User talk:Chimino

The article Scrapy D is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scrapy D until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Pax85 (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Portrait of Pére Tanguy, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the final Portrait of Père Tanguy (pictured) was purchased by the sculptor Auguste Rodin and now resides in his museum in Paris? If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, BigDom 16:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chimino, Thanks for your support along the way, initial DYK nomination for Tanguy and I'm guessing you had something to do with the second nomination for the same article! It's very much appreciated. Also, thanks for fixing the list of works images before I even had a chance to notice that I missed the "100px" - YIKES! If you'd like to weigh in, I left a comment on User talk:Modernist's talk page about starting a grouping of Wheat Fields paintings.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, wasn't me this time, although the article is certainly worthy. Excellent job, as always. The Wheat Fields series sounds like a great idea. I'll be trying my hand soon at a couple articles as well..."Undergrowth with Two Figures" and hopefully Cezanne's "The Cardplayers". I may tap your wealth of knowledge at some point.--Chimino (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! When you get to the article, if you want help with the final editing let me know. I know that's the part that always seems to take me time and I still miss silly things - so I'd be happy to take a look when you'd like.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on getting involved in beer related articles. SilkTork *^YES! 22:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Since you've done quite a bit of work on the list, I thought I'd touch base with you. I don't have to be told twice to be bold. I'm kind of a plunge in there kind of gal. As I've been adding more images, I've had a couple of questions.

Well, first a comment just so you understand my motivation. I get your point about not wanting to compete with the Van Gogh Gallery sites. I guess it has been disheartening for me personally to come to the list of works for my beloved Vincent and see so many question marks. Besides that, it's been a challenge to write articles about a grouping of info where I first spend a lot of time sorting out (in spreadsheets) all the information about the group/potential groups to ensure that I have the right images - matched to F#s so that I'm sure the info is accurate before I try matching info up to the F#s. That's a very long way (sorry) of saying I've taken it on personally to make it easier for future writing and for viewers that might happen upon this list. Thanks so much for being similarly driven to ensure that the title, date and location info is accurate - without that it would have been a LOT harder to match up images, titles, dates, etc.!!!

Now to the questions:

• At first it made sense to me to sort by year and then by F number -- but that's just the way I approached it and didn't hear any concern about going with that approach so I went full steam ahead. As I get into the works of 1884 and 1885 there are a lot of groupings were the works have the same name, so it seems wise to keep those items grouped together. Do you have any thoughts about the sort order of the images after year?
• Again, being bold I just jumped right in -- but if you see something stylistically let me know (for instance, I'm just now seeming to notice that there are generally WP links for the museums, but not necessarily the city, state, country. Any tips you'd like to share?
• I ran across an interesting painting F195 The Willow which is reported to have been stolen and returned and now owned by some institution (bank?) but the listing says private collection. Had you run across that when you were doing the clean-up? Just curious.

Good to be chatting with you again!--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carole. Don't worry, I think I speak for the community when I say we love your bold editing. When I brought up the "gallery" issue, I wasn't disparaging the idea of adding as many pics to the listing as possible; only meant to say I felt it should be informational foremost when I was reformatting the listing. There were many missing paintings, and several paintings Van Gogh may have worked with the same title were all grouped as one version, etc. I just wanted to get across I didn't want listings deleted only because they lacked an accompanying image. Of course the F-numbers you're adding go above and beyond what I was doing, and should ensure all of his oil paintings are accounted for...I also agree with Modernist in that eventually all his works should be listed. My personal mission in the beginning, though, was to get all the oils up there.

