hi Chris i am Rich Orange former resident performer for Godskitchen in Code Birmingham England, The MET Bar County Armagh Ireland and also in Ibiza Spain me and Birdy worked for them for qabout 3and a half years as their resident performers at Global Gathering too
please revert my addition to the page ..i think i still need to figure out
please message me when you get this cheers ^^ Rich 'Orange' Whitehead — Preceding unsigned comment added by R1ch0rang3 ( talk • contribs) 08:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
So I worked more on it, there's also a portable game now. Care to take a look? -- Niemti ( talk) 18:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you reversed the COI tag on TrackingPoint. Thank you. I just saw today that all 5 articles I've created for Wikipedia were given a COI -- or worse -- tag by the same editor. In all cases, no reason was given. I can assure you that I have no personal connection to any of these subjects. I attended a lecture by Everett L. Fullam (about 50 years ago!!) and became an instant fan. I was surprised to see that he wasn't represented on Wikipedia, so I did the research (a lot of research!) and wrote what I believe was a strong encyclopedia article, complete with strong references. That article was not only given a COI tag by the editor, but also much of the text was deleted. I don't want to sound dramatic, but I do feel like I've been attacked - that these pages have been vandalized. The other pages I created (and, again, all of them have been given a COI tag, and, in some cases, large amounts of text have been deleted) are Precision guided firearm, Employee Benefit Research Institute, Allan Singleton-Wood, and, as I mentioned already, Everett L. Fullam. If you could possibly review those edits, I would really appreciate it. When I saw what was done to those pages, I was quite shaken. My husband suggested I contact you, since you had already seen the wrongness of the COI tag on TrackingPoint, and he thought you might also be able to address the tags placed on my other pages. Thank you so much Factual1979 ( talk) 20:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Cover Your Cough Barnstar |
For your efforts to cover and improve the H7N9 flu article. Geraldshields11 ( talk) 20:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC) |
Hi Chris Gualtieri, I am looking for volunteers to re-create the link below for all 196 countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States The goal of this project is to map out the global economy. Here is the project page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Economic_Map — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcnabber091 ( talk • contribs) 03:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I am just letting you know that I've made a proposal to create a rotating DRN organiser-style role that would help with the day-to-day running of DRN. As you are a listed volunteer at DRN, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, and the other open proposals at DRN. You can read more about it here. Thanks! Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 00:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello there. I think I may have just learned something from your last change to the Pear article. I wasn't aware of the use of the triple single quote sequence as a way to bold (in place of the B html tag I used). I'm afraid I'll have to go and change a few more articles :-(, as I used it more than a few times. I'm glad you caught it, thanks. Chango369w ( talk) 10:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Chris.
In a recent edit of Ogunquit, Maine, you changed ½ to ½. I had intentionally chosen to use ½ instead of ½, because using the HTML tag shows other editors who may not know how to create the ½ character one way to do it.
Most of what I've learned about how to edit I've learned by seeing how other editors do things—much more than I've ever learned from WP's hit-and-miss help pages. By changing that ½ to ½, you eliminate that potentially useful bit of information for an editor who may want to type ½ but have no idea how to do it.
(Another reason I sometimes use HTML character tags is to help me and other editors distinguish between visually similar characters, like dashes. It's very hard to distinguish dashes of various lengths just by looking at them—especially with the fixed-width font here in the editing box—so I nearly always take the trouble to type – instead of –, for example, so other editors can see immediately that the character is an en dash, not a minus sign, a hyphen or an em dash. The end result for WP readers looks the same either way, but in some cases I think using HTML tags makes editing a lot easier.)
I'm not trying to tell you how to edit; I'm just explaining why I entered the ½ in the awkward-looking way I did it in that article, and I'd like to know your reason for changing it. It certainly makes the text in the edit box easier to read, although that text is more for editing than for reading. But if somewhere in the MOS or elsewhere we're advised not to use HTML tags for creating characters, please point me to it. I've been working on WP fitfully for several years, but I still feel like I know hardly anything about how to edit.
Your edit summary just said "General Fixes", which reveals nothing at all about why you made the edit. Would you mind explaining why you made that specific change? If you don't mind, put your answer here and then paste
in a new section at the bottom of my talk page, here.
Thanks very much.
Jim Martin— Jim10701 ( talk) 15:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Aston Martin.
If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref>
and one or more <ref name="foo"/>
referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref>
but left the <ref name="foo"/>
, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/>
with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>
; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.
If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at
User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at
User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks!
AnomieBOT
⚡
18:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{
bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}}
to your talk page.
Why are you changing these? (e.g. [1], [2]) It has no actual effect on the article, and as far as I know, we're supposed to put the apostrophes inside the brackets. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Do you know which of today's changes to the Brian Aldiss biography [3] triggers a visit by AWB? Although I'm curious, I ask mainly because I have saved hundreds of adjacent templates {{ Authority control}} and {{ Persondata}}, and created at least dozens of them. -- P64 ( talk) 01:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Chris: I've been slowly trying to work on this page in my spare time. Like you, I found the whole history section to be poorly translated garbage from the Catalan version. I've been working on it using my sandbox. If you're planning on more edits, I'll hold off - I'm a rank amateur (I had to look up what "AWB" meant), and my progress will be slow. But I had checked into Casa Mila (among other Barcelona sites) in preparation for a return trip there in June, and was just too appalled at the English Wikipedia site to let it go as is. Let me know what you're planning. Thanks. Fromthemitten ( talk) 02:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been busy and kinda sick lately. I've undone your unmerging. Just because Lucia is being stubborn on this issue does not mean we have to throw out all of the work we have done. Having a separate article just to cover the three manga is really unnecessary.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 03:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
If you are saying my edits to the {{ about}} template on Ghost in the Shell are edit warring then I'm giving up on trying to find a compromise.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 18:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucia Black ( talk • contribs)
![]() |
I am only just getting to grips with the abstract sandbox culture of wikipedia. I have no idea how to message anyone. Is this the way? Donald Urquhart ( talk) 21:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC) |
I'm mystified by the utility of this edit. Would you mind demystifying me? Thanks. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 03:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
hello, you say the H7N9 virus in turkeys in USA are different with the case in China , do you have clear description about this topic ? thanks ---goodforak
I'm mystified by the utility of this edit. Would you mind demystifying me? Thanks. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 03:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
[[''Turandot'']]
with ''[[Turandot]]''
and
WP:AWB/GF makes the same point when its says it replaces [[Dog|'''Dog''']]
with '''[[Dog]]'''
. Clearly you can't code like that, because it breaks the link. But that is not at all the same as replacing [[Progression of Animals|''De incessu animalium'']]
with ''[[Progression of Animals|De incessu animalium]]''
. We are not talking about formatting the actual link, just the bit that is to be piped. I am concerned about this rule, if it exists, that the formatting of piped links must be done externally and not internal to the pipe. I can see no point to it. And the matter has non-trivial consequences, because there are instances where formatting a piped link externally won't work at all. For example, what would be your alternative for a table header coded with a break, such as [[Standard length|Standard<br />length]]
? --
Epipelagic (
talk)
16:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
[[''Turandot'']]
with ''[[Turandot]]''
, the reason being that the markup will look for the page ''Turandot''. Try it yourself.
ChrisGualtieri (
talk)
03:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[[Progression of Animals|''De incessu animalium'']]
-> ''[[Progression of Animals|De incessu animalium]]''
have now been turned off in the development version of AWB. Information on this can be found at
Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#New general fix?. However, the preferred way would have the '' outside of the wikilink. As Epipelagic pointed, this cannot always be the case. Using the span tag for text color is another case. I don't know why it was turned on or off.
Bgwhite (
talk)
00:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Fun, I am also aware of the title stripping matter from level 2 headings and have found a few of those that need manual fixes or adjustment, but other ones are not a problem and AWB tried to strip them out on me. I know that other fix is for the next version as well. And TypoScan or some typo list needs to be seriously run, any chance we could get that done for the April or upcoming May dumps? I'd prefer April so I got something to do in May. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 00:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
As said above AWB won't be changing the place of italics markup from inside the wikilink to outside or visa versa expect the [[Dog|'''Dog''']]
case for simplicity reasons. I have no strong opinion for the placement of the italics markup. I have noticed in the past that it's more difficult to spot unbalanced wiki markup inside the wikillinks but or that some wikilinks had double markup ('''[[Cat|'''Dog''']]'''
). Anyway, we 'll try to make a new release soon to stop making this change. --
Magioladitis (
talk)
05:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Obviously intended to keep me blocked and prevent me from defending myself at ANI. LittleBen ( talk) 23:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Chris. Could you please not save such edits [5] [6], etc. (there is quite a number). They do clutter watchlists, and are actually not allowed per AWB rules of use. Thanks. Materialscientist ( talk) 04:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Chris, no slight intended. Please understand my point - it is counterproductive to save minor cleanup edits, because they bring little improvement but can potentially cover up major vandalism. You don't have to save any AWB edit, and as an AWB user you must have a good judgement of that. This is explicitly covered in the AWB rules (and it is not just about AWB, but also about attitude to editing - unfortunately, vandalism, spam, POV, etc., are major issues). Cheers. Materialscientist ( talk) 05:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, if you believe that absence of nbsp is an error, then I can't help you. There is no use polishing a door knob in a house under construction - workers will get through the door (and break and replace that knob in the process :-). The vast majority of articles need basic copyedit, extra references, completing and fixing existing refs, etc. If you are not up to adding information/references, you can always do routine fixes, not in the AWB way, but using reflinks/checklinks, or just copy/paste the output into MS Word and run a spellcheck - this is much more efficient than AWB (even Firefox spellcheck is often better).
