User talk:CharlieEchoTango/Archive 7

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

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

Typhoonwikihelper

I think Typhoonwikihelper is using his IP for editing again. here and here. Bruvtakesover (T|C) 16:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Both blocked. Thanks. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

And more... here. Bruvtakesover (T|C) 10:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 10:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

And again... here. Bruvtakesover (T|C) 12:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ta. 218.103.158.16 (talk · contribs) HF25 20:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
More - here Bruvtakesover (T|C) 15:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This is definitely him. Bruvtakesover (T|C) 07:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Account blocked. IPs are too dynamic, no point in blocking. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, yes.. didn't think of that one Bruvtakesover (T|C) 23:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest blocking this one. Disruptive editing, adding crap to other peoples talk pages. Bruvtakesover (T|C) 07:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, definitely disruptive. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Same handwriting here: Unolor (talk · contribs) Bruvtakesover (T|C) 08:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll need more than these edits to block, so far the edits are not blatantly disruptive (or maybe they are and I'm not seeing it). If the account starts editing user talk pages or displaying childish behaviour, let me know. Hey, and thanks for keeping an eye on this. :-) CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Nevermind, it's clearly him. Indef'd. Thanks for the heads up. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Doubt about Reverting Edits

Hi CharlieEchoTango,

A while ago I reverted some edits made by an IP on the Lenovo Template. The same IP made edits on the X Series page. The changes are alterations to dates and references, all of which are incorrect. I can't restore the version before the edits because other people have made constructive changes.

If I undo each change, will it impact the ones made after it (the constructive edits)?

Trevor coelho (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Denniss reverted the edits, but no, manually undoing changes will not impact the ones made after it. The edits in between will only be affected if you revert to an old revision. Sometimes you will be technically restricted from undoing a change because that change has been written over by a subsequent edit, but even if you can undo, for successive edits it's better to simply edit the article and fix the dates and references all at once, using an old revision to copy paste if needed. That way you can avoid clogging up the history of the article. In any case, that IP won't be making further unconstructive changes, it has been blocked 6 months. Hope this helps! Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 21:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Yup, that clears things up. Thanks loads. Trevor coelho (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD and PROD

Hi Charlie. Back in November, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, and it was during one of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links to the templates), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at swalling@wikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

paul thomas article

Thank you for your help with my first article!

Cheers --Dsouthwe (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing, keep up the good work! CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask your advice: Professor Paul Thomas is more that just an academic - he is a retired Vice-Chancellor and President of a University - so really I cannot say that he is a vice-chancellor but he is a founding vice-chancellor of a university - I guess that was all was trying to say here - I just think that australian academic is oversimplifying and understating his area/field of notability. Just asking these questions because I need advice on the best phrase to describe his noteability - any suggestions Best wishes Di --Dsouthwe (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not an understatement in that he is after all an academic, broadly construed, and we try to keep disambiguation entries as simple as possible. He could also be considered an executive, or if you feel it would be more accurate, university vice-chancellor, which is still a bit long, but better than the whole 'founding university vice-chancellor and retired president' or any variation. Hope this helps. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me CharlieEchoTango :) could I please put back your original edit "Australian university vice-chancellor" for my article? Di --Dsouthwe (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If you mean to the disambiguation page Paul Thomas,  Done. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you - learning all the time! Di --Dsouthwe (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Shyena Deletion

The reason you gave while removing the speedy deletion tag is "not a valid deletion reason and certainly not G10".

I believe that Shyena does not require a new page. I hope you had gone through the Talk:Shyena. I have mentioned there that the article does not add any new information about the subject than what is already available at DRDO Torpedoes section. I thing the article should be merged with that section and the original article be deleted.

