Jump to content

User talk:Gap9551/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Gap9551, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Connors

When I look at the stats on the Jimmy Connors wiki page I only see 55 Major appearances from 1972 onwards. I'm going by the assumption that page is correct? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You are completely right, thanks for correcting my error. Even after updating this page for quite a while I still managed to fall into the ATP Era vs. Open Era trap. Gap9551 19:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
LOL. No problem...you started making me not sure myself. :-) I didn't count them up at the itf official site so I started thinking maybe the wiki Connors article had left something out. Have a good one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Revisions ATP World Tour Records

Hi you have you reverted my previous edits with no explanation regarding Lendl's consectutive year semi finals and quarter finals at grand slam tournaments those figures I put in are correct you count from the year they began forward example His consecutive year semi final appearances (27 in total) begin: 1981 French Open (1st), 1982 US Open (2nd), 1983 3 slam semi-finals (3rd), 1984 3 slam semi finals (4th), 1985 3 slam semi finals (5th), 1986 3 slam semi finals (6th), 1987 2 slam semi finals (7th), 1988 3 slam semi finals (8th), 1989 3 slam semi finals (9th), 1990 2 slam semi finals (10th), 1991 2 slam semi finals (11th) consecutive year. the same goes for the the quarter final appearances if you think they are different to this please explain? if you wish leave a message on my talk page --Navops47 (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, first of all, I didn't revert your edit. Look at the revision history, the following edit changes your numbers of 11 and 13 back to 10 and 14, this was not my edit:
19:59, 31 May 2011 Mrf8128 (talk | contribs) (61,107 bytes) (→ATP Grand slam history) (undo)
Apart from that, I think your edits were rightfully reverted. The stat of 10 consecutive semi-finals means that Lendl made at least the semis in 10 consecutive Grand Slams (he did so from US Open 1985 to AusOpen 1988 -- note that AusOpen 1985 was held in December). It does not mean that Lendl made at least 1 Grand Slam semifinal during 10 consecutive calender years (this number is 11 as you correctly find). So I think there is a simple misunderstanding going on, thanks for your efforts in improving the article. Gap9551 (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi understood now its very confusing maybe a note explaining what you said on the page would help readers a lot thanks for clearing that up --Navops47 (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi,  Gap9551
Arthur Ashe Tie-breaks
PLAYER ACTIVITY 1970 and 1971 link:
1.http://www.atpworldtour.com/players/arthur-ashe/a063/player-activity?year=1970
2.http://www.atpworldtour.com/players/arthur-ashe/a063/player-activity?year=1971

Thanks Mihailo Dzevrije  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihailo Dzevrije (talk • contribs) 22:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, so he did play tiebreaks in those years. Then his tiebreak record can't be the same in both articles, since ATP World Tour records starts in 1972 and Overall tennis records – Men's Singles covers all tennis history. Gap9551 (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 Hi,  Gap9551, 
you are right!
Thanks Mihailo Dzevrije  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihailo Dzevrije (talk • contribs) 02:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:LAYOUT

Hello. Per WP:LAYOUT a see also should never be on top of an article, always in the bottom, above the references. I know it's pervasive on the undeveloped list articles, but it needs to be eradicated, not continued, as articles start to get cleaned up. Courcelles 22:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, good to know, thanks. I'll fix this on some more articles then, so those are no longer a bad example. Gap9551 (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

re: Katja Hartmann

Hi! Unfortunately I dont have information on this, I changed the List of World Aquatics Championships medalists in swimming (women) based on the 1986 Championships' article. Hartmann does sound German though, so now I'm guessing it's the 1986 champs page which is incorrect. The main reason I checked that particular event was that the medalists' article listed Hartmann as the gold medallist but Template:Footer World LC Champions 800m Freestyle Women and the '86 article said it was Strauss. Mb731 (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, ok let's go with GDR then. Nice catch by the way on the incorrect gold medalist. Hopefully not too many of such errors still exist... Gap9551 (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The Big Move

I went and made the yearly tennis player article into season ones, so that it squares with wikipedia's rules, policies, and regulations. Go and have a look!SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

FINA

Hey, it´s not needed as the main article has this template, so the sub-articles don´t have to have those, like i said, not needed. That´s how it´s been done on all other sport related articles, and how it should be done. To the second one: No time right now, amybe after the championships are over. ;) Kante4 (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

If there would be templates for the specific sports at the WC´s than those could be added like Diving at the World Aquatics Championships and so on... Kante4 (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
That would be a very nice solution. I agree there is no need to directly link from Diving 2003 to Swimming 1982 etc, but a template per discipline would be convenient to have. Gap9551 (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, updated the 50m and not the 100m like it should have been...
Thanks, she has won both so i added the 50m template (2009) to her article back. ;-) Kante4 (talk) 10:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Yep, at times it gets busy with updating the subarticle, the mainarticle, the swimmers and several templates but we get it done with more people working at that. ;) Kante4 (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You sure keep up those tedious tennis chores

The Tennis Barnstar
For continued excellence in maintaining tennis article quality. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! Gap9551 (talk) 09:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

My edits

See my message to User talk:Ghodan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.202.152 (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Use of German characters in English language articles

