User talk:Chris troutman
 | Chris troutman uses the Wikibreak Switch template, and plans to update this notice if a wikibreak is taken. |
 |
|
| This is Chris troutman's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
| AfC submissions Random submission |
| ~6 weeks |
| to update |
| Today's Events
November 8, 2024 |
|---|
| Birthday |
| Adminship Anniversary |
| First Edit Day |
|
Other events: |
02:09:34, 18 July 2016 review of submission by NNcNannara
- NNcNannara (talk · contribs)
Why is the pseudo code and explanation on the main AVL page 'suitable' and this beautiful C# code with explanation 'unsuitable'.
As I pointed out to Roger, I have many more pages that I could add, but if this one doesn't make it, neither will they.
Clearly I am wasting my time with Wikipedia. I'll not waste any more time though.
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
December 12
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
00:27:17, 8 February 2017 review of submission by Alsamrudo
Hey, I know that I have most likely been annoying you with me wanting you to check Draft:Cool Cat Saves the Kids, but I have got it all figured out now. I removed all the blog post and added that the CEO of FOX, Rupert Merdoch, reviewed the movie.
07:17:05, 13 February 2017 review of submission by 2.227.120.20
- 2.227.120.20 (talk · contribs)
hi Chris troutman first off thanks for your feedback. I don't agree with you regarding some points that you mentioned in your message, i'll try to explain the reasons. You talked that the band should be in some musical chart and indeed actually the brand new album of the band is located at 6 place of the most important alternative chart in Germany Deutsche Alternative Charts, here's the source : http://wp1091379.server-he.de/dac/dac/index_album.php The sources that i used to write my article are not self-published, but show that the band is well known in the goth scene,for example in this link : http://www.ondarock.it/news.php?id=2724 you can read that CPV was in the same festival roster Alt-Fest with band like : Vnv Nation, Fields of the Nephilim, Marylin Manson, Gary Numan, The Cult, Arch Enemy, Killing Joke. http://www.ondarock.it/ and Rumore are two among most important alternative magazines in Italy, therefore i think that they are sources quite reliable. Lastly but not least, there are in wikipedia/en published pages about bands from the same music label of CPV with sources less notable.. so i'm confused now. Please let me know what you think about it, thanks 2.227.120.20 (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know about Deutsche Alternative Charts. I'm going to push to have that article deleted. I don't think those charts are notable and don't count for the purposes of notability. You're otherwise making a bunch of invalid arguments: That articles about other bands exists isn't valid. Most of Wikipedia are articles that are poorly-written and ought to be deleted. Name-dropping, as you've done mentioning bands on the same festival, is a cognitive bias. Notability doesn't rub off on this band because it happened to perform near or with other bands. Wikipedia requires independent reliable sources and you haven't provided that. By "self-published" I don't mean the band created their own website and put the information out there. What I mean is that I expect sources from journalists or academics publishing in platforms that have an editorial board. We don't accept random websites from fans. I have provided you links to much of the reference information about Wikipedia's criteria and clearly you haven't read any of it. Rather than try to convince me, read about what Wikipedia expects and then see if this encyclopedia wants to have an article about this band. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Disinformation
Chris - wanted to make sure you saw my note on the GA review for Disinformation. LMK if you would like to take-over the review if you already had your eye set on it. I'm fine either way. DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- @DarjeelingTea: I'm sorry to have created the impression I wanted to hijack your review. You've already started the review and you're welcome to finish. This is one I would have liked to have done but I wasn't able to jump on it sooner and I'll live with it. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- No need to apologize! I'll go ahead and finish it up in that case, but please feel free to chime in if you have any suggestions or notice that I miss anything. DarjeelingTea (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- Chris, just a FYI, I've failed Disinformation for GA. DarjeelingTea (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Panoply Media / WP:WTAF
I'm not sure I understand the most recent edit to Panoply Media. WP:WTAF talks about redlinks, but the article had no redlinks.
