User talk:CharlieEchoTango/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

• Special report: English Wikipedia to go dark on January 18

• Sister projects: What are our sisters up to now?

• News and notes: WMF on the looming SOPA blackout, Wikipedia turns 11, and Commons passes 12 million files

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Beer

• Featured content: Lecen on systemic bias in featured content

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, Betacommand case deadlocked, Muhammad images close near

• Technology report: ArticleFeedback moves into new trial phase; and how MediaWiki integrates with Facebook, IPv6, and PostgreSQL explored

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 05:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-penetrative sex article

Hello, CharlieEchoTango. I saw that you reverted a proxy editor at the Non-penetrative sex article. That editor reverted a sockpuppet of User:Picker78, although he or she should have been more careful in the revert...since it removed okay edits. I have reverted the part of Picker78's edits that have been disputed for some time now. Do you mind keeping watch over this article to help revert any disputed text he might make? His main focus now is to have the article exclude dry humping from the lead of the article, contrary to sources that refer to dry humping as an alternate name for frottage/non-penetrative sex. Flyer22 (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, ok, made a mistake as to who was who, thanks for reverting me. I'll keep an eye on the article. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 21:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. And, per my comment above, it's easy to understand why you reverted the proxy IP. Not only is the IP a proxy, only watchers/editors of this article would know about the objection to Picker's edits. On a side note, the article may need to be semi-protected again, since this editor never gives up on it or the Masturbation article. See this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I've semi'ed for 3 months, given that the editor went right at it again after MuZemike's 1 month full protection. If he goes at it again with autoconfirmed accounts, we'll see where we go from there. Regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 22:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

He's back. He already had a user name ready because he's been using it for a month now. I'm not sure if you saw his edit, and didn't revert because you thought this was a different user, but I'm telling you it's the same user. Don't let his starting a discussion about it on the talk page fool you. He is no stranger to talk pages, as seen at Talk:Masturbation. Not only is it highly suspicious that this user showed up to make Picker78's exact edit after you semi-locked the article, his edit edit history is consistent with Picker78's. Flyer22 (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I blocked him about an hour ago, right after your revert. ;) CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, LOL. Thank you. He'll likely show up on the talk page as an IP or completely new account to debate me, but I'll ignore him after making at least one or two more comments. Flyer22 (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Using Images

Hi CharlieEchoTango. We spoke a while ago about the Lenovo pages, and I have another question. I'm having a problem finding images for the pages, since there doesn't seem to be a lot of free product photography available for Lenovo products.

If I understand the image use policy correctly, I can't use any copyrighted information at all, even with tagging. I'll need images which are under a free license. Do you have any suggestions on how I can go about getting images for the Lenovo product pages? They seem somewhat incomplete without any images.

Trevor coelho (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Trevor,

Yes, you understand the image use policy correctly. You cannot, in most circumstances, use a copyrighted image that a) you did not create yourself or b) is not under a free license. Therefore you would have to take your own pictures of the products, or try to find someone willing to take their own pictures of the products and release them under a free license. You can also search the Flickr database of free images by clicking on 'advanced search' and selecting all three creative commons options. For exemple I found this image, which seems to be suitable for uploading to Wikipedia.

Hope this helps, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 20:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

need help

Hi CET, I/we reviewers at AFC have a problem with the draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SpiderGraph chart which is regular resubmitted by User:GregLChest. To be clear: in my (and some others) eyes this draft has no chance to get approved. Please check also my talkpage (esp. the newest section by him) User talk:mabdul#Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SpiderGraph chart - answer to your last comments. At the moment I don't know how to explain him that Wikipedia is not the place where he should "publish" his article. Can you help me sorting the issues out? mabdul 11:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, first, three things : the author has a conflict of interest as he apparently coined the term in 1985, the article is largely unsourced to the extent required by WP:V, and all instances of (r), (c), (tm) as well as most instances of italics and repeated wikilinks should be removed.

That said, the article is not suitable for an encyclopedia in its current form.