Gap, I think you should reconsider your recent changes using the German double-s character. The German character is not used in standard English. Per WP:DIACRITICS, unless reliable English language sources use the German character, standard English should prevail in English language articles. I would go so far to say that should be the case unless a majority of current English language sources use the character. Most English language readers are unfamiliar with German characters, and it strikes me as a bit much that we are importing German spelling and characters into English language articles, especially when the surname is mostly commonly rendered in English language sources with two Latin "s" characters. It may be productive to initiate a discussion on the Michael Gross article's talk page to determine consensus, since that article's recent spelling change and page move seems to have initiated this issue. In the interim, I have reverted your changes on the four articles on my watch list (Armstrong, Beardsley, Larson, Vidal), but I have left your other related changes in place for discussion purposes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Dirtlawyer, thanks for messaging me on this. As you already suspected, I did go by the recent change in article title, assuming that an article title results from a well-discussed consensus, especially in the case of a change in the title of an established article, and also that this title is generally the best spelling to use in other articles. Also, the vast majority of the article using the name already used the German character, I just completed the remaining ones for consistency. Either way, I just noticed the 2008 discussion on the talk page and my assumption about a proper consensus was false. Your request to move back the article sounds fair, and considering the arguments I mildly agree with this and I'll comment over there. If the article will be moved back I'll gladly do my share in returning the 'ss' spelling in various articles. Gap9551 (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Gap. I did not realize you were a Nederlander until I just looked at your user page. Your written English is better than most of the English language natives who contribute to Wikipedia----you may want to consider upgrading your EN-4 userbox. LOL
On a different, but related topic, I see that you contribute to WikiProject Swimming and work on swimmer biographies. I would be pleased if you would take a look-see at the Florida Gators men's and women's swimmers biographies (two separate categories), and tell me what we could do to expand the content and enhance the sources. I'm hoping you have some good Olympics or FINA references that we could use. Among these University of Florida swimmers are gold medalists Tracy Caulkins, Nicole Haislett and Dara Torres, as well as a bunch of other Olympians. The lesser known swimmers are short on content and references. The big name swimmers' articles have more content, but still lack good sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you!
Sorry for the late response. I'm not really into biographical information apart from results and statistics. Some of the Gators articles do look quite good already compared to the typical swimmer's bio. Perhaps you can take a look at other (American) swimmer's articles to see which sources are used. Gap9551 (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Tom Jager gold medals

I have reverted an old edit [1] by you. All sources I checked, for example [2], say 5 golds, 1 silver, 1 bronze. I wonder whether your edit was based on [3] which says "By the time he graduated in 1987, Jager had seven NCAA championships and two Olympic gold medals. As team captain for the U.S. national team, he added 11 national titles and five more Olympic medals – three gold, one silver and one bronze." His medals as team captain were as active swimmer on the team. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not sure how this mistake slipped in but I'm glad you fixed it. Gap9551 (talk) 09:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Stats pages

Just so you know there is some talk going on about removing a lot of tennis stat pages. I have no idea how you stand on this but if you want to weigh in on either side of the coin it's at What Wikipedia is not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Those data should definitely stay. Gap9551 (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Important Discussion

Hi there is a big discussion going about cutting a lot of the current tennis record related articles from 35 down to a much smaller number you are a big contributor on the stats sided your thoughts would be welcome here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#Template:Years_in_tennis--Navops47 (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Gap9551 (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

your massive revert to 2060S Decade page was a unconstructive edit and threatens to destroy all my work on making the arical more enclycpedic for the past week. mass reversions with out talk on the articals talk page are forbiden by wikipedia. instead its only alouable to edit furthur the offending parts. be careful in the future when making rash decisions Gap9551. critics are appreciated vandals are discouraged 76.244.151.164 (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete Nomination 2004 Estoril Open

Hi, please note that the article 2004 Estoril Open has been nominated for deletion along with the subarticles Men's Singles and Men's Doubles. Discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Estoril Open--Wolbo (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Needing Wiki contribution assistance!

Hello Gap9551!

I am looking for an experienced Wikipedian to contribute an article for our band Mr. Meeble. I have checked and we meet the Wikipedia "notability" guidelines for a band. We have a very basic Wikipedia article written already, but I know that someone like yourself may be able to point out our formatting errors and critical omissions. You can hear our music and see our videos here:

http://youtube.com/mrmeeble
http://soundcloud.com/meeble

Let me know if you would be willing to help!

Regards,
Devin
mm @ meeble.com

Devbot (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Djokovic

He was 54 weeks No1, not 53!--Soundwaweserb (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, it's really 53. He became No1 on 4 July 2011 and Federer took over 9 July 2012. Gap9551 (talk) 02:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Roger Federer

Hi. I see you deleted Federer's record of having "5 years with match winning percentage of 90%+" in Grand Slam matches, claiming it is "erroneous." Why did you do that when the record is in fact correct. No other player in the Open Era has won 90%+ Grand Slam matches for 5 years overall (except for Borg, who had this for 5 consecutive years, a separate record). Federer won 95.7% (2004), 92.3% (2005), 96.4% (2006), 96.3% (2007) and 92.9% (2009). So how is this record "erroneous" when this applies only to Grand Slam matches? —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for fixing this, I mistook it to be the record for all matches rather than specific to Grand Slams. Gap9551 (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
In his list of career achievements, you also changed his record 3 victories in Madrid into "two", deleting the 2006 victory. 2006_Mutua_Madrileña_Masters_Madrid Why? 2.37.45.71 (talk) 06:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
His 2006 win was not on clay, and this record is about the third clay Masters tournament. Now Madrid has become the second, this record is getting a bit unpractical to maintain perhaps. Gap9551 (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Ha, thanks for the reply... Hum, now that I reread the whole sentence, I have absolutely no idea what it means, so you're probably right.

"Federer has won a record six titles at the third (second since 2011) clay court ATP World Tour Masters 1000 event, with a record four titles in Hamburg (2002, 2004, 2005 & 2007) and a record two titles in Madrid (2009 & 2012)." Third what? In what does this record consist, given that Nadal has won about 15 ATP 1000 on clay? No idea... Yes, only Federer won 4 times Hamburg as an ATP 1000, and only he won Madrid twice on clay, but even knowing that, I still can't understand the sentence. 2.37.45.71 (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The idea is that Federer has won a record number of titles at clay Masters outside Rome and Monte Carlo (these 2 have been held every year since forever). But it is a bit of a far-fetched record due to the rescheduling. Gap9551 (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Getting Wikimedians to the Olympic Games

Hi. I am part of an effort to get Wikimedians access to the 2016 Summer Olympics as accredited reporters and photographers. Part of this effort includes covering the 2012 Summer Paralympics. Two Wikimedians have credentials to attend these games as reporters through Wikimedia Australia. As English Wikipedia does not allow original reporting, this is largely through Wikinews with a project page found at Wikinews:Paralympic Games. If you are interested in helping to get Wikimedians to the next Summer Olympics,I'd encourage you to assist with Wikinews efforts, and also to work on all language 2012 Summer Paralympic Wikipedia articles before, during and after the Games to demonstrate a track record of success. Thank you. --LauraHale (talk) 04:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Fed-Nadal

I see you undid my changes to Fed-Nadal yesterday. That section was a bit bloated and incoherent so that's why I cleaned it up and pruned some info. Plus I put more focus on Slams and the meat of the rivalry from 05-10, esp. 06-08. In particular, the last paragraph about surfaces is already covered in those following sections.

