Jump to content

User talk:Crisco 1492

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ashleyc1990 (talk | contribs) at 12:22, 28 April 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user is willing to be contacted in Indonesian.

For me.

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia, the greatest encyclopedia on Earth! You seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics! / You may wish to review the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, as well as the avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages.

Here are some helpful links:

By the way, an important tip: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments.

Hope to see you around the Wiki! If you have any questions whatsoever, feel free to contact me on my talk page!

∞Who?¿? 08:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dated 16.000?

File:Peter Paul Rubens, Bildnis seines Sohnes Nikolas.jpgHafspajen (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hafspajen (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EH, Crisco, what kind of hook is that? That painting was NOT at the Salon, and was not considered erotically to sugestive, the whole hook is false. And it was not exactly a consensus, either. [1]Hafspajen (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wonder sometimes why people make such a fuss about the correct hook, because this one went down with no picture whatsoever that was at the salon, we don't even know if it was Aurora or Venus, but never mind, we have neither of them, and this hook is so totally incorrect. We didn't even had an erotically suggestive picture, I added one now,and might need to add more I guess so people don't feel cheated. I guess I have to now. Hafspajen (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is working anyway, a combination of erotic and Chaplin... Hafspajen (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, now I realized that it was Phil who made the hooks, not Brainy... my mistake. One more sin. Hafspajen (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sgt. Pepper peer review

Cheers, Crisco. I've put Sgt. Pepper up at peer review and in preparation for FAC I would appreciate any comments and/or suggestions you have for improving the article. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Penny4NASA

Crisco, this has been sitting for over a month. Do you have any opinions on its notability? Thanks for anything you can do to get it moving again, even if it's ultimately in a direction that ends up making it ineligible for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naming of editor

Hi Crisco, could you have a look at the Leavitt talk page, please? I think it might need rev del (?) as an editor has just disclosed the real name of another editor. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the last comment by Freedombulls at the bottom of the page. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Crisco - sorry if I rather hit the panic button! You can forever more be my hero SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The outing was done by Freedombulls ... SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advice, please

Am still working on Red Skelton; one suggestion you made was to rearrange the article in chronological order. Started doing that but found it was easier to do it in my sandbox. The article has been "hit" by two instances of content being copied from here and used with a copyright notice. Talk:Red Skelton. I want to avoid any misunderstanding about where this has come from (my sandbox). Think that copy and paste would be the best way to go but want it to be clear that it wasn't taken from anywhere but WP. The rest of the adding/re-doing should be able to be done on the article itself without making it a mess for readers. What do I do to get it from there to here and keep it "legal" ? :-) Thanks, We hope (talk) 13:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am hoping to get back to tapping away on this next week but think it should (somehow) be on the article. ;-) We hope (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps I'm still somewhat asleep, but is the issue that an outside source has copied text from the article and now the bot is tagging your draft as a copyvio, or that you are copying and pasting from your sandbox to the article and someone is taking issue with it? Or you're just not sure if you can copy and paste from your sandbox to the article? For the last one; it's fine, so long as you are the sole editor. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should go to sleep. :) I copied from the article to my sandbox and re-worked quite a bit of it so it would be in chronological order and now want to replace the article with what's in the sandbox so the rest can be done on the article itself. No one's worked in my sandbox but me. We hope (talk) 02:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to say thanks for clarifying it for me. Hadn't used my sandbox for anything other than to store links to find refs, etc. until now. We hope (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rubens

this one,

Added the The Fall of Phaeton to article. Crisco, there is a gorgious picture that I want to use in the article but is bluish. Will you give me advice on if anything can be done with it? You should know. Actually I am using it, in Pieter Paul Rubens; but it jumps out from the gallery as blue. Hafspajen (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • We'd have to hope that someone else scans it. I don't see anything better on Commons, and its held by a museum that (to the best of my knowledge) rarely, if ever, offers high quality scans. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And it is not possible to wash or brush or whatever you people do, who fix pictures? '? Hafspajen (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK prep to queue promotion? (Badly overdue.)

