User talk:Prhartcom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome! Please feel free to leave me a comment on any subject below. I look forward to replying to you. —Prhartcom

Happy New Year Prhartcom![edit]

Happy New Year, Prhartcom! Have a prosperous, productive, and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. ツ Have a great New Year in 2016! ツ With kind regards; Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 17:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pdebee, it's good to hear from you again! Thank-you for the best wishes, a Happy New Year to you as well! —Prhartcom (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year! Have a prosperous, productive, and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! --Tenebrae (talk)

Hey Tenebrae, thanks for this, it's great to hear from you; Happy New Year to you also! —Prhartcom (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi i didn't know where to talk to you at i am wanting to create that wiki. Because its a show i am makeing on youtube and i was wanting to have a wiki of it to tell about my Characters and episodes and movies and stuff. How do i do this what you said in my talk say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia? please tell me so i can keep the wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goody2shoes3590 (talkcontribs) 16:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Wishbringer screenshot.jpg listed for discussion[edit]


A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wishbringer screenshot.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Marchjuly (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC) -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Zork screenshot.jpg listed for discussion[edit]


A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Zork screenshot.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Marchjuly (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC) -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Diamond Rio[edit]

Yeah, you can help me with the harv references. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 23:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi TenPoundHammer, sure, I'd be happy to. I've seen you around for a long time and it's good to be working with you. Did you decide to install the tool? Take a look at the article with it on and you'll see what I mean. You'll never look at Harvard citations the same way again. I'm over at the article now. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Left you a message re: Tharkay[edit]

Thanks, Prhart..., appreciate your irony: "not notable" is the aim of anonymous writing; glad to see I've acheived that much~--Shastakath (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC) Here; [My Tharkay edit] Greetings :-)

Tutorial re: knee-jerk rejection of Tintin in Tibet improvements[edit]

Hi Phartcom, I see you have reverted my edits on Tintin in Tibet. Pity. I know you are sincere because I have seen this knee-jerk behaviour before in dozens of inexperienced students who have communication problems. The Tintin article in those changed passages is unintelligible. And because you know the story well, and are proud of your version (which is quite a good basis, actually) you probably genuinely do not realise why there is a problem. Writing intelligibly is something me and you and most others have to learn by years of experience, it hardly comes naturally to anybody. Except if your name is Shakespeare or Daniel Defoe.

But there is a short cut which I found handy when I was younger, and which you can apply immediately - ask a friend to read both versions, first yours then mine, and keep your mouth tightly shut while he/she is reading the two versions. And then ask which of the two is clearer. You will then berate your friend, and then after about 48 hours to 2 weeks you will change your mind and reinstall my version. And as you get older, this period of decision time shortens to minutes. And that is when you become a really good editor and team player. Bonne chance, mon ami. I shall not return to this subject, so do not trouble yourself replying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC), I didn't revert them, I revised them, keeping at least half of what you added. I thought you would be pleased, actually. As for your suggestion, I have already had many dozen editors critique the article, since it has been through many formal reviews. Believe me, you are not the first. If you'd like to explain exactly why certain edits of yours are superior, feel free to do so at the article talk page; I would be interested in having that discussion. By the way, there is much more to the article than just the plot synopsis. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Diamond Rio again[edit]

I'm pretty sure I've gotten everything else in your GA nomination. The only thing I'm confused on is your issue over the ACM/CMA awards. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 20:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks for taking time to review the article. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 13:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Your welcome; it was a pleasure learning about the group. Hope to work with you again. Prhartcom (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

New categories on the WP:GAN page[edit]

Prhartcom, new subtopics should not be added to the GAN page without both consensus on the talk page and, once that is achieved, coordination with Legoktm, who operates Legobot, so the bot is programmed to handle the categories. That's how we've always done it in the past: proposed subtopics for GAN, discussed, and coordinated with the bot owner.

Even if people use one of the new subtopics you've just added in their GA nominations, the bot won't recognize them, so the nominations will never appear on the GAN page and hence never be reviewed.

