User talk:Chris troutman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.
Committed identity: 53034b2749273e66509e3f88fd103b4882f16345902df017ef05f53fcdaa37eb69268ba4777ee04b32c2a6d6fc308063da7f51adb04a5addd52649c095c47659 is grammatical article for the hash function SHA-512 commitment to this user's real-life identity.
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Czar 81 3 3 96 18:23, 29 November 2014 1 days, 12 hours no report
Samwalton9 98 0 2 100 15:30, 28 November 2014 0 days, 9 hours no report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

Last updated by cyberbot I NotifyOnline at 05:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

NotSuckBanner.jpg

oiy1[edit]

Please have a look into my new article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bang_Bang_%28Hindi_Song%29 --Alynaa (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
A barnstar to you for re-reviewing at least 25 user reviews during the WikiProject Articles for creation June 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks for contributing to the backlog elimination drive!
Posted by (tJosve05a (c) on 08:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation

Oiya[edit]

just wanted to make sure if my article has been reviewed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bang_Bang_%28Hindi_Song%29

and what can you use as 'External' links on wikipedia?--Alynaa (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@Alynaa: I think you misunderstand. The banner template at the top of the article only indicates that it hasn't been reviewed. The article is live on Wikipedia and that banner doesn't detract from it. Ideally, an editor from either WikiProject India or WikiProject Songs should review it. (I don't belong to either.) I assume you saw my activity at AfC and decided to ask me for help. Pestering me for help is a poor way to interact with me.
As for external links, read WP:EL. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

More references added have a look--Alynaa (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Crystal Clear action bookmark.png Stellar Outreach
Thanks for going out of your way to connect me with the larger community of Wikipedians! Nafpaktitism (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

List of edit-a-thons[edit]

Having removed the list, where did you put it? The list of meetups is just that and it's not possible to see which are edit-a-thons. I recommend that you turn it into a separate article. kosboot (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I deleted it (rather than archive it or move it somewhere else) under the assumption it was duplicative. However, you're right; I didn't check and I should have. I believe the city-specific sub-pages are already archiving their past events but I'll figure out how those entries I deleted should be archived if they hadn't been already. My immediate concern was eliminating the false belief that the how-to article was the way to promote upcoming events. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup - Round 2[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 2
Symbol support vote.svg

Greetings, GA Cup competitors!

Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. Jaguar took out Round 1 with an amazing score of 238. In a tight race for second, Peacemaker67 and Ritchie333 finished second and third with 152 and 141 points, respectively.

Two users have scored the maximum five bonus points for article length (60,000 characters+). Anotherclown reviewed Spanish conquest of Yucatán (77,350 characters) and MrWooHoo reviewed Communist Party of China (76,740 characters). The longest review was by Bilorv who reviewed Caldas da Rainha. The review was approximately 22,400 characters which earned s/he two bonus points (20, 000 - 29, 999 characters).

In Round 1, 117 reviews were completed, making the first round of the GA Cup a success! A total of 86 articles were removed from the backlog during the month of October! We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 2 so we can lower the backlog as much as possible.

To qualify for the second round, one completed review was needed, which 28 users accomplished. Participants have been randomly put into 7 pools of 4; the top 2 in each pool will move onto Round 3. There will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 15th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 2 will start on November 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on November 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here

Also, remember that a major rule change will go into affect starting on November 1, which marks the beginning of Round Two. Round 1 displayed a weakness in the rules, which we are correcting with this new rule. We believe that this change will make the competition more inherently fair. The new rule is: Your review must provide feedback/suggestions for improvement, and then you must wait until the nominator has responded and all issues/suggestions have been resolved before you can pass the article. Failure to follow this rule will result in disqualification. The judges will strictly enforce this new rule.

Good luck and remember to have fun!

Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Question on notes versus references[edit]

Quick question for you. I was looking at Joseph Jastrow's page, and what I consider references are in the notes section. Is there a reason for this? I tried to find a page explaining the difference, but was unsuccessful. Thanks! gemayelc 22:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemayelc (talkcontribs)

@Gemayelc: Take Audie Murphy as an example. Yes, references should be called citations or references, not notes. When I use {{sfn}} (like I did at Alonzo Davis) I put the short citations in "citations" and list the books in "references." Notes (use {{notelist}}) should be explanatory. Fix the article as you see necessary. WP:ASL addresses this. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: Thanks! One further question for you. I would like to title a subsection "Dreams of the blind". One of Jastrow's books has a chapter with a similar title ("The Dreams of the Blind"). [1] Do I need a citation to do this? It is the best way of titling the section, which is probably why Jastrow did so himself. gemayelc 20:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I see you've already done this. No, you only need citations for content. Section headers are just the words between the pairs of equal signs. That said, section headers should be entitled based on the content like "early life", "career", "publications", etc. (see WP:LAYOUT) I hope that answers the question. The section you added is fine. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
References
  1. ^ *Jastrow, Joseph (1900). Fact and fable in psychology. Houghton, Mifflin and Co. p. 337. 

Please comment on Talk:Ayurveda[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ayurveda. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

CVU/A Request[edit]

I'd like to be trained in counter-vandalism, and I saw you on the CVU/A page. Thanks. JDgeek1729 (talk) 04:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I'm indisposed just now, but I should be able to set up your CVUA page Monday or Tuesday. On another note, please go to your preferences menu and change your signature to point to your current username, not your old one. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I think I made that before my name changeJjjjjjdddddd (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014: The results[edit]

Flag of the Smithsonian Institution.svg
Flag of Wales.svg
Flag of Scotland.svg

The 2014 WikiCup champion is Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), who flew the flag of the Smithsonian Institution. This was Godot13's first WikiCup competition and, over the 10 months of the competition, he has produced (among other contributions) two featured lists and an incredible 292 featured pictures, including architectural photographs and scans of historical documents. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 and 2013 WikiCup champion, came in second, having written a large number of biology-related articles. Scotland Casliber (submissions), WikiCup finalist every year since 2010, finished in third.

A full list of our prize-winners follows:

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have participated this year. We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)[edit]

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

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

  • DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
  • Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
  • Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
  • British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
  • Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
  • Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
  • JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
This message was delivered via the Mass Message to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

BNA[edit]

Thanks. Have filled up the form. Tintin 17:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. However - I'm stuck on the last step. I have qualms about revealing my identity to the WMF as it is, but being required to fill out a Google form? I'm mulling whether that's a deal breaker. Google cannot be trusted. Has anyone else raised this issue? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: Yes, others have rankled at revealing true name although their objection was not specific to Google. I could inquire about having you e-mail me that information directly, but Google would still have it that way rather than the form. Speaking for The Wikipedia Library, we've already signed non-disclosure agreements to protect the private information of editors. Ultimately, this is information BNA requires for your access. If your anonymity is that important to you, it may have to come at the cost of resources like this. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I read the BNA privacy page and am ok with that, and I applied on the understanding that the WMF would have the information, but why must Google also have it? I don't have a Google Plus account for that reason. Does Google ultimately own brightline whatsit? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
@Yngvadottir: Ok, if you can communicate your information to me I can pass it along to BNA without involving Google. Is there a particular mail service you feel comfortable with? I assume if you want to avoid Google docs you want to avoid gmail, too? Chris Troutman (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
That would be great - I trust you lot. Yes, I'd rather avoid gmail. I gather that's what you use here. Do you do IRC? I lurk a lot (like right now), registered as Rihan. PM me. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Chris I went to sign up and it said it would email to confirm and it never did. Can you sort it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Emailed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Your BNA account was created. You should have received a confirmation e-mail and you can request a resend by logging-in and going to the "my account" area. If it's still a problem, my contact recommends you use BNA's customer support. Let me know if issues persist. Otherwise, enjoy your year of access. BNA is happy to support prolific editors like you. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I know, I requested a resend 4 times and still didn't get an email!! I've contacted support, hopefully I'll get a response soon.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gary Webb[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gary Webb. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

punctuation[edit]

Please look at this edit. Ranges of years, ranges of pages, etc., require an en-dash, not a hyphen, as do things like "Russell–Saunders". (And in some other situations, a hyphen is right and an en-dash is wrong. See WP:MOS.) Michael Hardy (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I had been content to let AWB editors worry about that sort of stuff; I'm writing content. In consideration of your request, I've installed User:GregU/dashes so I'll fix articles I'm working on. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior[edit]

