User talk:Prhartcom/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Harvey Kurtzman's Little Annie Fanny

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

Maybe so. If we change it, I know just the image. I'm a little cold on the idea at the moment, not only because I worked hard on this one, but because I fancy the idea of all people, including women, enjoying the article. Thanks for the suggestion; let me think about it. As for the article, my plan is to tinker with it for a few more and days then nominate it for GA. Prhartcom (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for the copy editing. But you're allowed to type more than five or six characters before saving, you know. At this rate the statistics are going to show you as the primary contributor. I've just never understood why editors do this. Is it because they don't know about the preview button or is it to get their edit count up? You don't have to answer, I'm just venting; wondering out loud. As for me, I type a little bit, preview it, type a little more, preview it, repeat about ten or twenty times, then save. Prhartcom (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It's because I use Emacs to copyedit with, and the software seems to timeout between edits if they take too long, so I save frequently (typically every paragraph). There are tools that give contributions in number of bytes added rather than number of edits. But then, who's keeping track? If you take credit for the article and I don't object, who would object on my behalf? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, who's keeping track; I have always felt that way. Ah, I hadn't considered the possibility of other editing software that times out; that sucks; I would hate that; thanks for the explanation. I truly to appreciate the copy editing; please continue. Of course I need a second pair of eyes to objectively scrutinize the article, allowing it to rise as high as it possibly can, to say nothing of appreciating eyes that understand the subject matter. I don't say this often, but I think it all the time: I greatly respect any time you spend checking my work; thank-you. I recognize that you are required to be other places on Wikipedia and feel fortunate to work with such an expert. Prhartcom (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, and I save often when editing from my smartphone, because it's so easy to touch a millimeter off target and lose your work. --Thnidu (talk) 05:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• * * * * *

Greetings! You reverted my recent tweak to the article, where I noted that Annie did not get naked in every strip. Please tell me "what up wit' dat?", because (for the benefit of Don Markstein's "Toonopedia", at least) I carefully counted such appearances in my copy of the complete Annie collection. The non-nude count is indeed 3, and it may as well be reported accurately in Wikipedia as well. Thanx... Silverhill (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Silverhill. I'm curious what are the episode numbers according to your careful original research and what do you mean, "benefit of Don Markstein's "Toonopedia""; do you publish there? This article is in the middle of consideration for FA. But to answer your question, because of this fundamental policy of Wikipedia: WP:V. Prhartcom (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd have to dig out my copies of the books containing the Annie collection, to ascertain the episode numbers; that may take a few days (or more), alas.

As to the Toonopedia -- when I read its entry on Annie, I noticed that Markstein had made the same assertion (nude each time), but I had already read one or more episodes where that was not true. So as to help his description be accurate ("for the benefit of the Toonopedia"), I re-checked all the episodes and found the three that were the exceptions. I told him about it, and he gladly adjusted his description.

Silverhill, when was this? Prhartcom (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It was in 2010, I believe; that's the latest update year for Markstein's article (http://www.toonopedia.com/anniefan.htm), and I don't believe that there have been (significant) changes to it since then. Silverhill (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

No, there hasn't; Don passed away in 2012 after an lengthy illness. Five years ago when he modified his page after you contacted him, he obviously doubted the importance of it, as he says it "seldom if ever" happened. Prhartcom (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this sounds like a Verifiability issue, or the dreaded Original Research ... but how should something as simple as a careful count be vouched for? Do it before a notary? (A silly idea, I'd say.) Write to Playboy and ask them for a from-the-original-source count? (Somehow I doubt that they'd want to spend uncompensated time replicating my research, just for the sake of providing a Voice Of Authority for a Wikipedia article.) Please advise.... Silverhill (talk) 03:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Silverhill, I advise that we should stick to the rules of Wikipedia and never use original research in any form whatsoever. I can't find any of the reliable sources state that Annie was not nude in every episode; on the contrary, Kitchen & Buhle and other sources make clear that Hefner ensured the strip always adhere to Playboys editorial style. I don't want to let the air out of a clear statement in the second sentence of this or any article. (For example, I wouldn't want to open this article stating that Annie is a "buxom blonde except for one time when she dyed her hair". People would read that and wonder why it was important, then realize it isn't. For my example which I only use to make my point, Annie is blonde practically all of the time; documenting her in an encyclopedia as "blonde" is a true, factually accurate statement.) The experts tell us the fact that Annie is often nude and that the creators found a way for her to be nude on practically every page of the comic. I believe that trying to insert anything otherwise is just splitting hairs. As well, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts; it's not helpful or important for Wikipedia to document everything that happens or doesn't happen. The readers have a broad, easy to understand overview of this character and they won't be harmed if omit a digression and talk about the few times she kept her clothes on. Besides, I can already imagine the day you finally locate the episode numbers of the times you believe she wasn't nude, I check them out of curiosity, and find the evidence to be questionable, at best. I see you have had a Wikipedia account for a good while but have contributed only a few times. Thank-you for coming to me to have this discussion; it was interesting. All the best, Prhartcom (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Dank, How kind of you to delve in with such gusto! Thanks also for letting me know. I have made some changes, removing the image per discussion and touching up the blurb, hopefully highlighting the most interesting facts of the book (keeping it the correct length). Maybe this will make people want to click on it (I predict the article and talk page will have an interesting day that day). What do you think, is it there? Make any further changes you feel are best. I meant to say also that I really like your additions, and I believe will be adding them to the lede of the article. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

My pleasure ... I enjoyed working on your last Tintin article at FAC. My reactions to your edit are complex, here's the short version: I only got the job of editing the TFA text at the start of this month, so I haven't had long enough to get the process to work the way I want it to. It's not best, in my view, for nominators to make all the decisions on text, because the Main Page gets 10 million hits a day ... since we've got a different readership and a larger readership, and since we have very little room (a little over 1200 words) to explain ourselves carefully, some of the decisions on wording are going to be different. In particular, I'm avoiding dog-whistle words like "racist". Also, I don't believe your last sentence is a fair characterization of the article text. I'm more concerned about the bigger problem of what kind of process will work best than I am about this particular TFA nomination ... this just happens to be the first time I've had a disagreement with one of the writers. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 21:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Dank, I'm so glad you have a feel for this kind of thing; for how the general public is likely to respond; whether you think you are are new at it or not, you have a better feel for it than me—your explanation above makes a lot of sense and I am extremely comfortable with you having the final say and changing it again according to what you feel is best. Having said that, I too think I have a vague sense for what is interesting, so that is why I swapped the boring tale of the 40-year-old reprint for the exciting tale of the 21st century human attitude conflict. I'm sure you understand both what I mean and what you need to do, and will achieve the perfect balance required! (Besides, Gerda is the nominator and Midnightblueowl is the primary contributor; I'm mostly just standing around nearby.) Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much for your patience, I replied over there. - Dank (push to talk) 03:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Purina

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

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

You're very welcome CorporateM; happy to help with Nestlé Purina PetCare. There was a moment during the article's GA review when the reviewer needed some ammunition for a particular point and requested outside assistance (on another Talk page), and I was happy to provide this assistance, so I have been watching this article since. Great job and congrats on the GA.

By the way, I hope there is no issue with your own username re: WP:CORPNAME. I'll leave the matter alone; you will not see me questioning anything whatsoever, but I bring it up for your own information (you are probably already aware anyway). You have certainly done an admirable job writing in a neutral voice and preventing any conflict of interest (if indeed there would be any), which is so much more than I can say for so many other situations I have seen.

How can I help you with the edit you mention? I took a glanced at both links and am sometimes a bit thick, but it looks like you are given permission by Crisco 1492 (a good editor, by the way) to go ahead and make the edits you requested. Prhartcom (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

My username stands for "Corporate Minion" - not sure what you mean about username policies.

Yah, it's a rare find to come across an editor like Crisco, who does not have his/her judgment clouded by a COI disclosure. Some editors will make whatever edits a COI requests in the name of AGF, while others are overly defensive and oppose edits arbitrarily. user:SamWilson989 is actually the one that gave me a "go ahead" template, but I pointed out that while most of the edits are mundane or copyediting, some of them touch on controversial issues (lawsuits, etc.). I make direct edits a lot for mundane stuff, like the many copyedits or clarifications that come up during a GA review, but I don't think it's appropriate in this case. Maybe Crisco will get your ping and do the merge themselves though. Sam also said they would merge the content, so maybe someone will ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 21:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe that is not a good example, because there are already multiple eyes on it and I should have followed up with them. I do have a couple very mundane ones here and here that are pretty simple and obvious types of cases with no pre-existing discussion as of yet. CorporateM (Talk) 21:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll get round to it soon enough, I've just learnt recently that setting yourself targets on Wikipedia is futile as there's always something else added to the list. I've been trying to sort out the mess that once was and still is the Angevin Empire. 100kb of stuff needs to be cut down but I've spent all week just trying to find references for it all. I have history books up to my ears around me, so sorry if I take a tad longer to do that Yelp article. I like having the challenge though so much appreciated. Also I believe User:Prhartcom was referring to the fact that your name could be interpreted as an actual name of a business or office, which isn't allowed, but evidently your name doesn't fall into that category. SamWilson989 (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I wish I was a corporate minion. Prhartcom (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@SamWilson989 For a big topic like that, books are probably going to be your best bet for quality sources. Google Books looks to have a lot of good sources on it. Often Google only gives you a preview, but you can find a used copy of the book for $5 or something trivial, or borrow it from a library. I have a small pile of books from my work on History of public relations. CorporateM (Talk) 22:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what I have done also, CorporateM. The pile is growing taller. Prhartcom (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Tintin logo

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

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

Your GA nomination of Beyond: Two Souls

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Beyond: Two Souls you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hef

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

Sweet! Non-crappy, one decade older, and already added. Nice find! One problem: what do I do about how it extends down into the references like Crisco 1492 warned against? Prhartcom (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You could move it to where File:Annie-Fanny.png is now—I seriously think that one's superfluous and awkward, and Hef would fit better in the "Creation" section anyways. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, if you ever happen to come across a free Hef image from the early '90s, let me know—I'd like to add one to The Playboy. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Done.

I have been asked to reduce the nude Annie image a bit.

