User talk:Chris troutman/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello there, I hope you're well and enjoyed a great week.

Last month I submitted an article for a band, at the address:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Krupskaya_(UK_band)

It was rejected and I would like to please request some advice on what I should do to ensure it is of acceptable criteria.

I understand that the web site links selling the bands work perhaps aren't acceptable as citations to their discography, but I wasn't sure what else I could use in lieu of the information being available in any other, singular place. In this instance, would it be better for me to leave the citations out of the discography completely?

Before I submitted my article for the band (whom I saw perform during the latter years of the previous decade), I wasn't sure that they'd meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines given that they're an underground band. But I did some research and found several entries to other bands who play similar music or operate in DIY scenes, some of whom have arguably less achievements behind them, and believed that this meant the band would be eligible for submission. The main example I used was Narcosis, as I saw this band play with Krupskaya before - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcosis_(UK_band)

I tried to ensure the information I submitted was well cited, but I am struggling to see what my submission lacks that the above entry does correctly?

I absolutely want to make sure this submission is as valid and close to perfection as I can acheive, so if there is any advice you could please provide in regards to the above, I'd very much appreciate it.

Thanks, have a great weekend

Tumpkin (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@

you can't point to these as examples for inclusion. It used to be that anyone could create a new article with no review, which is why you see stuff like that. I've nominated Narcosis (UK band)

for deletion, accordingly.

There are a couple things in play. To have this article accepted, it has to meet

our notability criteria for bands. The criteria for bands has a few qualifications; having a certified gold record or charting are typically the best way to be accepted. Your submission has only one reliable source, which is the BBC article. I haven't read it so I'm only assuming it actually substantiates what the submission claims. If Krupskaya was also mentioned in Rolling Stone, Revolver

, or the like that would help general notability.

The lesser issue is sourcing. Ideally you only include text that is backed-up by

reliable sources

. Right now you need to make the case for notability. If you cut out your un-reliable sources and their text it would make the submission cleaner but it would also reduce the content to a single sentence. I wouldn't worry about this issue right now and I'd stick to the notability issue.

Thanks you, I plan to enjoy my weekend. Today is a beautiful day to be free of the Crown. I hope you enjoy your weekend, as well. Consider joining a Wiknic in your area this weekend. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

I have recently reverted vandalism with the twinkle rollback feature as well as with my rollback rights. I haven't used the undo button very much. Sorry about that. I will "undo" edits from now on unless you instruct me to otherwise. Thanks. --Akifumii^Talk 05:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You would do well to quit going after other programs and focus on this training, which you've already committed to. The current exercise doesn't have to be done one at a time. Complete the whole table if you wish. Understand that every wrong entry will result in more being assigned. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you. Will I be assigned more because of the edits I reverted with rollback? If so, how many? --Akifumii^Talk 16:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I've only added one (row 4A) since you didn't issue a warning. It'll be a one-for-one basis. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. You may want to take a look at this. I was reviewing pending changes and saw that this edit had vandalism. I reverted it not with rollback, not with twinkle, not with undo, but with the reviewer tools on the top of the page. --Akifumii^Talk 17:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I find this frustrating. We've gotten to the end of the manual section so it won't be an issue going forward. Typically users that complete CVUA don't already have those permissions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Chris troutman. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of

I have been working on tagging pages for deletion but can't seem to find any. Do I just have to look harder? Is there a place or page that can help me find pages for speedy deletion? I have marked pages for deletion in the past using Twinkle through Special:NewPagesFeed. Thanks. A² 14:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You can use the diffs from previous CSD nominations, just be sure they're correct nominations. That said, it's not necessarily an easy thing to hunt for. Most of the pages I nom for CSD are the user pages because of

WP:NOTWEBHOST. These will be users with maybe less than 25 total edits, all to their user page. Since you're using Twinkle, I recommend you consider enabling your CSD log. Chris Troutman (talk

) 17:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Your input concerning a repeated incident by another user at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard would be appreciated. Cheers. LRD NO (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

As per previous suggestion, discussion is now opened at WP:ANI. Thank you. LRD NO (talk) 06:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You did an editor review on me, of which I've just been notified by a tick with your name - thanks for taking the time to do this, although I didn't request it. Where can I see it? Constructive criticism is always helpful as one learns. Sorry if this seems like a dumb question, but I've been looking, and can't find it. AdventurousMe (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@

editor review

project due to problems administering it.