Under the circcumstances, you can understand why I'm reverting the addition of these new subtopics immediately, before people see them. If I'd thought you'd be adding categories to the GAN page—you didn't mention this possibility—I would have mentioned this issue sooner. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset. Thanks for your concern, but I believe it is misplaced. Sorry that I didn't mention adding the subcategories to this page; I should have. Of course, other people added subcategories to the GA page a while ago; this is just a reflection of their work, so that answers the consensus issue. The bot still operates without issue until it is enhanced to start using the new subcategories, so that answers the Legobot concern issue (they have to first be on the GAN page before it can be enhanced to use them). I did not remove subcategories; that would indeed break the bot (Note: We have to remove the "Warfare" subcategory after Legobot is enhanced to use the others instead). I am working on further visual enhancements to the GAN page (offline) that will clean it up even more, but they are what we discussed and nothing extravagant.
I would indeed like to get to know the operator of Legobot (I'm a developer in RL). I notice the operator never answered our question for them. Right now, I am simply timing my update to go in between times when the bot is active. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm very sorry, but I disagree with your additions, especially as someone who sees them—the headers show up on the list that everyone sees—might think they are active and receive a rude shock days or weeks later when their edits don't show up in a visible subtopic. However, by WP:BRD, they should not have been reverted, and I'm going to have to insist on them remaining invisible to users. If you insist otherwise, you're welcome to take this to WP:GAN, but please do not add them without consensus. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi BlueMoonset, I appreciate your apology and your your respect. I understand that you feel strongly about it, and I get the feeling that you wouldn't want to disagree with me unless it is important. So, you have my attention. Yes, BRD is a good process. Just so you know: My intention is never to set policy or guidelines by myself, my intention is only to cleanly, clearly, and consistently (and boldly) format our good article data in a way that has already been established and to work out any disagreements afterwards. (My other intention is to make you happy, as I consider you the policy authority here at GA.)
I agree that it looks weird with empty subcategories like that, although of course it's only temporary (we need to talk to the operator/developer of Legobot and let them know that an enhancement request for more subcategories is coming). You may be right that the new subcategories could confuse people, although it shouldn't, as those same subcategories are on the GA page. Maybe the question is: Why do we have all those Warfare subcategories on the GA page? Other categories, such as Sports and recreation, go straight from categories to sub-subcategories, skipping subcategories. Maybe that is what should have happened to Warfare. Or conversely, maybe Warfare has it right and we should add subcategories to Sports and recreation. Or maybe it is not our place to make those decisions, but just to implement what others have already decided when they boldly created GA subcategories like that. Certainly the Classical compositions subcategory of Music should be a welcome addition to the GAN page; it has been laughably absent.
A subcategory on the GAN page is certainly also a queue in which we wait for our GAN to be reviewed. More subcategories may mean it is not as far from the bottom of the queue to the top. Maybe some categories have too many subcategories and maybe some have too few, when you look at them as queues.
A decision that has been true from the beginning is as follows: All categories and all subcategories on the GA page are also on the GAN page. Sub-subcategories from the GA page are not on the GAN page however, except (as you wisely insisted) they are mentioned in helpful explanation sentences. Let me know if you disagree with these two statements. If not, then you can see why I'm puzzled: It seems as if you are being inconsistent by stopping me from continuing this valid truth.
Would you do me a favor? Try again to reach the bot providor Legoktm and ask them to consider that subcategories are a natural progression of an expanding encyclopedia and that it may be time once again to add more. When they agree, we can add the subcategories to the GAN page in a coordinated way. Also, please do reply below if you need to retort to anything I said; I'm always happy to hear from smart people. I'll open a topic on WT:GAN soon enough (after I finish reworking all these labor-intensive "include" sentences that you talked me into!) Best, Prhartcom (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I ran out of time today, for which my apologies. I did locate the discussion from the last time we made changes to the GAN page and the bot. It was over three years ago in November 2012, back when we had the GA bot run by Chris S—Chris S later retired and stopped his bot, and Legoktm added the functionality to Legobot three days later—so it appears we haven't yet had a change under Legoktm's watch. The last change involved changing the topic name from "Theatre, film and drama" to "Media and drama" (with a couple of false starts as to what the new topic should be), and adding the Television and Film subtopics; see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 18#Changing Section Headings for the details. (It also refers to an earlier discussion at GA rather than GAN.) I'll try to write up something for the GAN talk page tomorrow: as you can see, there was general discussion on the best thing to do, which I think should happen with the new changes you're proposing. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I think your RfC covers anything I might have posted, so I won't be making such a post after all. I did look back at the history of the subtopics on the GA pages: it looks like Adam Cuerden moved Classical Compositions out of Albums into its own category on his own in mid-2013 (I think if it had been me, I would have put it in the Other subtopic, since it had, and has, comparatively few GAs when stacked up against some of the other "Other" sub-subtopics). And Warfare, when the page was created at GA in March 2012, seems to have started out with the seven subtopics. At GAN, it had been a subtopic called "War and military" under the "History" topic well before then, and wasn't finally moved to its own Warfare section until a year later, in March 2013, but then was created at GAN only with the one topic/subtopic Warfare. I don't know why they didn't include the GA subtopics; maybe they thought the topic didn't need to split into a lot of tiny lists (the entire topic started with 20 nominations). The one topic that could use subtopics, as far as GAN is concerned, is Sports and recreation. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


