This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Technical (vehicle). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Dakota. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

col and general

Don't delete them. if you admit to their validity, then help me out in finding the references instead of erasing them altogether. by the way, the additions i made result from the articles themselves and the links to the militaries of the states mentioned.Dapiks (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

If he retired on August 1, 1990 (in body) how could he have served from 1945-1991 (in infobox)?PumpkinSky talk 01:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Right you are. Thanks for pointing that out. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to "Come Edit Wikipedia!" at the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, July 27th, 2013. There will be coffee, cookies, and good times! -- Olegkagan (talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 04:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. I'll be there. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

		Good Article Recruitment Barnstar
		Congratulations on graduating from the Good Article Recruitment Centre! The Wikipedia community will be glad for your efforts in reviewing Good Article nominations. If you ever have additional questions, don't hesitate to contact me. —Ed!(talk) 03:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on graduating from the Recruitment Centre! Now that you have completed your recruitment, I ask you take 5 minutes to complete a feedback form that will help improve the Recruitment Centre for future recruitees just like you. The questions are straight forward and simple to answer. Completing this feedback form is not necessary, but is appreciated if you do. (The link to the form is below) From me and your recruiter, we hope to see you reviewing Good article nominations very soon and continue to do so in the future. If you have any questions about the nomination/reviewing process in the future, feel free to contact your recruiter. Once again, congratulations! Click here to go to the feedback form. Don’t forget to click the submit button when complete! From the Recruitment Centre Director, Dom497. --Dom497 (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For defending my user talk page when I did not have internet and answeing with the comment "But please pursue filing some kind of complaint. I think this process will be educational." (t) Josve05a (c) 13:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! You deserve more centijimbos and I'm always happy explaining that this website has rules. I'll keep lurking your talk page. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Chris troutman. You have new messages at Josve05a's talk page.
Message added 21:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

He's back... (t) Josve05a (c) 21:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. We're organizing an office hours session with the Teahouse to bring in mentors from across the wiki to try out Snuggle and discuss it's potential to support mentorship broadly. The Snuggle team would appreciate it if you would come and participate in the discussion. We'll be having it in #wikimedia-office ^connect on Wed. July 17th @ 1600 UTC. See the agenda for more info. --EpochFail^{(talk • work)}, Technical 13 (talk), TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I just wanted to post a reminder that this discussion will be happening in about 24 hours. If you haven't already used Snuggle, I recommend giving it a try before the meeting. I'll be in #wikimedia-office ^connect a half hour early to answer any questions you have. --EpochFail^{(talk • work)} 16:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:M-87 Orkan. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: ((WPMILHIST Announcements)).
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! AustralianRupert (talk) 09:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe so. That's a good way to put it. ~ MD Otley (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to "Come Edit Wikipedia!" at the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, July 27th, 2013. There will be coffee, cookies, and good times! -- Olegkagan (talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 03:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Rudy Boesch you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 GA bot, on behalf of Wasted Time R -- Wasted Time R (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sejm of Congress Poland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patriotic Society (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The article Rudy Boesch you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Rudy Boesch for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Wasted Time R -- Wasted Time R (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

	Smacznego!
	Thanks for your help with Sejm of Congress Poland article, have some traditional Polish cake, makowiec! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Chris. Thanks for your assistance in requesting semi-protection for the zakir naik article. I appreciate the help that you and other editors provide for newbies like me :) GiggsIsLegend (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

And also a huge thanks for recommending Twinkle. I'll enjoy editing alot more now. I appreciate your assistance. GiggsIsLegend (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Twinkle is a life-saver. I do want to warn you, though, about something I ran into that I didn't expect and it's covered in this essay, Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Twinkle is great for turning out a host of talk page templates but some users take offense, not because of the content but because you templated them like some random IP. Despite the fact that IPs are supposedly human, some registered users expect you to write a message rather than use an applicable template. I myself don't care, but just wanted to warn you. Happy editing! Chris Troutman (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Khosrau I. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Chris troutman. You have new messages at Flat Out's talk page.
Message added 14:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Jianhui67 (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You referred to a complaint made about me alleging edit warring. I can't find the complaint though I used the search function. But it is bogus. Roman Catholics are attempting to force their POV on Wikipedia, violating NPOV. They insist on calling the Roman Catholic Church "The Catholic Church" and "The Church." I merely attempted to change such entries to Roman Catholic Church. After I made an edit, one of them reverted it. Then I counter reverted it. Then my counter revert was reverted again by one of them. Now who is edit warring? (EnochBethany (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC))

Please do not bother to argue theology with me. I don't care.

