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

A video showing the basics of Wikipedia's verifiability and neutral point of view policies.


Harvey Kurtzman's Little Annie Fanny[edit]

Hey. Since one of the points of the strip was that Annie would spend an inordinate amount of time naked, I'm thinking it would probably be more appropriate to have a nude image of her instead the one in the skirt that's now in the body. I might choose one that's also a panel with word ballons to show it more in context and demonstrate Kurtzman's writing. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe so. If we change it, I know just the image. I'm a little cold on the idea at the moment, not only because I worked hard on this one, but because I fancy the idea of all people, including women, enjoying the article. Thanks for the suggestion; let me think about it. As for the article, my plan is to tinker with it for a few more and days then nominate it for GA. Prhartcom (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
P.S. Thanks for the copy editing. But you're allowed to type more than five or six characters before saving, you know. At this rate the statistics are going to show you as the primary contributor. I've just never understood why editors do this. Is it because they don't know about the preview button or is it to get their edit count up? You don't have to answer, I'm just venting; wondering out loud. As for me, I type a little bit, preview it, type a little more, preview it, repeat about ten or twenty times, then save. Prhartcom (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
It's because I use Emacs to copyedit with, and the software seems to timeout between edits if they take too long, so I save frequently (typically every paragraph). There are tools that give contributions in number of bytes added rather than number of edits. But then, who's keeping track? If you take credit for the article and I don't object, who would object on my behalf? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, who's keeping track; I have always felt that way. Ah, I hadn't considered the possibility of other editing software that times out; that sucks; I would hate that; thanks for the explanation. I truly to appreciate the copy editing; please continue. Of course I need a second pair of eyes to objectively scrutinize the article, allowing it to rise as high as it possibly can, to say nothing of appreciating eyes that understand the subject matter. I don't say this often, but I think it all the time: I greatly respect any time you spend checking my work; thank-you. I recognize that you are required to be other places on Wikipedia and feel fortunate to work with such an expert. Prhartcom (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah, and I save often when editing from my smartphone, because it's so easy to touch a millimeter off target and lose your work. --Thnidu (talk) 05:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:Today's featured article/requests/Tintin in the Congo[edit]

Hi, I'm co-writing the TFA text with article nominators these days, and I made more tweaks than usual to this one; please have a look. Were any of my changes mysterious? Is anything left out you'd like to see put back in? - Dank (push to talk) 20:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Dank, How kind of you to delve in with such gusto! Thanks also for letting me know. I have made some changes, removing the image per discussion and touching up the blurb, hopefully highlighting the most interesting facts of the book (keeping it the correct length). Maybe this will make people want to click on it (I predict the article and talk page will have an interesting day that day). What do you think, is it there? Make any further changes you feel are best. I meant to say also that I really like your additions, and I believe will be adding them to the lede of the article. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
My pleasure ... I enjoyed working on your last Tintin article at FAC. My reactions to your edit are complex, here's the short version: I only got the job of editing the TFA text at the start of this month, so I haven't had long enough to get the process to work the way I want it to. It's not best, in my view, for nominators to make all the decisions on text, because the Main Page gets 10 million hits a day ... since we've got a different readership and a larger readership, and since we have very little room (a little over 1200 words) to explain ourselves carefully, some of the decisions on wording are going to be different. In particular, I'm avoiding dog-whistle words like "racist". Also, I don't believe your last sentence is a fair characterization of the article text. I'm more concerned about the bigger problem of what kind of process will work best than I am about this particular TFA nomination ... this just happens to be the first time I've had a disagreement with one of the writers. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 21:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Dank, I'm so glad you have a feel for this kind of thing; for how the general public is likely to respond; whether you think you are are new at it or not, you have a better feel for it than me—your explanation above makes a lot of sense and I am extremely comfortable with you having the final say and changing it again according to what you feel is best. Having said that, I too think I have a vague sense for what is interesting, so that is why I swapped the boring tale of the 40-year-old reprint for the exciting tale of the 21st century human attitude conflict. I'm sure you understand both what I mean and what you need to do, and will achieve the perfect balance required! (Besides, Gerda is the nominator and Midnightblueowl is the primary contributor; I'm mostly just standing around nearby.) Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks much for your patience, I replied over there. - Dank (push to talk) 03:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for responding! I was very surprised to see some of my Request Edits actually getting responses from random editors, rather than me having to chase down an editor I know. I see the Request Edit backlog has also shrunk and is more active, which is great!

If it interests you, I have quite a few other Request Edits varying in complexity; There is already agreement to implement a couple of them such as here (see edits described here), but are merely waiting for someone to actually make the edit. CorporateM (Talk) 20:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You're very welcome CorporateM; happy to help with Nestlé Purina PetCare. There was a moment during the article's GA review when the reviewer needed some ammunition for a particular point and requested outside assistance (on another Talk page), and I was happy to provide this assistance, so I have been watching this article since. Great job and congrats on the GA.
By the way, I hope there is no issue with your own username re: WP:CORPNAME. I'll leave the matter alone; you will not see me questioning anything whatsoever, but I bring it up for your own information (you are probably already aware anyway). You have certainly done an admirable job writing in a neutral voice and preventing any conflict of interest (if indeed there would be any), which is so much more than I can say for so many other situations I have seen.
How can I help you with the edit you mention? I took a glanced at both links and am sometimes a bit thick, but it looks like you are given permission by Crisco 1492 (a good editor, by the way) to go ahead and make the edits you requested. Prhartcom (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
My username stands for "Corporate Minion" - not sure what you mean about username policies.
Yah, it's a rare find to come across an editor like Crisco, who does not have his/her judgment clouded by a COI disclosure. Some editors will make whatever edits a COI requests in the name of AGF, while others are overly defensive and oppose edits arbitrarily. user:SamWilson989 is actually the one that gave me a "go ahead" template, but I pointed out that while most of the edits are mundane or copyediting, some of them touch on controversial issues (lawsuits, etc.). I make direct edits a lot for mundane stuff, like the many copyedits or clarifications that come up during a GA review, but I don't think it's appropriate in this case. Maybe Crisco will get your ping and do the merge themselves though. Sam also said they would merge the content, so maybe someone will ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 21:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe that is not a good example, because there are already multiple eyes on it and I should have followed up with them. I do have a couple very mundane ones here and here that are pretty simple and obvious types of cases with no pre-existing discussion as of yet. CorporateM (Talk) 21:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll get round to it soon enough, I've just learnt recently that setting yourself targets on Wikipedia is futile as there's always something else added to the list. I've been trying to sort out the mess that once was and still is the Angevin Empire. 100kb of stuff needs to be cut down but I've spent all week just trying to find references for it all. I have history books up to my ears around me, so sorry if I take a tad longer to do that Yelp article. I like having the challenge though so much appreciated. Also I believe User:Prhartcom was referring to the fact that your name could be interpreted as an actual name of a business or office, which isn't allowed, but evidently your name doesn't fall into that category. SamWilson989 (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I wish I was a corporate minion. Prhartcom (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@SamWilson989 For a big topic like that, books are probably going to be your best bet for quality sources. Google Books looks to have a lot of good sources on it. Often Google only gives you a preview, but you can find a used copy of the book for $5 or something trivial, or borrow it from a library. I have a small pile of books from my work on History of public relations. CorporateM (Talk) 22:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
That's exactly what I have done also, CorporateM. The pile is growing taller. Prhartcom (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