Backlogs are numerous, e.g. Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit, Category:All articles needing link rot cleanup, and many others.
There is a default saving threshold in AWB, but it depends on individual user settings. Operators of bots that use AWB are expected to tune the autoskip threshold.
CHECKWIKI is a minor game of a few editors; most of those "fixes" border "minor changes", and Yobot has been blocked before for fixing CHECKWIKI. Materialscientist ( talk) 06:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thank you very much for splitting and making the "List of Cardfight!! Vanguard Characters" page.
Buso Kenshin 88 (
talk)
16:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your pickup. It was an honest mistake. Keep up the good work. Regards David.moreno72 ( talk) 02:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Re: [8], on my computer, I can't see any difference. (I'd like to understand. Can you describe so I can see?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 04:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi ChrisGualtieri! It seems you follow the effort to fix common syntax errors. CHECKWIKI provides a list of suggestions found at User:Magioladitis/AWB and CHECKWIKI. We update the list every month. This month we still need to fix errors 28, 46, 80 and 84. Unfortunately, these errors cant be fixed by AWB's general fixes and therefore Yobot fails to fix them. They need user attention. AWB provides error alerts to aid this effort. Maybe you could help us? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
And it's not going to work. Personal attack? Prove it. Otherwise, don't bother. Everything I said were events in the past that happened. Nothing "personal" and not an "attack". Lucia Black ( talk) 22:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Stop misinterpretting things. Just because you see your name come up doesn't mean its a personal attack. A personal attack would be me saying hypothetically "You're an idiot", "You're stupid" "Focus on your personal life if you can't handle wikipedia" etc. I reported Niemti because I just saw DRN to discredit me after I gave him a warning. You can have th last word for all I care. Lucia Black ( talk) 23:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. That's been long archived and if you claim Bushranger gave me a warning, why are you going to give me a formal one? Reason why I brought Niemti was because I gave niemti a warning before hand and recently just noticed DRN mention again (disregarding warning). You're looking for things to take to ANI but that incident already happened within ANI. ANI isn't going to listen to you if you don't practice what you preech. I know when an editor just wants to block someone for the sake of being to edit what he wishes rather than seeing a major issue in behavior that will affect in the long run. Lucia Black ( talk) 23:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
ChrisGualtieri. Just stop. You're no saint. And you've done worst. Its hipocritical for you to call this a personal attack. I mentioned you and Ryulong for indirectly attempting to defame but for the sake of the topic, not for defaming for the sake of defaming like Niemti. Just stop. Ok? I done nothing "personal" towards about you. So just leave it. Lucia Black ( talk) 23:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Just stop. You're not helping your point. Your convincing no one because you constantly change ur point. I reported Niemti to ANI. Lucia Black ( talk) 00:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Your mentioned in ANI. Lucia Black ( talk) 00:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Just as an information thing, the vertical bar in the category which you removed and was reverted here, is actually there for a reason. Putting the | and then a space after it defines that article as the primary article in a category and places it at the top of the list. Without the pipe it will just go into the list in alphabetical order and it can't easily be established which is the primary article without hunting for it. Just saying it's not an unnecessary edit, it actually does have a valid function. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 13:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The No Spam Barnstar |
I ran across a few of your edits when retracing my vandalism reversion to make sure the vandals weren't back. Noticing that you have a disproportionate amount of anti-spam actions, I took a look at your edit count, and I'm amazed I haven't run into you, before! Thanks for all that you do for Wikipedia! Jackson Peebles ( talk) 16:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC) |
Attempting to open a dispute resolution, but puting the "request DR" button appears to take me to a blank wiki page. Could you elaborate the correct process? Gaijin42 ( talk) 14:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned the dispute resolution is useless at this point because we have no outside input.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 23:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
It is not my fault if Lucia attributes a direct adaption or close relationship with, "Ghost in the Shell, on the other hand, are all alternate tellings of the original (with Arise being the only one that's a prequel). All spin offs are directly related to the original manga (except for the spin off media based on the original spin offs)." A casual reference is fine, but any such "alternate tellings" have to be routed in reliable resources. So the 1995 film and Innocence count. SAC says otherwise according to production I.G. by explicitly labeling SAC as a separate continuity. Canon issues aside (as you said), I am not against mentioning them and giving 300-400 words on EACH work. This is basically half the manga. I just do not think that the films deserve two sentences each and the reception of the three books gets paragraphs. And we lost many reviews and links to said reviews. Censorship of the manga is also purely off-topic for the whole of GITS. And you KNOW how the sexuality of Motoko is depicted. Characters and world should be greatly expanded, but lets not cripple our key navigation page with overly detailed manga details. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 23:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I agreed with you up until you said the main article keeps the reception, production and censorship parts. The reason I do not want the original manga plots to be discussed in over detail is the same reason I do not want the other aspects to be discussed in over detail. Basically this is what I want in sections.
And so on with a short plot, reception and other key details in each subsection with the main splits going to the proper pages. 1000 words for GITS manga. If you can keep it under 1000 words. For perspective as is, the plot 550, creation/dev 237, publication history is 630. censorship is 98, and reception is 377. Total is about 1900 words, so it is twice as long as I want it to be. I do not want to lose that 1000 either, I want it on the other page. Comparatively, FMA has 500 to the manga, 352 to the anime, and 400 to brotherhood. I will not count plot, production and others as they integrate content themselves in a meaningful way, bringing the about section further while doing so in a natural way. If you want it to be stylized after FMA, I do agree if you are willing to cover ALL the media in such a format. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 00:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
So do you finally the main article should not split the manga? I disagree with weighing sections by their article size. Adding the key info will inevitably balance the size out between series. Plus its less necessary to add extensive detail when they have their own article. You have to understand proper weight is relevant when there are no other articles. So if the manga isn't split, then all manga info can be in the main article. Lucia Black ( talk) 01:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
You say that...but you don't prove it. Lucia Black ( talk) 05:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay I'm awake. And basically we're never going to get to a fucking resolution because you want everything manga on one page that is not Ghost in the Shell. You are right that the original manga is notable. That's why we have it without a disambiguation anymore. You keep quoting WP:SS without acknowledging the fact that because it is the original work it should be the main page of everything. And no this does not mean that you should make a Ghost in the Shell (franchise) page. We should not move the reception/production/censorship stuff off of the main page because the main page should not be a massive summary of everything Ghost in the Shell.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 07:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I've restored my edits to the article and performed the changes that I suggested above, including moving a lot of content to List of Ghost in the Shell chapters (production, censorship, and reception remain on the first article). Rather than reverting me, again, maybe we can come to some sort of conclusion as to what sections you don't want on the page or how we can make the existing sections more to your liking.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 07:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm voting for mediation now. Its the only way this will get solved. Lucia Black ( talk) 15:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
ChrisGualtieri, I've noticed that you and Gandydancer have had a bit of disagreement about what, if anything, should be said in the introduction of Influenza A virus subtype H7N9 regarding elderly males stricken with H7N9. In the article discussion page I've proposed a compromise. I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at it and maybe add your thoughts to the discussion. — RP88 ( talk) 15:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be mistagging several articles. Specifically, just because the series has either yuri or yaoi in it does not automatically make it hentai or ecchi related. If that was the case, then any work depicting heterosexual romance would automatically be considered hentai or ecchi. If there isn't any sexual content in a series, don't list it under this WikiProject. Some examples would be Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl, Sweet Blue Flowers, Maria-sama ga Miteru, etc.-- 十 八 21:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
My contribution to the sex offenders inhabiting Little Diomede Island was completely true. I had a reference included as well. Please reverse the changes you made regarding my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.190.206 ( talk) 16:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Please excuse me, although I've had this account for a while I've never really used it and I'm struggling to work it out.
I don't know if the reason you undid my edit was because I didn't reference it, but I'm not yet sure how to include a reference and I thought the update (clarifying that only male homosexuality was illegal and thus actually de-criminalised by the HOO) was too easily verified and undisputed a fact for anybody to want to change it in the short time I hoped it would take me to discover how to do it. There are also already certain references on Wikipedia (including in the article I updated) to the fact that homosexuality was only ever illegal for men in any of the UK, and this further bolstered my confidence that it would be an uncontroversial clarification to make.