You were edit warring, which is why I reported you. The complaint I lodged against you was archived without a decision. While the admins do not believe you technically violated WP:3RR, your conduct may land you in trouble again.

Let me give you a nickel of free advice: consensus sometimes means that not every party gets what it wants. The way the article reads now reflects a stable consensus. You may disagree but you represent a minority view. Consider sticking to editing where you aren't dealing with controversial subjects or points of view. Alternatively, you might find Conservapedia more to your liking. Most of the editors there might share your views and you'll be able to contribute without worrying about the consensus view here. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

How to you get to a charge of edit-warring? I made an edit. Someone reverted it. Why don't you accuse that reverter of edit-warring? In response to the war vs. myself, I reverted only time. Again someone reverted my edit. That makes 2 revertings vs my one. So how do you accuse me of the war? I made other edits, but they were not revertings. I don't think that I represent a minority view. It is obvious that for Roman Catholics to post an article in which they claim that the RCC is The Church is a violation of NPOV. Consider not trying to establish non-neutrality.(EnochBethany (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC))

Please re-read the WP:3RR policy: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." You don't have to press the undo or rollback buttons for it to count. The complaint shows which edits I'm talking about. In any case, the admins agreed that you hadn't violated 3RR, so you're in the clear. But as the admins had also said, your editing habits are worrisome and you might be brought before WP:ANI rather than the 3RR noticeboard.

Here's an example: we had a series of incidents at Society of St. Pius V (SSPV). The SSPV is a breakaway church from Catholicism. Some "papist" (as you call them) editors wanted to introduce a harsher tone in the article by specifying more than once that SSPV is not part of their Church. I and a couple other editors repeatedly had to revert these changes because there wasn't consensus for the new wording. It wasn't a matter of factual truthfullness but of tone. Some editors (presumably members of SSPV) took offense and wanted the article to say either SSPV was part of the Catholic Church or was the only true Catholic Church. We had to find a middle-ground, which is where the article is today. SSPV doesn't get to post endorsement and the Catholics don't get to publish a denouncement. This is how editing by committee works. As I said, I can understand your disagreement with it and perhaps your POV isn't widely held enough for the article to read the way you'd prefer. I'm sure the tone of the Islam article reads different in the English-language version than it does in the Arabic-language version because it represents a different consensus. To believe both versions would be the same (albeit translated) is naive. This wiki is built on the agreement of its editors. That may not seem fair, but that's how it is. You may not believe your POV is in the minority but clearly no one else seems to feel this is a point worth fighting over. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

My edit on the Schaub page was not vandalism it is the weigh in result from his last fight. 100.40.27.236 (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, then provide a reference. You have made a bunch of unreferenced changes across different pages and you vandalized Chris Weidman, so I tend to believe you're committing vandalism. You have received your final warning so I would recommend you stick to Wikipedia guidelines. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right next time i will provide a reference sorry for the inconvenience. 100.40.27.236 (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thank you for suggesting me to sign up for Counter Vandalism Academy. I didn't know there was such academy at first until you told me that. I have signed up for the course. Jianhui67 (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You should probably discuss first before adding those templates --Երևանցի ^talk 02:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I have. You even responded to me. If you or other editors oppose the merge, comments can be made on the talk pages. The merge tags advertise the discussion. I understand you voted "keep" on the deletion discussion. Merging this content into Armenian diaspora prevents it from being deleted and may lead to better article development. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick thank you, Mr. Troutman. After finding the marriage reference on IMBD, usually a reputable source when it come to actors and film, I added it to Nat's wiki page. I soon noticed, however, that I couldn't find it anywhere else. I wasn't comfortable with leaving it on her page, but before I could delete my own edit, you did it for me. A good lesson. Thanks again. Bshawnp Bshawnp (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

ICHTHUS

August 2013

From the Editor

Welcome to the August 2013 issue of the WikiProject Christianity newsletter. We focus on the historical Jesus and reflect on the last month.