I'm going to resubmit yesterday's edit but with a bit more info preserved and the Bodo reference moved to the Hard court section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.102.249.6 (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the reason for my revert was that two paragraphs were removed without comment. The editing work itself looked good from what I saw. So if you leave those paragraphs or argue why they should go, please go ahead with your edit, and thanks for improving the article. Gap9551 (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I submitted it just now. If you feel more info is needed, please add that in and not undo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.102.249.6 (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Swimmer navboxes

Hey, Gap. I saw your newest handiwork, as you've been adding new medalist navboxes for the FINA world championships to swimmer articles. Good stuff. I wanted to give you a head's up that there is an established hierarchy of navboxes for swimmer articles: (1) Olympics; (2) FINA world championships; (3) FINA short-course championships (4) Pan Am Games; (5) Pan Pac Games; and (6) world university games. Presumably, the European championships would follow the Olympics and FINA championships as another regional competition. Thought you might find this helpful in your current work. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dirtlawyer, I was aware of this for the gold medalist boxes, and I'll apply it to the Olympic team boxes as well in the future. Thanks for letting me know. Gap9551 (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Liu Xiang

Hey, Gap. Sorry about the edit conflict. I was trying to fix the infobox, so that it reflected the current standardized version of Template:Infobox swimmer. You may want to review the current standard formatting and instructions for the template, as it appears that you are cut-and-pasting an older version from an existing article. I'm currently working my way through all of the 2015 world championship finalists to update all of the infoboxes, trying to impose a measure of consistency. As of today, about 1600 of the 4400 uses of the infobox have been upgraded to reflect current standard formatting -- it's an ongoing project. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dirtlawyer, thanks for letting me know about the template standard. I'll be sure to use the newest version from now on. Great work on updating all the old boxes. Gap9551 (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your good work

The Swimming Barnstar

Given in recognition of your many contributions to competitive swimmer articles, including your efforts in improving the categorization of Olympic swimming medalists. Thank you for your good work. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Gap, we could use a dozen more like you. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

That means a lot, especially coming from you, Dirtlawyer. Thank you. Gap9551 (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

ATP Rankings charts

Hi Gap9551, this is just a notification that I have left a reply to your comments here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Darko_A7#ATP_Rankings_charts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darko A7 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Finswimming category tidy up

Hi Gap9551, Thanks for tidying up the categories associated with Finswimming. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! Gap9551 (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

FINA junior world championships

Hey, Gap. I saw you had created several articles for swimmers who were recent FINA junior world championships competitors. There is no specific notability guideline for competition swimmers, and we rely on a combination of the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG and the specific notability guideline for Olympic athletes per WP:NOLYMPICS. Bottom line: FINA junior worlds swimmers need to satisfy GNG for inclusion of stand-alone articles, with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources -- just like the senior swimmers from the FINA worlds do. Many non-medalist competitors from the senior FINA worlds can't satisfy GNG, and I'm sure that is true for an even higher percentage of non-medallist swimmers from the FINA junior worlds. That said, I would not create a bunch of articles for swimmers whose only claim to fame is being a non-medallist at the FINA junior worlds. Some, if not most medallists may qualify, but you need to find real independent sources, not just listings and press releases from FINA. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: Hi Dirtlawyer, I only made articles for a select group of individual gold medalists at the FINA junior world championships, not for non-medalists or even non-gold medalists. I realize that even an individual gold medal in itself doesn't automatically make them notable according to the available guidelines, but maybe we could introduce specific guidelines for swimmers, including high-achieving juniors (many sports have specific guidelines: WP:ATH). I think that an individual gold medal at junior worlds is more notable than e.g. finishing 50th at the Olympics, but of course we would need consensus.
Since there are no specific notability guidelines for swimming, I consulted WP:NTRACK (track and field athletics) to get a general (informal) idea of what is considered notable in a sport that is very similar in terms of which meets are considered important. Athletics considers individual gold medalists at both the IAAF World Youth Championships in Athletics and the IAAF World Junior Championships in Athletics to be notable. The IAAF Youth championships are for even younger athletes than the FINA junior world championships in the case of boys (17 or younger vs. 15-18) and the same for girls (17 or younger vs. 14-17). Swimmers also tend to reach their peak at an earlier age (especially women), so I would argue that individual gold medalists in junior swimming are likely more notable than those at the Youth IAAF championships (but again, I realize we need consensus, not just my personal judgement). To be a bit more on the safe side, I made articles only for junior swimmers that have achieved more than 'just' one individual gold medal, such as multiple individual (gold) medals, a junior world record, senior US National titles, etc.
Some of the swimmers I created articles for have received significant coverage in their home country and probably meet WP:GNG but admittedly probably not all of them. After the weekend I'll try to find more qualifying sources where they are missing. Gap9551 (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I improved most articles, especially by adding sources that support notability. Almost all have received quite a bit of coverage, often also outside of their junior world championships achievements. But I only created articles for a select group of individual gold medalists that were already quite well known to begin with. Gap9551 (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Guidelines

We've been asked by the Admins to go back to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines and continue the discussion. I have started a new thread here [Mos:Bio 2.1.2 Changed names] so we can deal specifically with the main sticking point. Would love to have your input. Thank You. Tennisvine (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you checking Persondata against Wikidata before deletion?

