User talk:ChrisGualtieri

Vote

Hi Chris. Could you go to Ryan Martin's deletion page and vote or at least give your opinion? Thanks and God bless! Antonio Gatti Martin (loser talk) 02:20, December 20, 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :)

Emerson

Hi, Chris - It was good to see you at Emerson. The hive is angry and swarming over his gaffe. I noticed how active you've been in GA, etc. and that's exactly what WP needs - more editors like you who know policy, can write prose and source it properly, and knows what an encyclopedia is supposed to look like. I'm concerned WP's own open source editing can be destructive at times because it opens the door to anyone who holds a grudge, or advocates a cause, etc. Anyway - just wanted to drop by and say thanks! Atsme☯^Consult 23:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Atsme: That is why I avoid BLPs for the most part. As an editor we must consider the reader for all articles, but for BLPs we must go even further and consider the subject as if they are the reader. There is a high chance that said subjects do read what we write and a dedicated site to Wikipedia criticism is routinely pressing how broken the process currently is. BLP enforcement and procedures have strengthened, but maintenance and care of them are still open to those who want to push the ball around. Everyone has a "point of view", to say you don't implies that you are blindly constructing a page. Where I stand is different from most others, I don't even know Emerson or his work - so I believe that impartiality is something which I have. BLPs suffer from WP:DIRT accumulation and a clear sign is WP:CRITS. Wikipedia is not a battleground per WP:BATTLE and I don't want to entrench in "right or wrong" with editors who seek arguments, who have an agenda, or simply cannot figure out what policies actually mean. Anyone intent on Wikilawyering and splitting hairs over things like "Salon" articles for BLP criticism is not in the right place. Getting it right is what is most important, but those that disagree have yet to understand or embrace what Wikipedia strives to be. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and you can rest assured there are quite a few BLPs who read what we write. I'm trying to decide if I should reactivate my E&O policy I dropped last year when I semi-retired (writer/publisher/tv producer). I figured I'd fly low where the chances of needing it were slim to none. Have you read any of the WP litigation? I try not to get embroiled in the controversies, but it's hard to avoid with all the different POVs. WP has some brilliant editors, some who really shine writing code, or specialize in a particular area, etc. but may suck at writing. I also see how difficult it is for some to grasp the concept of "encyclopedic". I cut my teeth (literally) on Britannica back when salesmen sold them door to door. Anyway, I'm always open for collaboration if you ever need help. Atsme☯^Consult 00:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Litigation... I seem to remember some, but getting the identity would be hard and then making a case would be harder still. See, just like BLP has a Public Figure matter - so does many people who have an article. A defamatory claim or libelious act needs to be proven and rooted in some form and many "sourced" claims may be a tangled web. Most problems are handled through OTRS and in other channels. Suffice to say, many of the best editors do not deal with these issues unless it comes to their attention - running around trying to put out fires is not our jobs. We are volunteers, but not everyone has high standards or good motives. Some people think I am a bot, and an Italian writer thinks I am an administrator and scholar. Well... maybe the latter is true. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't want to mess up your pretty list of GAs by adding a question at the bottom of your page, so I'm adding it here. Besides, it's sort of related to Emerson; i.e., the IPT which is in desperate need of good collaboration. I've written a draft here: User:Atsme/Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation. Last year, I tried to get the existing IPT merged into Emerson, but was met with great resistance from an editor who wanted to keep it a coatrack for the Islamophobia template. I already explained how/why the template was finally removed. Renaming the article was suggested, but that didn't happen, either. I let things rest for a while. As you can see, nothing of any significance has happened to improve or expand the article since I stopped editing. It was a stub when I started, and it's not much more than that now because most of what I tried to include was reverted. Where/what is the "organization" that was founded in 1995; i.e., the Investigative Project on Terrorism? All I've been able to find is The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation which was founded in 2006, 10 years after the so-called founding date for IPT which appears to be a dba for Emerson.