Crisco, I just filled the next prep, which is several hours overdue for promotion. I'm hoping you can get it into the next queue as soon as possible. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Allen3 has already taken care of it. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct

Talk:Leavitt Bulldog. You have stated that I outed someone. Please check again, that wasn't me doing the outing. Please check your facts before you threaten someone with being blocked. (I realize that it was probably a slip and you hit the wrong person, but please correct what you wrote.) P.S. I'm not at all sure what you mean by outing, whether it was the statement about my gender (I can live with that), or repeating information already given by Ss 051 on the dispute resolution noticeboard where he clearly identified himself as the registrar of the club. This situation needs cool heads, please! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those people go ballistic ower their bulldogs ower there (not Sminthopsis84, he is just trying to help) and Phil ... doesn't think that an unregistered dog breed is notable. Well maybe not acording to American Kennel Club. I ...have no idea. I think maybe but I am not sure. I tried to make them go to Dispute resolution - but that failed. Hafspajen (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • All registered breeds had to start from somewhere. Personally, if there is in-depth coverage from reliable sources (mainstream, perhaps?) about this breed as an actual thing, that's enough notability for me. It just needs to be noted as an unregistered breed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. You try to convince Phil. She is an eminent breeder with several medals and other connections with Kennel clubbs and dog shows. Those guys are tough ... Hafspajen (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry but since when I cannot just work on this page. I have had a warning on harassment from Chris troutman not on working the page. I do still think the warning was overestimated but I accepted without an debate but that will not make me an outlaw or something like that. I think you owe me an apology sins now you have discriminated my name falsely on the Leavitt Bulldog Talk page and I only undid something what others do all the time. [[2]] If you feel differently please explain yourself better please becuase to me i did nothing wrong.--Freedombulls (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Freedombulls, Crisco is a really nice guy, and things are heated owerthere. Calm down now everybody. Also read above, he actually thinks notability is there, by the way. Hafspajen (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your thank. Freedombulls, can you please modify your comment above a little bit? I would remove the part: you have discriminated my name falsely on the Leavitt Bulldog. Also, I think that the solution that I suggested and that was suggested by Dispute resolution is that you don't edit each others articles. (Meaning Freedombulls Freedombulls doesn't edit Olde English Bulldog (Ss article) and Ss doesn't edit Leawitt Bulldog. So things calm down Hafspajen (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you mean the part about Posting of personal information? Hafspajen (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Like i said that was handled and i accepted that. That had nothing to do with me undo a subject. So for you warning me on WP WP:OUTING" on a undo subject seems to me a bit strange. I was already warned I did not do it again so why use it again on me if I may ask? Don’t get me wrong I write this with respect but I do feel you have a grudge towards me which I cannot understand.--Freedombulls (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I fail to understand your point. "Undo a subject"? What do you mean? Reverting your outing of another editor? That was 1) required by policy and 2) not me. The revdeletes were likewise required by policy. I haven't done anything else at that talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Freedombulls: I don't want to beat a dead horse on this. I issued you a warning on your talk page and that was it. No one else issued any warning to you on this talk page, on your talk page, or on the article talk page. The Wikipedia community is willing to let it go so long as there's no repeat. There was only a question about if you read the outing policy. You are owed no apology and if you feel you deserve one, then Wikipedia is not for you.
I have no part in this bulldog discussion. These other editors have registered their opinion and there seems to be no end to the disagreement. I would recommend you take some time off and rethink this argument before trying to find resolution. Remember, Wikipedia is just a website. It's not so important to get worked up over. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