Because you've asked, I took a look at your edit history: I like what you're doing. Since you're new, especially, it's a good idea of engaging on talk pages in the course of

Request for Comment" (RfC). Joining the service will result in notifications to your talk page about these RfCs. You'll have an opportunity to register an opinion on these questions and you'll be exposed to a variety of articles, editor behavior, and applicable policies/guidelines. If you have any other questions, please ask. Chris Troutman (talk

) 07:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much indeed! I'll make time to implement this, and try and engage more seriously with the community as you suggest. AdventurousMe (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions, you've been doing a good job at writing and sourcing articles.

 Done My mistake. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Finished with my CVUA assignment. Mind checking it over? A² 15:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't get impatient. I've assigned a new block of instruction, but you have a couple more assignments to finish. Look at every yellow mark and see if I'm asking something more of you before you move on. Also, I included a good deal of text explanations without asking a bunch of questions. Be certain you read all of that because it will become important later. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. I was wondering if I successfully finish CVUA do you think I could become a trainer there as well? What are the requirements? Thanks. A² 06:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any hard-and-fast criteria to be a CVUA trainer, but I oppose any student being an instructor as soon as they graduate. No one would accept someone that just got a license to ride a motorcycle teaching others how to ride. No one would accept a brand-new doctor teaching med students. Instructors are expected to be experienced enough to conduct the course and answer questions.

Even upon graduation you will not be ready, in my opinion. I graduated CVUA more than a year ago and you're one of my first students. I'd recommend you wait at least a year or two before you become a trainer. If you like, ask at the CVUA talk page to get a second opinion. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I will look into this later. A² 20:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Balfour Declaration, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eland. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/June_2014_Backlog_Elimination_Drive#We_need_a_conclusion that merits your consideration Fiddle Faddle 16:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Thanks for your review of my articles. I read that the article was declined because of Copyright violation. Can you please help me identify which part of the article is copyrighted. I have re-edit the article before the last submission and strive to provide citation to all the sources I used.

Sorry for the way I put my question, I'm just a beginner in this regard. Olamikhx (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Olamikhx: Sadly, I can't answer that question because the draft has since been deleted. I found portions of text copied directly from kennapartners.com and martindale.com. Wikipedia assumes copyright is asserted by the content holders, even if it's not explicitly claimed. Not only is this evidence of copyright violation, it's intellectually dishonest.

You've noticed, I'm sure, that I answered your question at the AfC help desk. Wikipedia can be very technical and it's not a place for newcomers. I would recommend before attempting to re-create this article, you find journalistic sources that discuss the subject. If you base your content on independent sources your resulting draft should read neutrally. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Chris troutman. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Lindsey.
Message added 06:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've userfied the article to User:Chris troutman/Karen Lindsey. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi.

I will not be able to be online here on Wikipedia from the 23rd to the 1st or so of August. Push my final test back if needed. Thanks. A² 23:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Your test is scheduled for Wednesday the 16th and it won't take that long for you to finish, so you'll have it done well before your wikibreak on the 23rd. Thanks for letting me know.

Also, remember the difference between disruptive usernames that get reported to UAA and problematic usernames that you could discuss on a talk page and address at CHU. I'm all about chasing off ne'er-do-well's but you want to avoid being needlessly BITEy. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Today is my final? A² 15:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It's posted now. Good luck. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. I am having trouble reporting another user to AIV or ANI. Should I just eat the question and not take any points for it? I reported 1 user already... Thanks. A² 05:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Akifumii: Consider it eaten. You've graduated the program at 85.07% overall. I am pleased you decided to return to CVUA to complete it. I hope you continue to find the education useful. Wikipedia makes a lot of tools and functions available to the common editor but it behooves each of us to know how to use them. Wikipedia is a big place and I hope you find the right niches to fit in. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I appreciate your work with me. I have added you to my userpage as in thanks. I have also added myself as a graduate from CVUA on the CVUA page. Thanks again! A² 14:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