Hey, Gap. I just saw this edit: [4]. The English language Wikidata profile did not include the alternate name form "Michael Groß" as either an "also known as" alias or as a "birth name" field. Before deleting the Persondata templates from swimmer articles, I urge you to check the Persondata information against the Wikidata profile to make sure all usable information from Persondata has been transferred. Alternate name forms, including birth/full names, maiden names, married names and nicknames are of particular concern. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: Thanks, I hadn't realized this but will check back for any template I removed so far. Gap9551 (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 Done (finally). Gap9551 (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Good man. I saw you updated a couple on my watch list of Australian Olympic swimmers, of which I still have about 95 of 256 still to do. The Americans, Brits and Canadians are already done. After that I'm moving on to do the Persondata transfer for some of the American subjects I have on my other watch lists. If you've got any others you care about, do the transfer to Wikidata soon, because the bot deletion of the Persondata templates is likely to start happening soon. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. Reading up on it, apparently all persondata is considered to have been extracted and moved to wikidata. That's not fully true though. At least the persondata will still be accessible in the edit history. Gap9551 (talk) 00:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Having manually transferred Persondata for over 2000 articles to Wikidata, I know it's not true. Notice that careful phrasing: "all the information that could reasonably be transferred by automated means." Translation: we don't have the skill set or the time. There are other Wikidata programmers that may yet do something with the untransferred information, but once the templates are removed from the articles, virtually no Wikipedia editors will ever look at it again. It's a real lost opportunity. I'm going to take care of the articles I have watch-listed, and hope someone is smart enough to do something with it. The removal discussion has stalled at the bot approval page again. We shall see. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
You'd expect that at least they would automatically store the removed persondata in a special field in the corresponding wikidata entry, so that people can still have a look at it at any time, and delete it manually (or even just store a link to the removal edit on wikipedia). Storage space can't be the issue. Gap9551 (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
And well done with all the transfers. 2000 is a lot. I've seen quite a few of those in my watchlist! Gap9551 (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

KIC 8462852 & Science Fiction portal

I've begun a discussion on the talk page. Cheers! kencf0618 (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Gap9551 (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn

FYI, I've already withdrawn that AfD nomination. Geogene (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, although jokes about aliens aside, in your withdrawal statement you still claim she isn't notable and that everyone voting 'Keep' is not following the guidelines. But you never explained why she doesn't meet the significant coverage as described in WP:GNG. Anyway, I appreciate the discussion. Gap9551 (talk) 02:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, that. I see the references to the subject as being trivial mentions, ie, "X wrote a paper" or "we informally named the star after X" and not significant coverage of X. For example, this [5] is one sentence, providing little more information than that Boyajian exists. The secondary sources don't have any biographical content, so it's all being harvested from primary sources, and that's usually considered bad in BLPs. No matter how many thousands of sources there are talking about the star, even if they all mention the astronomer, if none of them are interested in their biography, we shouldn't be either. Geogene (talk) 03:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The CNN article you give mentioned her name seven times, including two quotes and her employment, in addition to the 'Tabby's star' name. She doesn't need to be the main topic of the coverage. And we disagree about 'significant coverage' and the interpretation of the GNG, and how much biographical information is needed to write an article (guidelines are vague about that). By the way, in general, when people disagree it doesn't automatically mean that someone is wrong. Gap9551 (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I saw that, but being interviewed in the news, and being the news, are not equivalent. In this case I see it as the former and not the latter. I'm not sure how to argue that further, but I'll grant that it might be opinion. To answer your question at project astronomy, the reason I didn't nominate the other article is that I became aware of it after it was already clear that this one would be keep or no consensus. They're too similar for me to nominate the other right after it. Geogene (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes I believe that's the core of the matter. She is not the main topic of the coverage, so it's about how significant the discovery is, and her contribution to it. I would think that the notability of the other astronomer is harder to defend, but still not a clear-cut case either way. Gap9551 (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

New user

Wow was trying to see how to message you I added that I am ambassador to Syria and Pakistan and that I investigated 9 11 terrorists Hani Al Mubarak Mohammad Attah and Osama Bin Laden Attah was one I tried to stop in 91 before olymipcs in spain he brlew up plane in amsterdamn they put luggaw in after it was scanned so they could not find bomb thanks for letting me contribute and for your contributinons — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambassador Kimberly (talk • contribs) 02:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. Please refer to the guidelines I posted on your talk page before creating articles! Let me know if you have any questions about how things work here. Thanks, Gap9551 (talk) 02:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcoming

Hello and thanks for your contributions! Just a note when welcoming new users: Do not welcome them if they have not made any edits yet. If you look at what you are saying, it says: "thanks for your contributions" at the beginning. This is not true if the user has not made any edits. We normally do not welcome new users because of that. Thanks!! ᵗʰᵉʰºᵗʷʰᵉᵉˡˢᵍᵘʸ₉₉ (ᵗᵃˡᵏ!) 18:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks! I was about to stop doing that, but I was also thinking it could be helpful to give instructions to new users before they made their first edit (since links to help pages and guidelines are the main content of the welcome message). But I'll wait from now on. Gap9551 (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, and well-timed too! Gap9551 (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:British Empire and Commonwealth Games by host country

Category:British Empire and Commonwealth Games by host country, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. SFB 20:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Good idea to rename them that way. Gap9551 (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

New user 2

you changed one of my edits why did you do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.149.7.233 (talk • contribs)

Hi, I undid both of your edits as I posted on your talk page. With this edit [6] you added a name without reference, contradicting the reference right after it. With your second edit [7] you changed a literal quote without explanation or reference. Gap9551 (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

FZ6 Weight removed??

I don't see how me adding the FZ6 weight specification was not constructive. Is it not an improvement on a somewhat lacking wiki page on a great bike? What was wrong with what I added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iviyth0s (talk • contribs) 05:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, this was your edit that I reverted: [8]. As you can see, you added four lines about weight (in blue boxes on the right-hand side), but you also removed (I now assume by accident) a lot of text. All the text surrounded by yellow boxes on the left half of the screen was removed. You can re-add the weights, but make sure not to accidentally change the rest of the article. Thanks for your edits. Gap9551 (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, sorry about that! Thanks for helping me set that straight! It's added properly now, I'm not sure how that could have happened but it's all good now. Thanks! --Iviyth0s (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
No problem! Thanks for your edit. Let me know if I can help you with anything around Wikipedia Gap9551 (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I removed it again. We routinely delete unsourced power, performance, weight and fuel economy for motorcycles. It needs a quality third party source, and has been tagged since 2014 (which by the way, you added a duplicate weight entry tot the table). --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

PC reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Thanks! Gap9551 (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Pending changes