Prhartcom, the changes you made to the WP:GAN page yesterday have affected the StatisticianBot reports. Where the bot used to provide links to the subtopics where articles could be found, it is now providing links to the topic instead. This has affected the /backlog/items pink box on the GAN page. The difference can be seen in this change from earlier today, which modified the links in the /backlog/items light-red box at the top of the GAN page. The same change seems also to have affected the entire GA report page. If you can't figure out which of your edits to WP:GAN has caused this change in behavior, perhaps you could work with the bot owner, Dvandersluis, to identify what the bot is expecting, or to update the bot to work with the changes you've made. As it notes on his talk page, he rarely checks Wikipedia these days, so you'll need to email him to get his attention. It may take him a couple of days to respond, but I've found him to be helpful when we've had issues with the Report page in the past. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh no; I had hoped to not affect a bot. This is my fear come home to roost. I will start work on finding what change affected this immediately; I have some ideas already. Thank-you for catching this and for telling me whom to contact; I will keep you informed regarding this outcome. Note that I have been watching Legobot closely; for example, in addition to handling the GAN page, it is handling the Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Topic lists nicely. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
P.S. BlueMoonset, let's not complicate the RfC I just added with this news. This is a solvable problem and I think I know were to look; I'll keep you informed. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's relevant to the RfC. This is a technical problem; I hope you find the solution soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys, just wanted to let you know that I'm aware of the issue due to @Prhartcom's email, so thanks for that. I short version is that since the headers are now formatted differently, and StatisticianBot doesn't know to look for the new format of headers, it is only reporting on the categories it finds, which are the level 2 headings. Luckily since those were retained, the bot will at least still report something in the meantime. I'm not sure if I'll be able to get to it this week, but I have provided Prhartcom with some instructions on how he might be able to help via email. I have also added a notice to both the top and bottom of User talk:StatisticianBot to keep people aware in case someone tries to report the bug. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 21:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to Dvandersluis and the clear communication between us, and to BlueMoonset who quickly spotted the problem, I believe this issue is now resolved. We'll know when the bot runs again at 8:00 AM UTC (in about eight hours). I simply restored the previous level 3 header format rather than take the time to code and test an enhancement to the bot, which Dvandersluis was kind enough to provide me access to. There wasn't a good enough reason to keep the formatting I had tried. My mistake was assuming all bots would use the "Bot start" identifiers on the page. The other improvements to the page that I have implemented are kept (i.e. clicking on a jump link takes the reader to the level 3 heading rather than to the identically named level 2 heading. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Prhartcom, it looks like your restoration did the trick: the links are once again using the subtopics on the Report page and the backlog/items page. Thank you, and thanks to Daniel Vandersluis. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Prince Aleksandre of Georgia[edit]

Hello Prhartcom,

I saw you this article from the GA list. The nominator really got topic banned? I didn't even notice. In any case, would you mind reinstating it? I made some edits to the article myself and im often involved in Georgia-related articles. I'm willing to take over the nominator role over if he actually got topic banned, so that the article may still be reviewed for GA. Is that alright with you? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