On 19 July 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article James Brown (Elvis impersonator), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Elvis impersonator James Brown is best known for songs that Elvis never recorded, sung in the style of Elvis? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/James Brown (Elvis impersonator). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

On 20 July 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alonzo Davis, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Alonzo Davis and his brother were inspired to found the Brockman Gallery while driving back to Los Angeles following the Meredith March? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alonzo Davis. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 05:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

You must remove dougweller's admin tool. However, will you be the next checkuser. 109.157.151.98 (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@109.157.151.98: You are new here so I'll try to make this simple. I can't "remove admin tools". Please read the instructions to have admin tools taken away. That said, don't waste our time. I have reported you for edit warring and Dougweller was absolutely justified in their actions. Furthermore, the last thing you should want is for me to be a checkuser. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you look over this article that has now been accepted; Richard Pine? I've added referenced citations, more specific categories and more information on 'notability'. Suggest improvements? Simon Baddeley (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@

WP:EL, I'd convert all those external links in the bibliography section into references. You shouldn't have any external links in the body of the article. In some cases you have explanatory notes like "Published in a limited edition..." and "Now the Centre for ..." that should be expressed with {{notelist}} instead of in the reflist. I'm a proponent of infoboxes. You don't have to use one; some Wikipedians hate them. For this article you could use {{Infobox person}}. You could also set-off the quote from Seamus Heaney with blockquote or {{Quote box}}. Chris Troutman (talk

) 17:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Chris. That all makes sense with one exception, which you may be able to sort for me, directly or indirectly. The complimentary letter from Seamus Heaney belongs to the subject and I have had sight of it and permission to quote the letter from the poet's estate. How else can thus important evidence - letter from a Nobel prize winning poet - of the subject's notability as a writer be cited than by reference to images of the letter in Wikimedia? I don't think the letter should be in a box in the main article, but its availability as evidence that can be checked by someone reading the article seems to me quite essential. if I have misunderstood you and you are not saying 'remove' the letter but instead have it accessed by readers of the article in a different way, then please accept my apologies. Other editors have reviewed the article and helped make improvements. One gave me the idea of how to cite the letter i.e. scan it into Wikimedia, with the late author's address modified for privacy (Seamus Heaney's widow still lives there). Please clarify. Regards, Simon Baddeley (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@

a self-published source

. If the image were from a museum, an educational institution, or a periodical it might be allowable although still not so useful. As it is, you present this letter and we have only your word to take for it.

Absolutely remove the letter. If this is something you want to write based on primary sources I suggest you find an academic journal that will accept your manuscript. You might even be able to talk your local newspaper into publishing it. Here on Wikipedia, this is not done. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Chris. I disagree that a personal letter only become suitable for citation in Wiki when it's published in an academic paper or referred to in a newspaper. As a researcher and writer - BA (Cantab) MA (Michigan) - I know there's greater ambiguity between primary and secondary sources than a scrupulous interpretation of Wikipedia's rule on this allows. As you will know from the differing editorial positions of just two editors when it came to my submission on Aristeidis Metallinos, any one editorial position is usually contested; certainly debatable. The writing of the Nobel poet, including his letter to Richard Pine, is almost certainly a secondary source as part of Heaney's literary estate, which treats the poet's correspondence with Pine and others as in the public domain. That's how I have permission to publish and quote from the letter you argue ought to be removed. Furthermore part of this letter is indubitably not, even by your criteria, a primary source. Seamus Heaney, before his death under a year ago, permitted Pine's publishers at the time Pine's latest book was in proof, to use a quote from the letter that concerns you, changing it to a third person quote i.e. “Pine’s strength as a commentator comes from his meditative, associative, habit of mind. His readings constantly deepen our sense of complexity and modernity.” If you detect a crispness in this reply, do not mistake it for regretting I drew the entry to your attention. You would no doubt have come across it anyway. I initiated this discussion by asking your opinion. Wikipedia has rehearsed the relationship between 'notability' and 'celebrity' on many occasions. It's a lively debate with Wikipedia tending to give higher attention to 'celebrity' - a condition with notoriously disproportionate opportunity for public citation - than to equally deserved 'notability' which passes below the limelight of secondary sources. I am not suggesting a relaxation of the rules surrounding the need to establish notability. Unquestioning observance of rules Jimmy Wales and many other editors say should be tested in 'talk' helps create this bias towards people 'famous for being famous'. As an example of a kinder editorial opinion I quote another editor I asked to review the same article - his talk page: QUOTE Could it be improved? Almost always, but I suggest you act as the father, not the mother. It will, at some point, be edited by someone else. Notice when that happens and consider whether that edit has improved it. It probably will have, even if you disagree with the edit. Nod sagely and move on to your next project. Your job as father is done. Fiddle Faddle 12:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC) END. Simon Baddeley (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

