User talk:Gorgan almighty
 Archives |
Televinylcommunicatorium
[edit]Hi. Was just doing a search for the televinylcommunicatorium. Wahtever happened to that magical device? :P I ran across your profile because you deleted my entry last year. First, great job on being on top of it, and responding so quickly to my distributed misinformation. It was developed as a project for an MFA residency in Austria. Was a collaborative effort, and thanks to the guise of authority that the wikipedia format provides, and despite my presenting this to the entire school as a tongue-in-cheek excercise in B.S., I actually had a few people come up to me at the end of the presentation in real awe... I quickly realized that they were impressed not by the clever invention of some media artifact, but were actually amazed that this amazing piece of technology existed in the 50's. I've used this as a prime example of false authority in so many conversations over the past year... it's not even funny. One of the best parts of the story is the game of cat and mouse I had to play with you over the course of that afternoon. I'm glad that you didn't outright delete the thing, because I had to open up the browser for the presentation (I did one last edit right before I went on, and left it open without refreshing.. somewhere along the way, however, that big ugly warning showed up on the top of the page, and i quickly scrolled away from it.. despite all of this, this product of an hour's work managed to convince some folk that the televinylcommunicatorium was a real device. AMAZING
Anyhow, I see that you're into adventure games. Rock on, it's a shame the genre's dead.
Good day, I hope to have more content deleted by you in the future. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bliaargh (talk • contribs) 08:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow
[edit]All I ahve to say is excellent job with this page, it looks really snazzy.
Vandalism by 209.158.179.181
[edit]Hi- Last December you made a comment on user_talk:209.158.179.181 about future vandalism in Wikipedia articles. Someone has hit up three articles on the IP address. What, if anything, happens now? Stude62 15:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
afd closing
[edit]In the future, remember to tag the talk page of the article with {{oldafdfull}} to note that it has been previously nominated and the result. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you.
The reason given for the deletion was the the article was written in a completely unencyclopediac fashion and contained first person references. I have and will try to change this original reason for deletion.
As to your other concern, I added a request for sources to the original authors talk page (I'll add it to the article's talk page as well). I also hope to get around to looking for sources myself, but only through the net.
I do believe ample time should be given to find sources before the page is deleted.
Thank you again, Yodaat 11:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, okay. Thanks. Sorry for getting worked up about it. :) Yodaat 12:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Re: stop for a moment:
Done. Yodaat 17:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Converts from Judaism
[edit]I have initiated a discussion regarding a category you created earlier today. Please see this CfD. I have concerns about individuals you included, concerns about past discussions of related categories, and concerns of the category's title. Your imput would be appreciated. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 14:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 16:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Chanter
[edit]Could you please outline your concerns with John Chanter? I had asked someone to check it over (an experienced editor) and they said it was fine. I can understand the references (although the one cited is extremely reliable) but I would appreciate knowing your concerns about style. Thanks. Frickeg 23:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have replied to this on Talk:John Chanter —gorgan_almighty 11:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Should we delete this list
[edit]Some people are selective they would like to see only lists of their own domination, what do u think does this list warrant deletion or should we let it stay?[1]--יודל 13:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
reply re Ram Dass
[edit]Hi, just wanted to be sure you know that I replied on my talk page yesterday (about 20 minutes after you posted your note). Cgingold 23:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
1. This is a category page template, not an article template.
2. The "growth" classification was added without consensus and is being removed. —David Levy 12:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I have made substantial edits to TTI Telecom and left detailed comments about the sources at the AfD page since you commented. When you get the chance, please take another look. Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
An application of BIO
[edit]I got involved in Mitch Clem at AfD. Can you look at the references and let me know whether you think I'm right on his notability. He is not an important topic, but this illustrates an important application of the BIO and Notability rules. I think that the Minnesota Public Radio spot is just about enough, then the mention in PC World, while not in-depth clearly is saying this person is noticed. The other comixtalk source is marginal, but I think that it adds to credibilty. It appeares that Comixtalk has a blog section, but where he is covered is more akin to an online magazine in a scheduled and dated issue. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 15:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Notability reform barnstar
[edit]
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| For your patient and well-reasoned efforts in helping to achieve a much-needed reform of WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC) |
Template:Essay-project-note on WP:USRD/NT
[edit]Can you please give me some detail as to how {{Essay-project-note}} - a template that was created via discussion at WT:BIO has anything to do with WP:USRD/NT. Particularly, I'm concerned that none of those at USRD, or any other WikiProjects that are listed in Category:WikiProject_notability_essays (though I did see WP:ACADEMICS had mentioned something on WT:BIO about it. Not all of the projects deal with people at all (such as WP:USRD, WP:TWP for WP:STATIONS or the like. Personally I understand the rationale behind the template, but not everyone reads up on WP:BIO or uses it as a global discussion board for notability, this should have been discussed at WT:N instead.