Please don't ever accept pending changes that introduce unsourced or poorly sourced biographical material and statistics to biography articles as you did at Digangana Suryavanshi. In many instances it is exactly this type of information that the article has been protected to prevent. Thank you, --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ponyo: I check all added content before accepting. In this case I googled Digangana Suryavanshi and found a long list of sources such as [removed when creating archive due to site now being blacklisted. Gap9551 (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)][9][10][11][12][13][14] confirming the added birthday. I haven't checked each of these sources for whether they meet the highest quality standards, but their existence makes it almost certain that the edit is not vandalism, and also that the information is likely correct. An unsourced birthday of which I see multiple sources does not appear to be a problematic edit according to WP:BLP, which states: [...] any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, [...]. Contentious material about living persons [...] that is unsourced or poorly sourced [...] should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. In this case I judged the material as 'not likely to be challenged', based on the multitude of sources. (An obvious exception would have been if the birthday had been added to and removed from the article before in recent times, which is not the case for at least the last month or so). BLP also says [...] the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. I think I was doing just that, I didn't think accepting the birthday under these circumstances was harming Digangana Suryavanshi. I also don't think it is common practise to remove all unsourced BLP material from Wikipedia. A final comment: the criteria likely to be challenged or contentious are not very concrete, yet the phrasing of your warning suggests that you are certain I violated a guideline. What did I do wrong here according to you? I hope to hear from you because if I really did make a clear mistake, as you say, I'd like to know exactly what it was, so I'll be able to prevent it in the future. Thanks, Gap9551 (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
It's important to note that of all of the sources you list above, the only one that is close to meeting reliable source criteria is this one. The remainder are all tertiary sources and compendia style websites that are equatable to IMDb and unreliable for the same reasons. Multiple birth dates have been added to the article, none of which were supported by a reliable source. The fact that there were multiple birth dates presented at any time and the date was removed as a result makes it de facto contentious as an editor has challenged its accuracy, and the burden is on the editor(s) wishing to add the information to include reliable sourcing when restoring or changing the material. BLP policy is clear that "We must get the article right" (emphahsis original). Accepting an edit because it is "probably" or "likely" correct isn't good enough. I've corresponded with enough BLP subjects and their representatives via OTRS who were attempting to correct such errors that I've learned accepting such content can indeed cause harm. It's fantastic that you took the time to attempt to confirm the birth date that was added, but if you choose to do so please include the reliable source you found to verify the content of the edit. This will ensure another editor doesn't just come and change the information again.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm aware of what has to be done with contentious material, but this discussion is about what exactly makes a piece of information contentious. So is the main issue that I should have checked whether there had been any birth dates (even dates different from the one I accepted) recently added to and removed from the article? Hypothetically, if I had accepted an unsourced birth place for example (assuming that is not a contentious piece of information) instead of a birth date, after a quick verification, would that have been ok here in the minimal sense, without adding a source? I don't think the reviewing guidelines say that articles protected by pending changes cannot contain any unsourced (non-contentious) BLP information at all. I agree that adding sources is always the best thing to do (and I almost always include sources when I add content myself, also outside the scope of BLP), and I will be more likely to add sources when I accept an edit, but it is also be good to be clear about when sources are absolutely required and when not. Either way I think the BLP guidelines are somewhat inconsistent. I completely agree that information should be right, but at the same time it is not asked that editors remove all unsourced BLP information they encounter. Information that is not challenged or likely to be challenged can also be wrong. Gap9551 (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Sources are absolutely required when any unsourced personal information is being added to BLP articles. Please remember that the reason pending changes were set on BLP articles in the first place is overwhelmingly to stem the tide of unsourced and poorly sourced information making its way in to the articles. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Alright, I'll follow that strictly for at least protected articles and BLPs from now on. I spend some time (re-)reading guidelines and working out what went wrong when I accepted the edit. A large part of the problem was that until now I hadn't realized that guidelines make an explicit distinction between adding and leaving unsourced information, in combination with me seeing the act of accepting a pending edit as closer to leaving (i.e., not removing existing information), while technically it is probably equivalent to adding. So even though harmless unsourced information doesn't necessarily have to be removed on sight, adding similar unsourced information is not acceptable. For example WP:BURDEN says: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. (boldface mine). This discussion in the BLP talk page archives from early 2014 has some interesting points both ways. Views seem to differ quite substantially about what is contentious, and to what extent unsourced information should be removed on sight. Gap9551 (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I thought that checking images for copyright violations was done at the upload stage (similar to new articles being checked after creation), not necessarily when added to an article (although it would still be a good idea to double check at that point of course), and for that reason I didn't check for copyright issues. Thanks for making me aware of the actual procedure. Gap9551 (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
The upload of celebrity copyright violating images is particularly rampant. Images uploaded as "own work" that contain no metadata, include a watermark or logo, or are clearly screencaps are the most obvious copyvios. Running a Google image search is often helpful is determining the origin or copyright status of the image.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll look out for those. Gap9551 (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson

Tommy Robinson was active as speaker at a Pegida Holland demonstration in October 2015. Being active does not neccesarily have to mean being a member and/or spokesperson of an organisation. 82.169.103.207 (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but as far as I know, somebody is considered active (in terms of the range of years active, as given in the infobox) when they still occupy the function that they are primarily known for. When it comes to being an activist, Tommy Robinson (activist) is still active based on that source. Gap9551 (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Nice

So funny--SnnA 22:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syedalinaqinaqvi (talk • contribs)

Wishing you all the best . . .

Merry Christmas, Gap, and may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: Christmas has passed, but happy holidays and new year to you! Gap9551 (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ferry Weertman

The article Ferry Weertman has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Bazj (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not very helpful to propose the article of a notable person for deletion only because of a dead link. More efficient (as it would hardly take more time for the nominator, and require no attention from others) would be to fix the dead link, or to add other sources (plenty are available and easy to find). Gap9551 (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Footer European Champions 10km Open water swimming Men

Template:Footer European Champions 10km Open water swimming Men has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bazj (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2016!

Hello Gap9551, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2016.
Happy editing,
Caballero/Historiador (talk) 09:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

@Caballero1967: Thank you, happy new year! Gap9551 (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (2016 in Chile) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating 2016 in Chile, Gap9551!