• The 'charting method' paragraph is unsourced, and reads like a how-to. That's a WP:NOT right here.
• The 'not to be confused' section is completely unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Some of it seems to be original research attempting to prove a point, e.g. “may have begun between the two types of charts”, “where the simularities should end”, “The answer however”. Some parts read like an advertisement, e.g. “that help you make better, smarter decisions”. In any case, the tone is wrong. Wikipedia should not provide “the answer”, nor should it address the reader directly as a “you”.
• I fail to see how the rest of the article is relevant. “Comments regarding limitations...”, etc, these are all unsuitable paragraphs that may have editorial value, but have very little encyclopedic value.

Bottom line is, there might be a potential article here given some of the sources, but it would have to be written from scratch as an encyclopedic article, not something I would read in a specialized magazine with the kind of in-depth comparison, advantage vs. disadvantage sales pitch, comments by vested parties, etc, we see here. I think this is a textbook case of someone with a conflict of interest who genuinely does not and possibly will not understand how his editorial tone and purpose is incompatible with encyclopedic tone and purpose. This is why we strongly discourage such editors to edit things they are involved with.

Hope this helps, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 20:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh, So you found mostly the same as I, but I was hoping that somebody "fresh", who is not involved in any review (until now) is giving him the "same statements" and explaining him that he is doing it wrong. XD You are now official invited to join the discussion on my talk. XD mabdul 21:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are only so many ways to say the same thing, so I'll just post a variation of the above response to your talk page and we'll see where it goes from there. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 00:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

PersonWhoLivesInHollyhurst (talk · contribs)

As childish as it was, does the comment that they wrote on that (now deleted) talk page count as a legal threat? Calabe1992 00:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

A bit too childish to count as one IMHO, but it looks like he was blocked anyway by AngelOfSadness (talk · contribs). Looks like it was coming his way regardless of the "threats". CharlieEchoTango (contact) 00:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

All the better then. Calabe1992 00:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Your Deletion of Abhishek Rawat

I don't see why you deleted Abhishek Rawat under CSD #A7 or under any CSD for that matter, there is a reason I declined speedy. For one the article, although not very clearly, states that the actor was a cast member of a major Indian TV program which would be a "claim of notability" which would not be an A7. Secondly a simple Google Search brings up potential sources that at the very least prove he has appeared in various Indian TV programs. This is a case of of an article that should instead be sent to AFD. -CrazyHos12 (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You'll excuse me if I didn't put much weight into your decline of the speedy, which cited no reason other than "notable subject", and which incidentally was your very first edit to Wikipedia under your current username, somewhat odd. In any case, the article makes no case for notability, so I stand by my deletion. All it said is that he acts on some show and that he worked for Synergy Adlabs, whatever that is. No mention of position in company, of role in acting, or anything that could suggest any significance. Feel free to write an article making an actual case for notability. If anything, the stub I deleted would also fall under the CSD A1 criterion for not having sufficient context.

Regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Upon further review I have reinstated the article and sent it to AfD : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhishek Rawat. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you -CrazyHos12 (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Addiction: Why They Use

I am really up set to come back and find that all the work I did has been trashed, You are way off base deleting that material.

It is all my original material based on my work

I would like you to restore it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indramanu (talk • contribs) 07:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

No. Please read WP:Copyright. If you own material you wish to donate to Wikipedia, please see WP:DCM. Thank you. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Addiction: Why They Use

I am really up set to come back and find that all the work I did has been trashed, You are way off base deleting that material.

It is all my original material based on my work

I would like you to restore it

I am also requesting a Userfication of deleted content — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indramanu (talk • contribs) 07:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

No again, copyright violation cannot be userified nor can they be e-mailed. The content of the article can be found at WhyTheyUse.com. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I have read all the required references you provided I am in 100% compliance all the material contained in the article

I want a Userfication of deleted content

and I want to know who to discuss this with as you are obviously able to communicate with people (me) on an adult level

who is the administrator above you, where is there talk page. I have read your post on Oil Sands and obviously I have referring to original content where you are obviously quoting and reviewing copyrighted materials — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indramanu (talk • contribs) 07:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read anything. As said before, you absolutely cannot copy copyrighted material into an article. As for the adult level discussion, well, you ordering me to do something and lecturing me about Wikipedia policy isn't exactly the best way to approach the situation, but as far as I'm concerned I have been civil and provided you will all you need to make your content available for use by Wikipedia : WP:DCM. You want to complain, sure, go ahead, have fun : WP:AN. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Addiction: Why They Use

I know where the information came from I wrote it! I wrote the book I own the content of all the data that was placed on the wiki page, just ask the library of congress, you know, where copyrights are made.