You know, since that logo's free, you're not restricted by size limitation. If there's a larger scan of the cover out there, you could use that and has a crisper-looking logo file. Also, it could be transferred to Commons. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought. I've already uploaded it a few times. Crisco 1492 is against it and the image may be deleted from the blurb again soon, so I think it's fine for now. Prhartcom (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Beyond: Two Souls[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Beyond: Two Souls 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 Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


Hugh Hefner 1966.jpg

What do you think of this pic of Hef? Someone just uploaded it this month. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Sweet! Non-crappy, one decade older, and already added. Nice find! One problem: what do I do about how it extends down into the references like Crisco 1492 warned against? Prhartcom (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
You could move it to where File:Annie-Fanny.png is now—I seriously think that one's superfluous and awkward, and Hef would fit better in the "Creation" section anyways. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, if you ever happen to come across a free Hef image from the early '90s, let me know—I'd like to add one to The Playboy. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I have been asked to reduce the nude Annie image a bit.
I will, should I find such a thing. I just found out about searching for Wikipedia-acceptable free images on Flickr, and just tried there, but no 1990s Hef (I found others). (If you'd like to know how to search, go to their advanced search, type in your key words, scroll down, and click "Only search within Creative Commons" and "Find content to use commercially") Prhartcom (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about image sizes—there are bots that go around automatically reducing Fair Use images to an appropriate size (I think the rule of thumb is dimensions less than 500px). Oh, and you have to be careful with Flickr—plenty of people upload copyrighted images and throw "free" licences on them, even though they don't have permission to do so. A "free" licence notice on Flickr usually means absolutely nothing unless the copyright is held by the uploader (another thing they can claim without having to prove). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect. I got the policy clear in my own head after I saw the notice. This file had been 400px wide (about a fourth of the original size) but the policy states a non-free image is approximately 100,000 pixels total (see WP:IMAGERES). The bot renames the file and replaces the Wikipedia uploader's name with it's name, so it's best to get it right ourselves. I took care of it a few minutes ago. No, there's nothing wrong with using Flickr as long as the policy is followed to the letter (see WP:FLICKR). I used the tool to move a file from Flickr Commons to Wikipedia Commons this past weekend for a different article. Prhartcom (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The issue with Flickr is that they do nothing to ensure that the people uploading images actually have the right to do so under the licence the uploaders claim. Try it: scan a photo you like and upload it to Flickr with the licence of your choice. Then you're in a position to transfer it to Commons, because you found it under a free licence. Many of the uploaders don't understand copyright and so they just take credit for the images they upload, thinking they're only taking credit for uploading them, when they're actually "claiming" copyright. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, understood, which could just as easily happen here on our Commons as well. That's no reason to craft an argument with the goal of causing editors to avoid this resource. Hundreds of thousands of Flickr images have been transferred over to Commons. Used sensibly, I'm sure it's no better or worse any tool. Prhartcom (talk) 07:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Your question[edit]

Hi there. I saw your question on WP:AN3, and thought I'd respond to you here. It's kind of hard to give a general advice on this, as it depends very much on how other users disagree. Do they revert all changes; do they ignore any discussion or attempts to reach out on their talkpage; do their edits contain reliable sources, and so on. WP:DDE gives a good, but rather long guide on how to deal with this. But if a user decides to ignore discussions and/or consensus and instead push their version of an article, isn't that the same as being disruptive?

That's my opinion at least, but as I said it all depends on the circumstances. If you have a specific example I'd be happy to take a look at it. Bjelleklang - talk 08:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you, Bjelleklang, your opinion matters to me, as I try to emulate the behavior of an administrator (maybe I will be one someday). Thank-you also for showing me WP:DDE; I hadn't seen that before; I just finished reading it. You are right to say the answer depends on specifics. I posted at that particular edit war because I had been advising one of the editors, urging for calmness, for the issue which has been going on for a few weeks now. If I describe how other users disagree, will you do me the honor of replying again with your thoughts? Picture an editor who researched and wrote a paragraph filled with reliable sources that summarizes news reports describing background information of a world-famous contentious news event. Now picture three other editors who do not research or write anything but simply object to the inclusion of the paragraph. To make it easier, assume that the paragraph of first editor is well-written and follows every Wikipedia policy and guideline, yet the very mention of some of its facts tend to make some people uncomfortable. So we have the following motivations: the first editor wants to make an article more factual, the second editor objects to this perhaps because of their nationality, the third editor objects to this perhaps because of liberal or conservative viewpoints, and the third editor objects to this simply because they actually enjoy objecting. Also to make it easier, assume no one is behaving civilly to each other or assuming of good faith to one other. Assume everyone is discussing, but assume no one is listening. Now, if I were the first editor, I would give up; I simply couldn't win against people who have made it their life's work to silence me. What do you think? Update: If I may, I wish to alleviate any concerns you may have now that you know this is based on a real-life event (as most stories are), and any concerns you may have about my motivations: I ask your advice only in case something like this ever happens to me. If anyone from the real event reads this talk page I can't stop them, but I don't plan on running around speaking to anyone about this, pointing to this page. I ask only because, if it were to happen to me, I can see only one strategy for myself: LOSE. That doesn't seem right, and I wondered if there is another way. I think I will now re-read WP:DDE to see if it is there. Thanks again very much for your further advice. Prhartcom (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you disregard the incivility; if you have tried to include a section that's relevant, accurate, neutral and based on reliable sources, the other editors must present valid reasons not to include it. If you've tried to discuss it but gotten no response, or counterarguments similar to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, you should still be able to include it. If they still revert, I'd either try to get a 3rd opinion or take it to WP:ANI depending on the situation. If this is an ongoing case, please let me know so I can take a look for you (if you want me to that is). Bjelleklang - talk 06:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Bjelleklang, that's helpful; I have been here a while but don't have this kind of experience, so it is good for me to know this. Reading WP:DE has also been helpful, and your advice seems to mirror the guidelines. I especially like how it explains that the first editor should methodically find other editors to join his side so that they are all reverting the reverts of the disruptive editors (assuming one can actually find other editors who will help; probably easier said than done). Thank-you for offering to take a look at the real-life situation on which I modeled my hypothetical question.
Prhartcom (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Please don't get me wrong, but getting a 3rd opinion isn't about finding as many people to help revert to your version as possible, as it could be construed as canvassing and/or edit warring unless the case is clear-cut. The RFC Curly Turkey started is a good way to move forward (as you noted yourself), the discussion with Moor (section 5) at the talkpage is also an excellent example of dealing with an editor seemingly refusing to discuss, and raising complaints at WP:ANI is also a good step to take. Unfortunately he/she became involved in an edit war and everything changed. The best thing to do is probably to ask for full protection on the article (which I'm going to do at the first sign of EW starting up again), trash everything that's been discussed before and start afresh. If nothing else, disruptive editors that fight to avoid change will have to respond to any edit requests with actual arguments, otherwise they'll be ignored and the edit request likely to be approved. Bjelleklang - talk 20:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank-you, no, you can be relieved to hear that I wasn't thinking that. I understood that, by following the process, other reasonable editors are bound to join you at your side against the unreasonable editors with the "unlimited energy" that I first despaired about (assuming the process really does cause other editors to help you, which I still slightly worry about). So that is the answer to my original question: Follow the process and you won't be alone.
As for the real-life situation, it is encouraging to me to hear you describe steps you personally are going to take on this article. Encouraging, because again, I don't want the bullies to win. Thank-you, Bjelleklang. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The Other Woman (2014 film)[edit]

