User talk:Uncle G/Archive/2010-09-11

Notices
Yes, I am an administrator.
If you wish to discuss the content of an article, please do so on that article's own talk page. That's one of the things that they are there for.
I dislike disjointed conversations, where one has to switch between pages as each participant writes.
For past discussions on this page, see the archive.

Mean

This edit was kind of mean, as has your overall attitude towards me in the deletion discussion. I am sure that there are some administrators who would wish to discourage the involvement of new editors in the project. Perhaps you are one of those? Sławomir Biała (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, the explicit assertion that my edits were not made "in good faith" seems like a fairly bald charge. Anyway, you may as well block me now for editing in bad faith. I will not object. Sławomir Biała (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I take it that I have a second lease on life here? Or shall I go to some appropriate forum and insist that I be blocked for "bad faith editing"? Sławomir Biała (talk) 02:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Uncle G/On the discrimination of what is indiscriminate

Can I make it an essay, moving it to Wikipedia main space? Ikip (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's already an essay. And some of it is in the first person. A better thing to do would be to find some way to improve that section heading. Uncle G (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As you know, many people scoff when an editor quotes user essays in AfDs, but a mainspace essay has more clout and authority. Have you brought this essay up at WP:NOT? Ikip (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This subheading?: ""Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is not an indiscriminate criterion for deletion." good question.
    Ikip (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, the section heading that the page is talking about, not that, which isn't a subheading at all. As I said, a far better use of time than discussing whether my page should be in the project namespace or not would be to go to Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not and discuss finding a better section heading. One can always link to that user page to show what the problem is. As to whether I've brought it up: You appear to have missed what I wrote on the page. I did more than bring the issue up. I actually edited the policy to fix part of the problem, back in 2006. Uncle G (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Icons in AFD discussions

Hello, Uncle G. You have new messages at Download's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Chained Mormon

Thanks for joining in. I was standing too close to it to improve it any more. It now looks like a substantial and well cited article and precisely in "our" mould here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Petrelli

Heh. Thanks for using that as an example -- now I can't A7 it myself. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reasonably sure that I haven't used that article as an example of anything. And "what links here" seems to indicate that no-one else has, either. Do you have the correct article? Uncle G (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. You're talking about the AFD discussion, not the article. I did use that as an example. One interesting and relevant thing is what the nominee in another RFA discussion did, with a similar question. See this edit. That edit all by itself was a fairly good indication of how the nominee would use xyr tools, I thought. I've just been back to the discussion, this being the earliest opportunity that I've had to revisit it, and found it closed — alas! Uncle G (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. It was interesting that you found my clean-up of your question more informative than my answers :D By the way, I see that you were involved with WP:AfC in its beginnings? Martin^msgj 07:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I was. The refactoring that you did showed how you thought, how you approached using your existing tools, and thus how you would approach using the tools that you were nominated for receiving. Uncle G (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deconstructing SMPs

Lol, I didn't even realize that. I obviously didn't read the entire article, and the parts I skimmed over, I figured it was just the result of a really, really bad automated translator. :P Anyway, thanks for cleaning that up. =) --slakr^\ talk / 13:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piano rock article content

Hi, I just saw that the piano rock article was deleted. Article deletions are always unfortunate when the articles in question arguably contain useful (and in this case, even cited) information. Do you still have access to the content of the deleted article? I can think of three ways to remedy this situation at least a bit:

Add a summary of the information in the article to another article, which addresses the notability and single-source problems, since you do not even need to claim that there is a recognised genre, only a trend or strain of piano-based rock
The solution chosen in List of musical works in unusual time signatures#See also, which references an earlier, unsourced list that is a subpage of the talk page belonging to the article
The solution chosen in User:Melodia/List of popular songs based on classical music, with a subpage of a user page housing the information, which would not take up a lot of server space in your case anyway and as such, cannot be construed as misuse.

I would be glad if you found a way to salvage the article content and make it available and findable for interested users. Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sanaz Shirazi

Hello Can I make changes and add more info to the article? Dont like the way some of it sounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qchristina (talk • contribs) 18:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We welcome expansion of stub articles. But that expansion must be done properly. This isn't a press release service, a personal web site, or an advertising billboard. It is an encyclopaedia. Your additions must be verifiable, neutral, and not original research. I've started the article off in the right direction. Notice that everything there can be checked, by readers, against fully identified sources with good reputations for checking their facts, and does not present the Shirazi's views as if they were Wikipedia's. (Wikipedia, an encyclopaedia, has no views.) In addition to the tutorial and the policies that other people are already pointing you towards on your talk page, I suggest that you also read User:Uncle G/On sources and content#Tips for editors. Work from good sources, show the sources, be neutral, include only knowledge that is actually acknowledged by the world at large, don't mis-use Wikipedia for what it is not, and you won't encounter too much trouble and difficulty here. Uncle G (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm...