Also, what is G10 and/or G7? Can you please elaborate on that? Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I screwed up my edit summary, which is why made a null edit to say I meant G7, not G10 (elaborating below). What I meant to say is that your reason was not a valid speedy deletion reason. If you want to propose a merge, you have to go through the the proper merge procedure, if you want a deletion, then you have to go through a community discussion. You can't unilaterally decide that this article should not be there any more because its content happens to have been put elsewhere too, especially when the article you want deleted was created before Shyena was even mentioned in the DRDO article (old version as of October 2009). And in any case, you should not have used the {{db-author}} (the G7 I was referring to) since you are not the author of the Shyena article. Hope this helps. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 20:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! But do you agree that an article page with a single line and a single reference is not warranted and it is much better to keep consolidate it in the DRDO page?
From WP:MERGE, I have found 2 reasons why it must be merged.
  • Reason 1: Duplicate: There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject and having the same scope.
  • Reason 2: Text: If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic.
Can you help me out? Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 06:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest, I do not have an opinion on the merits of a merge. On the one hand, I see no issue with a short standalone article (e.g. stub) if the topic is considered notable, on the other hand, I can see how it could be more relevant to integrate a stub in the larger article if it makes sense. As I know next to nothing about DRDO, I make no judgement on that. You can however propose a merge and start a discussion on the talk page of the larger article (while remembering to notify the other article's talk page) and discuss this with fellow editors to gain a consensus. Or you can submit the smaller article to deletion via a community discussion and see what others think. Regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
P.S. The first reason you cite does not apply here, the larger article is much broader in scope than the stub, they are not duplicates of each other. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The subect of the article is not notable. But I am dropping this issue for now. The whole process will take a lot of time as i'd have to read and understand what i have to do to propose for deletion via a community discussion. I'd better spend my time doing something else here. Thanks!
And with reason 1, i meant that the text of both the article and the subsection in the DRDO article is exactly same and adds nothing more to the scope. Anir1uph (talk) 07:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
If you install Twinkle, it is very easy to do (and you can do a lot of other stuff with Twinkle in your day to day editing). Simply select 'XfD' from the drop down menu and follow the instructions. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
thank you so much! I have added the article to the AfD disscussion page. Twinkle works really smoothly! Again, thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Precise objections?

Dear CharlieEchoTango (may I call you CET?), I want to thank you sincerely for your advice on my attempt to post on Wikipedia. I take greatly to heart admonitions about the danger of writing on topics to which I am close, such as the 1970s theater arts scene in Richmond VA (which seems to have been misremembered or strangely, too sketchily recalled by others) and on my own career there. I am a professor (UC Irvine) used to certain practices for objective research writing, so somewhat familiar with these risky areas. However, I see only the general comments that warn me to "avoid" problems, but cannot yet discern where my writing may be specifically at fault. Can you help me with any particulars, as I can more readily clean up real errors than guess where another may be spotting them? Thanking you in advance, KFFOWLER (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi KFFOWLER,
The bigger 'red flag' here is that it is an autobiography, and we try to be very careful about this. As an encyclopedia and with an eye on neutrality, Wikipedia strongly discourages individuals to write their own biographical article. That said, this is less of an issue in this case, since you have done a good job writing a fairly neutral and encyclopedic article so far.
Specifically, there were a few not very encyclopedic sentences that you have sinced fixed. You have done great work writing the article, but I'm a bit concerned by the lack of sources for several statements, for example "asked him to join the faculty in 1980, and it is at Irvine that Fowler's mark as an educator, particularly as the head of directing, was made" or "He recalled that when he was a grad student he learned as much from his student peers as from faculty." Sources are important because Wikipedia does not permit original research, and articles must only reflect what has been published or noted elsewhere. I also notice that two of the sources are to Wikipedia itself, which is an issue both because Wikipedia is a tertiary source (per our no original research policy, we prefer secondary sources) and because citing ourselves would be self-reference.
Because these issues can be fixed fairly easily, I have approved your article for the mainspace (e.g., it is now a 'live' article) : Keith Fowler
Just a few things I feel is important to mention :
  • You do not own the article, so if someone else wants to edit in the future, they may do so. Furthermore, while you still retain your copyright on what you wrote, by submitting your article on Wikipedia you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL;
  • In light of your conflict of interest, you must be more vigilant than anyone else that your edits are in line with our content policies. Many Wikipedians are, rightly so, wary of self-promotion or any other behaviour expected of the subject of an article (removal of criticism, etc).
Hope this helps, and if you have any more questions, feel free to ask. And yes, you can call me CET. Best regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
P.S., just so you aren't confused, someone else removed the sources to Wikipedia I was talking about above. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Your reply and action are greatly appreciated! I will keep working on the piece & will cut or better source according to your v. clear comments. This is new and a bit tricky for me, as you may guess. In many articles, self-referential statements are used not as evidence but to help elucidate. I'll need to work a better angle on that, as I understand we're after encyclopedic style and not the chat that sometimes expands academic articles. My aim (and the reason I wrote myself in) is to supply data for theater arts people who are otherwise missing a fair chunk about the surge in arts drama from the mid-'50s to the '80s from the NE to Virginia. I don't understand quite why memories have been so short re. that period. That's why I began with my own mentor, who built a famous summer theater in Williamstown MA, & am working up one on a deceased colleague after whom a major new playwright's award was established--and even I didn't know! Let us hope Wikipedia is the way to make amends. KFFOWLER (talk) 07:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

