoever was in charge of the pictures.--2602:306:3600:95B0:75A5:5639:6D1D:3E15 (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gojoseon. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

See "Во македонските историски движења познато е дека д-р Игор Јанев беше Специјален советник на Министерот за надворешни работи во 2002 година" ("In Macedonian historical processes it is known that dr. Igor Janev was Special Advisor of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Macedonia in 2002."). This is from official Macedonian Government site.183.86.209.149 (talk) 08:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Igor Janev should be classified under

Republic of Macedonia in 2002.183.86.209.149 (talk

) 08:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

See also User talk:Jimbo Wales — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.86.209.149 (talk) 08:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Hi Chris troutman! Thanks and here's a barnstar for you! :) — [talk] 10:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll admit I expected to get noticed for biting editors long before being recognized for kindness, but a barnstar is much nicer than an invite to ANI. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Chris, I just wanted to say I'm glad to see you're back. Our class really appreciated your efforts to stand up for us and make WP a less hostile place for new editors. Kguan10 (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@Kguan10: Thanks for saying so, although I don't feel I was successful in that role. None of the students in the previous psychology classes encountered that much "attention" so it was very much unanticipated on my end. WEF has cancelled the ambassador program altogether and you can read my op-ed about it in The Signpost due out on the 31st. While I'm sure each of you got quite the education this past semester, I hope you've found that editing Wikipedia is generally a very positive experience. We (editors and readers of Wikipedia) appreciate the content you've added to articles like parent management training. The encyclopedia doesn't write itself and volunteers like you make it happen. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Chris, I'm very sorry to hear the WEF ambassador program has been cancelled. I look forward to reading your op-ed. Unfortunately, while overall I feel that parent management training has improved significantly, I am quite discouraged from contributing to WP again. I hope the general attitude towards student/new editors improves in the future, because alienating people who care a lot about the topics they choose and have a lot of skills/knowledge to offer is detrimental to WP as a whole. Kguan10 (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 4 Happy New Year! We hope that all of our GA Cup competitors had an enjoyable and safe holiday season. Monday saw the end of Round 3. Eight contestants moved forward to Round 4—the top two contestants from each of Round 3's three pools and the top two participants of all remaining users. It was an exciting competition, especially towards the end. Round 3's highest scorer was Jaguar, Round 2's wildcard, with an impressive 305 points, the highest score in the GA Cup thus far. Pool B was the closest race; J_Milburn and Cwmhiraeth switched places a few times in the final hours of the competition, although J Milburn edged out Cwmhiraeth by just 9 points. Pool A was, by far, the most competitive; four out of five moved onto Round 4, and its competitors earned a cumulative 935 points and reviewed 59 articles. Ritchie333, who came in second overall with 255 points, reviewed the most articles (17). Peacemaker67 and Wizardman earned the two wildcard slots, with 184 and 154 points, respectively. Congrats to all! 114 articles were reviewed this round, as compared to 110 in Round 2 and 117 in Round 1. The key to success in Round 3, like in Round 2, was reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates; everyone who moved forward reviewed articles from the pink nomination box (20 points) or reviewed articles that had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). Many of these articles had languished because their nominators had left Wikipedia and had little chance of passing to GA, so our competitors provided a great service by helping remove them from the queue. Also as in Round 2, The Boat Race articles proved to be popular review choices, with 10% of all the articles reviewed in December. We appreciate the competitors' continued enthusiasm, even during the busy holiday season. At least one competitor even reviewed articles while preparing for a holiday meal! For Round 4, participants have been randomly put in 2 pools of 4 contestants each. The top two in each pool will progress to the finals, as well as the top participant (5th place) of all remaining users. The semi-finals will start on January 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on January 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 4 and the pools can be found here . We received some excellent feedback about how to improve the GA Cup in the future, including the definition of "quickfails" and the use of pools, which we'll seriously consider as we move forward. As a result of this feedback and the experience we've gained, there will be some changes to the rules come next years GA Cup. Good luck to all our semi-finalists! It is the judges' hope that every competitor in the GA Cup continue to have fun and be enthusiastic about reviewing and passing articles to GA! Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, forgive me, but as I can see many aplications for Elsevier account were done after my notification but are already approved. I did it as 11th person. I hope you can find some time to check my application, and after analyze of my artlices you can give the acceptance :) Jacek555 (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jacek555: The Wikipedia Library does not operate on a "first come, first served" basis. We had many accomplished editors apply for the Health & Life Science resource so I carefully considered which editors would get the first 10 accounts. You will likely get waitlisted for that resource and if more accounts become available I'll contact you. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

		The Articles for Creation barnstar
		Keep up the good work in AFC Becky Sayles (talk ) 02:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@

Becky Sayles: Thanks so much. I see you've been busy at AfC, too. I guess we'll all keep baling to keep this boat afloat. Chris Troutman (talk

) 04:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

		The MOTD Barnstar
		We at Motto of the Day would like to thank you for your participation and contributions to MOTD during 2014. We hope to see you around in 2015. Happy New Year to you and yours from MOTD!!! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the recognition. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Chris troutman,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Hello.