It is actually impossible (In a legal sense) for me violate or infringe upon my own material. I have the right as per the federal law to place that data anywhere I want to. you can not tell me I don;t have the legal right too to place that information anywhere I want too, or for that matter to say I am doing it illegally, that is liable and slanderous

It is my sense that maybe you have issue with the actual material and not the copyright all — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indramanu (talk • contribs) 07:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed impossible to infringe upon your own copyright, however it is absolutely possible to infringe upon Wikipedia's terms of service, which you have done quite well so far. Terms of service and policies you obviously haven't bothered to read. Then when I gave you a link explaining how to appropriately use your content for Wikipedia, you gave me orders to userify the content for you. Well, newsflash, this is not how it works, and Wikipedia is not a right. You want to copy your material into Wikipedia, you're going to follow the appropriate procedure, which I linked above. You don't like the procedure? Then complain to the other link I gave above, or go away. I do not need you lecturing me on Wikipedia policies and making spurious assumptions on my intentions. Your sense? I couldn't care less. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you admitted you have mistakenly

I'm glad you admitted you have mistakenly deleted my content for copyright infringement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_violations

This page in a nutshell: Do not add content to Wikipedia if you think that doing so may be a copyright violation. Contributors should take steps to remove any copyright violations that they find. NONE

This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 06:14, 27 January 2012 CharlieEchoTango (talk | contribs) deleted ""Addiction: Why They Use"" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: whytheyuse.com)

Thank you. I have copied the statement, now please restore the material you mistakenly deleted as it is part of a larger marketing campaign, which you are currently PERSONALLY interfering with. If it is proved that you are knowingly costing the campaign to lose exposure, (hence lost revenue) because you disallowed the article based on you own inability to follow through, then you may find yourself financially liable. I was not in violation of any copyright infringement. Your initial statement was that it was removed for copyright infringment and not for policy issues. If you are refusing to do so based on the type of content, that is illegal, I believe that wiki policy still professes to grant equal access as long copy rights are not violated which they have not been.

PS I followed all directions in given in the process which I attested to owning the material and thereby exempting the post from quick deletion.

Just put it back, right your wrong, swallow your pride and do the right thing.

Namaste — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indramanu (talk • contribs) 08:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

What the hell are you on about? I haven't mistakenly deleted anything. But thanks for letting me know this was part of a marketing campaign, more reasons for deletion the better. Now I'm going to do the right thing and report this as a legal threat. Sad thing I'm involved and can't block you myself. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

• News and notes: SOPA blackout, Orange partnership

• In the news: World watched as Wikipedia shut down for SOPA blackout

• WikiProject report: The Golden Horseshoe: WikiProject Toronto

• Featured content: Interview with Muhammad Mahdi Karim and the best of the week

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Muhammad images, AUSC call for applications

• Technology report: Looking ahead to MediaWiki 1.19 and related issues

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Kawkaban

Hi CharlieEchoTango. Could you take a second look at this article you deleted as G11? I think it could have been handled by removing the promotional material rather than deleting the article. Certainly there were some earlier versions of the article that were not promotional. Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I restored the full history and reverted to the revision as of 22 March 2008, not that some of the subsequent revisions are necessarily promotional, but definitely unsourced and unsuitable. Regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 21:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Game-Debate

Hello CharlieEchoTango.

Would you care to explain how was I advertising Game-Debate when I had barely started the page? What did you consider advertising?