Wikipedia editor MB298 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Good start

To reply, leave a comment on MB298's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Performance timeline revert

Letters such as F, SF, etc.. have nothing to do with whether a player lost or not. It's the round they reached and nothing more. Defaults are not losses yet they use the same terminology, an F or SF. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): True, good point. But while the word 'reached' you used may be technically correct, it is also incomplete, as the winner of the tournament also reaches the semifinals, for example. 'Out' is better, and I see you used that term for earlier rounds in the mouseover text but not for quarterfinals and up. Why the difference? Also, the version before my edit already used 'lost in Qualification Round' (both in mouseover and visible text) and 'lost in earlier round' (mouseover text for R#), which you didn't change at the time, and my edit made the terminology consistent at least. Even in the current version you left the abbreviation 'LQ', which I'm pretty sure means 'Lost in qualification' or similar. A player can also give a walkover in qualifications. We should fix that too, but it will require changing the tables in which it appears too (at most 394). 'LQ (Q#)' could be changed to simply 'Q#', as the 'Q' doesn't need to be mentioned twice and the 'L' ('lost') shouldn't be used at all (which we agree on). Then it will also be similar to 'R#'. We should first change the tables, and then the key. I would prefer not to use the word 'reached' either for its ambiguity, and instead use 'out' for all rounds, not just the lower rounds. Gap9551 (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I had simply gone back to the consensus "reached" and then noticed it said "lost in Qualifiers." Since it had longstanding visual consensus, I hesitated to change the "LQ" without consent from the Tennis Project, but in fact it should probably be changed since it's inaccurate. As for "out" or "reached", it seems a minor issue. I think people are smart enough to see you either won the event or simply reached a certain round, but out may be a more concise term. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
'Reached' is more commonly used colloquially, and I agree that it's not an important matter and that people will understand what it means. The LQ issue is more serious in my opinion since it is not correct in general (as you pointed out). I think that needs to be changed at some point, though there is no hurry. Gap9551 (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (2016 European Allround Speed Skating Championships) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating 2016 European Allround Speed Skating Championships, Gap9551!

Wikipedia editor MB298 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Talk page will need to be created. MB298 (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment on MB298's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

tx about discussion

Thank you for participating at Talk:Transhumanist politics, including your calling for better discussion practices by me. It is indeed argumentative there, and I appreciate your trying to improve the situation. I am not sure whether it helps or hurts to reply directly to many posted comments (my direct inserted response(s) is one thing you question). Perhaps in general it is best not to reply to confrontational comments, as one becomes embroiled and seem confrontational too. But if another editor is asking for reply, or else they will make some controversial change in mainspace? I'll try to step back a bit, anyhow. Thanks again for your attention. --doncram 00:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations. Reading your and others' comments, I can better see now where your were coming from, so don't worry about it. You were probably glad to see someone leaning towards supporting a Transhumanist Party article being hesitant at the same time. I do favor transhumanist ideals and like seeing the boarder topic properly covered, but on Wikipedia I first and foremost try to be an objective and fair editor. Anyway, your arguments against a separate TP article at this time make sense, and such article will have to wait until the party becomes better established. Thanks for your efforts in improving Wikipedias transhumanism coverage. Gap9551 (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