That's great, keep up the good work! And yes, Wikipedia can be a way "to make amends", so long as the aim to make amends is complementary to the aim of building an encyclopedia. Cheers, and best of luck - CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

Got iT!

Thanks, CET! Goodness, I didn't expect to post that. ICT is a theater directed by my alum caryn morse desai, and I only posted some handout publicity as a most basic start - a template to change, adapt and build a skeletal history before going on to source it. I paused where I did because I saw ICT prefers the "re" ending of theater & wanted to treat that with respect. So, my fresh question is whether we're given any grace period at startup - before the cleaver drops?! Sorry to be a pain; I'm in hospital with, I guess, way too much time on my hands! KFFOWLER (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You're not a pain at all; Wikipedia editing can be a steep learning curve, especially at first. The Wikipedia community is thankful for your efforts to make our encyclopedia better. That said, to answer your fresh question : there is no grace period for text taken from elsewhere without explicit permission for use through a free license. Because copyright violations have legal implications, we are very aggressive in removing them on sight. If you want to use handout publicity as a start to build a draft, you should do so offline using a text editor; but before uploading to Wikipedia you should ensure that the adapted text is not close paraphrasing and does not violate our neutral point of view policy. Best regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 00:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I see about starting the edit offline. Meanwhile I shifted stuff over to a "safe" place that was recommended by you-- or someone! I'll submit when ready. KFFOWLER (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

STOP DELETING MY ENTRY

KWAME J.T. ISMAIL IS A REAL PERSON, PART OF REAL ORGANIZATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!! STOP DELETING THE PAGE!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by STATiKC (talk • contribs) 04:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the "No explanation of the subject's significance" part. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Order of elements

Hi, re your edit here: please remember that PERSONDATA and DEFAULTSORT should go before {{stub}}, which should be the last thing apart from any inter-wiki links (see WP:FOOTERS). It makes life easier for stub-sorters if the stub tag is in the right, predictable, place. Thanks. PamD 08:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Had no idea. Thanks! :-) CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
And to apologize for making your life harder, I created that dab page you were talking about in this edit summary. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but ... are you going to fix all the incoming links which were going to the actor and now go to the dab page? PamD 08:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and a few wrong ones too. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks. Not everyone bothers when they do a move like that! PamD 15:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Higher Institute of Technologies and Applied Sciences

Hi, no intention of wheeling on this, didn't realise that there had been any previous decisions. The reason for deletion I gave was actually as an advertisement, the essay bit was an additional comment (just as I might delete a biography for notability and add the comment "unsourced BLP"). If you think I should avoid such comments, intended to help anyone planning to recreate, I'm happy to do so. The article consisted of a spammy lead para, followed by a chunk about the courses offered, nothing significant about the institute itself. it was obviously intended to promote the courses. If you are unhappy about this, I'll recreate and AfD instead. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for a speedy reply. The article might have been intended to promote the course (and it probably was, considering the prior G12 deletion), but deleting on perceived intentions amounts to assuming bad faith : the actual text was not promotional or spammy, certainly not enough to meet the 'unambiguous' part of the G11 rationale. I'm not "unhappy" per se, but I think it would be a good idea to undelete the article and take to AfD instead. It might very well be deleted there for notability concerns, but I do not think there was any valid speedy deletion rationale here. Again, thanks for the quick reply. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, will do Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. :-) CharlieEchoTango (contact) 10:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for jumping in quickly to support my RfA, which was successful and nearly unanimous. Be among the first to see my L-plate! – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice L-plate! Good luck! :-) CharlieEchoTango (contact) 21:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