I will, should I find such a thing. I just found out about searching for Wikipedia-acceptable free images on Flickr, and just tried there, but no 1990s Hef (I found others). (If you'd like to know how to search, go to their advanced search, type in your key words, scroll down, and click "Only search within Creative Commons" and "Find content to use commercially") Prhartcom (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about image sizes—there are bots that go around automatically reducing Fair Use images to an appropriate size (I think the rule of thumb is dimensions less than 500px). Oh, and you have to be careful with Flickr—plenty of people upload copyrighted images and throw "free" licences on them, even though they don't have permission to do so. A "free" licence notice on Flickr usually means absolutely nothing unless the copyright is held by the uploader (another thing they can claim without having to prove). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect. I got the policy clear in my own head after I saw the notice. This file had been 400px wide (about a fourth of the original size) but the policy states a non-free image is approximately 100,000 pixels total (see WP:IMAGERES). The bot renames the file and replaces the Wikipedia uploader's name with it's name, so it's best to get it right ourselves. I took care of it a few minutes ago. No, there's nothing wrong with using Flickr as long as the policy is followed to the letter (see WP:FLICKR). I used the tool to move a file from Flickr Commons to Wikipedia Commons this past weekend for a different article. Prhartcom (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue with Flickr is that they do nothing to ensure that the people uploading images actually have the right to do so under the licence the uploaders claim. Try it: scan a photo you like and upload it to Flickr with the licence of your choice. Then you're in a position to transfer it to Commons, because you found it under a free licence. Many of the uploaders don't understand copyright and so they just take credit for the images they upload, thinking they're only taking credit for uploading them, when they're actually "claiming" copyright. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, understood, which could just as easily happen here on our Commons as well. That's no reason to craft an argument with the goal of causing editors to avoid this resource. Hundreds of thousands of Flickr images have been transferred over to Commons. Used sensibly, I'm sure it's no better or worse any tool. Prhartcom (talk) 07:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Your question

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

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

Thank-you, Bjelleklang, your opinion matters to me, as I try to emulate the behavior of an administrator (maybe I will be one someday). Thank-you also for showing me WP:DDE; I hadn't seen that before; I just finished reading it. You are right to say the answer depends on specifics. I posted at that particular edit war because I had been advising one of the editors, urging for calmness, for the issue which has been going on for a few weeks now. If I describe how other users disagree, will you do me the honor of replying again with your thoughts? Picture an editor who researched and wrote a paragraph filled with reliable sources that summarizes news reports describing background information of a world-famous contentious news event. Now picture three other editors who do not research or write anything but simply object to the inclusion of the paragraph. To make it easier, assume that the paragraph of first editor is well-written and follows every Wikipedia policy and guideline, yet the very mention of some of its facts tend to make some people uncomfortable. So we have the following motivations: the first editor wants to make an article more factual, the second editor objects to this perhaps because of their nationality, the third editor objects to this perhaps because of liberal or conservative viewpoints, and the third editor objects to this simply because they actually enjoy objecting. Also to make it easier, assume no one is behaving civilly to each other or assuming of good faith to one other. Assume everyone is discussing, but assume no one is listening. Now, if I were the first editor, I would give up; I simply couldn't win against people who have made it their life's work to silence me. What do you think? Update: If I may, I wish to alleviate any concerns you may have now that you know this is based on a real-life event (as most stories are), and any concerns you may have about my motivations: I ask your advice only in case something like this ever happens to me. If anyone from the real event reads this talk page I can't stop them, but I don't plan on running around speaking to anyone about this, pointing to this page. I ask only because, if it were to happen to me, I can see only one strategy for myself: LOSE. That doesn't seem right, and I wondered if there is another way. I think I will now re-read WP:DDE to see if it is there. Thanks again very much for your further advice. Prhartcom (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you disregard the incivility; if you have tried to include a section that's relevant, accurate, neutral and based on reliable sources, the other editors must present valid reasons not to include it. If you've tried to discuss it but gotten no response, or counterarguments similar to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, you should still be able to include it. If they still revert, I'd either try to get a 3rd opinion or take it to WP:ANI depending on the situation. If this is an ongoing case, please let me know so I can take a look for you (if you want me to that is). Bjelleklang - talk 06:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Bjelleklang, that's helpful; I have been here a while but don't have this kind of experience, so it is good for me to know this. Reading WP:DE has also been helpful, and your advice seems to mirror the guidelines. I especially like how it explains that the first editor should methodically find other editors to join his side so that they are all reverting the reverts of the disruptive editors (assuming one can actually find other editors who will help; probably easier said than done). Thank-you for offering to take a look at the real-life situation on which I modeled my hypothetical question.

• Article Talk page Jan 16–23, including reliably sourced addition to article
• ANI Jan 15
• 3RR Jan 12
• 3RR Jan 15
• 3RR Jan 15
• 3RR Jan 19
• 3RR Jan 27

Prhartcom (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Please don't get me wrong, but getting a 3rd opinion isn't about finding as many people to help revert to your version as possible, as it could be construed as canvassing and/or edit warring unless the case is clear-cut. The RFC Curly Turkey started is a good way to move forward (as you noted yourself), the discussion with Moor (section 5) at the talkpage is also an excellent example of dealing with an editor seemingly refusing to discuss, and raising complaints at WP:ANI is also a good step to take. Unfortunately he/she became involved in an edit war and everything changed. The best thing to do is probably to ask for full protection on the article (which I'm going to do at the first sign of EW starting up again), trash everything that's been discussed before and start afresh. If nothing else, disruptive editors that fight to avoid change will have to respond to any edit requests with actual arguments, otherwise they'll be ignored and the edit request likely to be approved. Bjelleklang - talk 20:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you, no, you can be relieved to hear that I wasn't thinking that. I understood that, by following the process, other reasonable editors are bound to join you at your side against the unreasonable editors with the "unlimited energy" that I first despaired about (assuming the process really does cause other editors to help you, which I still slightly worry about). So that is the answer to my original question: Follow the process and you won't be alone.

As for the real-life situation, it is encouraging to me to hear you describe steps you personally are going to take on this article. Encouraging, because again, I don't want the bullies to win. Thank-you, Bjelleklang. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The Other Woman (2014 film)

Hello Prhartcom! Will you please take a look at The Other Woman (2014 film)? Should I take it to the Peer Review or just need a copy-edit? I've already nominated it but reviewer failed it due to some issues, I think. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 15:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Captain Assassin!, I appreciate that you trust me enough to come to me for an honest opinion. I looked over the review of this article that was expertly provided to you by Sock. I see the problem, and it is just as you state yourself: You are not a native speaker of English, and therefore your lack of writing skill in that language is preventing you from bringing an article to GA. Certainly there is no problem at all with your excellent attitude, your research abilities, or your intelligence (three areas in which many editors seem to be lacking but they can at least write in fluent English). In Wikipedia:Competence is required.

There is really only one solution for you: Become a better writer of the English language. As hard as this may be to hear, English Wikipedia is written by editors who are fluent in English and read by people who expect it to be written in fluent English. Many of your responses typed in your own words on this GA1 review page are mostly unintelligible to a fluent English speaker. I urge you to not submit another article for GA until you are sure you are not going to cause a reviewer to spend their time laboriously typing out a review telling you this same advice yet again. In the case of this article, Sock went to a great deal of trouble giving you tips and advice to become a better writer and then saw no response from you. Are you committed to becoming a better writer or not? If you are, then my suggestion is to begin by becoming a better reader: Take a break from writing and pick up a well-written book in the English on any topic that appeals to you, and read it. Pay attention to English grammar and style in the book. Then do it again with another book you've been meaning to read. Then again. That's what most of us have already done: We can write in English because we have read a lot of English. When you are ready to return to writing, start by writing collaboratively with other fluent English speakers, asking them to give you feedback on your newly-improved skills. Soon you will be ready to submit to GA again. Best of luck! With your excellent attitude, your research abilities, and your intelligence, I have no doubt you will succeed. Prhartcom (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much, that's really nice of you. It's a good advice for me and I'm going to act upon it. I know I'm good with my research abilities but it's nothing without a good writing which I'll do better one day. So, I'll just stick to writing new articles from now on and give more time to reading. Hope, I'll be a good writer. Thanks again. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You will, but no writing, new articles or otherwise; stick to reading, reading, and more reading for awhile, like I said. Only then allow yourself to return to writing, and then only with collaboration and feedback. You'll succeed. Prhartcom (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, you probably meant that you would "avoid" writing new articles from now on; I understand now. Prhartcom (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah sure, that's why I usually work in the "draft" space to avoid mistakes. But I'll follow your advice. Thanks for all. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mannatech

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mannatech you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CorporateM -- CorporateM (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Beyond: Two Souls

The article Beyond: Two Souls you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Beyond: Two Souls for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks (from Midnightblueowl)

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

Oh, I meant the message before your most recent one... We must have been composing our posts at the same time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Thank you (from Midnightblueowl)

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

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

Your DYK ?

Camille Pissarro - lost in the forrest

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

Thank-you very much, Hafspajen; it is here, your choice is ALT1 or ALT3, and it just needs the elusive tick mark. Congrats on your own article and DYK, very nice work. Prhartcom (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• While playing as Aiden, the game becomes monochromatic. - do you mean that the screen is entirely transforms into green, orange or blue - or you mean - it is black and white with an aura of green, orange or blue?

It means the screen image is transformed almost entirely into black and white. The player does see auras of various colors if there is interactivity there.Prhartcom (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Is this thing - Lacking material form or substance - or is said to be a dead person?

Sorry, what is this phrase above? It is not from the article, so I don't understand...?

Update: Ah, now I understand you when you clarified (nearly last sentence below). Prhartcom (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

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

• Could you just please reword this: marking only the second time the film festival recognised a video game . I took me twice to read it before I got it. The hooks are better formulated about this statment. I think only the second - is that makes one get confused a bit.

You are so right, I have changed to the article match the hook exactly. Prhartcom (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Can't notice any severe issues. What's the problem? Hafspajen (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you so much for taking the time to copy edit, Hafspajen! Does the DYK now meet with your approval? If so, please provide the {{subst:DYKtick}} in front of your comment at this page stating all criteria are met (Say that GA, date, sources, neutrality, originality, QPQ, and hook are verified). State that you prefer ALT 3 and then say "Good to go.") Rhain1999 has not returned; you are taking over. Thank-you again! Prhartcom (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

1)I am confused by the DYK-NO tick. Wonder if it is a misunderstanding. So I asked on the page the previous rev. If I don't get any response in 24 hours I will give it the green tick.

OR - you can ask for a new rev, in that case place {{subst:DYK?again}} - ant then it is perfectly acceptable. Oficially aceptable asking for a new person. And that's fine.