WATF does talk about listcruft, is that what you were referring to? Would a one- or two-sentence description of each podcast be better? --Hirsutism (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Hirsutism: Adding non-notable entries to lists is problematic. If they were listed in prose that would be fine, but awkward. If there's no navigational purpose served then I see no reason for the list. Most of those entries are unreferenced, too, which should be avoided. Please remember that name-dropping is a cognitive bias. Panoply doesn't become more notable because of which podcasts it broadcasts. I understand you're trying to build the article but I don't think this approach is the way to go. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Germany
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Germany. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
New York Herald Tribune
Made the changes you recommended. Thanks so much for your help.Idols of Mud (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- Made some more changes. Again, thank you for your diligence.Idols of Mud (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections
Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News
Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News
  Hello everyone, and welcome to the February 2017 GOCE newsletter. The Guild has been busy since the last time your coordinators sent out a newsletter! December blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 11 through 17 December; the themes were Requests and eliminating the November 2015 backlog. Of the 14 editors who signed up, nine editors completed 29 articles. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all who took part. January drive: The January drive was a great success. We set out to remove December 2015 and January and February 2016 from our backlog (195 articles), and by 22 January we had cleared those and had to add a third month (March 2016). At the end of the month we had almost cleared out that last month as well, for a total of 180 old articles removed from the backlog! We reduced our overall backlog by 337 articles, to a low of 1,465 articles, our second-lowest month-end total ever. We also handled all of the remaining requests from December 2016. Officially, 19 editors recorded 337 copy edits (over 679,000 words). February blitz: The one-week February blitz, focusing on the remaining March 2016 backlog and January 2017 requests, ran from 12 to 18 February. Seven editors reduced the total in those two backlog segments from 32 to 10 articles, leaving us in good shape going in to the March drive. Coordinator elections for the first half of 2017: In December, coordinators for the first half of 2017 were elected. Jonesey95 stepped aside as lead coordinator, remaining as coordinator and allowing Miniapolis to be the lead, and Tdslk and Corinne returned as coordinators. Thanks to all who participated! Speaking of coordinators, congratulations to Jonesey95 on their well-deserved induction into the Guild of Copy Editors Hall of Fame. The plaque reads: "For dedicated service as lead coordinator (2014, 1 July – 31 December 2015 and all of 2016) and coordinator (1 January – 30 June 2015 and 1 January – 30 June 2017); exceptional template-creation work (considerably streamlining project administration), and their emphasis on keeping the GOCE a drama-free zone." Housekeeping note: We do not send a newsletter before 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: Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdslk. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Bias
I've noticed you're injecting bias into a lot of your edits and I've tried to remove the bias so that the Wikipedia can form their own opinions on certain topics and you're continuously reverting them. I think it's great you have your own opinions but open source news and encyclopedia are not the place to do it. Create a Twitter account or maybe a Facebook account for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epicmench (talk • contribs) 08:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Adding onto this bias conversation started by Epicmench, I've also noticed that you (Chris) have been very much biased in your edits, periodically resigning yourself to wiping out other people's content that you disagree with. When you do so, you then resort to dubious uses of policy behind which you hide (or use to mask your actual intention, which is simply to remove other users' content that you simply don't like). That has little to do with Wikipedia policy and more to do with your own personal beliefs and preferences.
As just one (but certainly not the only) example, you commented recently on my talk page, stating, "Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of fulfilled prophecies, without citing a reliable source using an inline citation that clearly supports the material. The burden is on the person wishing to keep in the material to meet these requirements, as a necessary (but not always sufficient) condition. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you." You have removed, wholesale (engaging in vandalism) content from the page in question. You claimed that the content did not have reliable sources, but in other sections of Wikipedia, the sources used were equivalent to those used in List of fulfilled prophecies in the section that you have been targeting for removal (again, I think, because of your personal beliefs and biases, and not because of a Wikipedia policy). In point of fact I have indicated to you that in one area of Wikipedia (as an example, on the JarJar Binks page), social media / microblog links and mainstream media news sources are used together, without anyone attempting to remove them or edit war them away. However, you have decided you wish to target content on List of fulfilled prophecies -- not because it is in real violation of Wikipedia policy - but because you simply disagree with the content itself. And that example is not the only one.
I ask you to step away from Wikipedia for awhile and reconsider your perspective and your treatment of Wikipedia users. Pcvcolin (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Pcvcolin: Good for you. Go get that boomerang. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:George Wylde
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:George Wylde. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
New Page Review - newsletter No.3
Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.
- Still a MASSIVE backlog
We now have 806 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.
Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I AM123
You removed something I edited. How exactly do you cite something.— Preceding unsigned comment added by I AM123 (talk • contribs)
- @I AM123: The simplest way is to type in <ref>list your source here</ref> so we know where you're getting the info from. WP:CITE provides directions on how to cite sources and WP:RS describes what we accept for sourcing. We don't accept random websites or what you might deduce from a source. I put an invitation to the Wikipedia adventure on your talk page that helps walk you through editing. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the help. I currently can sit a url. I need help with making a page, its called The Circle written by Dave Eggers. I just need help making it suitable for wikipedia's database. Go to my talk page if you want to I AM123 (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC).
- @I AM123: It already exists: The Circle (Eggers novel). Chris Troutman (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Funny cause when i searched it it did not come up — Preceding unsigned comment added by I AM123 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Nomination of Len Forkas for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Len Forkas is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Len Forkas until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Edison (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
March Madness 2017
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:
- tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
- updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
- creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.
For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
This Month in Education: [February 2017]
Volume 6 | Issue 1 | February 2017
This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. Be sure to check out the full version, and past editions. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team!
