User talk:Chris troutman/Archive 13

Please do let me know if you find this is not true. I will be shocked, because I personally knew Mr. Haynes, knew of his character, and have seen the awards. I too, served in the military myself and am the son of career Air Force retiree. I am quite sensitive to those who claim awards they did not receive and would want anyone claiming falsely to have received awards to which they are not entitled to be called out for that. I really would like to know if you find it is not true. JBedsole (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Just as an FYI - I now have a photo that I took of a letter from the National Personnel Records Center Military Records Division in St. Louis confirming an amendment to Mr. Haynes DD214 to reflect award of Purple Heart with 9 Oak Leaf Clusters. This letter was provided to me by Mr. Haynes widow. Let me know how and I can provide you with a copy of that letter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBedsole (talk • contribs) 18:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:EXTRAORDINARY, Haynes's claim to have been awarded the most Purple Hearts in US history requires some solid sourcing. Phonies regularly forge DD 214s and material they claim was burned in the 1973 NPRC fire. To keep Wikipedia even somewhat trustworthy, we need to stick to verifiable facts. If you have further questions, please ask at the talk page for our Military History WikiProject. I don't want to be contacted about this anymore. (I never did, honestly.) If I hear from you again, I'll raise the issue and see about having the entry removed. Chris Troutman (talk

) 21:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Referring to Army Regulation 600-8-22, No more than one award will be made for more than one wound or injury received at the same instant or from the same missile, force, explosion, or agent. Which I read to mean e.g. multiple rifle shots could result in eligibility for multiple PH (maybe with the caveat that they were delivered by multiple "agents", but that probably refers to chemical attack). In other words, nine in one battle is a possibility. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for showing me the page on neologisms, I have some fixing to do... I tried to add a box on your page, but I'm a new user, so I can't. To add it, just go to Wikipedia:Talk page stalker. If you don't want the box, you don't have to add it, but I think you should. thanks anyways! WarriorFISH (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@

user page would both be unwelcome and unnecessary. I already have WP:TPS/userbox on my user page, under the collapsed "Some other Wikipedia userboxes" section. I stalk many user talk pages. Happy editing. Chris Troutman (talk

) 00:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize. I made you this though! WarriorFISH (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

		The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence
		(Thank you for saving Wikipedia from a neologism!) WarriorFISH (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Your comment kind of got lost in the muck of my talk page because of the few days I took off. I just wanted to say thank you for the script recommendation. I'll try to use it more often in the early stages. But as you noted, I try to do triage on improperly submitted submissions or day old ones, so sometimes it's just easier to decline and worry about that before it gets published. But as always I appreciate any and all recommendations. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bukhara. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Joe byrne (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Antonio Onofri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs
    )

Hi Chris. Thanks for reviewing the article for creation request on Antonio Onofri. I've been researching San Marino for a separate project and was surprised he didn't have an article. I agree that their system of electing four heads of state a year is a bit wacky, but this 7-time captain is one of the few names that crops up in pretty much every article or book I've come across on the history. I think the key events he's involved in and the consistent retelling of them across multiple sources are grounds for his notability, as opposed to the hundreds of others who've held the office. I hope the additional sources help to make this point. Let me know if you think it's still in need of further work. Joe byrne (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Joe byrne (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

At

@

Wikipedia:Phabricator. This wasn't an issue last week but it definitely has been these past couple days. Chris Troutman (talk

) 18:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:WIKIBREAK shortly, as I've been contributing quite a lot, recently, and need to devote time to other things :) In case it's useful to know: other users seem to have been getting my pings (i.e. my impression is that when I ping people, I get more prompt replies than otherwise), but I haven't actually confirmed this, it's just my subjective impression. Zazpot (talk

) 18:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Zazpot: Turns out this was a site-wide problem for some users. I believe it's fixed now thanks to Roan Kattouw (WMF). Chris Troutman (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: @Zazpot: It's not fixed yet, I have a patch that will fix it but it probably won't roll out until Monday. In the meantime, you can work around the issue by making a change to your preferences (any change will do; for example, change your language to Canadian English, save, then change it back again and save). --Roan Kattouw (WMF) (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Roan Kattouw (WMF): thanks :) Is that change to preferences to be made by the sender or the (intended) recipient of the failing pings? Zazpot (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Zazpot: The recipient, unfortunately. The fix for this should roll out in the next half hour or so, then pings should start working again even for those who didn't change their preferences. --Roan Kattouw (WMF) (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Hitmonlee is my Homie is already at SPI Meters (talk) 03:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I just moved your request into my request as a comment. Meters (talk) 03:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Meters: Thanks for letting me know. Since I reverted him, I assumed without looking that he hadn't been reported yet. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 19:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Oradour-sur-Glane massacre. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 24, August-September 2017

• User Group update
• Global branches update
  • Star Coordinator Award - last quarter's star coordinator: User:Csisc
• Wikimania Birds of a Feather session roundup
• Spotlight: Wiki Loves Archives
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Chris troutman, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see
  User:Primefac/revdel
  .

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up please can you let Davey2010 that I do not want him to edit my talk page either and I am thinking f reporting him for vandalism Cheers Kev inr (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)kev_inrKev inr (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Buddy, the two edits I made on the Joshua Wheeler page are common knowledge by anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of the subject matter. I do my research and have been successfully editing these types of pages (both in two usernames and anonymously) for some time now. If you do yours, you will see that what I posted was 100% factual, and it was unnecessary for you to remove it. Have a nice day. Or3312 (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@

cite your sources. Wikipedia does not take the word of dilettantes. Chris Troutman talk:Chris troutman|talk

) 03:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

BTW, apologies for being uncharitable. I should have just given you the benefit of the doubt in the beginning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Or3312 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Chris troutman. You have new messages at Strongline123's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Strongline123 (talk) 07:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Chris - re:your N tag on Sherwin's bio - he easily passes WP:PROF

• Examples: Springer- Author mentions him in the Preface pg xii, and he authored Chap 7 - Farm Animals (C. Sherwin) Video Techniques in Animal Ecology and Behavior, Author = S.D. Wratten, Publisher = Springer - Science and Business Media, ISBN-13: 978-0412466403, Year = Dec 6, 2012 - and there are several published works like it that are cited.
• Universities Federation For Animal Welfare - 1st recipient of the UFAW Hume Research Fellowship (see #3 WP:PROF)
• He has made a substantial impact in his field as evidenced by several chapters in science journals and also as a co-author. I'm going to remove the tag unless you have further objections. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:NACADEMIC #1 requires the claims are "demonstrated by independent reliable sources". Sherwin published stuff. Many academics do. Secondly, good luck convincing anyone the UFAW Hume Research Fellowship is "a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level" as criterion #2 requires. Not only is the award itself not notable, the article about Universities Federation for Animal Welfare barely mentions it. This portrays the award as funding for post-docs. It's not a lifetime achievement award. Hell, I've got my name submitted right now for a couple fellowships, too. If I win does that make me notable? UFAW isn't on the level of Guggenheim Fellowship. By the way, getting a fellowship for money like Guggenheim is not the same as #3's "highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" like fellowship in the Royal Society. You seem to have the two confused. Edits like this evince that you've got nothing. That's not even the right "Hume." The award is named for Major Charles W. Hume, the founder of UFAW. I guess he's not notable, either. Sherwin doesn't qualify as notable on any of the PROF criteria and he doesn't pass ANYBIO or GNG, either. I wrote a bunch of articles about academics so I'm pretty familiar with what qualifies and what doesn't. I think what would be best is if you pull that article into userspace or draftspace until future journalism will provide the necessary sourcing for notability. Chris Troutman (talk

