User talk:The Gnome/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Kat Von D

Hi, Gnome. Just wanted to say we're reeeeeally not supposed to edit other editor's talk-page comments, as has happened at Talk:Kat Von D. I didn't revert you or anything, but I did want to mention something in case you weren't aware of Wikipedia talk-page guidelines about that. I'm sure both User:IIIraute and I, who resolved our differences and found compromise wording, do, however, appreciate your good-faith effort to clarify a debate that probably actually should be archived. With regards, -Tenebrae (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are exceptions to that, such as "Fixing format errors", "Fixing layout errors", and "Sectioning" - and this is all I actually did. When I was (randomly) invited to participate in that RfC, I had a hard time navigating through the threads! It's a common theme in Talk Pages when two or three editors are having a heated discussion! They focus on the (flaming) content and disregard the necessity for having a proper format. The result is they understand each other but outsiders can hardly make sense. If you think any of my changes has materially affected in the slighest the content of the discussion, by all means go right ahead and revert it. Cheers, The Gnome (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

IPA transcription of Sami Hyypiä

Hello there. One year ago you asked for adding it on the discussion page of that article. It's done. Cheers mate --Matthiaspl (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!-The Gnome (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Removing AfD template

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Sune Rose Wagner. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it. Snotbot  t • c »  13:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I originally proposed to delete the article in question. Immediately after, an editor eliminated the problems on which the proposal was based (i.e. introduced reliably sourced references) so the decision to keep the article was taken, by other editors. There were no objections to that decision. Therefore, I took down the deletion notice. Clearly, it's an open-and-shut case. There's little else I can say or do. -The Gnome (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Taken care of. -Scottywong| spill the beans _ 15:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

On the perils of Google translate

Re Kaunas pogrom edit. Please exercise extreme caution, if not outright "don't do that again"... Google translate sucks and the Lithuanian language is too flowery, complicated, and not widely used to perfect the algorithms. The result was that the English translation said the exact opposite of the original... :( Renata3 (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. Your warning abt the perils of "Google Translation" is well taken. I disagree with, though, and reject the uncalled-for admonition "Don't do that again". On the substantial part of the issue, I'm posting my remarks in the relevant article's Talk page. See you there. -The Gnome (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Support Deletion note on Talk:Sandra Fluke

Hi there!

I noticed you recently posted an argument to "Support deletion" on the Sandra Fluke Talk page. As you probably know, the article is currently subject to an AFD discussion; however, you seem to have posted your comment on the article's talk page by mistake(?)

In any case, I just wanted to let you know, in case it was an error. The article's AFD discussion can be found here for your convenience.

Cheers! Zaldax (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated. -The Gnome (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sandra Fluke. Because you participated in the original deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again.-The Gnome (talk) 06:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

BLPs and precision

Hi Gnome-- Thanks for your recent updates on the UC Davis pages. I made some changes because you misstated what the sources said regarding John Pike. We must be extremely faithful in reporting sensitive matters about living people. I expect the prepared statement and the circumstances of his departure were part of an extended negotiation, part of which may have been not to characterize his departure as involuntary. In any event, we should not misstate or make any assumptions beyond using the exact phrasing they used. Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I acknowledge that the term "terminated" in the entry for the UC Davis pepper-spray incident was inaccurate, since the university spokesman described Pike's work status as "no longer employed [by UC Davis]". Your edit is, therefore, appropriate. But I cannot understand the lecturing! This was a mistake, which you corrected, and we move on. Why come here and lecture about the rules on Biographies of living persons? What good can this do? We have, for the purpose of explaining edits, the Edit Summary section. You wrote there "BLP", which is self-explanatory if juxtaposed with your edit. (Even without the explanation, I'd have understood.) I'd humbly suggest writing in the Edit Summary section any and all useful advice you have for the editor whose version you are correcting. Can you imagine the clutter and the noise if, for every BLP edit, we would start a dialogue on the other editor's Talk Page? BLP editing is contentious enough as it is! Thanks for the input anyway, and cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I would have emailed you, but you have not enabled the option. Your statement about Pike left you open to serious potential consequences, and I wanted you to be aware of the gravity. If you'd like details, email me. Feel free to remove these comments from this page. Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to post here, in the open, any and all warnings about "potential consequences" regarding the wrong use of a single term in the edit I made. I'm curious about that "gravity" I stumbled into, as you allege. And, please, do not spare any "details". Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 06:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Polite request