Thank-you, I have taken your advice and placed the request mark on the page, as the other two reviewers apparently feel they did their QPQ just by commenting and apparently do not plan to return. Prhartcom (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

2) OK, I get that now. If the the screen image is transformed almost entirely into black and white, but the player does see auras of various colors if there is interactivity there - who is the one who can notice them then? *While playing as Aiden, the game becomes monochromatic. Interactive objects are highlighted by an aura shining in one of several colours, - means somedody can notice them. Hafspajen (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you are saying. Yes, the player is seeing from the ghost Aiden's point of view, the image on the screen is monochromatic, and then suddenly a coloured aura is spotted "amongst the shades of greys," a phrase which I have just added to to article to clarify. Prhartcom (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

3) Aiden is said to be a dead person - or a kind of entity lacking material form or substance - or? Hafspajen (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes exactly, no material form or substance, "incorporeal" as said in the article. If I should define incorporeal please let me know. Thank-you for the beautiful painting! It brightens up the place in here! Prhartcom (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I have now linked to "incorporeal". Prhartcom (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Thank you for your clarifications ... also the .. You said in the lead that it was a ghost ... maybe you could change it, because that is per definition a dead person - kinda haunting....Hafspajen (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Excellent point Hafspajen, I remember someone else inserted that and I did not object, but I see now it causes confusion; I have changed it. It is so valuable having a "second pair of eyes". Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Kona Lanes

You're a reviewer ... —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Fatemi127

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

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

PDF

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

DYK for Beyond: Two Souls

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

Help , please

This user Uaat , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Uaat , Vandalism a lot of article for a long time , can you stop this guy ? thank you ViPremierce (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Eeeeeewtw,

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Eeeeeewtw/Archive,

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

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

This user Uaat , always Vandalism a lot of article , see his Contributions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Uaat ViPremierce (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

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

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar is awarded to those that show a pattern of going the extra mile to be nice, without being asked. Guy Macon (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

How nice, thanks, Guy Macon! And I love your depiction of a "A Wikipedia Content Dispute". Prhartcom (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Tintin reversion

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

It's all good, thanks for stopping by to mention that. I'm still reviewing the changes you made to The Adventures of Tintin ensuring everything we ever write comes is from a reliable source and is not original research. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course you want to check that, and kudos to you for doing so, but there's no OR in my edits. It's possible that one or two bits came from an article on a specific Tintin book, though. To discuss this, please {{Ping}} me. --Thnidu (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Research Publication on Carreidas 160, Paper Aircraft

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congratulations

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

Red Rackham's Treasure

Would you like me to review Red Rackham's Treasure? — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 07:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Your GA nomination of Unicorn (ship)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Unicorn (ship) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Warning on my talkpage

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

Orphan Wiki, This was indeed a mistake; I thought I was warning the person you reverted, so sorry. Prhartcom (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey no problem whatsoever, we all make mistakes every so often. :) Best wishes, Orphan Wiki 10:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Unicorn (ship)

The article Unicorn (ship) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Unicorn (ship) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sigh

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

I stopped following whatever is happening because I do not respect the behavior of the editors involved. Had you from the start maintained the demeanor of, say an administrator, I would have continued to follow and would have stepped in if necessary, the way you and everyone else stepped in on the Congo talk page. Next time stay cool, calm, collected, smart, and right.

I just checked your page, and I must inform you that the other person is obviously trying to apologize and extend an olive branch. That is the opportunity to do the same.

I hear what you are saying though, Curly Turkey. Speaking as a male also, I believe the problem you are describing flows from ego. My advice is shelve it. Then things don't seem as important. An apology to the other person doesn't hurt if there's no ego involved. I try to think about what the other person wants, then give them something that they want. Make the other person want to respect you just by your tone, actions, and personification of wisdom. Walk away from any bad situation; it will be fine.

I see that the person you mention above walked away for two weeks and is now starting fresh. Good for him; I wish him well. People deserve a second shot. Prhartcom (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The Sirens and Ulysses byWilliam Etty, 1837

I just reviewed it for GA and decided to hang it here too. Prhartcom (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Why such high edit counts?

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

The Seven Crystal Balls

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

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

Enthiran

Would you do me a favour? Can you copyedit Enthiran, an article which I plan to take to FA. It has finished its PR before FAC earlier today. Just need the prose to be copyedited as two users recommended it in the PR. Thanks. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 14:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Ssven2, since it contains a photo of Aishwarya Rai, how could I not? It will have to wait for the weekend; I am studying now for a big technical exam. Please paste "{{Peer review|archive=1}}" into the top line of the Talk page. Prhartcom (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Ssven2, I only just processed that you said it has already achieved its Peer Review, so cancel that request about the Talk page notice. Did the peer reviewers not copy edit the prose for you? I suppose I can give it an unofficial review if they did not review it. Update: I have just read their comments and see the extensive comments you have already received, including the numerous comments that requested that you trim the article. Have you done this? I don't want to do the work that they asked you to do. I see that there are many sections in this article, not a bad thing, and that each section is of a fair length, but perhaps some trimming of some of the longer sections is still in order. Prhartcom (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I have resolved most of their comments except the copyedit as I told both the users that it would be done after the PR. The Peer reviewers did make a few minor edits and, as I mentioned earlier the comments made by the two users regarding the copyedit were before the trimming done by me yesterday. I had trimmed a massive portion of the article, (the link to the version of the article that passed its GA review is here) and asked about it to Dr. Blofeld and another editor, Crisco1492. Both said it was ok and manageable. I just need to make the article's Prose look better. A general copyedit. After seeing your detailed and exquisite prose in The Seven Crystal Balls, I thought I might make a copyedit request to you. Thanks for the wonderful compliment that you have written beneath the barnstar BTW. Regarding your above comment about Ash, she hardly has anything to do in the film except look good, but she does have her moments. Her costumes in the film's song sequences are really good though. Do check them out on Google when you have the time. I am more a fan of the hero. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 16:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

By stating "trimming of some of the longer sections is still in order.", you mean the production and plot sections right? — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 16:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It's alright if you don't want to do a copyedit to the article, dear Prhartcom. But, as I said, after seeing your detailed and exquisite prose in The Seven Crystal Balls, I imply couldn't resist making a copyedit request to you. It was one of the best articles I have ever seen. I have also wondered, why didn't you add about Charles Wiener's book mentioned by Farr for the Incan material inspirations? Is it for the Prisoners of the Sun? — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 07:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ssven2, no, I'm just busy yesterday and today, like I said, and I can take the time to give it a copy edit tomorrow and the next day. Remember, Midnightblueowl is the one who did the primary research and writing of the article, like I said, I am just supporting her in her incredible efforts by copy editing, correcting, writing the Synopsis and Adaptations sections, and making all of the Tintin articles consistent. I would not push her into doing anything; just let her work in her own way, all right? I hadn't yet noticed the missing mention of the explorer; it may need to be added to Sun. Prhartcom (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'll let her work her way as you have said and also help you two like The Castafiore Emerald by expanding the remaining Tintin articles. Currently, I am working on The Calculus Affair. I was merely asking whether you two have reserved Farr's description for Prisoners of the Sun or not. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 15:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Ssven2, I am looking over the article now and making notes for you. I am so glad to see the difficult work of copy editing the broken English has recently been done. Prhartcom (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Prhartcom, I'll open up the FAC and you can post the rest of your queries there. What do you think? Or else you continue with the informal review? — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 12:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

I'm sorry to hear that, after all your work, and for those reasons? FA can be a painful experience. I had lost track of this article as I have not had time to edit much lately; I still cannot commit to any projects right now. Prhartcom (talk) 05:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It was actually withdrawn by me on the advice of fellow editors. IMHO, such issues were kind of silly. They have now been resolved. As I said, do let know if you would like to make any copyediting changes to the article. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 05:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	In recognition of your work for The Seven Crystal Balls. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Ssven2! You are a kind soul and a worthy editor of the Tintin articles yourself! Of course, Midnightblueowl did the primary research and writing on this article. When I have a little more time, I would like to complete some of the half-finished Tintin articles I have started, perhaps working with you or Midnightblueowl if she wishes. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Kurtzman coming up

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

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

Re: 2011 White House shooting

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

Well, isn't it one of those official photos? Not much we can do. I hadn't really noticed. Luckily for this FAC, the photo is certainly a free image; that's all they care about. Thanks for trying to help. Prhartcom (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

What do you think of this edit? If not a fan, I will revert as well. I'm just testing and this will not be seen as instability. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't really like it; the images of the directors are now too close to the aerial image of the While House. I would defer to User:Freikorp. Is there a good reason for this fiddling? If not, change it back. Prhartcom (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I reverted. I thought the previous version put the image captions at bit closer to where their names are mentioned in the prose, and it avoided breaking the section heading line below. Freikorp can decide if he has a preference. I'll stop fiddling with the article. Was just testing, really. ----Another Believer _(Talk) 05:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, neither version is perfect, one breaks the section heading below, and the other does look a bit too close to the aerial image now that you mention it, so I don't really have a preference. And while I appreciate that the Sullivan image is of poor quality, reducing it by that small amount didn't really help much unfortunately, it's a shame there isn't a better quality image of him. Thanks anyway. Freikorp (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course it only breaks the section heading below for some users depending on browser, window size, and minimise/maximise. It doesn't break it for me. I suppose there's only so much we can do. The larger point is: I don't think this is an issue that will interest the FAC review. Prhartcom (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

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

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Will Elder and Harvey Kurtzman, 1962.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Hello,

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

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

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

Changes to George Harrison, Ringo Starr, and John Lennon

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

Princess with a mop

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

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

DYK for Carreidas 160

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

Your GA nomination of Carreidas 160

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Carreidas 160 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Neelix -- Neelix (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Carreidas 160

The article Carreidas 160 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Carreidas 160 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Neelix -- Neelix (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Touch-base

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

CorporateM, I would work with you again anytime. I admit I was a little put off by your initial response, but I asked for your opinion so I can't complain. :-) I actually haven't had the courage to take another look at the article, afraid that most of it would be gone, and just focused on other projects. But you are saying you think it looks pretty good? Okay, please give me a little time to look at it and decide about it. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hrm, now I want to look at it too, but I don't remember the name. Being shorter isn't a bad thing, but I will profess that the longer I'm around Wikipedia, I become increasingly grumpy and deletionist. So I apologize for that. I have to dig my teeth into a page before I can provide meaningful feedback though. For you to advocate for inclusion of forum posts is enough for some alarm bells to go off. CorporateM (Talk) 20:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you said that already didn't you. Here it is: Day One: Garry's Incident. Prhartcom (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You know, we could add some video or images of gameplay to the page and see if they send us a cease and desist. After all, we're not monetizing the content here on Wikipedia (*snickers sarcastically) CorporateM (Talk) 21:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

That would be fantastic. But it is all YouTube video. Like I said at one point, the challenge with this article is the entire controversy took place in the world of unreliable sources. That's only because that's the way that world works. It almost means Wikipedia has to pretend the situation never occurred. But, yes, if we were allowed, we could show the video created by that fellow TotalBiscuit. Prhartcom (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I was wrong. It does need quite a bit more copyediting and re-ordering of sentences.

I was just teasing that we would, you know, feature some gameplay like TotalBiscuit did, see if we get into trouble. We get a lot of legal threats around here from people/companies unhappy with their article, often in a similar fashion as this scenario. It's actually more routine than you would think. Yelp is a client of mine and they have the same issue too. Customers leave negative reviews because the product isn't that good and the business owner sues for defamation, because, naturally, they thought their product wasn't that bad. CorporateM (Talk) 21:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I just read the article, and it wasn't a complete shambles. I guess you actually did decide that some of the sources are reliable; I am pleased. You did a decent job rewriting the article. I agree that it doesn't have to be lengthy. Would you like me to copy edit it? This is a busy moment now, but I can do so later. Prhartcom (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Your GA nomination of Carreidas 160

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

I hope this doesn't discourage you; you've done a lot of great editing and I hope you stick around! However, I'd say you might have better luck on subjects covered by academics, historians and press. CorporateM (Talk) 18:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you for the encouragement, CorporateM, Consensus has spoken and I must respect that. I do appreciate you trying to encourage me. Prhartcom (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Neelix, I understand why you did what you believed had to do, and I can see that you did not wish to discourage me because of it, pointing out to me my strengths, etc. and for that at least, I truly do appreciate. Now, I definitely hesitate to ask this next question but I must: I recently completed expanding the article Unicorn (ship). Could you please give me your informal opinion of it here? Prhartcom (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

These two articles are very similar, and I would recommend a similar course for both. As far as I can tell, all of the real-world content in the Unicorn (ship) article is contained in the "Creation" section. This content seems very well-written and provides valuable, encyclopedic information. Because all of this information pertains to preparations for The Secret of the Unicorn specifically, I would think that this section would be better located on that article. Because the Unicorn appears prominently in two different Tintin installments, List of The Adventures of Tintin locations might be the best target for a Unicorn (ship) redirect. Neelix (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

All right, thank-you for your comments, I will consider what needs to be done. Prhartcom (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikibreak

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

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

Apoplology

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

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

Thanks!