LouisAragon, that would be great; I'm glad to hear someone like you with a knowledge of the subject is ready to take over bringing this article to GA. It looks like a high quality article but of course we'll let the future reviewer decide. You must be ready to respond to the reviewer's suggestions to improve the article. Yes, it was unfortunate about the former nominator; take a look at their talk page. I removed this article from consideration for GA and now anyone including yourself may renominate it. It may take several months before someone reviews it. Please read the instructions for nominating an article for GA and you may then nominate it yourself, and it will have your name attached to it. Let me know if you have any questions. Best of luck to you, Prhartcom (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Comics infobox for Tintin characters[edit]

Hi Prhartcom. Those comics character infobox appear to have been custom-made specifically for US comics, where dozens of characters are in leagues and alliances and all that stuff. Such parameters don't really make sense in comics like Tintin. Also, linking to a list in an infobox is counter-productive since the whole point of an infobox is to give the info at a glance, isn't it? Consistency is desirable, but not essential on Wikipedia and it's better not to fill parameters just because they exist. Snowy is just a dog who follows his master, he has no "team or affiliation" ! Mezigue (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I have responded at the article talk page. Prhartcom (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

thank you for the tip[edit]

Thanks for the tip on the category for religious architecture Good Articles. The Jokhang temple makes much more sense there! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Amazing article[edit]

Good work on getting Mary Lou Bruner's profound views into the permanent, never to be erased record. I really had a good laugh reading references. This article could be big as she would be a good fit as Trump's VP pick. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

HappyValleyEditor, if you return to the article (and if you read the section below), you may see from the notice at the top that your thoughts at the linked discussion would be appreciated. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Done, thanks for the note.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, here is a source from Russia Today, which shows international notability. I would have added it, but you seem to have a parrticular referencing style and I do not want to mess it up. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank-you HappyValleyEditor, both for the !vote and for the reference; I have just added it. Don't worry, it's just Harvard referencing using Template:Sfn; you could have just copied the style. Thanks again; I so much appreciate your support! Your !vote pushed it over the edge; it is no longer up for deletion. Feel free to drop by the article and improve it anytime! Prhartcom (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Mary Lou Bruner for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mary Lou Bruner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Lou Bruner until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

And why is that, Bearcat? There are numerous reliable secondary sources reporting on this person including The Washington Post, The New York Times, and John Oliver's Last Week Tonight. The article is still being written, as I am still in the process of adding referenced information from the sources listed in the References section, at which point I expect the article to be 500-1000 words. I can't wait to read your rational for this. Prhartcom (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Candidates do not qualify for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, except in extremely rare circumstances that require a lot more nationalized coverage than has been shown here. Local media have an obligation to cover elections taking place in their own local coverage area, so any sourcing to any newspaper published within Texas counts as WP:ROUTINE and cannot assist in carrying WP:GNG — and the volume of nationalized coverage is not yet large enough or sustained enough to make her anything but a WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
You sound just like the pointy editors who tried and failed (twice) to delete the Kim Davis (county clerk) article, as they made the same wrong arguments. Prhartcom (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: Pepper's ghost[edit]

What's your rationale for removing the section on Pinball for modern usages of the Pepper's ghost illusion? Your edit summary says it was "described below", but that was the only mention of pinball in the article. You also mention unsourced additions, but the linked Wikipedia article was sourced. I've even added a second source explicitly referencing Pepper's ghost. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dante Alighieri. My edit summary comment referred to something else I did in the same edit: removed Disney's Haunted Mansion text because it was a repeat of what was described further down in the article. While I was at it, I removed the pinball sentence because it had no reliable source. Feel free to add it back then, with the proper citations (two sources would be ideal). Best, Prhartcom (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Another unsatisfactory GA review[edit]

