User talk:G. C. Hood

This user may have left Wikipedia. G. C. Hood has not edited Wikipedia since February 2015. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

This is G. C. Hood's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Particulates - disambiguation or not?

Following me asking for advice on whether particulates should be a disambiguation page or not you created it as a disambiguation page. Thank you for your help. Now however, another user has added a tag saying it is not suitable as disambiguation page. Would you be willing to debate this with them over at Talk:Particulates ? Thanks.--NHSavage (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aluminium

Hi, thanks for the help, but there are still some points to work on. The chemistry section has some week points. If you like help is always needed. I like best that the articles in the elements have a high impact and a lot of readers. --Stone (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timing of the Particulates move request.

I am trying to assume good faith, but it troubling to me that you filed a move request with respect to Particulates, a topic for which you were clearly aware of my previous involvement, two days into my announced unavailability. The talk page message that you left on my page inviting me to the discussion was even directly below my own restatement of unavailability. When I was able to make a few brief edits, one of these was a request to hang on pending my return, to which you did not offer any response, despite this request specifically resulting from your invitation to join the discussion. Perhaps I am still out of sorts due to jet lag, and returning home to find a sharp uptick in the number of disambiguation errors needing attention, but I feel ill-treated to say the least. As this has come up in a few other discussions, I wanted to tell you directly how I felt about this. bd2412 T 14:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised a short while ago to find Particulate redirecting to an article about atmospheric particulate matter. The title of the page, Particulates was imprecise, so I started a requested move discussion. Your request for participants in the discussion to wait was frustrating, given that you expressed neither support nor opposition to the move in your response, but I felt it best to allow the discussion to proceed and allow other editors, including whoever eventually closed the discussion, to consider your request for a delay. Anthony Appleyard closed the discussion after Wikimania ended and made the move from Particulates to Atmospheric particulate matter based on the unanimous support of editors who had expressed an opinion. The requested move discussion has since been reopened at your request, and appears to be going smoothly. My only suggestion is to list all of the associated redirects and disambiguation pages in the same requested move discussion, to avoid a repeat of the dispute at Talk:Particulate (disambiguation). Your comments there were uncivil, and the feelings of ill treatment are mutual. G. C. Hood (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At some point, I may well step back and apologize for my part in the mess that has arisen out of this. In the meantime, NHSavage has made a compromise proposal that I am willing to support in order to clarify the situation and avoid creating a disambiguation morass, and that does address all of the associated redirects and disambiguation pages. bd2412 T 03:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pause the particulates move?

I have proposed the following course of action to BD2412 and he has agreed to it. I was worried that the whole discussion was spinning out of control.

I think that any proposal needs to look at the whole thing together and not as individual discussions. For example, if we move particulates back to atmospheric particle matter then it makes it harder for that to be the target for particulate etc. I suggest we proceed as follows - first withdraw all the proposals for changes on these pages. Then on a subpage of say particulates, let's try and formulate some options for the whole set of pages. Then invite people to discuss the relative merits of each proposal and see if we can get to consensus (the ideal position). If we can't reach consensus, then ask for advice from Wikipedia:Editor_assistance to help avoid any disputes escalating.

I am concerned that some people including myself have been getting too attached to their opinions and this never helps the quality of the debate. If you are happy with this idea, would you withdraw your move proposal for the move at Particulates and then we can get started on looking at this problem in the round?--NHSavage (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions to think about

In my sandbox, I have tried to outline what I think that possible ways of dealing with this are: User:NHSavage/sandbox/particulates. --NHSavage (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weigh in on criticism statement in article?

Hi,

I saw that at one time you were active in the WP:CRITICISM project. There's a BLP article called Noah Oppenheim, about the president of NBC News, that includes a statement that the subject of the article was "criticized", without further details as to the nature of the criticism.

I've started a discussion about an alternate approach here: Talk:Noah_Oppenheim#RfC_on_inclusion_of_Matt_Lauer_content building on a prior discussion here: Noah_Oppenheim#Lauer_content

Your opinion would be greatly valued.

I have a COI here, representing the subject of the article, so I won't make direct edits.

Thanks,

EdBC1278 (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]