User talk:Chris troutman

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

Committed identity: 53034b2749273e66509e3f88fd103b4882f16345902df017ef05f53fcdaa37eb69268ba4777ee04b32c2a6d6fc308063da7f51adb04a5addd52649c095c47659 is grammatical article for the hash function SHA-512 commitment to this user's real-life identity.

Today's motto... → What gain I if I win the thing I seek? A dream, a breath, a froth of fleeting joy. Who buys a minute's mirth to wail a week? Or sells eternity to gain a toy?

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

GA Nomination of Fischer

Thank you for letting me know about that. I appreciate it. I thank you for your kind comments about the Fischer page. However, I find that the page is no longer worth my time, due to the impossibly high standards of GA reviewers. I might as well write a book about it rather than constantly contributing to Wikipedia (for free), and getting little respect or recognition. You are, in fact, the only person, in my seven months of editing, who was kind enough to complement my contributions to the page. For that, I thank you. Sirmouse (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@Sirmouse: You're quite welcome. I've been engaging this sort of problem elsewhere. So, it's not just this article, or you, or just this review. It's a trend across the wiki. I wouldn't dissuade you against publishing as Wikipedia is best for people that are willing to suffer slings and arrows. Anyway, feel free to hit me up the next time you need assistance in article development. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Europe topic

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Europe topic. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations

		Military history service award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for scoring 221 pts during the February–March 2014 backlog drive, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject two-stripe award. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Thank you for your interest in our user study. Please email me at credivisstudy@gmail.com. Wkmaster (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Dorit Cypis

Thanks for this article Victuallers (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Karin Higa

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 20:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Robert Heinecken

Hello! Your submission of Robert Heinecken at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:300: Rise of an Empire

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:300: Rise of an Empire. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for George Herms

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 March newsletter

A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. 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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

COI and AFC

Regarding this message on the AFC Help Desk: AFC is one of the few ways an editor with a COI can "start" a page that will later become an article. Once it's moved to the main encyclopedia though, the normal COI rules apply. If this page is accepted and a COI is confirmed, {{connected contributor}} and possibly {{COI}} should be used. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

@Davidwr: I see no exception in WP:COI for AfC. The username in question bears some semblance to the subject of the article and my guidance on that point is solid. I can't imagine why we should accept inputs that appear to violate policy within AfC only to enforce those rules once the article is accepted. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The COI guideline is written with articles in mind, not drafts. In longstanding practice, AFC submissions have been "the place" for COI-impacted editors to "start" an article. This sure beats the alternative, which is to find a related page and use it's talk page to recommend the addition of the material then recommend an immediate splitting the new content off into a new article, hoping someone would do it. Such a technique would be explicitly WP:COI-compliant but be very WP:POINTy and much more disruptive than creating a draft in AFC or Userspace then asking for an independent review by a dis-interested, experienced editor.

You do bring up a good point: The COI guideline needs to be updated to reflect actual longstanding practice: Draft pages outside article space are treated as if they were article-talk-page suggestions. That is, 1) they are allowed, 2) disclosure is highly recommended (I would favor changing the practice and guideline to make this a requirement but that's a separate issue), and 3) there is no requirement that the draft be moved into article space (my observation in my years at AFC is that clearly-ready-for-mainspace submissions will be accepted, "marginal/maybe-maybe-not" submissions are more likely to be rejected than if they were written by a non-COI editor on the assumption that bias is present, and good-faith/non-blatantly-promotional-only COI-editors's accounts with obvious username-policy violations are warned/required to change their usernames). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I noticed your question at AfC. I think this is the best way to start with the changes you intend to make. I'm not going to comment there since I'm not a "seasoned reviewer." I haven't been an editor that long and only started at AfC a couple months ago so I can't speak to what typical practice has been. I will say that I'd rather make it widely known to the public that Wikipedia is hostile to self-promoters and POV-pushers than keep AfC as a gateway for those types. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

One issue that we have is that some people who have COIs are capable of writing in a neutral way and they are experts in their field and can write a decent article about a notable topic. For example, a biologist who is paid to research a particular family of animals and might have a COI if there was a greater awareness of the animals he studied. As an expert, he would know where to find reliable source references and might have access to paywalled sources not available to most people. If that same scientists happened to be able to write articles about all of the missing genuses and species in that family in a neutral way, he needs a place to do it. He cannot do it in article space due to the COI. Note: I picked animals for this example to make notability a moot point: Species whose existence is generally accepted by the scientific community are rarely if ever deleted on notability grounds, and species with no articles are frequently presented as desirable red-links rather than non-wikilinked. Now, I certainly agree with you, there is a huge amount of COI-contributed material that has no place in the project. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sunflower Student Movement

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

Realpolitik

i did not think my edit was unconstructive it says on e.h. carrs wiki page that he was a marxist--121.220.66.99 (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@121.220.66.99: No, it doesn't. If you think I'm wrong, start a discussion on the talk page. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

possible "problems" with IP editor mass-assessing milhist articles as "start" class