In This Issue
We hope you enjoy this issue of the Education Newsletter.-- Sailesh Patnaik using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).
Administrator changes
Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13
Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi
Guideline and policy news
- A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
- AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
- Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
- The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.
Technical news
- A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
- Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
- A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
March 2017 WikiCup newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:
Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.
The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.
So, on to the second round. 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 equally.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Winter War
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Winter War. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
4th GA Cup - The Final
 Hello, GA Cup competitors! Sunday, February 26 saw the end of Round 3. Shearonink finished in first with 616 points, which is more than the point totals for all the other competitors combined! In second place, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an impressive 152 points, followed by Sturmvogel_66 in third with 111 points. Chris troutman and Kees08 each received a wild-card and were able to advance to the Final Round. There was a major error on the part of the judges, and initially, 8 users were advanced instead of 5. This has been corrected, and we sincerely apologize for this confusion. In Round 3, 71 reviews were completed! At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 7 months; at the end of Round 3, the longest wait is still holding steady at a little over 6 months, the same as for the previous round. By the end of all three Rounds, the total number of nominations increased slightly - this suggests that users are more willing to nominate, knowing that their articles will be reviewed. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in the Final so we can keep tackling the backlog. In the Final Round, the user with the highest score will be the winner. The Final has already started and will end on March 31st at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Finals and the pools can be found here. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Huh
The intro to wp:PROF clearly states that it is an alternate way for, say, a renownded chair in a field of study to merit a blp despite lack of much reliable sourcing.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Hodgdon's secret garden: Sure, for a subject to meet a Subject-specific Notability Guideline (SNG) we only need one good source to prove they meet the SNG. (For example, WP:NOLY is the guideline that presumes Olympic athletes are notable.) In regards to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin E. Park, Park doesn't hold a named chair so he doesn't pass WP:PROF, which brings me back to the comment I made on your talk page. You need to come to understand the notability criteria, perhaps with an objective mindframe instead of assuming everyone and everything is notable. I can appreciate that you want to constructively contribute; you're no vandal. But these misunderstandings waste everyone's time. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
"chess is a boardgame, not a sport"
Ex world champion Anatoly Karpov, when asked in an interview (published in How to Open a Chess Game, RHM Press) whether chess is a science or an art[form], answered that ... chess is a sport. (FYI.) cc: 1982vdven --IHTS (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Ihardlythinkso: Our article on chess indicates that there's not consensus for that view. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- I wasn't acually arguing article consensus (or not). (But re that, how do you figure? [I'm not aware of discussion to resolve, or any need to. Of course "board game" is objective/undeniable fact, but it doesn't follow that "sport" is mutually exclusive.]) Ok, --IHTS (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Ihardlythinkso: Ronda Rousey once said "If you don't break a sweat, it's not a sport, its a skill" and I agree. The article itself says that there are some governing bodies that have or do recognize chess as a sport but others don't. Because a discussion on the talk page would bring out partisans to claim chess is a sport I'm not surprised that the article reflects something of a difference of opinion. Without a consensus that chess is a sport the revision in question made sense to me. Besides that, there's a trend of professionalization of games playing (on a computer or on a game board) and sadly some commentators have taken to calling these players athletes and their activity sport in a worrisome effort to connote legitimacy. I'll wait to be overwhelmed by the consensus of the sad aggregate here before I allow this marketing nonsense normalized into our encyclopedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- Do baseball players "break a sweat"? Don't they simply "excercise skills"? And racecar drivers? (Bobby Fischer did intense physical conditioning using a well-known trainer-coach, on the basis being in top shape was essential for sitting at a board for up to six hours, where fatigue otherwise sets in and degrades play. So like baseball, the "sweat" occurred in training.) I didn't post to argue sport or not, or whether 1982vdven's change s/ stand or not; rather to inform your editsum declaration isn't fact rather one perspective (on basically an unresolvable Q). And when you responded "no consensus" I thought you meant a discussion at the article ended that way; now I see you meant that "no consensus" is default in absence of said discussion. But the Q is unresolvable, so that will always be true, even 100 years from now. Ok, --IHTS (talk) 05:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- I just figured that since Fischer was on the cover of Sports Illustrated in his prime, he would be considered a sportsman. Oh well, I don't really care.1982vdven (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Do baseball players "break a sweat"? Don't they simply "excercise skills"? And racecar drivers? (Bobby Fischer did intense physical conditioning using a well-known trainer-coach, on the basis being in top shape was essential for sitting at a board for up to six hours, where fatigue otherwise sets in and degrades play. So like baseball, the "sweat" occurred in