Hello Prhartcom! Will you please take a look at The Other Woman (2014 film)? Should I take it to the Peer Review or just need a copy-edit? I've already nominated it but reviewer failed it due to some issues, I think. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 15:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Captain Assassin!, I appreciate that you trust me enough to come to me for an honest opinion. I looked over the review of this article that was expertly provided to you by Sock. I see the problem, and it is just as you state yourself: You are not a native speaker of English, and therefore your lack of writing skill in that language is preventing you from bringing an article to GA. Certainly there is no problem at all with your excellent attitude, your research abilities, or your intelligence (three areas in which many editors seem to be lacking but they can at least write in fluent English). In Wikipedia:Competence is required.
There is really only one solution for you: Become a better writer of the English language. As hard as this may be to hear, English Wikipedia is written by editors who are fluent in English and read by people who expect it to be written in fluent English. Many of your responses typed in your own words on this GA1 review page are mostly unintelligible to a fluent English speaker. I urge you to not submit another article for GA until you are sure you are not going to cause a reviewer to spend their time laboriously typing out a review telling you this same advice yet again. In the case of this article, Sock went to a great deal of trouble giving you tips and advice to become a better writer and then saw no response from you. Are you committed to becoming a better writer or not? If you are, then my suggestion is to begin by becoming a better reader: Take a break from writing and pick up a well-written book in the English on any topic that appeals to you, and read it. Pay attention to English grammar and style in the book. Then do it again with another book you've been meaning to read. Then again. That's what most of us have already done: We can write in English because we have read a lot of English. When you are ready to return to writing, start by writing collaboratively with other fluent English speakers, asking them to give you feedback on your newly-improved skills. Soon you will be ready to submit to GA again. Best of luck! With your excellent attitude, your research abilities, and your intelligence, I have no doubt you will succeed. Prhartcom (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much, that's really nice of you. It's a good advice for me and I'm going to act upon it. I know I'm good with my research abilities but it's nothing without a good writing which I'll do better one day. So, I'll just stick to writing new articles from now on and give more time to reading. Hope, I'll be a good writer. Thanks again. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 16:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
You will, but no writing, new articles or otherwise; stick to reading, reading, and more reading for awhile, like I said. Only then allow yourself to return to writing, and then only with collaboration and feedback. You'll succeed. Prhartcom (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah, you probably meant that you would "avoid" writing new articles from now on; I understand now. Prhartcom (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah sure, that's why I usually work in the "draft" space to avoid mistakes. But I'll follow your advice. Thanks for all. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 03:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mannatech[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mannatech 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 CorporateM -- CorporateM (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Beyond: Two Souls[edit]

The article Beyond: Two Souls you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Beyond: Two Souls 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 Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks (from Midnightblueowl)[edit]

Hey Prhartcom; just wanted to say thanks for the message that you posted to my talk page. I'm not really sure how to respond to the user's strange request, but I think that your comment there has certainly helped (I pretty much agree with everything that you stated). I'm also planning on sending The Secret of the Unicorn soon (I've left it far too long), so if you have the time do keep an eye out and make any corrections to the prose and such as I revise it. Best for now ! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I meant the message before your most recent one... We must have been composing our posts at the same time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
You're quite welcome Midnightblueowl, and I don't think you need to bother to reply to them, since my intention was to take care of it for you. If they post a reply to my note on your page, I can defend you again and take care of replying to them again; I am happy to. Thanks very much for this note of thanks; it made my day. P.S. I'm pretty interested in reading your reply to my new note on your page (assuming you haven't already replied while I typed this, that is!). As always, cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you (from Midnightblueowl)[edit]

Hello! Just want to say thanks for the changes that you made as a result of the GAN of Secret. I've been super-busy the past couple of days and just haven't had a chance to sit down and deal with them, so thank you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I am at your service, Midnightblueowl. You may rely on me. Prhartcom (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Your DYK ?[edit]

Camille Pissarro - lost in the forrest

Is anyone reviewing your video-game DYK? If not I can take it. --Hafspajen (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you very much, Hafspajen; it is here, your choice is ALT1 or ALT3, and it just needs the elusive tick mark. Congrats on your own article and DYK, very nice work. Prhartcom (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • While playing as Aiden, the game becomes monochromatic. - do you mean that the screen is entirely transforms into green, orange or blue - or you mean - it is black and white with an aura of green, orange or blue?
It means the screen image is transformed almost entirely into black and white. The player does see auras of various colors if there is interactivity there.Prhartcom (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Is this thing - Lacking material form or substance - or is said to be a dead person?
Sorry, what is this phrase above? It is not from the article, so I don't understand...?
Update: Ah, now I understand you when you clarified (nearly last sentence below). Prhartcom (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Prhartcom (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Could you just please reword this: marking only the second time the film festival recognised a video game . I took me twice to read it before I got it. The hooks are better formulated about this statment. I think only the second - is that makes one get confused a bit.
You are so right, I have changed to the article match the hook exactly. Prhartcom (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hafspajen (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Can't notice any severe issues. What's the problem? Hafspajen (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank-you so much for taking the time to copy edit, Hafspajen! Does the DYK now meet with your approval? If so, please provide the {{subst:DYKtick}} in front of your comment at this page stating all criteria are met (Say that GA, date, sources, neutrality, originality, QPQ, and hook are verified). State that you prefer ALT 3 and then say "Good to go.") Rhain1999 has not returned; you are taking over. Thank-you again! Prhartcom (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
1)I am confused by the DYK-NO tick. Wonder if it is a misunderstanding. So I asked on the page the previous rev. If I don't get any response in 24 hours I will give it the green tick.
OR - you can ask for a new rev, in that case place {{subst:DYK?again}} Symbol redirect vote 4.svg - ant then it is perfectly acceptable. Oficially aceptable asking for a new person. And that's fine.
Thank-you, I have taken your advice and placed the request mark on the page, as the other two reviewers apparently feel they did their QPQ just by commenting and apparently do not plan to return. Prhartcom (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
2) OK, I get that now. If the the screen image is transformed almost entirely into black and white, but the player does see auras of various colors if there is interactivity there - who is the one who can notice them then? *While playing as Aiden, the game becomes monochromatic. Interactive objects are highlighted by an aura shining in one of several colours, - means somedody can notice them. Hafspajen (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you are saying. Yes, the player is seeing from the ghost Aiden's point of view, the image on the screen is monochromatic, and then suddenly a coloured aura is spotted "amongst the shades of greys," a phrase which I have just added to to article to clarify. Prhartcom (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
3) Aiden is said to be a dead person - or a kind of entity lacking material form or substance - or? Hafspajen (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes exactly, no material form or substance, "incorporeal" as said in the article. If I should define incorporeal please let me know. Thank-you for the beautiful painting! It brightens up the place in here! Prhartcom (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I have now linked to "incorporeal". Prhartcom (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you, Hafspajen, I see that you have approved it, thank-you again! Prhartcom (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarifications ... also the .. You said in the lead that it was a ghost ... maybe you could change it, because that is per definition a dead person - kinda haunting....Hafspajen (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Excellent point Hafspajen, I remember someone else inserted that and I did not object, but I see now it causes confusion; I have changed it. It is so valuable having a "second pair of eyes". Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Kona Lanes[edit]