In 1995 or thereabouts, Emerson acted independently as an investigative reporter/terrorism expert who headed up his own think-tank called The Investigative Project. The Investigative Project on Terrorism did not exist at that time. See [1] for a bit of that history. Apparently, IPT became Emerson's dba at some point, and it combines all of Emerson's work and archives under that one title, but it's Emerson, not a nonprofit organization that I can tell. The IPT Foundation is a Sect 501c3 nonprofit organization recognized by the IRS, and it is the funding arm of IPT, but again, what is IPT? See [2] which uses WP:SYNTH to lump sum everything under the one umbrella. The documents at the website verifies the existence of The Investigative Project (think tank), and also of IPT, and IPT Foundation. The only true separation as a legal stand alone entity is the Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, which is IPT's funding arm. Then you have to ask, "funding arm for what?" For Emerson dba IPT? And if so, does the IPT really need to be a stand alone article, or does it suffice as a section in his BLP? Atsme☯^Consult 06:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Atsme: - This is actually pretty common. It formalizes the process and gives purpose while distancing itself from Emerson despite being reliant upon him. Such a project exists in my own Thanhouser articles under Ned Thanhouser who really is the head of the preservation - but work done with and through it are legally distinct. And sources do not commit WP:SYNTH - but I get what you mean. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri, I just read The case of Philip Roth... Goshes, I didn't know you were an admin. Atsme☯^Consult 04:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I know right! Though some people won't appreciate the argument I made. In terms of perspective - its not the first or last error about my work. Even the NYT mentioned me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

[3] Why am I grating on your patience? My response was to X to provide the sources he believes supports his contentious material. Atsme☯^Consult 01:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Atsme: - Sorry, but it s true. Graham's hierarchy of disagreement shows what path you should be taking. I am making counter arguments or better, but you are veering off the main point and lacking evidence. The "fomenting Islamophobia" is done and over with - let's end that discussion and close it. If they want to discussing the accusation part - let them open a new discussion. A moving dialogue is a rambling one and will not end with consensus. Reject the "fomenting Islamophobia" per V and its dead. Refute the central point - the claim is unverifiable in all four sources given. Boom done - move on. Okay? Arguments will be simpler - clearer and better since most of what is being written is not being read by the others. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance, but considering the fact x didn't even realize Fear Inc was a report by CAP, I thought it best to remind him the burden of V was his. Atsme☯^Consult 02:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Atsme: - For almost all intents and purposes WP:V means "does the source say that" instead of WP:BIASED. You'd want to claim a bias and that they are non-neutral, then provide evidence to back that argument up. Either way - the best that can be done with the sources would be to cite the person and properly attribute the contentious claim in context. Policies matter little when someone is trying to insert false material in. When situations get tense or go long - stick to refuting the argument and insisting new issues get new discussion pages. A "too long, didn't read" discussion results in people who jump in without reading the entirety. That causes the entire issue to be redebated over and over again - and it weakens your position each time you repeat it. Less words the better. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

OK. Atsme☯^Consult 02:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Chris and Atsme. Stopped by to let Chris know I've answered his query, and I noticed the discussion above. It is apparent that Atsme is still operating under a few misconceptions. (1) Atsme saying "x didn't even realize Fear Inc was a report by CAP" is false. In fact, I was the one who told Atsme that the report was by CAP, in the very same sentence where I also explained that the report wasn't "self-published". (2) Atsme's advice "to X to provide the sources he believes supports his contentious material" is nonsensical, as I don't have any contentious material. In fact, I've never edited the article nor proposed a single word of content. I'm just working with the sources and text you guys, and other editors of that article, have produced - and nothing more. If I ever do produce material, contentious or otherwise, then that means I've already provided the sources; you should consider editing that way as well.