IOU

Thanks for helping me out prevent I.O.U. (hip-hop group) to be speedy deleted. I added some more information (from their website with a few online sources) and also added a "more information" label as I agree the article is incomplete and needs more work. I started a talk page to discuss why it should be kept or deleted. Let me know what you think. Thank you. Abdelkweli (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Abdelkweli, thanks for your contributions. I only declined deletion because the article was not eligible for speedy deletion. It may however be subjected to a deletion discussion if someone decides to challenge it again. A quick look on Google doesn't show a whole lot of coverage in reliable sources, and it may not meet the notability criteria for bands. Regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 21:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hey CharlieEchoTango,

Thank a whole lot for the BS. :-o  Never noticed that before.  Anyways, Barn Star.  Unfortunately I am getting extremely busy in real life, which I was getting worried about after sitting on my hands for 3 months.  So, I'm probably not going to be much help for a while, but Nolelover and others have been stepping up.  As an aside, I grew up in Pennsylvania, but I never saw a Barn Star in my life until the last visit there, 4-5 weeks ago, and they were everywhere. I'm guessing military background with the military phonetics?

Good luck,  :- ) DCS 16:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought for a second you were thanking me for the B.S.! No problem for the getting busy part, in the end real life is what really matters, so have fun. And no, no military background... yet. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 20:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

hello Charlie

Dear Mr.Charlie, lately I'm doing an article for the organization here in the Philippines. I am new here in wikipedia and i am so dis appointed why they delete my article, I've been editing that for 3-4hours then after i woke up , theres nothing left. Can you please return that back again. Please, I'm begging you Mr.Charlie,

thank you

--Kappa Rho Kappa 08:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobads23 (talk • contribs)

Please read about or notability guidelines. The topic of your article (which has been deleted by six different administrators already) does not appear to meet them. Do not recreate the article; if and only if you can find significant coverage in reliable sources, then submit it for review at the articles for creation project. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello. I noticed that you've granted/declined several requests for rollback rights, and I'm wondering if you could take a glance at my request. There is also one directly above it that hasn't been reviewed/declined. If you're busy, don't worry. dci | TALK 21:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done, left some advice back at WP:RFP/R. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 23:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi CharlieEchoTango!

I shall be very cautious with files and even more cautious with moving files!

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Re

There are a host of examples of other pages where there are additional sections after the "See Also" section. As for the "similar foreign units," they, like JTF2, are not of the common special forces groups. Being SF does not mean that one is a dedicated counter-terrorist unit, they have not all trained and deployed alongside one another in recent years, and therefore set themselves apart from a generic list of units whose only similiarity is not being a line unit in a conventional military. I will be working to provide the sources for the section.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForwardObserver85 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm quick to revert these things because they are a cruft magnet, with editors wanting to add their pet units and what not. Our special forces articles are a mess all over the place partly because of this, and other issues. So please do add a reliable source stating why these specific units are equivalent to JTF-2, that will help avoid other, less relevant, entries being added. Regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 22:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SpiderGraph chart - Notability & 3rd party Sources

Dear Charlie,

I've been trying to make my article more encyclopedic since 10/2/2011 with the help of 7 Editors, of which you are one. The article seems pretty much finalized as of Feb. 15 and I wanted to let you know and to Thank You for all your help.

The article's main objections have been about Notability and citing published Sources that are reliable and independent. Now that I have files (to attach to an email) that would prove that fact, I find myself wondering just how I go about doing that?? It doesn't look as if any files can be attached to your User talk page (let alone 8 files) are possible with this form?? Can you tell me what I should do?

Gregory L. Chester (GregLChest@aol.com) Gregory L. Chester 01:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

FYI re HistoricalBot

Just to let you know about some confusing issues with Huggle.
HistoricalBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
was reported by Huggle to AIV with too few warnings. I did not notice it to stop the block, though it appear the user was blocked by you for the name.

  1. Sometimes Huggle does not put warnings in the user's talk page, but will report to AIV after five reverts by huggle leaving a blank (sometimes) talk page. This seems to be a simultaneous problem with multiple Huggle users.
  2. I think Huggle gets confused if a manual warning is made while Huggle is running. (Huggle seems aware of my manual edits to user's talk page) This may have been what led up to HistoricalBot's report to AIV.

