User talk:ChrisGualtieri

Thank you

Thank you for resolving the dispute at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Ashok_Malik. I am quite an old editor at wiki with more than 1600 edits. I have been involved in various projects. Recently I am having certain troubles. Soham321 who had brought the earlier mentioned dispute, has constantly been stalking my Contributions page. At several discussions at talk pages he has been using bad language against me and alleging me of being biased. In fact sometimes he has accused me of being biased for few pages, for fighting vandalism at which, I have been praised. He constantly keeps visiting my contributions page and keep making disruptive edits at those pages which is troubling me in making edits. Once he was even blocked for such action which involved him reverting my edits. He edits almost all pages I edit where he finds that his political issue is involved which I may not name at present. I am sure he shall be continuing this and would also be reading this present post. Is there any place I can complain this at or prevent him from accessing my page? Any help shall be very helpful. Thank You--Mohit Singh (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no way to prevent a user from reading a page, Wikipedia is transparent except in very special circumstances. I do not know enough about India to become a major editor in that region, but I able to assist as needed. If an editor makes unwanted and disruptive talk page comments on YOUR page, it is best to revert the comments and avoid replying at all. Do not feed the fire, essentially. If it becomes a problem RFC/U is an option. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC/U

So, how to do it? --Niemti (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Guidance and read everything. I do not want to give you a short version because you need to know exactly what it means in full detail. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

RE: A Wikiproject can tag ANY article...

1. The tag was placed by an anonymous IP user, so I do not understand calling this a Wikiproject action.
2. I see a "porn" tag as an unsubstantiated opinion. Anyone with the opinion nude=porn can add this tag to a fine art article, e.g. Michelangelo's David?

FigureArtist (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be outside of the scope of the project, I think. Nude photography is the basic underlying element of photographic pornography. While you could argue that David is an erotic sculpture of sorts based on its realism, their is no controversy claiming it to be pornographic. Nude photography DOES carry that association and stigma; why compare to a famous statue serves to detract from the more obvious connection. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that, rather than reading only the title and assuming the content, anyone might actually read the article? The title is Nude photography, but the content is fine art (90% of which I contributed), hence the name change request so that my efforts will not have been in vain.FigureArtist (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Just because you added to the article doesn't mean you should rename or move the page or remove wikiproject tags. Improvements are fine, but SEX is on there because it covers an aspect of sexuality as a broad medium. PORN is valid because nude photography is often considered pornography and while often lacking explicit nature, is a form that appears as such, internationally. Idols being a popular form which nude photography often is attributed as plain pornography even if clothed, so the definition is broad and the article is not always fair. It'd be easier to have a fine art section, medical section and of course pornography section as these are aspects of nude photography. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

SEPERATE ISSUE BUT ONLY PLACE I CAN POST IT

ANI related I am writing here, to say beyond any words of your "users" that have lied to you and to me about me. I am Giovanni Strassini, I have NEVER-EMPHASIS ADDED, added a thing to your site. your "gnomes" and "sock" chasers, added my name back when all I did was remove it from your site! This is 100% truth, and I have proof through many attempts I did not add anything here. I can speak to anyone of authority to show this neyond even your "users" what I am saying is truth. F.T.C complaints, F.C.C complaints, NC Attorney General complaints and CMPD complaints, started by myself againt the true name identity theft I was victim of, from 2000, until now. user JohnInDC, lies. I have never made an edit to ADD things to your siter, only to remove my name!!! I asked him, bender235, and materialscientist to stop adding my name or even use my name on your site. I removed it and THEY, NOT ME, added it back. I did NOT threaten legal action, I priomised it if they did not stop lying about me and re-adding my name here. That is MY RIGHT, AND PRIVACY LAWS PREVAIL. I can be contacted through this site if given contact info where I can provide it back to you. I have nothing to hide, only your "users" that have lioed do. They showed what others did, and then claimed falsely it was me. Lies and libel. − I make this statement under the penalty of perjury of the United States of America and deem this to be true and correct=Giovanni Strassini − The IP addresses were at least 4 used in this and only one shared PC was used by myself here. This should stand as warning to the over-zealous "users" and abuses they can perpetrate on innocent people such as myself. Allow me to remove my name or do so yourself. Keep honesty at the front, and you will not have problems like this in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.131.150 (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I direct you to WP:OTRS. That is the place to bring up most sensitive matters and they will need to verify your identify and understand the background. I'm not even related to this matter, but quite clearly the IP added it here and you claimed it was yours and removed the names here. You inserted false material into Wikipedia and when discovered started threatening legal action. You are now evading your blocks and lying to me, a third party, about this. I'm not a representative of Wikipedia and I am a volunteer who commented on this matter at ANI. That's all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