I'll try to get back to you on the F195...admittedly most of the info I got was from second-hand sources. Sounds like it could be a fun search. Also, while I have you here, do you mind scanning the article I've created for Cézanne's The Card Players? It's currently at User:Chimino/Work1 and I would appreciate a neutral POV edit/check. Thanks!--Chimino (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article from when The Willow was recovered in 2006:[1]. Feel free to change the listing; I put "private collection" for any work which wasn't currently displayed at a museum (other than Niarchos, due to his vast, notable collection).--Chimino (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great! I took a look at your article. I really like it - a fun article - and well written! I just had two minor edits, not totally sure if the placement of quotes around a place are correct now that I think of it, though. Mind taking a look at that?--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, those were good edits. I'll put it as an article now. Your recent work gave me inspiration to create an article of that magnitude...I'm amazed by how quickly you've been able to crank these out. Anyway, keep it touch--Chimino (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, you're definitely one of the rays of sunshine here! Great job on the article!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. I'm planning on spending a few months working on Cézanne articels, mostly stubs until I'm comfortable with the sources, and of course your wellcome to help out if so inclined, I know you from the van Gogh articles. Best. Ceoil 07:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 30 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Card Players, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the French Government issued a postage stamp (pictured) bringing attention to the theft of Cézanne's The Card Players in 1961? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chimino, I hope you're doing well! I've been wondering if you've been working on the article about the forged painting, if so, it would be great to know!

Question for you. As I've been making my way through the List of Works for VVG I've run into four paintings that I cannot find a home for, they don't seem to be a duplicate row with another name. Do you remember running into these before?

• Still Life: The Saurs Herrings 1886 Kunstmuseum Basel, Basel, Switzerland
• Smoked Herrings 1886 Kröller-Müller Museum, Otterlo, Netherlands
• Self-Portraits (pencil and ink) 1887 Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam
• Poppy Flowers 1886–87 Stolen August 2010 from Mohammed Mahmoud Khalil palace, Cairo

By the way, the work done to ensure the correct list of works, museums, etc. before I started adding images makes it SOOO much easier than this could have been. Thanks! --CaroleHenson (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carole, the two herrings paintings are on this site: [2]. I notice that page also has Vase with Viscaria listed at the palace in Cairo, but I believe that is erroneous as it is clearly Poppy Flowers which was stolen from that location (likely the painting just above it on the page). However, the wikipage describes it as a 30x30cm painting, which further adds to the confusion. edit: This article has the correct picture for Poppy Flowers, hopefully we can find a larger-sized version to place on the page[3]. The confusion leads me to believe the Impressionists Gallery site may not be so reliable after all...

The pen & ink dual self-portrait is listed two pages over (and should be instantly recognizable when you see it): [4]. Take care--Chimino (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as far as the second Gachet...I've found it's been questioned for three reasons: the fact it is not mentioned in his letters (only the first), the strange behavior of Gachet's son who held the painting (and other works) nearly 50 years after his death, and the obvious fact so many forgeries of Vincent have taken place every VG is questioned unless provenance and his own words prove 100% otherwise. Still, nothing has been established to concretely dispute its authenticity, and one writer whose book I found at a local library makes the point Gachet (and his son) were amateur artists, but nothing near the skill level required to convincingly falsify a portrait of that magnitude.--Chimino (talk) 07:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of works: Thanks so much! With the images I was able to resolve the two herring images (already had them, but they were named bloaters and I thought big for herrings (but then what do I know?)). And, the link you gave me provided the F# for the self-portrait, so that's worked out, too. Regarding the Cairo picture, it looks like the Vase with Viscaria may be the same as Poppy Flowers if I'm reading some articles about the stolen painting correctly. It seems I should just add the alternate names for the three paintings.

Ahh I see; that must be it as it matches both the Impressionists site and the pic on Wikicommons. So the second article I mentioned had the wrong painting listed, and must be part of the private collection as stated from the other sources. I'll fix the Poppy Flowers page then, as it is obviously larger than the 30 x 30 as stated in the article (from a generalized claim from the BBC of it being 1ft x 1ft). Sheesh, my head is spinning.--Chimino (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting info about forgeries. It gets very complicated it seems and interesting that every VG painting is questioned until verified. Thanks for your help!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing great work, Carole. I was blown away by how much you've added to the gallery part of the listing.--Chimino (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the pretty image of the Poppy Flowers, for some reason, though, it's still showing the initial verision of the link in black and white. (Maybe will update later after some synching process?). I'm getting VERY excited that after two months, I'm almost done with the images and #s for the List of Works. I just have to finish the section for 1885 which will probably be done within the next few days. Whew, it's been a long road, but rewarding, too.!!

