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.
Today's motto...
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 20:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC).—cyberbot I NotifyOnline


Maxwell Brander[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

TWL coordination[edit]

Thanks for volunteering as a potential coordinator for The Wikipedia Library. We have a brief questionnaire here for you to complete. Please try to have this done within the next week if possible. Thanks! Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Unforgetting L.A. edit-a-thon: Saturday, September 6 from 11am to 4pm
Armory Center for the Arts.jpg

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

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.


You just un-did an edit made by on user talk:j73364. 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 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)

Please comment on Talk:Government of Louisville, Kentucky[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Government of Louisville, Kentucky. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

00:39:15, 23 August 2014 review of submission by Mehitabel99[edit]

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.


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

@Mehitabel99: No, it's not appropriate to use Pratch's research as a source so heavily because it's a primary source. Your number one goal is to make a case for notability, which relies on independent sources. You can keep some of those citations but it should be a minority of the sources.
I think Leslie Pratch might be notable, but I'm pretty sure her company is not. Also, please avoid writing promotionally. I get the sense you're trying to sell this company's services and that's counter to Wikipedia's policy. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case[edit]

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 (talkcontribslogs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Andreas Kaplan-related sockpuppet investigation notice[edit]

Hello, you are receiving this notice because you made a contribution at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas Kaplan (2nd nomination), now closed. Subsequent to the closure of the AfD, a related sockpuppet investigation (define) was opened. If you are interested, you can view or contribute to it. Thank you. — Brianhe (talk) 03:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

L.A. Meetup on September 21[edit]

The 20th Los Angeles meetup: Sunday, September 21 from 11am to 4pm

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

Join us on Sunday, September 21, from 11am to 5pm at Kramer Studio in Mid-City (map) for a meetup and edit-a-thon! Get to know the Los Angeles Wikipedia community and do some editing (or learn to edit!) in a collaborative environment. Please RSVP and consider becoming a member of the SoCal task force to help us improve articles about everything in the region.

I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

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)

Request on 08:20:52, 29 August 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Hamik.m[edit]

Dear Chris, I have removed all the wording that may be considered non-neutral. Considering the sources, they are all 3rd party and totally independent. None of the articles was done because it was payed for by the artist. As I mentioned, I even deleted the "daily mail" as considered it not trustworthy enough for wikipedia. But Fjords Magazine and Visual Language are both respected art magazines and totally 3-rd party. The only external links that are connected to the painter are the links to his website and portfolio on the web. All of the other external links are 3rd party. Later the information about the work sold from Phillips Auction will be added to the article also, but for now there is no permanent link for the lot. I cannot agree with the remark of Arthur goes shopping that "One of the artist's works being up for auction is not enough to prove their notability." It depends on the auction first of all. I hope none will doubt Phillips is one of the most respected contemporary art auctions in the world and there is no possibility to get there without being a notable artist. Just have a look on the page about the Phillips Art Auctions on the Wikipedia before giving this kind of remarks It is actually totally unprofessional that the highest rank experts working at the auction consider the artist notable, while reviewers of the wikipedia do not. After all the article is just about the existence of a man named Tigran Tsitoghdyan who is a painter. So can I assume that Phillips auction considers him a painter, and wikipedia does not? If there is anything else that wikipedia reviewers may consider advertising-like, i will gladly remove it, but concerning the notability I do not think there should be an issue. Don't you agree? Hamik.m (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hamik.m: I do not agree. Wikipedia has a general notability guideline as well as a host of subject-specific notability guidelines like WP:ARTIST. Please read those guidelines.
I appreciate that you cut down the draft significantly. I would put the Daily Mail back in as it was your best source. Whoever told you to take it out was wrong, in my opinion. Also, our guideline on external links doesn't just mandate that links are 3rd party but has long lists of what links are permitted, might be permitted, or are not permitted. You should read those, too. Wikipedia can be a complicated place with a lot of rules and although many new editors start by writing a new article, it almost always ends badly.
It often happens that both amateurs and professionals in almost any field get upset when someone or something they think is important isn't considered notable on Wikipedia. We get professors that have written dozens of scholarly articles that don't meet WP:PROF and we refuse them. We get musicians that perform regularly at small venues but fail WP:MUSICBIO and we refuse them. We sometimes delete articles about non-notable journalists and those journalists write articles in their periodicals to complain about our notability criteria. Accordingly, we decline to accept an article about Tigran Tsitoghdyan. I think it's impressive that his work was featured on those magazines. The coverage he does have is in niche publications so since I'm not an art student I have no idea if those magazines really lend any credibility. They're not The New York Times. I'm a numismatist and the periodicals I read are The Numismatist and Bank Note Reporter. Both of those are only read by other hobbyists and neither has a Wikipedia article about it, so they won't impress general-interest Wikipedians. You have the same problem with Fjords Magazine and Visual Language Magazine. Also, notability is not inherited so it doesn't matter if Phillips Art Auctions is notable; what they auction doesn't automatically become notable, too.
The issue is that Tsitoghdyan doesn't yet meet our criteria; maybe someday he will. Wikipedia is in no rush so it's fine to wait several years for coverage to develop. You, however, are trying to get this article accepted because you have a stake in it. In any case, I'm not reviewing your draft again so I'm happy to left out of it. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Shirleene Robinson[edit]