you are the liar. i told your users named already i am pursuimg legal action. i have and am, i stand by my statement i never added any information to wiki, and it was done from a multi-user area and not me. you calling me a liar will come back to haunt you. untrue statements that harm are recoverable. you are a fiduciary of wiki and therefore make wikimedia liable. i copied and pasted all your statements including the "award" given to johnindc and all the wiki guys bragging about spreading the lies. you are the liar and one who jumps to wrongful and harmful conclusions based on others lies to you. a reckless disregard for the truth will not stop the theft of pictures and hijacking accounts and mass spreading of lies to harm only. bender-john-material-yourself are all part and parcel to the harm that cannot be undone. i can prove i never added information here, you have an ip address used by thousands. get the point now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.218.250.83 (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm 70.19.122.39. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Horus Heresy (novels) because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please note also section reasoning for reverting edits of 2013/05/16 in that article's talk page. Thank you. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read WP:OWN. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ero guro may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Akiba Girls may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Foundation Pit by Platonov

Hi friend, I noticed you reverted my edit on Platonov's Foundation Pit in the 'Genre' category back to 'historical fiction'. I do not know whether you have read the novel, but it is in no way a piece of historical fiction, considering Platonov was writing about his own time, not the past. Moreover, Platonov is not a realist writer, as are most writers of historical fiction, but a modernist, even surrealist, writer. Most importantly, Foundation Pit does not meet the criteria detailed on the 'historical fiction' page. Although I believe '(meta)utopianism' to be the best genre for the novel (itself a form of 'meta-parody'), another option could be 'satirical socialist realism'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wearebasiclight (talk • contribs) 21:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah okay. Thanks for the explanation. I'm restoring it now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Resort Boin

Just came across this one I think you may have overlooked. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Huh? Oh. For tagging? I'm still working on other things, I'll go ahead and tag it. It has nice coverage at JA wiki to. Might be easier to improve. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes just for tagging, I saw reliable sources for it as well and can see improvement potential in it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! I've been trying to compile a list of websites, but the Japanese papers do not keep the content around forever it seems. Archives are going to be necessary for a good amount of things. I was just cleaning up a few other issues. I was thinking that for the small publishers, we should start articles on them and move the questionable ones into them instead of deleting the content, a few not tagged do not seem to warrant the GNG... even in Japan. But it is really difficult to figure out which is which at this early point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi ChrisGualtieri! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Awesome! I joined up. This looks fun! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yay! I'm so happy to see you did. Let me know if you need help with anything. I created a huge to-do list, which will continue to grow as WDL adds new content to their website almost weekly. You can find the general to-do list here. I know you're into mythology and by doing a simple search on the WDL website I found 49 results. So you might find something that strikes your fancy here. Thanks for all you do for Wikipedia and I can't wait to see your outcomes for WDL!! SarahStierch (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Islamism

There's a RfC at Talk:Islamism#Unexplained_deletions you may be interested in --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, commented there with a solution for the future. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ChrisGualtieri. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 20:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SarahStierch (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you want to be administrator ChrisGualtieri?