Hi there. Sorry to bother you. I put an rfc for Celtic F.C. Supporters on the rfc board but no response yet, so if you have time I wondered if you could look at it? Thanks 220.255.1.86 (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

War Remnants Museum

Hi, concerning the item that i re-added that you deleted earlier, i'm willing to make the concession to remove that deleted part permanently, in return for retaining direct quotes and analysis added from the About.com source and from Schwenkel's book. But, please understand that the mention, directly or implicitly, of the museum being a propaganda museum is an uncompromisable part for me on this article, it's not simply POV, even though i do acknowledge that it sounds like one, but it is true and recognized and substantiated as such by reliable sources, and by the many tourists (including myself) that have went there. I do acknowledge that the truth is not enough and that everything here must be supported by reliable sources, and is the reason i made several of modfications to address this. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. When you write, "the mention, directly or implicitly, of the museum being a propaganda museum is an uncompromisable part for me on this article," this alone shows that you have a strong personal stake in the issue! As the relevant rule states, "When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." The best thing to do when confronted with a Wikipedia entry with which you have such a strong personal connection is to walk away from it. That's the best course. The second best is to strictly follow the rules of Wikipedia, and also to interact with Wiki editors who have no personal stake.

In the case of the War Remnants Museum, all we have for the moment as a third-party, independent reference is one single book, plus the report of a backpack traveler. Far from satisfactory! In such cases, the best course to follow is prudence. The article should be very brief, describing in the most neutral terms what's inside - and little else. Wikipedia, for better or worse, is not a place where we advocate ideas, opinions or personal experience. We cannot replay the Vietnam War here. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Jesus

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Jesus, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ReformedArsenal (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, it's appreciated. Note, please, that there are exceptions to that rule, such as "Fixing format errors", "Fixing layout errors", and "Sectioning" - and this is all I actually did. It is my experience that Wikipedia editors are rather indifferent to the task of keeping a discussion properly formatted so as to keep the discussion easy to navigate and the points clear. Of course, if you think any of my changes has materially affected in the slighest the content of the discussion, by all means you should go right ahead and revert it. As you did. Cheers, The Gnome (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Javier Saviola - Tips

Hi there GNOME, AL from Portugal here,

please don't revert me again on this player's article. Judging from your userpage you don't edit on football that often, and here's how it goes: IMMEDIATELY after a player joins a club officially (contract has been signed, medical exams have been completed, etc), the introduction is supposed to read "...a X footballer who plays for Y club...", not "...a X footballer who recently signed for Y club...", irrelevant that they have played any games or not. OK? So that you see i'm not making this up or anything, please check hundreds of other articles on newly-signed players to see exactly what the intro shows us.

Thanks, happy editing --AL (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Is there something more official, something like a Wikipedia rule, for your preferred form, or is it simply "how it goes"? I will not revert your edit, yet, waiting for something more concrete than your experience on football-related articles. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

"How it goes" means how 99,99999999999999999% of the football-related articles (on newly-signed players that is) are approached, nothing to do with MY preferred form. For example, Álvaro Negredo has not played ONCE since joining his new club (an English one), and his intro reads "...who plays for Manchester City in...", noone has even ever touched that part because it's 100% correct ("he plays for" means he's part of the squad, he's under contract).

Hopefully a compromise has been reached, if not i'll ask for mediation. Cheers back --AL (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

In other words, your preferred mode of notation is ostensibly customary. That's alright; nothing wrong with that, since that notation is seemingly a correct one. What I'm interested to know is why you would think that the other notation is incorrect. I cannot locate anything in the sections about articles' style. And before you remind me again of you extensive experience in football-related articles, which I do not dispute, let me simply note that no editor owns an article of types of articles. Cheers.