The project has another featured picture, The ruins of Holyrood Chapel, a digitisation of an oil-on-canvas painting. Our top-importance article, Jesus, has been nominated for Featured Article status, the discussion can be seen here; Knights of Colombus has also been nominated as a FAC.

Ecgbert (bishop) and Church architecture in Scotland have both this month achieved Good Article status.

Our project had several of its articles featured in the main page DYK section, including Hinckley Priory, Little Chapel, St Peter's Church, Ropsley, Chip Ingram, St John the Evangelist's Church, Corby Glen, Great George Street Congregational Church, St Mary's Church, Walton-on-the-Hill and Bunge church.

Our thanks go to all of those who have worked to achieve these article milestones.

Church of the month

This image, of Maillezais Cathedral and created by Selbymay was this month promoted to featured picture status.

Membership report
We would like to welcome our newest members, Thechristophermorris, Psmidi and Jchthys. Thank you all for your interest in this effort. If any members, new or not, wish any assistance, they should feel free to leave a message at the Christianity noticeboard or with me or other individual editors to request it.

Focus on...

THE
HISTORICAL JESUS

What was Jesus like? What did he preach? Did he claim to be the Messiah? Did he predict an apocalypse? What can we know about him outside a religious context? The Historical Jesus article discusses what can be known about Jesus with various degrees of probability. While scholars agree on the over all flow and outline of Jesus' life (his baptism by John, debated Jewish authorities, healings, and his crucifixion by Pilate) they have built various and diverging portraits of the rest of his life. These range from minimalist portraits that accept very little of the gospel accounts to maximalists who accept most of the accounts as historical.

The portraits of Jesus have at times been unwitting reflections of the researchers themselves, and Crossan once quipped that some authors "do autobiography and call it biography". However, the study of historical Jesus has made one thing clear: there is so much to learn about Jesus that the more one looks, the more there is to discover.

From the bookshelf

Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching by Maurice Casey 2010 ISBN 0-567-64517-7

In this book Maurice Casey not only draws on his special expertise in the Aramaic traditions and the Q source, but provides a comprehensive review of the various approaches to the historical Jesus.

Did you know...

• ... that in 1951 Christianity was the second largest religion in the world with 500 million followers, compared to 520 million Buddhists, but by 2013 it had gained the top spot with about 2.2 billion Christians?

Calendar
This month we celebrate the feasts of St Lawrence, St Bernard, and St Augustine.

---

Help requests
Please let us know if there are any particular areas, either individual articles or topics, which you believe would benefit from outside help from other editors. We will try to include such requests in future issues.

Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity.
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe remove yourself from the list here

EdwardsBot (talk)22:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

--Gilderien Chat|What I've done 22:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

We're halfway through this year's penultimate round, and the competition is moving along well. Pool A's Sasata (submissions) currently leads overall, while Pool B's Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) is second. Both leaders are WikiCup veterans, and both have already scored over 600 points this month. If the round were to end today, Miyagawa (submissions), with 274 points, would be the lowest-scoring participant to make it through. This indicates that participants will need a score comparable to last year's (573, the highest ever) to qualify for the final. The high scores this year are a testament both to the quality of participants and to the increased focus on significant content (eligible for bonus points) in this year's competition. So far this round, both Sasata and Cwmhiraeth (submissions) have made up over half of their score through bonus points, with, for example, high importance FA koala earning Sasata a total of 440 points (from a multiplier of 4.4) and high-importance GA sea earning Cwmhiraeth a total of 216 points (from a multiplier of 7.2). Other articles on important topics submitted this round include a featured article on the Norman conquest of England by Ealdgyth (submissions), and good articles on Nobel laureate in literature Henryk Sienkiewicz, Nobel laureate in physics Hans Bethe, and the noted Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū. These articles are by Piotrus (submissions), Hawkeye7 (submissions) and Sturmvogel_66 respectively.