) 15:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I fixed the wikilink to

WP:ACADEMIC clearly states, Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work. It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of numbers of publications or their quality: the criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field. Also, this proposal sets the bar fairly low, which is natural: to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable. There is little doubt that his work meets the notability criteria in his academic field, so unless your academic work is in the same field, why are you comparing what he's done for the good of laboratory animal welfare to your own academic work? See you at AfD. ^{Atsme📞📧}

19:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Its amazing how much time editors who claim to be "experts" on things like "notability" spend talking about article subjects they claim are "not notable". Even more amazing is the fact that they find references online to PROVE their "non-notability" in order to PROVE their "expertise". Interesting logic at work. And none of them ever seem to seek a consensus before they declare a subject "not notable" arbitrarily and unilaterally. Nor do they have any problem wasting more "bandwidth" and/or "memory" on their arguments or rather "explanations" for the NON-notability of those subjects than a short article about the subject itself would require. They also don't seem to have any problem conducting their OWN RESEARCH as they check online both cited sources in the article they seek to delete and other internet resources. How is a DELETION or REVERSION EDIT using OWN RESEARCH not a violation of WP:OWN? Because its THEIR OWN RESEARCH. Just like THEIR "multiple accounts" are just fine and dandy and even a GOOD THING even though they're using them to AVOID or PREVENT being BLOCKED or DE-SYSOPPED with their shenanigans that invariably consist mainly of REVERTING and DELETING and otherwise DESTROYING content rather than creating anything. And they can always FIND a "consensus" for their own violations of "policy" being perfectly acceptable. All they have to do is push the invisible panic button and "other editors" come swooping in to save them. Or something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.169 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Chris - per

@

WP:WDAFD, withdrawing can only happen if no one else supports deletion; there are delete !votes present. You can wait until the discussion is closed normally. Further, neither the changes made nor the keep !votes have refuted my nomination. The sources cited are either not independent of the subject or they are mere mentions. The subject still isn't notable per GNG (as well as PROF and ANYBIO). Chris Troutman (talk

) 20:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, your edit summary (→‎Chris Sherwin: not withdrawing because I actually know the rules on this), is contradicted by your decision to PROD that biography knowing full well I would oppose it. The policy is very clear: PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. Good day. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Niclas.hedhman (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Apache Polygene (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I think Wikipedia is falling apart. Any new articles have too high barrier for entry, especially compared to a big chunk of existing articles. Denying articles on Open Source projects, no matter if too much information or too little information, sourced or not, is a shame on Wikipedia's heritage. Wikipedia itself WOUDL NOT EXIST if it wasn't for the availability of Apache Software Foundation and its many, many "cousins" of the Free and Open source software world.

Take this to the Wikipedia OVERLORDS that seems set to have more interest in CONTROL than freedoms. Go tell them that Wikipedia needs to move away from FOSS and start running everything on Oracle, IBM and Microsoft solutions and not freeloading on FOSS. In return, we will remove all FOSS articles, existing and future ones.

Terms of Use contradiction; It says that "Text to which you hold the copyright", yet I have had edits been removed because my own material was deemed to exist elsewhere (with a more permissive and compatible license than required) and not tertiary sourced. Which one is it? Do you want the accurate information from the horse's mouth ("you hold the copyright") or you want misrepresentation from elsewhere? Why is some organizations allowed to directly edit, referencing themselves, when others are not? It is inconsistent and disgusting!

Niclas.hedhman (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Niclas.hedhman: Had you considered reading the guidance you were given? Yes, we want "misrepresentation from elsewhere" if by "elsewhere" you mean reputable sources like newspapers, books, and magazines. "Why is some organizations allowed to directly edit, referencing themselves" We require partisans like you to divulge your conflict of interest. We send businesses home disappointed, everyday. We don't assume notability from a company's own website, although we might allow it for some issues of verifiability. "Take this to the Wikipedia OVERLORDS that seems set to have more interest in CONTROL than freedoms." I realize you're asking this because you're too ignorant to do this yourself. Rest assured, the Wikipedia overlords don't listen to me. "I think Wikipedia is falling apart." It took you this long to figure that out? Chris Troutman (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for recognizing my initiation of this award. It seems, however, to have grown away from its origins.

When

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Chris troutman:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

I believe the only reasonable response to your comment (copied here) is "focus on content, not contributor." @Montanabw: I cannot understand the apparent urgency a few fans of horses feel for ending this AfD absolutely as soon as possible. I think both you and Atsme have taken this personally, which is both unfortunate and inappropriate. Comments from Atsme like this and this (among others) seem to reveal some sort of persecution complex tending toward BATTLEFIELD-view problems. Clearly this AfD has brought out the worst in her. I think the both of you would do well to seek counseling and reexamine your choices. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 1:51 pm, 27 October 2017, last Friday (3 days ago) (UTC−6) While anyone can make a case for AfD, once the consensus goes the other way, it's time to drop the stick and not cast aspersions on other editors. Your above comment was completely out of line. I would suggest you strike your comment at the AfD. I will not request an apology as I do not require ceremonial apologetics to move on. Montanabw^(talk) 18:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Montanabw: I decline your suggestion, beyond the fact that the AfD is already closed. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

For future actions, perhaps you might choose to rethink edit summaries such as this as well as the content of the edit. Your comments and edit summary were both inappropriate and out of line. Montanabw^(talk) 19:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Montanabw: No, I stand behind my comments. You can have your opinion about my disapproval. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Likewise. Consider this a reminder of WP:NPA/ and WP:AGF then. Montanabw^(talk) 20:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Sabeyer (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Stavros Ditsios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Chris,

Thank you very much your review. I see that you rejected my article as you believe that Ditsios Stavros is not an artist of public interest. There are several Greek magazine articles on him (http://www.stavrosditsios.com/interviews/) as well as he was recently on Greek TV (see https://vimeo.com/240223670 intime 21:00). Do I need to place this information in the article to get not rejected?

Best regards

Sascha-A. Beyer

@

criteria for artists

would presume the subject notable if his work "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." If Ditsios's work is part of a museums' permanent collections then you could make a case on that. Please recognize that notability is judged upon Wikipedia's crtieria, not what you might believe makes the subject notable, like appearing on TV.

While we're on the subject: if you have a connection to the artist involved, you need to declare your

not a place to advertise. Chris Troutman (talk

) 12:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Moving on to NOTABILITY: Another simple criteria is "Has the manufacturers boats achieved selection as an Olympic boat". Very few of the tens of thousands of boat designs have ever been selected for use in the Olympics. Only two catamarans have ever been selected for use in the Olympics: the Tornado and the NACRA 17. The Tornado was used from 1976 to 2008, teh NACRA has replaced it in 2012 and 2016. No Hobie Cat has ever been selected as an Olympic boat. Both the Tornado and NACRA 17 have their own pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado_(sailboat) , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nacra_17.