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

Your edtsum technique

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

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

Mandruss, I am sorry, it's nothing personal. I reverted for two reasons: Your edit said "different settings"; I found no source stating that. Also, I had JUST fixed that sentence and your edit made it worse again just 240 seconds later, while I was re-reading it; I mean, come on. :-) Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 04:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The settings change was based on this comment by Alakzi, a couple of days ago. I didn't see any objections to it aside from DHeyward's comment that we were "overthinking", which Alakzi seems to be countering adequately so far. Certainly no objection from you. All things considered, it seemed like a reasonable change for now, which could have been changed again if such a conclusion were reached in that thread.

As for the readability, I felt my version read just fine, and I still do. As I indicated, I think I know awkward language when I see it. As for the time elapsed, don't many reverts come immediately after the edit they revert? Would you have preferred I wait two hours and then revert?

I think you were too quick on the undo button, and your editsum made that worse. Like you said, nothing personal. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about not taking part in the pertinent discussions. The sentence reads better now (fewer words and more accurate). Prhartcom (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jeff Wayne's Musical Version of The War of the Worlds you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sparklism -- Sparklism (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Request Edits

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

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

Enthiran promoted to FA

Happy to inform you that Enthiran is promoted. My first FA success! — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Ssven2, you worked very hard on it, congratulations! Prhartcom (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Prhartcom! — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 23:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

JC's Girls

Hi Prhartcom,

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

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

Wikipedia:Peer review/Mayabazar/archive1

One of my fellow editors, Pavanjandhyala, has opened the peer review for Mayabazar (1957), the first Telugu film to be attempted for FA class. I am a co-nominator thereby this article makes it my second attempt at FAC. Feel free to leave comments and ping me if you wish to do so. Thanks. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 05:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Beyond Two Souls

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

Moulinsart

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

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

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jeff Wayne's Musical Version of The War of the Worlds – The New Generation you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of IndianBio -- IndianBio (talk) 11:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Little Annie Fanny

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Little Annie Fanny you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wugapodes -- Wugapodes (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Little Annie Fanny

The article Little Annie Fanny you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Little Annie Fanny for things which need to be addressed. Wugapodes (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Flower Mound, Texas

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

Your GA nomination of Little Annie Fanny

The article Little Annie Fanny you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Little Annie Fanny for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wugapodes -- Wugapodes (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Congrats on getting LAF to good article status P!! This is probably TMI but she was my favorite part of the mag when I was in college. Also my apologies for not getting to your request about looking at your articles for GA status. I keep getting diverted by things on WikiP and (worse) off :-( Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, obviously she was, MarnetteD, how can other parts of that magazine compete against Harvey Kurtzman's greatest creation? :-) Thanks so much! Prhartcom (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Conflict with GAN reviewer

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

The dress (viral phenomenon)

Hello Prhartcom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you

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

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

DYK for Little Annie Fanny

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

GA talk page notice

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

Hi Cordless Larry, I've seen you around, good to be speaking with you! Oh, I know, I have seen those; there was another one just recently. You know, you can certainly try it, but (and this is just a guess on my part) I don't think the notice will help those folks. Now on the other hand, someone as respectable as Spinning Spark accidentally posted the other day to the page you and I are discussing, and I believe the notice would have helped in that case. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I did wonder if it would make a difference. I guess that if people aren't noticing that they're posting in completely the wrong place, they probably aren't seeing the notice, but I'll give it a try. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I decided I like it; nice work. If they read that far. :-) It is definitely good to have that situation mentioned. Prhartcom (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey Cordless Larry, check out the comment at the bottom of that page; someone made reference to your addition. Prhartcom (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

That's nice (although it's a shame that the original poster didn't see it in the first place!). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Beyond: Two Souls

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

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

Infocom

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

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

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

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

Hi Curly Turkey, Okay. The word "first" is the only important part of this sentence, the rest I'm not protective of. It's from Markstein: "first in any major American magazine" he said. You can remove or change or quote it if you want. I was just filling in some content about this series; I hope it improves the article. Prhartcom (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Update: Just realized you meant it wasn't first. Perhaps "major" publication is the operative word here. You can change it to simply "Playboy's first comic strip." Prhartcom (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Standard GGC Notice

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

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

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

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

Kurtzman

Thank you for the Mad archive link, and I'm more than glad to help with further archiving of the invaluable Toonopedia before it, inevitably, disappears. Since Archive.org doesn't / can't archive it, that means each archive has to be done manually at Webcitation.org — which fortunately is very easy to do; just go there, hit the "Archive" link at top, and just fill in the boxes. Only the first two boxes are required.

Here's the Harvey link! http://www.webcitation.org/6aPggSYAt

If you ever want to see which links already are archived, go here and do a "Find" search to see if what you're looking for is there. If you do insert one of that page's archive links into an article, please just let me know so I can move that item from the main list to the "Entries added to articles" list in order to keep it all organized. Happy Wiki'ing! --Tenebrae (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Public Storage

Do you have time to take a look at this proposed draft intended to get the Public Storage articel GAN-ready? There are some relevant comments here. I have a COI, so am not allowed to merge the draft directly, as oppose to ask another editor to review and consider it. CorporateM (Talk) 21:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I have responded at the article talk page. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I've responded to each comment and adjusted the draft appropriately. Thanks for being so thorough! Even though none of these are COI-related, they are the types of things that tend to come up in GA reviews. Once it's in article-space, I usually do some cleanup myself as non-controversial edits, to repair any citation errors, get the logo image up, etc. (you can't put logos in userspace, since they are non-free), so no worries about that stuff. CorporateM (Talk) 17:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

If you have the time and I'm not bothering you too much, I would also be interested in getting your opinion here. The RFC has been open for almost a week without any comments from un-involved editors, probably because so much reading is involved in providing a thoughtful response. There is a prior discussion on the subject in the discussion string above the RFC and it revolves at least in part in what the sources focus on and are representative of, which is never an easy call to make as a passerbyer. I'd like to get this up to GA as well and summarizing the medical literature is the last step before it will be ready. There are also many aspects of the Request Edit that are not related to the RFC that could probably be implemented without it being controversial. CorporateM (Talk) 18:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Civility Barnstar
		For providing a generally welcoming encouragement to GA. LavaBaron (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thank-you, LavaBaron! I collect Wikifriends, let's work together again soon. P.S. It's not even important that you respond to any more of their messages over there, if you don't want to. (You've been handling them beautifully.) By the way LavaBaron, I see that the opinion of respected editor SilkTork is that there were no problems with the original review. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Cork GAA

Actually, I can't understand what do you find of not costructive on Cork GAA. Some users used a kit template I've drawn for it.wiki without using the proper colours, I've just fixed it. You've reverted the template to the wrong colour.. sorry for my english. PS I suggest you to archive the old talks, I've accidentally opened the edit of the whole page instead of the new section and had to wait minutes to load all the stuff. Kanchelskis (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Kanchelskis, thank-you for coming to my page and letting me know, as I had not even understood that those symbols I had reverted signified colours. I was using the anti-vandalism tool WP:STiki to make many dozens of edits that had done damage to many articles, and I had not fully grasped the meaning of this particular edit until you told me about it. I have self-reverted my edit back to the proper one made earlier. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Prhartcom. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 01:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

EB Games Australia

Hey Prhartcom!

I noticed you rolled back a lot of changes made to the EB Games Australia Wikipedia Page due to a lack of sources.

Most of this information was obtained directly from the relevant EB Games departments (i.e I contacted their event team about EB Expo etc) and I was wondering how to properly cite this, given that this information is not published anywhere digitally.

I can 100% confirm this information is correct, as it has been sourced directly from the company themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobstronormus (talk • contribs) 05:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Lobstronormus, thank-you for coming to my talk page and for reaching out; I do wish to help you. I have responded to this message over at the article talk page, here. Prhartcom (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobstronormus (talk • contribs) 01:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Herges adventures of Tintin

I'm absolutely stunned you have reverted my useful edit and accuse me of not adding anything of value when the current information is far from correct! Then you go onto say use the sandbox? How can I report you to management?

For your information here's a least FOUR links to the box sets which are no longer available brand new (pay particular attention to users comments)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B000EBEIPI/ref=s9_simh_gw_p74_d0_i2?pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_s=desktop-1&pf_rd_r=0B5ZRRQP72EW8AK5SNHD&pf_rd_t=36701&pf_rd_p=577048787&pf_rd_i=desktop

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tintin-Movie-Collection-Stéphane-Bernasconi/dp/B00DS7755A/ref=pd_bxgy_74_img_z

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/THE-ANIMATED-FEATURE-FILMS-OF-TINTIN-NEW-SEALED-3-DISC-DVD-BOX-SET-/171901940720?hash=item28062773f0

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Tintin-Movies-Collection-NEW-DVD-Box-Set-/191644895572?hash=item2c9eed0954

No mention of this on the wiki entry now you've sabotaged my edit, this isn't my first rodeo on the site!

I look forward to your response. the impending collapse of it all (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Pughga, thank-you for trying to help Wikipedia. Yes, I saw the user's comment, which read, "Update of info as I own the box set!" On Wikipedia, we do not edit according to our original research, instead we must apply the policy of verifiability, which means we must write according to what we read in a reliable source and then cite our sources, which appear as a footnote to a link stating where we got our information. We do not edit from what we ourselves personally know. Remember, the link must be to a reliable source (none of the links above are considered reliable; see the reliable source policy for more detail). In addition, your edit completely blanked out the beginning of the article, removing the infobox and an image, which is why I considered your edit vandalism, which is bad. After you have looked over the policies I have liked to, if you have further questions, feel free to ask them below. Prhartcom (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Graphic novels

Hi, it's nice that an American like you enjoys "Tintin". I never quite understood why "Tintin" is a universal hit, except for the USA where it is nothing but a cult phenomenon, so it's always refreshing that some people in the USA love it. :) But I must inform you that "Tintin" is not a graphic novel. I do understand where the confusion comes from, though, the album format as we know it in Europe is something completely alien in the USA. Therefore any album published in a book format is categorized as a graphic novel in the USA, but in Europe these are just regular comic book albums. In Europe a "graphic novel" is a serious comic book album exploring darker, political and/or more adult themes, like Maus, A Contract with God, V For Vendetta. "Tintin", despite enjoyable and appreciated by adults too, is still too juvenile to be branded as a graphic novel. Hergé never aimed at the adult market either, while graphic novelists do. I don't blame you for not knowing this, after all, there are major differences between the American and European market, but I just thought I would motivate why I put it under "comics anthologies", because there doesn't seem to be a better alternative for the moment. Maybe a good initiative for a new category, because we do have a lot of European comic book albums on Wikipedia that ought to be categorized under a better name. - User:Kjell Knudde 11:24 25 August 2015 (UTC).