@Chris Troutman The warning was at 12:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC) by Chris Troutman(you) Why give it again on 24 apr 2014 14:42‎ (UTC) by Crisco 1492 On a subject that had nothing to do with it this. Wikipedia maybe is nothing for me but if you read like you all instructed me to do you will see my point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedombulls (talk • contribs) 16:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I mean. [[3]] Sorry that was for Freedombulls: your comment right? That means that the warning to Sminthopsis84 was for me which already was handled by Chris troutman. Why use it again on me when I did a undu (button) on SagaciousPhi’s work. It was unappropriated if you ask me and it make me look bad in the history of the talk page.--Freedombulls (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just start asuming a little bit of Good fait? If there is an editor that is trying to contribute in a good way, it is Freedombulls. Ever since he started it was nothing but drama and everybody against him, right? Nobody really tries to calm down on this subject, I really don't understand why people can't leave the Leawitt Bulldog alone. Hafspajen (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)I did warned once Freedombulls, by the way.[reply]
(edit conflict) @Freedombulls: Oh, ok. I see what you mean. That was a mistake. Crisco was responding to a comment mistaken for you. It happens. Crisco didn't repeat it. Everyone makes mistakes, including me. I'd ask that you overlook it. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You two, admin Crisco and Chris Troutman, you are cool guys. Something has to be done, it has to come to some kind of solution, this can't go on like this. User Ss thinks Leawitt Bulldog is wrong and vice versa, Phil stirring up things because Leawitt Bulldog is not AKC.. or whatever... Sminthopsis84 is angry ... and trying to work things out best he can... Everybody is just behaving crazy about this topic and see what happens all the time. I really think that everybody stopped thinking clearly by now. Crisco, ANY SOLUTION? (Hafspajen (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, the Bulldog breed does have healt issues, fattigue, breeathing problems, and so no. These breeding programs are up to make the Bulldog breed healthier. Phil argues that it should be the real Bulldog breed that it should be the target of this kind of ameliorating. But that is not easy to do now when the AKC has a fixed breed, and fixed feathures. The new breeds has longer nose and leggs, for ex. There is actually a Leawitt Bulldog Assotiation. The Leavitt Bulldog get 761 000 hits on Google. There are breeders, [4] other organisations, [5], there is controversy, [6] between two dog breeder groups, Olde English Bulldog (user Ss) and Leawitt Bulldog - controversy what is right and wrong about these breeds, and they are cute, [7]. Hafspajen (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere have I stated my opinion as to whether it should be the 'real Bulldog breed' or anything else to that effect. I have simply re-iterated that I do not feel these dogs meet the notability guidelines at present. I also don't think Crisco's talk page is the platform for this debate. Sorry for dragging you into this, Crisco. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it might be the right place. We do need an admin and a solution, this is tearing up everybody's nerves. Hafspajen (talk) As far as I remember you said that to me once, Phil, and I am not against you or Ss or Freedombulls or Sminthopsis84, because I like you all, each and everyone of you 18:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, any ideas? I like Sagaciousphil very very much, but I fel sorry for all ther others who try to do something they belive in. I don't feel like arguing with Phil, who is probably already angry with me at this point, but something has to be done. Will you think of a possible solution? Hafspajen (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • MMmmm, lovely images, look like meringue, lemon meringue pie and other meringue-topped desserts... Sigh, well... I don't put much hope into taking breakes - for the simple fact that there was several breaks along the way - and everything blow up again. Hafspajen (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Union Films

The article Union Films you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Union Films 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 Vivvt -- Vivvt (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Union Films

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about scheduling the newest FP (File:Marmota monax UL 04.jpg) for the next Groundhog Day (2 February 2015)? Also Clynotis was expanded recently, so maybe File:Salticidae sp. AF.jpg (placed on WP:POTD/Unused) could be scheduled now. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leavitt Bulldog

Given this diff in which Chris troutman reverted to reversion 605578306 by Sagaciousphil is public, consider restoring revision 605578306 and at least the 06:55 if not both the 06:55 and 06:00 edits by Freedombulls as well, as the contents of one or both of these edits is part of the non-revision-deleted page history by virtue of Chris troutman's edit. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Problem is, the outing (i.e. the issue which led to the revdelete) is still visible in all three revisions you mention, even if it was not added with those diffs. Thus, they cannot be restored. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, either Chris troutman did the right thing and massaged the "reversion to edit 60578306" before he saved it, or that version and possibly subsequent versions may need to be revision-deleted. I'm not seeing any obvious outing in Chris troutman's edit, but if you could compare it against the "reverted-to" edit (diff that I can't see - 0-byte size difference) to make sure it was in fact excised, it would be a very good thing. If it was not excised, then do what needs to be done with subsequent edits. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you are not an admin you cannot independently confirm the outing, owing to the rev deletion. You can ask Chris troutman to confirm that there was outing (he reverted, after all) if you don't believe me. Subsequent versions are clean, since the outing was removed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help.

Hi. Mr Crisco may you help me in reviewing my change here because its been state as not appear constructive by User Epeefleche. ibensis (What’s the Story?) 21:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • If anything, your edits are more POV than the (cited) information you were removing (i.e. the addition of the links to Saudi charity. User Epeefleche was right to revert. If you think that the article is biased against the IIRO, then you should discuss on the talk page, rather then edit war, per WP:BRD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh okay. I apreciate your helping advice. at least i try to say that all the information by that anonymous is deliberately false information. Epeefleche think i'm misdoubt The UN and The Treasury Dept. I never say that, but where is the article from UN and US gov that claiming that organization is terroris organization. nothing. so it was wrong accusastion. I'am sorry for to much talk here. I'm not interesting to discuss it anymore in talkpage. I think it will be useless to debate. I'm not fluent in english anyway so is kind of difficult to discuss it. but I really thank you. [8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. ibensis (What’s the Story?) 00:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enough

File:Tea Anyone?.jpg
FP? Hafspajen (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
this what is going to look in the Purgatorium, if you don't stop arguing!!! Hafspajen (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Crisco, please stop lecturing me here. [15] It's demeaning. I will not be scolded like a schoolboy, and you should adopt such a condescending tone. This is not a junior high school class.