Here is one example of a source I could link to, so that you know the update is legitimate. Could you perhaps direct me to any instructions for adding it? http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/4/newsid_3007000/3007686.stm
Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optifog ( talk • contribs) 16:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Their the same. Solid State Society plays a similar role to how Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence is loosely based on robot rondo chapter of the original Ghost in the Shell. The only difference is their origin. Original Puppeteer was a program evolved into AI, in SSS it was a collective conscious. Both hacked the major with only SSS implying that they've merged. Lucia Black ( talk) 03:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but that was the source for the first season. And it was based on the assumption that Motoko never met Puppeteer (past tense). Similar to how a series has sources that confirm that there will never be a new series and they release 1 anyways. I now because I was the one who added that source. Lucia Black ( talk) 04:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Kusanagi: I'm surprised. Your thinking is so arrogant and self-righteous, yet you have so much drive. Being a bureaucrat is a waste of your talent. Plus, you know all about me... Who the hell are you?!
Puppeteer: You still haven't pieced it together? Come now, Motoko Kusanagi... Surely there can't be an overabundance of people dwelling within your memory, burning with this overwhelming egotistical rightfulness.
Puppeteer: We've synchronized with countless consciousnesses over the years. So, it shouldn't come as a big surprise that your deep collective subconscious came to life. And with it, the Solid State is complete. It's time for us to go forth. Let's become a vanishing mediator and go take an active hand in the next society.
Also... for the SSS article, I'll look for an unclosed ref tag... its usually the cause. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 04:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Can you clarify why you're quoting that? I already said I'm not denying that its not her subconscious. However, it doesn't contradict that they've merged (or became once for the second time). Her subconscious that recorded all the other consciousness she syncronized became a collective entity. Its like if an apple tree's apple grows into a tree and merges with its parent. Lucia Black ( talk) 04:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
My essay covers your ad hominem tactics to avoid talking about the main issue at hand. So even though it ain't official, doesn't mean you're not using evasive discussion tactics. I made my point. Their both "The Puppeteer". Their both a form of evolution and both merged with the Major. Citing what a troll is not helping your case. I'm done. Lucia Black ( talk) 05:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll repeat myself here. If there are factual errors in the prose, fix them. Just don't change the scope of the article.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 03:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
" led by protagonist Major Motoko Kusanagi, in the early 21st century of Japan." Aramaki.
"The world has also taken on vastly different forms, with Japan emerging from both a nuclear World War III and non-nuclear World War IV relatively unscathed, save for the loss of Tokyo and surrounding cities. The government's creation of a nuclear fallout scrubbing nanomachine called the "Japanese Miracle" gives the nation sway in the global sphere, with the American Empire, one of several nations to emerge after war has split the United States, vying for the technology to restore their nation to its former glory." GITS 2, canonicity dispute originally raised by Lucia way back.
The story runs the manga together and gives nothing outside of the main case.
"The first film Ghost in the Shell, written and directed by Mamoru Oshii, generally follows the Puppet Master plot of the first manga The Ghost in the Shell, but the interpretation of characters is slightly different." Very much different is more like it, the comedic tones and rebellious nature is lost.
" Its sequel Innocence is an original story inspired by a chapter from The Ghost in the Shell." - Might as well use the reported AE account with Robot Rondo.
"although a similarly named entity appears in the made-for-TV movie." - Sorta... Kanji is different and translation matters, but I don't know about the subconscious link here. Or the Noble Rot matter.
The plot misses the other works, Man/Machine Interface should really be covered in full. The forty page matter as 'episode' is accurate but underscored and confusing with SAC and other works. Clarify. Though that's the simple stuff. The reception you know how to fix it with AE's coverage and that is a RS. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 04:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your helpful source suggestion for additional references at the new article I've created, Urofsky v. Gilmore. Much appreciated, — Cirt ( talk) 06:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source that places these under the Hentai genre? Yes there are lolicon anime and manga that are considered hentai per sources but as for the word lolicon its-self I don't think so. Also it is not disruptive to remove projects that are out of the article's scope, I gave a reason in my edit summary which you never answered. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 18:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Chris, by telling Bunny "ANI is a dice roll", aren't you in fact conveying to him that ANI was an okay choice of venue for his concern? (When it clearly isn't?) Please explain. (I've seen numerous Admins in numerous ANIs inform users that content issues are not venue for ANI, only behavior issues requiring immedidate Admin intervention. Are you saying they have been wrong about it?) Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 13:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I never felt at all the user "questioning [my] qualifications" as being anything at all, because the user was clearly confused and perplexed, least of all a PA. You are the only one saying that. (And why are you?) So the BOOMERANG thing you mentioned, is completely baseless, no one is thinking or saying that, it is completely your solitary idea. (And why?) You are missing something here ... I was accused of making "persistent [revert] deletes" at ANI. No one has found it appropriate to examine how it might make me feel having an ANI thread opened to sanction me based on complete nonsense and false accusation. No one sees it fit to see the incivility of that. No one sees that being on receiving end of a false accusation, and the subject of an ANI thread for many eyes to see, that is totally mistaken, might at least deserve an immediate close of the thread, and an apology. No, no, no. Instead, it is better course for you to take my question here, on the purpose and proper use of ANI, and use it to threaten me. "Puffing up for a battle"? What are you talking about? I have no interactions with that user, save one revert, and anticipate none either, since the user is clearly averse to using Talk, user or article. And the content matters have already been enumerated by other users, so there are no words I would even consider necessary to have with that user. "Puffing up for battle"?! That is amazing. Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 20:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 18:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, ChrisGualtieri. You recently nominated Pearson Test of English Academic, PTE General, and PTE Young Learners for deletion via AfD. But in each case your nomination suggests that what you would really like is to merge the content to Pearson Language Tests. The merger seems like a good idea. However, AfD is not the place to propose mergers; Wikipedia:Proposed mergers exists for that purpose, and less controversial mergers can be handled without nomination, perhaps facilitated by discussion on the article talk page. It might be appropriate to withdraw the three AfD nominations if you are not actually looking for deletion. Happy editing, Cnilep ( talk) 05:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Chris,
I see you've been going around putting "Untitled" section headings at the tops of talk pages, when the talk page started without sections. Um ... why? I'm not going to revert, because that would be just as pointless, but it's a little annoying to see my watchlist churn for this sort of thing. -- Trovatore ( talk) 19:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for resolving the dispute at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Ashok_Malik. I am quite an old editor at wiki with more than 1600 edits. I have been involved in various projects. Recently I am having certain troubles. Soham321 who had brought the earlier mentioned dispute, has constantly been stalking my Contributions page. At several discussions at talk pages he has been using bad language against me and alleging me of being biased. In fact sometimes he has accused me of being biased for few pages, for fighting vandalism at which, I have been praised. He constantly keeps visiting my contributions page and keep making disruptive edits at those pages which is troubling me in making edits. Once he was even blocked for such action which involved him reverting my edits. He edits almost all pages I edit where he finds that his political issue is involved which I may not name at present. I am sure he shall be continuing this and would also be reading this present post. Is there any place I can complain this at or prevent him from accessing my page? Any help shall be very helpful. Thank You-- Mohit Singh ( talk) 21:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
So, how to do it? -- Niemti ( talk) 09:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
FigureArtist ( talk) 12:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
ANI related I am writing here, to say beyond any words of your "users" that have lied to you and to me about me. I am Giovanni Strassini, I have NEVER-EMPHASIS ADDED, added a thing to your site. your "gnomes" and "sock" chasers, added my name back when all I did was remove it from your site! This is 100% truth, and I have proof through many attempts I did not add anything here. I can speak to anyone of authority to show this neyond even your "users" what I am saying is truth. F.T.C complaints, F.C.C complaints, NC Attorney General complaints and CMPD complaints, started by myself againt the true name identity theft I was victim of, from 2000, until now. user JohnInDC, lies. I have never made an edit to ADD things to your siter, only to remove my name!!! I asked him, bender235, and materialscientist to stop adding my name or even use my name on your site. I removed it and THEY, NOT ME, added it back. I did NOT threaten legal action, I priomised it if they did not stop lying about me and re-adding my name here. That is MY RIGHT, AND PRIVACY LAWS PREVAIL. I can be contacted through this site if given contact info where I can provide it back to you. I have nothing to hide, only your "users" that have lioed do. They showed what others did, and then claimed falsely it was me. Lies and libel. − I make this statement under the penalty of perjury of the United States of America and deem this to be true and correct=Giovanni Strassini − The IP addresses were at least 4 used in this and only one shared PC was used by myself here. This should stand as warning to the over-zealous "users" and abuses they can perpetrate on innocent people such as myself. Allow me to remove my name or do so yourself. Keep honesty at the front, and you will not have problems like this in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.131.150 ( talk) 19:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
you are the liar. i told your users named already i am pursuimg legal action. i have and am, i stand by my statement i never added any information to wiki, and it was done from a multi-user area and not me. you calling me a liar will come back to haunt you. untrue statements that harm are recoverable. you are a fiduciary of wiki and therefore make wikimedia liable. i copied and pasted all your statements including the "award" given to johnindc and all the wiki guys bragging about spreading the lies. you are the liar and one who jumps to wrongful and harmful conclusions based on others lies to you. a reckless disregard for the truth will not stop the theft of pictures and hijacking accounts and mass spreading of lies to harm only. bender-john-material-yourself are all part and parcel to the harm that cannot be undone. i can prove i never added information here, you have an ip address used by thousands. get the point now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.218.250.83 ( talk) 23:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
70.19.122.39. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of
your recent contributions to
Horus Heresy (novels) because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Please note also section
reasoning for reverting edits of 2013/05/16 in that article's talk page. Thank you.