Hey. Actually, the term "graphic novel" has been very fluid in its definition over the decades, and since the Book Industry Study Group's adoption of the "graphic novel" category in the early 2000s, "graphic novel" has quickly come to mean any comics with a spine. Not that it never really meant anything "novelistic"—A Contract with God was a book of short stories, after all. Papercutz publishes graphic novels aimed more or less exclusively at children—including reprints of European works such as The Smurfs—and labels them all "graphic novels". Under current terminology (which has yet to settle) a "comic album" would be a particular printed format of a "graphic novel". It's all very confusing and difficult to keep up with—but then, what do you expect from a medium that packages pamphlets of adventure stories as "comic books"? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to my fellow editor Curly Turkey, who brought the comics article to GA and the A Contract with God and Maus articles to FA, to whom I always defer for expert advice on the comics medium outside of the reliable sources. Kjell Knudde is referring to my revert of this non-edit summary change of theirs, where they apparently had disagreed with the Category:Tintin books being in the Category:Belgian graphic novels for many years, and instead felt it belonged in the Category:Comics anthologies. I appreciate how Kjell Knudde gave me the benefit of the doubt and understood my revert was done in good faith, considering my nationality. Putting aside for a moment Kjell Knudde's failure to cite a reliable source here and their disregard of losing the "Belgian" aspect of the graphic novels category, I must side with Curly Turkey, not only for the above analysis that is backed up by the sources but also because of the attempt to place Tintin in an "anthologies" category, as Tintin books are each one long story, planned from the beginning by Hergé to be published as a single, independent work, and are not a collection of short vignettes later collected by an editor. As Kjell Knudde made hundreds of other changes to comics articles that day, at least one of which was an attempt to place an article I have up for FA into an incorrect category that was then reverted by Curly Turkey here, I now have some concern that hopefully Kjell Knudde is operating on information from their reliable sources and not some other form of less reliable information. Prhartcom (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I can add countless sources if you want, but none of those are in English or available in the USA. As I've explained before: a "graphic novel" is interpreted in different ways in the USA and Europe. The term is somewhat of a snobby badge of honor in Europe, to distinguish "serious adult comics" from cheap juvenile comics. I've had arguments with American comic book fans about European comics before. Based on each others' cultural background people will give different interpretations what a "graphic novel", "comic book", "comic book album",... is. In that regard I also understand why Americans see "Tintin stories" as "graphic novels". They only know them in comic book form and thus they assume that they have always been directly released in that format. This also explains why Americans make a distinction between daily newspaper comics and other types of comics published directly in a magazine or book format. In Europe this distinction doesn't exist in the same way. The point to me is not that the American interpretation is wrong, just different from the European one. I also never said that "comic book anthologies" is the best replacement category: it's just the only alternative left at the moment. This is why I felt perhaps a different category ought to be made to categorize all the European comic book albums. Something like "Category:European comic book albums". Because if just any European comic books are categorized as "graphic novels", then albums by "The Smurfs" can be listed there too. And we all know that this just doesn't sound right. "Tintin" is so far the only revert of a "category:Belgian graphic novels" I've done on Wikipedia. I didn't find other situations where the topic is open for discussion. As for my other edits: I do use sources if necessary. And seeing how many of these articles about ancient comics are stubs with hardly any categorizations I keep my copy of "1001 Comics You Should Read Before You Die" next to me. :) - User:Kjell Knudde 16:42 25 August 2015.

Kjell Knudde, you continue to argue about what you know and "what we all know". Here on Wikipedia, what we know (and certainly what is our nationality) doesn't matter. All we do here as editors is bring to the encyclopedia what we gathered from verifiable, reliable sources. This is a central policy of Wikipedia. The sources from my own library that I cite in my own writing and editing (i.e. in Tintin in Tibet or The Adventures of Tintin) are occasionally in French and quite often from European countries, so I may know some of the "countless" sources you say are available to you.

I am open to the idea of creating or renaming a "Category:European comics albums" for the Franco-Belgian comics, if that is all you are looking for. Prhartcom (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not—an "album" (in English) is a publishing format; it would be like Category:Canadian comics trade paperbacks or Category:Sri Lankan comics pocketbooks. Tintin books are published in a variety of formats, including the original serialized comic strips. By current usage in English, all of these fall under "graphic novel", and those who haven't caught up with current usage slowly are. Spiegelman used to resist the term "graphic novel" because Maus was non-fiction; he now accepts the term because it's clear that "graphic novel" does not imply fiction, and other hold-outs (Chester Brown, for instance) have also caved in—there's really no resisting any more as "graphic novel" sections have become standard in North American book stores and libraries.

Kjell Knudde: usage of the term "graphic novel" outside of the English language is irrelevant to the English-language Wikipedia. Your concern would be legitimate if we were writing in French—but what you are proposing is akin to saying we should be careful of how we use the word "actual" when writing in English about French topics because actuel means something different in French. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like good advice; I usually defer to Curly Turkey in these matters as he has more knowledge and experience. Prhartcom (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

New GA: Castafiore

The Castafiore Emerald turns a GA! Yay! — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 08:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Congrats! Knockin' 'em down one by one. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: Thanks, Curly Turkey. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 10:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Good for you, Ssven2, and the article looks great, congrats! Prhartcom (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Prhartcom. The credit also goes to Midnightblueowl for nicely shaping up the article. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 01:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Davis comments

Can I believe my eyes, did you just say you are the final authority on editorial discretion on this matter? I'm sorry, but no, please don't make this a clear case of WP:OWN. ... you can't censor the article.

What the fuck? How could any experienced editor read what I said and see anything besides one man's contribution to a discussion with respect for consensus?

I'll try again to explain my position. ... This is within editorial discretion, and that's mine.

Where do I imply that the content has to be left out because I say so? Dude I think you've been working too hard on Germanwings or something. File:Chill pill.jpg ―Mandruss ☎ 00:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss, I'm not sure I follow you. What's the problem? Prhartcom (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't articulate the problem any better than I did above. You asserted WP:OWN with zero justification. If you don't follow, forget I brought it up. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss, my apologies for whatever I did. To explain, I came to that article and was happy to see you edit there, as you and I had made a lot of improvements to the Germanwings Flight 9525 article. I paid you honor and respect when I saw you. Your reply surprised me, it sounded like you didn't understand I was trying to honor you, then you replied that editorial discretion on that article was yours. I had to reply to that; you don't have editorial discretion over the article; we all do. Now, if I misunderstood you and you were trying to say something else, again, my apologies. By the way, I was sorry you missed the discussion that soon followed; I was hoping to see your comments. Prhartcom (talk) 03:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, then just a misunderstanding and we're victims of the limitations of the English language. Perhaps if we had worked together more you would have interpreted that differently, having the knowledge that no one is more committed to WP:CONSENSUS than I am. As you said just above, we all have editorial discretion, and I never said or implied that mine was the only one that counted. I didn't comment further there because (1) I didn't have much more to say, and it's a waste of everyone's time to keep repeating the same arguments over and over, and (2) the RfC had been started. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah good, so I obviously misunderstood whatever you meant by editorial discretion was yours, and you misunderstood me when I tried to greet you. When you had to leave, I was guessing you understandably had to grab some needed sleep. I believe you are right about consensus; it's the way to go.

By the way, I have tidied the Germanwings article up a bit. Do you think it looks okay? I thought I would take it to GA. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me for not taking a really close at it, I have some things going on and my ADD doesn't feel up to it at the moment. The layout looks good. A pet peeve is too many images, uninformative images, or bad placement of images, and it doesn't suffer from any of that. There are some things that jump out at me, things that I feel should be GA considerations but I don't know whether they are.

• Instances of probable WP:CITEKILL. If I see a string of more than three cites, I have to seriously question whether that many is really necessary. In some cases it might be more appropriate to keep all the cites but move some of them.
• Since things need not be (and probably should not be) redundantly cited, and the lead should only summarize body content, it follows that the lead should have very few if any cites.
• Ditto for the infobox. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with all of that; I'll fix them. Thanks very much for taking a look. Prhartcom (talk) 04:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

White space after a heading

I just noticed your edit summary here. Actually that white space after a heading is Wikipedia's default setting. If you use the "new section" tab, and then put in some symbols and save it, you'll see that the result places a space on each side of the heading and a blank line underneath. That makes it much easier to find headings while editing, especially if you have poor eyesight, like older folks like myself (64). In the future, please leave them there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

older folks like myself (64) - I resemble that remark. I have to say you're the first person I've ever seen care about this. You starting a movement? ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 05:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

LMAO! Nope. It's not that important, but it sure makes editing easier. More than once I have missed a heading because it didn't have that visual spacing to cue me. Otherwise I'm still quite active for a semi-retired guy. I walk an average of 24 km (15 miles) per day. It keeps me in shape for backpacking, hiking, camping, and fishing. I love the outdoors, especially Norway, Greenland, Greece, and Tenerife. Yosemite, Yellowstone, John Muir Trail, and the Appalachian Trail are also great.-- BullRangifer (talk) 06:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi BullRangifer and Mandruss, thanks for your comments. BullRangifer, I was actually talking about the white space within the cite template, which I corrected throughout the article (but the correction is inconsequential; it doesn't help nor hurt; I just wanted consistency and I didn't expect any push back). I made the white space after the heading consistent also, at the last minute (the article had blanks sometimes and sometimes not) and I didn't think about how that would affect folks with poor eyesight, sorry. I'm way up there in age with you guys, rest assured. :-) Prhartcom (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not a big deal. Don't sweat it. Same for below. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Ref name syntax

I noticed your edit summary with this edit. Actually the quote marks are unnecessary if the ref name is not broken by spaces. It is then treated like a single word. For example, one can treat John Smith at least four ways, all of which will work fine:

1. <ref name="John Smith"> (three unnecessary bytes)
2. <ref name=John_Smith> (one unnecessary byte)
3. <ref name=John-Smith> (one unnecessary byte)
4. <ref name=JohnSmith> (zero unnecessary bytes)

The only time quote marks are required is if there are spaces, and obviously a single word has no spaces. In all other instances they are superfluous, ergo, 95% of the time at Wikipedia, those quote marks are a waste of time and bytes.