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)


Hi. Thanks for the educated response in Nick Baird; I appreciate it. Nice to meet you. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Creation Museum[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Creation Museum. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


So who is Richard M. Hunt? I presume not the architect. DuncanHill (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: He was an historian, specializing in European history. He taught at Harvard for many years and eventually served as the University's Marshal.[1] [2] The sentence is worded that way because it's his concept, not the idea of an amorphous "some people". I guess you think Hunt's statement has to be qualified for the reader; I prefer the reader to go to JSTOR and read the Dr. Hunt's article. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ "University Marshal Rick Hunt to retire". Harvard University Gazette. August 22, 2002. 
  2. ^ "Dr. Richard M. Hunt". American Council on Germany (pdf). 
I prefer that the reader is able to get at least some context from the article itself - the original wording, to which I appended the "who?" tag was unhelpful to say the least. We should not assume that our readers will have read the references before reading the article to get an idea as to who someone is. Do you have a link to the article that could be added to the reference? Preferably not to JSTOR as most readers will not have access (and I just searched for it on JSTOR and it does not appear to be there). DuncanHill (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll look into it this weekend and try to find the original text, although I'm not clear what you want explicated, Dr. Hunt's article or who he was? Chris Troutman (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Well it was the who he was that attracted me initially, but it would be nice to read the article. Virginia Quarterly Review isn't on JSTOR at all. Thanks for looking into it. DuncanHill (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Just as a by-the-by, his time at Harvard overlapped with my uncle's time as Dean of Students - small world! DuncanHill (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@DuncanHill: I have added a URL and a quote at Stab-in-the-back myth#Post-war reactions and reflections for that source. I hope that works for you. I'll be developing an article about Hunt but it may be several weeks before I have that together. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - unfortunately I don't have ProQuest access, but it's good to have the link anyway for those who do. Looking forward to the Hunt article! DuncanHill (talk) 06:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