Hi, about six months ago we had a discussion on how to handle a GA review which was in my view inadequate and substandard. Now the same editor, 333-blue, has reviewed the Milos Raonic article and passed it as GA at Talk:Milos Raonic/GA1. Again this review is my opinion completely inadequate and it seems to me our GA process does not have an effective way of dealing with these kind of substandard reviews once they have been concluded. The article itself is fine but the review, and therefore the GA process, is not. Can you give me your opinion on this particular review and advice on how to handle this? Thx. --Wolbo (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Wolbo, I see what you mean about that review. It does appear to be quite a bit sub-standard with evidence of a poor grasp of Wikipedia guidelines, policy, the Manual of Style, and the GA criteria. I have left a reply to your comment at the reviewer's talk page and I hope that they decide to follow that advice.
As before, when you asked me to weigh in, the article itself appears to be of high quality. It may be that, despite the inadequate review, the nominator prepared an article fit to be reviewed by a more stringent reviewer and therefore, maybe no harm was done. It would certainly be worse if the nominator's article was unfit to be reviewed for GA yet it was passed anyway.
Regardless, there is a process for editors like yourself who find an article listed as a good article yet you don't believe it satisfies the good article criteria: the good article reassessment. The process is there for you to use if you are willing. (Note that, of course, the object is to try to get the article to the good article standard and not to penalize the good article reviewer.) Best, Prhartcom (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

John Wilson Bengough at AN3[edit]

Hello Prhartcom. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Eric Corbett reported by User:Curly Turkey (Result: ). This is about an article you have edited recently, though the report doesn't mention your name. Perhaps you have an idea about how to resolve the dispute. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston, it is an honor to receive this request from you. I have commented at AN3 in the best way I know. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


As I've already pointed out to you, the statement is already referenced in the body, and any number of other sources exist to back it up. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Stevenmitchell, read the whole article or do a CLT-F and type "cave". You'll see it mentioned twice. The first is in the lead section, which you tried to flag. The second is in the body of the article, where, like everything else in the article body, is correctly cited to its source. Lead sections should actually not include footnotes to citations, since it is a summary only of what is stated and cited further down. Prhartcom (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

  • No, actually, Prhartcom, it is not referenced further down (which I had actually checked at the time). Had it been referenced I would not have posted its need for a citation. It is only stated in a single sentence that is most likely the invention and embellishment of Curly Turkey in the article. And it is totally unreferenced anywhere in the article (especially further down where the following references refer to different arguments having nothing to do with Lascaux at all), and yet it is part of the summary "opinion" that only a highly speculative argument would present. Even in evolutionary psychology, which tries to stretch associations, there is no suggestion that comics have any link whatsoever to cave paintings in Lascaux or any other European cave illustrations. It is the assertion of the editor who contributed this "observation" or "conclusion" and it is theirs alone... But is there is certainly no reference - legitimate or otherwise - in the article... Stevenmitchell (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Anonymous editor deleted from List of pen names[edit]

Thanks, Prhart..., appreciate your irony: "not notable" is the aim of anonymous writing; glad to see I've acheived that much~--Shastakath (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The editor is referring to my revert of the edit they made, adding themselves to List of pen names. Prhartcom (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Doombot[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing—Doombot —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

GA queries[edit]

Hi Prhartcom. As a novice reviewer, I still have few doubts about reviewing GAs and am writing an essay where your answers will be summarised. Considering you seem to be experienced and a WikiProject GA watcher, would you kindly answer some questions I have regarding them in general? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Ugog Nizdast, of course I'm happy to help. You seem to be doing a fine job in your reviewing. Prhartcom (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Here are the questions, you can answer them here:
  1. Criteria 2c, 2d requires access to sources: should a reviewer avoid an article where they have not much access to any of the sources given? or fail it if the nominator has partial access themselves?
    Ugog Nizdast, first of all, I am not too worried about your capabilities, as you are conducting yourself quite competently over at the Public Storage article (I was involved in that article's GAR last year and I know the nominator; I can vouch for his abilities; I hope this GAN has a good conclusion soon). To answer your question, no, I would not avoid that kind of article, however it does require you to assume good faith that the unreachable, cited sources actually contain what the nominator says it does. (I wrote a featured article that cited only difficult-to-acquire books; my reviewers probably could not access my bibliography but they assumed good faith in my abilities.) One possible idea is something I did recently in a review: I picked a particular passage in the article, noted its source, then demanded that the nominator please go to that page of that source and double-check again for me now: Does it indeed say what is stated here? Prhartcom (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Criteria 3 requires subject knowledge: does that mean one being unfamiliar with the topic should not review it? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
    Again, no, I wouldn't say that it requires subject knowledge, although that certainly helps. Instead, the reviewer can simply demand to know from the nominator if they are positive that the article broadly covers the subject of the article and that nothing important is left out? Again, it comes down to good faith. (A Google search doesn't hurt either.) Hope this helps. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your encouragement, Public Storage is the most controversial review I've done so far. I'll maybe later take on more challenging articles.
Wikipedia:FA and GA answered queries is the essay which I've be developing, slowly and hopefully, it should be able to paint a clearer picture of both those processes; and helpful to others as well. Thanks for your answers, I've summarised and attributed them there. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Friendly suggestion[edit]