The template was removed from WP:USRD/NT. If you can provide that this template must be on the page, please place a rationale on WT:USRD/NT that refers to WP:N WP:USRD/NT has no biographies of living persons so there is no reason that a proposal discussed on WT:BIO should decide who gets the template.
If you have questions, please contact me. Thank you. — master sonT - C 02:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm finding it impossible to assume you're acting in good faith
[edit]You've been falsely claiming a consensus for your vision of bio for months. I've taken you to task and asked for proof of this, at which point you've disappeared each time. You've consistently been dishonest and misrepresented previous discussions, apparently on the theory that no one will check your claims. Now you have the audacity to claim that I have no objections to the change after the last several months. How the exactly does this work? Which argument of mine have you ignored or sidestepped that suddenly convinced me to support you?
I was out of the discussion for all of 48 hours. It's completely unethical for you to make this claim without even the slightest effort at verifying it. Horrorshowj (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Firstly I deplore your efforts to bend the truth. I would point out that I have never made an edit to BIO or any other policy/guideline/essay that did not have reasonable consensus, and had no active objections at the time. Most of the edits you've claimed in the past that I made "against consensus" were in fact made by other editors who commented in favour of the changes in the relevant discussions. Since no objections were raised at the time, and consensus seemed to have been reached, those other editors took it upon themselves to inact those changes, as I would have done, but didn't. An example of this is the notability guideline reforms, to bring the sub-guides inline with the general notability criteria. Although I was involved in those discussions, it was Kevin Murray, as well as several others, who inacted those changes. I believe they were right to do so, as consensus seemed to have been formed, but it was they who did it, not me. This is very different from what you claimed later on, that I had gone round effectively vandalising the notability sub-guides against consensus. If you don't believe that there was consensus for those reforms, then go look at the talk page archives yourself or ask Kevin Murray to confirm it for you. It is not my job to dig though the archives and pull out old discussions for you.
- There is no requirement on Wikipedia to inform every Wikipedian on there User Talk page when a new proposal is proposed. Discussions are visible to all on the relevant Project Talk pages. It is your job to watch these pages if you wish to be involved in discussions. You could at the very least watch the Village Pump, and follow links from their to the relevant discussions. If a change is made that you don't agree with, then propose that the change to reverted and state your reasons. Don't claim that there was no consensus simply because you weren't involved in the discussion.
- I am a great believer in establishing consensus, and I believe that was sufficiently done in this current case. This is very different from the way you seem to operate. As far as I can see, your attitude is that any amount of people can discuss it on the Talk page as much as they like, but if anyone dare inact the changes on the actual guideline, you'll revert and claim bad faith. I am very concerned about your ownership issues.
- I assumed that you had no further objections, because you didn't raise any objections to the latest proposal. If that assumption was incorrect then I apologise, but it seems to be clear the consensus is against you.
Wikipedia talk:Notability (media)
[edit]Wikipedia:Notability (media) is an excellent example of creep that is being pushed by a few people for rapid acceptance. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. I never said I supported all the notability sub-guides that have ever been proposed. A while back we successfully got rid of some and merged them into BIO. That was a good move. But the fact that those were WP:CREEP doesn't necessarily mean that all notability guides accept WP:N are creep. I personally believe that there is worth in keeping BIO (with the "Additional criteria" section replaced as we've discussed). I believe WP:ORG, WP:ACADEMIC, WP:MUSIC and possibly a number of others should be demoted to essays, but I know we'd have a strong fight on our hands there, so I'd rather take it one step at a time and leave things like that till later. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 10:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think that ORG and BIO are necessary evils that let people vent their ideas; a place where we can contain and monitor the expression of special interests, without having a multitude of special pages to monitor. Thanks. --Kevin Murray (talk) 11:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Blackle
[edit]can you take a look at Blackle and perhaps ban 24.203.205.195, it's the same guy who tried to post a video a while ago and was banned for it. MyTigers (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Religion
[edit]Hi Gorgan almighty, I was just wondering why you believe that your religion is the right one. What drew you to that specific religion? I’m doing research for my thesis and I’d like to get a discussion going. Get back to me. All the best. MagicBullet5 (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
CfD nomination of Category:Converts from Judaism
[edit]
Category:Converts from Judaism, which you created, has been nominated for 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. Cgingold (talk) 09:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Essay-project-note
[edit]
Template:Essay-project-note has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Ridernyc (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Jeffrey Street Kirribilli
[edit]Hi,
I was the original author of the article on Jeffrey Street.