70.19.122.39 (
talk)
14:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Ero guro may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 15:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Akiba Girls may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 01:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi friend, I noticed you reverted my edit on Platonov's Foundation Pit in the 'Genre' category back to 'historical fiction'. I do not know whether you have read the novel, but it is in no way a piece of historical fiction, considering Platonov was writing about his own time, not the past. Moreover, Platonov is not a realist writer, as are most writers of historical fiction, but a modernist, even surrealist, writer. Most importantly, Foundation Pit does not meet the criteria detailed on the 'historical fiction' page. Although I believe '(meta)utopianism' to be the best genre for the novel (itself a form of 'meta-parody'), another option could be 'satirical socialist realism'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wearebasiclight ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Just came across this one I think you may have overlooked. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 03:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you! | |
---|---|
![]() |
Hi ChrisGualtieri! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch ( talk) 23:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC) |
There's a RfC at Talk:Islamism#Unexplained_deletions you may be interested in -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 19:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
SarahStierch ( talk) 20:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Chris. I saw that you were blocked on accident and concerned of RfA. Well, I've decided that if you accept, then I'd like to nominate you. You'd be a great admin. Even if it fails the first time, wait 6-15 months and then try again. Thanks. WorldTraveller101( Trouble?/ My Work) 02:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Youve accused me of a troll in the past out of mere opposition. You use NPA when it best suits you, but it doesnt stop you from making erroneous claims such as me not understanding notability, in a nutshell and several other things. Even if you bring up a thousand situations where my judgement was wrong, the one who has done the most disruption is you. An admin wont start an edit war, wont be quick to use NPA, or call an editor a troll. And im ralking about several discussions when you did. Lucia Black ( talk) 16:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Blocked sock/troll. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The closed RFC at WP:VPP does not in any way mean that it overturns any prior consensuses. You still need to form a proper consensus to restore the content which you do not have. The fact that you requested someone formally close it so it has an air of officiality is really telling of your intentions as well.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 06:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
It appears that you have copy-pasted a response to this AFD from the other AFDs on articles by the same user under the concern that other pages were suggested to be deleted as they are dictionary definitions. This is not the case for this particular article. I would implore you to properly assess this article instead of just disagreeing because you saw a pattern of edits.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 01:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
As a courtesy, I have mentioned your name while raising this issue at WP:ANI under the title "AFDs not being properly considered due to assumption of bad faith".— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 01:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Chris, no problem - good that you were able to replace it. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 15:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Snuck your comment back in there. Mkdw talk 20:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.-- Dom497 ( talk) This message was sent out by -- EdwardsBot ( talk) 14:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC) |
Hello Chris, I understand that you had to delete the above mentioned page due to lack of references. Yesterday I found references of her artistic biography in the following book: Maria Georgeta Popescu - Musicology studies vol IV, Iași, PIM Publishing House, 2009, ISBN 978-973-716-524-4, p. 17 and in Romanian Impact Magazine, Year: 3 - No.7 (30) October 2003, Center Focus Publishing, Niles, Illinois, USA, ISSN 1532-9852, p.5 (both in Romanian). Is it possible to restore the page? I also found on Youtube an excerpt of Mozart's concert No.23 played by her with the Pitesti Philharmonic Orchestra. Other excerpts on her Facebook page. Thank you, RodicaB ( talk) 09:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Please see the references from the article in German Wiki and in Romanian Wiki.
I have the printed references (book and magazine) in my hands. What shall I do next? Thanks, RodicaB The page is Nicoleta Luca Meițoiu RodicaB ( talk) 15:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Chris, Happy New Year! I finally got the article and book covers (with ISBN) scanned in .pdf format. How can I send it to you, so that you can recreate the page? Thanks, RodicaB ( talk) 11:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
It pleases me to see young people so obviously in love. Happy days! And good deeds never go unpunished. Drmies ( talk) 05:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Do you have sources for the birthdate/birthplace you just added? Articles like this have a tendency to pile up unsourced bits of stuff over time, and eventually they turn into a mass of uncertainty. Thanks. Rklear ( talk) 12:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Your recent change to James Kelley using AWB was incorrect. AWB is powerful but sometimes wrong. I know, because I have made incorrect changes myself, which my talk page confirms. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 00:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Chris, your AWB edit to Brett Reid put the birth category after the living people category; they should really be the other way around. Graham 87 01:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Chris, you're spamming my watchlist with "useless" edits like [19] [20] [21] [22] [23], etc., etc. Please reconsider your skipping threshold. Materialscientist ( talk) 04:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Adding sources and other information do not fall under the semi-auto edit summary of AWB. I'm not saying every edit is pure gold, but I've pointed out that the last ones you were concerned with had rationals and a reason. I don't particularly like updating the templates or reorganizing them as they seem a bit weird for me as well; but I've set AWB to avoid cosmetic fixes and it still hits things like this. Some of it may be related to voice readers; parsing or whatever issues. I didn't even know that some of the changes were important like the anchor for Harvard until I realized they actually cause issues with Wikibook collection. Thanks for beating me to the Abraham Darby matter, also. But I do not know how to best address edits in AWB when I follow them up with manual edits. I don't think AWB auto-summary with "possible manual additions" is a proper. As is, I avoid the math articles because I don't want to attempt and fix the math coding without breaking something else. All the -1's and such AWB tries to alter and I have to skip them and other cases. Perhaps the issue is because I don't understand how this bugs you so much; I researched "why" the last edits were supported by MOS, so I thought the issue was addressed given the past discussions by other users on this subject. If I did them without AWB; it'd still be the same, result. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Of the first 5 examples given by Materialscientst, 3 of 5 were inconsequential (don't say "useless"). These should not have been done. #9 did fix a broken bracket. #12 did move punctuation from after to before the ref. #10 is in a gray area. It did fix the comma in a date. In this instance, I wouldn't have done it, but I could see arguments for it.
Only looking at the last 50 edits done by Chris, over 1/2 were inconsequential. The most common was only renaming a template, such as {{ cn}} -> {{ citation needed}}. Going further back to the 13th, I see mostly good edits, but there is a higher rate of inconsequential edits that would make a liberal/conservative AWB rule interpreter give pause. If the edits only rename a template or move a wikilink from [[Hemispherical|hemispherical]] to [[hemispherical]], don't do it. Bgwhite ( talk) 05:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey man, I noticed that you also supported deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salaf in favor of Nikah Mut'ah after Muhammad. What's happening now is that some other users have suggested scavenging such articles - there are maybe a dozen - and forming one main article from what can be kept instead of deleting all of them entirely. Please take a look at my talk page and tell us what you think; the idea might have some promise. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 12:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that you put a factual accuracy dispute tag on the Operation Red Hat entry. Can you be specific as to which facts are in dispute? Thank you Johnvr4 ( talk) 13:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from July 1st, 2013 – July 31st, 2013.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the
drive's page and help out!
A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code cleanup, and more page cleanups. If you want to see a full list of changes, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.
Delivered at 13:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC) by EdwardsBot ( talk), on behalf of WikiProject AFC
I note that in Little River, South Carolina you have expanded {{CN}} templates to the full text {{Citation needed}}. This makes no difference to the appearance of the text on the page - is there any reason I should be using the full text rather than the abbreviation? If not, what is the purpose of expanding the text? Arjayay ( talk) 15:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Reminded them about local consensus, which covers all of their arguments so far. I say arguments, its not really an argument so much as 'Well its been like this way forever.' Only in death does duty end ( talk) 09:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
You do not have consensus to create a DBZ article, regardless of what you and Only in death have been talking about here.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 00:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Chris, I'm hoping to enlist your help to further mutual goals. I note that your AWB edits have been more than occasionally challenged as being 'inconsequential'. On the other hand, there is a lot of work to do with sundry style fixes that are not part General fixes. I have created two custom AWB modules (see User:Ohconfucius#AWB_tools) that I would invite you to use when you run AWB. Not only will this lighten the workload for other gnomes like me, it would considerably reduce the risk of you making inconsequential edits. The downside is that you will have to be more careful in selecting articles to process when using the modules. I don't use these as often as I could because I spend 90% of my time on MacOS computers. But if you are interested, I could help develop more functions or similar modules that ensure compliance with the MOS (or MOSNUM). Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 05:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Not intending to attack, but rather good-faith pointing out things you can fix, two things stick out at me about your writing: an overuse of semicolons (see for example
this page about it, and an overuse of “would” indicating either the
conditional mood or
future tense where neither seems particularly appropriate. Not particularly big deals, but I’m a bit OCD when it comes to grammatical errors.