You should request semi-protection on your user page (and move protection, too). This will stop vandalism from easily occurring on your user page. Just thought I'd let you know ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Outhouse decoration[edit]

Barnstar-abc.png The Helping Hand Barnstar
In recognition of your kindness and patience with Zppix despite their resentment. Sam Sailor Talk! 17:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank-you, Sam Sailor, what an honor! All the best, —Prhartcom 20:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


Hi, Prharcom. I guess I just figured you had the page watchlisted, but I see after a few days you haven't been by Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics#Request for Comment: Quotes and italics on the issue of quote marks vs. italics for features. I know we might have different views, but since you were part of the initial discussion at Little Annie Fanny, it thought it was important that you weigh in at the RfC. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tenebrae, I had not noticed it; thank-you very much for the heads up! I will check in soon. —Prhartcom 19:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Anbe Sivam PR[edit]

Hello, Prhartcom. It's been a while, how's everything with you? I've listed the article for PR here as I wish to take it to FA. Feel free to leave comments. Thanks. Face-smile.svg  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ssven2, thank-you; I'll take a look soon. Thanks, —Prhartcom 05:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I noticed you've changed your signature. The heart symbol looks nice.:-)  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 05:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Great job on the article. I noticed the citations to sources are perfect. Good critical reception section. Personally, I have given up on PR, as titles tend to wait in the queue until their turn, at which point they are removed from the list and ignored. I would go ahead and submit to FA. Good luck, —Prhartcom 13:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kim Davis (county clerk)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kim Davis (county clerk) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Midnightblueowl, thanks for picking this up! I didn't intend for you to mention anything about you doing this for "quid pro quo" because that is forbidden for GA. I never intended it to be in exchange, for my review I just mentioned it hoping it would interest you. I would appreciate it if that could be removed, if possible. Best, —Prhartcom 19:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
It's forbidden? Who knew! Sure thing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Midnightblueowl, sorry, it's mentioned here and here, although they don't say the word forbidden. I've been involved in some discussions about it and it's generally agreed that it shouldn't be done (although if it came down to it, I would argue that it's okay to make an rare exception among colleagues as long as they don't make a habit of it which is what we're doing). I understand you want a 2nd opinion and that's fine. The person who answers it can follow the directions (that I wrote) under "Answering a second opinion" at WP:GANI. Did you see on the talk page that Curly Turkey gave it a look? Thanks, Midnightblueowl! It's exciting to work with you again. I hope a quality reviewer answers your call. Talk again soon, —Prhartcom 20:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Andrea Lubitz[edit]

I would recommend input on the DRV it looks like you are for a split. The information must be mentioned somewhere if not on the main article then a side article. Valoem talk contrib 02:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Mary Lou Bruner[edit]

Thanks for holding off to avoid the edit conflicts! I'm done for now. As you'll see, I've made a number of edits and left a note on the talk page as well. All the best --Neutralitytalk 16:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Institute for Advanced StudyArchive 1[edit]

Thanks Prhartcom. Result of a typo. I was in the process of asking for this to be deleted but you beat me to it.--Toploftical (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The intended (and correctly named) archive page now exists and I have restored the link to it. Sorry about the confusion.--Toploftical (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Toploftical, glad that worked out swiftly and painlessly. I had been doing WP:NPP. Best, —Prhartcom 18:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kim Davis (county clerk)[edit]

The article Kim Davis (county clerk) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk) 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 Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi there[edit]