It is not necessary or appreciated to troll user talk pages with warnings about citing sources literally within minutes of fresh edits. I was searching for the most authoritative source to cite when you left your note. You are welcome to look for your own sources if you wish to do something constructive for the article. Ketone16 (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ketone16: I don't troll; ask anyone. Adding good content without also adding a source looks just the same on my watchlist as adding unsourced content, which I summarily revert. If you have a source, feel free to revert me and add your source. In fact, I'm curious why you'd add any content at all if you're not sure which source(s) you're using to substantiate it. You can't just add what you think is right and then go searching for a reliable source to back it up. You find the source first and then add the content. You've been editing Wikipedia intermittently for a long time so I don't see why we're having this conversation. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no rule that says you find the source first and then add the content; what matters is that the source gets cited in the end. It is not appropriate to interrupt someone's work process mid-flow. I added a stub edit and was adding more information when you reverted my edits. I am not at all unsure about my source. My source was a book on Armenian history I found online, but since Armenia was not a party to the treaty, I was looking around for a better source, preferably something contemporaneous with the treaty. I could not access the book's references directly in the online preview I was viewing, so I had to search around. I stress, however, that the book is a reliable source and I was planning on citing it if I couldn't find a better source. It is my opinion that immediate summary reverts of uncontroversial material are not productive for Wikipedia, in addition to being rude on a personal level. Sometimes people are editing in a flow, and even those who do post unsourced material as a matter of habit are not necessarily harming Wikipedia. I'd rather have someone make an unsourced edit (as long as it is not dubious or non-NPOV) and then find and add a source later myself (as I frequently do) than have information never make it into less-frequently-edited articles at all. It's more valuable to Wikipedia (and polite) to add a challenge tag or open a discussion on the talk page than simply to revert an uncontroversial unsourced edit, particularly when the revert comes minutes after the original edit (and without considering the editor's previous history). Immediate summary reverts of uncontroversial information have a destructive effect on Wikipedia because they discourage editing. There are more constructive ways of ensuring the information on Wikipedia is reliable. And I do consider leaving warnings about citing sources on people's talk pages to be trolling, unless the person is a habitual abuser. Ketone16 (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Your help on Draft:Underrail[edit]

Hey, thanks for your help on Draft:Underrail! You found and fixed exactly the kind of errors I was worried about. However, I'm not sure why you removed the references to credits as original research. The documentation for {{cite video game}} uses citing staff credits as an example and many video game articles do that, so I've restored those references using that template. - (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@ I guess you're right. If that's a norm for WikiProject Video Games then I'll defer to them; I tend to remove primary sources like those when I see them. No problem making those edits for you, either. Sometimes it's far easier to just do it yourself than it is to explain step-by-step what the problem is. If you've come to like editing Wikipedia, consider registering your own account so the community can interact with you personally rather than whomever uses the IP you happen to work from. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the invitation, but I've been sparsely editing wikipedia for nearly a decade from whatever ISP/IP I have at the moment and that's not going to change. :) - (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 August newsletter[edit]

The final of the 2014 WikiCup begins in a few short minutes! Our eight finalists are listed below, along with their placement in Round 4:

  1. Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer, finished top of Pool A and was the round's highest scorer. Godot is a featured picture specialist, claiming large numbers of points due to high-quality scans of historical documents, especially banknotes.
  2. Scotland Casliber (submissions) is a WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist every year since 2010. In the semi-final, he was Pool B's highest scorer. Cas's points primarily come from articles on the natural sciences.
  3. Nepal Czar (submissions) was Pool A's runner-up. Czar's points come mostly from content related to independent video games, including both articles and topics.
  4. Oh, better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly... Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Pool B's runner-up. Another featured picture specialist, many of Adam's points come from the restoration of historical media. He has been a WikiCup finalist twice before.
  5. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) won the WikiCup in 2012 and 2013, and enters this final as the first wildcard. She focuses on biology-related articles, and has worked on several high-importance articles.
  6. Florida 12george1 (submissions) is the second wildcard. George's points come primarily from meteorology-related articles. This year and last year, George was the first person in the competition to score.
  7. Colorado Sturmvogel 66 (submissions), the third wildcard, was the 2010 champion and a finalist last year. His writes mostly on military history, especially naval history.
  8. Canada Bloom6132 (submissions), the fourth and final wildcard, has participated in previous WikiCups, but not reached any finals. Bloom's points are mostly thanks to did you knows, featured lists and good articles related to sport and national symbols.

We say goodbye to this year's semi-finalists. Herm Matty.007 (submissions), Ohio ThaddeusB (submissions), United States WikiRedactor (submissions), Idaho Figureskatingfan (submissions), Greece Yellow Evan (submissions), Portugal Prism (submissions) and Bartošovice v Orlických horách Cloudz679 (submissions) have all performed well to reach this stage of the competition, and we hope they will all be joining us again next year.