I hope it helps to make you aware of it. Take care. —
Frungi (
talk)
06:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Chris, some of your recent edits have changed date formatting from MDY to DMY on articles involving US subjects where the MDY convention was in long use. While I recognize the logic of the DMY convention and use it myself on UK subjects (even though British monarchs have been known to use MDY [28]), it would be best to leave existing longstanding usage in place. Regards, Kablammo ( talk) 16:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
hi Chris i am Rich Orange former resident performer for Godskitchen in Code Birmingham England, The MET Bar County Armagh Ireland and also in Ibiza Spain me and Birdy worked for them for qabout 3and a half years as their resident performers at Global Gathering too
please revert my addition to the page ..i think i still need to figure out
please message me when you get this cheers ^^ Rich 'Orange' Whitehead — Preceding unsigned comment added by R1ch0rang3 ( talk • contribs) 08:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
So I worked more on it, there's also a portable game now. Care to take a look? -- Niemti ( talk) 18:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you reversed the COI tag on TrackingPoint. Thank you. I just saw today that all 5 articles I've created for Wikipedia were given a COI -- or worse -- tag by the same editor. In all cases, no reason was given. I can assure you that I have no personal connection to any of these subjects. I attended a lecture by Everett L. Fullam (about 50 years ago!!) and became an instant fan. I was surprised to see that he wasn't represented on Wikipedia, so I did the research (a lot of research!) and wrote what I believe was a strong encyclopedia article, complete with strong references. That article was not only given a COI tag by the editor, but also much of the text was deleted. I don't want to sound dramatic, but I do feel like I've been attacked - that these pages have been vandalized. The other pages I created (and, again, all of them have been given a COI tag, and, in some cases, large amounts of text have been deleted) are Precision guided firearm, Employee Benefit Research Institute, Allan Singleton-Wood, and, as I mentioned already, Everett L. Fullam. If you could possibly review those edits, I would really appreciate it. When I saw what was done to those pages, I was quite shaken. My husband suggested I contact you, since you had already seen the wrongness of the COI tag on TrackingPoint, and he thought you might also be able to address the tags placed on my other pages. Thank you so much Factual1979 ( talk) 20:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Cover Your Cough Barnstar |
For your efforts to cover and improve the H7N9 flu article. Geraldshields11 ( talk) 20:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC) |
Hi Chris Gualtieri, I am looking for volunteers to re-create the link below for all 196 countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States The goal of this project is to map out the global economy. Here is the project page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Economic_Map — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcnabber091 ( talk • contribs) 03:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I am just letting you know that I've made a proposal to create a rotating DRN organiser-style role that would help with the day-to-day running of DRN. As you are a listed volunteer at DRN, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, and the other open proposals at DRN. You can read more about it here. Thanks! Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 00:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello there. I think I may have just learned something from your last change to the Pear article. I wasn't aware of the use of the triple single quote sequence as a way to bold (in place of the B html tag I used). I'm afraid I'll have to go and change a few more articles :-(, as I used it more than a few times. I'm glad you caught it, thanks. Chango369w ( talk) 10:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Chris.
In a recent edit of Ogunquit, Maine, you changed ½ to ½. I had intentionally chosen to use ½ instead of ½, because using the HTML tag shows other editors who may not know how to create the ½ character one way to do it.
Most of what I've learned about how to edit I've learned by seeing how other editors do things—much more than I've ever learned from WP's hit-and-miss help pages. By changing that ½ to ½, you eliminate that potentially useful bit of information for an editor who may want to type ½ but have no idea how to do it.
(Another reason I sometimes use HTML character tags is to help me and other editors distinguish between visually similar characters, like dashes. It's very hard to distinguish dashes of various lengths just by looking at them—especially with the fixed-width font here in the editing box—so I nearly always take the trouble to type – instead of –, for example, so other editors can see immediately that the character is an en dash, not a minus sign, a hyphen or an em dash. The end result for WP readers looks the same either way, but in some cases I think using HTML tags makes editing a lot easier.)
I'm not trying to tell you how to edit; I'm just explaining why I entered the ½ in the awkward-looking way I did it in that article, and I'd like to know your reason for changing it. It certainly makes the text in the edit box easier to read, although that text is more for editing than for reading. But if somewhere in the MOS or elsewhere we're advised not to use HTML tags for creating characters, please point me to it. I've been working on WP fitfully for several years, but I still feel like I know hardly anything about how to edit.
Your edit summary just said "General Fixes", which reveals nothing at all about why you made the edit. Would you mind explaining why you made that specific change? If you don't mind, put your answer here and then paste
in a new section at the bottom of my talk page, here.
Thanks very much.
Jim Martin— Jim10701 ( talk) 15:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Aston Martin.
If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref>
and one or more <ref name="foo"/>
referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref>
but left the <ref name="foo"/>
, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/>
with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>
; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.
If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at
User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at
User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks!
AnomieBOT
⚡
18:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{
bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}}
to your talk page.
Why are you changing these? (e.g. [1], [2]) It has no actual effect on the article, and as far as I know, we're supposed to put the apostrophes inside the brackets. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Do you know which of today's changes to the Brian Aldiss biography [3] triggers a visit by AWB? Although I'm curious, I ask mainly because I have saved hundreds of adjacent templates {{ Authority control}} and {{ Persondata}}, and created at least dozens of them. -- P64 ( talk) 01:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Chris: I've been slowly trying to work on this page in my spare time. Like you, I found the whole history section to be poorly translated garbage from the Catalan version. I've been working on it using my sandbox. If you're planning on more edits, I'll hold off - I'm a rank amateur (I had to look up what "AWB" meant), and my progress will be slow. But I had checked into Casa Mila (among other Barcelona sites) in preparation for a return trip there in June, and was just too appalled at the English Wikipedia site to let it go as is. Let me know what you're planning. Thanks. Fromthemitten ( talk) 02:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been busy and kinda sick lately. I've undone your unmerging. Just because Lucia is being stubborn on this issue does not mean we have to throw out all of the work we have done. Having a separate article just to cover the three manga is really unnecessary.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 03:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
If you are saying my edits to the {{ about}} template on Ghost in the Shell are edit warring then I'm giving up on trying to find a compromise.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 18:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucia Black ( talk • contribs)
![]() |
I am only just getting to grips with the abstract sandbox culture of wikipedia. I have no idea how to message anyone. Is this the way? Donald Urquhart ( talk) 21:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC) |
I'm mystified by the utility of this edit. Would you mind demystifying me? Thanks. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 03:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
hello, you say the H7N9 virus in turkeys in USA are different with the case in China , do you have clear description about this topic ? thanks ---goodforak
I'm mystified by the utility of this edit. Would you mind demystifying me? Thanks. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 03:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
[[''Turandot'']]
with ''[[Turandot]]''
and
WP:AWB/GF makes the same point when its says it replaces [[Dog|'''Dog''']]
with '''[[Dog]]'''
. Clearly you can't code like that, because it breaks the link. But that is not at all the same as replacing [[Progression of Animals|''De incessu animalium'']]
with ''[[Progression of Animals|De incessu animalium]]''
. We are not talking about formatting the actual link, just the bit that is to be piped. I am concerned about this rule, if it exists, that the formatting of piped links must be done externally and not internal to the pipe. I can see no point to it. And the matter has non-trivial consequences, because there are instances where formatting a piped link externally won't work at all. For example, what would be your alternative for a table header coded with a break, such as [[Standard length|Standard<br />length]]
? --
Epipelagic (
talk)
16:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
[[''Turandot'']]
with ''[[Turandot]]''
, the reason being that the markup will look for the page ''Turandot''. Try it yourself.
ChrisGualtieri (
talk)
03:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[[Progression of Animals|''De incessu animalium'']]
-> ''[[Progression of Animals|De incessu animalium]]''
have now been turned off in the development version of AWB. Information on this can be found at
Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#New general fix?. However, the preferred way would have the '' outside of the wikilink. As Epipelagic pointed, this cannot always be the case. Using the span tag for text color is another case. I don't know why it was turned on or off.
Bgwhite (
talk)
00:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Fun, I am also aware of the title stripping matter from level 2 headings and have found a few of those that need manual fixes or adjustment, but other ones are not a problem and AWB tried to strip them out on me. I know that other fix is for the next version as well. And TypoScan or some typo list needs to be seriously run, any chance we could get that done for the April or upcoming May dumps? I'd prefer April so I got something to do in May. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 00:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
As said above AWB won't be changing the place of italics markup from inside the wikilink to outside or visa versa expect the [[Dog|'''Dog''']]
case for simplicity reasons. I have no strong opinion for the placement of the italics markup. I have noticed in the past that it's more difficult to spot unbalanced wiki markup inside the wikillinks but or that some wikilinks had double markup ('''[[Cat|'''Dog''']]'''
). Anyway, we 'll try to make a new release soon to stop making this change. --
Magioladitis (
talk)
05:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Obviously intended to keep me blocked and prevent me from defending myself at ANI. LittleBen ( talk) 23:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Chris. Could you please not save such edits [5] [6], etc. (there is quite a number). They do clutter watchlists, and are actually not allowed per AWB rules of use. Thanks. Materialscientist ( talk) 04:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Chris, no slight intended. Please understand my point - it is counterproductive to save minor cleanup edits, because they bring little improvement but can potentially cover up major vandalism. You don't have to save any AWB edit, and as an AWB user you must have a good judgement of that. This is explicitly covered in the AWB rules (and it is not just about AWB, but also about attitude to editing - unfortunately, vandalism, spam, POV, etc., are major issues). Cheers. Materialscientist ( talk) 05:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, if you believe that absence of nbsp is an error, then I can't help you. There is no use polishing a door knob in a house under construction - workers will get through the door (and break and replace that knob in the process :-). The vast majority of articles need basic copyedit, extra references, completing and fixing existing refs, etc. If you are not up to adding information/references, you can always do routine fixes, not in the AWB way, but using reflinks/checklinks, or just copy/paste the output into MS Word and run a spellcheck - this is much more efficient than AWB (even Firefox spellcheck is often better).