You asked for my suggestions; I replied. If you don't want the facts don't ask for them. Obviously, you are way out of your depth. I find it sad that someone whom claims to have degrees resorts to a website to publish their thoughts. If you can't contribute according to our norms, take your ball and go home. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Chris, Such an intemperate and, frankly rude response is unacceptable. You owe Simon an apology. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Chris, you have a reputation for speaking bluntly, but I have not seen you behave rudely before. I ask you to consider your words to Simon and make proper overtures to him regarding them and your behaviour in this thread. Even when we have a strongly held opinion we may not express it rudely. Fiddle Faddle 13:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@

WP:SPS

describe this letter as a primary source of questionable verifiability. Without provenance, I think the letter is problematic at best. My degree is in history. The study of history teaches us that a letter written contemporaneously to the subject period is a primary source. Primary sources are not to be used in tertiary sources because they require secondary source analysis, which is meant for qualified individuals, not hobbyists.

On wiki all editors are hobbyists;

no one here is an expert even if they really are. Wikipedia is not set up with "verified" accounts; therefore, editors cannot argue from a position of authority

. I don't take the word of anyone online, anyway. On Wikipedia we argue the facts independent of users.

Sibadd came to my talk page and asked for my advice. I provided it. That user chose to then argue with me about same and complain when my response was brusque. I didn't nominate anything for deletion or threaten to interfere. I didn't even raise an issue on the article's talk page. I registered an opinion and I wasn't degrading, demeaning, or hostile when doing so (in my opinion). And yes, Timtrent, I will be just as vehement in person; I find such intimation otherwise to be insulting. Sibadd's argument about the letter holds no water with me and I don't understand why a user that's been registered since 2006 doesn't understand these policies, guidelines, and essays or my reaction to their argument. While I have been trying to attract academics to Wikipedia as a Campus Ambassador, I reinforce the clear understanding that Wikipedia is functionally different. I don't care if you hold the Lucasian chair, you're just another editor cobbling together secondary sources on wiki. I do find it sad when academics mistake Wikipedia as an alternative. Adrianne Wadewitz never did that; she contributed encyclopedic knowledge and adhered to our rules, as we all should.

I am disappointed that for the amount of time I take considering how to respond, toning-down my initial response, and assuming good faith that I'm still perceived as some kind of reckless bomb-thrower. So, if my response doesn't meet your needs, take it to a noticeboard. I'd be content with an IBAN from all interested parties. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I had not expected a rationale for rudeness to be attempted. I have no issue with your opinion being held strongly, nor with that opinion being expressed assertively. I have an issue with your rudeness to the editor. You can be as blunt as you wish up to but not passing the point of rudeness. I don't care one fig for anyone's degrees. I don't care whether the letter is out or in. I don't care about the article, though I care about articles. I do care about the way people behave towards others. I very much doubt I will say more on the matter in a timely manner, I am travelling today and tomorrow. After that the matter will have cooled and not be helped by being re-raised, so I think any further response form me will be unwarranted. I simply express my surprise and distaste for your behaviour, and for your reinforcing it. It is not your message I quarrel with; it is one you are entitled to deliver. It is your mode of delivery. Fiddle Faddle 05:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

tl;dr. That is not the apology which, I noted above, you owe to Simon. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