I wonder if the 30 x 30 cm size is nearly correct. I saw in several places that when the painting was stolen the 12 x 12 inch canvas was cut from its frame.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chimino, I hope all is well with you today. I had an interesting potential discovery the other day when I was working on portraits by Van Gogh. There's [painting at the Van Gogh Museum] that is generally classified as a Self-Portrait that is titled "Portrait of Theo van Gogh" (F294), when you were synching up the data in the List of Works, did you run across that? Just wondering. I keep debating about whether to add it to the Portrait list but since the identification is coming from the VGM, it would seem pretty likely it's right. Do you have any thoughts about that? Thanks much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is strange; I've always seen it classified as Self-Portrait with Straw Hat. It's been 10 years since I was at the VGM and can't remember its title at the time, either. Sure doesn't look like Theo, does it?--Chimino (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, it doesn't look like Theo. Well, I'll let that percolate and see if anything bubbles up. I've been thinking about a Family Portraits article, if I work on that I'll try scoping it out more then. I agree it's very strange!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's recent 'scholarship': see for example this. But VGM traditionally very conservative in its pronouncements, so it's likely to be a fairly well researched thing. FightingMac (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems the two portraits certainly are of Theo at this point. I think what threw me (and likely others) off-guard was the red hair and beard, whereas Theo has been traditionally depicted (in film, etc) as brunette and clean-shaven.--Chimino (talk) 11:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Unless you've decided you really don't want your article on DYK, I'm not sure there's a need to remove it. Once it gets further "up" the page, someone will notice it hasn't been dealt with yet, and take a closer look. There really hasn't been any significant opposition to it. Of course, someone might dislike your new hook, or might suddenly decide they don't think the article is eligible at all, but really that seems quite unlikely. It's got this far, maybe you should let it go all the way. Up to you, of course. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the concern; I've decided to suspend the nomination, mainly because a claim in the hook/lede couldn't be verified by an online source. While it is verified in a (reputable) book source, the other two reviewing editors felt it should've been reworded to match the language of the online sources. I disagree, as I feel from a historical perspective (it being the FIRST microbrewery of the modern era) it was important to keep it as is (and I will be changing the article back to reflect this).

In other words, a strictly personal decision :-)--Chimino (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archives of American Art Wikimedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the Smithsonian Archives of American Art and I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about art to participate in furthering art coverage on Wikipedia. I am planning contests and projects that will allow you access, no matter where you live, to the world's largest collection of archives related to American art. Please sign up to participate here, and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chimino.

You put a comment in my ongoing debate with the management at Vincent van Gogh concerning the "darkness" of Vincent's last paintings at Auvers and you cite Undergrowth with Two Figures and reference a Teachers manual.

Of course this painting is very significant in both Vincent's work and the history of art in general (Wouter van der Ween and Peter Knapp p.164) because of the overwhelming force of colour that he brings to bear on his subject (those are blue trunks there). It presages Tree Roots and Trunks, probably Vincent's last and most daring painting, and abstract expressionism in general, in which the subject matter essentially becomes the painting itself. The business of the couple being as formal and rooted as the poplars themselves being an important part of that abstraction.

But what does all that have to do with being "dark", with Vincent's mood, which is what is at stake with my ongoing spat with the management at VvG? I don't see that at all.

But I don't want to be seen as challenging you here and please don't feel you have to justify yourself. But it is important I think. Vincent's last 70 or so canvases at Auvers are a triumphant expression of the force of nature that "rolls through all things" to quote Tintern Abbey and I am absolutely not going to sit around and let the article mythologise Vincent's achievement in this way. There is nothing "dark" about Vincent's last work. On the contrary it could not possibly be more vibrant and alive. FightingMac (talk) 08:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a sense of doom to many of his final works, or at least that is how it has been interpreted, despite the vibrancy and beautiful color of the paintings. I brought up the Undergrowth painting due to how it has been interpreted, the figures being "lost" within their environment, and how it compares to an earlier painting where two figures are roaming free. It's certainly nothing I would add to any article, as it's my own opinion.