3RR

Oops, that was your third revert, your refusal to discuss and to knowingly extend your actions and engage in an edit war might get you blocked. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Above warning is incorrect, per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive304#User:Gap9551 reported by User:Mlpearc (Result: no violation ). As I was misinformed about a rule, I also have to retract some of my statements in this and the next section, as they are no longer correct. I did so by striking them. The WP:3RR rule says: 'An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page [...] within a 24-hour period.' (my boldface). @Mlpearc: you warned and reported me for making 3 reverts, so the rule did not apply. It is not allowed to falsely accuse an other editor of breaking a rule when they did not. You should have carefully read the rule before 1) warning me, and 2) reporting me. You could have saved both of us and an admin a lot of time by starting a discussion first. Contrary to you, I will leave it at this, as I'm not report happy. I will assume you made an honest mistake, even though it's a particularly bad one. Although you were wrong in your accusation, I still acknowledge that I shouldn't have let it come to even 3 reverts. Gap9551 (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I find it fascinating and insightful that you don't want me to strike your false warning. Feel free to reply to my comments below about the actual topic, Milky Way, whenever you want. I hope you at least took away from it that Alaska is part of the continental US. Gap9551 (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that was unfortunate, and to be honest, it escaped my attention at the time that I made that 3rd revert in the Milky Way article. I felt it was necessary to revert your incorrect edits, which disagreed with the cited source. Furthermore, you also made an incorrect claim about what I stated as justification for your first edit, which costed me one additional edit (you implied that I considered Alaska not to be part of the continental US – my geography knowledge is better than that, thank you). Not entirely fair to criticize me for that now, even though you are technically correct about my 3rd revert and that may matter more to you. Even in your second edit, you merely said you 'disagreed' and failed to address the issue or my arguments itself. It is not good practice to avoid to-the-point discussion in two consecutive edits when that is pushing another editor towards their third edit, even though I'm sure that was not your intention.
Nonetheless I'll take your comment at heart and will do my best to avoid making a third revert in the future, but some more effective discussion in edit summaries from your side would be welcome too. To my knowledge I never have been in a situation before where I was close to three reverts, so up to now I'm haven't been entirely focused on counting reverts in my daily efforts to improve Wikipedia.
Finally, If you really disagree with my edit in the article, you could still start a discussion on the talk page, but you haven't yet. Instead of focusing on the article quality you choose to focus on reporting an editor with a clean history for their unfortunate 3rd revert. For what it's worth, even the size of Alaska (circa 20% of the US) is not that significant in the context of the article given the errors involved. The US example is just a rough estimate to give the reader a sense of scale. Gap9551 (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlpearc (talk • contribs) 00:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I was found to be not in violation as the rule did not even apply, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive304#User:Gap9551 reported by User:Mlpearc (Result: no violation ). See my comment on this in the section above (User talk:Gap9551#3RR) Gap9551 (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
My reply to you in the section right above covers my side of the story for now. I find it a bit disappointing that you didn't wish to do discuss neither the topic of our dispute (in edit summaries for starters), nor the dispute itself. Thanks, Gap9551 (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
My concern at Milky Way was the edit adding "continental", my rational for leaving the edit to stand is, for readers that have an above average knowledge of Galaxies and the Universe would either "not think twice" or "object to the comparison" but, the way I see it, for the younger readers who would be reading this article for research, to learn, I feel that the comparison is very easy to understand for those readers. This wasn't even my edit but, I think it's a good change and should stay. As far as Alaska, you said something about small islands, which led me to think you weren't including Alaska, which would make the "lower 48" much bigger than I thought you were referring to. Mlpearc (open channel) 05:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I wish you would have started this discussion earlier, before you reported me. But I'm happy to talk about it and I'm sure we can work this out.
Why do you think 'continental US' is easier to understand than 'US' for certain readers? The difference is basically Hawaii (the relatively small islands I mentioned), which is about 0.1% of US land area. I'm not counting other territories such as Puerto Rico here, but the point wouldn't change: 'US' is a simpler and much more well-known term than, and as correct as, 'continental US'. I referred to the source in my last edit summary, but that may not have been necessary. I think both options would be allowed by the source given 99.9% is close enough in size. I'm happy to find a comparison that is more helpful to the readers, but here the difference just seems minimal to me. Maybe I'm missing something. You say I feel that the comparison is very easy to understand for those readers, can you elaborate a bit on that (I assume you still mean 'continental US' there)? I'd like to understand you better. It's ok if it's just a feeling though, that counts for something too.
[..] you said something about small islands, which led me to think you weren't including Alaska, [...] Correct. Alaska is part of the continental US, so I wasn't including Alaska when I was describing the difference between 'US' and 'continental US'.
[...] which would make the "lower 48" much bigger than I thought you were referring to [...] The lower 48 weren't brought up until now, and I never referred to them.
As for the article, as I said I'm fine to replace 'US' by a different comparison, if that would be more helpful to the reader. Depending on available sources, we may be able to use Canada as it is a more compact body of land, which would seem to resolve some issues that have come up so far (or China, though most readers of the English Wikipedia may be more familiar with the US and Canada). Or we could even mention both the US and Canada. In this context each of these three countries probably have similar enough land areas (all are well within 10%). Gap9551 (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Please don't put the lack of discussion on me, I said take it to the talk page before you made the last revert. Mlpearc (open channel) 06:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Correct, I'm to blame too. I acknowledge that I should have taken it to the talk page at that point, as you suggested, and that I shouldn't have made that third revert. That was a mistake of me. I wouldn't have made the edit, had I even been thinking about this rule there and then. It really was an honest mistake that won't happen again.
But in my reply right above here I referred to the absence of relevant discussion in both your edit summaries, which didn't help either. And even when I made the third revert, which was wrong, you could still have given me some time to respond to your initial comment on my talk page, and discuss the matter further here, before involving others. I was actually in the middle of my first (somewhat lengthy) response when I noticed your report. I'm sure you were technically in your right to report me, but that's not always the best course of action this early in a dispute. I acknowledge I made a mistake, but you ran off to report me very fast, too. Gap9551 (talk) 06:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with what is the correct policy here, but I self-reverted my last edit to your version to show my good intentions, even though I don't find it an improvement. When I have time I'll try to find RS for a better comparison (and discuss it before introducing it to the article), also in light of my calculation below. Gap9551 (talk) 07:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I did a little WP:OR for context, using the numbers in Milky Way#Size and mass. (50,000 ly radius for MW disk, 12.5 mm radius for US quarter). The distance Sun-Neptune (30 AU) divided by 12.5 mm is about 3.6e14. Shrinking the MW by that factor makes it 1300 km in radius. The area of a circle that radius is 5.4 million square km, i.e., 0.55 times the surface area of the US. That gives an idea of the uncertainties here, and we may want to look for a better source. Australia would be closer but still too large. A different familiar object instead of a coin can also be used of course. Gap9551 (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Take a rest man, you've been involved in too many meaningless edit wars. You need to learn how to refrain yourself from starting an edit war. In wikipedia, you will get yourself banned if you continue to fight, even if all your edits were fine. The admins here simply hate bigots who never stop fighting. 120.16.67.240 (talk) 09:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
It would have been better if you had left this message on User:Mlpearcs talk page, if at all. Based on your indent, and the fact that this is the first edit war I'm involved in (if it even deserves that name), you appear to have directed your comment at them. But that may not be obvious to others who read this. Gap9551 (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:e (mathematical constant)

What I mean is that this category is about e (lower case), the base of the Napierian logarithm. The symbol E (upper case) has various other meanings in mathematics, but is never used for e. So it is incorrect and misleading if at the bottom of the page we read "Category:E (mathematical constant)". It should be changed to "Category:e (mathematical constant)". If this is impossible, it is better to delete the false information altogether. Sapphorain (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I see, thanks. All articles, categories, etc automatically start with a capital. The first letter can be displayed as lower case or mathematical symbol using templates, as has been done in both Category:e (mathematical constant) and e (mathematical constant). So e shows up correctly in both, but not in the category listing on the bottom of e (mathematical constant) and other articles. I doubt that can be fixed, as piping doesn't work in those links. Either way, I don't think it is really false information if e is in a category that shows up with a capital. It doesn't imply that e is written with a capital. Gap9551 (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
@Sapphorain: I found the relevant section: MOS:LCITEMS. It says Note that it is not currently possible to make categories display with an initial lowercase letter in an article's category box. Hence the link to Category:eBay at the foot of the article eBay must display as "EBay". Similarly the article title eBay will be displayed as "EBay" in the category listing. Unfortunately we can't fix this now. Gap9551 (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Alright. Thanks. At least the wording "is not currently possible" leaves us the hope that it will be possible in a not too distant future… Sapphorain (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Transhumanist politics dispute resolution

Hello! I have posted on the dispute resolution noticeboard about a dispute in which you are involved. It would be great if you could help us work things out by participating in the resolution. --Haptic Feedback (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

  •  Volunteer note: Hi there Gap9551, I just want to ask if you will be joining the DRN discussion? If you are, could you please post a summary of the content dispute (DRN is focused on content disputes, not conduct). If not, could you please indicate, on the DRN case, that you do not wish to currently participate in the discussion. Participation is voluntary but helpful in resolving content disputes. You can join in at a later time by simply commenting and/or creating a section for your response. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 01:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Drcrazy102. I'm not involved in the dispute, as I've never edited the article and I never commented on the contended tag. I was presumably invited because I made one general observation in the relevant section (Talk:Transhumanist politics#Sources too closely associated with the subject). I also made a few other comments elsewhere on that talk page this month, but these were only tangentially related to whether the used sources are sufficiently independent. Nevertheless, I will look into the issue and give my opinion on the DRN. Gap9551 (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
No worries, so long as you are still interested and willing to compromise (if necessary) then it's all good. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 23:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to ask if you could chime in #List of contended sources and #Counter-claims. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Fourth round of statements are now up. Discussing the IEET sources. Please respond in 48 hrs if you won't be responding to this section. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 03:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Drcrazy102, I won't be commenting on this section, and probably neither in the remainder of the discussion. As I said before, I was not involved in the dispute, and I'm glad to see that editors from both sides of the dispute are currently being involved in the DRN discussion. Gap9551 (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
No worries then Gap. I'll stop sending you pings. You're welcome to join in again, if you want to. Happy editing; Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 22:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Human lightning rod not to scale Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

May 22

Hello,

I will restore the last edit removing Ramūnas Butautas. I apologize for that.