Chris, I see where you have said "I don't even know Emerson or his work". Same here; I've never heard of him before this week. So when either of you start casting accusations like "you want to discredit him" or "you want to accuse him of bigotry", it not only sounds silly, but is also quite off-putting. A little calm and civility would be great. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

For the record, (re: Fear Inc report), I stated: (3) it is a self-published source, and BLP policy clearly states: Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person.

and x replied: (3) No. The Fear, Inc. report isn't self-published; it's published by the Center for American Progress. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC) [4]

It escapes me how x surmised CAP's "Fear Inc." report (which he acknowledged is published by CAP) is not self-published. It is CAP's self-published report. WP:V also states, Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

Read what Time wrote about CAP: It is difficult to overstate the influence in Obamaland of CAP, a group with roughly $25 million in annual funding from mostly anonymous individuals, corporations and unions. Podesta himself is leading Obama's transition effort, holding press conferences to speak for the President-elect, with an operation beneath him filled with CAP alum. The transition's operations director, the general counsel and the co-director all have come over from similar jobs at the think tank. [5]

My position has always focused on the sources of claims that are nothing more than contentious opinions like that stated in a think-tank's self-published source. Regardless, this discussion has strayed beyond my question to Chris, and belongs on the article's TP. Atsme☯^Consult 11:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Atsme: - it is not the self-published, but it is a biased source. I reject your argument on that ground. @Xenophrenic: it is not casting aspersions to state that you do not know of Emerson's work - I did not know of it until I looked into Atsme's claims to fact-check the material he was disputing. Emerson's work is against the jihad elements and actually has been repeatedly found to be advancing the notion that only extreme elements are infiltrating and providing a way for disenfranchised and susceptible persons to be rallied to a cause. The Emerson debate is clearly politically divisive and complex - which is why I advance a "no opinions" aspects to BLPs of this nature because I frankly dislike every "side" in the debate. There is nothing neutral or disinterested in such material - I know not how to deal with it in any other way than letting context and facts go through. Like all that false and manufactured drama about Michelle Obama in Saudi Arabia - Emerson is surrounded by this same political bullshit and the mainstream media is frankly unreliable about such topics. Yes - that is correct, I go so far as to state the media itself is nothing more than a poor Primary source and all opinions should not be used per WP:BREAKINGRS or WP:QS. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Well at least that was sincere. My suggestion? You need to advocate for changes to NPOV and BLP to include wording about the unreliability of the "mainstream press" as you argue (good luck with that). But until these changes are made in these core policies, we will have to abide by the current policies which makes no such distinction. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The link is WP:NEWSORG and the concept exists. Wikipedia does not have strong rules and not everything will be a cookie-cutter approach to fit a policy because common sense and professional practice should lead us, ethically, to better articles. Just because a source is verifiable to exist doesn't mean it will be included per WP:ONUS - especially when it has a misstatement of fact. Without context - there is no purpose or form to articles of this nature. I've proven the New York Times (and other reliable sources) repeatedly wrong on numerous topics, but I usually notate the error if it is small and move on. You do not write thousands of articles in such detail without coming across a very striking fact - opinions and context are often lacking. When a pattern of such sources coupled with partisan issues exist - I prefer to avoid all that drama and remove such commentary as a primary source as other historians do. It is not a strange concept, but is foreign to most Wikipedia editors. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, Saying the Fear, Inc. report is "self-published" by CAP is as silly as saying the Time article you just linked is "self-published" by Time. Is CAP a biased source? Oh, most certainly, but that doesn't mean it can't be cited as a reliable source. Per policy: reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. And by the way, it was Chris, not me, who raised the idea of using the Fear, Inc. report, and he said it was already being used in the BLP. All I did was correct the misconceptions that it was "self-published" (wrong) or that it can't be used because it is "biased" (also wrong).