PS : What "compromise" was that? I do not understand. -The Gnome (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's go bit by bit then: 1 - "...your preferred mode of notation is customary..." Do you mean "you" in singular or plural (the football community at WP) mode? If it's the former i repeat i am not trying to impose anything (and you repeat that idea when you remind me that "...no editor owns an article of types of articles", that's a bit unfair i think, never wanted that image to come across, i do not own Saviola's article or any other); 2 - my experience in football-related articles was simply to show i've seen many intros to articles like Mr.Saviola's now stands, was not implying "I'm a hell of an editor, watch and learn"; 3 - the other notation ("...is an X footballer that has recently signed with Y club..." is 100% correct in grammar and language, never implied the contrary. WP rule to intro notations? No, don't think i know of any; 4 - the PS: when i saw that my first message did not get across as i wished it had, i came up with the word "compromise" to see if we could meet halfway if you chose to revert me - if that happened i wished you would go with a "50%-50% reversion".

Attentively - --AL (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, AL has asked for me to provide an opinion on this, so here goes. I agree with the wording forwarded by AL, which is supported by the WP:FOOTY Manual of Style for players and is, correctly I believe, employed by the vast majority of player articles. I don't think the fact Saviola has yet to play a game for his new club means alternative wording is needed. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, Mattythewhite and AL. Thanks for the input. In the WP:FOOTY Manual of Style for players, we can see that this is not a rule but a guideline, i.e. "nothing is set in stone" while the template layout simply "is used in most of the best biographies as judged by the community, and following it is a good idea." As it happens, and on the occasion of the specific article in question, I suggest that we leave the article as it stands, since it reflects the standard currently employed ("it's a good idea"), but I do intend to raise the issue on the competent forum, in due course.

Explanation: I believe that the intro of every Wikipedia article, and especially of living persons, should reflect the most accurate and up-to-date information on its subject, since Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia. Player A, on the subject of professional sports, may be a "veteran striker" and player B "a new recruit". This should be clearly stated in the intro: We should not be forcing the user to read through the article to get a fuller picture of what exactly players A or B are. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S.: AL, too many decimals! :-)

The Story of a Small Town

Merger of Small Town Story (song) was reverted. So I created another discussion. Feel free to comment in talk page. --George Ho (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC to consider

Might you consider offering an opinion on a content dispute between two editors involving the removal of parts of an article on a group of characters in a fictional novel? The discussion is here. Thanks for considering. N2e (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. This is, once again, an issue about the proper sourcing of Wikipedia material. I'm particularly interested in that.-The Gnome (talk) 11:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for offering an opinion on that RfC. I really appreciate it!

That is a fictional genre with problems in many articles (the problems are not so much with the articles on the various books, but on the characters and locations and in-universe esoterica). On more than one occasion, a content dispute on a particular page with the that particular editor who contributed to a lot of that material in the early days of Wikipedia, when sourcing wasn't as importnat per policy, has turned the content discussion I'm trying to have into a editor behavior discussion about me, which makes it challenging just to improve the encyclopedia. I've asked him to take my behavior to the appropriate review body several times as well, if he has such concerns, but he has not ever done so. But it pretty much derails the attempts to just improve the various articles and remove the long-time challenged and unsourced statements/original research. N2e (talk) 03:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Living members of deposed royal families

Hello - I have opened an RfC about suggested guidelines in the Manual of Style for articles about living members of families whose ancestors were deposed as monarchs of various countries and the titles and "styles" attributed to these living people, at the moment often in a misleading and inaccurate way in my opinion. Please join in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies "Use of royal "Titles and styles" and honorific prefixes in articles and templates referring to pretenders to abolished royal titles and their families"[1]Regards,Smeat75 (talk) 05:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting subject. Thanks for the invitation.-The Gnome (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Michael D. Colacino

If you're going to ignore my messages on Talk:Michael_D._Colacino then can you just mark the page for speedy deletion? RyLaughlin (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for not seeing your messages and replying sooner. I'm otherwise engaged, so I will take a look on this over the weekend, possibly even tonight. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

"19:26, 17 December 2013: Ronhjones deleted page "Michael D. Colacino" (Expired PROD, concern was: The subject fails the criterion of Notability)."

Royal titles

Hi! You have replies at a discussion you started on the MOS Biographies talk page. Seven Letters 23:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm following the conversation but have little to add at the moment. It's an important issue of nomenclature, in my opinion.-The Gnome (talk) 10:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Filing report on Engleham at WP:ANI?