It's not that big a deal, but I thought you might like to know. I sometimes use quote marks if I copy and paste a phrase as the ref name. It's faster that way, but if it's just a couple words, I will usually underline the space or eliminate it. I've never had any trouble with that method. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• This is one of those OCD things—you're supposed to use quotations, but HTML lets you get away with not using them. XHTML was supposed to be stricter about this, but then XHMTL died. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• I kind of figured as much. I'm not a code person. Around here I learn by copying what works for others. We're not that strict about HTML here, since wiki markup is also usable. It's simple enough for even me to use! -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused by the edit summary's mention of cite templates. Is it saying that, while the quotes aren't necessary in a ref tag that precedes a cite template, they are for one that does not? Because of some obscure technical standard? I'd have to oppose that reasoning, as there are more important things than obscure technical standards, like consistent presentation and usage, simplicity, minimum effort, reduced visual clutter, etc, etc. Are we concerned that browsers will someday stop supporting the tags without the quotes, thereby arbitrarily breaking billions of lines of HTML code all over the world? Why would they do that? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• From what I understand things will only break if you use quotes in one place and not another for the same ref (makes no difference for separate refs). My understanding is that HTML5 will never require quotes, so we don't have to worry about future-proofing. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Curly Turkey: Your first understanding appears to be incorrect according to a sandbox test. For the wins ref, I removed the quotes from a ref tag that does not precede a cite template. For the following ref, I removed the quotes from a ref tag that does precede a cite template. Both refnames are used twice. All cites involved appear to work correctly, except that the cite tooltips don't work in a sandbox. Anyway, if we don't need to worry about future-proofing, there is no justification for quotes except when there are imbedded spaces in the refname. Thanks, that's what I thought. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
    • You're right. It looks like it's recommended to use the quotes, though, in case you inadvertently use spaces or the characters " ' ` = < or >, which will break it in sometimes subtle ways. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Where is that recommended? ―Mandruss ☎ 09:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

BullRangifer, I love your message because you very kindly "thought I might like to know" and I have decades of experience and a half-dozen professional certifications in the IT world. I also love how you are trying to save one or two bytes of storage in this day and age; reminds me of when I was an assembler programmer and this kind of thing actually mattered. It's all good; I'm glad you stopped by and it's good to become acquainted with you. My friend Curly Turkey is (mostly) right again as usual; quote marks are required in the "pointy-bracket" "<" ">" markup as defined in the HTML specs (including in MediaWiki's "<ref>" extension) but it is actually the web browser, not HTML itself, that allows us to drop them, as it will add them for us if needed (can you imagine if web browsers were strict about the rules? Everyone would riot). MediaWiki's "curly bracket" "{" "}" markup, meaningless to our web browser, is converted into pointy-bracket markup to be rendered by our browser and it has different requirements (no quote marks).

Mandruss, no I meant the opposite: the pointy brackets require the quote marks and the curly brackets don't. You and BullRangifer are absolutely correct—and I love how you verified it in a sandbox—that the quotes can be dropped and the browser can roll with it unless the human pulls any funny business and includes internal spaces. In that case, how can the browser know that you are passing a single parameter and not two parameters? By using the required quote marks to signal it is a single parameter, of course. Any internal ASCII characters can be included with no consequence, however. You asked where is that recommended? Right here in the HTML specs, go crazy. ("The "get" method restricts form data set values to ASCII character the "post" method is specified to cover the entire ISO10646 character set.") An easier way to prove it to yourself: Just "view page source" of your rendered web page (access depends on your web browser, try right-clicking). You will see that MediaWiki included the required quotes into the HTML parameters to be passed to your web browser. Cheers, all. Prhartcom (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's all a bit arcane for 99% of us. Until I see a Wikipedia guideline that says I need to do something that can't be justified on practical grounds, because some specs external to Wikipedia can be interpreted by experts in such a way that implies that I should, I'll just keep on doing what makes sense. Actually I might invoke IAR and do what makes sense anyway. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss, in case I wasn't clear: You are doing it just fine. Keep on leaving out the quote marks in all cases. Doing so doesn't hurt the "ref name" parameter and doing so is correct for the "cite" and other templates. (If you think of it, consider adding them to the ref name parameter if you can.)

P.S.: At least you guys didn't try to revert any of my improvements to that article, check out this guy. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I was under the impression this particular thread was only about quotes around refnames within ref tags, so I don't know why cite templates and curly brackets keep popping up. And I don't think I've been very explicit about what I think should be done in that regard, so I will now. In a nutshell, the minimum that is required. No quotes around refnames in ref tags, whether or not the tags precede a cite template, unless required because of imbedded blanks within the refname. I could debate all day about the underlying philosophy (30 years in computers, so I have my well-developed opinions), but I'm trying to avoid that. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it opposite day? I actually said do add quotes around refnames in ref tags, although if you want to be lazy and drop them, all will work out fine, as the technology will add them for you. You said you needed a Wikipedia rule before you would agree: WP:REFNAME. Prhartcom (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That page supports omitting the quotes, not coding them (see the text, not the examples), so I'll omit them per that page. Thanks for linking that. Actually I prefer the word "smart" to "lazy" when it comes to not doing unnecessary things. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The page also says "it is safest to always quote the name". Like I said, do whatever you want if you think it's "smart", even though it goes against HTML specs, Wikipedia guidelines, and my recommendation, because it cleans up after you. Prhartcom (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

barnstar presented

		The Newyorkbrad Dispute Resolution Barnstar
		For unheralded work in dispute resolution. LavaBaron (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I am honored, thank-you LavaBaron. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 06:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your work in guiding and helping other editors in the areas related to Good articles. ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you for such an honor, Ugog Nizdast! I greatly enjoy helping editors who have struggled as I have, in the quest for GA. Cheers, Prhartcom (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Sourced Content

Nice to see WP:AGF [/sarcasm!]

As regards this: "Marriage licenses issued after the ruling were issued without reference to Kim Davis. While meeting Kim Davis' religious requirements, the lack of a court ruling or legislation authorizing the change means their validity is disputed." not being supported by the referenced quote, please note the following sentences:.

Marriage licenses obtained by three couples in Rowan County were altered so they did not include the name of county Clerk Kim Davis

[Kim Davis] has said that same-sex marriage conflicts with her religious convictions and that she could not issue a license under her name to a same-sex couple

Copies of licenses issued ... which were included in the court record, show that where Davis' name ordinarily would be, the words "Rowan County" were used instead. So instead of the forms saying they were issued on a certain date "in the office of Kim Davis, Rowan County County Clerk," which would be standard, the examples included in the court file say the licenses were issued "in the office of Rowan County, Rowan County County Clerk."

One of Davis' attorneys, Mat Staver, has said Davis thinks the licenses are not valid.

You're welcome to argue the source is not acceptable, or contrary to the facts but please do not accuse me of adding an unsourced opinion! Nor of adding an opinion then belatedly sourcing an unrelated reference. I eventually tracked down the history - the edit was concurrent. If you feel the paraphrasing\summarizing etc was only weakly supported by the sole reference I bothered attributing then say that.

My edit was a three part claim - Kim Davis wasn't credited as the issuing agent, quote supported, that this crediting was the reported problem, again quote supported, that the validity is disputed in light of no legislation\legal decision, open to debate. Kim Davis' lawyer has said she thinks they're invalid, elsewhere (not the source) Judge Bunnings has refused to comment on the validity of the licenses further throwing doubt on their validity. They may be valid, they may not be, however all that's claimed is that this is disputed.

I trust you'll not contest the matter of the licenses being issued without Davis' name.

And since I'm now looking up the issue, there appears to be conflict over how the current licenses are being issued. According Volokh, Davis' requirement is that they be issued under the authority of someone other than Davis or the County Clerk, and that the license note who the authorizing agent is e.g. Judge Executive or deputy clerk etc rather than Davis or her office. The sourced article however says not under Davis' name. The article implies a satisfactory outcome, however in light of the Volokh article it appears I may have erred - conflicting source claims, and I'd trust Volokh. This is a conflict of fact\failure to synthesise not a matter of unsourced opinion.

Finally, as regards the validity of the licenses, clearly that's in dispute. Whether I should have phrased it as "... the lack of a court ruling or legislation authorizing the change means their validity is disputed" would be a fair point, had that in fact been what you claimed.

Do I get an apology?

人族 (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

人族, Certainly, if you wish, I apologize. I respect the research you have done. Let us never, not ever, say what something "means"; that is really the only word I objected to (it smacks of WP:SYNTH). Best, Prhartcom (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm my break was longer than anticipated. Thanks for the apology. I find Wikipedia a pretty hostile place so may have read a tad too much into your post. 人族 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Rod Steiger

Hey there. How are things going with you? This is an article on actor Rod Steiger, who is famous for his roles in films such as On The Waterfront (1954), The Pawnbroker (1964), Dr. Zhivago (1965) and In The Heat of The Night (1967). This is my 2nd FAC after Enthiran. User:Dr. Blofeld is the main nominator while I'm the co-nominator. The article's FAC page is here. Feel free to leave comments there. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 02:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Good luck with it, Ssven2, it's good to hear from you! Prhartcom (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 05:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

ANRFC

Hi Prhartcom, I am an editor closer, and I watch the ANRFC page looking for RFC's to close. There is already a section on the Kim Davis RFC on the page. Would you please move your comment to that section? AlbinoFerret 00:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret, this is actually a different RfC. The article is a bit contentious. Some unbiased wisdom is needed for both RfCs. Prhartcom (talk) 02:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Opps sorry my mistake. Looks like your right. They have only been open a short time, and they have a lot of comments. Hope everything works out in the end. AlbinoFerret 03:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

JC's Girls alt text

Hi Prhartcom,

I noticed your reversion of the alt text change on JC's Girls. In your edit summary, you write, "Per WP:ALTTEXT". As far as I can tell, WP:ALTTEXT argues against the kind of alt text you reinstated; the examples provided on that page look more like the alt text I recently added rather than the text you reinstated. Do you disagree?