You're a reviewer ... Face-grin.svgATinySliver/ATalkPage 23:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Fatemi127[edit]

At the moment, the page is still showing up as one of the junk listings in the untagged uncats tool. I tried deleting it and manually recreating it instead, but neither of those actions caused the page to drop either. Even as a deleted page, the duplicate "mainspace" metadata file is still there — so my take on the situation is that unfortunately, it's simply beyond the ability of WP:RFD to fix, but is a technical server issue that's going to take more than just a page deletion to resolve. There's an open bug report on the problem, so unfortunately we're just going to have to wait for the bugfix team to figure out how to solve it. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you for the update, Bearcat, glad to hear that it has been reported to the appropriate team and that they have an open bug report on it (curious if there is a public URL to that ticket?). You did everything you could. Until the other team fixes it, we'll just have to see that guy's username every time we start typing someone else's. Face-smile.svg.


I'm really sorry about that. I responded to your first mail, and then logged out and back into my regular email account, so I didn't notice your response. I'm taking a look at the PDF now. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Beyond: Two Souls[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Help , please[edit]

This user Uaat , , Vandalism a lot of article for a long time , can you stop this guy ? thank you ViPremierce (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

ViPremierce, I see what you mean. I have warned the editor at their talk page. You should also write a message on the user's talk page, approaching the editor in good faith, calmly state your disagreement, and ask them to discuss the reason for their edits with you now before making additional disruptive edits. Try to resolve the issue according to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If this fails, the matter may need to be taken to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents where all of their actions as well as all of your actions will be reviewed. If you need help, return here and I will do what I can to help. Prhartcom (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

ViPremierce is a sockpuppet of a long term abuse case, see



Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bbtregervdfv/Archive--Uaat (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Uaat, I notice that the actions of the sock puppet mentioned in the investigation you provide are similar to the actions of this user, who recently acquired a new editing account, and I have warned the user of possible sock puppetry at their talk page. If sock puppetry is taking place, the offense is serious. You should also write a message on the user's talk page, approaching the editor in good faith, calmly state your disagreement, and ask them to discuss the reason for their edits with you now before making additional edits. Try to resolve the issue according to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If this fails, the matter may need to be taken to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents where all of their actions as well as all of your actions will be reviewed. If you need help, return here and I will do what I can to help. Prhartcom (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

This user Uaat , always Vandalism a lot of article , see his Contributions ViPremierce (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, this user ViPremierce has just been indefinitely blocked. Prhartcom (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar is awarded to those that show a pattern of going the extra mile to be nice, without being asked. Guy Macon (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
How nice, thanks, Guy Macon! And I love your depiction of a "A Wikipedia Content Dispute". Prhartcom (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Tintin reversion[edit]

Thank you for reverting that <sup></sup> insertion of mine on Hergé. It certainly wasn't intentional. The best I can figure is that I must have accidentally clicked on that button in "Wiki markup" in the editing bar below the edit window. I'm sorry for the trouble. --Thnidu (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It's all good, thanks for stopping by to mention that. I'm still reviewing the changes you made to The Adventures of Tintin ensuring everything we ever write comes is from a reliable source and is not original research. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course you want to check that, and kudos to you for doing so, but there's no OR in my edits. It's possible that one or two bits came from an article on a specific Tintin book, though. To discuss this, please {{Ping}} me. --Thnidu (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Research Publication on Carreidas 160, Paper Aircraft[edit]

Re your comments on my page regarding research : There is a fine line between original researched and informed expert evaluation. This is coupled with my reciprocal concern that simply overwriting a resource will have repercussions, both for the page and your own reputation. A page that has had a long-standing acceptance by the majority of Wikipedia readers for a considerable period of time does in a very real sense constitute a group acceptance - in this case for nearly a decade.

Readers and contributors who have, over a period of time, contributed to a page, will certainly be dismayed at your simply overwriting and deleting their contributions. Where the contributions are in flat-out error, this is generally accepted, or corrected over time, and the detail of the page improved.

Where someone such as yourself overwrites/deletes data in page without a concomitant improvement in content, what tends to happen over time is that readers who found content useful and which they could relate and support will trawl the history of the page, and re-instate over time. In addition, they will also regard your actions as high handed and poor when no equivalent level of good content replacement occurs. I am telling you nothing new I am sure.

What I would urge you to do, besides your very short comment to me, is identify in better detail than you have to what your objections might be - remember that when addressing myself and other contributors is that we have read the books as well and as often as you have, and in my case have been exposed in addition to Air International and Air Enthusiast magazines between 1972 and 1990, when they were truly at the height of their powers. I have no doubt that Roger Leloup was as well, and of course he would have had much exposure to the actual hardware at the Paris Airshow at Le Bourget during the period. This is not a guess - its a near certainty, should it need to be confirmed. Going further, someone like me will immediately be able to spot and correctly identify the influences in design for C160. It now becomes a fine line issue - where do we draw it ? When correct about the design lineage features, this can be both research (based on references to pages within Wikipedia e.g. to the Mirage G) and non-original. A question of public consensus then becomes the arbiter - and I must caution you that your changes based on your own opinion are likely to be steamrollered by public consensus. Again, I am telling you nothing new I am sure.

Moving on, I am the last flyer of the Paper Pilot gliders, and if you wish ISBN numbers, done and done. Ditto White Wings, where I am sure I may be the last as well. In regards to originality, Prof. E.H. Mathews correspond on a fairly regular basis, so its both original and reliable research - certainly, besides my own work in CAD, Prof. Mathews work was the most serious state of the art work done on paper models. He is eminently contactable through the University of the Witwatersrand, though he is retired these days and only teaches some classes and gives symposia on thermodynamics there.