-Thank you. ~P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GameDebate Pip (talk • contribs) 08:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Game-Debate (again)

Hello CharlieEchoTango. I have talked to one of the Admin and he explained that my tone wasn't neutral. I have now created a new description but this time with "Game-Debate", which is how I should have in the first place. I am yet to add much more details. Please take your time and review it. If you consider anything on it as advertisement please warn me but don't instantly delete the page. Thank you for your time. GameDebate Pip (talk) 11:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Pip

No, not an advertisement anymore, so I won't delete it as such. But it appears to me like it does not meet the criteria for inclusion, therefore I have nominated it for a deletion discussion, which you can find at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game-Debate. You are free to comment in the deletion discussion, which will last about seven days. Thank you, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

ummm ...

"user is apparently not blocked due to unknown glitch..." huh? Ya lost me there Charlie. I mean, I noticed that you're not blocked either - is that an "unknown glitch"? — Ched :  ?  11:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Refer to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mistress Selina Kyle's unblock request. The user is demanding an unblock, and has technically been blocked since 2006. It appears though they were able to edit, and weren't in fact blocked, so I did re-block pending the outcome of their unblock discussion because they are not supposed to edit while blocked or de facto banned. Refer to block log lacking an unblock entry, and see WP:Administrators' Noticeboard#A few accounts on WP:BANNED not actually blocked for background. Regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 18:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the an link .. hadn't seen that one, though I did see the ani one. got a link from one of the arbs to a discussion back in 06 too .. whole thing seems very odd. — Ched :  ?  02:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ethical Oil Page

Hi CharlieEchoTango...

I've received the transcript of the CBC radio episode, and written a draft of a summary suggestion for the criticism section of this page. Dr. Andrew Crane and Jody Williams are eminently qualified to make critical comments on the content of this book, and the ethical oil argument. Business ethics professor at an internationally ranked Canadian business school, and a nobel laureate chairing a nobel women's rights group.

To save some space I would suggest getting rid of the comment about the book signing, it has nothing whatsoever to do with a critical assessment of ethical oil... it adds nothing to a wiki readers ability to look at a summary of the book and counter points to it if reading or researching the topic.

"At a book signing event in Saskatoon on 17 September 2010, police had to be called to defuse a verbal clash between demonstrators and Levant. Most of the demonstrators were gone before the police arrived, but Levant started his subsequent question and answer session by addressing a critic's question.[32]"

Draft edit suggestion...

CBC's The Current held a debate on the merits of the ethical oil argument. Nobel laureate and chair of the Nobel Women's Initiative Jody Williams, argued that the ethical oil position was disingenuous and suspect of commercial interests rather than genuine concern for women’s rights. She argued the oil industry with no history of advocating the case of women’s rights, is ill placed to begin the discussion. Katherine Marshall ethicaloil.org spokesperson responded that the ethical nature of the oil production needs to be discussed, and she expected human rights activists and groups to be more inclined to promote dialogue. Dr. Andrew Crane a business ethics professor at York University agreed the ethical argument for oil production should be discussed, but also added the narrow focus of the books argument was prioritising human rights over other ethical evaluating factors. Dr. Crane further stated that Canada was not taking a leadership position by trying to improve ethical extraction practices across the board, not just in Canada but overseas. He argued a primary ethical indicator is leadership, and companies operating in Canada and Canadian companies operating abroad were not being held accountable within the ethical oil argument for their overseas practices. Katherine Marshall responded the focus should be on the pushing these “unethical” countries for regulatory action, rather than the pushing the companies to improve in the absence of a regulatory impetus. Kurt Dundy (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

While the issue here is not necessarily one of space but one of undue weight, I agree the text above is far better than some past edits, although a bit too long in my opinion. Feel free to add it the article, though. I should probably not have displayed such an ownership attitude last time around, its just that I'm wary of tendentious editing and there are not a lot of independent eyes on the article. One tends to watch like a hawk in such situations, but I wouldn't want to prevent you from making legitimate edits, even those I don't agree with (save for the blatantly biased). Regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 18:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