Neelix (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about, Neelix. My edit restored the article back to the way you last left it (diff). Best, Prhartcom (talk) 02:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The edit history is a bit confusing. I was recently informed that my understanding of WP:ALTTEXT was outdated, so I reworded the alt text in this article. Jarodalien then reverted my edit, but then reverted his own edit, as though he hadn't done anything in the first place. You then reverted his second edit, which effectively reverted my edit (diff). My current understanding of WP:ALTTEXT is that alt text should be a short, straightforward explanation of the image's content; I had previously been under the impression that alt text should be a detailed aesthetic description devoid of things like proper nouns. Would you mind if I reverted your reversion? Neelix (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Neelix, the guidelines I linked to explain that ALTTEXT is the text equivalent for an image, used by screen readers, search engines, and those that have images turned off. The JC's Girls article is meeting the guideline now. What you're apparently asking to replace the values with is the message "See caption". That is not at all what the guidelines say and is not something I can imagine any other editor convincingly argue as the best use of this parameter. No, I feel the need to save you from yourself. This is not the first time you and I have disagreed about ALTTEXT. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall disagreeing with you about ALTTEXT before. "See caption" is not the only alt text change we're talking about here. Consider the difference between "Heather Veitch" and "A photograph of a woman with blonde hair looking to the left of the viewer while wearing a black sleeveless shirt reading 'jcsgirls'". As far as I can tell, WP:ALTTEXT makes it clear that the former is preferred and the latter is to be avoided. Neelix (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

(Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tintin in Tibet/archive1, open "Resolved comments from Neelix" and search for "alt text")

I just read the entire ALTTEXT guidelines and some of it's reliable sources. I see that you are correct, Neelix. A source states, "The term alternative text, as used in this article, refers to the text equivalent for an image, regardless of where that text resides. It goes on to explain that the text may reside in the caption or in the body of the article, implores the importance of context, and suggests keeping the text short. I see now the reason for your change of heart of the ALTTEXT. However, I truly urge us both to not follow this guideline to the absolute letter of the law, namely: Let us ensure our ALTTEXT is simply a concise, in-context text equivalent of the image. I personally will never be too concise and I will never use the ALTTEXT parameter to direct the reader elsewhere, such as to the body or the caption (although the body or the caption may certainly provide alternative text for the image, I will not explicitly direct the reader there). I especially like the idea of ALTTEXT answering the four questions stated in the "Context" section: "Why is this non-text content here? What information is it presenting? What purpose does it fulfil? If I could not use the non-text content, what words would I use to convey the same function or information?. Therefore, the ALTTEXT of the photo of Heather Veitch could be something like "Heather Veitch, an attractive, blonde woman, shown working the booth at the 2006 Adult Entertainment Expo". Prhartcom (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Update: I have taken a step towards improving the ALTTEXT in the article. Feel free to improve it further.

Once again Neelix, I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate you for this article. Literally all of the undeserved opposition you received from supposedly smart editors while taking this article to its heights was unfounded, misguided, and wrong. You rightly persevered and deserve high praise for it and I will defend you to the end. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Neelix, your improvements finished the job appropriately. This is the way it should be: one editor can only take it about halfway; another must be relied on to take it further; hopefully as much as three-fourths of the way!

I agree with all your improvements. I wished to discuss one change with you: While I was typing the word "attractive" I had mixed feelings; I felt sexist as it felt wrong to call attention to a woman's attractiveness, but more strongly I felt that it was necessary to do so to truly accomplish a "text equivalent". It seems critical to ensure that readers who do not have the benefit of seeing the image to know that Veitch and the others are attractive. Her attractiveness is sourced; Veitch states that it is not wrong to be attractive and she states that to be true to herself it is important that she remain attractive. If you agree, let us restore that one word at least to Veitch's alt text. Prhartcom (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you like my alterations. I removed the word "attractive" not because of sexism but rather because attractiveness is a subjective assertion. Even if we were to include it, we would need to say according to whom. On an article about a particular food, we wouldn't write that it tastes good, because tasting good is not a quality inherent to the food but rather one that varies depending on who is eating it. At present, the only person in the article who refers to Veitch as attractive is herself, and I don't think this worth mentioning in the image's alt text. What are your thoughts? Neelix (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

And I'm glad you jettisoned your earlier alt text attempt. This achieves the spirit of the guideline. I feel quite certain there is such a thing as a universal standard for attractiveness that no one would disagree with, but it gets into OR and isn't worth stirring up. I was only trying to answer the four questions that essentially ask "what is it that this picture conveys that hasn't really been put into words?" Best, Prhartcom (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Kim Davis Article

Hello Phartcom, It is a common misconception that Kim Davis is a Republican--a misconception many have fallen victim to on many occasions. It is good to ensure that, though mildly perplunxing, she isn't a Republican, despite popular belief (as noted by some sources that may or may not be reliable in their entirety).

>>perplexing

Bompeaug (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Bompeaug, not sure why you are reasuring me of this. As you might know, on Wikipedia, we write according to the reliable sources. Reliable sources have always reported that she is a Democrat until a few days ago, then Davis switched parties to become Republican. Prhartcom (talk) 02:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Germanwings Flight 9525

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Germanwings Flight 9525 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zwerg Nase -- Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Germanwings Flight 9525

The article Germanwings Flight 9525 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Germanwings Flight 9525 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zwerg Nase -- Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Editor not AGF, making an odd request: Please stop making personal attacks

Note that this editor somehow believes I have been attacking them personally, when a respectful discussion has actually been taking place. Other editors in the discussion also disagree with this editor and agree that the discussion has been entirely respectful—no attacks. I personally have no idea the editor is talking about.

I don't understand your obsession, but it's crossing a line now. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about. As you know, there has been a respectful discussion taking place. It would help if you would WP:AGF. Also, please stop deleting my comments from the discussion. Prhartcom (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop with your disrespectful, hateful, and negative actions. I don't understand why you're doing this. What are you gaining from this behavior? There's a rather sad irony in that I posted, again and again, that I would like for us to just have one article that's titled "Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy" or something like that. In terms of editorial decisions, we appear to want almost exactly the same things. Why you have decided to make me a target and do all of this threatening behavior is mind-boggling to me. What in my past editing behavior brought your ire?

Is it my political views? Is it because I'm LGBT? Or specifically because I'm transgender? Because I've expressed interest in the furry fandom? In transhumanism? Why? Is it because you feel like I haven't contributed enough to the website? I'm really curious now, because I've not been bullied in this sense for the longest time on Wikipedia. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I still have no idea what you're talking about. There has been a respectful discussion on the page. No one has been making personal attacks. Please note that it would be helpful if you would actually cast your !vote on the page instead of commenting on everyone else's !votes. From the looks of it, it appears you support the move. Why not actually say so? Your support would indeed be appreciated. Prhartcom (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I just want you to tell me honestly. Is me being transgender, or me being bisexual, or me being a lesbian, or me being homosexual, or anything else like that you perceive... is that really that a problem? If so, why? Where does your hate and trolling comments come from? What's the root of this behavior? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

CFD Vote

Hello,

Thank you for participating in the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 6#Category:Climate change skeptics. A "Support" vote in that discussion means you support the original rename proposal but I think you mean to support an "alternate rename". If that's the case, I would clarify your vote. If I'm mistaken, just disregard.

Thanks, RevelationDirect (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you RevelationDirect; you are right; I have made this correction. Prhartcom (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Germanwings Flight 9525

Baffle gab1978, very kind of you; I truly appreciate you and the Guild! Let me know if I can answer a question or help in any way. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

No worries; good luck with your planned GA nom. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Merge?

I'll have to admit I don't think the merge suggestion was the best idea, but we should consider how to do it. The only unique content in the Kentucky article is the following:

From lead: Two other county clerks in Kentucky took similar stands against issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. They have not been jailed or sued.

== Opposition by other clerks ==

Two other Kentucky clerks have also refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Casey Davis (unrelated to Kim Davis), a clerk in Casey County, has also protested. He told CNN's Alisyn Camerota that "we've not tried to prevent" same-sex marriages, and "we've only tried to exercise our First Amendment rights", further stating that such applicants could apply in other counties. He also expressed his support for Kim Davis. No lawsuit has been filed against him.

Kay Schwartz, a clerk in Whitley County, has also refused to issue such licenses. Schwartz has felt bullied by her opposers: "There's a law against bullying and that's what this has turned into." No lawsuit has been filed against her.

Both clerks have expressed a desire for other options to meet the needs of same-sex applicants: either an online service or another person to solemnize the same-sex marriage.

The American Civil Liberties Union has chosen to focus on Kim Davis and has no plans to take legal action against Kay Schwartz or Casey Davis.

== References ==

How can we legitimately incorporate that content in the Kim Davis article? I would suggest summarizing it even more, and including the last sentence about the ACLU. Then use that as content in the Davis article. Some of the quotes could be relegated to the references. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Prhartcom. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You posted on my own talk page; I get pings regardless. ;-)

Hi BullRangifer, good to hear from you; one of the few editors on this page that I trust (another is myself; ha) and you are the only other editor that is not completely wrong. Notice I didn't say "insane"; I reserve that for myself.

Yes, I spent one session looking into this the other day. I brought the fourth source from your list to the talk page, suggesting to the peanut gallery there that others are welcome to merge. Of course no one took me up on the suggestion to do any real work on the article.

If we have to, I think we can fit it into the Pending decisions and issues section, pretty much as is, summarized even more and with the ACLU sentence, as you suggested. We can't fit these other Kentucky clerks anywhere else; it would be undue weight. In the current version of the article, in an earlier passage that I wrote that briefly introduces these other clerks must move along quickly (we have to return the focus back to Kim). But here, we can fit these four sources if we have to. Prhartcom (talk) 04:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Gah! Did I really ping you on your own talk page?! I must have been a bit absentminded at the time.

Hmmm, I'm not sure about that section. Explain how we'd do it. We do mention them as "the clerks of two counties in Kentucky" in the "Same-sex marriage ruling" subsection, but I'm not sure how we can develop that, other than just adding the refs we have, and adding their names somehow. What do you think? -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

that's okay; I've done that too.

Like I said, no, not there, we have to move along there and return the focus back to Kim. The other clerks wouldn't speak at the protest event like Davis did. We can return focus back to the clerks in the much later section, just bringing them up in a new paragraph as a pending issue.

Okay, go for it. We just need to merge that tiny bit of unique content from the Kentucky article somewhere into the Davis article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure when you did it, but I see the job is done nicely. Thanks for great work!

It seems like there are only three(?) of us who really know these articles very well; you, MrX, and myself. All the other driveby commenters haven't done due diligence and only muddy the waters. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

No question about it, especially when it comes to writing new content for the article. Prhartcom (talk) 11:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Germanwings Flight 9525

The article Germanwings Flight 9525 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Germanwings Flight 9525 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zwerg Nase -- Zwerg Nase (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop

aggressively "won" one round, you are trying to aggressively "win" another round

Please stop using language like this.

You are framing this like a WP:BATTLEGROUND.

I am not trying to make it like that.

I am trying to suggest new ideas, and take onboard feedback from others, including yourself.

Please, I ask of you, try to change your tone.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. I have taken a step to self-revert what was offensive. I do not wish to go head-to-head with you. I must say, however, that what I observe does appear to be true. You achieved what you wanted on a topic in the GA instructions yesterday, then you move on to a completely different topic in the GA instructions and try to achieve what you wand there too. Prhartcom (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Prhartcom, I thank you very much for apologizing and striking "aggressively". Please, I ask you to step back and look at how you are framing the dispute. YOU are the one saying that I have "won" a "round". Those are like words in a boxing match. You did not strike those words, per DIFF. That is indeed WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Yes, I was being bold, but I am most certainly NOT trying to "win" any "round". I am trying to make changes in response to and alongside with, feedback. I ask you to please also strike those words "won" and "round", as they are most indeed WP:BATTLEGROUND assumptions that are wholly incorrect. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; I do not want a battleground. Prhartcom (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, very much. And I do indeed wish to work positively and collaboratively with you to make changes we can compromise on and politely agree upon, together. — Cirt (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you very much for this gesture of good faith on your part. It is extremely appreciated. I'm truly quite glad the tone is shifting back in the direction of positive collaboration. And I'm impressed we are both able to make a good faith polite attempt to find some commonalities and common ground and compromise here. Thank you, Prhartcom, very much. — Cirt (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Cirt! What an honor to receive this, thank-you! Prhartcom (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

You're most welcome! I'm quite glad we were able to overcome communication difficulties and reach a most amicable resolution as an effective compromise to all parties involved. Thanks again for your willingness to adapt so politely, — Cirt (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you please refactor

Can you please refactor your repeated use of "win"?