I got interested in the ScienceDirect projects and especially the Elsevier subgroup. I might not apply for actual participation right now, but am happy to see projects like these being launched. However I miss some solid information and I hope you - as account coordinator - will help with these open questions? Other Wikipedians might ponder too.

• Are there any pay involved, when agreeing to participation as an editor? Does Elsevier (or other companies) pay/donate anything to anyone for getting their material out on WP?
• Are there any goals or benchmarks on productivity? Comment: I mean when only 30 accounts are available, unused accounts might be a bad idea.
• Are there any guidelines on what will qualify/disqualify you for approval? Comment: I have contributed some scientific material to WP, but how much is enough?

I hope you will find the time for leaving a useful reply.

Thanks a lot for taking part in projects like these. RhinoMind (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@RhinoMind: I'm glad to answer your questions.

• No, no one gets paid for anything. Our partners (like
  Citation templates
  have a parameter called "via" where you can specify how you accessed the source. In some cases the partner may solicit editors to blog about the good experience they've had or provide other feedback.
• There aren't any benchmarks or quotas for production, although there probably ought to be. The continued participation of our partners is based in part on how the accounts are used. If after a year they're not happy with the project they'll pull the plug. I intend to approve as many accounts as I can so we shouldn't have any unused accounts.
• The project pages list minimum requirements for editors to be considered, although the typical qualifications of the average applicant are much higher. I select the editors with the most content creation in the applicable field especially when the number of accounts are limited. Editors with proven content creation are those we would trust to best utilize these resources.

If you're interested in an account feel free to apply. I can't promise anything as plenty of other accomplished editors have applied, too. Good community response may encourage our partners to increase the number of accounts they're donating. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I have updated my details for the British Newspaper Archive registration. Thanks for your reminder to complete this. Andrew D. (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on

why can't i try to do?.... Iam sure you've read my talk. I just want to be usefull to others.. well.. anywaydo you have any ideas on how they pick peoples to be admins? and what do you mean by 5 years later editting? is there any other way?EdLeo99 (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Articles for creation

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) @ 20:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mobile, Alabama. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Venether (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Andrei Prychodko (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Chris Troutman, OOPS! a misunderstanding or error. This version of the article on Andrei Prychodko was neither ready nor intended to be submitted for review. It is a trial, rough draft awaiting total overhaul. Perhaps a "submit" button was clicked by mistake. Thank you for the pertinent feedback... Venether (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Venether (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Venether: You didn't, Tikuko did. If drafts sit for too long they get deleted, so that may be why they did that. Arpast created this draft so shall I assume that was your account, too? If you re-submit the draft be advised when the interface asks you, click "as creator" so notifications about the draft go to you rather than Arpast's talk page. Feel free to ask me questions if you have issues. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Chris. I didn't want to confuse the new user, so I am posting here instead about your reply at the AfC help desk. I deliberately didn't suggest that the redirect be removed and another article be made in the sandbox, for two reasons: First, some new users only know how to find their sandboxes and may be depending on the redirect to find their submission after another user has moved it. But more importantly, removing the redirect and reusing the sandbox messes up some of Wikipedia's notification processes. If you look at the history of User:Sguthery/sandbox, you'll see that the first edit is not by Sguthery, but by the person who did the redirecting. Sguthery's edits have all been moved to the Draft. That means that if he makes a second article in the sandbox and the page were later nominated for deletion, for example, he would not be notified, and the person who moved the first page would receive a confusing notification about a page which he/she had never edited. It does work okay if the page is deleted, rather than just emptied, though, but since most users can't delete pages directly I recommended that he make another subpage and save the sandbox for its intended use, which is experimentation. I hope I have explained this clearly.—Anne Delong (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Huh. I hadn't thought about that. When I saw your comment I was left wondering why you'd go the long way around explaining about creating a new sandbox rather than just fix the existing sandbox. I could undo my edit but I'm not sure that would be what the user wants, either.

I would suggest the coding needs to be changed if notifications about Sguthery's sandbox will go to Cloudz679, just because of the history move. I will keep that in mind in the future; thanks for letting me know. I appreciate everything you've been doing for AfC. My RfA vote for you is the one I'm proudest of. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, Chris. The user has both options, so he/she will find a way to create another draft one way or the other. It may not be easy to fix that problem, since the record of a deleted redirect becomes buried in the page history after the sandbox is reused. I think the problem is more with people's use of the sandbox. Somehow over time it has evolved to be a place to create drafts, rather than a place to experiment with wikicode. It's likely because of the easy-to-find "Sandbox" link at the top of everyone's page. I have argued on the Village Pump that there should be a "Subpages" link as well, but my suggestion was met with disinterest. Anyway, thanks for all the work you are putting in at AfC. I'd like to work the queue more myself if I could just get through with these Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the inaction, my email is being funny and regarding Wikipedia post as spam. Please can you resend the information to --. Thanks Tom (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Farrtj: I've contacted you and redacted your e-mail address. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)