You seem very serious about getting that guy topic-banned. To be honest, I'm fed up with him and his antics, so he must be reported. I'd like to report him, but I already warned him about attacking other editors. --George Ho (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It is sad because I too detest the hypocrisy that's rampant in today's politics. But that editor cannot get it through his head that Wikipedia is simply not the place to denounce political hypocrisy! In BLPs, we're here to report on verified facts about their lives, and if from such citing the case for hypocrisy can be made on its own, then so be it. I believe that a topic-ban would actually help Engleham. If he were to apply himself to other topics, he could perhaps understand the wisdom of having some very clear rules in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Why hesistant then? Is reporting unnecessary? George Ho (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm considering requesting a topic ban. But I want to be thorough about such moves and I do not have the time to gather up the material.-The Gnome (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

He's blocked for two weeks. --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Ugh

Hey gnome. I am a real person. Not anybody's puppet. This, especially followed by this twenty minutes later, is pretty ugly. As per my response to you on the atrazine page, creating great content on Wikipedia is hard, especially on topics over which people are passionate; injecting suspicion makes that even more difficult. I do understand your concern - and there is definitely a history of Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia - but please be careful not to violate WP:AGF. Broad brushes are generally unhelpful tools. I am sensitive to these kinds of allegations as I have been hounded in the past, and would appreciate it if you would take more care going forward. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Greetings. I sincerely fail to see the ugliness in asking you a straightforward, honest question. Assuming good faith is a basic tenet, of course, but it should not deter us from being alert to potential gross violations of Wikipedia's purpose. The atrazine-related articles offer this potential in a big way. So, this is one of the many very hot kitchens in Wikipedia you chose to wade in and you should know it. If you are indeed a neutral, impartial and, moreover, informed party, then there should not be any problem. (Subsequent to my postings, I looked up your "self-generated" inquiry about potential conflicts of interest. I must say, as investigations go, it was quite limited, in my opinion. But kudos for instigating it.) Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure it was "straightforward" - straightforwardly assuming bad faith. It is a raw newbie mistake to turn disagreements over content into questioning the good faith of other editors - you have been around longer than that. Anyway, it feels like shit to be slapped with a broad brush allegation as you did. You can hear me, or not. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

One person's "bad faith" is another person's "investigation". You assume that I acted in bad faith when I asked you a direct question (rather than making arbitrary claims, etc), something which I, in turn, find to be an act of bad faith! In case this helps, this is the first time ever as a Wikipedian where I posed such a question. We'll have to agree to disagree, as the saying goes. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

as i wrote above, you questioned my good faith and you did it while sending up a big "watch out for bad faith" flare over the two articles. in view, you are inviting a witch hunt against me, and I have been through that in the past. You are free to think and do whatever you want. i am just asking you to hear me, with regard to how your action felt to me. Jytdog (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I hear you and I understand that you may feel frustrated or offended but you should also understand that my actions are not personal and are not directed to any particular wiki editor. You probably have been involved in too many edit wars and disputes here. My warning for potential corporate-sponsored misinformation on the subject of pesticides I still consider as valid and fully justified to post up, since it is based on a major article on a major US magazine. Some people are bound to take such things personally -- good for you if you feel like that! It means you are indeed not a corporate-sponsored monkey. See you around. -The Gnome (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "Methinks the laddy doth protest too much." With apologies to William Shakespeare. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

try to walk in my shoes for awhile. i work here in good faith and i get painted black by self-righteous people who cannot accept that other people think differently than they do. sheeshJytdog (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill all over talk pages and user talk pages for no real reason that I can see you seem to have decided it's Jytdog against the world. I don't see anyone painting you any colors. I don't see anyone in the Tyrone Hayes issues being "self-righteous". I do see a series of aggressive actions and comments by you to others and suggest a break from the project for a while might be of benefit. Ellin Beltz (talk) 08:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

ISB

Hi The Gnome. Thank you for your interest in improving the disambiguation page ISB. However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. Therefore you should follow the style guide for disambiguation pages (see the disambiguation dos and don'ts for the short version). Consequently, I removed all the extra links and the entries with terms not mentioned within the linked article or blue wikilink. Cheers LittleWink (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