• News and notes: Update on Global Development, Wikipedia Day NYC is a success, JFK audio on Commons

• In the news: Zambian wiki-assassins, Foundation über alles, editor engagement and the innovation plateau

• Recent research: Language analyses examine power structure and political slant; Wikipedia compared to commercial databases

• WikiProject report: Digging Up WikiProject Palaeontology

• Featured content: Featured content soaring this week

• Arbitration report: Five open cases, voting on proposed decisions in two cases

• Technology report: Why "Lua" is on everybody's lips, and when to expect MediaWiki 1.19

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Leslie

Thank you Lloydelliot10 (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SpiderGraph chart

tl;dr, moved to User talk:Mabdul to keep things together CharlieEchoTango (contact) 00:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

apologies

In my haste the other day perhaps I was too short with my note. I never meant any disrespect. I can see where it could have been taken as very dismissive and condescending ..and I do apologize for that. The entire situation caught me completely off-guard, and per common courtesy I came to the admin. involved, but failed to be respectful - for that I am sorry. cheers and best. — Ched :  ?  12:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, no, no apology needed at all... Short is good, and my threshold for feeling disrespected is quite a bit higher than that. I'm not one to read and perceive too much into questions, requests, comments, etc; if I did I would spend far too much time wondering about the meaning of this and that... as someone said, 'sarcasm on the internet is like winking on the phone', same thing applies with perceptions of disrespect, save for the blatant stuff. So I try to keep it simple : you asked for an explanation, I gave one, and everyone is happy. Looking back I should probably have linked that AN thread in my log summary to avoid any confusion - for that I am sorry. ;-). Cheers — CharlieEchoTango (contact) 23:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Article for creation - AVANCE

Hi there - Thank you for taking the time to review my article on the above subject. I had made changes in response to an earlier comment regarding the references, which hopefully has now been resolved. Following the last review, the article also appears to have have changed from a 'B' to 'C' grading. I was hoping to understand what other changes I needed to make in order to have the profile published. Thank you in advance. Fbell74 (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you're referring to by grading change, if you mean Giuseppe D., which was initially assessed as B-Class, it has since then been changed to C-Class. You can take a look at the grading scheme for guidance. As for the "profile" you wrote (I assume you mean article), it has already been published, you can see it at AVANCE. Regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the review and the encouraging words about Patna College. Arunbandana (talk • contribs) 14:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Review request

Hiya. Could you take a second look at this speedy you declined? You mentioned in your edit summary that it is not a G3 (blatant hoax) candidate, but I'm certain that it actually is a hoax. The editor who who nominated the article for CSD has been quite vigilant in tracking down these STAR Plus hoaxes and identifying the socks who continue to create (and recreate) these nonsense articles. I don't want to override your decision not to delete, but I'm concerned that leaving any of the sock's attempts at hoax creation up (even in AfC space) may encourage them to keep up the effort. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Should have seen that the creator was blocked, but the article really did seem harmless, so I saw no point in G3'ing. Feel free to override me in the future if you know better. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 19:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

There were some not-so-obvious events surrounding this particular request - as the admin toolkit does not, unfortunately, include "mind-reading", I'm not surprised that you originally declined the CSD. Thank you for hearing me out and reconsidering. Cheers, Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Issue regarding the image mover request.

Even though, I have only 10 edits on the file namespace category, I have a very good understanding on image and media policies and will be happy to use the new right to rename files. Please don't say that I don't have any experience on working with files. I do and with the right, if you grant me, I will devote my skills to maintaining files and images and make sure they are in good order. Trust me, I have been very experienced in editing Wikipedia and I have done it since 2010, though I created this account a bit later than 2010. Thanks for considering my request and have a wonderful day, Wikih101 (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but right now, there is not enough in your file contributions for me or another administrator to evaluate your understanding of file policy, or move policy for that matter. You have zero uploads, zero moves, and only ten edits in the namespace where you are requesting the user permission. This is not a judgement on you, your editing, or your understanding of policy, rather it's a matter of us being able to verify that you actually understand policy. Keep up the good work, do some editing in the file namespace to show you are familiar with file policy (there are plenty of tasks to go around), perform some actual page moves to show you are familiar with move policy, and I will be more than happy to reconsider in a few months. Best regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 03:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Help the element Moissan discovered...