Other than that, there is not much to report! If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:17-Mile Drive. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

For Chris Troutman. I am an individual. Tcam represents the first letter of each of my family members' names. Myself, my wife, and my 2 children are represented. The word solutions is simply an acknowledgement that as as family we solve problems and find creative ways to live, work, and have fun together. In the future, any edits you make to my talk page will be removed. Tcam solutions (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Really? Because a company by the same name has an entry on LinkedIn. That's some coincidence. In the future, please post comments to talk pages rather than user pages. That's ok about deleting messages on your talk page; next time I'll simply report you to WP:UAA and save you the trouble. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

To Chris Troutman,

117Avenue continues to make irrational and haphazard edits while leaving Tran's page a mess. I reverted his edit, with a written explanation, but he is at it again. I don't want to get into an undo war, I don't have the time. Can you please help. As always, thank you for your efforts. Bshawnp (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I have restored some of the data based on Vidstatsx that User:117Avenue had removed. The argument is that Vidstatsx is self-published and therefore not reliable. This may be true. I do not believe there's any defamation or BLP violations inherent in using the stats, so I'm going to have to ask for a consensus on the issue. I would like to avoid an edit war as well as get a larger pool of input than the previous discussion.

I am aware that you've made the Natalie Tran article a hobby as of late. I'd like you to be prepared to accept that the consensus view may result in removing all the channel/view rankings based on those stats. We'll have to wait and see. Thank you for reaching out to me rather than continue reverting. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for you quick response Chris. The proprietary data collection methods used by VDX hold to mathematical modeling standards. There is no conceivable reason why their calculations should be held as unreliable--I've used similar methods in my professional life. But if people who care about the page disagree, I will have to accept it. Thanks again as always. Bshawnp (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Chris, 117Avenue is at it again. For the third time, he has left the page a visual mess with his edits. He removed the VDX data and cut out a section on Lamingtons (claiming that it wasn't relevant if you can believe that). He is clearly knows very little about Natalie Tran or about mathematical averages or modeling. His actions are unprofessional. Revert all of his edits and warn him please. Bshawnp (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

One other quick point on the VDX matter. Even if the site is self-published, the sophisticated proprietary data modeling program it uses is not. Indeed, the mathematical modeling system employed by VDX is among the data collection processes used on Bloomberg Machines, a hi-tech computer found in most financial offices. I use one regularly. Simply put, a complex data program that can accurately perform averages, compare and compile rankings, while making future projections based on the available information is a serious tool. Bshawnp (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Chris, I decided not to clean up 117Avenues mess to make a point. A day later and the beginning Tran's Popularity section still reads like this:

As of August 2013 Tran has 311 videos available on her YouTube channel.</ref name"communitychannel"> Natalie created her first video on 12September 2006.</ref name"communitychannel">[6]

Take a look for yourself. Content aside, I don't think people who visit the page will find that very attractive. 117Avenue clearly doesn't care. Bshawnp (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bangladesh. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Chris, Hope all is well. I'm curious if there was a verdict on VDX use? I haven't edited Nat's page since those stats were taken down and I've decided that it's simply to much work to keep up regular updates only to see those efforts undermined. I'm busy enough as it is. Still, I would much rather afford the thousands of readers who visit the page with the most current information. Best as always. Bshawnp (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The RfC was widely publicized but we don't yet have much response yet. It may need to be relisted before we can get anything approaching consensus. You can watch the responses come in on the talk page yourself. It may be a while. Please feel free to find other places to edit in the meantime. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ernest C. Brace, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Geographic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Help build the Wikipedia community in Southern California at "Come Edit Wikipedia!" presented by the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, August 31st, 2013 from 1-5pm. Drop in for some lively editing and conversation! Plus, it's a library, so there are plenty of sources. --Olegkagan (talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 02:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello there. Back in June you responded to my peer-review request (archived). I have spent some time on your excellent points and have updated the article. The new article is comprehensive and includes new references, including corrected references that had broken or dead links that have also been archived. I hope you will take a look and peer review it afresh. My apologies for not having replied at the time, but I hope the new and improved article is adeqate thanks for your efforts and consideration. Baronsamedi88 (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thank you that you previously recommended me to CVUA. I have graduated and gotten rollback and reviewer rights. Once again, thank you very much. Jianhui67 Talk 11:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:

1. Hawkeye7 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
2. Casliber (submissions), another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
3. Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
4. Sasata (submissions), a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
5. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
6. Ealdgyth (submissions), who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
7. Miyagawa (submissions), a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
8. Adam Cuerden (submissions) has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.