I have put a lot of effort into it over the past 5 days. You made the comment that "It appears to be an article about a geographic location, which is normally acceptable on Wikipedia without further evidence of notability." Since I am a newby, can you provide advice?
With a few helpers we have put a lot of effort into citing what we thought might be appropriate references etc.
We don't have much time before the AfD.
Many thanksAWHS (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hi AWHS. There has always been wide-spread consensus in AfD discussions that officially recognised cities, towns and villages are inherently notable. From what I can tell this is an unwritten rule, and attempts to write an official guideline based on it have so far failed. The best I could find was Notability (geography), which is only an essay, not an official guideline. The problem here is that you are talking about an individual street, which is not inherently notable. Articles about individual streets do exist, for example Houston Street (Manhattan), but they must make a clear assertion of the notability/importance of the street, and be well referenced. I notice that the article has improved a lot since it was nominated at AfD, and I think it asserts its notability/importance to the local area with references quite well. For further help on developing this article further, I would refer you to Places of local interest. Note that that is an essay only, it is not an official guideline so you can't use it as justification in an AfD. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 11:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help, still learning.... Rgds AWHS (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
You like Blender?
[edit]Hi Keith, i recently ran across your profile and saw that you like Blender and that you're a Christian. That's cool. I am wondering if you have any kind of portfolio, or if you know of any Christian communities (or family-friendly, etc.) that make 3D stuff, videos, video games, etc. Basically anything multimedia related..? do you have any ideas? I'm thinking of starting a Christian Multimedia Group, and I'm trying to see what's out there. Hit me back when you get the chance, but i understand that you're busy lol..! dtate888 —Preceding undated comment added 23:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC).
- Replied on your Talk page. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Ichthus: January 2012
[edit] |
ICHTHUS |
| January 2012 |
In this issue...
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
Margaret Randall
[edit]Well spotted! I've reverted the article to an earlier sourced version. Actually the whole text (with 'shouting' CAPITALS etc.) was a copy-paste from http://www.margaretrandall.org/Biography
I've also explained things on the user's Talk page ...though whether it will sink in is another matter. Sionk (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oh great job! I didn't think to check if an earlier, better sourced version existed. I found the page via the successful "Articles For Creation" submission on another user's talk page, and I was very surprised that an article of such dubious quality made it through the Articles For Creation process. Well done, you've restored my faith in that process after all! —gorgan_almighty (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
L.A. Reid
[edit]As someone who has been involved in the article for several years, I can assure you that the article is not a copyvio. I suggest that you remove the tag and restore the article. What may have happened, depending on your source, is that someone copied the article off of Wikipedia, and you are seeing the results of that. Jusdafax 19:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deletion and redirection of Pure Essence
[edit]I am trying to clear up the miss understanding that has happened with my article for "pure essence" funk band from the 1970s of which "L.A. Reid" was a member. The article required references to justify it's notability but the simple fact is that during that time, it didn't have that much. It was only the radio WEBN (Still a top radio station in Cincinnati) that they had gotten any mass exposure. Most of it's notability has come after 2006, when the actual record, a 7" LP of two songs became a collector's item and this led to the sampling of "3rd Rock" by RJD2, and finally a new record and distribution deal from Stones Throw Records. Very little of what this band has accomplished has to do with L.A. Reid. Reid was not credited with writing any of the songs, he was simply the drummer. I think with just a little bit of research into what the band's music has accomplished recently. It is well deserving of a wiki article. A very similar story to this is the story about an all black punk band from Detroit called "Death." The band had no notability during the time they were actually playing together. It wasn't until the record, discovered by record collectors, got their music a new record deal and a film was made, that the band was recognized. This is almost eerily the same story. Please think it over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbones5 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
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) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
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) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Charismatic Christianity WikiProject
[edit]Hi Gorgan almighty, I am reviving the Charismatic Christianity WikiProject and noticed you were active in the past so I am inviting you to come back and help me get it going again. Callsignpink (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Gorgan almighty. 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)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Gorgan almighty. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)