If Hulsker and other historians write regarding Vince's finals works reflecting his souring mood and mental state, should that not be sufficient? If you do not wish him to be "mythologised" in such a manner, there must be historians who feel similar to you who you can source to make a counter-argument (rather than taking it to the talk page)?--Chimino (talk) 11:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chimino. Thanks for your response. It may be that some of the older generation historians suggested a sense of doom lay in his paintings but times have moved on and one emphasis current in Van Gogh scholarhip is actually to deconstruct that process of mythologisation - for example Natalie Heinich 's The Glory of Van Gogh: An Anthropology of Admiration while historians like Andreas Obst garner rich harvests from minutely examining some detail of his life or death - in Obst's case the location of his first grave.

The problem with the article is that a statement was made and not cited, even when challenged. I don't have Hulsker and neither do my libraries, but I think you can take it that in fact he doesn't say any such thing because he's not cited in the article for saying "severely dark". He did apparently make a remark about Old Man In Sorrow (At Eternity's Gate) to the effect that it reflects Vincent's mood but that must be speculative becasue the only source we have for Vincent's moods (and this is not contentious) - certainly after Arles - are his letters and this painting is not mentioned in the letters (it's also somewhere round his 80th last painting). Just because an artist makes a painting about a "dark" subject doesn't mean his mood is dark.

Instead, finally a biographer David Sweetman is cited by the current management at VvG and I await a copy of that to discover actually what he said. I do not expect to be overwhelmed by it.

I repeat, it is flat out false to say that Vincent's last painting at Auvers are either "severely dark" or "darker than before". It is a very great disservice to van Gogh and because it is in Wikipedia it has been repeated on literally dozens of mirror sites all over the world. It is a shocking disgrace and not least because the current management plainly don't care.

Of course I can cite historians who "agree" with me. The popular historian Simon Schama for a start, whose BBC program on Van Gogh starts with Wheat Field and Crows, which he describes as the "beginning of Modern art", and which goes on to stress the vibrancy and surpassing beauty of his final work at Auvers. But that's not the point. The first emphasis must be to nail the lie, because lie it is. What the agenda can be I simply can't imagine. But it is a lie.

Thank you anyway for your contribution. Appreciated. You might like to know your opinion of Undergrowth with two figures is shared by Professor Cotter of New York. FightingMac (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. Undergrowth is the VG painting nearest to my current residence, so it holds a special place. I can more see your point now, and there is indeed much mythology regarding Vincent's work (such as Wheatfield with Crows being his final painting). As you have some reliable sources, why not expand the article with them, something like "Van Gogh's Auvers period was historically considered to reflect a dark and somber mood", leave the current examples in the article, then follow up with "Newer research counters the previous belief...", etc. I think it would do the bio great service and end the current edit war.

I found when I was making The Card Players article, many long-held assumptions regarding Cézanne's work over the previous century are being corrected only within the past few years, with infrared technology and such. If older research can be updated with new findings, they should be included.--Chimino (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I love Undergrowth too. The coloration owes very much to Anton Mauve, though with a much brighter palette of course, a master colourist who gave Vincent his first lessons in both oil and watercolour. My personal belief is that Mauve breaking with Vincent was Vincent's saddest trial.

I'm afraid my comments above were looked in by someone back at VvG who takes considerable umbrage at being called a 'liar' it seems. But he (or she, I'm not sure) over-reacts to a perfectly ordinary English idiom 'to nail a lie'. I hope this won't embarrass you.

As for editing the section, I had something of the sort you suggest in mind. However it's impossible to achieve a consensus I think. My comments on the Talk page keep on being redacted, archived, whatever (used to that sort of revisionism where I come from ;-)). I think I shall probably withdraw from the fray, not worth the candle frankly. It will be picked up FAC time.