And to think that I stumbled upon the ISB disambiguation page because I could not find anything in Wikipedia about the Internet Service Bus! One would think that an online encyclopaedia would have the basics, e.g. unique ISB number, etc. Never mind, I guess a separate article is in order. To do, then. -The Gnome (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hello again! I was wondering if you could take a look at an article here on Wiki and see what we can do to help its author write a real article instead of a press release of (apparently) her own accomplishments? I appreciate all you've done in the Tyrone Hayes page and so thought of you as perhaps the best person for help with this. I became aware of the page due to an image we deleted over at Commons where I'm a very new admin. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be glad to participate in the effort. I believe that, before we attempt to clean up the article, e.g. remove link rot, we should establish the subject's notability - which, in my opinion, is simply not there. I opened up the relevant discussion in the article's Talk page. Also, I agree that this is most probably a case of conflict of interest. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The page was deleted on 6 April 2014. It was the third attempt to create the page. -The Gnome (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Another interesting page

Hi again! This user's page was also found during Commons image deletion process. I realize it's user space, but it seems inappropriate. Thank you again for all your time and effort on these pages! Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. User was in clear violation of WP:UPNOT. After a warning was posted on that User's Page, the material-in-breach was removed by User in its entirety. Such cases tend to have a high recidivism rate so the page will be monitored. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 05:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

One more for your WP:UPNOT is this user. I find all these from the photo deletion nominations process. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a disturbing pattern. The problem with people using Wikipedia as their personal website is probably more serious than I'd realized. Thanks. I'll try and assist in my small, individual capacity in the clean up. -The Gnome (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Both User pages were deleted on 9 April 2014.

Citations seem... um... light

Hi again! Thank you for all your previous help. Reviewing photos certainly pops up some interesting pages in Wikipedia. I have today for your consideration, a BLP apparently mostly written by one user, who contributes nothing on any other topic. I looked at the wall of references and was singularly unimpressed, so looked more carefully, and here's about 15% of them researched:

• 1 -- refers to subject's own website
• 2 -- book not avail to read online
• 3 -- Article about music group, subject's name not mentioned
• 4 -- YouTube of some song, subject's name not apparent
• 5 -- An extremely small entry at Discogs
• 6 -- An extremely small bio at IMDB
• 7 -- Blog about donation he gave to the Space Camp
• 8 -- Subject's own website about Space Camp & the donation
• 9 -- ??
• 10 -- Mentions subject was a composer on a song.
• 11 -- Mix Magazine glow piece.

. . . skipping to the end...

• 86 -- No mention of subject
• 87 -- Subject's website again.

The gentleman covered in the piece may very well be extremely notable; if so the article needs a lot of work and good references. I used Google Scholar on him and came up with not much. I'm wondering if this is a piece of puff-pastry intended to help finance projects in the music/ film industry? Thanking you again for all your help with Wiki articles! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Τhis one, in particular, is a whole load of trouble! We need to sort out the chaff. On the to-do list, then. -The Gnome (talk) 07:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphan artist

Greetings! I found this page while nominating photos for deletion. It reads like a promotional flyer! Thank you for all your help with these articles, much appreciated. Wikipedia is very different from Commons and I'm always afraid of messing up rules and stuff over here. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Started discussion in the article's Talk page, questioning the subject's notability.-The Gnome (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

No consensus reached; article stays up. -The Gnome (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Another artist

I think I have found another artist Duane Flatmo with an extra-long biography compared to his actual accomplishments which are some murals in Eureka, some beer and dirtbag labels, and a couple of runs out to Burning Man. I have been in the same room/around this person IRL and I feel that he's not nearly as notable as he thinks he is. It looks to me as if his page was written by "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mette_Batterton". These are her only contributions, the photos of his work were both by her also. There are no pages which link to Mr. Flatmo's fanbio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Duane_Flatmo) which has been up over two years. There are few to no citations for his accomplishments, which yes he was on Jay Leno, but not every person who appears on a television show or is interviewed in an indy film is notable enough for inclusion. This (http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Northern-Californians-Join-Fray-on-Junkyard-2963934.php) is the most reliable of the sources on the page and it only addresses the one episode of Junkyard Wars on which he appeared. The other news citations are from articles written by his friends (including Bob Doran at North Coast Journal). I think he had a friend or family member write the Wiki article. To put it in perspective, the most awarded racers in the Kinetic Sculpture Race are Team Melvin, and none of their three artists (better known than Flatmo by far) have tried to get a Wikipedia page. This looks to me like an attempt to create notability by using Wikipedia before having the citations to back up the notability. However, because I know this man in real life - most notably for threatening the author of the Murals book cited in this article (Bruce, Kevin Large Art in Small Places: Discovering the California Mural Towns. Random House Digital, 2009 p. 26) with a lawsuit alleging copyright violations for contracted murals for which he had given permission to be photographed as part of the contract. I had a few photos published in that book, but not photos of his work so I would not have been party to the suit. The suit went nowhere. Even so, I feel I cannot take personal action on this page. I have nominated one of the two photographs for deletion at Commons due to the artist being living and no OTRS. At a minimum, the page needs a thorough trimming to match the facts in the few reliable citations, again, I have a negative opinion of the subject and do not feel qualified to make changes on this vanity page. I really look forward to your help with this article if you can. Thank you. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Definition of the "United States" : Trying to thread the needle

