Jump to content

User talk:Chris troutman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pcvcolin (talk | contribs) at 19:12, 2 March 2017 (Bias: Example and request). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Committed identity: 53034b2749273e66509e3f88fd103b4882f16345902df017ef05f53fcdaa37eb69268ba4777ee04b32c2a6d6fc308063da7f51adb04a5addd52649c095c47659 is grammatical article for the hash function SHA-512 commitment to this user's real-life identity.
If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Sennecaster 186 0 0 100 17:20, 25 December 2024 3 days, 15 hoursno report
Hog Farm 2 178 14 12 93 02:47, 22 December 2024 0 days, 1 hourno report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Wehwalt, July 30, 2014.
AfC submissions
Random submission
~8 weeks
1,870 pending submissions
Purge to update
Today's Events

December 22, 2024


Birthday
ArnabSaha, Smsarmad
Adminship Anniversary
None
First Edit Day
StarryNightSky11


Other events:

02:09:34, 18 July 2016 review of submission by NNcNannara


Why is the pseudo code and explanation on the main AVL page 'suitable' and this beautiful C# code with explanation 'unsuitable'.

As I pointed out to Roger, I have many more pages that I could add, but if this one doesn't make it, neither will they.

Clearly I am wasting my time with Wikipedia. I'll not waste any more time though.

Talkback

Hello, Chris troutman. You have new messages at Pichpich's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

December 12

Hello, Chris troutman. You have new messages at Pelotas's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pittsburgh MeetUp

Is there a meetup coming up? I couldn't find it. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Barbara (WVS): Yes, February 24th. I've already submitted a geonotice that should start running next week. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding Section "Convening the first U.S. state constitutional convention". Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:American_Legislative_Exchange_Council.23Section_.22Convening_the_first_U.S._state_constitutional_convention.22_discussion".The discussion is about the topic American Legislative Exchange Council. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Calexit (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4th GA Cup - Round 3

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3

Hello, GA Cup competitors!

Sunday saw the end of Round 2. Shearonink took out Round 2 with an amazing score of 499. In second place, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an astounding 236 points, and in third place, Cartoon network freak received 136 points. Originally, we had plans for one wild card for 9th place, however it appears that both Chris troutman and J Milburn were tied for 9th place. Therefore, we have decided to have both advance to Round 3.

In Round 2, 91 reviews were completed! At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 7 months; at the end of Round 2, the longest wait had decreased to a little over 6 months. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 3 so we can keep decreasing the backlog.

To qualify for the third round, contestants had to earn the two highest scores in each of the four pools in Round 2; plus, one wildcard. For Round 3, users were placed in 3 random pools of 3. To qualify for the Final of the 3rd Annual GA Cup, the top user in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 4th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 3 has already started and will end on February 26 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here.

Also, we'd like to announce the departure of judge Zwerg Nase. We thank him for all his hardwork and hope to see him back in the future.

Good luck and have fun!

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added a very small fact to the article and was reverted with "utterly irrelevant" and you question *my* conduct? What about the conduct of an editor who is so aggressively hostile?Wjhonson (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Wjhonson: Ealdgyth's remark of "utterly irrelevant" isn't mine. I don't know why they would say that. I reverted you because you added unsourced information. That you've already been reverted is why you should be discussing this with fellow editors. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will source the informationWjhonson (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

O'Leary

Please stop edit warring on the Kevin O'Leary WP page. Try rewording your attempted addition to the page until it reaches consensus. Don't just keep throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. Consider either a balanced comparison of both the similarities and differences between O'Leary and Trump, and only list similarities specifically mentioned in the sources. The edit you are trying to make is hair raisingly full of misrepresented sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.233.155 (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've not been participating in the discussion on the talk page and I have. Who's editing against consensus? Chris Troutman (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Chris,
I have input a minor edit into the talk page of the Kevin O'Leary article. One discussion should be kept to one subtitle, not split into two. Please don't make accusations on my talk page of deleting discussions. I have transferred the text so the talk page is easier to read and navigate. Thank you. MohammedMohammed (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MohammedMohammed: Per WP:REFACTOR this isn't allowed. You cannot change someone's comment even to fix a spelling error. The talk page stays as it is and I really don't understand what problem you think this solves. Regardless, do you want to get blocked over something stupid like this? Just leave the talk page as is. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No comments were changed in the slightest. Just transferred so we could have one subtitle instead of two. Please don't edit war over such a minor issue. MohammedMohammed (talk) 02:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MohammedMohammed: There are two separate threads. That's how it is. You solve nothing by changing it and I have every reason to keep tagging you with warnings so I can eventually report you and have you blocked. You can do nothing to me. I have been editing almost four years. You would do well to just follow instructions. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, The WP:REFACTOR which you cited states that refactoring can be done for "Improving the clarity and readability of a page", and "Moving a comment to a more appropriate place in the discussion". Please provide a reason why you feel two discussions of the exact same topic, and within the exact same time-span, should be in different sections. This makes things unnecessarily confusing for all editors. It's pretty common on Wikipedia to combine identical threads in order to improve readability. Also, please do not bite a newcomer.
In any even, I have been reading through the discussion you have been having Re: the Trump comparison, and I will post a potential compromise on the O'Leary talk page. I invite you to view and discuss my compromise suggestion. MohammedMohammed (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Al-Raqqah