There are two upcoming competitions unrelated to the WikiCup which may be of interest to those who receive this newsletter. The Stub Contest will run through September, and revolves around expanding stub articles, especially high-importance or old stubs. In addition, a proposal has been made for a new competition, the GA Cup, which the organisers plan to run next year. This competition is based on the WikiCup and aims to reduce the good article review backlog.

There is now a thread for brainstorming on how next year's WikiCup competition should work. Please come along and share your thoughts- What works? What doesn't work? What needs changing? Signups for next year's competition will be open soon; we will be in touch. If, at this stage of the competition, you are keen to help the with the WikiCup, please do what you can to participate in review processes. Our finalists will find things much easier if the backlogs at good article candidates, featured article candidates, featured picture candidates and the rest are kept at a minimum. As ever, 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. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Janus Article[edit]

Hey Chris, Thank you for taking the time to review my article. It is for my boss (Joseph Janus). I was just hoping to get a little more detail as posting on here is completely new to me. This was given to me by Joseph so I can definitely go back and check his references, but other than that how can I fix things like promotional sounding voice? Once again thank you for all the help. LaurenSullygirl (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@LaurenSullygirl: Here are some examples:
  1. "Janus also created the luxury handbag line Bodhi, with distribution in top retailers such as Fred Segal, Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus, Macy’s, Bloomingdales." So who says Bodhi is a luxury line? It's just as well to say he created Bodhi handbags. Why call all those stores "top retailers"? They're stores. There are already articles about them so just link to them and leave it alone.
  2. "Using the same market savvy he developed in the fashion industry, Janus created Fearless Management to manage music artists, assemble groups and produce and write music." Who says Janus has market savvy? Why explain about managing, assembling, and writing? Just say he created Fearless Management. This sentences isn't neutral and anything you say really needs to be sourced.
  3. "Collecting donations from Fiji Water, Altoids and Café Bustello. Their charitable efforts combined will help fund green initiatives around the globe." I know people in your industry love name-dropping but it's a logical fallacy born of a desire for self-promotion. Janus created a charity; leave it at that.
I understand your situation: writing to help your boss's PR effort. I also appreciate your patience in working through the Articles for Creation process. Be advised that the changes needed to get this article acceptable for Wikipedia may make it unacceptable to your boss. Also, you still have to make a case for notablity and you're far from it right now. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey Chris, I completely understand, I have been going through and making all the statements neutral and re-writing most of this article. Once again your help is greatly appreciated. I, hopefully, will be able to send you something much more acceptable in the near future.

Hey Chris,

Is this any better?

As always, thank you for your help and time. ThanksLaurenSullygirl (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC) LaurenSullygirl (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

So let's address the sourcing. There are three groups: sources that are reliable, the ones that are not, and the ones that are unclear and sit somewhere in the middle.
Advertising Age, Billboard, USA Today, Women's Wear Daily, Yahoo news, San Francisco Chronicle and possibly are ok.
PRNewswire and the like is specifically forbidden. AllMusic can't be used as a source. All the others are questionable at best. I recommend cutting all the unreliable and questionable sources and the content supported by them exclusively.
You did a much better job on verbiage; I have no problem with the tone. I'd also recommend you make the changes on the draft and read WP:REFB to convert your endnotes into proper in-line citations. Because I've been involved in coaching you on this draft I won't be reviewing it. You can post at the help desk again when you've made the changes I've described. If I were a smarter man, I'd be charging money for this advice. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Gail Boggs[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Gail Boggs at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Original Research (yet again)[edit]

I've just (admittedly rather belatedly) read your comments about "bickering" on the Thomas More talk page. So I came back here to remind you of how this "bickering" started. The sequence of events is as follows:

a) You accused me of trying to publish original research in the More article.

b) Here's when you did it.

c) I (politely at first) invited you to substantiate that claim or withdraw it.

d) Nearly a year later you have failed to provide a single scrap of evidence for what you say.

e) Because you can't - I haven't written a word of that article.