I've been meaning to re-write the article on Paper Aeroplanes for some time, and despite your rather vague guidelines I will be doing a considerably better job that you can. I have been building and constructing highly complex paper models since the age of 4 (thus for 32 years), pioneering many unique structural innovations, such as the scaled Northrop spar for wing construction, variable pitch props for models, the micro-scale paper Cierva autogyro rotor head. Despite not being published for these innovations, its safe to say I am an expert in my field, using CAD as my primary design tool these days.

I therefore look forward to receiving a complete list of your objections, detailed, so that we may discuss them and then implement an improved page contents that will have the endurance level that my contributions have so far enjoyed with the community at large.

With thanks, and looking forward to your response. Deepshark (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Deepshark, thank-you for your detailed response. It is not my opinion that states editors cannot use their original research, it is core Wikipedia policy, stated here: Wikipedia:No original research. We cannot do it. Instead, everything we contribute to Wikipedia must come from reliable secondary sources (i.e. notable aviation publications) and cited, stated here: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. I respect your aviation expertise, but we cannot write from our expertise. Not ever. Yes, I know you put your material on the Flight 714 article years ago, but it has to go for that reason. Please read the policy before commenting further, and then I'm happy to answer any questions you have. I don't suppose you have an answer to my question, where we can find additional reliable online sources for the Carreidas 160? I have nearly completed the new article in my sandbox (here) and you can see the sources I am currently using. With your expertise, I'm guessing you know of others. Let me know, Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


Yes. precious again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Red Rackham's Treasure[edit]

Would you like me to review Red Rackham's Treasure? SFriendly.svgSsven2 speak 2 me 07:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ssven2, thanks for the congrats! Perhaps so, although that article was improved and nominated by Midnightblueowl; I have only been supporting her in the process. P.S. I have a GAN here, if you are interested. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Unicorn (ship)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Unicorn (ship) 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 Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Warning on my talkpage[edit]

I assume the warning you left regarding my edit was a mistake? ;) ;) Orphan Wiki 01:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphan Wiki, This was indeed a mistake; I thought I was warning the person you reverted, so sorry. Prhartcom (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey no problem whatsoever, we all make mistakes every so often. :) Best wishes, Orphan Wiki 10:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Unicorn (ship)[edit]

The article Unicorn (ship) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Unicorn (ship) 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 Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


While I recognize that I've contributed to these problems, editors like Epeefleche and MoorNextDoor only manage to convince me that trying to kiss and make up makes one look like a chump. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I stopped following whatever is happening because I do not respect the behavior of the editors involved. Had you from the start maintained the demeanor of, say an administrator, I would have continued to follow and would have stepped in if necessary, the way you and everyone else stepped in on the Congo talk page. Next time stay cool, calm, collected, smart, and right.
I just checked your page, and I must inform you that the other person is obviously trying to apologize and extend an olive branch. That is the opportunity to do the same.
I hear what you are saying though, Curly Turkey. Speaking as a male also, I believe the problem you are describing flows from ego. My advice is shelve it. Then things don't seem as important. An apology to the other person doesn't hurt if there's no ego involved. I try to think about what the other person wants, then give them something that they want. Make the other person want to respect you just by your tone, actions, and personification of wisdom. Walk away from any bad situation; it will be fine.
I see that the person you mention above walked away for two weeks and is now starting fresh. Good for him; I wish him well. People deserve a second shot. Prhartcom (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The Sirens and Ulysses by William Etty, 1837[edit]

The Sirens and Ulysses by William Etty, 1837.jpg
I just reviewed it for GA and decided to hang it here too. Prhartcom (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Why such high edit counts?[edit]

For some time now, I've wondered why some editors makes their changes to articles in tiny edits, saving repeatedly. Edits like this are not uncommon, where a dozen similar edits follow. Honestly, why? Cannot the edits that need to be done be accumulated, repeatedly using the Preview button instead of the Save button, then finally hitting the Save button at the end of the edit session? Or perhaps I am the one that is doing it wrong; perhaps I should save every few sentences? Prhartcom (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Seven Crystal Balls[edit]

I suggest you take the article to FA as it has the potential. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy to, if Midnightblueowl would like to. Prhartcom (talk) 06:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


