User talk:Gertrudethetramp

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Gertrudethetramp, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, 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! -- Infrogmation 15:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get Minted Poker Live

Excuse me, but what's the problem with Get Minted Poker Live? I was looking at the page for Greg Winters and noticed the red link, so I decided to fill it in. You claim it's an ad, I don't know what else you expect a short article about a television show to look like. Nutlow 23:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like an ad, doesn't it? Maybe it's not; that's why I listed it as CSD for being ad and nn. If you don't think it's CSD-worthy, please feel free to add the "hangon" tag and expand on the article. As it stands though, I'm not sure it's notable. GertrudeTheTramp 23:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It looks like an ad, doesn't it?" - I don't agree. It looks like what it is: a stub. Nutlow 23:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new article by a new account for a poker show and web-site? I'm still going with ad, but even if it's not, there needs to be more sources than the show's own web-site to establish notability. NN. GertrudeTheTramp 23:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A new article by a new account". Grr, very well, it was made by me. I was intending to keep it anonymous. Why? The show features emails and stuff from viewers and I was actually going to mention both this page and the show's host's page in such an email, which would in all probability get read out. But since I like to keep my real name and my Wikipedia username fairly seperate, I wanted to do it this way. Anyway, I assure you, it's not intended as an ad. Evercat 23:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey yo, I just tag them like I see them. I believe you that it's not intended as an ad (as such-- I'm still not sure aboug your motives for writing the article, since you just seemed to imply it's to get read off on TV). Tag it as a stub, or try to show notability in the text, and I'm sure whoever comes along and reviews my speedy delete request will sort it all out. Cheers. GertrudeTheTramp 23:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like User:NawlinWiki already has. I was going to write the article anyway, then thought (since there are only a few people who actually send in emails) that I might mention the page and ask the host to see if he could think of anything to add. But not going to now. :-P Evercat 23:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably for the best, don't you think? That sounds like it would get into all sorts of sticky WP:Cite and conflict of interest and OR issues. GertrudeTheTramp 23:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how to be honest. Evercat 23:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or yes, I suppose I see your point. But it's like mentioning to anyone that you wrote an article about something connected to them. You're bound to mention it. Anyway, doesn't matter now. Evercat 23:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Nerd

Re your message: No harm intended. We just ran over each other removing the vandalism. =) I reverted back to before the vandalism started. If you want to remove the section again, please feel free to. -- Gogo Dodo 07:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rush Limbaugh

Yep, sorry, just forgot! --Robdurbar 19:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced?

I don't follow your addition of an unsourced tag to the constitutionality section of DOMA, since sources are given at the bottom of the article that cover the constitutionality issue. If you are complaining about lack of inline citations, please recall that they are an option, not a requirement of policy. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? That's odd, because WP:V says "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." I think a lot of that section sounds like OR, and I would like to see citations in the article. GertrudeTheTramp 05:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are treading on one of my pet peeves. (Eek! ;-) WP:V does not say "in-line" citation, because there is no consensus that it should. For my part, any article which cites three law-review articles on a subject has a reliable source. For my own edit, the source for Loving v. Virginia is Loving v. Virginia. (And that is an in-line citation, even if not a footnote.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I'll wait for WP:ATTRIBUTE to become policy, and then add the tag back. That said, for a subject subject to as much "backseat lawyering" as the DOMA, inline citations would go a great deal towards inproving verifiablility. I'm willing to chase down the articles to check the points in the text; what I'm not willing to do is chase down and search through five to find where one point is made, especially when some editor could have added an inline citation when they wrote the thing! GertrudeTheTramp 06:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you missed me; and my peeve will recover if fed and petted regularly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:ATTRIBUTE doesn't mandate inline citations either. It is perfectly reasonable to point out that you believe inline citations would improve the article on the talk page, I simply object to tagging a referenced article as lacking them. Did you read the references already given? Robert A.West (Talk) 16:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, um, it did when I wrote that. It's been changed. Regardless, though, even if it doesn't require inline citations on every article, it does require "clear and precise citation; for articles with several sources, this will require an inline citation, written as a footnote, Harvard reference, or embedded link" on "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." You can consider my "unsourced" tag a challenge-- but since WP:ATTRIBUTE isn't policy right now, it doesn't reall matter does it? GertrudeTheTramp 16:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, even if the references are proper, they're poorly done. Who cites a web-site without linking to it, except someone who doesn't want the sources to be verified? GertrudeTheTramp 16:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your change adding the requirement to WP:ATT. It is non-consensus and I will be reverting presently. Yes, the references can be improved, but they exist. Go ahead and improve them. Just don't misuse the "unreferenced" tag. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, back off. Since there is clearly no consensus as to either my OR Pmanderson's change, I'm going to revert back to the version by Marzul. WP:ATT has said that "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be accompanied by an inline citation" since at least October of last year. And since we're back to that wording, DOMA should have inline citations on the sections I've challenged, per WP:ATT. Peace. GertrudeTheTramp 17:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, while you're right in that the article itslef is referenced, as there is a reference section, the section I tagged itself is unreferenced, as there's no citations in the section. You see how these semantic arguments you're utilizing are infuriating? Whatever, I'm done with this, because I'm having trouble WP:AGFing with you. Have fun impedeing the verifiablility of DOMA, I'll be back when WP:ATT is finished. GertrudeTheTramp 17:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going out of range of computers for the weekend, so if you'd like to continue this it should be on WP:ATT's talk page, where I've posted my last thoughts for the while. GertrudeTheTramp 17:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope your break helped your AGF. While I am opposed to mandating that all articles be inline-cited, and feel that lack of inline citation is a misuse of Category:Articles lacking sources, I would not object to someone's putting in the work to inline-cite DOMA, if I don't get to it first. I agree that it would probably help keep out well-meaning OR. Right now, I should be attending to Real Life^tm, so I probably won't have time to head to do it until I head to the library for some serious Wiki-research next month. Robert A.West (Talk) 09:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it did. But I know what you bean about Real Life, so I'm probably not going to be the one who beats you to it... Peace. GertrudeTheTramp 09:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]