In addition the NACRA 15 has been selected (by World Sailing) for the Youth Sailing World Championships. And, again there is a page on this boat already in Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nacra_15/ . It was also selected by the RYA (Royal Yachting Association, the controlling authority for sail racing in the UK.

The Article on Notability says: "If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists" What I am showing here is that it is Notable because NACRA (the Brand, which actually involves multiple companies) has been SELECTED THROUGH COMPETITIVE TRIALS by the INDEPENDENT SOURCES of World Sailing and The Royal Yachting Association and others. (This information is all contained in the references, BTW.)

In addition the articles in leading print magazines, is another example of INDEPENDENT SOURCES finding NACRA "NOTABLE". Clearly "Sail" "Sailing" and "Yachts and Yachting" magazines are "RELIABLE SOURCES" on the topic of sail boats and brands.

The DEPTH OF COVERAGE criteria, again seems to be met by my references. (It is probably not met, in my opinion by the Hobie Article, which has six references which are essentially archived club reports. I could certainly add six, or more, of those for NACRA class associations, but did not because they don't meet the DEPTH OF COVERAGE criteria.

ARE BOAT BRANDS NOTABLE AT ALL? While Hobie Cat is the closest analog, I decided to check and see if other boat BRANDS had pages, starting with some of my favorites. Here is what i found, and some notes on their references.

X-Yachts YES References: 26 (Breakdown: 6 Magazine article from several of the same mags, several from sail web sites, 5 from manufacturer) X-Yachts are not an Olympic class, nor a Sailing.org offshore class. They have built far fewer boats than NACRA.

Catalina Yachts YES. References: 5 (2 magazines, 1 book) Very popular brand, built in large numbers similar to NACRA.

"Pearson Yachts" YES. References: 5 (2 magazines, 1 book, none retrievable) A defunct boat company, built boats from 1956 to 1990.

Corsair Marine YES. References: 2 (3 magazine, 1 personal web site) In production of various models since 1984.

Laser Performance YES. References 12 (1 article, 1 book) Claims to be the largest manufacturer of small boats (possibly true, no reference). Does Produce a Olympic Class boat, the Laser. I would say this company is clearly notable, like Hobie and NACRA - due to ubiquity, world-wide use of their boats, longevity of the brand and designs.

Hinckley Yachts YES. References (4 articles from 2 magazines).

SUMMARY:

I feel that in making significant changes to this article between the second and third submissions I overcame the NOTABILITY criticism. I did not get any helpful feedback, on my sincere effort to craft an article that meets the standard.

My article is clearly better referenced than all but one of the other Sailboat Brand Articles I surveyed. (I did not cherry pick, every one I thought of is listed above.)

I realize that comparison, alone, doesn't make something notable. But, from my position as a subject matter expert I would rate Laser, Hobie and NACRA as clearly notable, built on multiple continents, sailed all over the world, in the case of Laser and NACRA boats that have been used in Olympic Sailing events, a notable achievment that only 30 or so manufacturers have ever achieved.

Maybe all these other, poorly referenced articles should be deleted, but I don't think so. I think mine should be accepted.

DISCLAIMERS:

I am not a current or former employee of NACRA or any related business. I have never worked in the Sailboat industry. I do not own a NACRA, but I have sailed and raced them. I consider myself a medium level SME on boats, particularly Multihulls, and have read a huge amount on the topic for more than 30 years. Multihulls have had a hard time gaining respect in the sailing world, for many years, and it still hurts to see one of the greatest, most accomplished, most noted, and most successful racing brands DENIED SPACE IN WIKIPEDIA, while boats whose only notable feature is that RICH GUYS BUY THEM like X-Yachts (perhaps 500 total ever built), of course, has it's space here. It seems "classist".

I would like HELP, mostly HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY THE STANDARD SEEMS SO OUT OF WACK FOR THIS ARTICLE COMPARED TO ALL OTHERS IN THE CATEGORY.

How many *MORE* articles & references would make this brand Notable?

HELP! PLEASE!

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroXero (talk • contribs) 00:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@ZeroXero: A recommendation up front: leaving a huge amount of text generally pushes editors away. I'm a volunteer. I get no pay for trying to build an encyclopedia and I get hassle from people like you not to mention my fellow Wikipedians. I'm quitting reviewing drafts today in large part because of people like you. You're welcome.

In response to your rant: first, understand that

nobody here cares enough

about boats to conspire against some companies for the benefit of other companies. Many businesses hire editors to write for them and push stuff through the system but often you don't get what you paid for, we have many diligent editors on the lookout for promotional pieces, and we block editors that run afoul.

Second, you make the charge that I unfairly judged the draft "due to lack of expertise in the subject matter". That's kinda right but you could be careful with your tone. Wikipedia is written by dilettantes, and as you might imagine, those of us that review drafts review hundreds if not thousands and usually outside of our knowledge base. Wikipedia's criteria, however, don't require an insider's appreciation of niche topics. Your draft cites a bunch of trade publications and periodicals about sailing. So far as I can see, none of those are notable. If the publications aren't notable, and possible neither

hall of fame bucking bull

, I guarantee you could find help. Boats? Not so much.

In the past I would go down that list of sailing companies and nominate those articles for deletion to help clear up your confusion and get rid of non-notable content. As it is, I got in some trouble earlier so I'm now out of that business. The best thing for you to do is to make a request at

the reward board

. The former location has editors that know your field. The latter is a place where you can offer rewards for editors to take up this task for you.

In closing, I recommend you ask for help and/or find sources like mainstream newspapers and magazines. I hope that helps. Please do not recontact me about this. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Treblinka extermination camp. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks. You could have ignored my overlong complaint ("rant" as you put it), but you didn't. I appreciate that, especially since you may have been exasperated by people questioning your good-faith efforts, especially given your extensive experience. That was very nice of you, I appreciate it. ZeroXero (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
• A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
• Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.

Obituaries

• The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!

The final round of the 2017 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2017 WikiCup top three finalists:

• First Place - Adityavagarwal (submissions)
• Second Place - Vanamonde (submissions)
• Third Place - Cas Liber (submissions)

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

• Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a two-way tie with themselves for an astonishing five FAs in R2 and R4).
• Good Article – Adityavagarwal had 14 GAs promoted in R5.
• Featured List – Bloom6132 (submissions) and 1989 (submissions) both produced 2 FLs in R2
• Featured Pictures – SounderBruce (submissions) improved an image to FP status in R5, the only FP this year.
• Featured Topic – MPJ-DK (submissions) has the only FT of the Cup in R3.
• Good Topic – Four different editors created a GT in R2, R3 and R4.
• Did You Know – Adityavagarwal had 22 DYKs on the main page in R5.
• In The News – MBlaze Lightning (submissions) had 14 ITN on the main page in R2.
• Good Article Review – Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (submissions) completed 31 GARs in R1.

Over the course of the 2017 WikiCup the following content was added or improved on Wikipedia: 51 Featured Articles, 292 Good Articles, 18 Featured Lists, 1 Featured Picture, 1 Featured Topics, 4 Good Topics, around 400 Did You Knows, 75 In The News, and 442 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.