We say goodbye to eight great participants who did not qualify for the final: Piotrus (submissions), Figureskatingfan (submissions), ThaddeusB (submissions), Dana boomer (submissions), Status (submissions), Ed! (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), Calvin999 (submissions). Having made it to this stage is still an excellent achievement, and you can leave with your heads held high. We hope to see you all again next year. Signups are now open for the 2014 WikiCup, which will begin on 1 January. All Wikipedians, whatever their interest or level of experience, are warmly invited to participate in next year's competition.

This last month has seen some incredible contributions; for instance, Cwmhiraeth's Starfish and Ealdgyth's Battle of Hastings—two highly important, highly viewed pages—made it to featured article status. It would be all too easy to focus solely on these stunning achievements at the expense of those participants working in lower-scoring areas, when in fact all WikiCup participants are doing excellent work. A mention of everything done is impossible, but here are a few: Last round saw the completion of several good topics (on the 1958, 1959 and 1962 Atlantic hurricane seasons) to which 12george1 had contributed. Calvin999 saw "S&M" (song), on which he has been working for several years, through to featured article status on its tenth try. Figureskatingfan continued towards her goal of a broad featured/good topic on Maya Angelou, with two featured and four good articles. ThaddeusB contributed significantly to over 20 articles which appeared on the main page's "in the news" section. Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone. The WikiCup is not just about top-importance featured articles, and the work of all of these users is worthy of commendation.

Finally, the usual notices: If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 05:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Good Articles for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Hope you have a great day! -buffbills7701 14:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. I'm always glad to help out the Signpost. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm contacting you about a study that I'm running with TheOriginalSoni exploring newcomer mentorship activities in Wikipedia. I'd like to ask you a few questions about your interactions with newcomers and to explore how a tool like WP:Snuggle might make your work easier. The interview and demo session will take 30 minutes to an hour depending on how much time we spend discussing things. If you're interested, let me know. If not, disregard this message and I won't bother you again.

• Study overview: meta:Research:Peer_mentorship_and_snuggle
• Consent form: meta:Research:Peer_mentorship_and_snuggle/Consent

Thanks for your consideration. --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 14:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've read the consent page. Count me in. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The article Rudy Boesch you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Rudy Boesch for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wasted Time R -- Wasted Time R (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Chris!!

I know you were working with Kasey last semester to on-board as a Campus Ambassador, but I wasn't sure if you were working with Greta Munger and her psych class yet. Have you been working with Greta, and/or would you like me to put you in touch with her? Hope things are great! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You're thinking of someone else. Davidson is in North Carolina; I'm in California. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: 24th Expeditionary Air Support Operations Squadron.

Conerning my edit for the above article, the "B-class" criteria (and/or assessment) is not required for a "Stub" assessment. I'm unaware how long you have not edited a "B-class" assessment was unfortunately you are the second person who is way behind in the "B-class" is not valid within the "Stub" assessment for WP:Military History. Simply, it is a waste of space. Adamdaley (talk) 05:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

First, you haven't answered the issue of putting articles into Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists unnecessarily. Second, while the criteria isn't required for a stub, there's no reason to remove that coding. It's not a "waste of space." For example, someone might assess the article as Start/C-class and they could check off which of the B-class criteria it does or doesn't meet. Finally, don't write in the edit summary that you're assessing an article when all you're really doing is deleting code and slapping a talkheader on. In conclusion, this is pretty poor editing behavior from a former WPMILHIST coordinator. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

There needs to be a huge expansion to the article to have the "B-class" criteria. It could It could be a "B4" for grammar, and "B5" for supporting materials. It would failed the others. Really, there is no need for this until it gets a huge expansion. Until then, it remains a "Stub" without the "B-class" criteria. Adamdaley (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

And it sits in Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists until someone fixes your error. I'm not saying that article is B-class. I'm saying to leave the coding with it saying "B1=no", etc. That way, it's easier for other editors to change it to "yes" when applicable rather than have to paste in the coding from the template.

