User talk:ChrisGualtieri: Difference between revisions
m Archiving 8 discussion(s) to User talk:ChrisGualtieri/Archive 20) (bot |
|||
Line 532: | Line 532: | ||
|}<!-- Substituted from Template:TAFI weekly selections notice --> |
|}<!-- Substituted from Template:TAFI weekly selections notice --> |
||
<!-- Message sent by User:EuroCarGT@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Today%27s_articles_for_improvement/Members/Notifications&oldid=649422835 --> |
<!-- Message sent by User:EuroCarGT@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Today%27s_articles_for_improvement/Members/Notifications&oldid=649422835 --> |
||
== maybe [[Project for the New American Century]] also needs improvement? == |
|||
Hitting an interesting editor who thinks we can link individual living persons three or more times in a single article which accuses them of promoting genocide etc. :( The material consists of chunks of the pamphlet issued - making sure a lot os on ALL CAPS to make sure it looks loony <g>, then listing any person who is connected to the material, along with a lit of any connection to the Bush administration (even though that part is pure SYNTH), and making sure that any information that some of the people cited are 9/11 conspiracy theorists is avoided. Argh - sometimes I wonder how in heck some of these people survive at times. Cheers, and apologies for this vent. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 12:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:20, 2 March 2015
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
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". :)
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.
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.
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.
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) 15:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Collyer Monument
The article Collyer Monument 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:Collyer Monument for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of A Fresh Start
The article A Fresh Start 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:A Fresh Start for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of The Playwright's Love
The article The Playwright's Love you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Playwright's Love 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 DepressedPer -- DepressedPer (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of The Mermaid (1910 film)
The article The Mermaid (1910 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Mermaid (1910 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 DepressedPer -- DepressedPer (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of A 29-Cent Robbery
The article A 29-Cent Robbery you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:A 29-Cent Robbery 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, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of The Mad Hermit
The article The Mad Hermit you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Mad Hermit 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) 09:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of A Fresh Start
The article A Fresh Start you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:A Fresh Start 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) 09:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Chris
Many thanks for your thorough review of this article. I am sorry that I have been slow to reply to it, but my response is now at Talk:James Balfour (died 1845)/GA2#GA_Review. AFAICS, I have accepted all but one of your suggested changes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Collyer Monument
The article Collyer Monument you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Collyer Monument 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 Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Division Street Bridge (Rhode Island)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Division Street Bridge (Rhode Island) 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 Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Liberty Arming the Patriot
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Liberty Arming the Patriot 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 Jackyd101 -- Jackyd101 (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Gone to Coney Island and Booming Business
The article Gone to Coney Island and Booming Business you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gone to Coney Island and Booming Business 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) 00:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Her Battle for Existence
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Her Battle for Existence 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) 09:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Cupid at the Circus
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cupid at the Circus 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) 10:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Division Street Bridge (Rhode Island)
The article Division Street Bridge (Rhode Island) 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:Division Street Bridge (Rhode Island) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Division Street Bridge (Rhode Island)
The article Division Street Bridge (Rhode Island) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Division Street Bridge (Rhode Island) 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 Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pocahontas (1910 film), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Conservatory and George Barnes (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) 09:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
American films
Great job on the silents BTW. Can you ensure though that the films are all listed on the lists like List of American films of 1910 so they can be accessed? I just added Pocahontas.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'll probably pull them from the category later on, the only problem is that this results in hundreds and hundreds of films being added to the list. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Bring it on :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
You appear to have assumed a position without basing your reasons in policy....