At U.S. request for mediation, trying to thread the needle in the poll returns between B1-2 “national jurisdiction", and C1-2 “federal republic consisting of”, —

D.2. The United States is a federal republic consisting of 50 states, as well as a federal district and other territories in its national jurisdiction. [note]

This can be parsed in various ways which accommodates the major divisions among editors as I see them, with an eye to include ALL initial participants.

• a) The federal republic consists of 50 states, as well as a federal district and other territories. or,
• b) 50 states, a federal district and other territories are in its national jurisdiction. -- or —
• c) a federal district and other territories are in a non-state status. — or —
• d) a federal district and other territories in its national jurisdiction but outside the federal republic.

I do not believe d) is a correct inference from the ambiguous statement, so I would like a clarifying footnote citation from the State Department “Common Core Document” to the U.N. Committee on Human Rights, noting Item 22: "The United States of America is a federal republic of 50 states, together with a number of commonwealths, territories and possessions." and, item 27: “...outside the 50 states and yet within the political framework of the United States. These include persons living in the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands." [2].

Any thoughts in response to this redraft, --- or any main principles up front, in response to Sunray's invitation below for a priori Principles-for-objection before trying to reach an accommodation or redraft among the poll responses? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

This is solid progress. In recap, I'm supporting the following version: "The United States of America is a federal republic of 50 states, together with a number of commonwealths, territories and possessions. These include persons living in the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands." -The Gnome (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I think yours is a contender, I like the informative links, I certainly can live with it. It includes the enumerated five that Robert McClenon considers the five he does not want to have left out. Have you taken to the mediation page for Sunray's attention? Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thank you for your contribution to a successful mediation. Sunray (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Patricia Highsmith

Hi. Thanks for your contributions on Patricia Highsmith. Please do not add or change content, particularly in BLP, without verifying it by citing reliable sources. Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source. Thank you. Lapadite (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer - but I do not understand the cause for it. First of all, the entry on Patricia Highsmith, what with Highsmith having passed away twenty years ago, hardly qualifies as a BLP (Biography of Living Persons)! Second, I believe that the changes I made in that entry have been supported by reliable sources, as those are defined by Wikipedia - in this instance, a biography of Highsmith written by Joan Schenkar, for more on whom see here. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes you're right. I absentmindedly mentioned BLP on account of it being a biography. In the diffs I noticed multiple uncited changes. If I misread your edits then please disregard this. Nevertheless, I added a few citations and tagged several statements than need sources. The article needs further cleanup. Lapadite (talk)

@Lapadite77:Did a bit of work on the article. Left the "additional citations needed" tag up, of course. Up to you, or others, to judge whether or not the tag needs to stay up. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Went ahead and removed tag after further review, since it might invite unnecessary edits. Please do point out specific shortcomings source-wise, if any. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 08:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Murder of the Grimes sisters