Backlogs are numerous, e.g. Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit, Category:All articles needing link rot cleanup, and many others.
There is a default saving threshold in AWB, but it depends on individual user settings. Operators of bots that use AWB are expected to tune the autoskip threshold.
CHECKWIKI is a minor game of a few editors; most of those "fixes" border "minor changes", and Yobot has been blocked before for fixing CHECKWIKI. Materialscientist ( talk) 06:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thank you very much for splitting and making the "List of Cardfight!! Vanguard Characters" page.
Buso Kenshin 88 (
talk)
16:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your pickup. It was an honest mistake. Keep up the good work. Regards David.moreno72 ( talk) 02:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Re: [8], on my computer, I can't see any difference. (I'd like to understand. Can you describe so I can see?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 04:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi ChrisGualtieri! It seems you follow the effort to fix common syntax errors. CHECKWIKI provides a list of suggestions found at User:Magioladitis/AWB and CHECKWIKI. We update the list every month. This month we still need to fix errors 28, 46, 80 and 84. Unfortunately, these errors cant be fixed by AWB's general fixes and therefore Yobot fails to fix them. They need user attention. AWB provides error alerts to aid this effort. Maybe you could help us? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
And it's not going to work. Personal attack? Prove it. Otherwise, don't bother. Everything I said were events in the past that happened. Nothing "personal" and not an "attack". Lucia Black ( talk) 22:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Stop misinterpretting things. Just because you see your name come up doesn't mean its a personal attack. A personal attack would be me saying hypothetically "You're an idiot", "You're stupid" "Focus on your personal life if you can't handle wikipedia" etc. I reported Niemti because I just saw DRN to discredit me after I gave him a warning. You can have th last word for all I care. Lucia Black ( talk) 23:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. That's been long archived and if you claim Bushranger gave me a warning, why are you going to give me a formal one? Reason why I brought Niemti was because I gave niemti a warning before hand and recently just noticed DRN mention again (disregarding warning). You're looking for things to take to ANI but that incident already happened within ANI. ANI isn't going to listen to you if you don't practice what you preech. I know when an editor just wants to block someone for the sake of being to edit what he wishes rather than seeing a major issue in behavior that will affect in the long run. Lucia Black ( talk) 23:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
ChrisGualtieri. Just stop. You're no saint. And you've done worst. Its hipocritical for you to call this a personal attack. I mentioned you and Ryulong for indirectly attempting to defame but for the sake of the topic, not for defaming for the sake of defaming like Niemti. Just stop. Ok? I done nothing "personal" towards about you. So just leave it. Lucia Black ( talk) 23:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Just stop. You're not helping your point. Your convincing no one because you constantly change ur point. I reported Niemti to ANI. Lucia Black ( talk) 00:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Your mentioned in ANI. Lucia Black ( talk) 00:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Just as an information thing, the vertical bar in the category which you removed and was reverted here, is actually there for a reason. Putting the | and then a space after it defines that article as the primary article in a category and places it at the top of the list. Without the pipe it will just go into the list in alphabetical order and it can't easily be established which is the primary article without hunting for it. Just saying it's not an unnecessary edit, it actually does have a valid function. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 13:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The No Spam Barnstar |
I ran across a few of your edits when retracing my vandalism reversion to make sure the vandals weren't back. Noticing that you have a disproportionate amount of anti-spam actions, I took a look at your edit count, and I'm amazed I haven't run into you, before! Thanks for all that you do for Wikipedia! Jackson Peebles ( talk) 16:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC) |
Attempting to open a dispute resolution, but puting the "request DR" button appears to take me to a blank wiki page. Could you elaborate the correct process? Gaijin42 ( talk) 14:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned the dispute resolution is useless at this point because we have no outside input.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 23:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
It is not my fault if Lucia attributes a direct adaption or close relationship with, "Ghost in the Shell, on the other hand, are all alternate tellings of the original (with Arise being the only one that's a prequel). All spin offs are directly related to the original manga (except for the spin off media based on the original spin offs)." A casual reference is fine, but any such "alternate tellings" have to be routed in reliable resources. So the 1995 film and Innocence count. SAC says otherwise according to production I.G. by explicitly labeling SAC as a separate continuity. Canon issues aside (as you said), I am not against mentioning them and giving 300-400 words on EACH work. This is basically half the manga. I just do not think that the films deserve two sentences each and the reception of the three books gets paragraphs. And we lost many reviews and links to said reviews. Censorship of the manga is also purely off-topic for the whole of GITS. And you KNOW how the sexuality of Motoko is depicted. Characters and world should be greatly expanded, but lets not cripple our key navigation page with overly detailed manga details. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 23:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I agreed with you up until you said the main article keeps the reception, production and censorship parts. The reason I do not want the original manga plots to be discussed in over detail is the same reason I do not want the other aspects to be discussed in over detail. Basically this is what I want in sections.
And so on with a short plot, reception and other key details in each subsection with the main splits going to the proper pages. 1000 words for GITS manga. If you can keep it under 1000 words. For perspective as is, the plot 550, creation/dev 237, publication history is 630. censorship is 98, and reception is 377. Total is about 1900 words, so it is twice as long as I want it to be. I do not want to lose that 1000 either, I want it on the other page. Comparatively, FMA has 500 to the manga, 352 to the anime, and 400 to brotherhood. I will not count plot, production and others as they integrate content themselves in a meaningful way, bringing the about section further while doing so in a natural way. If you want it to be stylized after FMA, I do agree if you are willing to cover ALL the media in such a format. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 00:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
So do you finally the main article should not split the manga? I disagree with weighing sections by their article size. Adding the key info will inevitably balance the size out between series. Plus its less necessary to add extensive detail when they have their own article. You have to understand proper weight is relevant when there are no other articles. So if the manga isn't split, then all manga info can be in the main article. Lucia Black ( talk) 01:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
You say that...but you don't prove it. Lucia Black ( talk) 05:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay I'm awake. And basically we're never going to get to a fucking resolution because you want everything manga on one page that is not Ghost in the Shell. You are right that the original manga is notable. That's why we have it without a disambiguation anymore. You keep quoting WP:SS without acknowledging the fact that because it is the original work it should be the main page of everything. And no this does not mean that you should make a Ghost in the Shell (franchise) page. We should not move the reception/production/censorship stuff off of the main page because the main page should not be a massive summary of everything Ghost in the Shell.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 07:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I've restored my edits to the article and performed the changes that I suggested above, including moving a lot of content to List of Ghost in the Shell chapters (production, censorship, and reception remain on the first article). Rather than reverting me, again, maybe we can come to some sort of conclusion as to what sections you don't want on the page or how we can make the existing sections more to your liking.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 07:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm voting for mediation now. Its the only way this will get solved. Lucia Black ( talk) 15:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
ChrisGualtieri, I've noticed that you and Gandydancer have had a bit of disagreement about what, if anything, should be said in the introduction of Influenza A virus subtype H7N9 regarding elderly males stricken with H7N9. In the article discussion page I've proposed a compromise. I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at it and maybe add your thoughts to the discussion. — RP88 ( talk) 15:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be mistagging several articles. Specifically, just because the series has either yuri or yaoi in it does not automatically make it hentai or ecchi related. If that was the case, then any work depicting heterosexual romance would automatically be considered hentai or ecchi. If there isn't any sexual content in a series, don't list it under this WikiProject. Some examples would be Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl, Sweet Blue Flowers, Maria-sama ga Miteru, etc.-- 十 八 21:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
My contribution to the sex offenders inhabiting Little Diomede Island was completely true. I had a reference included as well. Please reverse the changes you made regarding my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.190.206 ( talk) 16:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Please excuse me, although I've had this account for a while I've never really used it and I'm struggling to work it out.
I don't know if the reason you undid my edit was because I didn't reference it, but I'm not yet sure how to include a reference and I thought the update (clarifying that only male homosexuality was illegal and thus actually de-criminalised by the HOO) was too easily verified and undisputed a fact for anybody to want to change it in the short time I hoped it would take me to discover how to do it. There are also already certain references on Wikipedia (including in the article I updated) to the fact that homosexuality was only ever illegal for men in any of the UK, and this further bolstered my confidence that it would be an uncontroversial clarification to make.