What happens here, when one can not dispute the several sources that affirm our latest edit? In fact, it's already clear that the sources can't be negated. At the end of the discussion, Laveol and his/her anonymous IP profile can not dispute the sources, and still does not accept the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.242.208 (talkcontribs)

@79.126.242.208: Well, there are a couple ways to proceed:
  1. Post a Request for Comment. A larger community will chime in. Anyone resisting the consensus can be dealt with formally.
  2. As the discussion has remained civil WP:ANI isn't the optimal solution. As this looks like a slow edit war. You can report it to WP:AN3.
  3. Don't bother. When the partisans come out, I question what good is served fighting them. Clearly WMF doesn't care or checkuser tools could be used more easily and IPs could be summarily blocked. Per WP:CONSENSUS, you only have to voice disagreement once and perpetually revert after that. The discussion has established a consensus that Macedonian nationalism is a recent invention not applicable to the Ottoman Empire. An article about the millet system (which is really a misnomer anyway, if you've read Najwa al-Qattan) isn't the place to hash this out. Surely a consensus at an article about Macedonian nationalism would make more sense. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, neither discussion, nor the concerning paragraph in the article are about the Macedonian nationalism, but - the existence of the Macedonian ethnicity through the centuries. Those are completely different things, I believe. 79.126.227.104 (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
By the way, thanks for the guidance.
I've just noticed, somebody's explained that we do not talk about the Macedonian national state ideology: according to the latter definition of the term "nation," the Macedonian nation was formed when the Macedonian nation state was established. Today, a nation is the people in a sovereign state. But, more than 100 - 150 years ago, "nation" meant - separate people, meant what we today call "ethnicity".
"Ethnicity" is also a tricky concept but yes, nationalism in the nation-state context didn't come about until modernity while the Israelites, Egyptians, and Han Chinese could each claim to be a nation stretching to the beginning of civilization. Although I'm not an expert on Balkans history, I'd suggest that the ethnic form of nationalism is in many cases really a backward-looking revisionist invention also dating to modernity. The discussion should focus on source material relating to an applicable millet.
I don't doubt that ethnic Macedonians (Christians) probably experienced some preferential treatment through a millet-like political accommodation. The issue is that the literature doesn't seem to bear that out per se and people trying to push a modern Macedonian nationalism want to rewrite history. I know the story of Alexander the Great is a magnet for this sort of thing. I don't care either way. I'd support a Greater Macedonia (much as I'd support an independent Kurdistan) but I don't think they've been oppressed, either. That conversation is done as far as I'm concerned. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you've got wrong impression, but I clearly stated that the Macedonian nationalism is another subject. Am I wrong? The debate about forming the Macedonian nation, on which you claim reached consensus, I'm convinced that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PARAGRAPH HERE AND THE LIST of the ethnicities. In the article there are listed ETHNICITIES, not NATIONS (as we understood the word today). 79.126.168.215 (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
We see that the word nation is a problem. Should we remove the sources from 200 years ago, where the Macedonian ethnicity is called "nation"? 79.126.168.215 (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The misunderstanding was mine. Did you read #3 above? That's you. You're the partisan pushing Macedonian nationalism. You've used the word "we" a lot to refer to yourself so, to borrow a line from Magnum Force: "who's we, sucka?" What nationalist collective am I talking to?
The issue here is, were Orthodox Christian Macedonians included in the Rum Millet? Probably. Do the sources say that? No. Sources don't list the ethnic Macedonians as specific members of the millet. Why are you pushing to include them? Answer: because you're a partisan. This is the extent of the argument. Had you not been pushing this, I wouldn't have had the article protected. Now that it is, you might try being more reasonable. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Оh, this is ridiculous - Sources don't list the ethnic Macedonians as specific members of the millet. The other ethnicities were also never explicitly referred as being part of the Rum-millet, but the sources say that they existed as separate entities, don't they? It's kind of funny how concerned you are that I, "a Macedonian nationalist," "try to rewrite the history" but by showing already written evidence. 79.126.168.215 (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:St. Francis Dam[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:St. Francis Dam. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews[edit]

Hello Chris troutman. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for W. Conway Pierce[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bath School bombings[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bath School bombings. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Carl A. Wiley[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)