User talk:Gerkinstock

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Gerkinstock, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Gramaic | Talk 00:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy (book)

Hey, I just wanted to say I think you're doing a GREAT job on that article. I was going to start it myself but I've got one last project that is due Jan 27 before I receive my MBA so I will not be able to contribute a lot until then. The NPOV tag that User:Zantastik has seen fit to label the article with should be addressed. On the article's talk page, I'm going to ask him to explain why he thinks it should be tagged in greater detail and/or suggest how the article could be modified so it wouldn't be POV. Keep going, though...great job! :-) Lawyer2b 16:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable article?

Hi, I have placed a tag on the article Scott Salem, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. I did this because the article seems to be a biographical account about a person, group of people, or band, but it does not indicate how or why he/she/they is/are notable. If you can indicate why Scott Salem is really notable, I advise you to edit the article promptly, and also put a note on Talk:Scott Salem. Any admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. You might also want to read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. You might also want to read our general biography criteria. Please do not just remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Grandwazir 04:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page Scott Salem was deleted by User:Enochlau within 2 hours of the above posting. Scott Salem, aka "Scott the Engineer", is the engineer for the Howard Stern radio show and has his own IMDB page, which should at least make a prima facie case for notability. Even if determined to be non-notable under Wikipedia criteria, the page's content may be worthy of being included in the Howard Stern article. DHowell 02:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mongoloid

What is the verifyable reference for the change In the mongoloid article

From: Turkic Mongoloids n Central Asia, the Uzbeks, the Uighur, the Kyrgyz, and the Kazakhs are Turkic Mongoloid, the Western cousins of the Mongolians. Historically, the Huns and the Tatars have been considered to belong to the Mongoloid family. The Turkmen, while are still Central Asian, Turkic-Mongoloids, have mixed heavily with Caucasoid neighbours to the west, and most of the even more westerly Turkic-speakers of Turkey and Azerbaijan appear to have little or no Mongoloid ancestry.

To:

In Central Asia, the Uzbeks, the Uighur, the Kyrgyz, and the Kazakhs show strong Turkic Mongoloid elements, which would make them the Western cousins of the Mongolians. However, among them, and especially among Uzbeks and Uyghurs in particular, one may notice a continuum of physical types that ranges from Mongoloid to Europoid Caucasoid. This tends to also be true among the modern Tatars (Bulgars) and Bashkirs. Historically, the Huns and the ancient Tatars have been considered to belong to the Mongoloid family. The Turkmen, while are still Central Asian Turkic-Mongoloids, have mixed heavily with Caucasoid neighbours to the west, and many of the even more westerly Turkic-speakers, such as those in Azerbaijan appear to have little or no visible Mongoloid ancestry, although many may have less visible Mongoloid features. Turks in Turkey have an amount of Mongoloid features that is related to the amount of actual Turkic ancestry present in the individuals considered. This is variable in Turkey due to the varied ancestry of most of the population. While many scholars explain the variablity of the physical characteristics of Turkic Mongoloids as the result of intermixing with Caucasoids, some propose that there may have at one point been a distinct Turkic Mongoloid group, with particular and distinct physical characteristics AverageTurkishJoe 06:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some Progress

1. While moaning seductively for a criticism section, I don't think Lani Guiner is POV anymore.

2. Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy doesn't have a NPOV tag anymore. Lawyer2b 01:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fatal Blow

Fatal Blow has been proposed for deletion. Please see the article for details. NickelShoe (Talk) 05:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Opinion

I've asked for a 3rd Opinion WP:3O & submitted a Wikiquette alert WP:WQA regarding our "discussion" on the Bill Moyers page. (Wikiquette alerts are an option for a quick, streamlined way to get an outside view). (Antelope In Search Of Truth 09:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Debra Wilson

Hi! Could you point me to some news reports about this? I've been unable to find anything about it, and, Debra Wilson being one of my favorite comediennes, I'd like to read moe about it. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 01:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought it might be something like that! Well, I guess "she said so" works well breaking stories! It would be nice to be able to reference the wedding in the story; probably it will hit the news soon. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 18:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way

"Just please don't try to make the ridiculous assertion that "progressive" and "liberal" aren't the same thing in American political jargon again."