Regarding the prize vouchers - @Adityavagarwal, Vanamonde93, Casliber, Bloom6132, 1989, and SounderBruce: please send Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) an email from the email address to which you would like your Amazon voucher sent. Please include your preference of global Amazon marketplace as well. We hope to have the electronic gift cards processed and sent within a week.

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2018 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Chris Troutman - I'm an employee of the

I am sorry that I couldn't make it to the edit-a-thon. I had an appointment downtown. If you hear of any future events like this, please let me know. More lead time will allow me to adjust my schedule. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 19:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Please see

@The ed17: In light of the comments made there, I accept admonishment. It would seem it is I that need to reconsider involvement in Wikipedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

You do good work around here and I consider you an important voice. Yes, you were a jerk, but you're still a net positive to the project by a long stretch. I think it would be a good thing if you apologized to some of the folks you were a jerk to (like Tony), but I don't think anybody thinks that Wikipedia is better off without Chris troutman. A Train^talk 15:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@A Train: I appreciate your attempt at kindness, but the fact that you think I am a jerk and that I should apologize is evidence of a serious disconnect. That you "don't think anybody thinks that Wikipedia is better off without Chris troutman" is naive. Again, it means a lot that you advocated for me in that thread but a near-unanimous 23-editor denunciation of my conduct is a problem for me. Contributing to Wikipedia only makes sense if you get something out of it and I'm finding my efforts to make Wikipedia better cause more friction than desired. Finally, my involvement fails people like you and others who want to see better of me. I'd rather pare back my involvement than make my very few supporters regret ever sticking up for me. I have editing goals on Wikipedia and those don't include getting into arguments with editors whom I hold in contempt. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

My two cents -- having known you in person, I've been surprised at some of the nasty things you've said on Wikipedia. I'm not sure why you're like this here when I never saw it from you in person (where at most there was some occasional prickliness). I can't imagine you'd treat other editors like this in real life, so perhaps you should bring your RL mindset online as well. Hoping you can take this all to heart and move forward in a constructive manner. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: I'm really at a loss for words. I've been rolling this over in my mind for the last couple days and I'm still hurt that you of all people would show up to deliver this message. I'll assume you made your comments trying to be constructive, but I find them anything but. Please do not offer your two cents to me ever again. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Turkey. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, would you be willing to weigh-in at a discussion that I am pursuing over at talk:Abortion? Note that I have been called "Berkeley" because of my other IP address. Thanks, -208.71.156.130 (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

This is my other IP address. -208.76.28.70 (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. I don't mind helping out with a dead link. I absolutely will not get into a discussion on the content of the article about abortion. Some editors love wading into that battle with righteous indignation; I don't. I know next to nothing about the subject and I am generally curtailing my meta-editing (the talk pages, RfC's, and other back-office stuff) after my recent admonishment. You couldn't pay me enough to get into that mess. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The

• Masha.p (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Digital rocks physics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Chris,

My Wikipedia article on Digital Rocks Physics got rejected about a month ago citing notability and verifiability of references. Thanks for your email, and the time spent to review and reach out, and I apologize for a slight delay. I added more references, including a textbook. Most of the references are review articles in notable scientific journals, and in themselves have 200+ references within (all verifiable, they have DOIs pointing to the scientific journals in question). This is a research field that is 30+ years old. I would think this is enough to prove the topic is worth having a Wiki entry, and if it is not, that I am missing something fundamental and need more help. Many thanks for your time!

Masha.p (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@

link farm to other websites. Chris Troutman (talk

) 18:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

So the 2017 WikiCup has come to an end. Congratulations to the winner, to the other finalists and to all those who took part. 177 contestants signed up, more than usual, but not all of them submitted entries in the first round. Were editors attracted by the cash prizes offered for the first time this year, or were these irrelevant? Do the rules and scoring need changing for the 2018 WikiCup? If you have a view on these or other matters, why not join in the WikiCup discussion about next year's contest? Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Please continue the conversation at OUTCOMES. JMWt (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@JMWt: No. It's not worth it any longer. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Continent. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, I think you are right, as

I also agree with you about this book, and actually added references to three reviews to the article. But I deeply disagree with the extreme combativeness that you are exhibiting on DGG's talk page. You are out of line there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ned Kelly. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to ask why you deleted sections from WEMB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberland001 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@

stick to what we can prove, rather than what is correct right now. Chris Troutman (talk

) 15:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!

Hello, Chris troutman. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kashmir conflict. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear Chris, thanks for your opinion. I understand that your criteria of editing is based on 'neutral point of view'. And that is also my criteria of edition.

'Sea of Japan' is widely used internationally, but actually the naming issue of this sea is still on debate. So, many organizations recommend people to write both names (Sea of Japan and East Sea) for this sea. In most cases, they put East Sea in parenthesis, but it depends on the preference of people or organization.

For example, the geographic location of 'Ulleungdo' (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulleungdo) is written as 'East Sea (Sea of Japan)'. But I didn't edit this part because it was neutrally written. Even if it were written as ' Sea of Japan (East Sea)', I wouldn't have editted it. The addition of '(East Sea)' in the text of Honshu, was done by the same token.

'Reflecting all different views and opinions of issue which is not resolved'- This is the "neutral view" what I think. Therefore, writing a single name for 'Sea of Japan' could be read as a biased description. I will wait for your reply without editing or rolling-back.

Sincerely Johnny Hyojong Kim (talk) 08:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Chris, hope you take this message in the right spirit. I find it very disturbing that Wikipedia has turned into a very biased source of information politically. I got you message about my changes in Zakir Naik and I appreciate you (or some other admin) reverting the change but at the same time I do not appreciate the way some of Wikipedia admins are vandalizing pages like Bajrang Dal by putting almost the same content in lead. Is their anything which can be done to prevent such kind of bias in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauravsaral (talk • contribs) 18:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

Joe Roe

JzG

Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

• Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
• A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.

Miscellaneous

• Over the last few months, several users have reported
  WP:RFPP
  . It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
• The
  Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page
  , and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.

Hello Chris troutman, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• BLPPROD
  candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Istvaeonic languages. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Chris troutman. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

Please don't reply to it here or elsewhere in public. Activist (talk

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 25, October – November 2017

• OAWiki & #1Lib1Ref
• User Group update
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: Research libraries and Wikimedia
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Korean and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

		The Happy Holiday Barnstar
		How about combining a Barnstar with a Christmas Card? That is why this message is appearing on your talk page. Simultaneously and at the same time, this barnstar is conferred upon you because during this past year you worked and contributed your time to improve the encyclopedia. You also have received far too little recognition for your contributions. In addition, this is a small attempt at spreading holiday cheer. I've appreciated all the things that you have done for me. The Best of Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ and Merry Christmas 21:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks for your message on my talk page. By the looks of it, @ userbox stacking). More work for us." so I won't make the same mistake twice. 🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐ ) 19:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Million-plus agglomerations in India. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Chris troutman!!