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Al-Raqqah. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Chris

Have a question on this page, looking forward to your answer.

Thank you. HardMental (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work.

Gallipoli Star
As a thanks for the contributions in honor of our veterans and for all your efforts done so far, I here by reward you with this imaginary medal. Stay strong and ever vigilant soldier! HardMental (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2nd O

Hey, did you notice my comment regarding the second opinion on the concern raised by you? --Mhhossein talk 19:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: Yes, I saw it and am ignoring it. I am the reviewer and I've asked for a second opinion from WikiProject Good Article. I am waiting for that response. You can wait patiently, as well. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But your concern was regarding the source. You took that to RSN and I acted based on the suggestion from the admin at RSN. What else remains unresolved? --Mhhossein talk 23:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein: You solicited Doug Weller and Masem probably because you assumed they would agree with you. This is dishonest. I didn't ask particular editors for a response but Iazyges answered and they said unless Rai al-Youm was really a necessary citation it should be cut and you thought it advisable to argue about it. I am now waiting for the first random GA reviewer to respond to my request. You seem to have a point-of-view you insist on pushing and that's not allowed. I have to be satisfied if my name is going on this and you have been more concerned with trying to force my hand than accept my determination. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I never assumed they would "agree" with me. Sorry to say that, but your bad faith comments are really annoying. Unlike what you imagine, Iazyges never said the source was unreliable, however I have removed direct citation to Rai al-youm in my previous edits (just a link for letting the readers know about the original source). Also, I removed materials solely supported by Rai al-youm. The only thing remains, is an unknown thing...every thing is OK. --Mhhossein talk 07:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein: Your apparent pro-Iranian bias is annoying, too. I've also found that AGF is really a waste of time; my instincts are usually right. I'll give the 2nd opinion a few more days and if nothing comes of it I'll likely fail the nomination. You can re-submit without delay. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking you to promote it, rather I tried to show you the fact. NO ONE said the source was unreliable, but you kept on your own word and ignored the community. Anyway, sorry if I have appeared as you said, the fact is otherwise. I invite you to see this page. Goodbye. --Mhhossein talk 12:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein: As promised, I waited a week for a second opinion. I didn't get one and so am failing the nomination. Your insistence in this matter has not helped you. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nor your ignoring the community. --Mhhossein talk 19:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Chris troutman,
A HUGE backlog

We now have 812 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

  1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
  2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
  3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.


Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why

Why was my page Draft:List of highest-grossing animated films in Canada and the United States not acpect82.38.157.176 (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:NOTSTAT describes, Wikipedia is not meant to house indexes or tables of figures like gross sales. We don't need articles like that. Your draft has a few problems. First, you don't explain why you're lumping the US and Canada together. Second, you rely almost exclusively on one source. Finally, you have almost no prose to explain the topic or the valuations. Your lede reads like an opinion piece. You therefore have just copied Box Office Mojo's content and pasted it here, sloppily. Take, for example, List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States. Right at the outset it explains the concept of the list. It doesn't rely just on Box Office Mojo but also uses other sources. It has more prose for each section although it's still largely tables. I don't generally like list articles but some people find value in them. List of highest-grossing films, a featured list, is the best example of what Wikipedia wants for this type of article. It's very heavy on prose although it does have tables, it explains the topic, and it has a variety of sources. Your draft is an eyesore and doesn't accomplish what these other articles do. You can improve what you've started; I hope my explanation helps. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:53:38, 6 February 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Alsamrudo


Hey, I would like you to check out Draft:Cool Cat Saves the Kids again. Leave another comment if the problem still exist.