I have left a number of messages in wp:Huggle/Feedback regarding problems. Thanks for all your work! Jim1138 (talk) 11:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Doubt about ATA-100 (Incorrect Redirect)

Hi CharlieEchoTango,

I was looking for information on Wikipedia for a military specification (ATA 100, for aircraft). The page doesn't exist, but the topic redirects to Parallel ATA. The redirect was incorrect but I wasn't sure whether or not I was missing something. I checked again for iSpec 2200 and the redirect is wrong again (back to PATA). How would I go about fixing this?

Trevor coelho (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The redirect is not "incorrect" as far as I can see; ATA 100 may be a military specification but it is also a type of Parallel ATA hard drive, thus the redirect is valid. If the military specification gets an article, or if another existing target can be found for the redirect, than there is a few ways to go about this :
  • If there is only two likely targets for ATA 100 (e.g. PATA and the military specification), then you can add a hatnote on top of the primary target of the redirect (e.g. the most likely one), using the {{hatnote}} template. It would look something like this : ATA 100 redirects here. For the military specification, see example.
  • If there is more than one likely targets for ATA 100, then you can change the redirect page to a disambiguation page, which would list the possible meanings of ATA 100.
  • If you replace the ATA 100 redirect with an article, then be sure to use the {{hatnote}} template at the beginning, e.g. : This article is about the military specification, for the hard drive, see PATA.
None of these should be done until an article on the military specification exists however. I hope I understood your question correctly and my answer helps. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 00:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Keith Fowler

Dear CET, I am back! I need your veteran advice regarding the biographical article, KEITH FOWLER, posted by myself (I know, I know), but with I believe neutral tone and objective value. It is not for me a vanity project so much as a way, as I said before, of positioning a lot of information missing regarding art theater in the corridor from MA to VA in the 1960s and '70s (and some from San Francisco in the '50s). I saw many lapses of data on Wikipedia and began with a piece on my mentor, Nikos Psacharopoulos, who developed the Williamstown Theater Festival, and have started pieces on Jules Irving and M. Elizabeth Osborn, my former dramaturg, after whom an important playwright's award was established. In the '70s, I ran two theaters in Richmond VA that were, in turn, the base of new play development and serious social attempts to unify the black and white communities of a major southern city. As I revisit that history on line and in published accounts, I find that much of the controversy, politics, and head-on artistic conflict has been lost to memory--perhaps too conveniently for those who may be happy to forget. Bloggers barely recall the names of the largest Equity/LORT companies in VA, and digital newspaper sources do not go back to that seminal time. But I have boxes of hard copy scannable newspaper, media interviews, and magazine sources and can support my assertions--without resorting to creative writing. I hope you see my question as an open one: Please look over KEITH FOWLER & help me to spot where objectivity fails! I am certain it does, or I wouldn't be tagged for possible unreliability--and I need to shake those labels honestly. I think I am neutral (well, neutral-ish) but know that other eyes are necessary. Help, please. KFFOWLER (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

There are various issues with the article, of course as you acknowledge you cannot be neutral, which is why it is not recommended you write about youself. The main issue is the amount of unencyclopedic material and the general tone of the article; you wouldn't expect a serious encyclopedic article to say something like "His standards for choosing new students include a concern for diversity--not traditional racial or ethnic diversity, but diversity of training and experience--enrolling many foreign students as well as non-traditional older students in the theory that students learn as much from peers as from faculty." It's unsourced, not particularly neutral, and one would need a relatively intimate knowledge of the subject to write something like this, e.g. original research.
I'm too busy right now to point out other specifics, but I'm sure you can cut out a lot of excess from this article. I removed the COI tag, I don't believe it is helpful especially since the editor who added it did not express specific concerns. Regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 00:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I get it, and I really appreciate your pausing to give me a specific note. I modified that statement, although it still needs work. I'm supporting some of my "original" views by sourcing other responsible persons and writings for them, but I see I'm still aiming to catch the letter rather than the spirit of the thing. My work on other topics is where I'll gain a better feel for this. In many cases, I favor a person or a principle I am recording, but it doesn't shine through so glaringly. If I can bite my tongue writing about my mentor Jules Irving, I should learn how to do the same for myself. KFFOWLER (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Why do you revert my edit?

