User talk:Gruber76

Welcome!

Hello, Gruber76, 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 ask your question there. Again, welcome! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 05:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response on vandalism

Vandalism that old won't be acted on, but given the IP's past history, you can give them a final warning straight off if there's any further misbehavior from it. (Remember that many IP addresses can be dynamic or shared, so there may be a completely innocent person using that IP address now!) Generally, you should only skip straight to a final warning on a user who has a past history of vandalism. To do it, just post {{subst:uw-vandalism4im|Nameofarticlevandalized}} on the person's talk page. Generally, though, if the IP or account has no previous history of vandalism, you should start with a level 1 or 2 warning and go on from there if they continue. Many times, people really do stop after they're given a polite lower-level warning and realize that they're going to get caught. This time, though, there's no point posting a warning to that IP, the vandalism's too old and they've long since stopped anyway. Also, while you're welcome to email me if you wish, you may get a faster response by posting to my talk page. That's the general method of communicating with other users unless you specifically need the communication to remain private, and in general, we prefer to do things in the open. (To reach a user's talk page, just hit the "discussion" tab next to the "user page" one at the top of the page.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 05:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cashistees / Kashisties

Thanks for catching that. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Population vandalism

Gruber, I did undo some of CurtisClark's reversions using TW; however, the reason was because Curtis made an honest mistake--the anonymous user's edits changed the population figures to the "2006" numbers. Curtis reverted the edits because they were unsourced and seemed like vandalism. I looked into it further, and it appears that the US Census did release 2006 numbers and the anonymous user's edits were valid. I undid some of Curtis's edits with TW, but then I reverted the rest of them manually and added an edit description. Sorry for the confusion. -Nick^talk 17:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gruber, I just responded to CurtisClark's query as to cites for the census data. I'll paste it below:

If you visit www.census.gov and use the "population finder" on the right, 2006 figures are listed for states, counties and MSAs. (Cities will be updated this summer). For example, here is the entry for Arizona [1] and Maricopa County [2]. I'm sorry for not citing them. The norm is to use Census figures, and I assumed these were easy enough to find. -Nick^talk 04:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arkansas

Please see my reply at Template talk:State pageantry Also, You did a cut and paste move on the article which is a no-no. Please see WP:MOVE for instructions on how to move a page properly next time. I'm going to undo the redirect to retain the page history. To move it properly now would require an admin as per WP:RM. You can get an admin to perform the move if you like, but I recommend waiting as per my note on the template talk page. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the bumbling, there. I guess I'm still getting acquainted with editing.Gruber76 02:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize and I hope that I didn't seem harsh. Sometimes when I try to explain things I need to watch that I come across as abrupt. Please feel free to drop me a line if I can provide any help. I'm sure that the technical issues can all be sorted out fairly easily. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the same way I have a personal rule to always use the vandalism template that's one point less angry than I'm actually feeling? Don't worry, you were careful in your wording while still making clear the rules and import. Gruber76 13:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magiczig

You reported Magiczig here. I believe that page is for reporting anonymous users, and that username issues should be directed here. -- JediLofty ^{User | Talk} 16:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty certain that the page you linked to, there, is for intervention when the user's username is offensive or inappropriate. I was suggesting the user be blocked because of their actions, which is reported using the page I used (You'll also see that the user has been blocked.) If you edit (but don't save) the intervention page I used you'll see that there are templates for reporting both anonymous and registered users. Gruber76 17:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need to clean my glasses; I didn't see that! ;-) Having said that, though, Step 4 on the page you mentioned does say that "All username issues should be taken to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention" -- JediLofty ^{User | Talk} 16:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I don't have anything against his username. It was his actions, his userness if you will, that caused concern. Gruber76 17:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userness. That's a good word! :-) I might have to start using that as a form of address! -- JediLofty ^{User | Talk} 08:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Years

Well, yes, I suppose the guidelines do recognize a dispute. I'm not sure if that dispute is still active. Ultimately all guidelins are descriptive rather than prescriptive. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 01:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your AIV report