Hi, Chris. I saw that you were blocked on accident and concerned of RfA. Well, I've decided that if you accept, then I'd like to nominate you. You'd be a great admin. Even if it fails the first time, wait 6-15 months and then try again. Thanks. WorldTraveller101^{(Trouble?/My Work)} 02:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to. I'm a very policy oriented person and a wikignome of sorts. My focus would be on administrative backlogs like WP:FTCG, merges, undeletions and improving that content with access to Highbeam and Questia as graciously given to me through Ocaasi's work. I would like to be the subject of mentoring and branching out, I do work at WP:DRN and have been a frequent commentator at WP:ANI. I'm a bit of an idealist and a real janitor type; most of my administrative work would be on reviewing undeletion requests and working on improving them a recent example would be Ashen Empires which was just undeleted the other day, but I decided to spare 45 minutes to add and improve content with some sources so it wouldn't be PRODed again. I am in a bit of dispute with Lucia Black; so that may hurt me, but I'm improving as a person and as an editor all the time. I wish to be more like Dennis Brown and MBisanz. I'm not one to block; and I don't intend to ever use that right as an admin despite my work with vandalism patrol. Not sure if that makes me weird, but my ideal functions are housekeeping, peaceful dispute resolution and assisting editors. Even today I started Codex Huamantla and helped an IRC editor get Robert Mustard (martial artist) in line with Wikipedia's policies, only to have the lack of admin rights mess up the move because of the existing redirect. I'll be a boring, but useful admin at least. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I'll nominate you tommorow when I'm on my computer, since I'm currently on my iPod. Thanks. WorldTraveller101^{(Trouble?/My Work)} 02:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. This all moves so quickly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Given Lucia Black's personal crusade; she asserts that I act in bad-faith, call her edits bad-faith and call her a troll; despite it being completely false as seen in this conversation. After addressing the deliberately false information she reinserted and proving beyond any doubt it was false, Lucia tried to brush the matter off as she was right to do so. I simply asked for her to be serious, which she accuses me or her being a NPA and a troll. I countered by simply pointing out the page by listing the policy and that essay; because Lucia doesn't even know the meaning of the word troll and still doesn't understand WP:NPA. Same as she doesn't understand what "in a nutshell", "consensus", and what "notability"(as in WP:N) mean. Just as I had to point out not only her insertion of material was knowingly false, it was disruptive to reinsert and try and justify that indefensible position. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Youve accused me of a troll in the past out of mere opposition. You use NPA when it best suits you, but it doesnt stop you from making erroneous claims such as me not understanding notability, in a nutshell and several other things. Even if you bring up a thousand situations where my judgement was wrong, the one who has done the most disruption is you. An admin wont start an edit war, wont be quick to use NPA, or call an editor a troll. And im ralking about several discussions when you did.Lucia Black (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

That is false. You did this to RexxS.[1] Here is one accusing me. [2] You brought it up, you started it. You do not even know what a 'troll' is. Judging your previous confusion over policies and terms like "in a nutshell", its plainly obvious you aren't a troll. We may disagree, but I have never called you a troll. I think action is in order because you are actually spreading false information to attack me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Brunging up a discussion where you didnt isnt helping your case. MOST of the issues were I the ghost in the shell article. And I know im not the only editor to know how disruptive you can be.Lucia Black (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, first - since the reputation of the nominator is very important in an RFA, WT101 probably should be waiting at least a couple of years/5,000 edits before suggesting to nominate anyone. Second, Chris, I'd have to say that your posting at ANI probably torpedoed any chance in the next 12 months ... certainly not the tone/style/levelheadedness one would be looking for in an admin candidate (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I do think I need some mentoring and I want to be instructed. I suppose I could alter the tone to improve it, I do see it is a bit rough in places. DRN failed and I was preparing for RFC/U, but it is deeply concerning that Lucia Black is allowed to make blatant personal attacks time and time again after being explicitly warned about it. Given the dozens of instances, and the lengthy failed discussions, I simply do not know what to do with Lucia Black. I've asked numerous times for advice, and have done the best I can to defuse the situation, even begging for cooperation. I don't want the tools for blocking or anything; I just want to handle the administrative backlogs for things like FTCG. I really could use mentoring; because this is the single biggest issue I've ever had on Wikipedia by quite a large margin. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocked sock/troll. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I dont think Chris should be made and administrator. Hed abuse his authority and attack other editors as he has with User:Lucia BlackKuroiNekoko-chan (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

DBZ

The closed RFC at WP:VPP does not in any way mean that it overturns any prior consensuses. You still need to form a proper consensus to restore the content which you do not have. The fact that you requested someone formally close it so it has an air of officiality is really telling of your intentions as well.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ChrisGualtieri. You have new messages at Only in death's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gosei (Japanese diaspora)