Hi Chris, many thanks for the acceptance of the article! I was expecting comments on things that needed 'neatened-up'. Best, Old Beeg _{··warble··} 01:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Chris: The comments which you posted about the recent Lead addition on the Wikipedia page is something which I support. The editor there tried to force this edit in on 25 May against two editors and was stopped then. Now he seems to want to force it through again. I tried setting up a BRD on Talk today but he deleted it and changed it to his own preferred current format, and then deleted my BRD revert on the Page itself as well! Along with the 2 editors from 25 May who did not want the changes in the Lead, that makes 4 of us who don't want it. My support is for your position on this. Could you glance at the large number of reverts by that same editor in May? LawrencePrincipe (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining to me why my article was deleted. I thought it was because an editor didn't like the writing style. What happened was I quoted myself without realizing the copyright implications! I could easily get the publisher's approval, but my preference is to simply rewrite the article with the "essay-like" sections rewritten to meet Wikipedia wording standards. I am deeply grateful for your advocacy and encouragement and hope my foray into "speedy deletion" did not cause you any problems with other editors. Gerrardb (talk) 00:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)B. Gerrard

@

expert editors but the experience in this decentralized adhoc-cracy is often traumatic to new editors. Chris Troutman (talk

) 02:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

	The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar
	Congratulations, Chris troutman! You're receiving the The Articles for Creation Barnstar because you got more than 175 points during the recent talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! (t) Josve05a (c ) 23:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: this comment in which you argue for a speedy keep of a hoax article. PhilKnight (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Since you commented at

Hello! I'm about page about Dj D (Nechepurenko). Tell me, please! Which music sites you trust??????! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christina232 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

@

the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Chris Troutman (talk

) 20:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

July GOCE drive

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for copyediting a total of 6,137 words during the Guild of Copy Editors July 2014 drive! All the best, Miniapolis 19:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on

Talk:Article One of the United States Bill of Rights

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

• Alphahuynh (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Farrow (customs brokerage) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs
    )

Alphahuynh (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Chris Troutman,

I am in the midst of submitting my article for a re-review, as I have made the necessary changes and have added multiple reliable resources from the Windsor Star Newspaper. Before submitting my article for revision, I was wondering if you could have a look at it. I did speak with multiple individuals from the help channel including Huon, Salvidrim, and Dragonfly6-7, in regards to my resources and they have confirmed that these are reliable.

Thanks Chris!

@Alphahuynh: I see you've made many improvements, while also introducing other problems. Long story short, I think you made the case for notability and when you nominate this it should be accepted.

To improve the article I have a couple recommendations: rewrite the lead paragraph and "introduction" section per

WP:LAYOUT. The lead is a summary, not a preface. After that you can have a background section but it is not the true start of the article. Also, you have a pile of bare URLs and it obscures your references. I recommend using citation templates like {{Cite news}} to make plain which of your references are from Windsor Star

, which is your selling point for AfC.

You don't have to make those changes but I think it would make acceptance easier. Submit the draft when you like. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a moment with Google will show you that there are state courts martial. Mikedelsol (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@

sources. Also, 32 USC 327 doesn't seem to expound any difference. You're adding a word to the text with with no apparent purpose. Chris Troutman (talk

) 00:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

You didn't read the article before editing, or you would have seen the references to the Oregon State Code of Military Justice and the Model State Code of Military Justice. There are, I would guess, 50 state codes of military justice each of which is authoritative for its state. To cite 50 seems excessive, To cite one seems arbitrary. The Oregon one happens to be on the web in full. Hawaii has a web site, but it is not easy to understand.Mikedelsol (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and effort in reviewing the Do You Know?... for the Philcade Building. I appeciate your completing it in a timely manner. Bruin2 (talk) 03:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Last call for opinions on RFC at Wikipedia page for page protection extension. Cheers. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

whacked with a wet trout . Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

You are getting a smaller one for the 90-day idea only because it matches your user ID. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Chris, did you want to come back and take another look at the nomination, or should I call for a new reviewer. Please let me know. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done Chris Troutman (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey Chris, just a heads up that I booked the next meetup for Saturday, Sept 6, 11am-4pm. We'll be in Pasadena this time, at Armory Center for the Arts. I'll be sending an invite soon. Hope you can make it out! StaceyEOB (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, you are receiving this message because you have commented on the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case. This is a courtesy message to inform you that the closure date for the submission of evidence has been extended to 17 August 2014 and the closure date for workshop proposals has been extended to 22 August 2014, as has the expected date of the proposed decision being posted. The closure dates have been changed to allow for recent developments to be included in the case. If you wish to comment, please review the evidence guidance. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• Untruc1981 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sean Carswell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Chris, I was wondering what would constitute a reliable source in the context of an independent, yet highly notable author? The sources used for the Sean Carswell article are from the City of Ventura, literary journals that featured Carswell, and other independent publications that spoke about Carswell's achievements and activities. I reviewed all the materials pertaining to this on wiki, but am at a loss as to how an independent minded author cuts the mustard with notability. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Untruc1981 (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@