Would you do me a favour? Can you copyedit Enthiran, an article which I plan to take to FA. It has finished its PR before FAC earlier today. Just need the prose to be copyedited as two users recommended it in the PR. Thanks. Face-smile.svgSsven2 Speak 2 me 14:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Ssven2, since it contains a photo of Aishwarya Rai, how could I not? It will have to wait for the weekend; I am studying now for a big technical exam. Please paste "{{Peer review|archive=1}}" into the top line of the Talk page. Prhartcom (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Ssven2, I only just processed that you said it has already achieved its Peer Review, so cancel that request about the Talk page notice. Did the peer reviewers not copy edit the prose for you? I suppose I can give it an unofficial review if they did not review it. Update: I have just read their comments and see the extensive comments you have already received, including the numerous comments that requested that you trim the article. Have you done this? I don't want to do the work that they asked you to do. I see that there are many sections in this article, not a bad thing, and that each section is of a fair length, but perhaps some trimming of some of the longer sections is still in order. Prhartcom (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Yep, I have resolved most of their comments except the copyedit as I told both the users that it would be done after the PR. The Peer reviewers did make a few minor edits and, as I mentioned earlier the comments made by the two users regarding the copyedit were before the trimming done by me yesterday. I had trimmed a massive portion of the article, (the link to the version of the article that passed its GA review is here) and asked about it to Dr. Blofeld and another editor, Crisco1492. Both said it was ok and manageable. I just need to make the article's Prose look better. A general copyedit. After seeing your detailed and exquisite prose in The Seven Crystal Balls, I thought I might make a copyedit request to you. Thanks for the wonderful compliment that you have written beneath the barnstar BTW. Regarding your above comment about Ash, she hardly has anything to do in the film except look good, but she does have her moments. Her costumes in the film's song sequences are really good though. Do check them out on Google when you have the time. I am more a fan of the hero. Face-smile.svgSsven2 Speak 2 me 16:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
By stating "trimming of some of the longer sections is still in order.", you mean the production and plot sections right? — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 16:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It's alright if you don't want to do a copyedit to the article, dear Prhartcom. But, as I said, after seeing your detailed and exquisite prose in The Seven Crystal Balls, I imply couldn't resist making a copyedit request to you. It was one of the best articles I have ever seen. I have also wondered, why didn't you add about Charles Wiener's book mentioned by Farr for the Incan material inspirations? Is it for the Prisoners of the Sun? Face-smile.svgSsven2 Speak 2 me 07:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ssven2, no, I'm just busy yesterday and today, like I said, and I can take the time to give it a copy edit tomorrow and the next day. Remember, Midnightblueowl is the one who did the primary research and writing of the article, like I said, I am just supporting her in her incredible efforts by copy editing, correcting, writing the Synopsis and Adaptations sections, and making all of the Tintin articles consistent. I would not push her into doing anything; just let her work in her own way, all right? I hadn't yet noticed the missing mention of the explorer; it may need to be added to Sun. Prhartcom (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'll let her work her way as you have said and also help you two like The Castafiore Emerald by expanding the remaining Tintin articles. Currently, I am working on The Calculus Affair. I was merely asking whether you two have reserved Farr's description for Prisoners of the Sun or not. Face-smile.svgSsven2 Speak 2 me 15:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Ssven2, I am looking over the article now and making notes for you. I am so glad to see the difficult work of copy editing the broken English has recently been done. Prhartcom (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Prhartcom, I'll open up the FAC and you can post the rest of your queries there. What do you think? Or else you continue with the informal review? SFriendly.svgSsven2 Speak 2 me 12:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Ssven2, I'm continuing now; do what you want, as long as you think it's stable and you have your introductory text ready. Sorry about my slow pace; I can only work on it for about an hour at a time. I doubt the text is ready below the point I am working, but otherwise the article is in terrific shape. I was going to warn you about one aspect of FAC that you may have already heard about and which is unfortunately completely outside your control: Sometimes the reviewers at FAC may ignore a particular candidate for reasons unknown. It's happening now to an Australian editor friend of mine who worked very hard and has been waiting for months, it has happened to Midnightblueowl, and many others. Sometimes it just sits there. I've seen FACs that have an introductory text that says something like, "Nominating again after it was ignored twice before, maybe three times lucky!" Good luck! Prhartcom (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well, the article has failed its FAC, not because of prose, but due to WP:PUNC and MOS:LQ issues. I was hoping you would conduct a formal PR at the article's 2nd PR. Do let me know. Thanks. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 05:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that, after all your work, and for those reasons? FA can be a painful experience. I had lost track of this article as I have not had time to edit much lately; I still cannot commit to any projects right now. Prhartcom (talk) 05:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
It was actually withdrawn by me on the advice of fellow editors. IMHO, such issues were kind of silly. They have now been resolved. As I said, do let know if you would like to make any copyediting changes to the article. Face-smile.svgSsven2 Speak 2 me 05:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
In recognition of your work for The Seven Crystal Balls. Face-smile.svgSsven2 Speak 2 me 07:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Ssven2! You are a kind soul and a worthy editor of the Tintin articles yourself! Of course, Midnightblueowl did the primary research and writing on this article. When I have a little more time, I would like to complete some of the half-finished Tintin articles I have started, perhaps working with you or Midnightblueowl if she wishes. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Kurtzman coming up[edit]

Here's chapter 19 of Bill Schelly's upcoming book. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, great, thanks; I'll give it a read this weekend. Prhartcom (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: 2011 White House shooting[edit]

But.. I do think that image of Sullivan is not great. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, isn't it one of those official photos? Not much we can do. I hadn't really noticed. Luckily for this FAC, the photo is certainly a free image; that's all they care about. Thanks for trying to help. Prhartcom (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
What do you think of this edit? If not a fan, I will revert as well. I'm just testing and this will not be seen as instability. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't really like it; the images of the directors are now too close to the aerial image of the While House. I would defer to User:Freikorp. Is there a good reason for this fiddling? If not, change it back. Prhartcom (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, I reverted. I thought the previous version put the image captions at bit closer to where their names are mentioned in the prose, and it avoided breaking the section heading line below. Freikorp can decide if he has a preference. I'll stop fiddling with the article. Was just testing, really. ----Another Believer (Talk) 05:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, neither version is perfect, one breaks the section heading below, and the other does look a bit too close to the aerial image now that you mention it, so I don't really have a preference. And while I appreciate that the Sullivan image is of poor quality, reducing it by that small amount didn't really help much unfortunately, it's a shame there isn't a better quality image of him. Thanks anyway. Freikorp (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Of course it only breaks the section heading below for some users depending on browser, window size, and minimise/maximise. It doesn't break it for me. I suppose there's only so much we can do. The larger point is: I don't think this is an issue that will interest the FAC review. Prhartcom (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Will Elder and Harvey Kurtzman, 1962.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Will Elder and Harvey Kurtzman, 1962.jpg. 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. Stefan2 (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Committee for the Defence of National Interests[edit]


I have dealt with your concerns about the above. Please reconsider your recommendations. And thank you for reviewing.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi; I just posted my response seconds earlier; we must have been cross-addressing each other. Let me know when you are ready for me to take another look at it and let me know if I can clear up anything; I am happy to help. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Changes to George Harrison, Ringo Starr, and John Lennon[edit]

I only added "Sir" to the other members of the Beatles as they have MBE Knighthoods just like Sir Paul McCartney. I guess I assumed it would be obvious why, but I should have put a description of my reason for changing their pages. NapoleonX (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Princess with a mop[edit]

Dear princess @Gerda Arendt: Here: Wikipedia Administrator.svg
No, you are right, it is not the vision of loveliness. What is it I can do for you that you are alluding to? Something about bollocks? I will help if I can. Congrats on yet another GA article with the letters "BWV" in it! Prhartcom (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The princess will not touch a mop, my house is a mess, I spend too much time on Wikipedia, and consider wasted the time spent on arbitrary enforcement ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Carreidas 160[edit]

Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Carreidas 160[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Carreidas 160 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 Neelix -- Neelix (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Carreidas 160[edit]

The article Carreidas 160 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. 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:Carreidas 160 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Neelix -- Neelix (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


Was there anything else about that one video game article (forget the name) you wanted to hammer out? I felt it looked pretty good last time I looked at it as a much shorter piece using secondary sources. I can't imagine anyone would support using forum posts though. It put a smile on my face to see GA nominations going up on your Talk page. I really enjoy using that process of review and it gives me something to brag about - makes me feel like I'm achieving something ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 20:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM, I would work with you again anytime. I admit I was a little put off by your initial response, but I asked for your opinion so I can't complain. :-) I actually haven't had the courage to take another look at the article, afraid that most of it would be gone, and just focused on other projects. But you are saying you think it looks pretty good? Okay, please give me a little time to look at it and decide about it. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Hrm, now I want to look at it too, but I don't remember the name. Being shorter isn't a bad thing, but I will profess that the longer I'm around Wikipedia, I become increasingly grumpy and deletionist. So I apologize for that. I have to dig my teeth into a page before I can provide meaningful feedback though. For you to advocate for inclusion of forum posts is enough for some alarm bells to go off. CorporateM (Talk) 20:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, you said that already didn't you. Here it is: Day One: Garry's Incident. Prhartcom (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
You know, we could add some video or images of gameplay to the page and see if they send us a cease and desist. After all, we're not monetizing the content here on Wikipedia (*snickers sarcastically) CorporateM (Talk) 21:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
That would be fantastic. But it is all YouTube video. Like I said at one point, the challenge with this article is the entire controversy took place in the world of unreliable sources. That's only because that's the way that world works. It almost means Wikipedia has to pretend the situation never occurred. But, yes, if we were allowed, we could show the video created by that fellow TotalBiscuit. Prhartcom (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I was wrong. It does need quite a bit more copyediting and re-ordering of sentences.
I was just teasing that we would, you know, feature some gameplay like TotalBiscuit did, see if we get into trouble. We get a lot of legal threats around here from people/companies unhappy with their article, often in a similar fashion as this scenario. It's actually more routine than you would think. Yelp is a client of mine and they have the same issue too. Customers leave negative reviews because the product isn't that good and the business owner sues for defamation, because, naturally, they thought their product wasn't that bad. CorporateM (Talk) 21:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I just read the article, and it wasn't a complete shambles. I guess you actually did decide that some of the sources are reliable; I am pleased. You did a decent job rewriting the article. I agree that it doesn't have to be lengthy. Would you like me to copy edit it? This is a busy moment now, but I can do so later. Prhartcom (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done How's that? Could use some better section titles, but I am not very good at naming things. CorporateM (Talk) 07:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You have surprised me by really improving this article, CorporateM. Because of you, I believe it is in fine shape. And we didn't even need to reference any forums. Prhartcom (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Carreidas 160[edit]

