User talk:Gmt2001/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Gmt2001. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Welcome

File:Verifiability and Neutral point of view (Common Craft)-600px-en.ogv

A video showing the basics of verifiability and neutral point of view policies.

Welcome!

Hello, Gmt2001, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like Wikipedia 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 ask your question there. Again, welcome! - Ahunt (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Gmt2001; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Euro Truck Simulator 2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digital Download (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

WW II treaty

I think it would be good to find an appropriate place to add a few sentences and links regarding the treaties that formally ended WWII. Dlazzaro (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

recent article submission

Hi,

I've recently signed up for a wikipedia account and that article I created was my first attempt (I have done page edits in the past though.) The reason I created the article is that I am a Southampton FC supporter (who play in the english premier league) and I was looking up our shirt sponsor and couldn't find a page. So having a bit of time on my hands I decided to create one. I can see what you are saying about the article length and I could easily include more sources. My only point is that you declined it on the issue of notability where I argue that a league which is watched by an estimated total audience of 4.7 billion worldwide last year makes it notible as if a viewer has a query to the sponsor on the shirt, then wikipedia is often the first port of of call.

thanks

Thehamptonwick (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand this, its just that Wikipedia requires you to provide sources which actually indicate the notability. Just saying it is related to a league with an audience of 4.7 billion is not enough if you dont have reliable sources to back up your reasoning or claim. I believe that if you simply expand the article with more information about the company, and include reliable sources that confirm that information, that it will be accepted later. — Gmt2001 (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the feedback

Thehamptonwick (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Second World War

You are right that was a little bit testing with just read myself mass of links about antisemitism history articles inside wikipedia but this was sure also an important reason for the second world war with A.H. and many more against jewish marxism, christianisation... with counter attack of the old structures organzed against A.H. and others in europe and rest of world with jew Roosevelt as USA president organzing USA in 2. WW against A.H. & in russia jew Marx doing same like in history as jewish roman catholic church power system organized same jupiter-roman empire organized before.

The fist inserted part shows important pre war event 1 million german emigrants by restrictive poltics and attack from poland on neigbor country before A.H. intervened to protect the german Reich else always more and more decreased and today poland not existing for about 100 years so not another land he attacked and 100% prooved with H.H. shown live in german TV as england was attacking that he was surpised and stunned. Why there must be any poland in german tribe land ?

I`m reinserting first part with automatic little commented text from german WP not other mass ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.10.74.219 (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit

Sorry about that, I didn't see Scania, so I posted it and, my internet really hates me...so I sorta clicked it more than once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InkscapePwnz (talk • contribs) 04:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Taylor's Education Group

Hello! I am the creator of the Taylor's Education Group page and was just wondering how I can improve on the notability of the piece, without the piece being removed by Wiki. Apologies, am new to this. LaviiniaT (talk) 08:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Place references to Reliable Sources. For example, if a newspaper that is not affiliated with Taylor's Education Group and is known to not be biased has written an article on how they are doing something really good for the community, that would be a good source which establishes Notability and is reliable. You can find more information on Reliable Sources and establishing Notability by clicking the links that are in this reply. — Gmt2001 (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Julia Mulligan - Unconstructive editing on Julia Mulligan. (TW)

Thank you for your comments.

Please explain why the contribution I made should be deleted.

It was factual and fully referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by York Ant-Corruption (talk • contribs) 13:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The tone of the text made it sound like it wasn't written from a Neutral point of view and sounded a bit like an attack. If you would like to reintroduce it, you will need to rewrite the text.

For example, "Accusations of expenses fraud have been made against a number of chief officers of NYP, but Mrs Mulligan has not acted here either." would probably be better written as "Accusations of expenses fraud have been made against a number of chief officers of NYP, but these accusations have gone ignored." But only if your source actually states that.

Additionally, you did not insert your references properly. See Referencing for beginners — Gmt2001 (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments noted. I'll have a go at rephrasing the text. If you know of any further sources on Julia Mulligan I need to use, please let me know. All I have been able to find is her own material, which is not exactly neutral. Thanks also for showing me how to insert the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by York Ant-Corruption (talk • contribs) 18:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:PROF

If you are going to review AfC submissions for articles on researchers, you need to be aware that there is a special guideline, WP:PROF. You declined the AfC on James Townsend (psychologist) when it was in this state. It meets the following conditions of WP:PROF. 1/holding a named professorship at a major university 2/editorship of a major journal. He would meet WP:AUTHOR also, if his books =have been reviewed, which they have, tho that wasn't shown. In reviewing AfCs it is equally important not to reject satisfactory articles as to not accept unsatisfactory ones. I made a few copyedits and accepted it--and I apologized to the author. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

As an guide to reviewing AfCs in general, promotionalism and especially copyvio is a worse problem than borderline notability or even lack of references. The better reason for rejecting Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Evans Youth Theatre is that it is an advertisement--and probably a copyvio from the web page also. It's so much of an advertisement that I would have listed it for speedy deletion as CSD:G11. (I'm not doing it immediately, to give you a chance to see it, but I will in a few days). Ditto with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Filter Wales, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Spartina 449, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Luxury Marketing Council .

For Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MDK School, Pathankot, all secondary schools are notable. This article, however, is a copyvio of their web site, and must be deleted accordingly. I shall do that tomorrow. We consider copyvio even more dangerous than promotionalism, tho they often go together. Any article on an organization needs to be check against the appropriate part of their website. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Julia Mulligan

Thank you for your comments.

Sorry, but I was not aware of the requirement to be "constructive". Presumably, one is not allowed to make negative comments about public figures on Wikipedia. I must have a look on the entry on say Robert Mugabe. They must be interesting.

All I have done is outline facts in the public domain and the national press. If these are not favourable to Mrs Mulligan, then I am sorry. She is a public figure and if she does not like facts about her activities being published, then she should withdraw from public life.

If you wish to dispute the accuracy of my additions to her biography, please do so.

If you cannot dispute the facts, then please revert to the full version of her biography and prevent Mrs Mulligan - a professional politician - from abusing Wikipedia to use it as a platform for her political propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by York Ant-Corruption (talk • contribs) 14:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe you have the wrong talk page, i was not involved in any undos or anything related to your edits in the past week. — Gmt2001 (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Strange, because these are the messages I got:

Hello, I'm Gmt2001. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Julia Mulligan because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Ref revision 558282198 Gmt2001 (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Gmt2001 posted on your talk page

General note: Unconstructive editing on Julia Mulligan. (TW)

View more:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:York_Ant-Corruption#June_2013>

So it wasn't you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by York Ant-Corruption (talk • contribs) 18:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

That is the old notice that we had discussed a while ago — Gmt2001 (talk) 23:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

You surely got some nerve trying to slap me with an edit warning and hijacking my RFPP. I deleted the section to have it discussed on thr talk page first. You can't do that on Azarov, Phorus 13 and all those idiot anons who use improper edit summaries? --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who had more than 1 revert of the relevant section at the time was given a warning, including the anons and Phorus13. The Wikipedia policy on edit warring states that it does not matter what side you are on or if you are right/wrong. It is still forbidden to engage in the constant reverting behavior. Additionally, you did not have to keep "removing the content so it can be discussed on the talk page". If there appears to be an edit war going on, or it appears one may start, you can instead leave the content there and just discuss it without removing it until a consensus is reached.

I did not try to hijack your RPP, i was making a simple note to make sure it was known that another request was already there below, since it might help an administrator when marking the response or making a decision.

— Gmt2001 (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Response to Valve task force question

You previously asked approximately six months ago why Defense of the Ancients was listed as an article that was a concern of the Valve task force? I took the time to answer your question, in that DotA is technically Valve's intellectual property now and is subsequently relevant to the focus of our force, much like the original Counter-Strike, Day of Defeat and Team Fortress mods are. DarthBotto_talk•cont 20:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Steam edit and date format

Hi GMT2001, regarding your last edit on Steam (software) ([1]]), the ISO 8601 format is accepted for refs according to Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Dates and should be preferable for the international audience. regards Shaddim (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I realize this, however, I was making the dates match the format being used in existing references per MOS:DATEUNIFY — Gmt2001 (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

While consistence is important, I would consider a international accepted standard more important. At least it is a draw between both arugments, so one format should be not enforced. As additional argument for ISO formated refs, they can be re-used directly in other language Wikis (like the deWP), while other date formats did not work there or are considered invalid. regards Shaddim (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing out the gamecruft, but weren't the physics inaccuracies useful?

In Kerbal Space Program#Physics.

Sorry for that (I came by it honestly; I wanted to mentally translate some KSP discussion of planets and so did as I often do and copy research I do to WP), but is the second edit gamecruft too?

I've reinstated it for now, but this is a heads-up for you to review it. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The second part I missed. It may have to be rewritten but it probably could stay. I will fix the reference to YouTube to be done properly but leave it to someone else to rewrite or evaluate. — Gmt2001 (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I was pretty sure, but didn't want to seem to be trying to sneak something past you. Yeah, I was too lazy to stuff in a full {{Citation}}. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

AFC Submission

I have tried to submit an article on former NASA flight controller Jerry Bostick, and it keeps getting kicked back to me for lack of citation. I've included several sources, but I'm obviously doing something wrong. Any help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo18cdr (talk • contribs) 21:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

So you are aware, those declines were 6 months ago. Try to find sources which verify the information you are providing, are reliable, and are not affiliated with the subject. For example, I see you currently have some references to nasa.gov. Are there any reliable, verifiable sources that have absolutely no affiliation with Jerry Bostick or NASA that provide the same information, such as a newspaper?— Gmt2001 (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2013 (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) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Gmt2001. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)