Alsamrudo (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:37:06, 6 February 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Alsamrudo


I want you again check out Draft:Cool Cat Saves the Kids. This time, I actually made it better by getting rid of all signs of YouTube and adding that it received a Dove award for the best family friendly movie.

Alsamrudo (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here ya go...

I userfied the Shigeo Iwatani article to User:Chris troutman/Shigeo Iwatani. Best of luck! --joe deckertalk 06:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review

Dear Chris, Thanks for reviewing my article on Russell Brothers and for fixing that copyvio that slipped in. I read about you, and I am impressed with all you've done for Wikipedia. How I wish I could have taken one of your courses from the get-go, rather than learn Wiki by trial and error. My best regards, --Eagledj (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

00:27:17, 8 February 2017 review of submission by Alsamrudo


Hey, I know that I have most likely been annoying you with me wanting you to check Draft:Cool Cat Saves the Kids, but I have got it all figured out now. I removed all the blog post and added that the CEO of FOX, Rupert Merdoch, reviewed the movie.

00:47:30, 8 February 2017 review of submission by Alsamrudo


Ok, I am going to be as polite and mature as possible, but I put a lot of time and effort in making that. Why didn't you tell me that none of those sources were good in the first place? So you can laugh at me while I work hard to make you approve my article? Also, you really are a smart alec on how you said "Let me know when The New York Times reviews this. Until then, this isn't notable." How about you get rid of The Emoji Movie page? It didn't even release yet, no one reviewed it, and it isn't notable yet. I think you should realize the way you act and not let any other user deal with your behavior. There are also many un-notable articles that didn't even have to go though that process.

(edit conflict) @Alsamrudo: I can understand your frustration. We get a lot of editors that have passion projects they want to write about. Many new editors make arguments pointing at other content. Sadly, most of the content on Wikipedia that you might look to for an example is crap. We keep trying to clean this stuff up but there are more new articles than we can keep up with. You've since requested the draft to be deleted so now I can't refer to my comments but as I recall, I said at the outset what you would need (WP:NFILM, WP:GNG). I know I said previously that blogs cannot be used as sources. If you had carefully read my guidance you should have understood that. If I wasn't clear up front then I'm sorry. Articles for Creation is a triage process and I simply look for reasons to prevent promoting a draft. Once I find a reason I refuse the draft and explain the reason. I don't go through the litany of problems and I can see how this seems like moving the goalposts. If I find no reasons to refuse then I accept the draft. So, each time you asked for me to comment, I did. Losing your temper over that indicates that Wikipedia is not the place for you. We have nothing but frustration here. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Ok, stop laughing at my previous post. I have cooled off and I'm sorry for creating such a bad page. I want to finally stop the stress and forget about this. Deal?Alsamrudo (talk)

@Alsamrudo: I find no humor in this. Your frustration is very real and you're not the first editor to have this conversation with me. You're welcome to let this go. Editing Wikipedia should never be something that gets your blood pressure up, although I've found after almost four years of editing that it frequently does. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ogden Mills Reid

Because he was the owner/publisher. GiantSnowman 09:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: OK, but you didn't make an article about him. I just don't see the point in making a redirect. I'm reviewing the article about the Herald Tribune (his paper) which is how I found out about the redirect. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know I didn't create an article about him when I created a redirect, that was my intention. Probably not independently notable but a viable search term = valid redirect. GiantSnowman 18:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