Hi Prhartcom. I clicked through to your user page from the GA Nominations Talk page and noticed you were a network security professional, so I thought you might be interested in collaborating on the Blue Coat Systems page, where I have a COI (see here), as it is an IT security company. Right now I'm still digging into the source material and getting knowledgeable. CorporateM (Talk) 00:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, CorporateM. I took a look. I know the company; we're one of their competitors. I hadn't read the article yet, and it certainly needs a lot of work (i.e. laughably unclear in the last sentence of the lead). Sorry, but I'd be the last person who would even want to think about this company. —Prhartcom 03:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

history section on Jesus page[edit]

Back in winter as part of an admin dispute about the Jesus page, you said, "Now, I agree with you if you are saying scholarly commentary is being prevented from being added to the historical section when it goes against another editor's faith. No editor should let their faith cloud their adherence to policy. Remind us of any diffs where that is happening and I, for one, will side with you." I'm trying to improve the historical section, and predictably I'm getting pushback from an editor who works with a pro-christian slant. Here's a diff where he removes the mainstream view of the virgin birth related to Isaiah 7:14 (which had been requested on the talk page by two other editors) and restores disputed material that represents a minority, Christian-friendly view. In fact, the minority view is so out of the mainstream that leading experts say it's not even history. You said you would help. I'm just trying to get better history into the history section.

Three Talk threads on this topic: virgin birth discussion, minority views of virgin birth, mavericks.

Thanks in advance. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan Tweet, okay, I'm taking a look at it all now, although I have limited time today. I'm afraid I'm not an authority on the article subject and its sources as you are. I do continue to agree that editors on both sides of an issue shouldn't let their beliefs influence whether or not they adhere to Wikipedia policy. Should an editor try to assert that faith trumps policy, that would be wrong and I would help with that. I think what we're seeing is an assertion of consensus. I've seen the use of Wikipedia:Requests for comment help resolve what is consensus; perhaps a well-placed suggestion of its use on the article talk page is the answer. I'll start keeping an eye on the article and help if I can. If I see disadherence to policy, I'll revert the edit according to policy. Best, —Prhartcom 16:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for agreeing to look at it. It's not urgent. This is a problem that has been going on forever, so any time you can pitch in would be appreciated.
"'I'm afraid I'm not an authority on the article subject and its sources as you are.'" Mostly we need help assessing how much weight to give different views and how suitable RSs are for the historical section. We know the topic, but policy isn't being followed.
"Should an editor try to assert that faith trumps policy, that would be wrong" No editor will claim that their faith trumps RSs. Instead, certain editors prevent the historical view from being clearly stated. Sometimes they delete historical information. Sometimes they promote minority views as if they are equivalent to mainstream views.
"'I've seen the use of Wikipedia:Requests for comment help resolve what is consensus; perhaps a well-placed suggestion of its use on the article talk page is the answer.'" I've tried using these. The problem is that they emphasize how many editors feel one way or another and don't address policies, RSs, etc. So editors who are voting with their faith will take an anti-historical stance. It's really better to find editors who are familiar with policy and not emotionally invested in the topic. Like you, I hope. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Need to delete or change a redirect page[edit]

Hi Prhartcom - You seem like you know what you are doing in WP. Perhaps you can help. In consultation with other friends of Martin Gardner, it has been agreed that we should change the name of the page Gathering 4 Gardner, Inc. to the simpler and less legalistic name Gathering 4 Gardner. The problem is that the latter name is a redirect page to the first name. I know from experience that if I try to manually switch the contents of the two pages I would be breaking a rule having to do with transclusions or something. Can you help me? Everyone who has worked on the articles agrees. To be explicit: We want to have the second name be the name of the article, and the first name to be a redirect to it. Can you do this or, if not, advise me?--Toploftical (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Toploftical, sure. Please go to Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting technical moves and follow the directions there to request a move that you cannot do yourself for technical reasons (because the page already exists as a redirect) and that is uncontroversial (no one is likely to object). An administrator will soon work your request. Best, —Prhartcom 14:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you!--Toploftical (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Three years ago ...
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
... you were recipient
no. 564 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ShakleeLogo.gif[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:ShakleeLogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