CET: You helpe me once with French translation. Another request:

In [1], second and third paras refer to French scientist. We have a sourcing issue.

Does source 63 (http://books.google.com/books?id=4jEFAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA1-PA5&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false) cover the assertion that "In 1810, French physicist André-Marie Ampère suggested that the acid was a compound of hydrogen with an unknown element, analogous to chlorine." I wonder since the date of the reference is 1816, not 1810. If so, what page specifically. Seems like the F stuff is more in pages 6-20, than 1-5 (our cite). I'm even kind of wondering if that source should be covering the assertion about Davy in the 3rd para, as is a letter from him in there.

Anyhow, can you take a look at it? If not, refer us to a bilingual chemist type who will help? (have a French Wiki account but not sure where to go.)

TCO (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That kind of stuff is somewhat out of my league, but I read the document nonetheless trying to help. There is not much substantive and relevant on pages 1-5, and the closest to something that would verify the statement is on page 20, where Ampère says that when hydrofluroic acid is put in contact with boric acid, silicic acid, or a metallic acid, it forms water, and the radical of the hydrofluoric acid unites with boron, silicon or metal, and that the two first combinations are analogous to chlorine and iodides, and were for a long time considered salts under the name of fluates.

I hope the above translation makes sense, and helps. If it doesn't, you can try asking at fr:Discussion_Projet:Chimie, which is the French Wikipedia chemistry wikiproject; I'm sure someone there speaks English and can help you, that said, the page is not very active. Unfortunately I haven't been active at frwiki for a while now, and I do not know any chemist there. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That works, actually. (especially with the Davy comments below in article.) Only the 1810 date is an issue. I'm going to look through some secondary sources to see the story on that. Actually what I'd like to do is just cite a secondary source, but cite this paper in addition. Thanks for struggling through it!TCO (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

He says further down (in that Davy letter I think you refer to) that he worked on it in 1810, but didn't publish it then and couldn't prove its existence, if that's of any help. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Davy worked on it in 1810 or Ampere? Actually this is really good. I think I understand what actually happened now between the two men and can explain the thing better in article. Am finding little things like this as we fact check...that we understand a little better and tell a better (more accurate and more clear) story. Funny how that happens, when you look at sources. ;-) TCO (talk) 06:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That Ampere worked on it in 1810 and then wrote a letter to Davy, but since he didn't publish his material he couldn't prove his work, and the theory wasn't accepted at the time in France. Or something like that. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

P.s. Are you from Quebec? My little sister went to McGill and I visited there a couple times and also skied Mont Tremblant several times. TCO

Yes, I'm a québécois, though not pure laine, and my big sister also went to McGill. Heh ;-) CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Move

Re: J. Joseph Garrahy/John Garrahy, I didn't think that my correction was a move. The original redirect was an error in the first place, and both pages already existed. Please elaborate if I am misunderstanding your message.TunaSushi (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Anyway, I understand the desire to retain talk history, and I thought I had copied the contents, but it appears I did not. Thanks for catching that. TunaSushi (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD of The Deniable Agent: Undercover in Afghanistan

Hey, I noticed your close on the above AfD. In such situations I sometimes opt for closing it as a WP:SOFTDELETE, so while the outcome is the same, you're not calling a 'hard' consensus. Not that in this case there is much wrong, but I figured letting you know the option is there makes sense. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Corrected the record to make clear no prejudice on re-creation. Had never heard of SOFTDELETE, but it sure is a handy close reason. Thanks! :-) CharlieEchoTango (contact) 19:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi CET,

I see you have commented on my book or removed the page, can I ask why?

