User talk:Chris troutman
 | Chris troutman uses the Wikibreak Switch template, and plans to update this notice if a wikibreak is taken. |
 |
|
| This is Chris troutman's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
| AfC submissions Random submission |
| ~6 weeks |
| to update |
| Today's Events
November 7, 2024 |
|---|
Birthday
|
Adminship Anniversary
|
| First Edit Day |
|
Other events: |
02:09:34, 18 July 2016 review of submission by NNcNannara
- NNcNannara (talk · contribs)
Why is the pseudo code and explanation on the main AVL page 'suitable' and this beautiful C# code with explanation 'unsuitable'.
As I pointed out to Roger, I have many more pages that I could add, but if this one doesn't make it, neither will they.
Clearly I am wasting my time with Wikipedia. I'll not waste any more time though.
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Military history WikiProject coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| cleanup | |
|---|---|
| ... you were recipient no. 607 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Cedar Fire (2003)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cedar Fire (2003). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Request on 01:52:00, 25 September 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Ringoroo
I'm trying to submit an entry that shows the existence of a TV programme which is contrary to an earlier made programme of the same name. The aim is to help avoid confusion.
I have, twice, submitted an entry and have, twice, been declined.
The latest reason is that the references I've used are linked to the programme maker.
I'm not sure what other reference is necessary to simply differentiate between two shows.
The proof of it's existence is evident in the BBCs webpages.
Could you please help me in understanding what else I should provide.
Thank you.
I forgot to add that 2 of the references link to this programmes existence elsewhere on the internet.
Ringoroo (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Ringoroo: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which is a tertiary publication looking backwards. As such, we rely on secondary sources (and to a lesser extent primary sources) to establish notability. We're not a reference work purely to help answer questions. I don't doubt this program exists but there's no claim of notability and BBC isn't a neutral source on the subject, anyway. If there were coverage from The Guardian or some such outside reliable source (several articles, not just one) then we might consider general notability.
- However, the content you've written would fit very well at Trust Me, I'm a Doctor (TV series)#New series. You could add that content with the citations you already have and it'd be live online the moment you press save. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- I've now added several links to major news organisations... is this enough ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ringoroo (talk • contribs) 02:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Ringoroo: No. Please add the content where I've suggested rather than continue to push this insufficient draft. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- I've now added several links to major news organisations... is this enough ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ringoroo (talk • contribs) 02:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Request on 22:04:31, 26 September 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by 2A02:C7D:4E9A:A200:709C:BC79:23CC:55A5
I recently tried to submit a page which I thought was informative and un-biased (this, in the last review, counted against my submission).
It was my first submission to Wikipedia and as such was bound to need help to meet the guidelines.
The first 2 responses I recieved were fine, I tried to address the issues without being biased or seeming promotional.
I then received an extremely impolite, rude and unhelpful response from yourself. I'm not sure which aspect of my inexperience caused you to respond in such an abusive and aggressive manner but I can say that it has made sure I will no longer attempt to add anything to the site or send any more money.
The respect I had for the site has diminished enormously thanks to your intolerance of a new submission.
As your full response wasn't shown above I thought I'd add it here....
"Although you've now added independent sources almost all are just brief mentions and you haven't proven general notability. Furthermore, the piece from The Independent says "This was, in many ways, extremely lazy television. Some of the volunteers were so lacklustre they didn't deserve the airtime." and yet you can't be bothered to actually build this article based on that content. All you say in the text is "It has been referenced in several news items" which is lazy and irresponsible writing on your part. The Oxford link is promotional in nature since it's advertising for one of its faculty that was on the show. Please build content at Trust Me, I'm a Doctor (TV series)#New series and discontinue submitting this draft."
It wasn't exactly encouraging for a newbie.
Arrogant - "Unpleasantly proud and behaving as if you are more important than, or know more than, other people" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:4E9A:A200:709C:BC79:23CC:55A5 (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
"can't be bothered" - I'm a newbie, learning as I go and have tried, 3 times, to include what I've been asked to.... "lazy and irresponsible writing" - I responded to the comments and tried to include references that portrayed both the positive and negative reception of the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:4E9A:A200:709C:BC79:23CC:55A5 (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:4E9A:A200:709C:BC79:23CC:55A5 (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
2A02:C7D:4E9A:A200:709C:BC79:23CC:55A5 (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm glad to hear it. Only a fool would either send money to the WMF or have respect for this website. You're welcome. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Wobbly terms
I'm also not planning on doing anything more with this article. I agree that it was a mistake to suggest merge rather than just delete. Oh well, WP has lots of stupid articles and this one does not seem to be hurting anyone.Borock (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Borock: I still think it's an eyesore; next time I'll just !vote delete. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
GA Cup Announcement
 Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time. The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on October 31, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Competence is required#The "very insulting" practice of referencing this page
Hi Chris. I was just curious to find out what you meant when you said "It seems an odd question from someone of your experience". I didn't think the essay's talk page was the place for such a tangent so I came here. Recent experience has made me take more of an interest in how I'm perceived by other editors. I'm worried a large gap has developed between their perception and my own. Cheers.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Gibson Flying V: I was specifically referring to the fact that you have over 90,000 edits and you're coming up on being a ten year editor. I would think you've seen this phenomena (calling editors incompetent) more than I have. Although I talk down to people all the time here and in real life I honestly try not to. When I note Wikipedians with far more experience than I, I make an effort not to treat them like idiots that need me to explain things to them. That's all.