My original remark on this FP was brusque, which probably reflects my background in journalism, where internal discussions tend to be brief and brash, sometimes profane. One learns to roll with the punches. I've tried to make some of my comments in a humorous vein, but you seem not to understand that.

On WP discussion pages, users sometimes expend far too much verbiage on minor points (as I've pointed out regarding several sports-related ITN nominations), and IMO are all to quick to take offense at others' statements. This is immature behavior. However, in view of the exaggerated reaction in this instance, I will not say "ZZZzzz" again, and will state my view in English. I don't wish to offend anyone.

Blasted lonely cedar doesn't have enough px

I stand by my argument that when a composition is selected as a Featured Picture, it should be intrinsically interesting and compelling, not merely illustrative (EV-wise) of some thing, person or topic. As one of the most-viewed websites on the Net, we should be putting our best foot forward — which some FPs have not done.

I'm saying this here to avoid provoking further pointless discussion at the entry referenced above. Sca (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I could weigh in with an oppose on [16] — which does not strike me as sufficiently interesting due to being essentially monochormatic — but I'm not going to because you are the nominator and I don't wish to start up another debate with you. Furthermore, it doesn't seem important to me whether we feature another pic. of a butterly. (Besides, User:Hafspajen likes it!) Sca (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closer to a new moon (4/29). As Goethe said, "Mehr Licht!" — Or as the saying goes, "Less heat and more light!" Sca (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sca, I understand that you are attempting to convey humor through several of your support and oppose votes. Sometimes I even join in (like in the groundhog nomination, with a joke about having something other than a bird). However, there are 2 things that should be kept in mind: 1) in the newsroom setting the people are generally (not always; The Jakarta Post and its foreign/domestic staff comes to mind) of similar cultural backgrounds, speaking in person, and familiar with each others' shorthand and sense of humour; this does not hold true for online interactions, especially on Wikipedia. As such, we need to elaborate a wee bit more, and keep in mind how someone outside our own frame of mind would read a post. 2) We have Commons for Featured Pictures which are all about "Wow!", which is what you're describing. Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopedia, which means that an image's value to the encyclopedia is given equal (if not greater) value than its aesthetics. There are several images I've nominated not because I liked them as images, but because they had great value to the encyclopedia (off the top of my head, Situation Room, Streatham portrait, and Nocturne in Black and Gold – The Falling Rocket). This point is something you (apparently) disagree with, yet (as I've been pointing out) should be kept in mind.
That being said, so long as the first point is addressed I'll be satisfied... just keep in mind that how you frame your opposes is quite important. Something like "Oppose - The butterfly does not contrast well with the background. Something like this would be much more useful." would draw no ire, despite being (essentially) the same point.
I don't mean to come across as lecturing you, and your feedback (both here and at FPC) is appreciated greatly. I'm just hoping that we can keep the process running smoothly and avoid unnecessary drama. Speaking of drama... *ghost voice* bewareeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee the Main Page on 2 May 2014 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only one with enough pixels, not bad tought
Sca likes cups like this. ... Ah, Nocturne in Black and Gold – The Falling Rocket.. that was simply wonderful, (so it was you...) Hafspajen (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my favorite coffee mug is white china with a cobalt blue geometric design and says Rügener Becher on it in Fraktur.
Nocturne in Black and Gold looks like it could've been painted by Čiurlionis. [17] Sca (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting how many painters we have that are quite good but not very well known. Like Tivadar Kosztka Csontváry., for example. If the guy was French, he would have been world-famous. Hafspajen (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, interesting artist of whom I've never heard. I like his Lonely cedar. Sounds like he was kinda wacko personally, though, as was Čiurlionis. (I suppose Tivadar is a former of Theodore - ?) Sca (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, he was a wacko, but his paintings are good. Maybe we can find an FP and make him famous? (the EX-Theodore)Hafspajen (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that one can have to many Rembrands, but the size, have you checked? This above, Ruins of the Greek Theatre at Taormina is the only one with the required pixs. From the whole bunch of this artist production. The lonely cedar (The Solitary Cedar) is 880x 692? something like that. Hafspajen (talk) 09:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Csontváry’s painting of nearly 20 square metres is one of the best-known Hungarian works". Not enough pixels. Nowhere near enough pixels. If this was a miniature, maybe. But 20 square metres? Like, what, 4*5 metres? This is not enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad. We might ask Sca to drive to Pécs and take some pictures? There are in the museum there. Plenty of good vine and food, gorgious views and cheep. Good hotels, recomend the biggest and oldest,--Grand was it? UNESCO World Heritage Site also to be found. Nice weekend trip... Hafspajen (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the 20 square metre one, that would require a professional camera to get the resolution required to pass. For a smaller image, you might be able to get by with a DSLR... might. Very unlikely though, considering how much noise would be introduced in museum conditions (unless you were to have a very long exposure...) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sari temple 2
An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, File:Sari Temple, 2014-04-10, from 52 images.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 15:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mammy's Cupboard 2
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Mammy's Cupboard Restaurant, Natchez, Mississippi, by Carol M. Highsmith.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SAS Institute