Anonymous032 (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, no worries, and no need to apologize! Thanks for considering. (continued from User talk:Anonymous032#May 22) Gap9551 (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Space barnstar

The Space Barnstar
For your quick involvement in the development of the article Gravitational-wave observation which is noted on Wikipedia's main page In the news section! --Pine✉ 20:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Pine. Gap9551 (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

International athletics competitions by host (country)

Hi Gap9551, adding the category Category:International athletics competitions by host to the categories for the Netherlands and Turkey groups these two categories together and also with the other sports which have their own "International" categories. PS: I noted that there were many "International athletics competions" in the "Athletics competitions by country" categories, but it seemed a large job to start; glad you have set the ball rolling. Hugo999 (talk) 11:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

International swimming competitions hosted by the Netherlands

Please see my proposal to rename Category:International swimming competitions hosted by the Netherlands to Category:International aquatics competitions hosted by the Netherlands where it will be part of a larger category by country Hugo999 (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I'll comment there. Gap9551 (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

User Language

Hello Gap9551, I am a high school freshman and love playing tennis. I saw your articles about Roger Federer. This is my first time using wikipedia. Do you mind if I ask you how you did the user language chart in your wikipedia page? Thank you! 16chseld 402 (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, you can look at the source code of my user page, and at Wikipedia:Babel you can find more information about making these userboxes. Good luck, Gap9551 (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

List of United States Records in Swimming

Hi, I knew the two sources were correct, but I thought that to stick with the rest of the article citations were not to be used. Should I add them back? Miwii69 (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, including citations in articles is either required or strongly recommended, per Wikipedia:Verifiability. I already added them back. It would be good if we could add more references to the rest of the content in the article too. (NB: this topic is continued from User talk:Miwii69#List of United States records in swimming) Gap9551 (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Category requests

Hi,

You recently created two category requests for schools in Scotland for me. (Craigflower Preparatory School and St Ninian's School, Moffat) I have another three that are awaiting review. Two have been waiting for some time. Could you please review them for me, when you have time. The schools are Craigclowan Preparatory School, Belhaven Hill School and Ardvreck School.

Thanks.Gomach (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Sorry you had to wait so long. Gap9551 (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much, very much appreciated!Gomach (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

More category requests

Hi there,

I have four more category requests awaiting review for schools in Scotland. If you could please review them when you have time, I would much appreciate it. Thanks.Gomach (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for working on these articles. Gap9551 (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt response.Gomach (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Sedenions article

Hi, You have undone my change to article about sedenions on Wikipedia. My change was following:

There is incorrect statement about sedenion zero divisors in mentioned Moreno work. The zero divisors in sedenion sphere is a+bι where a, b are perpendicular imaginary octonions. Thus this is 11-dimensional subset of S^{15} of shape S^6 x x S^5. The G_2 we obtain by considering unit octonion c perpendicular to quaternion space generated by a, b. Then we have (a+bι)(c+a(bc)ι)=0. In this case G 2 ={(a,b,c)}.

You said: Undid revision 715432340 by 194.15.124.22 (talk) unsourced, possibly original research).

There is incorrect statement in Moreno work. How do you propose to correct it ?

See also comments on MathOverflow question: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/236207/expressing-so-8-element-as-product-of-l-u-and-r-u-for-unit-octonions-u

Regards, Marek Mitros — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.41.170.245 (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, one option would be to cite a reliable source (see WP:RS) in the article countering the current statement in order to provide balanced coverage of existing opinions, although a discussion forum does not meet the standard for reliable sources. Nevertheless, if there is a really good reason to believe some content of the article is simply wrong, it would be better to remove that information altogether (even if it is sourced). If you're uncertain on what to do, you could start a discussion on the talk page of the article (or start a topic on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics to reach more editors) to see if others know of good sources to solve this, or to gain consensus for removing the sentence. Thanks for asking. Gap9551 (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. I do not have user in Wikipedia, neither I don't know how to start the discussion. If you start the discussion, then I can give my opinion. It is small mistake in Moreno work, not in the proof but in final statement. I saw this statement is repeated in other works. The correct statement should be: the set {(a,b): a*b=0 for unit sedenions a,b} is homeomorphic to Lie group G2. Thus it is not set of "norm 1 sedenions zero-divisors". It is set of pairs of norm 1 sedenions which product is zero. Regards,Marek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.41.170.245 (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
No problem, I started a discussion on Talk:Sedenion#Is Moreno's result incorrect?. In case of lack of response, I'll bring it up on the WikiProject Mathematics talk page later. You can start a discussion yourself by clicking the 'New section' button at the top of any talk page, you don't need a user account for it. Gap9551 (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Space Barnstar
For your exemplary authorship of the article binary mass function! --Erick Shepherd (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Gap9551 (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Binary mass function

On 29 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Binary mass function, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the minimum mass of an exoplanet can be calculated with the binary mass function using the velocity of its host star? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Binary mass function. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Binary mass function), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Opened a formal move discussion

Please see Talk:Mie Østergaard Nielsen. I made this into a formal move discussion so it will be logged in WP:Requested moves. Hope this is OK. Normally a move discussion can be closed after it has run for seven days. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks EdJohnston, that's a great idea. I hadn't thought of having it listed there. Gap9551 (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Blueshift article

You seem to have made some useful corrections and updates to the Blueshift page but, ultimately, the page seems otiose, unnecessary and redundant.

Proposed deletion of Blueshift

The article Blueshift has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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

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

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

I looked into the article. There has been a lot of activity on that page since the PROD, which has been removed, and the most critical issues have been addressed. Gap9551 (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Gap9551, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Widr (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gap9551/Archive_1&oldid=1083592631"