It appears that you have copy-pasted a response to this AFD from the other AFDs on articles by the same user under the concern that other pages were suggested to be deleted as they are dictionary definitions. This is not the case for this particular article. I would implore you to properly assess this article instead of just disagreeing because you saw a pattern of edits.—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

As a courtesy, I have mentioned your name while raising this issue at WP:ANI under the title "AFDs not being properly considered due to assumption of bad faith".—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Clearly it was an error; the cites I pointed to directly went to "mountain out of a molehill" instead of Gosei. Just like how I proved notability for delegitimization; each AFD post was specific to the article and came with unique sources and comments. Your assumption of bad faith is itself bad faith; I don't see how your accusation even remotely applies to me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Petrus Albinus

Chris, no problem - good that you were able to replace it. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Colby

Snuck your comment back in there. Mkdw^talk 20:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I wrote it while it was open on my end and didn't see the close. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members). So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Nicoleta Luca-Meițoiu

Hello Chris, I understand that you had to delete the above mentioned page due to lack of references. Yesterday I found references of her artistic biography in the following book: Maria Georgeta Popescu - Musicology studies vol IV, Iași, PIM Publishing House, 2009, ISBN 978-973-716-524-4, p. 17 and in Romanian Impact Magazine, Year: 3 - No.7 (30) October 2003, Center Focus Publishing, Niles, Illinois, USA, ISSN 1532-9852, p.5 (both in Romanian). Is it possible to restore the page? I also found on Youtube an excerpt of Mozart's concert No.23 played by her with the Pitesti Philharmonic Orchestra. Other excerpts on her Facebook page. Thank you, RodicaB (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I opted for userify because the page was best suited to be worked on; which would have meant putting it back into the sandbox; but I cannot view either article; if you could provide a scanned copy, perhaps it will meet GNG and the page can be recreated. Both sources would probably have to be 250-500+ words about Luca-Meitoiu. I found a minor source here [3] and one which backs it up as well.[4] I think its very close to GNG, but because of the history, we need more proof of GNG to ensure it remains. Let me know; I cannot dig up too much, but a few good sources or one great source can change everything. Just right now; it doesn't seem to "exist" for AFD, which I disagree with in practice, but its not my decision. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see the references from the article in German Wiki and in Romanian Wiki.

I have the printed references (book and magazine) in my hands. What shall I do next? Thanks,RodicaB The page is Nicoleta Luca Meițoiu RodicaB (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a scanner to scan the document so other people can confirm the source? If you do, then I'd probably recreate the page, add all the sources and provide the scan to anyone questioning its existance. You could also go the WP:DRV and ask for it to be undeleted, I'd support that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I have a scanner (HP 4110 deskjet all-in-one) but only for A4 pages. I'll try in the next days to get a scan from that page and covers. RodicaB (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiLove...

It pleases me to see young people so obviously in love. Happy days! And good deeds never go unpunished. Drmies (talk) 05:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Huh!? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I was referring, obliquely, to your valiant attempt to make peace with Lucia Black... Drmies (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Arguing is useless, so I hope we can work together. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Dew (politician)

Do you have sources for the birthdate/birthplace you just added? Articles like this have a tendency to pile up unsourced bits of stuff over time, and eventually they turn into a mass of uncertainty. Thanks. Rklear (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Its in the info box; probably in the main source, and its circa 1600. The Dew family seems to use that date as well in their history. Was just basically matching the infobox to the category that's all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible hit for 1603... but not positive. I'd need the national archives to confirm anything like this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You added both the category and the infobox. I wrote the original stub from the only cited source, and it had no birth information at all. I still don't understand. Rklear (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You are incorrect.[5] I added the data from the infobox to the Persondata template and updated the category. The information was already present in the infobox prior to this; I merely updated the category and persondata to reflect the infobox. If the infobox is somehow wrong; then it is apt to remove them from both the persondata and category field. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I see it now. Some IP added the unsourced birth info in January. I'll take it all out. Sorry about that. Rklear (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The information may not be wrong; but the information is again... old and in archives. But for accuracy I guess that 1600 circa would be best. He also appears to have held the rank of Colonel.[6] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