And yet you haven't withdrawn, let alone apologised for, your remark. In fact you've - ludicrously - tried to deny having made it. (Here are your exact words: "At no point have I accused you of publishing original research".)

Here's my message: don't pull that stuff with me. You want me to stay away from your talk page? Nothing would give me greater pleasure. You flatter yourself if you think I'd spend any longer here than I have to. I had never heard of you until you accused me of original research. But you're in for a rude awakening if you think I or anyone else is going to tolerate people making things up about them.

I'm happy to leave the More stuff on the talk page (where I've addressed your nonsensical points about sources and "troublemakers" etc). But here's some advice for you personally. Don't pick a fight with someone if you're going to burst into tears when they fight back. You want to substantiate your accusation that I tried to insert original research into the More article, fine, let's hear your evidence. You want to withdraw it, fine, I'm all ears. But don't deny what you said. That's the cowards way out. From skimming through your posts, it's clear you're a tough guy in cyberspace, ready to dish out insults and (more irritatingly) patronising advice. But like all bullies, you cut and run the minute anyone stands up to you. Even behind the anonymity of a keyboard you can't summon the courage to answer a straight question.

Here's that question one more time. Do do you or do you not acknowledge that you wrote the following on the Thomas More talk page:

"It is not the job of editors to philosophize about St. Thomas More."

It's a yes/no question.

If no, and someone hacked into your account, fine, we'll call it quits. Otherwise, just grow a pair and stop trying to deny what you said. You obviously don't have enough honour to apologise when you make a false accusation, but don't try and pretend it didn't happen. Otherwise, you make people's blood boil, and then "bickering" happens. When it does, don't whinge about it. If you're so thin-skinned you can't bear it when someone points out you're wrong, just disconnect your modem now, because sooner or later people are going to acquaint you with the facts, and that's evidently more than you can stand. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

tl;dr I stand by everything I said. I explained that I didn't want to be bothered anymore. You're a waste of my time. Leave my talk page or we're going to WP:RFCC. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Chris troutman. You have new messages at WritingEnthusiast14's talk page.
Message added 03:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Writing Enthusiast 03:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Gail Boggs[edit]

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

16:25:09, 10 September 2014 review of submission by[edit]

How can I get reliable sources when the information in the article was generated by me as an original source? This information isn't published anywhere, like a book or website. In this case I reworded the synopsis, but the first section I wrote myself. (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@ I'm sorry but original research doesn't belong on Wikipedia. We're not a webhosting service. You can simply abandon your draft or ask for it to be deleted. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to jump in here uninvinted, but there are actually sources for A Leading Man such as IMDB. It can be improved. Snood1205 (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I welcome talk page stalkers. Remember, Imdb isn't a reliable source. You can use sources like this article from The Hollywood Reporter. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yet another LA meet-up![edit]

Hi Chris! I just found out that Simone Montemurno (who you saw on Saturday) is organizing a Wikipedia editing session this coming Tuesday. Since I've sent too many messages lately (and soon will be sending another message for October events), I'm not doing a super huge spam effort for the event, but I figured I'd call it to your attention! Info here if you'd like to join! Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

ANB discussion[edit]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Move War at History of the Jews in Nepal, and RFC review that concerns you because you were recently involved with one or more of the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30 (History of the Jews in Nepal), Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#RfC: Should we change article name to 'Judaism in Nepal'?. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Request on 09:38:33, 11 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Olamikhx[edit]

Hi Chris, Thanks for your recent comment on my article for creation (Kenna Partners), I will be working on the article by adding more independent sources to support the notability of the article. my initial thought was that the Newspapers I cited are enough to give credibility and notability to the article.

Government publications mentioning the article are not available online for now hence why I didn't use such.

Thanks for your time and I hope the decline tag will be removed once I make your noted corrections.

Olamikhx (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Olamikhx: Sources don't have to be online to be used. Also, WikiProject Articles for Creation doesn't remove declination templates; those templates stay on the draft and stack up until the draft has been accepted. This is done so reviewers know which issues with the draft have already been addressed; those templates don't affect if your draft is accepted later on, so don't remove them.
As for your existing sources, I'm not familiar with the newspapers you've listed so I can't determine their importance. "CAC Certificate of Incorporation" appears to be an unpublished primary source document, so it can't be used as a source. Again, I have to be able to verify your sources.