The main thing that got lost (I think) was that while they are similar, the only difference I was trying to point out is that Progressives state that they specifically focus on "economic and environmental justice, and sustainability,".

I have been looking at this whole conversation as an opportunity to better ourselves. This is more curiosity than who is "right" or "wrong". I see more value in approaching things with curiosity than judgement. I am sorry that things got a little heated.

I understand your assertion: progressives = liberals. The reason I am questioning your assertion is because it appears to me that there are liberals who focus on issues other than, "economic and environmental justice, and sustainability." Like abortion, victim rights, etc..

Just like not all conservatives push the same exact issues. (Antelope In Search Of Truth 00:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Eurasian

The Eurasian genetic supercluster does neither belong in the Eurasian (mixed ancestry) page as a section nor linked to because its a different concept than racially mixed. I made it its own page entitled Eurasian genetic supercluster.--Dark Tichondrias

The Eurasian genetic supercluster should not be on the Eurasian (mixed ancestry) page or on its see also section, because they are unrelated concepts. I think if the Eurasian genetic supercluster page were to be ever resurrected it should be linked to from the Western Eurasian and Eastern Eurasian pages and maybe the Genetic views on race article. I don't know who deleted the Eurasian genetic supercluster page. I believe the page was deleted because it supports the idea that race is genetically verifiable which is not a NPOV.--Dark Tichondrias 02:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-racialists & Asthma

I like your attitude towards anti-racialists expressed in Talk:Caucasoid. I would like you to take a look at Allergic Asthma & Asthma. The latter is very long and (at least in my oppinion) very offencive. The word "asthma" seems to me to have been used incorectly in a large number of ways, creating great ambiguity. There even seems to be an implication that asthma is a disease. Perhaps this comes from the misuse of the word "disease" rather than "asthma" . If you are tempted to stop assuming good faith in regards to those that state that asthma is a disease on wikipedia, please bare in mind that a DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS News Release (475/06) also seems to imply that the word disease applies to "asthma".

Alec - U.K. 04:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Caucasoid race, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. In your edit [1], you have deleted a whole cited section, without any explanation or prior discussion. Lukas19 19:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppenheimer

Glad to see you representing Oppenheimer's thesis in the Cro-Magnon article -- and to hear that it's gaining wider acceptance. I'm a real fan of his work. TimidGuy 11:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits to Mia Sable

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Gerkinstock! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule facebook\.com\/.+, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 00:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael moore

You just need to find a non youtube source. Maybe a transcript. Thanks. Turtlescrubber 18:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and put it back in using youtube as the source. Don't use the other source you added. I can't promise anything about anyone else but I will leave it alone. Turtlescrubber 14:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Center for American Progress

Heya! To make the section you inserted regarding the "Structural Imbalance..." NPOV, it needs to have information regarding what the report actually says, and not just criticisms of the contents. I apologize for reverting the section -- I should have come here to let you know of the issue with it first. Please help balance the section by giving information about the contents of the report along with the criticisms. cheers, --guyzero | talk 19:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, or at least an overview of the points that are being criticized. cheers, --guyzero | talk 19:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edit! [2] Do you have a cite for the last bit? "Taxpayer-subsized universities and television programming offered on the public airwaves are not addressed in the report."? I think that is an important point -- both LA stations that broadcast NPR are via universities. cheers, --guyzero | talk 08:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. I moved the statement regarding the report not including analysis of universities or public radio to the para regarding the contents of the report (and since that para is already cited, I removed the cite.) It would be better if we had a commentator or other RS stating "they didn't analyze these important bits..." rather than us saying they didn't and providing the report as a cite -- thats stepping into original research. Whatcha think? --guyzero | talk 08:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Welcome back =) No, my last edit (and the last edit to the page as of this writing) was moving the statement that I mentioned above. Off camping for the weekend, take care! --guyzero | talk 08:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Moyers