One more for that title.[7] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

AWB: powerful but sometimes wrong

Your recent change to James Kelley using AWB was incorrect. AWB is powerful but sometimes wrong. I know, because I have made incorrect changes myself, which my talk page confirms. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone screwed it up. The code is: Bbad|58|1991|5|14 Which messed it up. Let me try and fix this; I've seen it on a few before with 2013 and 2012's but skipped them, must have hit the wrong key for this one. Thanks for letting me know; EVERY awb pass will hit this until it is fixed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll bring it up to the devs of AWB, it seems that it is reading the code at 1991 for the birthday when it is saying he was 58 in 1991, or that's what I think. An inaccurate measurement, but something AWB needs to be able to handle properly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Category order

Hi Chris, your AWB edit to Brett Reid put the birth category after the living people category; they should really be the other way around. Graham87 01:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard of that; its not even in the General fixes matter; I added a category that didn't exist. AWB's placement is usually a bit anal anyways, but I cannot find any requirement of category order. This does not follow the case on thousands of other articles including FAs were such practices would be common. To prove my point, AWB organizes interwiki outgoing links. If categories applied, I'm sure it would do that as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not really codified, but it's standardized (that's the way the cats are ordered in most articles). Perhaps I'm the only one who really cares about logical and standard category order, as I've previously suspected. Graham87 15:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Start something on MOS for it? I've gotten pushback for actual genfixes (as below) despite them all being approved by MOS and citation parameters. Sometimes things seem trivials, but enhance the professional appearance and flow of Wikipedia. Referencing reordering so they don't come in [25][26][17][27] order or 51,7 may seem a bit trivial, but its a simple fix to make a GA better in preparation for an FA. The order of categories are arguably more trivial because they are subject to change and HotCat and other tools add or subtract without bias. When I make books from Wikipedia the errors I am correcting do show up in the hard copies, so that's why the professionalism bit gets held up higher then the undisclosed category order. I recently went and did the Pokemon book which is 924 pages long and found literally hundreds of errors which I've been addressing with a genfix run. Broken parameters on the pokemon which ends up altering it into "</pre>3 in" for the measurements. Others have broken templates which shouldn't be active or appear; like Weight: {{{weight}}} lb. These kinds of issues won't be fixed by AWB either, but some of them can be. So if you are concerned; research how things affect distribution and appearance and with proper backing it might make it into MOS-AM, and eventually into a gen fix. I sorta doubt it, but the idea and drive to explore it is what counts. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

AWB

Chris, you're spamming my watchlist with "useless" edits like [8] [9] [10] [11] [12], etc., etc. Please reconsider your skipping threshold. Materialscientist (talk) 04:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Fine, I go back to just the b/d cats for right now; I skipped many of these pages over a hundred times manually, once they are fixed they are off the CHECKWIKI and the gen fixes don't need to be performed again. There is no way to really address the problem without alerting your watchlist; perhaps you could hit your own watchlist and fix the broken brackets in the process? I'd like to fix these problems and move on, completely. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I looked through the archives and found that the gen fixes I am making do impact the page and are proper; as mentioned above, referencing order, citation templates and such should definitely be fixed on GA, FA and core articles. Here's the brief run though: Actinide was Reforder on 51, 7. Bird was Reforder on 11, 8. Bridge was reorder template, and to correct an issue with citation as per Template:Citation#Anchors_for_Harvard_referencing_templates. Berkelium - Ref order again [25][26][17][27] Brunei - First is minor whitespace(skipped if alone), fix punc/ref, fix link whitespace, and fix citation templates for journal. Now that these issues have been corrected they won't show up in future offline versions and will appear better in the Wikibooks. It is also very likely that I will not be touching the articles again for many months. I do have avoid whitespace and casing changes as part of the gen fix options; the issues actually were beyond the "cosmetic" fixes as well because they imparted changes to MOS compliance. I don't want to cause a bunch of drama, but I like doing this kind of work and correcting the broken brackets and other issues that go with the fixes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Proper? [13] Chris, don't take me wrong, I do not want to sound unfriendly or threatening at all, but repeating such edits will eventually result in revocation of your AWB license. Materialscientist (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I explained the above edits before; I've been addressing in the articles and the gen fixes help standardize and address issues. I've skipped some of these articles hundreds of times before; and I'm not going to use AWB's auto summaries before I continue to work on the pages. I'll fix broken brackets and stuff in that edit, but no more. I don't know why this bothers you so much. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