Thank you again for your attention. FightingMac (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found your name on the list of users willing to copy-edit articles. Could you please copy-edit the article I wrote, Nappytabs? I listed this article on the WikiProject Biography peer review page and a good grammar/formatting check is the main thing I'm looking for. I would appreciate it. //Gbern3 (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will take a look.--Chimino (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, much appreciated :-D.//Gbern3 (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I can recommend for your article is to cut down the size of the lead, and incorporate more of the bio stuff in it to the rest of the article...--Chimino (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Well earned. Thank you! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 21:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, very much. I know we all want the article to come together well, and we will get there collectively. Sometimes these projects grow contentious, even if unintentional by the participants.--Chimino (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! Totally agree with your rant. FYI, I have been writing the article on the Bell, CA scandal for a year and a half. Maybe if someone had challenged those crooked officials the cost could not have been so great. I am not saying Quan is crooked but I sure don't trust her, she reminds me of the Mayor of Temple City, now incarcerated. 05:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

She is carrying out Dellums' "world view" through her mayorship, only with much more ambition. Her utopian view of an Oakland where everyone is employed, noone commits crime as a result, and all the benefits with none of the sacrifice is exactly what is wrong with Oakland politics, and I'm afraid we'll see the city dragged down to new lows before she's out of office. And per usual, there really isn't anyone else outside of Chief Batts and ex-City Attorney John Russo who are capable of turning the city around (and I'm sure neither want the job). A beautiful city with so much potential constantly undone by self-serving and incompetent public officials...uncannily reminiscent of The Wire's Baltimore.--Chimino (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you are on a list of people who accept c/e requests at their talk page, so I was wondering if you could do a thorough one for "Love the Way You Lie"? I plan to take this article to FAC this year or early next year. If you are too busy, it's okay and I can find someone else. :) I warn that the article has 38 KB of prose to pick through. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 14:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit busy at the moment, but can take a look at it at some point...--Chimino (talk) 10:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No rush at all. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 02:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In Patrick V. Murphy, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages Johnson administration and 1968 riots (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Beer for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chimino,

I see you have edited at Portrait of Dr. Gachet, where I've just been making a few preliminary edits.

I'm planning to contribute stubs for the entire Auvers period. I'll be working backwards in the catalogue I think. All welcome to join! I suggest we take Farms at Auvers as our model, though naturally I shall leave Gachet basically as it's been contributed so far, though I should like to take out out the junior high stuff I mention in the Talk page. LornaDooneBlackmore (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a great plan. I answered you on the Gachet page...--Chimino (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Chimino, I saw on the Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers page, that you're willing to review articles. I recently improved the article of Ellen van Dijk a lot , however I'm not a native speaker. Are you willing to review the article? Thank you in advance, Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sander---It wasn't too bad, though I did tighten the language a bit. One thing which confused me was the last two sentences in the "Early Years" section...I wasn't sure by reading it exactly what her accomplishments were in that time. Were they all describing the same event? You can feel free to change that section back if you wish.--Chimino (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Self-confessed serial rapist" is a legitimate descriptor that is accurate and well-sourced and belongs in the lede. Several editors engaged in a long discussion of this issue, with one editor wanting it to appear as the first descriptor. Our compromise was to keep it in the lede in the third position.