Best regards,

Colin Berry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.209.105 (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was deleted because of this deletion discussion. Because of low participation in the discussion however, there is no prejudice for re-creation. I make no judgement on the notability of the book, but you may want to ask SL93 (talk · contribs), who nominated it for deletion. Regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 20:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

• News and notes: The Foundation visits Tunisia, analyzes donors

• In the news: Leading scholar hails Wikipedia, historians urged to contribute while PR pros remain shunned

• Discussion report: Discussion swarms around Templates for deletion and returning editors of colourful pasts

• WikiProject report: The Eye of the Storm: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones

• Featured content: Talking architecture with MrPanyGoff

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, final decision in Muhammad images, Betacommand 3 near closure

• Technology report: October's coding challenge: results now in; progress on 1.19 steady; and why for a while interwiki links were no more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Doubt about WP: PRIMARY

Hi CharlieEchoTango,

I've been reworking the introductions to the Lenovo product pages to summarize the products that the page talks about and actually introduce the article the way that section should. My problem is that there seems to be no secondary information on any of the product series as a whole. I've based my information on the Lenovo web site and tried to remove marketing speak.

So, for example, the T Series introduction will read like this (with references back to Lenovo and other sites where applicable):

"The ThinkPad T Series laptops from Lenovo were described by Laptop Magazine as being the "gold-standard for mainstream business systems". This opinion was attributed this to the series' performance, build quality, and keyboards. Lenovo describes the T Series laptops as balancing performance and portability. The typical features on ThinkPad T Series laptops include high-end processors, multiple-monitor support, optional discrete graphics, and several security features (such as fingerprint readers and theft protection)."

Please let me know if this reads ok and doesn't violate any of Wikipedia's policies.

Trevor coelho (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, we try to avoid primary sources where we can, but they are acceptable as sources for factual information (as opposed to qualitative information, e.g. something like "the company's leading-edge technology"). The above quote seems okay to me, especially since you make it explicit that it is Lenovo itself saying that the laptops are balancing (...), so that's an accurate and factual description. However if Lenovo itself said that the laptops were the "gold-standard (...)", then it would not be okay to include it, but I assume Laptop Magazine is a third-party source. So long story short, the above statement does not look like it violates any of Wikipedia's policies, and primary sources are okay sources of information when there is no reliable alternative. I hope this helps. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And thank you for all your work! I noticed this removal of vandalism in your contributions, good catch! Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, CharlieEchoTango. That definitely helps. And there's no need to thank me for the work I've been doing. I'm certainly having fun - after using Wikipedia for years it's satisfying to see how much work actually goes into keeping it in the high regard that it's earned. Happy to help in any way I can. :)

Trevor coelho (talk) 08:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Typhoonwikihelper3 reborn

Look familiar? Just thought you'd like to know... Yunshui 雲‍水 08:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Jeez, he looks like he's going to be a prolific sockpuppeteer... Thanks for the heads up! CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well there is already a SPI on him that was opened a few days ago. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Typhoonwikihelper Bruvtakesover (T|C) 08:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Put in a comment for a block of the underlying IP range. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear CharlieEchoTango,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Our article contributions keep getting deleted...

We've now spoken with Wiki Help and know what we need to do to proceed -- we'll create a draft first (Hollyburn Properties Limited) so that others can edit our piece. We'll also ensure that there's nothing promotional at all about the text. However, in the Article Wizard, it says to contact you first. Can you help?Peter Louwe (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

NawlinWiki replied at your talk page. Regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Space Cat

This article was listed here for its second nomination AFD. The discussion opened on 02/06, and it appears with 6 delete and zero keep nominations it may be appropriate to close per WP:SNOW. I would just rather let an administrator who is active in AFD be the judge of that as opposed to taking any action myself. Thanks. SaveATreeEatAVegan 23:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Considering the last AfD was four years ago, I don't see a need for a snow close here, five votes is not an overwhelming number. No big deal in leaving it open for the next few days. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 02:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Great, I appreciate your feedback. SaveATreeEatAVegan 02:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Edits and insertion of Images

Hi CharlieEchoTango,

Thanks for editing the syntax in the image I was trying to insert. I couldn't figure out where I was going wrong and sent through a few edits. Sorry about this and thanks again. Fbell74 (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)