And don't think this is me being hostile; but I have a clear pattern of improving the articles that I go through by this; whether it be adding sources and tinkering with wordings and such, expanding content or addressing concerns. I felt that the original issue was resolved in British English so I removed that old tag; (the Proper English) matter was removed as well. I did this Barbara Olson and added a source and some tweaks. I did this with Bodybuilding as well. I am not out for edit count or something frivolous; I'm trying to improve Wikipedia and if some of these issues are never fixed then they will remain. Fixing them solves that problem; I won't return to those pages again without valid reason. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand. In my last post I am referring to this edit [14] (and similar, which I see going through your edits). Materialscientist (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Adding sources and other information do not fall under the semi-auto edit summary of AWB. I'm not saying every edit is pure gold, but I've pointed out that the last ones you were concerned with had rationals and a reason. I don't particularly like updating the templates or reorganizing them as they seem a bit weird for me as well; but I've set AWB to avoid cosmetic fixes and it still hits things like this. Some of it may be related to voice readers; parsing or whatever issues. I didn't even know that some of the changes were important like the anchor for Harvard until I realized they actually cause issues with Wikibook collection. Thanks for beating me to the Abraham Darby matter, also. But I do not know how to best address edits in AWB when I follow them up with manual edits. I don't think AWB auto-summary with "possible manual additions" is a proper. As is, I avoid the math articles because I don't want to attempt and fix the math coding without breaking something else. All the -1's and such AWB tries to alter and I have to skip them and other cases. Perhaps the issue is because I don't understand how this bugs you so much; I researched "why" the last edits were supported by MOS, so I thought the issue was addressed given the past discussions by other users on this subject. If I did them without AWB; it'd still be the same, result. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I got an idea. Please check this edit.[15] I manually removed the bracket issue and the skip if "only cosmetic changes are made" actually hit on the page for fixing that spacing matter. While really small; it seems that this edit impacts readers and the HTML matter as per AWB; so I always address the brackets when I can as well. Could you give me your thoughts? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Of the first 5 examples given by Materialscientst, 3 of 5 were inconsequential (don't say "useless"). These should not have been done. #9 did fix a broken bracket. #12 did move punctuation from after to before the ref. #10 is in a gray area. It did fix the comma in a date. In this instance, I wouldn't have done it, but I could see arguments for it.

Only looking at the last 50 edits done by Chris, over 1/2 were inconsequential. The most common was only renaming a template, such as {{cn}} -> {{citation needed}}. Going further back to the 13th, I see mostly good edits, but there is a higher rate of inconsequential edits that would make a liberal/conservative AWB rule interpreter give pause. If the edits only rename a template or move a wikilink from [[Hemispherical|hemispherical]] to [[hemispherical]], don't do it. Bgwhite (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

AfD talk

Hey man, I noticed that you also supported deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salaf in favor of Nikah Mut'ah after Muhammad. What's happening now is that some other users have suggested scavenging such articles - there are maybe a dozen - and forming one main article from what can be kept instead of deleting all of them entirely. Please take a look at my talk page and tell us what you think; the idea might have some promise. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Operation Red Hat

I noticed that you put a factual accuracy dispute tag on the Operation Red Hat entry. Can you be specific as to which facts are in dispute? Thank youJohnvr4 (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Umm no; I don't need to, the issue is raised at AFD. The factual accuracy of the article in it dispute and the mere issue of WP:TNT points that problems may be so ingrained that delete and create may be required. Its not shared by one or two editors either. The tag is valid because even cut down to 1/2 size the likelyhood of problems remaining is great as noted at the AFD. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject AFC needs your help... again

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from July 1st, 2013 – July 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code cleanup, and more page cleanups. If you want to see a full list of changes, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.

Delivered at 13:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC) by EdwardsBot (talk), on behalf of WikiProject AFC

CN v Citation needed

I note that in Little River, South Carolina you have expanded {{CN}} templates to the full text {{Citation needed}}. This makes no difference to the appearance of the text on the page - is there any reason I should be using the full text rather than the abbreviation? If not, what is the purpose of expanding the text? Arjayay (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I hit upon the typo in the article, but general fixes have preference for full templates for clarity and ease of use, even though they do not render differently on the reading page. If you can, I'd use it, but I wouldn't be troubled by it. Those additional changes are really minor by themselves and general consensus is that they should be fixed only when other issues are. So I wouldn't worry about it at all. Actually, that page really needs a bit of a copyedit, but I don't know how to address it myself. It just reads poorly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - just wanted to be sure I wasn't doing anything wrong. Arjayay (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

And we're off!