The article Carreidas 160 you nominated as a good article has failed Symbol oppose vote.svg; see Talk:Carreidas 160 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Neelix -- Neelix (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I hope this doesn't discourage you; you've done a lot of great editing and I hope you stick around! However, I'd say you might have better luck on subjects covered by academics, historians and press. CorporateM (Talk) 18:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank-you for the encouragement, CorporateM, Consensus has spoken and I must respect that. I do appreciate you trying to encourage me. Prhartcom (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Neelix, I understand why you did what you believed had to do, and I can see that you did not wish to discourage me because of it, pointing out to me my strengths, etc. and for that at least, I truly do appreciate. Now, I definitely hesitate to ask this next question but I must: I recently completed expanding the article Unicorn (ship). Could you please give me your informal opinion of it here? Prhartcom (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
These two articles are very similar, and I would recommend a similar course for both. As far as I can tell, all of the real-world content in the Unicorn (ship) article is contained in the "Creation" section. This content seems very well-written and provides valuable, encyclopedic information. Because all of this information pertains to preparations for The Secret of the Unicorn specifically, I would think that this section would be better located on that article. Because the Unicorn appears prominently in two different Tintin installments, List of The Adventures of Tintin locations might be the best target for a Unicorn (ship) redirect. Neelix (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
All right, thank-you for your comments, I will consider what needs to be done. Prhartcom (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


Hi. Just letting you know I won't have access to a computer from late today till March 29, so you'll be on your own with the White House FAC till I get back. Freikorp (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you for letting me know, Freikorp. I'm sorry that this FAC hasn't been going well. I have just lowered my Wikipedia activity considerably but I will commit to watching for any comments on this 2011 White House FAC. Have a good break. Prhartcom (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


Our recent interactions got way out of hand, at least half of the fault is mine, and I apologize for that. Cheers,―Mandruss  15:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Is that like an Apoplexy? :-) Hey, you're a good guy, Mandruss, thanks for this; it is gladly accepted. I know it can be confusing around here sometimes. Prhartcom (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


Hello, thanks for this edit summary. I always thought (for whatever reason) that was someone making a mistake because that is similar to the way you put pictures in articles outside of infoboxes. Also, that is very interesting. I have put the caption back though because the cover art is not just America's cover art. Thanks again. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Your edtsum technique[edit]

Too complicated to read, there are no "different settings". I had just improved improved the readability of this sentence only minutes earlier.)

If you're going to revert people, please try to be less contentious with your edit summaries. I don't consider myself someone who needs instruction on the readability of a sentence. Thanks. ―Mandruss  04:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss, I am sorry, it's nothing personal. I reverted for two reasons: Your edit said "different settings"; I found no source stating that. Also, I had JUST fixed that sentence and your edit made it worse again just 240 seconds later, while I was re-reading it; I mean, come on. :-) Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 04:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The settings change was based on this comment by Alakzi, a couple of days ago. I didn't see any objections to it aside from DHeyward's comment that we were "overthinking", which Alakzi seems to be countering adequately so far. Certainly no objection from you. All things considered, it seemed like a reasonable change for now, which could have been changed again if such a conclusion were reached in that thread.
As for the readability, I felt my version read just fine, and I still do. As I indicated, I think I know awkward language when I see it. As for the time elapsed, don't many reverts come immediately after the edit they revert? Would you have preferred I wait two hours and then revert?
I think you were too quick on the undo button, and your editsum made that worse. Like you said, nothing personal. ―Mandruss  05:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about not taking part in the pertinent discussions. The sentence reads better now (fewer words and more accurate). Prhartcom (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jeff Wayne's Musical Version of The War of the Worlds[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jeff Wayne's Musical Version of The War of the Worlds 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 Sparklism -- Sparklism (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jeff Wayne's Musical Version of The War of the Worlds[edit]

The article Jeff Wayne's Musical Version of The War of the Worlds you nominated as a good article has failed Symbol oppose vote.svg; see Talk:Jeff Wayne's Musical Version of The War of the Worlds for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sparklism -- Sparklism (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi there, sorry about that. Nothing personal, but the article is a long way from meeting the GA criteria as it stands - see the review page for more detail. Hope this isn't too much of a disappointment to you. Hit me up if you need any further clarification. Again, sorry. — sparklism hey! 15:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Hi Sparklism; thanks for the review. The truth is, this article was one of the very first that I ever made a few edits quite a few years ago, and have tinkered with it over the years, but obviously never gave it the overhaul that you rightly point out it needs. Thanks so much for taking the time to offer your valuable suggestions! BTW, I have a much better quality article in the Literature section (comics) that I rewrote and put up for GAN (just search for my username there), if you are interested in taking a look; I would be greatly honoured. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Request Edits[edit]

I've asked for someone to review various proposed edits, where I have a conflict of interest here. I thought you may have an interest in putting the shoe on the other foot and reviewing my work ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 17:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi CorporateM, it's good to hear from you. I am on a Wikibreak now; RL is preventing me this month from doing Wikipedia activities, otherwise I would do what I could to help you! I knowCrisco 1492, he's a good man and a great editor. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Enthiran promoted to FA[edit]

Happy to inform you that Enthiran is promoted. My first FA success! Face-smile.svgSsven2 Speak 2 me 13:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Ssven2, you worked very hard on it, congratulations! Prhartcom (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Prhartcom! — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 23:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

JC's Girls[edit]

Hi Prhartcom,

Thank you again for undertaking the GAN for the JC's Girls article. I have submitted the article for featured status and I thought that, as the GAN reviewer, you might be interested in participating in the FAC. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you for the invite. I wish you the very best of luck on this. Prhartcom (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Mayabazar/archive1[edit]