About Murder of the Grimes sisters : not being an Elvis historian, I've just realised that the statement was probably not made by Elvis himself but rather by his "people" as Presley himself would have been far too busy. Not being certain, I'm wondering what call i should make as to what to do? Maybe you could edit it? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Following your prompt, I made what I consider to be improvements in terms of language clarity, as well as sourcing. Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Warning

temporary page protection. Your recent editing history at Edward VIII shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DrKay (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The use is duly noted of your capacity as a Wikipedia Administrator to enforce your point of view on a certain subject through the threat of blocking me - when an RfC on the very topic is going on! This is a threat according to Wiki rules: Threatening to disrupt a person's work on Wikipedia. There has been no edit warring on my part and I do not engage in such petty stuff. I categorically reject the silly accusation about edit warring and ask you to stop the bullying here and now. We will continue this on the RfC page and, possibly, subsequently, on the relevant page about Administrator behavior. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Areti Ketime/Ketimé

Aloha! Quick question about your editing of Areti Ketime’s surname and moving the article. I thought accented romanisation was not in line with WP:GREEK, am I mistaken? Also, I don’t think she uses that spelling anywhere. Please confirm :) Iago2¹² 15:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Greetings. I believe the relevant passage in the rules about Greek naming conventions is the following: "...transliteration needs to be distinguished from anglicization. If there is a common anglicization of a Greek proper name, it should be used in an English language context. A transliteration of the actual Greek can be given in ISO 843." (My emphasis.) Then, in ISO_843, we read that the accented Greek epsilon, as in the last letter of the subject's surame, is to be transliterated as é. -The Gnome (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, no. Sorry. The relevant passage is "No diacritics should be used in Wikipedia article titles." Pretty straightforward. Please revert your changes. Iago2¹² 14:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

You're right. I missed the provision about titles. I'm reverting that. Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Your question about a 2012 RfC on the verifiability policy

Regarding your question at User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2016/June#"Verifiability or Truth" RfC outcome, see Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your assistance. I have already traced this and it confirms that the verifiability rule still is the overriding rule in Wikipedia. Verifiability most certainly has not been, as some editors claimed, "decimated". Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

National debt of China

I have paraphrased some content you added to the above article back on June 27, as it was too closely copied from the source web page. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Why are there no prev/diff links to the changes you made? There are no links to the changes I previously had made either. First time I see such a thing. -The Gnome (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The previous revisions have been revision deleted so as to totally remove the copyright content. — Diannaa (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thanks. I read and understood the relevant rule but I believe that the best practice would have been (and should be, in all such cases) to send a warning to the originator of the alleged violation, in this case me, about the specifics, advising me also of the possibility of the whole of my revision getting deleted from the record. The way this was handled, no one has any way of knowing whether or not the text that was deleted was indeed "too closely copied from the source web page" except for you. -The Gnome (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the inconvenience. We get a hundred of these cases daily and I am currently two-three days behind in assessing them, so it makes it impossible to manage the work the way you suggest. What I have done is temporarily undone the revision deletion so that you can check my work. Here is a link to the copyvio report for revision 727175334. The material that matches is highlighted. Here is how it looks after my amendments. — Diannaa (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thanks, again. I studied the two versions and have no problem with going with yours. I doubt that this merits a revision deletion, though, but have no objection you going ahead with it, too. I also notice that the tool (quite useful, otherwise!) counts as straight duplication generic and necessary-to-use terms such as "the People's Republic of China" or "the State Administration of Foreign Exchange," something that unduly tilts the scales towards plagiarism. Someone should look into that, I believe. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Biography feedback requested

Your input is requested about an RFC regarding Donald Trump. Here is a link directly to that RFC. The lead of that biography currently says, "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial." The RFC proposes to insert the words "or false" at the end of that sentence. Thank you in advance for participating. If you have the time, there is a second RFC at that talk page which proposes to instead add the words "or hyperbolic".Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Will look it up. -The Gnome (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Barclay James Harvest

I have removed the content you added to the above article, as it appears to have been copied from http://www.bjharvest.co.uk/faq.htm, a copyright web page. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa The owners of the referenced website have e-mailed me this response on the issue you raised:

"Hi, and many thanks for your message. I'm currently on tour with John Lees' Barclay James Harvest, so won't have time to edit the Wikipedia article about BJH, but I am happy for the information about the origin of the Barclay James Harvest name which I wrote on the BJH web site to be copied into Wikipedia.

All the best,

Keith Domone

www.bjharvest.co.uk"

-The Gnome (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

What needs to happen is to get an OTRS ticket in place. There's instructions how to do this at WP:donating copyrighted materials, and there's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Regina Spektor

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Regina Spektor. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5