Reminded them about local consensus, which covers all of their arguments so far. I say arguments, its not really an argument so much as 'Well its been like this way forever.' Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

This is the tactic that they use to prevent changes and tire editors out; they have no argument and expect opposing alone will make it appear that their is actually a reason to prevent creation of the page. N and GNG, SIZE and DETAIL are all important and when I read them the policy, Ryulong becomes irate with comments like, "You don't have to start quoting shit at me either. I've been here long enough."[16] and upset with my calls that we root arguments in policy. Their argument is IDHT and WP:JDLI. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I was a bit flabbergasted by the tactic of 'Consensus can change' then when I point out that consensus has clearly changed, he switched to 'those editors dont matter'. That is textbook IDHT. My opinion? Take the article live, remove the re-direct (For dragonball Z) and go from there. Its not a CSD as its not previously deleted material, and its been substantially re-written anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll probably do that later; but what do I do when he reverts it back off as he's done before. He wouldn't discuss it on the talk page and he's distinctly in the minority (including Lucia Black) and lacking any argument against N or GNG. I'll probably throw some more refs and work into the article before I make it live... just to deal with the issues he already presented. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Your decision of course :) But my understanding is that where the article exists you cant have a redirect away from its title unless the article itself is deleted. I have said my piece there but its not really getting through to either of them. As an aside, I have just watched the first 10 episodes of 'Attack on Titan', its turning out quite good. But I do like a quasi-military dictatorship, when you throw in giants biting people in half, I am sold. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems to have made their IDHT that obvious and proven that their is no valid reason to prevent creation at this point; they can fix the perceived flaws when it goes live. There is no rule that an article has to be perfect before it goes live; and that is their current opposition because the "non-notable" argument is entirely and completely dead unless they want to deal with it to a larger community review. Its just moving the goal-post as you mentioned. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother responding at Talk:Dragonball anymore to be honest, its all heat and no light, going round in circles is just winding people up. Discussion there is irrelevant for the purposes of a DBZ article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You do not have consensus to create a DBZ article, regardless of what you and Only in death have been talking about here.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

See you at DRN. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Minor or inconsequential edits

Chris, I'm hoping to enlist your help to further mutual goals. I note that your AWB edits have been more than occasionally challenged as being 'inconsequential'. On the other hand, there is a lot of work to do with sundry style fixes that are not part General fixes. I have created two custom AWB modules (see User:Ohconfucius#AWB_tools) that I would invite you to use when you run AWB. Not only will this lighten the workload for other gnomes like me, it would considerably reduce the risk of you making inconsequential edits. The downside is that you will have to be more careful in selecting articles to process when using the modules. I don't use these as often as I could because I spend 90% of my time on MacOS computers. But if you are interested, I could help develop more functions or similar modules that ensure compliance with the MOS (or MOSNUM). Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 05:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

@Ohconfucius: Is that the 'Customised "General Fixes"' one? If it will reduce the likelihood of being called "useless" then by all means I'll try it out if I can figure out how to work it. I suppose this does more then just the "skip cosmetic edits" right? I have a list of ones with non-cosmetic fixes; but I am not certain that those will fair any better from scrutiny given the last issue. If so, I'll definitely try it out, I rather be near 100% certain they are fine before I parse the list again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• They are modules custom-made by yours truly that you load into your AWB client. The most elaborate one and one I would recommend you to start with is User:Ohconfucius/AWB modules/dmy, which broadly follows the aims declared at Wikipedia:Date formattings but to which I later added some formatting fixes. The code functions aren't so tightly scoped as in each my scripts, but the 'dmy' here means that the code will unlink all the dates and align them to the dmy format. In addition, it does some unlinking of chained links, downcase "==External Link==" and transform [[Salt Lake City, Utah|Salt Lake City]], [[Utah]] -> [[Salt Lake City, Utah]] (please see the code narration). I am also proposing that you could help me by running this; you could also be of great help in further developing the functions that you feel are necessary, and advise me to take out ones where false positives occur. Some of the code in my scripts can be easily adapted for use in AWB modules, so once you get started, you can look at the documentation to those. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 06:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