That this descriptor appears later in the article is quite normal; the lede is supposed to summarize the article. I fail to see why it is "inflammatory;" though I do think Cleaver's jailhouse admissions in Soul on Ice were inflammatory. Many people will only read the lede; how can you leave out this very important fact about Cleaver's life, that he was "a self-confessed serial rapist," without failing to inform such readers?Apostle12 (talk) 08:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's already in the article, and his being a convicted criminal is already in the lead. As was already stated in talk before, Cleaver is not notable for his crimes, he's notable for his activism and work with the BPP. I wasn't the one who removed initally removed that line from the lead, but I'll be one to argue it should not be readded.--Chimino (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Please refer to the Eldridge Cleaver talk section titled "A serial rapist writer? An attempted murder activist?" The inclusion of this descriptor in third position was a carefully worked out compromise. One editor argued forcefully that it should be in FIRST position. Not notable?! How can you make such a claim? Cleaver's frankness regarding his serial rapes in Soul on Ice was what initially gained him fame (or notoriety). Apostle12 (talk) 08:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One or two editors are irrelevant compared to the thousands or millions who may eventually read the page. A quick websearch of online biographies or obituaries on Cleaver will show NO results where his rapes are one of the first things mentioned about him. Everything is writer, activist, minister, born-again Republican, etc. I respect your opinion about Cleaver, but to insert something in the lead of the article which is not a clear, defining hallmark of a person is OR and one of the main reasons Wikipedia is not taken seriously.--Chimino (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you were listed at Wikipedia:PRV. Would you mind coming by to help Jayne Mansfield? Her article needs a lot of work. The problem remains that she existed a long time ago, so sources are lacking, but I noticed many sentences are awkwardly written. The article seems misleading or even confusing in some parts. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide! ★Dasani★ 04:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll take a look when I have time; I'm sure she's an interesting subject.--Chimino (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started a dispute resolution thread over Michael2127's strong POV editing of the Booker page. Your own revision of that controversy is excellent, though predictably Michael2127 undid it immediately. Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Cory Booker". Thank you. --72.86.133.249 (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the heads-up, and will state my/our case over there.--Chimino (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Newark, New Jersey 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 needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Newark, New Jersey for things which need to be addressed. Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 16:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up; myself and another editor have been working to improve the article since the initial assessment; my internet connection has been spotty due to local weather, but I hope to complete the necessary changes by the deadline.--23:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Since you have listed yourself as a peer review volunteer interested in copyediting articles, would you like to support the quest to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia by giving a thorough review of the short, but interesting, article about Ya Kun Kaya Toast, a multinational kaya toast chain and Singaporean cultural icon? Thanks! 谢谢！Terima kasih! நன்றி! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article and catching the issue with the ref. I've fixed it and replied to your comment. --SkotyWA^T_C 21:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Please nominate the Chester A Arthur for featured article. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. The last I checked the Chester A Arthur article was a featured article. The current article has the featured article "star". Cmguy777 (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's still a featured article, but I was speaking as far as it becoming featured on the front page; the nomination was voted down.--Chimino (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Snoop Dogg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Clinton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, if you get a chance, would you mind popping back to WP:Today's featured article/requests? There are now two suggested articles for 1st January and I'm inviting input as to which one people would prefer for the day itself and when the other one might be scheduled instead. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 09:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now sorted: Vidya Balan on 14th Dec, her wedding day, and Action of 1 January 1800 to start the new year. Bencherlite^Talk 11:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, nice. That was quick work.--Chimino (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, once I had decided what I was going to do (after spotting a reference to her wedding in the article) I didn't think I'd waste time by waiting to see if people agreed with me! Bencherlite^Talk 11:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lol...touche!--Chimino (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I didn't know if should I write on your User talk page so sorry if I made mistakes :) Of course I have the information about the samples used on Enter the Wu-Tang. I could re-write it from WhoSampled - I'll do it as fast as possible Tashivana (talk) 10:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tashivana...there's no rush.--Chimino (talk) 11:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you gotta know I'll have to delete some samples that are incorrect. I think we should use WhoSampled as a only source of samples. The site The Breaks is outdated for years. Tashivana (talk) 11:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok :) The informations from WhoSampled have been added Tashivana (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks; I didn't realize there was a website out there carrying all the sample/interpol information, or I could've done it myself. Peace~--Chimino (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the nomination of Cracker Barrel to TFA. I just wanted to note that the co-writer of the article, WWB Too, should probably be informed too, not just me. Silverseren^C 05:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, will do.--Chimino (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Chimino. I just replied on my Talk page (here), explaining some unusual circumstances regarding this FA and making one suggestion for the teaser. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reworking that a bit, and I think the new version (now scheduled here) is definitely better. I'm also glad that the approval process went much more smoothly than I might have feared. Thanks for reaching out, and I'll look forward to seeing it run next week! Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. With your suggestion, it is more balanced and reads much better now. Take care...Chimino (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I note that in your comments on my nomination of Icelandic Phallological Museum for TFA, you suggested Feb 13th as an alternative date. Would you support the nomination if it was switched to that date? Prioryman (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely!--Chimino (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chimino, I just did the GA review for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which you nominated a few weeks ago. I did not feel the article was up to GA standards so I did not pass it. The biggest issue was some confirmed plagiarism and further suspected plagiarism, followed by some WP:UNDUE issues and questionable use of some sources. See the review for full details. I checked the article history and did not see that you really did any serious work on it in the recent past, maybe you just looked at it and thought it looked like it might be GA, so why not? Anyway, thanks for submitting the nomination... Cheers! Zad68 04:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Zad. Yea, that's pretty much it...I was studying the subject for school, thought it was a fairly well put-together article, and nominated it due to the lack of medical GA/FAs on here. I can see the issues now that you mention them. Anyway, thanks again...Chimino (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Tiller, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Firebomb and WIBW (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Dahl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Californication (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chimino, you've got mail! [5] Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed your GA nomination [6] Farrtj (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, been a bit busy since I nominated the article. Will respond in kind now.--Chimino (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a couple of questions / suggestions at the TFA nomination, if you get a chance to look. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 10:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I am not welcome on SandyGeorgias talk, therefore here:) I started a blurb, feel free to use it, needs trimming - I was not sure about a good timing, also have another nomination at present, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda; I will work with it if Sandy gives the go ahead.--Chimino (talk) 05:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Chimino ... thank you so much for extending to me the kindness of inquiring on talk (either mine or the article talk) ... that was most considerate of you, and has restored a wee bit of my old faith in this place. See my talk: DSM-5 was just published, and the changes are not well documented yet (when I checked last week, even getting hold of a new copy of DSM looked hard, and I'd like to find a high quality online source). That blurb, by the way, is too long, and if I can verify the DSM-5 changes to a high quality source, I believe they include the elimination of transient tics, which will need to be reflected once I can find a high quality source or locate someone who has obtained a copy of the new DSM. There aren't as many medical editors around any more, so this might not be an easy task ... thanks again for asking. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that might be the case (need for update). I originally saw the article listed as a potential TFA to coincide with the release of DSM-5, but agree the article may be more beneficial with the updated classification. Is this the type of source you were seeking?--Chimino (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again ... I'll respond on my talk to keep it all together. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mail Call -- Scartol • Tok 21:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ray Fosse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Broadcaster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I wanted to request your assistance with the population figures for the Dayton Metro Area population. After reviewing the official U.S. Census Bureau Statistics for 2010, it is very clear that the population is 841,502 as referenced here: ^[1] These figures should not be up for debate since they are published facts from a government agency. I though since you were an administrator to Wikipedia, that you might be able to help with the edit warring on this page. I would like to have the Dayton, Ohio page protected for a short amount of time if possible. Thank you for any help you might be able to provide.Texas141 (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Super Cat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shaggy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Josh Donaldson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Texas Rangers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Art & Feminism Edit-a-Thon - You are invited!