Hi Chris troutman, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News Hello copy editors! Welcome to the December 2017 GOCE newsletter, which contains nine months(!) of updates. The Guild has been busy and successful; your diligent efforts in 2017 has brought the backlog of articles requiring copy edit to below 1,000 articles for the first time. Thanks to all editors who have contributed their time and energy to help make this happen. >>> Sign up for the January Drive! <<< >>> Participate in the Coordinator Elections! <<< Our copy-editing drives (month-long backlog-reduction drives held in odd-numbered months) and blitzes (week-long themed editing in even-numbered months) have been very successful this year. Requests (a total of 304 articles). By the end of the month, all but 22 of these articles were cleared. Officially, of the 28 who signed up, 22 editors recorded 257 copy edits (439,952 words). (These numbers do not always make sense when you compare them to the overall reduction in the backlog, because not all editors record every copy edit on the drive page.) April blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 16 through 22 April; the theme was Requests. Of the 15 who signed up, 9 editors completed 43 articles (81,822 words). May drive: The goals were to remove July, August, and September 2016 from the backlog and to complete all March 2017 Requests (a total of 300 articles). By the end of the month, we had reduced our overall backlog to an all-time low of 1,388 articles. Of the 28 who signed up, 17 editors completed 187 articles (321,810 words). June blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 18 through 24 June; the theme was Requests. Of the 16 who signed up, 9 editors completed 28 copy edits (117,089 words). 2017 Coordinator elections: In June, coordinators for the second half of 2017 were elected. Jonesey95 moved back into the lead coordinator position, with Miniapolis stepping down to remain as coordinator; Tdslk and Corinne returned as coordinators, and Keira1996 rejoined after an extended absence. Thanks to all who participated! July drive: We set out to remove August, September, October, and November 2016 from the backlog and to complete all May and June 2017 Requests (a total of 242 articles). The drive was an enormous success, and the target was nearly achieved within three weeks, so that December 2016 was added to the "old articles" list used as a goal for the drive. By the end of the month, only three articles from 2016 remained, and for the second drive in a row, the backlog was reduced to a new all-time low, this time to 1,363 articles. Of the 33 who signed up, 21 editors completed 337 articles (556,482 words). August blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 20 through 26 August; the theme was biographical articles tagged for copy editing for more than six months (47 articles). Of the 13 who signed up, 11 editors completed 38 copy edits (42,589 words). September drive: The goals were to remove January, February, and March 2017 from the backlog and to complete all August 2017 Requests (a total of 338 articles). Of the 19 who signed up, 14 editors completed 121 copy edits (267,227 words). October blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 22 through 28 October; the theme was Requests. Of the 14 who signed up, 8 editors completed 20 articles (55,642 words). November drive: We set out again to remove January, February, and March 2017 from the backlog and to complete all October 2017 Requests (a total of 207 articles). By the end of the month, these goals were reached and the backlog shrank to its lowest total ever, 997 articles, the first time it had fallen under one thousand (click on the graph above to see this amazing feat in graphical form). It was also the first time that the oldest copy-edit tag was less than eight months old. Of the 25 who signed up, 16 editors completed 159 articles (285,929 words). 2018 Coordinator elections: Voting is open for the election of coordinators for the first half of 2018. Please visit the election page to vote between now and December 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Thanks for participating! Housekeeping note: We do not send a newsletter before (or after) every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your watchlist. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Corinne, Tdslk, and Keira1996. >>> Sign up for the January Drive! <<< >>> Participate in the Coordinator Elections! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

is wishing you a Merry Christmas (quite possibly a White Christmas

.

Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the

links

in this message!

— 21:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Benito Mussolini. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Chris troutman, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found

HERE

.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

	Wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
	A very Happy, Glorious, Prosperous Christmas and New Year! God bless!  — Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Chris troutman,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

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

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

Administrator changes

Muboshgu

Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned

None

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• A
  WP:RFA
  and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

• The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
• The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration

• Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.

This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!

I don't understand your comment "Cited source isn't reliable, anyway" in your revert [5]. The user is citing the primary source (

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Chris - just posting to thank you for the Christmas wishes. I was on a wikibreak and did not initially see your message. All the best for 2018! Take care, Patient Zero^talk 13:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi didn't you send me a message recently when I asked you if could message you if I had a complaint? If so let me know and I'll message you soon. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Davidgoodheart: Nope; wasn't me. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Karl.i.biased: Enough. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Israel. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like you're out of date. You're spending a lot more time away from creating content and a lot more time talking about Wikipedia process. Your content % has dropped from your alleged 37.71% to 29.11%, so I suggest you update your graph to let the world know what you're really doing here. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@

the right venue. SlimVirgin was far more professional in her argument against Sandstein's action. Your ill-thought comments about adults and recall is just going to further sour the community on you. But you know what? Thanks for playing. I'm glad to have served as enough of a distraction to get you deranged so you stop being a pain to other editors. Chris Troutman (talk

) 00:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Nice rant, just change the misleading chart, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@

[majestic titan]

18:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

What, diffs where we see you abusing your position as an admin? If you even read the context for this, you'd get it, but you haven't and you don't. I'd suggest you go and change some text to purple or something equally disruptive. Your boring threat is totally unbecoming, so do us all a favour and don't repeat the indiscretion. P.S. good work on overlooking all the direct personal attacks above, you're doing a sterling job as admin there as ever! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

You'll note that The ed17 is the president of my fan club. He initiated the ANI thread I linked to above. (Perhaps you should have read that.) I promise you, if he thought I issued any personal attacks I'd already be blocked. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I very much doubt it. It's all open season on trying to get me kicked out of here. You (and the admin) seriously don't consider calling another editor "deranged" (mad, insane) a personal attack? Well you're both completely wrong. For you Troutman, I expect it, but from this admin, it's just another diff to add to the ongoing abuse of his position. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: I'm really glad that it seems like you've taken the comments from a few months back (I'm thinking of the ones on your talk page) to heart. :-)

@

[majestic titan]

04:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I've take rogue admins to Arbcom, I have no reason not to. Last time, the sysop in question was shamefully desysopped for a catalogue of abuse of position. I have no problem doing this. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have read what

@Mathsci: Ok. Stop edit-warring your comments onto others' talk pages. Next time I'll use the templated warning so you don't have confusion on the subject. If you're not feeling well enough to edit responsibly, maybe you ought to take a further wiki-break. Hope you feel better soon. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the 15th-birthday note on my talk page ... but I beat you to it! http://granitegeek.concordmonitor.com/2018/01/23/wikipedia-anniversary-15-years-hunt-concord-creator/ - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Harvard Crimson. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 26, December – January 2018

• #1Lib1Ref
• User Group update
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: What can we glean from OCLC’s experience with library staff learning Wikipedia?
• Bytes in brief

Arabic and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!

Hi Chris, İskender is the Turkish spelling, I changed it to English which is Iskender. 77.166.30.3 (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, I will be more careful from now on. 77.166.30.3 (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Chris Troutman, I think you misunderstood the situation. I was not upset that Neale Family linked to a disambig page. That page had been a redirect to an article (Maria (1836 ship) page Neale Family had created. I converted it to a disambig page when I created a second article about a ship named Maria, and prior to creating a couple more. I changed the Neale Family user page so that they could more readily find their article without going through the step of going to the now disambig page and then clicking through to their article. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:NOBAN, while you can edit others' user pages, I don't generally think you should. I revert user page vandalism and I don't prefer to turn a blind eye to edits like yours, which serve no actual purpose. You may think it's a good or helpful idea but someone else's user page isn't for you to correct. I'm willing to chalk this up to a disagreement, as I acknowledge that you meant well. Chris Troutman (talk

) 00:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC
  Wikipedian-in-Residence
  or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
• Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

• A
  automatic edit summaries
  .