Here is one example of a source I could link to, so that you know the update is legitimate. Could you perhaps direct me to any instructions for adding it? http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/4/newsid_3007000/3007686.stm
Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optifog ( talk • contribs) 16:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Their the same. Solid State Society plays a similar role to how Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence is loosely based on robot rondo chapter of the original Ghost in the Shell. The only difference is their origin. Original Puppeteer was a program evolved into AI, in SSS it was a collective conscious. Both hacked the major with only SSS implying that they've merged. Lucia Black ( talk) 03:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but that was the source for the first season. And it was based on the assumption that Motoko never met Puppeteer (past tense). Similar to how a series has sources that confirm that there will never be a new series and they release 1 anyways. I now because I was the one who added that source. Lucia Black ( talk) 04:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Kusanagi: I'm surprised. Your thinking is so arrogant and self-righteous, yet you have so much drive. Being a bureaucrat is a waste of your talent. Plus, you know all about me... Who the hell are you?!
Puppeteer: You still haven't pieced it together? Come now, Motoko Kusanagi... Surely there can't be an overabundance of people dwelling within your memory, burning with this overwhelming egotistical rightfulness.
Puppeteer: We've synchronized with countless consciousnesses over the years. So, it shouldn't come as a big surprise that your deep collective subconscious came to life. And with it, the Solid State is complete. It's time for us to go forth. Let's become a vanishing mediator and go take an active hand in the next society.
Also... for the SSS article, I'll look for an unclosed ref tag... its usually the cause. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 04:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Can you clarify why you're quoting that? I already said I'm not denying that its not her subconscious. However, it doesn't contradict that they've merged (or became once for the second time). Her subconscious that recorded all the other consciousness she syncronized became a collective entity. Its like if an apple tree's apple grows into a tree and merges with its parent. Lucia Black ( talk) 04:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
My essay covers your ad hominem tactics to avoid talking about the main issue at hand. So even though it ain't official, doesn't mean you're not using evasive discussion tactics. I made my point. Their both "The Puppeteer". Their both a form of evolution and both merged with the Major. Citing what a troll is not helping your case. I'm done. Lucia Black ( talk) 05:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll repeat myself here. If there are factual errors in the prose, fix them. Just don't change the scope of the article.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 03:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
" led by protagonist Major Motoko Kusanagi, in the early 21st century of Japan." Aramaki.
"The world has also taken on vastly different forms, with Japan emerging from both a nuclear World War III and non-nuclear World War IV relatively unscathed, save for the loss of Tokyo and surrounding cities. The government's creation of a nuclear fallout scrubbing nanomachine called the "Japanese Miracle" gives the nation sway in the global sphere, with the American Empire, one of several nations to emerge after war has split the United States, vying for the technology to restore their nation to its former glory." GITS 2, canonicity dispute originally raised by Lucia way back.
The story runs the manga together and gives nothing outside of the main case.
"The first film Ghost in the Shell, written and directed by Mamoru Oshii, generally follows the Puppet Master plot of the first manga The Ghost in the Shell, but the interpretation of characters is slightly different." Very much different is more like it, the comedic tones and rebellious nature is lost.
" Its sequel Innocence is an original story inspired by a chapter from The Ghost in the Shell." - Might as well use the reported AE account with Robot Rondo.
"although a similarly named entity appears in the made-for-TV movie." - Sorta... Kanji is different and translation matters, but I don't know about the subconscious link here. Or the Noble Rot matter.
The plot misses the other works, Man/Machine Interface should really be covered in full. The forty page matter as 'episode' is accurate but underscored and confusing with SAC and other works. Clarify. Though that's the simple stuff. The reception you know how to fix it with AE's coverage and that is a RS. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 04:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your helpful source suggestion for additional references at the new article I've created, Urofsky v. Gilmore. Much appreciated, — Cirt ( talk) 06:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source that places these under the Hentai genre? Yes there are lolicon anime and manga that are considered hentai per sources but as for the word lolicon its-self I don't think so. Also it is not disruptive to remove projects that are out of the article's scope, I gave a reason in my edit summary which you never answered. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 18:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Chris, by telling Bunny "ANI is a dice roll", aren't you in fact conveying to him that ANI was an okay choice of venue for his concern? (When it clearly isn't?) Please explain. (I've seen numerous Admins in numerous ANIs inform users that content issues are not venue for ANI, only behavior issues requiring immedidate Admin intervention. Are you saying they have been wrong about it?) Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 13:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I never felt at all the user "questioning [my] qualifications" as being anything at all, because the user was clearly confused and perplexed, least of all a PA. You are the only one saying that. (And why are you?) So the BOOMERANG thing you mentioned, is completely baseless, no one is thinking or saying that, it is completely your solitary idea. (And why?) You are missing something here ... I was accused of making "persistent [revert] deletes" at ANI. No one has found it appropriate to examine how it might make me feel having an ANI thread opened to sanction me based on complete nonsense and false accusation. No one sees it fit to see the incivility of that. No one sees that being on receiving end of a false accusation, and the subject of an ANI thread for many eyes to see, that is totally mistaken, might at least deserve an immediate close of the thread, and an apology. No, no, no. Instead, it is better course for you to take my question here, on the purpose and proper use of ANI, and use it to threaten me. "Puffing up for a battle"? What are you talking about? I have no interactions with that user, save one revert, and anticipate none either, since the user is clearly averse to using Talk, user or article. And the content matters have already been enumerated by other users, so there are no words I would even consider necessary to have with that user. "Puffing up for battle"?! That is amazing. Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 20:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 18:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, ChrisGualtieri. You recently nominated Pearson Test of English Academic, PTE General, and PTE Young Learners for deletion via AfD. But in each case your nomination suggests that what you would really like is to merge the content to Pearson Language Tests. The merger seems like a good idea. However, AfD is not the place to propose mergers; Wikipedia:Proposed mergers exists for that purpose, and less controversial mergers can be handled without nomination, perhaps facilitated by discussion on the article talk page. It might be appropriate to withdraw the three AfD nominations if you are not actually looking for deletion. Happy editing, Cnilep ( talk) 05:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Chris,
I see you've been going around putting "Untitled" section headings at the tops of talk pages, when the talk page started without sections. Um ... why? I'm not going to revert, because that would be just as pointless, but it's a little annoying to see my watchlist churn for this sort of thing. -- Trovatore ( talk) 19:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for resolving the dispute at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Ashok_Malik. I am quite an old editor at wiki with more than 1600 edits. I have been involved in various projects. Recently I am having certain troubles. Soham321 who had brought the earlier mentioned dispute, has constantly been stalking my Contributions page. At several discussions at talk pages he has been using bad language against me and alleging me of being biased. In fact sometimes he has accused me of being biased for few pages, for fighting vandalism at which, I have been praised. He constantly keeps visiting my contributions page and keep making disruptive edits at those pages which is troubling me in making edits. Once he was even blocked for such action which involved him reverting my edits. He edits almost all pages I edit where he finds that his political issue is involved which I may not name at present. I am sure he shall be continuing this and would also be reading this present post. Is there any place I can complain this at or prevent him from accessing my page? Any help shall be very helpful. Thank You-- Mohit Singh ( talk) 21:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
So, how to do it? -- Niemti ( talk) 09:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
FigureArtist ( talk) 12:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
ANI related I am writing here, to say beyond any words of your "users" that have lied to you and to me about me. I am Giovanni Strassini, I have NEVER-EMPHASIS ADDED, added a thing to your site. your "gnomes" and "sock" chasers, added my name back when all I did was remove it from your site! This is 100% truth, and I have proof through many attempts I did not add anything here. I can speak to anyone of authority to show this neyond even your "users" what I am saying is truth. F.T.C complaints, F.C.C complaints, NC Attorney General complaints and CMPD complaints, started by myself againt the true name identity theft I was victim of, from 2000, until now. user JohnInDC, lies. I have never made an edit to ADD things to your siter, only to remove my name!!! I asked him, bender235, and materialscientist to stop adding my name or even use my name on your site. I removed it and THEY, NOT ME, added it back. I did NOT threaten legal action, I priomised it if they did not stop lying about me and re-adding my name here. That is MY RIGHT, AND PRIVACY LAWS PREVAIL. I can be contacted through this site if given contact info where I can provide it back to you. I have nothing to hide, only your "users" that have lioed do. They showed what others did, and then claimed falsely it was me. Lies and libel. − I make this statement under the penalty of perjury of the United States of America and deem this to be true and correct=Giovanni Strassini − The IP addresses were at least 4 used in this and only one shared PC was used by myself here. This should stand as warning to the over-zealous "users" and abuses they can perpetrate on innocent people such as myself. Allow me to remove my name or do so yourself. Keep honesty at the front, and you will not have problems like this in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.131.150 ( talk) 19:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
you are the liar. i told your users named already i am pursuimg legal action. i have and am, i stand by my statement i never added any information to wiki, and it was done from a multi-user area and not me. you calling me a liar will come back to haunt you. untrue statements that harm are recoverable. you are a fiduciary of wiki and therefore make wikimedia liable. i copied and pasted all your statements including the "award" given to johnindc and all the wiki guys bragging about spreading the lies. you are the liar and one who jumps to wrongful and harmful conclusions based on others lies to you. a reckless disregard for the truth will not stop the theft of pictures and hijacking accounts and mass spreading of lies to harm only. bender-john-material-yourself are all part and parcel to the harm that cannot be undone. i can prove i never added information here, you have an ip address used by thousands. get the point now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.218.250.83 ( talk) 23:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
70.19.122.39. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of
your recent contributions to
Horus Heresy (novels) because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Please note also section
reasoning for reverting edits of 2013/05/16 in that article's talk page. Thank you.