File:Csaky madonna.jpg

Hi Chimino! The first Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon will be held on Saturday, February 1, 2014 in San Francisco Any editors interested in the intersection of feminism and art are welcome. Wikipedians of all experience levels are invited! Experienced editors will be on hand to help new editors. Bring a friend and a laptop! Come one, come all! Learn more here! SarahStierch (talk) 10:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Newark Skyline Northwest View.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 10:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm contacting you as an active contributor on brewery articles and/or member of WikiProject Beer. There is some discussion going on as to how we should name our brewery articles. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beer#Change_brewery_titles? and Talk:Greene_King_Brewery#Requested_move_10_May_2018. If you are interested, please comment. SilkTork (talk)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Deschutes brewery.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Mighty-Gabby-2007.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Holt. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please do not use the Daily Mail as you did at Isle of Skye. It is not a reliable source. See WP:DAILYMAIL. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to restart the discussion on Bob Marley's ancestry again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bob_Marley#Request_to_Remove_Patrilineal_Syrian-Jewish_Ancestry_Claim. I'm reaching out since you commented on this before https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bob_Marley/Archive_6#Ancestry_additions and were still active on wikipedia. If it's not too tedious, hopefully you can add your voice to the discussion to converge on a consensus. Thank you. 2600:1010:B06E:BBB7:40EB:808C:2CC7:32DB (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick response! -Chimino (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Garnett Silk.gif. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Springfield, Ohio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Al Jazeera.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Joseph Alioto.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lupe Fuentes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dissolution.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]