Chris, it would be so much easier to edit Wikipedia if we could use your "no opinions" philosophy, but that unfortunately isn't the reality here.This more closely describes the way things are. When an article subject is as "divisive and complex" as this, we can only describe all significant aspects of the matter, without getting enmeshed in it. You say you've looked into (fact-checked) the material and concluded that Emerson's work is exclusively about extremist terrorism, and nothing more? If you could point me to the sources you feel were the most influential on your understanding of the subject, I would appreciate it. From the brief research I've conducted so far on things that have been done, said and written by Emerson and his organization, I'm drawing a somewhat different conclusion. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic: - Sources are not reliable if they do not reflect fact. This has been discussed and shown repeatedly to be the case. The Guardian ran an early and deeply inaccurate account of the Gamergate matter - but Guardian is "reliable", but it doesn't change the fact it is wrong and published days before a decision was actually made. A source cannot be reliable while making misstatements of fact and it would be highly inappropriate to make a misstatement of fact in Wikipedia's voice or to gloss over such misstatements of fact while using such a source. That's my objection to the cherrypicked line from a 300+ page book. There is no argument being made - just a label attributed to a multitude of people without any example or evidence. I question the intentions of anyone who wants to use such trivial mentions in a completely undue and out of context fashion. When the author of the supposed accusation actually agrees with Emerson - this becomes a clear problem with attribution and more questions arise. It is just a disruptive and wikilawyered way to slip accusations without evidence or backing as if they were an actual arguments being made. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"Reliable sources" in this context is a description of sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements for fact-checking and accuracy. Are reliable sources 100% accurate 100% of the time? Of course not, which is why our policies guide us on what to do when a reliable source conveys information that is refuted or contradicted by other equally reliable sources. With your Guardian article example, if that source contains inaccuracies as demonstrable by other reliable sources, I'm confident that incorrect information cited to the Guardian article will not last long in a Wikipedia article. Now back to our Emerson case, and this "cherrypicked" line: since you used the cherrypicked description, that means you found a contradictory statement within the same cited source. Could you give me the specific page number of that contradiction? (...and my question to you in my previous post is still one I'd like you to respond to.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources are not reliable if they do not reflect fact - You got that completely wrong. WP:NPOV tells us to describe significant viewpoints, not just facts. You may need to take a few minutes and re-read WP:V to remind you what our core content policies say. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel, you have proven yourself to repeatedly confuse fact and fiction. This diff shows you removing the existence of the FPD report with its source and included pdf from the ACLU to instead insert an incontrovertibly false assertion that it does not exist. @Xenophrenic: - I expanded it on the talk page, but for your sake, please check this diff by Cwobeel - who has been inserting false material and removing accurate and verifiability material repeatedly. WP:RS extends to the claims and the claim is being challenged because it disagrees with known facts, a source which is provably false is not a reliable source for its claims. Theodore Marston has numerous claims to Thanhouser films, but no records exist to support it. The original source of the error confirms it was made in error, yet other sources continue to reflect and cite the original source - perpetuating the error. The verification "it says this" doesn't change the fact it is provably false. We note the issue and move on - not spend days and weeks arguing over simple facts. Cwobeel seems to not understand sources are fallible and to use caution when using them - and to not use knowingly false information just because it exists. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Chris, I checked that diff as you instructed, but it links to an edit on a completely unrelated article (and that matter was handled by administrative action elsewhere, if I am not mistaken). If you are alleging that an editor has been "inserting false material and removing accurate and verifiability material repeatedly" in the Emerson matter, may I see a diff to that behavior? (That brings the count up to 3 responses from you on which I am now waiting.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Chris - how would you classify this report? [6]

