User talk:Glen Gormley

Welcome!

A cup of warm tea to welcome you!

Hello, Glen Gormley, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you are enjoying editing and want to do lots more. Some useful pages to visit are:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
• The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun game-like tour to help get you oriented within Wikipedia)

You can sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you need any help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. We're so glad you're here! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC).

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF). About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Minor edits

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. --John (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Ball-sack

Article's about a vulgar phrase, i.e. a fly's ball-sack, the part of the anatomy that bounces against the cunt during sexual intercourse. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

That is incorrect, the colloquial term is deemed appropriate for children in Germany (see the article) but “ball sack” would never be considered suitable in English. Now do you see? Glen Gormley (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Marking a major edit as minor after being warned before is unacceptable

And in fact you did it twice. Changing "warned" to "demanded" not only changes content it's a significant change. As was changing "white supremacists" to "Far Right figures". Editors should be able to ignore such edits knowing that they haven't changed the meaning of the article in any way. I have to be blunt here, if I see you doing this a third time, particularly with a contentious subject, I'm likely to block you. Doug Weller talk 13:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I’m not trying to be contentious or provocative, but in what sense is copy editing to improve the grammatical and semantic meaning not “minor”? In English you don’t “warn” someone *not* to do something in the abstract, you *demand*. The meaning of the sentence is unchanged. Similarly, what’s the difference between Far Right and White Supremacist? Aren’t they synonyms for “neo-Fascist”? My impression was that copy editing to improve the syntactical flow, without changing the semantic meaning, of a sentence is *minor*. So with no desire other than to clarify the motives for your overreaction, please will you try to justify your remarks? Thank you! Glen Gormley (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't see the above. "Warned" means if you continue something might happen. "Demanded" means you do this or else something will happen. In the second example the source said "white supremacists" - so we use what the source says, not what we wish they'd said. Doug Weller talk 09:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

You did exactly the same thing recently at J. W. Dunne, while also engaging in a revert war. here is the page edit history which shows this. If you make any more contentious edits there I will report you. Meanwhile, I would most strongly advise you to lecture highly experienced editors less and to listen to them more; having ignored a warning from an administrator, you are treading on very thin ice now. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why you didn't see the ambiguity you were creating. That was not a straightforward uncontentious change. How do any of these match the description you were given earlier, "a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content"? Doug Weller talk 09:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean changing the ungrammatical construction “Irishman general” to “Irish general”. I see now that this is being considered contentious but I sincerely believed that I was merely correcting a minor grammatical error. To be quite honest none of this reaches the level where it deserves my attention, but please proceed as you guys see fit. Glen Gormley (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

That excuse is not tenable. My reverts and associated edit comments made it clear to you that it was contentious. Yet you continued to reinstate it and mark it as minor. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Doug Weller. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. I should have warned you when you posted. Doug Weller talk 18:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)