07:17:05, 13 February 2017 review of submission by 2.227.120.20


hi Chris troutman first off thanks for your feedback. I don't agree with you regarding some points that you mentioned in your message, i'll try to explain the reasons. You talked that the band should be in some musical chart and indeed actually the brand new album of the band is located at 6 place of the most important alternative chart in Germany Deutsche Alternative Charts, here's the source : http://wp1091379.server-he.de/dac/dac/index_album.php The sources that i used to write my article are not self-published, but show that the band is well known in the goth scene,for example in this link : http://www.ondarock.it/news.php?id=2724 you can read that CPV was in the same festival roster Alt-Fest with band like  : Vnv Nation, Fields of the Nephilim, Marylin Manson, Gary Numan, The Cult, Arch Enemy, Killing Joke. http://www.ondarock.it/ and Rumore are two among most important alternative magazines in Italy, therefore i think that they are sources quite reliable. Lastly but not least, there are in wikipedia/en published pages about bands from the same music label of CPV with sources less notable.. so i'm confused now. Please let me know what you think about it, thanks 2.227.120.20 (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about Deutsche Alternative Charts. I'm going to push to have that article deleted. I don't think those charts are notable and don't count for the purposes of notability. You're otherwise making a bunch of invalid arguments: That articles about other bands exists isn't valid. Most of Wikipedia are articles that are poorly-written and ought to be deleted. Name-dropping, as you've done mentioning bands on the same festival, is a cognitive bias. Notability doesn't rub off on this band because it happened to perform near or with other bands. Wikipedia requires independent reliable sources and you haven't provided that. By "self-published" I don't mean the band created their own website and put the information out there. What I mean is that I expect sources from journalists or academics publishing in platforms that have an editorial board. We don't accept random websites from fans. I have provided you links to much of the reference information about Wikipedia's criteria and clearly you haven't read any of it. Rather than try to convince me, read about what Wikipedia expects and then see if this encyclopedia wants to have an article about this band. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disinformation

Chris - wanted to make sure you saw my note on the GA review for Disinformation. LMK if you would like to take-over the review if you already had your eye set on it. I'm fine either way. DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DarjeelingTea: I'm sorry to have created the impression I wanted to hijack your review. You've already started the review and you're welcome to finish. This is one I would have liked to have done but I wasn't able to jump on it sooner and I'll live with it. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize! I'll go ahead and finish it up in that case, but please feel free to chime in if you have any suggestions or notice that I miss anything. DarjeelingTea (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Panoply Media / WP:WTAF

I'm not sure I understand the most recent edit to Panoply Media. WP:WTAF talks about redlinks, but the article had no redlinks.

WATF does talk about listcruft, is that what you were referring to? Would a one- or two-sentence description of each podcast be better? --Hirsutism (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hirsutism: Adding non-notable entries to lists is problematic. If they were listed in prose that would be fine, but awkward. If there's no navigational purpose served then I see no reason for the list. Most of those entries are unreferenced, too, which should be avoided. Please remember that name-dropping is a cognitive bias. Panoply doesn't become more notable because of which podcasts it broadcasts. I understand you're trying to build the article but I don't think this approach is the way to go. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Germany

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Germany. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New York Herald Tribune

Made the changes you recommended. Thanks so much for your help.Idols of Mud (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Made some more changes. Again, thank you for your diligence.Idols of Mud (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News

Hello everyone, and welcome to the February 2017 GOCE newsletter. The Guild has been busy since the last time your coordinators sent out a newsletter!

December blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 11 through 17 December; the themes were Requests and eliminating the November 2015 backlog. Of the 14 editors who signed up, nine editors completed 29 articles. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all who took part.

January drive: The January drive was a great success. We set out to remove December 2015 and January and February 2016 from our backlog (195 articles), and by 22 January we had cleared those and had to add a third month (March 2016). At the end of the month we had almost cleared out that last month as well, for a total of 180 old articles removed from the backlog! We reduced our overall backlog by 337 articles, to a low of 1,465 articles, our second-lowest month-end total ever. We also handled all of the remaining requests from December 2016. Officially, 19 editors recorded 337 copy edits (over 679,000 words).

February blitz: The one-week February blitz, focusing on the remaining March 2016 backlog and January 2017 requests, ran from 12 to 18 February. Seven editors reduced the total in those two backlog segments from 32 to 10 articles, leaving us in good shape going in to the March drive.

Coordinator elections for the first half of 2017: In December, coordinators for the first half of 2017 were elected. Jonesey95 stepped aside as lead coordinator, remaining as coordinator and allowing Miniapolis to be the lead, and Tdslk and Corinne returned as coordinators. Thanks to all who participated!

Speaking of coordinators, congratulations to Jonesey95 on their well-deserved induction into the Guild of Copy Editors Hall of Fame. The plaque reads: "For dedicated service as lead coordinator (2014, 1 July – 31 December 2015 and all of 2016) and coordinator (1 January – 30 June 2015 and 1 January – 30 June 2017); exceptional template-creation work (considerably streamlining project administration), and their emphasis on keeping the GOCE a drama-free zone."