- I read the other thread you linked to. I agree with Ritchie insofar as the inclusion or exclusion had no basis in guideline or MOS and none of the arguments did more than express personal preference. Ritchie said as much and perhaps you wanted his opinion on the matter which I assume he has none. Returning to the status quo ante seems reasonable. I don't know if that means there's a gap in perception. You could have been more specific in asking for exactly what I'm guessing you wanted. As with any user talk page there are stalkers so you can expect to get harassed by them, as well. I would know as I'm a stalker on a few user talk pages for Wikipedians who aren't as assertive as I'd have them be.
- I'd scratch that up to a difference of opinion. I've never dealt with you before so I can only base what I'm saying on what I see at a glance. It looks like that RfC was suffering from some frayed nerves so you got hit with some unpleasantness. I wouldn't lose sleep over it. (Just look at my talk page!) Chris Troutman (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oh gotcha. You just meant of your experience, not of your experience. (That whole conversing through text thing once again). Thanks.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Han Chinese
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Han Chinese. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Since when...
Since they've used their user page to characterise other editors as "haters". That said, I'm content for my comment to just exist as a shadow in the page's history. Cabayi (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
RfC for page patroller qualifications
Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
ULS page
User:Kirkcudbrightshire/sandbox/University of Pittsburgh Library System Resources Kirkcudbrightshire (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Han Chinese
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Han Chinese. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
14:50:13, 8 October 2016 review of submission by Rockrollcritic
Hi! Thanks for your prompt appraisal of my proposed wiki page. I'm obviously disappointed to read that you say that my subject clearly doesn't meet the Wiki guideline for musicians. I feel that she fulfils the first criteria as a musician. I modelled my wiki page on the following clearly prominent music artists:
John Lee Hooker Leonard Cohen Elvis Presley Bob Dylan The Rolling Stones Nick Cave David Bowie
I used the same publications and websites for references (the leading music publications, Q, Mojo, The Wire, Uncut, The Quietus, Under the Radar, Clash, Fact, NME, AllMusic, Discogs) that the Wiki pages for these artists use, together with other similarly notable national publications (the newspapers The Scotsman, The National) and websites (Tate). I don't want this to seem as if I'm unduly relying on the "what about x?" argument, beyond all abstract guidelines needing to be anchored in inevitable precedence/example, as the "what about x?" wiki page accepts. (As a music fan, what I love about Wikipedia, in common with AllMusic, are the entries on non-mainstream yet clearly notable artists, innumerable artists of the stature of my subject.) Apologies if this is too waffly!
- @Rockrollcritic: I stand by my comments that the subject fails most of WP:NMUSIC and those comments aren't meant as a sleight; she hasn't charted, she hasn't won a Grammy or similar award, she hasn't sold a gold record, etc. However, I have reconsidered my position on general notability. You have indeed provide enough journalistic sources so I have accepted the article. Thanks for bringing this to me. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Submission Review of Vikas Gupta
Hi Chris,
For the notable sources here are the links about him, few of them are from the leading newspaper in India
http://www.afaqs.com/news/story/42831_Vikas-Gupta-programming-head-MTV-quits
Few of his work on Wikipedia where his name has also been mentioned are as follows
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTV_Fanaah
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gumrah:_End_of_Innocence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyunki_Saas_Bhi_Kabhi_Bahu_Thi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahaani_Hamaaray_Mahaabhaarat_Ki
Murz97 (talk) 04:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Murz97: Then rewrite the draft using those sources. I don't think the subject is notable, which is why I declined Draft:Vikas Gupta. You're welcome to resubmit if you like but I don't plan on reviewing it again. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Chris,
Is it a possibility if i add few pointers in the article with reference links sent you earlier, for you to review again? Also, am a newbie on wikipedia so if you can explain me what all changes should be made before i resubmit the article. Thanks Again
Murz97 (talk) 07:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Murz97: No, it's not possible. I already said that I'm not going to review it again. You would be better served by having another editor review your draft. I would also recommend you do more than
"add few pointers"
. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:AlMaghrib Institute
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:AlMaghrib Institute. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
09:41:21, 15 October 2016 review of submission by Shubhamsingh023
Sir, I am not able to understand what you are telling me to fix in the article .. please help me ... and can someone from the reviewer desk only make the necessary changes in the article cause it's been months I am trying to make this arcticle pass but it's still not getting accepted .. he is a senior member in politics of Bihar .. and member of Bihari legislative council for 18 years that is why I thought he should have a page too — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shubhamsingh023 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
RFC/N discussion of the username "Emir of Wikipedia"
A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of Emir of Wikipedia (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. —swpbT 18:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
—swpbT 18:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Diego Maradona
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Diego Maradona. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Request on 12:39:13, 20 October 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Amy Jaworska
- Amy Jaworska (talk · contribs)
Hi Mr Troutman, I hope you are well.
I have just received a third rejection from wiki for my article on 'Lotus shoes Limited' regarding one of the Uk's longest standing shoe brands (established 1759). After each rejection I have attempted to make the changes required to improve my article. I was previously asked to include more third party references, as you may remember I now have 13 third party references in my short article which includes the British Broadcasting Corporation,the UK national archives, a wikipedia article and some local organisation websites. My recent rejection does not give me any feedback as to how else I can make this submission a success. Please could you advise? I could for example show evidence of the trademark registration of the brand if that would mean approval?
thanks for yoru help,
Amy