Hi Chris - could you look into this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Problems_with_ip_assessments please? Given your qualifications as a GA reviewer I would have to assume you'd understand better than me if what's being alleged or suggested (a pattern of abusive or perhaps fraudulent assessments/reviews of milhist articles) is taking place, and if so, what can or should be done - if anything. Thanks. JDanek007^Talk 23:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you for responding to my request to check-out what was happening. I appreciate that and simply wanted to say so here. nntr. Cheers! JDanek007^Talk 20:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Heinecken

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Vakhtang Harutyunyan

Hi Chris, I am trying to get published in US in order to get Vakhtang Harutyunyan Article approved in wikipedia. Could you please explain why the following article for Vahan Artsruni was ever approved by wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vahan_Artsruni Vakhtang Harutyunyan is as notable if not more as Vahan Artsruni. looking at his page i don't see any sources but yet his article is approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lerysian (talk • contribs) 18:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@Lerysian: First, don't point at other articles to excuse your own problems. Secondly, the Vahan Artsruni article was created outright in 2008, not accepted through the AfC process. The AfC WikiProject was started to prevent articles like that from being created. I agree, that article lacks sources and doesn't indicate notability. If you feel so strongly about it, nominate it for deletion.

I've already had a long conversation with you about what needs to be done to get Vakhtang Harutyunyan accepted and you've not made the changes I specified. At this point, I don't care to hear from you again on the subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Memorial for Adrianne Wadewitz

Hi Chris, please email me regarding Adrianne's memorial service, we would love to have you attend if possible. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbjamesphoto (talk • contribs) 02:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Shamrock Summit

On Shamrock Summit, its a he-said she-said with the Ottawa anon IP. However, if you think some parts of my edits are incorrect, by all means critique and correct it. Brimspark (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@Brimspark: No, the content you removed was sourced and you've inserted your own unsourced POV content. After being reverted you re-inserted the content. Per WP:BRD, you need to discuss on the talk page. If you're going to be a problem editor, why don't you just leave Wikipedia? Chris Troutman (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Chris troutman. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation.
Message added 00:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Requesting input at the discussion: !Vote requested to clarify matters about awards sent. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:False flag

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

Dominic de Guzmán's year of death

Hi Chris,

I've changed that date from 1234 to 1221 because 1) later in the article his year of death is given as 1221 2) if someone clicks on his name, his year of death is given as 1221

As far as a reference goes: http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=178 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.66.169.157 (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@184.66.169.157: You are correct, he died in 1221; I self-reverted. Catholic.org isn't a reliable source and it appears to be a questionable website. The correct source is Jean Guiraud's 1909 book Saint Dominic. (It's on page 175). I had reverted you because the 1234 date was included in the cited source. I'll update the source accordingly. Thank you for contacting me about this so I could fix it properly. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

UCLA course

Hi Chris,

Thanks so much for offering to be a campus ambassador for my course, and helping my students engage with Wikipedia. Would you be interested in perhaps talking to my class (10 students, and a few more who are auditing)? I teach T/Th from 11 am - 12:15 pm. We could also meet, either at UCLA or in the vicinity of Culver City (where I live).

Thanks again!!

Jfk nl80 (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

. It would indeed be great if we could meet.

@Jfk nl80: I'm in class on Tuesdays and Thursdays and I could more easily meet on Mondays, Wednesdays, or Fridays. I have off class this Thursday so I could also meet you then. Finally, I have a break the week of 11-17 May so we could schedule something then, as well. Please advise. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

If you're interested in talking to my class about wikipedia, then this Thursday (11 - 12:15 pm) would be perfect. Otherwise, I'm flexible all day Monday from ~9:30 - 5 pm, Wednesday from 11 am - 12 pm and 1 pm - 3:30 pm. I usually work from home on Fridays(this Friday being an exception, when I'm unavailable). Let me know what works for you. Thanks! Jfk nl80 (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Jfk nl80: Ok, I'll see you on campus this Thursday (17 April) at 1100. Please advise on your class location. Also, I have a short presentation I typically give. If there's any specific points you'd like me to address please let me know. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic, looking forward to it! I am in 7142 Math Sciences Building, and the class is in 7121 Math Sciences. Here is a map with the building I'm at (the "to" address), and the information booth where they can point you to the nearest available parking. I'll be happy to reimburse your parking if you keep the receipt. A detailed campus map is here. Also, if possible, it would be great if you could perhaps come a bit earlier (maybe 10:40 am?) so that you and I can also chat before my class. Finally, is it possible to send me your presentation beforehand so that I can have an idea what you'll be discussing, and can see if there's anything I'd like you to discuss? My email is at the bottom of my personal website.

Thanks so much! Jfk nl80 (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)