The links I provided to updated research is not synth, and it is not disputed by higher tier evidence because the higher tier evidence is OR that is 30+ years old as indicated by the sources cited in the lead. It can't possibly dispute new research. The sources I included are updates in published, peer reviewed journals including PLONE, and the Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics. The Cancer journal research clearly states in its conclusion There has been done a lot of work in the analysis of amygdalin, the analysis and detection methods of amygdalin were more perfect and mature; and a large number of studies have shown that amygdalin plays a supporting role in the treatment of cancer, diabetes, atherosclerosis, immune suppression, leprosy and other diseases. This paper reviews recent progression of amygdalin in cancer research.? [1] I also included other research that substantiates what is written in that report. Providing multiple scientific papers (all of which have drawn the same conclusions about amygdalin) is not any different from the Cochran compilation of old OR that was used to source the material in the lead. I am not going to argue this topic any longer because I know exactly what is happening as a result of WP:ADVOCACY. I will simply initiate an RfC. Atsme☯Consult Agent 99 14:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- I have no history in that article or in that topic, but it is quite clear that the content does not meet MEDRS and your snapping back on me shows you are frustrated and that you do not understand the issue. Your advocacy argument is nonsense because you imply that anyone who disagrees has an agenda. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Not at all snappy - just curious. I felt my post was within reason, and saw no reason to not ask you why you believed the links do not meet WP:MEDRS. I realize you have no history in either the article or topic which is why I was hoping you would at least provide an explanation for why you responded as you did. You don't have to be accusatory by referring to my response as "snapping back". Calling my argument nonsense wasn't very polite, either. If you don't want to answer my question, we can just drop it and I'll move on. If you'd like to explain the reason for your comments then please do so without being accusatory. Which resources did you feel were noncompliant with MEDRS? Was it The Journal of Cancer Research, or The World Journal of Gastroenterology, or PLoS One? All are reputable review articles in scientific journals that publish peer reviewed research in compliance with WP:MEDSCI: Scientific journals are the best place to find both primary source articles about experiments, including medical studies, and secondary sources. Every rigorous scientific journal is peer reviewed. I think it would be a nice gesture on your part to explain why you thought they were not compliant. Atsme☯Consult Agent 99 21:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
You appear to have assumed a position without basing your reasons in policy....
is not the best tone to take on my talk page and you proceed to try and lecture me. It was clearly stated as to why your position flew in the face of established and independently conducted research so I do not need to reiterate what Guy has said. I said I was standing with Guy on the matter and gave a reason. Next time you baselessly accuse and attack editors I will take you to Arbitration Enforcement. We clear? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)- Whoa!! Let me reiterate - I wasn't being snappy, and your attitude here is uncalled for considering I simply asked you to explain your comment at the TP. If you think you have a case against me at AE, then be my guest, but stop the threats, please. I will not post on your TP again, and I expect the same from you. Our interaction ends here and now. Atsme☯Consult Agent 99 23:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Fine. I am not sure why you would use that source at all. It does not meet MEDRS. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Whoa!! Let me reiterate - I wasn't being snappy, and your attitude here is uncalled for considering I simply asked you to explain your comment at the TP. If you think you have a case against me at AE, then be my guest, but stop the threats, please. I will not post on your TP again, and I expect the same from you. Our interaction ends here and now. Atsme☯Consult Agent 99 23:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Not at all snappy - just curious. I felt my post was within reason, and saw no reason to not ask you why you believed the links do not meet WP:MEDRS. I realize you have no history in either the article or topic which is why I was hoping you would at least provide an explanation for why you responded as you did. You don't have to be accusatory by referring to my response as "snapping back". Calling my argument nonsense wasn't very polite, either. If you don't want to answer my question, we can just drop it and I'll move on. If you'd like to explain the reason for your comments then please do so without being accusatory. Which resources did you feel were noncompliant with MEDRS? Was it The Journal of Cancer Research, or The World Journal of Gastroenterology, or PLoS One? All are reputable review articles in scientific journals that publish peer reviewed research in compliance with WP:MEDSCI: Scientific journals are the best place to find both primary source articles about experiments, including medical studies, and secondary sources. Every rigorous scientific journal is peer reviewed. I think it would be a nice gesture on your part to explain why you thought they were not compliant. Atsme☯Consult Agent 99 21:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Her Battle for Existence
The article Her Battle for Existence 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:Her Battle for Existence for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Cupid at the Circus
The article Cupid at the Circus 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:Cupid at the Circus for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
WikiCup 2015 March newsletter
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.
In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:
- Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
- AHeneen (submissions) worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
- Rodw (submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
- And last but not least, Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.
You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email)
Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.
(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
WikiCup 2015 March newsletter
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.
In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:
- Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
- AHeneen (submissions) worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
- Rodw (submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
- And last but not least, Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.
You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email)
Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.
(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 10, 2015)
There are many backup dancers accompanying the dances of the main dancer.
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Previous selections: Trailer Trash • Ice cream parlour Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC) • |
---|
maybe Project for the New American Century also needs improvement?
Hitting an interesting editor who thinks we can link individual living persons three or more times in a single article which accuses them of promoting genocide etc. :( The material consists of chunks of the pamphlet issued - making sure a lot os on ALL CAPS to make sure it looks loony <g>, then listing any person who is connected to the material, along with a lit of any connection to the Bush administration (even though that part is pure SYNTH), and making sure that any information that some of the people cited are 9/11 conspiracy theorists is avoided. Argh - sometimes I wonder how in heck some of these people survive at times. Cheers, and apologies for this vent. Collect (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)