Then I'll take some time to consider your compromise.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Climate change deniers

You participated in the recent discussion which resulted in Category:Climate change skeptics being renamed to Category:Climate change deniers. The new category has now been nominated for renaming back to Category:Climate change skeptics. The new discussion is here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Highest notability status left out?

I don't get this. It's a notable comment (even though notability is not a content criteria) describing the highest notability status she has. This is what makes her truly remarkable. It's censorship and a violation of NPOV to leave it out. What gives? -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

And believe me; I'm on your side every other day of the week, my loyal friend BullRangifer. Let's keep the article understated. Not only have we managed to avoid using less-than-neutral sources up to this point, the article could never be accused of harboring a NPOV issue up to this pont. Nothing in today's article could be construed as documenting anything other than the unvarnished, neutral truth. Prhartcom (talk) 04:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow! If we are not using "less-then-neutral sources", we are violating NPOV. Using biased sources is perfectly okay. Any RS is fair game, regardless (and because of!) of POV, and NPOV is about documenting all significant POV, ergo use of non-neutral and biased sources. We document POV, and any controversy exists because of differing POV. We aren't interested solely in "the unvarnished, neutral truth", we are interested in verifiable POV, not "truth", a rather slippery concept.

I can go along with leaving it out of the lead, but only as a compromise, not because of any policy. It would still be censorship and a violation of NPOV, but I don't like edit warring. The statement is so important that it deserves mention in the lead. I would appreciate it if you self-reverted. It's very notable. It's her highest claim to fame, even more than the controversy itself, because it touches on much broader issues which apply far beyond homosexuality and gay rights. It touches on her extreme understanding of religious freedom, an understanding which would support a Sharia law type Christian religious dictatorship in the USA, and there is more content on that matter to be added. We just need to get all this title business settled and get back to editing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The Omen

For The Omen, is it for the section about the curse? If it contains a source, does it matter when the source was taken at? (ex. 2005). If you want, I can temporarily remove it, but there has been many sources about it and I was wondering if the sources' dates do matter when linking them.

If you have any questions, I'll check them out when I receive them. Thanks! ^^ --DawnGuardWolf (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi DawnGuardWolf, thanks for stopping by. Yes, it is about the curse paragraph. I went ahead and removed it. I've heard that curse story too, but we can't add things to Wikipedia unless we first read about them in reliable sources. And even then we must properly cite the sources. Let me know if I can answer any questions. Prhartcom (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. ^^

Fair enough, but I was wondering since there's many reports and sources about the curse, I was wondering does the earliest source ever reported matter or can any one of them be linked to it? For example, if there were two sources one dated from let's say 2005 and the other dated 2012, does any of the source dates matter or can it be any one of those as long as it's linked to it? --DawnGuardWolf (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

DawnGuardWolf, I would probably pick the earlier one. The source has to actually be reliable, like an online movie magazine or newspaper (no blogs). Would you care to paste the URLs here and let me take a look at them? Prhartcom (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Flight 714

Hello Prhartcom; just a message to see if you are still planning on building up Flight 714 to GA level? I've just added the Apostolides information (thank you for the "thank you") and will probably add the McCarthy stuff tomorrow; is there anything else that you wished me to include or did you have access to all of the other sources yourself? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Midnightblueowl, it's good to hear from you. Thank-you for saving this article for me all this time. That request came at a time when I had finished the Carreidas 160 article and then received a demand that it be merged into this article; I only just now noticed that it has been merged. It is a little disheartening. Yes, I have all the sources you do; I acquired them all last year. Earlier this year I experienced a big upheaval in real life and I have not spent any time on Tintin since then, even though I long to return. May I take a look this week and see what I can do? Prhartcom (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about the big upheaval (unless of course it was a good upheaval!) and don't worry about rushing to complete Flight 714. I'll add the McCarthy bits to it and then move on to polish off Picaros and Alph-Art in the next week or so. (Talking about Tintin-related mergers, I think that we might have to merge Wadesdah into Khemed at some point.) Best for now! Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

If you say so about that merge then I'm sure you are right; I haven't read those in awhile. Thank-you for those best wishes and good luck doing the work on those remaining articles; I know they will be great. I promise I will take a close look at Flight 714; thanks. I hope we get to work together again someday soon. All the best, Prhartcom (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: Hi again, Midnightblueowl. FYI, I nearly forgot that I began the rewrite of the article earlier this year and got this far User:Prhartcom/sandbox/other4 before I was sidetracked; I just need to continue reading the chapters of the other usual sources and finish the article. As you may know, it was hard to get this blow back in March: Talk:Carreidas 160/GA1. However, the editor who made that call is no longer on Wikipedia at the moment due to their severe Wikipedia issues, so maybe there is a chance I could bring that article back again. I'll run that idea by another trusted editor; I would be interested in your opinion also. Let's stay in touch. All the best, Prhartcom (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Prhartcom. I haven't quite finished off those Tintin articles yet. (I've been distracted with this community discussion to deal with a disruptive editor lately; not sure if it's really your thing, but feel free to take a look). I hope to get back around to the Tintin stuff later this month. Personally I'm not entirely convinced that the Carreidas 160 article can stand alone at present, and think that including it as a section within the Flight 714 article might be the best bet, but I'd certainly recommend that you get advice from other editors. All the best for now! Midnightblueowl (talk)

Midnightblueowl, Thanks for giving your opinion; yours means a lot to me. Sorry to see you have to deal with a disruptive editor who is here on Wikipedia because they think reality should be according to their own right-wing ideology rather than here to improve the encyclopedia. A group of editors and I also had to dealt with that same kind of person on a recent article recently (we managed to get the editor topic banned). We Americans deal with the GOP IRL every day. So, my sympathies and kudos to you for taking this person to ANI; keep your head up and best of luck with it. Best for now and thanks again for leaving the Flight 714 article for me, Prhartcom (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I have commented at WP:AN. FYI for future reference, incidents like this should be brought up at ANI rather than AN (which is exclusively for posting issues that affect administrators). Again, good luck and as usual, all the best, Prhartcom (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Davis article situation

Well, well, well, the problems are still not resolved after this close. What do you make of it? It appears that two articles may be the only solution the community will accept, so we need to propose something. How about these:

1. Biography article. I think the idea of titling the biography article simply Kim Davis is a good one. She is now the primary and most notable Kim Davis. I suspect it won't be hard to do that. In fact, we could just do it without asking. I doubt anyone would object. The disambiguation page would then be named Kim Davis (disambiguation). We would need an admin to streamline that process quickly, because both titles are occupied.
2. Event article. I still favor the Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy title for the event article. She is still the only person involved. Even the other two clerks have never had a same-sex couple apply, they have never denied a license to anyone, and they are not activists at all. They simply disappear and are totally unnotable people.

The method for doing this is a classic WP:SPINOFF. We spin-off all the controversy content to the event article, leaving a summary section, with a hatnote "main" link. We can then use the lead from the event article as the content in the section of the bio.

What do you think? -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 05:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by to ask my opinion. Coincidently, I just "non-involve" closed a contentious discussion five hours ago; I'm glad someone who was not involved closed our discussion. The closing editor is right; there was no concensus to move. The thing is, I do not agree that we should have two articles. I helped write this one. If we remove all the non-controversy items, leaving only her pitiful life story with a short section behind that summarizes the controversy, readers will only locate this article and will mostly never click on the main controversy article I helped write. If we leave this alone, at least people will locate and read it. Therefore, I agree with consensus: leave it things the way they are. Prhartcom (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

How about at least changing the title to Kim Davis? That's an improvement. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 05:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks like there is already a move request going strong. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 06:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

euthanasia edit

I agree about the definition of animal euthanasia but the edit made had to do with comparing euthanasia to pest control and live stock killing. Saying it actually is done out of mercy is an opinion unless cited and specified.

Manifest Destiny by definition sounds pretty good too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.133.53 (talk) 06:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Applause for your diplomatic behavior, ability to move the discussion forward, and identifying next steps at Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/History_of_Japan/1. I'm really impressed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm very honored; thank-you I JethroBT!. Prhartcom (talk) 10:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

CurtisNaito and History of Japan

Hi, as the closer on the GAR you should be informed that the nominator, CurtisNaito, renominated History of Japan just 12 minutes after it was delisted. There is now an ANI thread concerning his edit warring and IDHT issues, if you would like to weigh in there. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Your proposal is very agreeable, thank you for proposing it. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

2002 FA Cup Final GA review

Hi, the discussion on the 2002 FA Cup Final GA review has now been archived without a decision on how to proceed. I noticed that a similar situation, unsatisfactory review, was discussed for the Pope Francis article and there a decision was made to make the article available for review again. Can we do the same for the 2002 FA Cup Final?--Wolbo (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wolbo, thanks for inquiring. I went ahead and replied there, at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 21#2002 FA Cup Final review Best, Prhartcom (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Kim_Davis_(county_clerk)

Hello: The copy edit you requested by the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Kim_Davis_(county_clerk) has been completed. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Kind regards, Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Twofingered Typist, I am honored and appreciative of the work of the Guild and this includes my appreciation of your own work on this article. Thank-you! Prhartcom (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Scorpio Vandalism

Someone has vandalized the article for Scorpio (astrology). Now it closely resembles a description of a character in a fan made story. This is unacceptable. Find the person who did this and suspend him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.1.242.88 (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:100.1.242.88 and thank-you for your message. You are right, that was an appalling edit to that page. Fortunately, it has been corrected. Thank-you for your diligence by pointing it out. On another subject, please add your Talk page messages to the bottom of Talk pages and please sign your post with four tildes ("~~~~"). Thanks again. Prhartcom (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Miscommunication?

What in the world are you talking about with the message on my userpage? My edit to Tintin (character) was both constructive and has not been reverted. 81.107.41.10 (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Your user page has no message on it, and no other content. The talk page has no message from Prhartcom. Maybe this comment is made while logged out? -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Exactly; 81.107.41.10, I can't tell who you are. I checked the Tintin (character) page; I am happy to talk about any of the edits I made that may have reverted your work. And apologies if I left a template warning message on your user talk page; I try to give all editors a heads up if I change something they did. Please specify either which IP you were logged into at the time or specify which edit you'd like me to refer to. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, you must be User:141.105.221.71, who made this edit that I removed. You're right, your tag stating that part of the article was not in English was important. Thank-you for informing someone. I fixed it in the next edit. Sorry about the miscommunication. Prhartcom (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Another good reason to require registration. It's often impossible to communicate properly with IPs because they may not use their talk page, and may not even notice which IP they are using. They are never really part of the wikipedian community. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

MarnetteD|Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Prhartcom as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD|Talk 04:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I chuckled. Happy Christmas to you and yours also, MarnetteD! Prhartcom (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5