Hi Prhartcom, I’ve just been having another look at your entry at WP:ORCP. It may well be time for you to take a serious decision now. Let me know what you think. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung, thank-you for the message. You have made me give this matter serious consideration. I have slowed my editing in recent months since I have taken a new, demanding job, but I would be honored to take you up on your generous offer to nominate me. My work will slow down by mid-November, so perhaps my RfA could begin Saturday, November 19th? I only hope that I honor you and the community should I be given this role. (P.S. You of course know about Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls?) All the best, —Prhartcom 14:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll email you to discuss this further. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

could you please be more careful...[edit]

In this edit you removed a wikilink with the edit summary: "Remove link to nothing." If you are planning to continue to be a quality control volunteer let me urge you to make sure you do so in compliance with the wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

We do not routinely remove redlinks -- wikilinks to "nothing". Policy only recommends removing them when the quality control volunteer has given meaningful thought as to whether the link in question is a plausible topic for a wikipedia article. This decision cannot be based on the volunteer's gut instinct. The volunteer has to be skilled enough to do a web search, and know how to interpret it, before they can reach an informed conclusion as to whether the redlink is implausible.

I reverted your first reckless edit.

You made a second edit, with the edit summary: "At least spell his name correctly".

I am concerned, first, because this is not an acknowledgement of your original error; second, because this edit also seems disruptive. I have added content that quoted, summarized or paraphrased Vladeck to some other articles -- but not this one. Some other contributor chose to use "Steve Vladeck", as opposed to "Stephen Vladeck". Personally, I have spelled his name as "Stephen", but "Steve" is also a perfectly defensible choice. Vladeck must be a nice guy, because other RS, who comment on his opinions, are comfortable to refer to him, in print, as "Steve Vladeck".

So, I reverted your second edit that also seemed reckless.

I don't know how long you have been contributing to the wikipedia. My contribution dates back to the golden age. Since then the wikipedia has been in a slow motion crisis. In 2007 there was a huge defection of the kind of contributors who add new intellectual content, or keep the existing intellectual content up to date. Articles are no longer being kept up to date. Lots of people who are concerned over this defection say they don't know what triggered it. I think the explanation is simple. Policy changes, and the introduction of overly poorful overly powerful automated editing tools changed the balance of catabolism and anabolism, making it too easy for the hard work of those who contribute or maintain intellectual content to do their work. Far too many quality control volunteers are extremely uncivil. Why should a hard-working volunteer keep working hard to keep the wikipedia up to date if that requires butting heads with quality control volunteers who make drive-by edits, like removing wikilinks without even doing a meaningful web search first, to see whether the link in question is to a topic that could plausibly be a policy compliant article?

Of course no one objects to well thought out quality control efforts, done with regard to being civil to the good faith contributors who added the content. But it is essential for those quality control volunteers to do their best to be civil. And it is essential for them to do their best to perform their activities carefully, and in conformance to policy and guideline.

If you really think you have a good reason to spell his name differently, why not offer that reason on the talk page? Geo Swan (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Geo Swan, as a long-time contributor (as I am also), you may know this discussion is supposed to take place on the article talk page. FYI, I wrote much of the Kim Davis article and took it to GA. Your edits appear to be a disruption of Wikipedia to make a point, as you reverted a perfectly correct improvement I made to match the spelling of his name. Thank-you for writing the Stephen Vladeck article and for realizing it needed to be linked from the Kim Davis page; I had not noticed the article existed before when I considered linking to his name last year, so thank-you; that is very helpful to the article. Best, —Prhartcom 15:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) That's a fairly offensive condescending tone from someone who writes "the wikipedia" and "overly poorful". Not to mention the verbose and inexplicable digression into things that have nothing to do with this editor or a change from "Steve" to "Stephen". I might well have made that particular edit. The article title is assumed to be the individual's WP:COMMONNAME, and there is no reason not refer to him using that common name. Hardly "reckless", as you recklessly assert. ―Mandruss  15:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Prhartcom. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to all![edit]

Johansen Viggo - Radosne Boże Narodzenie.jpg We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2017!
Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless! Face-smile.svg  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank-you, Ssven2! Merry Christmas to you and yours as well, and to all reading this! —Prhartcom 12:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)