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee
  standardized editnotice
  when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

I was looking back at old AfD's I voted in, and noticed that my conduct at that of

@

WP:NOTCLEANUP argument, which is fair. I acknowledge that AfD, MfD, and CfD can get heated. Each of us that actually cares about Wikipedia tend to be writers and seeing content slated for deletion often gets taken as an affront. It happens all the time. I took no offense at your comments a year ago; no harm, no foul. Good luck to you. Chris Troutman (talk

) 22:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1948 Palestine war. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Chris troutman, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
• We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

• We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

• ACTRIAL
  will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
• Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the
  RfD
  .

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Here and here you accuse me of something I did not do. What evidence do you have? I do have a lot of personal biases, but I make my best to follow all policies while editing any main space pages of my interest. My very best wishes (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: You have continued to add the link to Navalny's YouTube page against consensus. Your talk page of "poetry" seems to evince your political beliefs on the subject. I took the matter to DRN since you refuse to be reasonable. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, sure you can consider my texts in userspace as a declaration of my personal views and biases. Making an open disclosure of COI (I do not have one in this subject area) or personal views is actually a good thing. It maybe bad if it spells to mainspace, but I am very careful to avoid it. As about this particular disagreement, I believe it is very minor and do not really worth a lot of anyone else time. My very best wishes (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Too late for that. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Too late for what? This is simply non-issue, and I fixed it (I hope) in two minutes. My very best wishes (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Oakland Coliseum station. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Note I used the AfC comment tool I did not put the page in AfC. Legacypac (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Yep. I didn't realize {{userspace draft}} put those pages into a maintenance category. Thanks for pointing that out and for your consideration in this matter. I acknowledge that you're a good-faith editor helping the project. I'm just really sensitive about my drafts. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorted by date [6] and by username [7] and this Wikiproject [8] Over time I've cleared some of the oldest date cats and some of the letters of the alphabet. You would not believe the amount of spam, copyvio, and attack pages in there. I even find articles that can be promoted to mainspace as is. Legacypac (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Chris troutman, I'm sorry for doing it. But I didn't mean it in a bad way. It's all because people treat me around and you should send User talk:Trivialist a message too. They say bad things about me so I don't do anything to hurt Wikipedia. I try to provide good faith and I get blamed and some people thank me while others thank me for doing that and User:Trivialist is blind as a bat is suddenly making people never know what happens and you should believe me and that is my message. Can you please send me a good message back which you probably won't, but you should. Please agree with me and please. DO NOT SAY NO! OK. And don't send me a bad message back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarWars&TTTEFan2018 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but why did you reverted my edit? I is it good bad? Why? 121.138.198.42 (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Please note that I proposed deletion of this article in June of last year. An admin subsequently restored the redirect. This wrestling group isn't

generally notable. Chris Troutman (talk

) 14:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Continuation War. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I assume a friend of yours? he vandilses my talk page and nothing happens I comment on his and I get threats. Listen mate I'm fed up of this every single edit i make he reverts valid or not and I'm the bad guy I always tjought Wikipedia was about the users but it seems its for the elite those who have no life and can spend all day and night on here so ban me it doesn't really matter Wikipedia is now a closed shop only open to those who have mo life well I have a life so thank you and good night... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kev inr (talk • contribs) 23:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kev inr: I am like a nation. I have no friends... only interests. It is my interest to stop the harassment of useful contributors and punish the hell out of ne'er-do-wells. Editors can issue warnings. That doesn't give you permission to vandalize user pages to issue meaningless attacks. And don't lie to me; we both know you don't have a life to keep you busy. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

ha ha with my children job and of course wife oh yes I have a very FULL life thank you....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kev inr (talk • contribs) 23:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Simon's Sircus. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors February 2018 News Welcome to the February 2018 GOCE newsletter in which you will find Guild updates since the December edition. We got to a great start for the year, holding the backlog at nine months. 100 requests were submitted in the first 6 weeks of the year and were swiftly handled with an average completion time of 9 days. >>> Sign up for the March Drive! <<< Coordinator elections: In December, coordinators for the first half of 2018 were elected. Jonesey95 remained as lead coordinator and Corrine, Miniapolis and Tdslk as assistant coordinators. Keira1996 stepped down as assistant coordinator and was replaced by Reidgreg. Thanks to all who participated! End of year reports were prepared for 2016 and 2017, providing a detailed look at the Guild's long-term progress. Requests (a total of 275 articles). As with previous years, the January drive was an outstanding success and by the end of the month all but 57 of these articles were cleared. Officially, of the 38 who signed up, 21 editors recorded 259 copy edits (490,256 words). February blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 11 through 17 February, focusing on Requests and the last articles tagged in May 2017. At the end of the week there were only 14 pending requests, with none older than 20 days. Of the 11 who signed up, 10 editors completed 35 copy edits (98,538 words). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Corinne, Tdslk, and Reidgreg. >>> Sign up for the March Drive! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

listen guys stop deleting my post I just put a small addition for a class I need it for a grade IF YOU DONT LIKE THE ADDITION PLEASE LEAVE IT UP FOR A WEEK THEN DELETE IT I DONT CARE!!!!! AGAIN I AM DOING IT FOR A CLASS JUST TO GET AN EDIT IN> THANKS IN ADVANCE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athsquare (talk • contribs) 23:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Athsquare: I'm more than happy to check over your editing, and revert and warn you when needed. I would hate to think that you couldn't find help on Wikipedia. That said, does your instructor have a point of contact at Wikipedia? We actually have a program to help students. In fact, if your teacher hasn't contacted Wikipedia already, please have them look into https://wikiedu.org/teach-with-wikipedia/. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

LISTEN this is the stupidest assignment ever first of all Wikipedia isn't ever allowed to be a real source now I got jerks like you deleting my content I am just trying to get a good grade in grad school can you guys please stop being jerks and stop deleting my stuff like I said if you want to delete it next sunday please by all means do so I have never used wiki before and I never will after this so cut me some slack I have a lot of stress in this grad program then to have you jerks deleting my content over and over — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athsquare (talk • contribs) 23:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Hey, I left them a note on their talk page with instructions to get their professor to contact Wiki Education or at least someone on Wikipedia. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, although I'm beginning to wonder if the editor in question was using the claim of classroom involvement as an excuse. I hope WikiEd is able to wrangle the teacher in question. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The

This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!

Your edit is removing a legitimate comment by

Check Dave's history and you will see that "Iggy" is a plagiarist (my greeting) ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 10:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@

own a greeting or any other piece of code. You donated it to the community when you hit "publish." For example, what about these holiday greetings from this past Christmas and New Years'? Are those editors plagiarizing someone else's code? Chris Troutman (talk

) 10:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Its Google Dictionary, not really Google Search. See the article. I agree that its not ideal though, as it doesnt have another way of linkage, and will reference other texts. -Inowen (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@

lede of that article, which is 99% of the time a bad idea, indicative of poor understanding. Chris Troutman (talk

) 11:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

Lourdes†

AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V

† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

• The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
• Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
• A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
• A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

• CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
• The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards: -revi, Green Giant, Rxy, There'sNoTime, علاء.