One of my fellow editors, Pavanjandhyala, has opened the peer review for Mayabazar (1957), the first Telugu film to be attempted for FA class. I am a co-nominator thereby this article makes it my second attempt at FAC. Feel free to leave comments and ping me if you wish to do so. Thanks. Face-smile.svgSsven2 Speak 2 me 05:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you for the invite. Best of luck with it! Prhartcom (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Beyond Two Souls[edit]

Hey, good idea with the change you made - no need for the different dates to be in the lede especially since it's in the body (it was more the change to one date as opposed to the month in general, but, alas, hadn't had my morning coffee yet!) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 03:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


Please copy-edit instead of just deleting my hard work, English is not my mother tongue... Also added an English source for your convenience. The original article is unfortunately behind a paywall (which doesn't apply to me since I am a subscriber). If you need the article for verification, I can send that to your email address, it has been published by NRC Handelsblad, one of the most respected newspapers in this country. I think it is necessary to add this information to the Hergé Foundation article, as Moulinsart has been acting as a copyright troll for rights they didn't own. They were suing a fanzine for a million euro and the lawsuit exploded in their face. They even lost the claim to abusing the commercial trade mark, because a fanzine is acting on a non-profit basis. Cheers, Brinkie (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jeff Wayne's Musical Version of The War of the Worlds – The New Generation[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jeff Wayne's Musical Version of The War of the Worlds – The New Generation 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 IndianBio -- IndianBio (talk) 11:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Little Annie Fanny[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Little Annie Fanny 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 Wugapodes -- Wugapodes (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Little Annie Fanny[edit]

The article Little Annie Fanny you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. 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:Little Annie Fanny for things which need to be addressed. Wugapodes (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Flower Mound, Texas[edit]

Hi there. One of the best sources for information about which county a city or town may be located in is GNIS. I hope this helps. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Little Annie Fanny[edit]

The article Little Annie Fanny you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Little Annie Fanny 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 Wugapodes -- Wugapodes (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Congrats on getting LAF to good article status P!! This is probably TMI but she was my favorite part of the mag when I was in college. Also my apologies for not getting to your request about looking at your articles for GA status. I keep getting diverted by things on WikiP and (worse) off :-( Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, obviously she was, MarnetteD, how can other parts of that magazine compete against Harvey Kurtzman's greatest creation? :-) Thanks so much! Prhartcom (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Conflict with GAN reviewer[edit]

Hi, could you please weigh-in on this discussion I started? It concerns an immediate fail of a good-article nomination. Dan56 (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The dress (viral phenomenon)[edit]

Hello Prhartcom

My name is Paul Jinks, on the 7th February 2015 Cecilia Bleasdale and myself took a photograph of a dress Cecilia planned to wear to her daughters wedding on the 21st February 2015 on the island of Colonsay.

The problem with this story is the 'reliable sources', the story originates from one person, Caitlin McNeill, who with her bandmates came across the photo at the wedding and saw an opportunity to try and make the image go viral.

Because Caitlin and her bandmates had nothing to do with the image and were not involved at the start of the argument over the colour of the dress and were not the first to post it online, they had to mislead the media over what had happened so they could enjoy the fame and take the credit for what had happened, so therefore reliable sources have become unreliable sources.

The science side of it, I can't argue about why people see black and blue or gold and white because I don't have the knowledge required.

What I do know is what caused it, I have read what scientists have said what may have caused it (sunlight or yellow light from the right of the dress), well they are just guessing so therefore cannot be classed as reliable. To the right of the dress is myself holding the dress and as Cecilia is shorter than me the top of the dress is chest high on me, even if there was sunlight or yellow light to the right of the dress (there wasn't by the way)I would have blocked it, in the uncropped image you can see my arm holding the dress, strange that my arm was cropped out isn't it.

We have in our possession the original image, the actual dress and jacket and the item that caused the illusion.

On this whole planet there are only two people who know exactly what happened, Cecilia Bleasdale who took the photograph and Paul Jinks who accidentally caused the illusion. We have never had the chance to tell the full story of what happened, Cecilia appeared on The Ellen show on 3rd March and told a brief version of the story.

Current Biology did ask Cecilia for permission to study the image, National Geographic show Brain Games have been in touch asking permission to do a piece about the image and to do some kind of promotion in Times Square New York, they have said they will credit both of us for the image.

So therefore the only reliable sources for this still ongoing story are Cecilia Bleasdale and Paul Jinks.

Thank you

Paul Jinks151.226.234.233 (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Paul, it is an honor to meet you. I have posted this letter and to Talk:The dress (viral phenomenon). Prhartcom (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Little Annie Fanny[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

GA talk page notice[edit]

Thanks for improving the notice at the top of Wikipedia talk:Good articles. Do you think it's also worth clarifying that it's not the place to discuss proposed changes to individual Good Articles? I'm thinking of posts such as this and this; it might help direct confused editors to the correct place for those requests. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cordless Larry, I've seen you around, good to be speaking with you! Oh, I know, I have seen those; there was another one just recently. You know, you can certainly try it, but (and this is just a guess on my part) I don't think the notice will help those folks. Now on the other hand, someone as respectable as Spinning Spark accidentally posted the other day to the page you and I are discussing, and I believe the notice would have helped in that case. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I did wonder if it would make a difference. I guess that if people aren't noticing that they're posting in completely the wrong place, they probably aren't seeing the notice, but I'll give it a try. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I decided I like it; nice work. If they read that far. :-) It is definitely good to have that situation mentioned. Prhartcom (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Beyond: Two Souls[edit]

I can try it if I get some time but since you seem to be the top contributor could you maybe expand the reception section? Right now there seems to be more focus on the negative reviews with specific examples with the positive reception being vague in comparison.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

CyberGhostface, I have moved my reply to your duplicate post on the article talk page. Prhartcom (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


No worries. I know I can jump the gun sometimes - didn't mean to step on you there, sorry. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It is - a wonderful little script. I'm travelling at the moment, but when I'm home in a day or two I can direct you to where you can get it to use. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

"the first full-scale, multi-page comics feature in a major American publication"[edit]

I know what you're trying to say here, but, really, comic books—commonly with circulations in the millions in the 1940s and 1950s—were by any definition "major American publications". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Curly Turkey, Okay. The word "first" is the only important part of this sentence, the rest I'm not protective of. It's from Markstein: "first in any major American magazine" he said. You can remove or change or quote it if you want. I was just filling in some content about this series; I hope it improves the article. Prhartcom (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Update: Just realized you meant it wasn't first. Perhaps "major" publication is the operative word here. You can change it to simply "Playboy‍‍ '​‍s first comic strip." Prhartcom (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Standard GGC Notice[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Understood, thanks ForbiddenRocky for the heads-up; I feel like a part of the group now. FYI, I dropped by because, while working today at the GA Help Desk, I resolved an extremely minor issue related to this page; if interested see my comments here and here. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)