general notability

. Carswell isn't looking like he can pass author criteria so your pitch is for general notability.

Your secondary problem is that you have a kludge of lousy sources among a handful of good sources like Ventura County Reporter and Redlands Daily Facts. I would recommend cutting all the other nonsense and add other journalistic sources like Portland Mercury and Arizona Daily Sun. Even if you cut the article down to an infobox and three sentences, you might meet notability criteria. Once you get a draft accepted you can add other material from there (so long as you don't tempt deletion). In general, you want to cite sources and mention awards that themselves are notable (eg, have an article about them). Some random website doesn't inspire confidence while trash tabloid TMZ might. Even with four newspapers I'm still not sure this article passes, but the clearer you make it for a reviewer the better chance you'll have. Also, if there have been significant reviews of his books in academic journals, you could develop a sentence or two summarizing those reviews and then cite those reviews. It would go a long way to establishing notability. I hope that helps. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Chris, Thank you. That was incredibly helpful. Best, Untruc1981 (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Draft:.dbf page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

Chris - thank you very much for removing the tag, and for your response to my comments. I completely appreciate that pointing fingers at other articles is not a valid argument, but it is bloody frustrating to spend so much time attempting to be so careful, only to witness utter shoddiness going unnoticed. Thank you very much for your assistance. Much appreciated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vietnamvat (talk • contribs)

Thanks for volunteering as a potential coordinator for

) 03:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Unforgetting L.A. edit-a-thon on September 6

Unforgetting L.A. edit-a-thon: Saturday, September 6 from 11am to 4pm

Dear fellow Wikipedian, You are invited to meet up with online magazine East of Borneo for an edit-a-thon to build a better history of art in Southern California. This next event in their Unforgetting L.A. series will take place on Saturday, September 6, 2014 from 11am - 4pm at the Armory Center for the Arts in Pasadena (map). Beginners welcome! Please RSVP here if you plan to attend. For more info, see eastofborneo.org/unforgetting . I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC) To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

FYI...

You just un-did an edit made by 24.89.95.109 on user talk:j73364. 24.89.95.109 is my I.P address. Therefore I un-did my own edit (I just forgot to log on).Jay M (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I reverted 24.89.95.149. Oddly, you awarded "yourself" a barnstar. Why would you do that? It seems you spent a lot of editing logged-out. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

• Mehitabel99 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Mehitabel99 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Chris Troutman,

Thank you for your comments on the article, Pratch & Company, that I submitted on August 7. I understand your criticism of using too many of Dr. Pratch's own articles as references. One of the comments says to take them all out and resubmit the article. I have two questions: Isn't it appropriate to link to Dr. Pratch's research when making a statement regarding that research, specifically when stating that the research was carried out? Also, is there anything else in the article that needs revision before I resubmit it?

Thank you for any advice you can offer me.

Sincerely,

Mehitabel99 (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Mehitabel99 (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@

independent

sources. You can keep some of those citations but it should be a minority of the sources.

I think Leslie Pratch might be

policy. Chris Troutman (talk

) 04:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, you are receiving this notice because you made a contribution at

Hope this works! I added a bit to make it sound more exciting. :) Somehow last time I looked at it, I thought it was on a Saturday... Since it's Sunday I probably won't be able to come until later (my husband plays piano at a church 8:30-noon or so, and we only have one car...). But hopefully I can make it after church, and bring him along! You should RSVP so that it looks like we have a good presence for others clicking the link! Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

On the off chance that you're not watching the AfD, this is to notify you that I've userfied the article at User:Chris troutman/Shirleene Robinson. Deor (talk) 11:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)