Regardless, your edits are faker than a three-dollar bill. Stop deleting code and calling it "assessed." What kind of assessment is it when the class doesn't change from the previous assessor? If you want to grind editcount, do something useful. There are plenty of other articles that someone has actually asked to be re-assessed. Consider performing a GA review. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, just a heads up to let you know that I changed the formatting of your vote so that Pedro was no longer wikilinked. There's apparently a bug in the report so it thought Pedro had voted twice. Hope you don't mind. I'll also report the bug.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nokia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill ^[talk] 16:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

cleanup
Thank you for quality articles such as Rudy Boesch, for "beginning the cleanup" and making the small steps in the right direction, - you are an awesome Wikipedian! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Chris troutman. I'm not sure how to use Reflinks to fix link rot on articles. Will you teach me how to do so? Thanks. Jianhui67 Talk 12:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I can help you with Reflinks. As the page describes, you can put it into your Vector/CSS skin. After that, you just hit the button. I can help you from there. Be advised, Reflinks fixes bare URLs, but can't actually fix link rot. You'd have to also make use of something like the Wayback machine. Let me know once you have it installed. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I have the code installed on my vector.js already. Jianhui67 Talk 05:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok. There should now be a link on the left side of the screen in amongst the "toolbox" links called Reflinks. When you have a bare URL external link within ref coding like <ref>[en.wikipedia.org ]</ref>, Reflinks will bring up an interface to grab data from the URL and suggest what citation template should be used. You can select which one you want to use from a pull-down menu. At the bottom of that page you'll hit "preview" and the interface will return to the normal edit interface of the wiki. You can then save the page as you normally would.

The interface isn't perfect. It can't draw information from URLs that link to PDF files. Sometimes the URL will have odd metadata that you may have to correct before saving. I have found that the Reflinks interface will only handle a maximum of about 20 bare URLs before it locks up. I typically only go 5 at a time to speed the process. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to keep you waiting. I'll try out Reflinks when I have time. I have history exam tomorrow. I can only edit on my phone. Jianhui67 Talk 07:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I tested Reflinks today and thanks to you, I know how to use Reflinks. Thanks! Jianhui67 Talk 11:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jewish Bolshevism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Chris troutman. You have new messages at Jianhui67's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Jianhui67 Talk 01:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

In 30 days, we will know the identity of our 2013 WikiCup champion. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) currently leads; if that lead is held, she will become the first person to have won the WikiCup twice. Sasata (submissions), Hawkeye7 (submissions)—who has never participated in the competition before—and Casliber (submissions) follow. The majority of points in this round have come from a mix of good articles and bonus points. This final round is seeing contributions to a number of highly important topics; recent submissions include Phoenix (constellation) (FA by Casliber), Ernest Lawrence (GA by Hawkeye7), Pinniped, and red fox (both GAs by Sasata).

The did you know (DYK) eligibility criteria have recently changed, meaning that newly passed good articles are accepted as "new" for did you know purposes. However, in the interests of not changing the WikiCup rules mid-competition, please note that only articles eligible for DYK under the old system (that is, newly created articles or 5x expansions) will be eligible for points in this year's WikiCup. We do, however, have time to discuss how this new system will work for next year's competition; a discussion will be opened in due course. On that note, thoughts are welcome on changes you'd like to see for next year. What worked? What didn't work? What would you like to see more of? What would you like to see less of? All Wikipedians, new or old, are also warmly invited to sign up for the 2014 WikiCup.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 22:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Derry. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ernest C. Brace you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 PocklingtonDan -- PocklingtonDan (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The article Ernest C. Brace you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Ernest C. Brace 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 PocklingtonDan -- PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Chris, belated thanks for your Sept 19 contribution to the discussion I started on the talk page for Thomas More. Can I respectfully ask you to consider whether the following comment, which you addressed to me, is appropriate: "Perhaps you should learn about Wikipedia before you attempt further edits. It is not the job of editors to philosophize about St. Thomas More". I hope that if you reflect on that you'll see that it's a lecture I don't need. Firstly, you're entirely mistaken that I have "philosophized" about More or anyone else. As I've explained on the More talk page, I'm proposing to delete opinionated and unsourced material, not add anything (let alone my own research). But on a more personal note (and this is why I decided to leave this message on your page, rather than confuse the More talk page still further) I have to say I resent your suggestion that I'm attempting to publish original material. I don't need you to draw my attention to Wikipedia's prohibition on original material, indeed if you had taken the trouble to read my submission on the talk page (there's no obligation on you to do so but since you were commenting on what I'd written I thought you might have) you'd have seen that I had already linked to the selfsame prohibition.