I edit the Wiki page on Conservative party in Canada to state that they won a majority in 2011 "amid allegations of electoral fraud". Do you require a citation from a major News provider? Do you wish clarifications that the allegations arose after the election? Please explain. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.226.90 (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The allegations are unproven, and the CPC didn't "win amid allegations of electoral fraud" - that's a big stretch. Your mention of the allegations further in the article is more accurate, though you would do well to use a citation from a news report, see Wikipedia:Citing sources. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 23:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Clickbank spam

That last block, where it edit Sports Illustrated and the template was the spam that Beetstra brought to the attention of WP:AN several weeks back. Lots of documentation in User:XLinkBot's pages. I have blocked the url at meta fwiw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billinghurst (talk • contribs) 02:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I just saw it at AIV and blocked the IP for a while, wasn't aware of the background. Thanks for the blacklisting. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 02:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing me!

I've been trying to clean up the AfC page for 2 days now and I think with the other editors that the backlog which was around 450 articles will finally come down. Hoping to have it all cleared off by late Tuesday. Still I am new around wikipedia so I would love helpful tips and suggestions. Usually I hang out on the IRC channels for AfC/Helpers/Help.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can't think of any helpful tips or suggestions right off the bat, but if you have specific questions I'm more than happy to answer them. I see you have done quite well so far with the submissions and you seem to have a good grasp on our policies and guidelines, so that's great. Unfortunately (or fortunately, not sure which), I don't really hang out on IRC anymore, but there's a lot of great helpers there, you'll learn tons of stuff. Cheers, and keep up the good work! CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act

You have been awesome formatting refs for me, thanks. Arrivalatheathrowairport (talk) 09:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, it's a well spent couple of minutes, but you deserve far more credit for all the research and writing! Keep up the good work, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

why did u delete

i put alot of effort into making that — Preceding unsigned comment added by IWantToBeAHelper (talk • contribs) 01:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CSD#A7 CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

WHY

Why did you delete my wiki? I wasn't finished can you PLEASE restore it back please? Vi3tB0yAA (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Vi3tB0yAA

Looks like someone userified the page for you. If you want to start a wiki, it's that way. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a web host. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 21:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You beat me too it...

... at least we were consistent with our block time increase.  7  07:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed! Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing it...

...but where does TheTimeTraveler2025 (talk · contribs) make a legal threat? I see some legal rambling about why he feels the local government of Brookhaven, Georgia is engaging in illegal practices, but no real threat of taking legal action against the WMF or any editor. Tiptoety talk 17:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

No real threat of legal action, but certainly a chilling effect that we do not need, re "I believe this article was written for the specific purpose of violating the civil rights of the minority citizens located in Dekalb County. (A serious federal felony)" - then I see some kind of legal argument I'm not sure applies to editors or not, but the first sentence alone is a huge red flag. Like I said at AN/I, it might be a bit heavy handed, but to me the accusation of Wikipedia or its editors willingly committing a federal felony is enough to justify a NLT block based on the chilling effect and the toxic editing environment it creates. The user can easily be unblocked if he agrees not to say such things in the future. I hope this explains my rationale for blocking. Best, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 21:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
While TheTimeTraveler2025 certainly violated the letter of the policy, I'm not sure I feel a block was the best response. Given that TheTimeTraveler2025 is a very new user and one who is clearly unaware of how Wikipedia works, I would have liked to have saw some dialogue regarding their disruptive editing prior to a block. As show by them moving to the article's talk page instead of continuing to revert war, and by their attempts to contact the editors involved (including myself) on their talk pages', I think they are willing to correct their behavior when asked to do so. And yes, while you did make it clear you are willing unblock if they agree to not say such things in the future, I think it is pretty well known that most blocked users never come back to edit and asked for an unblock. That said, this is all purely my opinion and take on the situation. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 21:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. While I still believe I was justified in taking action, you make good points, and I agree with your take on the situation. Therefore, I have lifted the block and issued a notice on TheTimeTraveller2025's talk page. I also emailed the user to make sure they know about it. Thank you for the feedback, and best regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 22:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! And obviously, if he goes right back to his old ways I will support re-blocking. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 02:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Richard Beck (Rugby Player)

Thank you for message about the image Leeds v Nottingham on the above page. I don't understand your problem with the image. It clearly states that it is my own work and that I am the author. Can you assist me by telling me what else I need to clarify? Aybhome (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the image and I did not leave that message on your talk page, ImageTaggingBot (talk · contribs) did. Best, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 21:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CharlieEchoTango/Archive_7&oldid=1144525569"