Housekeeping note: We do not send a newsletter before every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your watchlist.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdslk.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

I've noticed you're injecting bias into a lot of your edits and I've tried to remove the bias so that the Wikipedia can form their own opinions on certain topics and you're continuously reverting them. I think it's great you have your own opinions but open source news and encyclopedia are not the place to do it. Create a Twitter account or maybe a Facebook account for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epicmench (talkcontribs) 08:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding onto this bias conversation started by Epicmench, I've also noticed that you (Chris) have been very much biased in your edits, periodically resigning yourself to wiping out other people's content that you disagree with. When you do so, you then resort to dubious uses of policy behind which you hide (or use to mask your actual intention, which is simply to remove other users' content that you simply don't like). That has little to do with Wikipedia policy and more to do with your own personal beliefs and preferences.

As just one (but certainly not the only) example, you commented recently on my talk page, stating, "Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of fulfilled prophecies, without citing a reliable source using an inline citation that clearly supports the material. The burden is on the person wishing to keep in the material to meet these requirements, as a necessary (but not always sufficient) condition. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you." You have removed, wholesale (engaging in vandalism) content from the page in question. You claimed that the content did not have reliable sources, but in other sections of Wikipedia, the sources used were equivalent to those used in List of fulfilled prophecies in the section that you have been targeting for removal (again, I think, because of your personal beliefs and biases, and not because of a Wikipedia policy). In point of fact I have indicated to you that in one area of Wikipedia (as an example, on the JarJar Binks page), social media / microblog links and mainstream media news sources are used together, without anyone attempting to remove them or edit war them away. However, you have decided you wish to target content on List of fulfilled prophecies -- not because it is in real violation of Wikipedia policy - but because you simply disagree with the content itself. And that example is not the only one.

I ask you to step away from Wikipedia for awhile and reconsider your perspective and your treatment of Wikipedia users. Pcvcolin (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:George Wylde

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:George Wylde. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello Chris troutman,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 812 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.


Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I AM123

You removed something I edited. How exactly do you cite something.— Preceding unsigned comment added by I AM123 (talkcontribs)

@I AM123: The simplest way is to type in <ref>list your source here</ref> so we know where you're getting the info from. WP:CITE provides directions on how to cite sources and WP:RS describes what we accept for sourcing. We don't accept random websites or what you might deduce from a source. I put an invitation to the Wikipedia adventure on your talk page that helps walk you through editing. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help. I currently can sit a url. I need help with making a page, its called The Circle written by Dave Eggers. I just need help making it suitable for wikipedia's database. Go to my talk page if you want to I AM123 (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@I AM123: It already exists: The Circle (Eggers novel). Chris Troutman (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Funny cause when i searched it it did not come up — Preceding unsigned comment added by I AM123 (talkcontribs) 21:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Len Forkas for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Len Forkas 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/Len Forkas 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. Edison (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March Madness 2017

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

  • tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
  • updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
  • creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in Education: [February 2017]

This Month in Education

Volume 6 | Issue 1 | February 2017

This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. Be sure to check out the full version, and past editions. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team!

In This Issue


Featured Topic


Newsletter update

Common Challenges: Time is not an unlimited resource



From the Community

Medical Students' contributions reach 200 articles in innovative elective course at Tel Aviv University

Wikilesa: working with university students on human rights

An auspicious beginning at university in Basque Country

The Wikipedia Education Program kicks off in Finland

The Brief Story of Mrgavan WikiClub

Citizen Science and biodiversity in school projects on Wikispecies, Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons


From the Education Team

WMF Education Program to be featured at the Asian Conference for Technology in the Classroom

Opportunities to grow in Oman

An invitation to participate in the "Hundred Words" campaign!

Education Collab updates membership criteria


In the News

Students Can Learn By Writing For Wikipedia

Online communities are supercharging people's careers

Using open source to empower students in Tanzania

Signpost Special Issue: Wikipedia in Education


We hope you enjoy this issue of the Education Newsletter.-- Sailesh Patnaik using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

AmortiasDeckillerBU Rob13
RonnotelIslanderChamal NIsomorphicKeeper76Lord VoldemortSherethBdeshamPjacobi

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
  • Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
  • A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

March 2017 WikiCup newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:

  • Scotland Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
  • European Union Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
  • Japan 1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
  • South Australia Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.

The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.

So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]