In short, if you think I'm trying to publish original material then please substantiate that accusation, otherwise I'd be grateful if you would withdraw it. As someone who considers himself a conscientious Wikipedia editor, I take that accusation personally, and I'd very much like it to be retracted. Thank you. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your question on this matter. While I'm glad you took a break to consider the replies you've received at Talk:Thomas More, I'm sorry that there's still this misunderstanding. I'm going to try to answer your points about More on that talk page, so I'll only explain my own pointed comments here.

As I've indicated, it is not the job of editors to come up with what they think is true. Editors are supposed to cobble together sources and communicate what the published experts say. That means if the top 10 academics say "A" is true but you're sure "B" is true, you write the article to show that "A" is true based on the top academics. I don't have editcountitis but I'm a believer in edit count as a metric indicating how familiar you are with how we do things here in Wikipedia. Your edits (and some of your edit summaries) don't look like how we do business. I think you're approaching articles like Thomas More and Catherine of Aragon with your own opinions and trying to edit as if what you believe is unquestionably true. Even if you were right, your clear lack of experience leaves you taking the wrong steps to fix the problem.

You are welcome to remove unsourced content, so long as you're not asking us to prove the sky is blue. If you see sentences that seem to be unclear or inaccurate, try using inline templates to raise the issue before making controversial edits. Rather than communicate what you think about Thomas More, show us what published reliable sources say about More and disprove points you think are wrong. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the trouble to reply. I don't recall much of what I edited on the Catherine of Aragon page. From memory, there were some gushing assessments of her beauty and virtue, including a line from one of Shakespeare's plays that had been quoted as if it were the poet's personal view, when in fact it was uttered by one of his characters (a very different thing). I don't recall any of the edits I made on that page being reverted or causing any controversy. Even if they had been, I'm not sure I understand the relevance of my past editing history to the current discussion. With respect, it seems like you're trawling my history for evidence of a slip-up. Assuming I've made a mistake (don't we all?) are you planning to keep bringing it up or is it possible that my future edits might be treated on their own merits?

Coming back to the matter at hand, could you please clarify exactly what "original research" you think I have tried to publish in the Thomas More article? As you know, that's a serious accusation to level at any Wikipedia editor. So I'd appreciate it if you could substantiate it or withdraw it. I'm pretty sure you'll discover that I haven't added, or even attempted to add, a single word to that page. I have suggested removing some opinionated and unsourced material, and if you disagree with that suggestion then of course that's your right - indeed I'm genuinely interested to hear why (I'm particularly looking forward to someone explaining what on earth unsourced counterfactual speculation is doing in a Wikipedia article) - but none of that constitutes an attempt to publish "original research". I'd be grateful if you could acknowledge that.

In respect of the Thomas More article, as you say, we can leave the details for the More talk page. But just to tackle briefly what you say above, again you seem to be slightly confused. The only "opinions" I've raised about More have been on the talk page, and even they have been largely in response to points raised by other Wikipedians. I have NOT attempted to insert any opinions into the article itself. If you think I have, then please tell me what those opinions are and when precisely I tried to insert them into the article. (Incidentally, you're also mistaken to think that I edited the Catherine of Aragon page according to my opinions - I haven't the slightest idea whether she was beautiful or virtuous, so whether or not you agree with any edits I made to that page, I'd appreciate if you could acknowledge that they had nothing whatsoever to do with my own personal views.)

PS No, I'm not suggesting that anyone should prove the sky is blue. I'm suggesting that when a contributor attempts to fathom the motives of a person who died nearly 500 years ago, that contributor should substantiate that claim with reference to some sort of source, preferably a source that doesn't directly contradict said claim. I'm sure you can see that's not the same as asking someone to prove the sky is blue.

Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Chris, you seem busy (congratulations on the award), so whilst in an ideal world I would of course be grateful if you could address all the questions I've raised above, I'll settle for just one question. Namely the one I'm particularly concerned about, the one regarding original research. If you believe I have tried to add original research to the Thomas More article, please substantiate that accusation. If not, please withdraw it. Many thanks, much appreciated. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)