Lot of citations, but it is still a source with an agenda and is biased and open to context issues. Without reading through it - it does seem to cite its sources often case documents and research documents - not my ideal style, but WP:USEBYOTHERS needs to be evaluated. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Granted, but what is it called? OR, Tertiary, Primary, Self-Published (a report by IPT (Emerson) and published by IPT), a Website, or.....? IPT isn't a magazine, or a news source. We can't say they have an editorial staff looking for fair and balanced reporting since IPT and their reports are what newspapers report about. So what is this type of source called by Wiki standards? Atsme☯^Consult 01:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Depends on use, but WP:BIASED would be a simple concern. If it appears to have factual accuracy issues WP:QS or WP:ONUS. I know policies, but commonsense supersedes it because Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Documents from organizations like this are not self-published, but are often questionable given the nature of the work - regardless of the persons involved in it. A wide view of the topic is needed for context and most editors do not have that. I have a good view, but far from complete. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Ok, thank you. Atsme☯^Consult 02:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Chris - will you take a look at IPT and see what you think about the last round of edits? I'm concerned over a doubling down of criticism both at IPT and Emerson. Also, I included the following to expand the lead to summarize what's in the article, particularly about the funding, but it was reverted as undue and fluff. [7] Your thoughts? Atsme☯^Consult 20:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Let them complain - just disengage for a bit. They are repeatedly making plenty of errors and being disruptive - I'd go work on others article and clean it up later. Those two articles are really low importance and any BLP issues can be dealt with by Arbitration Enforcement. We have already proven the material to be unreliable and biased - they are simply being aggressive because you have erred and stirred them up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Email added

Hi Chris, now my email is enabled! Thanks! Phalaris _Talk 16:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC+1)

Your GA nomination of First Ward Wardroom

The article First Ward Wardroom you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 14 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:First Ward Wardroom for things which need to be addressed.

Your GA nomination of First Ward Wardroom

The article First Ward Wardroom you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 14 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:First Ward Wardroom for things which need to be addressed.

Your GA nomination of Charles Payne House

The article Charles Payne House you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 14 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Charles Payne House for things which need to be addressed.

Your GA nomination of Pomeroy State Park

The article Pomeroy State Park you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 14 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Pomeroy State Park for things which need to be addressed.

Sharif Abdullah

Hi. Which tag would be applicable for this badly-sourced article? 67.131.235.220 (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel fixed it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of I Love Bacon!

The article I Love Bacon! you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:I Love Bacon! for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Winter's Tale (1910 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Martin Faust (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Investigative Project on Terrorism

That's the more appropriate place to have that discussion. Thank you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Sea Urchin (1913 film)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Sea Urchin (1913 film) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Actor's Children

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Actor's Children you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Actor and the Rube

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Actor and the Rube you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Adrift (1911 film)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Adrift (1911 film) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of St. Elmo (1910 Thanhouser film)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article St. Elmo (1910 Thanhouser film) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Actor and the Rube

The article The Actor and the Rube you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Actor and the Rube for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of St. Elmo (1910 Thanhouser film)

The article St. Elmo (1910 Thanhouser film) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:St. Elmo (1910 Thanhouser film) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 6, 2015)

Freeze dried coffee, an example of the application of food science Hello, ChrisGualtieri. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Food science Previous selections: Symphony • Prose Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC) •

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
1,686		Alberto Del Rio (talk)						Add sources
198		Pyarey Afzal (talk)						Add sources
805		Big E Langston (talk)						Add sources
1,465		Ryback (talk)						Add sources
937		Garam masala (talk)						Add sources
20		Roadkill (wrestler) (talk)						Add sources
171		Neutron radiation (talk)						Cleanup
4		Pacific Conference of Churches (talk)						Cleanup
190		Nuclear technology (talk)						Cleanup
91		Srikanth Addala (talk)						Expand
50		Billy Butler (baseball) (talk)						Expand
424		Portable media player (talk)						Expand
126		Rewrite engine (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
35		Jimmy "Orion" Ellis (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
159		Cretan Bull (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
129		Causes of the United States housing bubble (talk)						Merge
16		Western Montana (talk)						Merge
3		Test Card H (talk)						Merge
321		The Howard Stern Show staff (talk)						Wikify
272		Action Park (talk)						Wikify
234		Grimlock (talk)						Wikify
2		Ntokozo Sikhakhane (talk)						Orphan
22		Protestant culture (talk)						Orphan
86		Satirical hip hop (talk)						Orphan
30		Young King OURs (talk)						Stub
4		Brent Brede (talk)						Stub
14		Ken Scott (filmmaker) (talk)						Stub
28		Jumper cable (talk)						Stub
14		Jim Adduci (baseball, born 1985) (talk)						Stub
2		Pawtucket City Hall (talk)						Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Adrift (1911 film)