Hi. I thought this might be a better place for this discussion than Bill Moyers. I have apologized without any irony for implying that you characterized Moyers as an "insignificant liberal whacko". But please understand, you're trying to compare him to Bill O'Reilly, who (in many people's estimation, conservatives and liberals alike) is an insignificant conservative whacko. Bill O'Reilly is on the level of a Michael Moore or a Howard Stern. They are all sensationalistic shock jocks. One's conservative, one's liberal, and one's "non-partisan". Chances are you're pretty familar with O'Reilly, MM and HS, but how much of Moyers stuff are you familar with? What sets him apart from the gang of three is that he has integrity, a reputation for impeccable facts and an astute comprehension of both sides of an issue. But the thing that most separates him from the others is that even when he disagrees with someone (which does not make him biased) he treats the opposition with respect. He engages in honest and valuable dialogue trying to explore the complexities of any given subject. He does not fabricate or willfully misconstrue facts. He does not try to verbally bully people. He respects others who hold different opinions and is respected in return. Nonetheless, it was poor form on my part. Again, I'm sorry.

But like I said, per WP:BLP, the controversial claim can be included if you find an impeccable source - a well-known peer review academic journal or a standard reference text. If you can find this, I will support its inclusion and "other editors" really can't say anything about it. It's not a vote, it's WP guidelines. Ok? I hope this helps.Phyesalis (talk) 04:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have been very busy of late but will try to be very concise while I am here. Bill Moyers is a very biased journalist but not a sensationalistic one. He should, IMO, acknowledge the liberal slant his program, just as O'Reilly should acknowledge the conservative slant of his. His style is quite different, as Fox News is very sensationalistic while PBS is not. Moyers contention that the right-wing has taken over the media is absurd. The NY Times, The LA Times and a large portion of the "mainstream media" are as liberal as ever; even Harvard University Kennedy Center backs this up. A media where Pat Robertson is a "religious right" leader while Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are "civil rights leaders" does not distort the news in the manner Moyers claims it does. He contributed to a book denying the existence of liberal bias in the media with Eric Alterman, a noted left-wing commentator. This may not be a sensationalistic claim, but it is outright false and biased. Just ask Clarence Thomas how fair the media were during his confirmation hearings in 1991; I seriously doubt Moyers ever will.-- Gerkinstock (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of So You Want to Be A Rock and Roll Star

A tag has been placed on So You Want to Be A Rock and Roll Star requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AgentCDE / Talk / 21:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Jilana Stewart

I have nominated Jilana Stewart, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jilana Stewart. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article you created maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you

The article you created, List_of_music_videos_made_in_the_1960s maybe deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List_of_music_videos_made_in_the_1960s.

The faster your respond, the better chance the article you created can be saved. This is because deletion debates only stay open for a few days, and the first comments are usually the most important.

There are several tools and other editors who can help you keep the page from being deleted forever:

You can list the page up for deletion on Article Rescue Squadron. If you need help listing your page, add a comment on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
You can request a mentor to help explain to you all of the complex rules that editors use to get a page deleted, here: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond on the deletion page.
When try to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. Don't let these acronyms intimidate you.
Here is a list of your own acronyms you can use yourself: WP:Deletion debate acronyms which may support the page you created being kept.
Acronyms in deletion debates are sometimes incorrectly used, or ignore rules or exceptions.
You can merge the article into a larger or better established article on the same topic.

If your page is deleted, you still have many options available. Good luck! travb (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Zayra Alvarez

I have nominated Zayra Alvarez, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zayra Alvarez. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Bongo matic 23:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Dalia Hernández

The article Dalia Hernández has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable; no film credits other than Apocalypto, and no significant coverage other than one or two usual pop-culture references. Most of the external links are either not reliable sources, trivial coverage, or broken.

While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination

I have nominated Judy Jiao, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Steele. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. 117Avenue (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Natalie Keen

The article Natalie Keen has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Epbr123 (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Howard Stern Show games and bits for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article The Howard Stern Show games and bits, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Howard Stern Show games and bits until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of J. Spencer Trimingham

The article J. Spencer Trimingham has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced since 2006 micro stub

While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Nicole Benisch

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

A tag has been placed on Nicole Benisch requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and providing your reasons for contesting on the article's talk page, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

You may want to read the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. FrancisDrake (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Asia Vieira

The article Asia Vieira has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced BLP

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. JBH (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Pawnshop No. 8

The article The Pawnshop No. 8 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page 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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]