Obituaries

• Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

Happy First Edit Day, Chris troutman, from the mad 03:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. With 53 contestants qualifying, the groups for round 2 are slightly smaller than usual, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining users.

Our top scorers in round 1 were:

• Aoba47
  led the field with a featured article, 8 good articles and 42 GARs, giving a total of 666 points.
• FrB.TG , a WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points, gained from a featured article and masses of bonus points.
• Ssven2, another WikiCup newcomer, was in third place with 403 points, garnered from a featured article, a featured list, a good article and twelve GARs.
• Ceranthor, Numerounovedant, Carbrera, Farang Rak Tham and Cartoon network freak all had over 200 points, but like all the other contestants, now have to start again from scratch. A good achievement was the 193 GARs performed by WikiCup contestants, comparing very favourably with the 54 GAs they achieved.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim 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

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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Vanamonde (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for being a fairly amateur contributor to Wikipedia, I wasn't logged in when I did the changes.

I'm not sure if that is the correct way to answer to you, in general I don't see any Messaging feature in Wikipedia so I guess I have to do it this way.

I don't understand : 1) Why I should provide a link to a reliable source when none of the other examples of societal collapse listed have one. I'm not against it, I can provide links, I just don't understand why only the examples I want to add should have links to such sources, when the others have not. For Mali, i have UNESCO's A General History of Africa ; for Volga Bulgaria, I think everything is pretty much explained on the relevant Wikipedia page, isn't that enough ? Anyway, a process such as Societal Collapse is so complex that is difficult to find one exact quote saying « And then, society collapsed ».

2) Why according to you those examples do not qualify as societal collapse.

– The Mali Empire that was a highly centralized and developed country ruling an extensive territory disappeared after the main trading cities were lost to the Songhai and the Tuareg and the empire failed to reconquer them. This led to a loss of central authority, and as the Western provinces started trading directly with Europeans, they got empowered and took their independance. A lot of lands were lost to the Fulani hordes, too. Malian culture continued but it wasn't anymore the complex caste society of the Middle Ages, some rulers abandoned islam (the religion of the traders and of their former North Africa allies) to revert to traditional religion. In general chaos ensued for a long period in the whole region as Saharan trade lost its importance (since trade was now mostly done with Europeans on the coast) and the slave-hunt became the main economic activity. In general Western Africa from the 17th to 19th century can best be qualified as a post-apocalyptic one. Major cities such as Niani and Timbuktu were abandoned. Isn't that societal collapse ?

– Volga Bulgaria, a major trading country whose capital was at one time one of the biggest cities in the world, whose influence was such that they almost converted Russia to islam, was destroyed by the Tatar, 80 % of its population was slaughtered, all its buildings were razed except one tower in Yelabuga, and the fugitives, chased from their lands, adopted a new name and religion. Isn't that societal collapse ?

Thank you for your answer. Ghiznuk (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Ghiznuk

@

original research. I need to see you cite a reliable source that says those societies collapsed in the terms the article about societal collapse sets out. I hope my answer suffices. Chris Troutman (talk

) 23:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The user blanked their own talk page in violation of Wikipedia policy. I reverted that back so it's immediately obvious to anyone reviewing that account why that user has been blocked. What are you doing? --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:UP#CMT. Both specify that the only things that can't be removed by a registered user are "Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, Miscellany for deletion tags (while the discussion is in progress), Speedy deletion tags and requests for uninvolved administrator help". The material you restored is none of those things, so YOU are in violation of policy. If you want to know why an acocunt is blocked, just look at their contributions list (it'll say at the top) or look at their block log. I expect an editor like you to actually read the rules before you come to my talk page to complain. Go back to your law school to get your money back. Chris Troutman (talk

) 22:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you dial it back a bit please? I've seen experienced admins make the same error. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Seconded. Primefac (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ok. I overreacted. I'm a bitter frustrated man. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Looking through Wikipedia:Unusual articles might help with that a bit. The stuff we have on here... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

That page should be titled "Wikipedia:Stuff we need to get on the Main Page ASAP." Ian.thomson (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. I was going to try to reason with them, especially when they did a couple of OK edits, and I was halfway through composing a nice talk page message to them - but I think we are past that point now ... I do appreciate your vigilance! cheers DBaK (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: Glad to help. I'm grateful that editor did us the favor of announcing that they were editing in bad faith, as a few constructive edits might have some Wikipedians (not me) pause to be thoughtful in reply. Certainly, I hate the name-calling and abuse hurled at regular editors like you who, looking at your username, have become disillusioned, bitter, and knackered in the process of contributing. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Ha, quite! It's taken quite a while of marinading myself in gall to get to this peak of vileness and hatred! Cheers DBaK (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe that source (which is the one used in the article

Hi. I don't care. Fault me if you will, but I judge edits (while in a countervandalism role) in a vacuum. I'm not looking at the wider pattern of editing nor do I have any idea what the correct fact is. You added a Daily Mail source and I can revert that on sight. For the sort of responsibility you want me to exercise, it would require me to be anything more than a drive-by reverter. I'm following that article only because it seems to attract vandalism and I can pad my edit count but just hitting a couple buttons maybe a few times a month. What I recommend, if you care about making the article correct, is finding a reliable source(s) and then use that source(s) to fix what's wrong. If you're trying to make the article to elucidate a theory, then please discuss on the article's talk page. "People apparently already are joking about this... " I'm a

misanthrope; I don't care how the sheep are braying. Chris Troutman (talk

) 19:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

No, you have ignored one of my well-specified and easy-accessible sources, which is not lege artis when checking edits. If you had considered it, you simply could have removed the date. The risk of making an article worse by reinstating an unsourced false assertion is in this case completely your responsibility. --2003:C2:A3DC:E900:4020:2174:F62C:E2C2 (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I found an actual source and put the date of the kidnapping to 1981. It wasn't so hard but it was worth more to you who won't register an account than it was to me, who just enjoys reverting vandals semi-automatically. You made me do work that you could have and should have done yourself. In the immortal words of George W. Bush: "you're welcome." Chris Troutman (talk)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Winter War. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For reverting so many instances of vandalism talk ) 05:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@

Jjjjjjdddddd: Thanks so much; I appreciate it, although I'm just trying to maintain what we've all worked so hard to create. Chris Troutman (talk

) 06:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an essential thing, but it's good to see people working hard at it.

talk

) 06:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, where can I find the "nope" template? I wanna add it to my twinkle menu!