Chris Troutman (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Thanks for your prompt response. All the newspapers I cited are notable and credible media in Nigeria with both paper copy & e-copy publications, I hope this add credibility to my sources. CAC is the main body for company registration in Nigeria and certificate of registration is issued after a rigorous verification. All registered company can be verify through a written request by quoting the registration number of such company. Hence it is illegal to quote a company as registered under CAC when such registration does not exist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Olamikhx (talkcontribs)
How would someone verify a CAC registration? How would I verify the sources you've listed? I can't simply take your word for it. Unfortunately, English-Wikipedia doesn't seem to have discussion of your sources so I don't know where to start investigating it and I'm not that interested in chasing it down only so your draft can be accepted. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

I unlinked a a redlink from "Quranism" to "Gibril Haddad" because the "Gibril Haddad" page was deleted to due a lack of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure. That red-link doesn't have to remain but as I indicated on your talk page, redlinks help editors assess demand for articles. I'm not familiar with the AfD for Gibril Haddad and you're probably right that he's not notable. However, leaving a red link does no harm to the article and I'd recommend you at least use an appropriate edit summary to indicate to editors like me on the hunt for vandalism. Remove the link if you like; I won't revert it again. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

List of banned users MfD[edit]

Hi Chris. Thanks for taking the time to comment on the proposals for change at the list of banned users. It's clear that there's sufficient support that a deletion will not be SNOW closed, so I've listed it at MfD - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users (6th nomination). I thought it appropriate to keep you informed. WormTT(talk) 09:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Thank you for quality articles such as Rudy Boesch, for "beginning the cleanup"and making the small steps in the right direction, - you are an awesome Wikipedian! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 607th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Many thanks for the reminder of that award. I proudly display the PumpkinSky ribbon on my userpage alongside my other awards. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

10:14:43, 17 September 2014 review of submission by Handbaglover101[edit]

Dear Mr Troutman,

I'm confused as to why my submission was rejected under the premise that much of the information does not pertain to the company. All the information relates to a project the company has undertaken and is very much in the style of comparative articles on other designers.

The suggestion that the article on the person Luke Hughes could be expanded is valid but much of the information on that article does not pertain to him as a man as much of the projects are completed by his company under a raft of other designers.

Please could you suggest ways in which I can alter the article to more closely resemble the guidelines of wikipedia.

Many thanks,


Handbaglover101 (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@Handbaglover101: First, in some sources (like this) I find the individual indistinguishable from the company. Second, you use many citations (like this) that say absolutely nothing about the company. Once you strip out all of those sources along with the sources that aren't independent and reliable you have essentially nothing left. I think it would make more sense to build a section about the eponymous company in the existing article about the man. As the content develops, you can use that section to start a new article.
I caution you not to use other articles as a guide. Much of the content on Wikipedia is problematic, at best. When looking at Wikipedia articles, look at their grade (found on the article's talk page). If an article is rated "B," "Good," "A," or "FA" then they serve as a fair example. Otherwise, I'd ignore them. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Will Eisner[edit]

I didn't make a "test edit." Your reversion introduced a punctuation error: You have double quote marks marks within double quotes.

In a passage in quote marks (double quotes), anything in quote marks within the passage should be in single quotes.

I don't want to get in an edit war, so would you please look this up in a book of grammar if you don't believe me and fix it? The reason you don't see the whole passage's double quotes in edit mode is because the template's quote field generates them automatically: Look at it on the live site, and you'll see the two erroneous sets of double quotes. -- (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@ Thanks for letting me know. Had you used an edit summary when you made your edit I might have discussed it rather than revert it. Regardless. Wikipedia doesn't go by "a book of grammar;" Wikipedia (per MOS:QUOTES) allows quotes within quotes. I italicized that publication title, although the source doesn't, to placate your concerns. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)