70.19.122.39 (
talk)
14:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Ero guro may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 15:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Akiba Girls may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 01:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi friend, I noticed you reverted my edit on Platonov's Foundation Pit in the 'Genre' category back to 'historical fiction'. I do not know whether you have read the novel, but it is in no way a piece of historical fiction, considering Platonov was writing about his own time, not the past. Moreover, Platonov is not a realist writer, as are most writers of historical fiction, but a modernist, even surrealist, writer. Most importantly, Foundation Pit does not meet the criteria detailed on the 'historical fiction' page. Although I believe '(meta)utopianism' to be the best genre for the novel (itself a form of 'meta-parody'), another option could be 'satirical socialist realism'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wearebasiclight ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Just came across this one I think you may have overlooked. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 03:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you! | |
---|---|
![]() |
Hi ChrisGualtieri! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch ( talk) 23:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC) |
There's a RfC at Talk:Islamism#Unexplained_deletions you may be interested in -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 19:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
SarahStierch ( talk) 20:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Chris. I saw that you were blocked on accident and concerned of RfA. Well, I've decided that if you accept, then I'd like to nominate you. You'd be a great admin. Even if it fails the first time, wait 6-15 months and then try again. Thanks. WorldTraveller101( Trouble?/ My Work) 02:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Youve accused me of a troll in the past out of mere opposition. You use NPA when it best suits you, but it doesnt stop you from making erroneous claims such as me not understanding notability, in a nutshell and several other things. Even if you bring up a thousand situations where my judgement was wrong, the one who has done the most disruption is you. An admin wont start an edit war, wont be quick to use NPA, or call an editor a troll. And im ralking about several discussions when you did. Lucia Black ( talk) 16:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Blocked sock/troll. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The closed RFC at WP:VPP does not in any way mean that it overturns any prior consensuses. You still need to form a proper consensus to restore the content which you do not have. The fact that you requested someone formally close it so it has an air of officiality is really telling of your intentions as well.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 06:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
It appears that you have copy-pasted a response to this AFD from the other AFDs on articles by the same user under the concern that other pages were suggested to be deleted as they are dictionary definitions. This is not the case for this particular article. I would implore you to properly assess this article instead of just disagreeing because you saw a pattern of edits.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 01:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
As a courtesy, I have mentioned your name while raising this issue at WP:ANI under the title "AFDs not being properly considered due to assumption of bad faith".— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 01:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Chris, no problem - good that you were able to replace it. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 15:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Snuck your comment back in there. Mkdw talk 20:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.-- Dom497 ( talk) This message was sent out by -- EdwardsBot ( talk) 14:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC) |
Hello Chris, I understand that you had to delete the above mentioned page due to lack of references. Yesterday I found references of her artistic biography in the following book: Maria Georgeta Popescu - Musicology studies vol IV, Iași, PIM Publishing House, 2009, ISBN 978-973-716-524-4, p. 17 and in Romanian Impact Magazine, Year: 3 - No.7 (30) October 2003, Center Focus Publishing, Niles, Illinois, USA, ISSN 1532-9852, p.5 (both in Romanian). Is it possible to restore the page? I also found on Youtube an excerpt of Mozart's concert No.23 played by her with the Pitesti Philharmonic Orchestra. Other excerpts on her Facebook page. Thank you, RodicaB ( talk) 09:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Please see the references from the article in German Wiki and in Romanian Wiki.
I have the printed references (book and magazine) in my hands. What shall I do next? Thanks, RodicaB The page is Nicoleta Luca Meițoiu RodicaB ( talk) 15:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Chris, Happy New Year! I finally got the article and book covers (with ISBN) scanned in .pdf format. How can I send it to you, so that you can recreate the page? Thanks, RodicaB ( talk) 11:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
It pleases me to see young people so obviously in love. Happy days! And good deeds never go unpunished. Drmies ( talk) 05:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Do you have sources for the birthdate/birthplace you just added? Articles like this have a tendency to pile up unsourced bits of stuff over time, and eventually they turn into a mass of uncertainty. Thanks. Rklear ( talk) 12:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Your recent change to James Kelley using AWB was incorrect. AWB is powerful but sometimes wrong. I know, because I have made incorrect changes myself, which my talk page confirms. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 00:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Chris, your AWB edit to Brett Reid put the birth category after the living people category; they should really be the other way around. Graham 87 01:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Chris, you're spamming my watchlist with "useless" edits like [19] [20] [21] [22] [23], etc., etc. Please reconsider your skipping threshold. Materialscientist ( talk) 04:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Adding sources and other information do not fall under the semi-auto edit summary of AWB. I'm not saying every edit is pure gold, but I've pointed out that the last ones you were concerned with had rationals and a reason. I don't particularly like updating the templates or reorganizing them as they seem a bit weird for me as well; but I've set AWB to avoid cosmetic fixes and it still hits things like this. Some of it may be related to voice readers; parsing or whatever issues. I didn't even know that some of the changes were important like the anchor for Harvard until I realized they actually cause issues with Wikibook collection. Thanks for beating me to the Abraham Darby matter, also. But I do not know how to best address edits in AWB when I follow them up with manual edits. I don't think AWB auto-summary with "possible manual additions" is a proper. As is, I avoid the math articles because I don't want to attempt and fix the math coding without breaking something else. All the -1's and such AWB tries to alter and I have to skip them and other cases. Perhaps the issue is because I don't understand how this bugs you so much; I researched "why" the last edits were supported by MOS, so I thought the issue was addressed given the past discussions by other users on this subject. If I did them without AWB; it'd still be the same, result. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Of the first 5 examples given by Materialscientst, 3 of 5 were inconsequential (don't say "useless"). These should not have been done. #9 did fix a broken bracket. #12 did move punctuation from after to before the ref. #10 is in a gray area. It did fix the comma in a date. In this instance, I wouldn't have done it, but I could see arguments for it.
Only looking at the last 50 edits done by Chris, over 1/2 were inconsequential. The most common was only renaming a template, such as {{ cn}} -> {{ citation needed}}. Going further back to the 13th, I see mostly good edits, but there is a higher rate of inconsequential edits that would make a liberal/conservative AWB rule interpreter give pause. If the edits only rename a template or move a wikilink from [[Hemispherical|hemispherical]] to [[hemispherical]], don't do it. Bgwhite ( talk) 05:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey man, I noticed that you also supported deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salaf in favor of Nikah Mut'ah after Muhammad. What's happening now is that some other users have suggested scavenging such articles - there are maybe a dozen - and forming one main article from what can be kept instead of deleting all of them entirely. Please take a look at my talk page and tell us what you think; the idea might have some promise. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 12:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that you put a factual accuracy dispute tag on the Operation Red Hat entry. Can you be specific as to which facts are in dispute? Thank you Johnvr4 ( talk) 13:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from July 1st, 2013 – July 31st, 2013.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the
drive's page and help out!
A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code cleanup, and more page cleanups. If you want to see a full list of changes, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.
Delivered at 13:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC) by EdwardsBot ( talk), on behalf of WikiProject AFC
I note that in Little River, South Carolina you have expanded {{CN}} templates to the full text {{Citation needed}}. This makes no difference to the appearance of the text on the page - is there any reason I should be using the full text rather than the abbreviation? If not, what is the purpose of expanding the text? Arjayay ( talk) 15:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Reminded them about local consensus, which covers all of their arguments so far. I say arguments, its not really an argument so much as 'Well its been like this way forever.' Only in death does duty end ( talk) 09:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
You do not have consensus to create a DBZ article, regardless of what you and Only in death have been talking about here.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 00:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Chris, I'm hoping to enlist your help to further mutual goals. I note that your AWB edits have been more than occasionally challenged as being 'inconsequential'. On the other hand, there is a lot of work to do with sundry style fixes that are not part General fixes. I have created two custom AWB modules (see User:Ohconfucius#AWB_tools) that I would invite you to use when you run AWB. Not only will this lighten the workload for other gnomes like me, it would considerably reduce the risk of you making inconsequential edits. The downside is that you will have to be more careful in selecting articles to process when using the modules. I don't use these as often as I could because I spend 90% of my time on MacOS computers. But if you are interested, I could help develop more functions or similar modules that ensure compliance with the MOS (or MOSNUM). Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 05:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Not intending to attack, but rather good-faith pointing out things you can fix, two things stick out at me about your writing: an overuse of semicolons (see for example
this page about it, and an overuse of “would” indicating either the
conditional mood or
future tense where neither seems particularly appropriate. Not particularly big deals, but I’m a bit OCD when it comes to grammatical errors.
I hope it helps to make you aware of it. Take care. —
Frungi (
talk)
06:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Chris, some of your recent edits have changed date formatting from MDY to DMY on articles involving US subjects where the MDY convention was in long use. While I recognize the logic of the DMY convention and use it myself on UK subjects (even though British monarchs have been known to use MDY [28]), it would be best to leave existing longstanding usage in place. Regards, Kablammo ( talk) 16:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)