You do realize that you've done what I've asked for... for well about a solid year on Wikipedia? I'm hopefully not going to go overboard with this; but such fixes give me great satisfaction and I always report false positives when ever I can. I got a bunch of ideas; but I'll have to try this out before I can get a feel for what's in it and what can be added. Thanks! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I can only apologise that I haven't been monitoring WT:AWB like a hawk, and it only just occurred to me to share my AWB codes with you. Good luck with your test drive, and let me know how you get along. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 07:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Chris: excellent man. Tony (talk) 09:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Grammatical bugbears

Not intending to attack, but rather good-faith pointing out things you can fix, two things stick out at me about your writing: an overuse of semicolons (see for example this page about it, and an overuse of “would” indicating either the conditional mood or future tense where neither seems particularly appropriate. Not particularly big deals, but I’m a bit OCD when it comes to grammatical errors. I hope it helps to make you aware of it. Take care. —Frungi (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the best writer of encyclopedic prose; I'll go address that now. When I write, I don't submit it to an editor; someone has to be on my back about such changes. I wasn't even aware that I was doing this. I think the issue stems from the sourcing claiming it will occur in the future and I am mirroring a past "future". In the case of Showdown / Rival, that unexpected title swap messed with a post-release source as well; I try to be concise and precise for the sourcing... seems to be getting me in tense troubles. Thanks again; time to go chop some "would". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Date formatting

Chris, some of your recent edits have changed date formatting from MDY to DMY on articles involving US subjects where the MDY convention was in long use. While I recognize the logic of the DMY convention and use it myself on UK subjects (even though British monarchs have been known to use MDY[17]), it would be best to leave existing longstanding usage in place. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed this and am looking into the matter myself; so I've asked about it and need more research into that before continuing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. Here are links that may help: WP:STRONGNAT and WP:DATERET. Best wishes, Kablammo (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

a small warning

You know that constantly bringing me up in a discussion and making false assumptions is poisoning the discussion. Even if you think its true. This is a warning. Im not going to bring you to ANI right away if it happens again, but I might be inclined to give a final warning next time.Lucia Black (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Kindly remove yourself from my page and take your negative and spiteful attitude with you. You filed frivolous ANIs on me; you've threatened me and other editors, you insert false material into articles and me citing diffs which show this are not "false assumptions". You claimed to "see red" when you see my name and you want "justice" on me are clear warning flags that you have no intention of working together and building an encyclopedia. This is example referring to me, "I hate that editor, and I hate that editor with a passion. I see that editors name on my talkpage and I see red."[18] You think everything is personal. You tried to justify inserting false material and reverted my undo of said material. You make frequent references to justice and use references like "showing signs of defeat"[19] in a content dispute which you deliberately added false references to. You make tacit reference to a lot of things, like DBZ being a proxy for GITS and your new "deletion campaign" where you goaded me in to thinking you had turned over a new leaf and understood the community at the VPP. Fool me once shame on you; fool me twice shame on me. I'm not taking your bait; from now on every necessary interaction will go through DRN or 3O because you have a personal grudge which you refuse to check.

I've made a herculean effort to advise you, work with you and repair our relations only to be slapped with more attacks. Content should not suffer or be falsified because of personal grudges; I've extended the olive branch three times to you and your only response required me to lie and claim that I was destructive and mean as prerequisite to working together. That says volumes about you. You cleverly added that I do not have "beg"; just admit I "wrongly you" and wish for your forgiveness... and tacitly admit to being a malicious/ destructive editor.[20] Then when a third party gets involved you reply with "Why should I work woth that editor? im done! Ive been pushed around too far with this editor and now he miraculously changes and expects me to work woth that editor!? NO!!!! GIVE ME WHAT I DESERVE OR YOULL SEE ME MAKE A BIGGER SCENE OR GET OUT!!!".[21] I think that says volumes about yourself. I may disagree with you, but I don't hate you, but you clearly don't feel the same way. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)