The article Adrift (1911 film) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Adrift (1911 film) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Sea Urchin (1913 film)

The article The Sea Urchin (1913 film) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Sea Urchin (1913 film) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of I Love Bacon!

The article I Love Bacon! you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:I Love Bacon! for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Sea Urchin (1913 film)

The article The Sea Urchin (1913 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Sea Urchin (1913 film) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The Wachowskis

"The article was better without the edit". I added ONE word ("worldwide" which merely highlighted the global impact of the initial entry in what became one of the most successful sci-fi franchises in film history. I mean, "bullet time" alone became the most parodied special effect since the "lightsaber". Anyway, your edit smacks of the usual "because I can"- brandishment of power being unnecessarily employed by webmasters "worldwide". LOL. It's fine. I won't be making any additional contributions to this site.

Your GA nomination of The Actor and the Rube

The article The Actor and the Rube you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Actor and the Rube for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 09:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Adrift (1911 film)

The article Adrift (1911 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Adrift (1911 film) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 09:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of St. Elmo (1910 Thanhouser film)

The article St. Elmo (1910 Thanhouser film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:St. Elmo (1910 Thanhouser film) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 09:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Actor's Children

The article The Actor's Children you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Actor's Children for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 09:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Daddy's Double

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Daddy's Double you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jane Eyre (1910 film)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jane Eyre (1910 film) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Best Man Wins (1910 film)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Best Man Wins (1910 film) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

A significant concern

"we comply with the subject's stated stance on views regardless of what others say. This has been done for religion, politics, gender, and ideology." -- if you are going to push the view that we should extend this principle (properly applied to religion, gender,etc.) to scientific and in particular medical topics, I will propose a topic ban to apply to you in this regard. Re-read WP:PSCI and try to understand why this approach cannot be accepted at Wikipedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow! I share this concern. It reveals your deep failure to understand how we deal with BLPs and fringe matters (my specialty for the last 40+ years). We never "comply", but we definitely "document" what the subject says, regardless of how fringe or wrong, and we never blindly buy their claims, especially when contested by numerous RS and authorities. We also document what critics say, and by thus not taking sides we follow NPOV. Censorship of criticism is taking the side of the subject, and that's not allowed.

If a person is primarily known for their controversial views, the weight of their article should be dominated by that fact. If their views are fringe, then even more so. The mainstream POV should have the most weight. That is policy! The Sears' article is finally getting the weight it should have had for some time, and current events are helping make that plain by daily providing more RS. I have used only a fraction. We must not allow Sears' repeated attempts to control and whitewash his bio to succeed. Don't be his meatpuppet. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW, are you in the habit of deleting critical comments like Nomoskedasticity's concerns above? That's very troubling. You should not violate WP:TALK by failing to use this page for its intended purpose, but instead use this talk page properly and engage in a civil and meaningful manner with Nomoskedasticity, a manner which can bring mutual understanding and learning to both parties and to readers.

Openness, honesty, and credibility are valued here, and it shouldn't be necessary to dig through your contribution history to find what's really happening on this page. When you finally delete it, it should be easy to find in your archives. I know there are devious editors who don't maintain faithful archives, and I hope you're not one of them. I had to restore this deleted thread to give my comment its proper context. You have the legal right to delete it again, but I would question that move on moral and ethical grounds. It's your choice. Your reputation is your most valuable asset here. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)