@

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The word "nope" isn't defamatory or obscene but it's the right level of dismissive to help new editors stop and read. I really think being nice and AGF'ing puts too much sugar in the medicine. Happy hunting. Chris Troutman (talk

) 16:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind message. I am surprised myself, I didn't know, but nice to receive such a reminder :-). Happy editing! Gryffindor (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Did you ever get word back from Don Shipley on Curry T. Hayne's claim of ten Purple Hearts? The claim is still on the Purple Heart article, and if it is shown to be false it ought to be removed. Kges1901 (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kges1901: Nope, and I've been patiently waiting. For the time being, we have a Congressman saying the claim is true and I have nothing solid to refute it. Guaranteed, I'll let you know the minute I hear back. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Can I ask you a question, please? Did you ever give advice to the tune that if an editor gets blocked here, the thing to do is "kowtow" to the admins who blocked them? I hazily recall reading something like that written under a similar handle to yours. If you didn't, my apologies for the memory error. If you did, then could you please clarify if you were serious? Thanks in advance. -The Gnome (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:NICETRY is pretty clear that an unabashed admission of wrong-doing is required. Blocked parties could argue that the block wasn't made in a preventative manner or that the block was unrelated to conduct. The nonsense unblock request Aceman626 gave was wrong in character, though understandable coming from an outsider/n00b. Aggravating the admins is just going to result in a swift rejection. Sadly, my sage advice was not considered and the offending party remains blocked. Chris Troutman (talk

) 23:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Yes, that's what it was. Your proposal was definitely constructive and helpful. The word "kowtow" though stuck a bit sorely - for a reason. IMVHO, it's the wrong word to use. The directions in

WP:NICETRY most certainly do not direct the blocked party to kneel and bow down in a "prostrate position" with your "head touching the ground" and showing the "highest form of reverence" to the almighty administration. :-) The directions advise something, let's say, milder. But anyway. Thanks, again. -The Gnome (talk

) 23:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Appeasement. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The

Sorry, I clicked on the wrong link. I should have realized something was wrong, when I saw the page was empty. Comfr (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

We all get into passionate discussions, like you have at

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:National Rifle Association. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I constantly get reprimanded by lots of people,even when I am trying to do good. I don't know if I belong on Wikipedia. Me at my happiest! 12:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@

to be adopted. That might really help you. But based upon your editing thus far, I think you need to find a different hobby. You can always come back a few years from now if you decide you want to be an editor. Chris Troutman (talk

) 13:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I have gotten rid of everything on my user page and will return in several years.Goodbye.-CM88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyMinecart88 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

User:MireiaPV/sandbox MireiaPV (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the holiday greetings you sent in December. Thanks for keeping an eye on the Fat Leonard article. I suspect the IP editor changed the wording of the circumstances of the Brooks case because they are familiar with the family or is even a member. The original quote from the WashPost indicated the "family" accepted the services of prostitutes. I expect that statement may have been overly broad, so I reduced the quote to eliminate that specific emolument as Brooks himself was probably the only recipient. I didn't read the pleadings/original source document. Activist (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I dont follow. User:Justlettersandnumbers is singling me out because I reported one of his articles for copyright. My article Sabrina Schloss is perfectly applicable to guidelines for Wiki. I undid vandalism by User:Justlettersandnumbers. Makro (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Makro: You are incorrect. Justlettersandnumbers removed sources from Sabrina Schloss because he says that the sources don't support the article's assertions, or aren't independent. This is a content dispute and you made a serious mistake by reporting him at AIV when you should have discussed it on the talk page. You also removed the AfD tag, which is not allowed. I recommend you quit editing Wikipedia right this minute and stay away for at least several months lest you end up blocked. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: A) I reverted Justlettersandnumbers vandalism. B) I reported him because it wasn't the first time he has vandalised an article I created. C) i'm pretty sure your threats are acts of bullying against Wiki standards. I am a perfectly fine editor. I always use accurate sources. Makro (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Makro: Your report at AIV was refused, as no one agrees with your interpretation. I'm only recommending you not continue to run headlong into traffic. If you don't like my advice, then get off my talk page. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Chris troutman:It was refused by you. Are you two working together to bully me? Makro (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Makro: No, Hut 8.5 made that edit to erase your complaint. I simply pointed out that your claim was wrong. You can't falsely report editors at drama boards. If you don't understand then I think you should avoid noticeboards. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: I correctly reported him.Makro (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Chris, I've started a discussion at ANI – specifically about the repeated BLP violations – and have mentioned you there. Sorry about that! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Just curious as to why two MMA results were reverted. You say it is because they are un-sourced, but never in my life have I seen anyone have to source a result on a MMA record box. Here are the last two UFC headliner winners with no sources next to their wins: Cris Cyborg and Alexander Volkov. Why the sudden strictness demanding a source on a win? Udar55 (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:CITE there as I would anywhere. I happened to stumble upon your edits and I reverted them because you haven't provided a source. Just because no one reverted you before does not mean your editing is acceptable. Although you've been an editor for ten years, I invite you to read up on Wikipedia's requirements and get with our program. Chris Troutman (talk

) 14:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. But I still have the question - why ask for a source in results tables? When mentioned a result in preceding text, the sources are always there. It is a Wikipedia MMA staple to source in the text body and done on hundreds of pages per year. However, I've never seen anyone put (or ask for) a source in a record box. I'll gladly add that if that satisfies you, but I'm not kidding when I say literally no one puts sources in MMA record boxes (unless something odd happened and is mentioned in the notes section). Udar55 (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Udar55: Well, I'll first give you my standard countervandalism cop-out: doing countervandalism work, I'm judging each edit on its own. Adding material likely to be challenged without also adding a reliable source in that same edit can be reverted on sight. I can know nothing about the subject and still revert. That said, I took a look at each before reverting. My revert at Jake Butler as well as my revert at Dejdamrong Sor Amnuaysirichoke were both legitimate. Had there been sourced text in the article, I would agree you might not have to add a citation for the table, too. But in neither case was there a mention of the event's outcome in the article's text or any citation to back it up. Further, at the time of my revert there was no citations showing the result at the article about the event itself. As you might imagine, I hold WikiProject Mixed martial arts in some contempt due to their lack of professionalism. Biographical articles about fighters are not immune to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies and WP:MMA would do well to be more stringent in restraining the over-excited fans who can't tell a citation from an armbar. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of the busiest airports in Europe. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for dealing with the nonsense on my talkpage from User:Martsander. After Martsander had been banished from WP, some further edits appeared on the article Mart Sander by a brand new editor (see Special:Contributions/82.131.14.105). These were largely useful in containing relevant citations, but one of them had the summary " Priit Pullerits, the noted journalist, objects to being referred to as Pret Pullerit, as edited by the illiterate David Conway / Smerus." I have been called worse things on WP, so I expect I will survive; but might this be a sockpuppet/alias of Martsander?--Smerus (talk) 08:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Smerus: I tend to agree. Here you go. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks.--Smerus (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

and here by the way is another similar intervention from an anonymous editor whom I beleive is likely to be the same person. Can one consider semi-protection for the page in the circumstances?--Smerus (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with that edit. If the edit doesn't have

duck-like qualities and it's not vandalistic, then you have no grounds to ask for protection. Chris Troutman (talk

) 15:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

So long as the belief that the block of Martsander was due only to username, then there's no going after IPs or other users for socking. As it is, the IPs edit was unsourced and rightfully reverted. The edit summary isn't

duck-like enough for me and the IP doesn't resolve to Estonia. You can have more than one crank editing that article. Further, you can ask for protection only if an article is likely to receive a flood of vandalism. A handful of edits here and there, even a couple a day, might not be enough to pass muster at RFPP. While we're on the subject, I'm not your hatchet man; I remind you that a lynch mob formed at ANI about me not so long ago. Perhaps you should act on your behalf. Chris Troutman (talk

) 23:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

No indeed, I was only asking for advice. I am not strong on the procedural side at WP. With thanks, --Smerus (talk) 07:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)