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I've blocked the IP to avoid further damage, however administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (mostly 2/3 days old) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. Thank you. —Anas ^talk? 13:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Anas. I had casually asked what was considered "recent" once and didn't get a response, so I'm glad to have a definitive guideline. Gruber76 13:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

America the Controversial

In response to your comment on my page, I'm not really surprised though, they've managed to turn a common usage debate into a recitation of Encyclopedia Britannica and a history lesson. I'm a little surprised that they took the whole Colombia thing seriously. Black Harry 18:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, thank you for summarizing each opposing editors argument and pointing out their flaws, I wanna see them try to respond to that. And check out my little "chaos and confusion line" too. Black Harry 03:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Expert

To keep it short, I asked an RFA candidate if he accesses his account on free WiFi networks. I did this because I recently heard that free WiFi networks (such as those in Starbucks) are unencrypted and it is possible for someone with the right program to steal passwords and usernames of other users on the network. Another user asked me how to add extra security, and I replied that I didn't know as I'm not a computer expert. Black Harry 01:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Your password is pretty much open game if you connect to Wikipedia from an unencrypted wireless like Starbucks. Doesn't matter if you use the most complex password ever thought up, it's sent out in the clear and someone sitting across the room can see it with freely available and easy to use software. Even if you're connecting from home, or use pretty intense security methods to encrypt your wireless connection, the trip from where ever you have control (I.E. your cable box, or your company's router) to where Wikipedia has control is sent in the clear and someone who was sitting there (such as the NSA's wiretaps put in place at all the ISPs over the last two years) would be able to read your password. Sweet dreams. Gruber76 02:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

America

Hey thanks for helping my attempt to get America to redirect to the United States. Unfortunately it just closed, with no consensus found. I guess this is site is slowly turning into the "Please-The-World" Wikipedia as opposed to the English Langage one. BH (Talk) 18:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you're welcome, and thanks for your note as well...

I've replied to your comment on my talk page... --Parzival418 _Hello 08:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Lacy

The google search result of William Lacy is 2,010,000. That's enough notability. Miaers 23:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except: of the first 50, only about 13 are of the person under discussion, and most of them only exist because of required SEC filings. I don't find any actual articles about him, even in industry magazines.

As I pointed out before. The notability is backed by google search result and he is included in NNDB. If you really want to nominate it for deletion, you should go through the procedures. Please don't just put a template on the article and doing nothing. In that case, I'll consider it is your own POV and will revert it back. Miaers 18:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. What do you mean "Please don't just put a template on the article and doing nothing"? I have been contributing to the discussion on the talk page and I placed the article in the AfD with a brief summary of my concern. Google search results and NNDB entries don't, in my reading of notability guidelines, count as secondary sources. Are you concerned that I did not state that clearly? Gruber76 19:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I've found. As you've pointed out much of what is available are SEC filings. There are also several profiles that all appear to be from third-party data providers. A handful of articles also exist (the first four links below). Pacific Business News LookSmart Univ of Wisc - Milwaukee First Amendment Center Forbes.com NNDB Conde Nast Not especially strong but combined with testifying before the Senate, etc, pushes him into the notability category for me. CuriousGiselle 23:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That first link counts. One more and I'd be convinced.

I'm not there yet, though, because of the following: The Looksmart is a press release (see "Business Wire" copyright) and so shouldn't count as independent. UWM entry is an alumni newsletter entry, don't think that counts or I'd be notable, too. "First Amendment" entry doesn't appear to be him, the Lacy we're talking about doesn't appear to be an attorney. Forbes, NNDB, and Conde Nast entries are all, in my view, tertiary as they just quote press releases and are encyclopedic in nature.

I've tried googling on "'William H. Lacy' congress" (and "house committee", etc.) and don't get anything substantive. Gruber76 04:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William H. Lacy

Thanks for the catch on the reference section. They do work better if you can see them. Alansohn 13:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Gruber76. 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)[reply]