training.) I didn't post to argue sport or not, or whether 1982vdven's change s/ stand or not; rather to inform your editsum declaration isn't fact rather one perspective (on basically an unresolvable Q). And when you responded "no consensus" I thought you meant a discussion at the article ended that way; now I see you meant that "no consensus" is default in absence of said discussion. But the Q is unresolvable, so that will always be true, even 100 years from now. Ok, --IHTS (talk) 05:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Ihardlythinkso: Ronda Rousey once said "If you don't break a sweat, it's not a sport, its a skill" and I agree. The article itself says that there are some governing bodies that have or do recognize chess as a sport but others don't. Because a discussion on the talk page would bring out partisans to claim chess is a sport I'm not surprised that the article reflects something of a difference of opinion. Without a consensus that chess is a sport the revision in question made sense to me. Besides that, there's a trend of professionalization of games playing (on a computer or on a game board) and sadly some commentators have taken to calling these players athletes and their activity sport in a worrisome effort to connote legitimacy. I'll wait to be overwhelmed by the consensus of the sad aggregate here before I allow this marketing nonsense normalized into our encyclopedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- I wasn't acually arguing article consensus (or not). (But re that, how do you figure? [I'm not aware of discussion to resolve, or any need to. Of course "board game" is objective/undeniable fact, but it doesn't follow that "sport" is mutually exclusive.]) Ok, --IHTS (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Cold War II
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War II. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
So
any fountain that contains nude figures would not be Category:Nude sculptures because the fountain is not nude? Carptrash (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- So we would not include these nudes because the building that they are on is not a nude? Carptrash (talk) 06:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Carptrash: Yes, that's exactly my point. Categories are not meta-tags for content. A category should only contain articles about objects in that category. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Well then there are a bunch of my edits that you might want to undo. Carptrash (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Carptrash: Yes, that's exactly my point. Categories are not meta-tags for content. A category should only contain articles about objects in that category. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Reverting on Chinshwehaw
Hello, you recently reverted my edit on Chinshwehaw. Chinshwehaw is a town and it is situated within Laukkaing Township, Shan State of Myanmar. Chinshwehaw Dam is a dam located within Chinshwehaw subtownship. So, Chinshwehaw should not be redirected to a dam article. Chinshwehaw is a legally recognized place within Myanmar and it meets WP:GEOLAND. Ninja✮Strikers «☎» 04:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Ninjastrikers: Ok, I see what you're saying. The thing here is, the town itself isn't notable and you hadn't provided any sources, which I why I reverted you. What I'll do instead is propose each for deletion. You can develop a draft article or a userspace subpage for the town and then move into the main namespace when you have enough content. Right now, neither article should exist. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Help with Maritz, LLC draft
Greetings! On behalf of Maritz, LLC, I'm trying to update the company's Wikipedia article. I've submitted an edit request here and posted requests for help at WikiProject Companies, the Articles for Creation help desk, WikiProject United States, and the talk pages of a couple individual Wikipedia editors, but so far no one has responded to the edit request to add a corporate overview section and information about the company's current and former subsidiaries.
I've proposed text for the article here. I realize this is a proposed article expansion, and not an Articles for Creation submission, but this major addition to the article is similar to an Articles for Creation review, so I'm reaching out to a few Articles for Creation participants, including you, to see if someone is willing to review the proposed addition for accuracy and neutrality. Is this something you might be able to help with? If you are not interested, I understand, I'm just not sure where else to ask for help for the edit request I submitted over a month ago. Thanks! MadisonfromStanding (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
17:21:52, 17 March 2017 review of submission by Hosseinfani
- Hosseinfani (talk · contribs)
Hello, I've created an article about my prof. Dr. Ebrahim Bagheri(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ebrahim_Bagheri). The article has not been approved by you since the person is not notable. I've read Notability (academics) and the criteria items 2, 3, and 5 at least are satisfied and the respective citations are given. Also, the subject is selected as a Professional Engineers Ontario, so the item 1 is satisfied in WP:ANYBIO. The award is highly notable for at least it has a wiki page! The given websites as references are from IBM and IEEE Computer Society, two notable entities not only in wikipedia but also amongst computer science community. I could have listed all his publication in his domains of interest in the article in order to show that the subject has been influential in these specific domains in computer science. However, Google Scholar and DBLP, which I mentioned as reference, are two well-known computer science bibliography websites in this respect and list all his publications. The h-index and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index#i10-index are two important citation metric to show the notability of an author. The subject's score with regard to these two metrics as shown in https://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=mG0H8oYAAAAJ is 18 and 39 respectively. Plus, the number of citations is 1927. It is important to mention that the content of Google Scholar pages are generated by Google, not the scholar him/herself! So, I guess one can cite Google Scholar as a reference.
I know encyclopedia such as Wikipedia is not Facebook. But according to the notability criteria items the subject is notable acc. items 2,3, 5 on Notability (academics) and item 1 on Any biography as I mentioned. I would appreciate it if you help me with this article.
Cordially, Hossein