I was just realizing since you were involved in the SAS (software) page, I should have let you know that I've moved on to the SAS Institute page. Unlike Monster (company), Publishers Clearing House and others I've brought up to GA in a COI capacity where they have controversial reputations, this one is more along the lines of Noodles & Company - their primary claim to notability is as a good employer and corporate citizen. I expect the neutrality of both to be contested repeatedly. As such, these types of articles would be a good starting point for me to move up to FA articles in order to re-assure the community they are done properly. (looks like I made a mistake on the Noodles page that could be interpreted as a COI issue). CorporateM (Talk) 15:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sigh... the Noodles contestation. If I were to add something like "their primary claim to notability is as a good employer and corporate citizen", cited to an independent source, few would think anything of it. You do the same thing, they get all on your back. If you need me at the SAS Institute page, just ping. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've gotten an editor or two to pay attention for a moment, but since there is no formalized queue like AfC and editors are hesitant to make a commitment to stick around a page they don't have a particular interest/expertise in, I never know if I need more help or if I just need to be patient and wait for an editor to get around to it. North8000 was going to help and is one of my most reliable helpers who handles my COI quite well, but has recently been site-banned as a result of an arbcom ruling. Soooo.... I don't know.
Extremely positive or negative articles are always a magnet for speculation over whether they are representative of the source material and in most cases they are not. The other editor focused on content and expressed reasonable concerns. The number of awards in that article is a huge red flag, but they have a lot that meet these requirements. CorporateM (Talk) 18:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is tough when sources are overwhelmingly positive. Sudirman has similar issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See here. I think the decision is not in-force yet, but maybe I have something wrong - I don't know how arbcom matters work. CorporateM (Talk) 01:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Post-GAR retaliation by User:Adam Cuerden: assault by proxy?

Mr. Crisco - Why is Cuerden persisting is making contact with my work in the aftermath of this conflict?

No doubt you're aware that Cuerden to stalking my talk posts and articles, resorting to "accidental" deletions and personal attacks. As an active administrator, is it your practice to monitor this activity without intervening to suppress it? Or is this simply regarded as "36 is getting his due"?

Cuerden needs to disengage and cool off. Kindly see to it that he does. 36hourblock (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every single post you've made, 36, in the last two days or so has been attacking me for a markup typo. I will be reviewing everything you write for quite some time. I looked at an article in the hopes that a simpler subject would allow your research to shine through and not be bogged down, in the hopes of being able to offer a n olive branch. I found some minor issues, and began repairing them. I don't think I shall be continuing such; I also doubt you'll be getting any GAs, if you spend all your time attacking those who try and help. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kindly see to it that he does."? Here, I'll answer it with a few quotes. "To intervene, does no credit to [my] reputation as an editor. [My] services ... are neither needed nor welcome." Goodbye. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation/opinion requested

Hi Crisco-

Based on this entry over at Commons, can I infer/understand that publishing images of banknotes from Chile that are over 70 years old and (more importantly) no longer in circulation, are not prohibited? If so, would I use a PD-Chile or 70-year template, or simply enter it through English Wikipedia versus Commons? Many thanks for your input.--Godot13 (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Based on my reading of the (very legalese) English there, it's possible that out of circulation banknotes may be uploaded. However, barring an explicit exclusion of such, I'd tread very lightly in that area... would these banknotes be "Work published anonymously, under a pseudonym or the author is unknown (except 3):"? That terminology doesn't necessarily exempt legal bodies, AFAIK. I think though, for pre-1923 banknotes which are no longer in circulation, a Wikipedia upload would be acceptable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Livio & Roby Article

Hi Crisco,

I have updated the Livio & Roby page with more reviews and interviews as you suggested. Could you please let me know if it is enough for the article to be moved back? Ashleyc1990 (talk) 

[[18]]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crisco_1492&oldid=606170154"