I appreciate that ad hominem attack on VP. Very well done. So, if we're going to play little games, was this also why you pulled a prod off Felicitaries with no reasoning? MSJapan (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no ad hominem anywhere. I simply told you to think about why we are so poor in expanding certain classes of stubs, by considering why you yourself do not expand them.
Come now! Think! The reasons that you don't expand them are the same reasons that many others don't, either. This doesn't make the articles the problem. It makes lack of editor ability, willingness, interest, time, and other factors, the problem. As I said, the fact that we have these stubs says nothing about the articles. The only thing that it reflects upon is Wikipedia editors.
Your attempt to address the problem by thinking of how to systematically remove the articles is entirely wrongheaded. It's the editors where the problem lies. That is what you should be trying to fix. And a good place to start is by looking at the reasons that you yourself don't write, when not only do you know that sources exist, you even know exactly where and what they are. Figure out what would encourage you to write, and you'll have a way to encourage others to do so, too. Uncle G (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linking Degree (Freemasonry) at Freemasonry

I am not asking for "perfection" before we link to it... however, I am asking that we not link to sub-articles that have fundamental factual accuracy issues. Those need to be ironed out, then we can link. Blueboar (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no justification for that, and that's not how Wikipedia is built. We don't de-link articles because they don't yet include all information on a subject. We build the web, especially in the case of main topic articles for sub-topics within other articles. And via that web, other editors find articles and work on them, and help us to write the encyclopaedia. We certainly don't remove internal links on spurious "verifiability" grounds (especially since unverifiability isn't even the issue with the article being linked to, as you and I both know). A main article internal link cannot be unverifiable. That's clearly a reach. Uncle G (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think this is now a moot point. Most of the factual inaccuracies have been ironed out, and as a result my objections to linking it at the main Freemasonry article have been resolved. I will re-link it. Blueboar (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Uncle G. You have new messages at Bongomatic's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Icon Group International and GFDL

Apologies for bringing this to your talk page rather than to the appropriate discussion page. There seem to be several potentially appropriate discussion pages so I don't want to choose one where this will be ignored, and you seem to have a pretty good understanding of GFDL.

What do you make of the GFDL compliance of these books that have copyright notices such as this? Is that notice sufficient attribution to us, the copyright holders? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks and Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance#Footnotes. Compliance with §4(B), §4(I), and §4(J) of the GFDL appears to be missing, by my reading. There's no list of authors, no history, and no link to a transparent copy of the original. Contrast this with, say, the book that one gets from Wikipedia:Books/Classes of supernovae. (Notice the author list and permalink to the original transparent copy at the bottom of every article.) I suggest listing these as mirrors, in the appropriate GFDL compliance level. Uncle G (talk) 05:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on proposal

Hi, as you participated in the village pump discussion, I'd like to draw your attention to this proposal. Further input is welcome. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 12:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Devendorf and Jonny Flynn

Hey - these two articles have been consistently vandalized recently. Can you protect these two pages for a short period of time? GoCuse44 (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've kept an eye on the edit history for the past couple of days. The persistent vandalism seems to have died down at both of those since I protected the other article. Let's see how things continue without protection. If it becomes a problem again, drop a note on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Uncle G (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AbsoluteTelnet DRV

Hi! I left a response to your comments on the AbsoluteTelnet DRV page. I was hoping you could read my additional comments and respond AbsoluteTelnet DRV. Thanks --Brian Pence (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flagrant disregard of guidelines

Hi Uncle G

What do you make of the reply to my original point at User talk:Kittybrewster#Marvin Sutton?

Thanks, Bongo matic 10:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice!

I'm referring to User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage. That rocks! I'd support moving it to the mainspace if you felt it was ready.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle-Portland Rivalry

Noticed that you removed the AfD on this article. I didn't realize that one was made previous to the 24th until now but consensus seems to be to remove and it doesn't meet standards. It has hardly been improved content wise. Also, some have expressed valid concerns with notability, the title, and verifiability. I'm not necessarily against including this article but don't think it is appropriate at this time. Is it eligible for deletion if the article is not improved? If so, how long is appropriate to wait?Cptnono (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did no such thing. I ejected it from Proposed Deletion, because it was ineligible, having already been contested once, the first time that it was nominated for Proposed Deletion. The difference between AFD and Proposed Deletion was explained to you yesterday, on the article's talk page. Follow the hyperlinks that were given in that explanation, in particular the one that leads to Wikipedia:Proposed Deletion, to see what Proposed Deletion is all about, and what it does not cover.
Don't treat this as Someone Else's Problem, by the way. Deletion nominations are not sticks to beat other editors with into doing one's bidding. If you want an article expanded or cleaned up, follow the advice in User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do: expand it or clean it up yourself, or apply the appropriate expansion or cleanup request tag. You all have the page move tool for fixing the the title, moreover. That isn't a matter for deletion, either. Nominating an entire article for deletion because one is unwilling to simply rename it appropriately using the tools that one readily has to hand onesself is wasting everyone else's time frivolously.
Only nominate an article for deletion on notability or verifiability grounds if you've looked for sources yourself, and come up with nothing usable. The first step is looking for sources. Only after you've done that can you confidently and honestly say that none exist, at which point you can go straight to deletion and present a solid rationale that actually has a basis in our deletion policy. There isn't a waiting period, but there is a necessary precursor. The idea that waiting is even involved is wrongheaded. You shouldn't be waiting, for Somebody Else to do the work, you should be doing — searching for sources, yourself. And if you actually do find sources when you look for them, the next step is improving the article, not deletion nominations of any sort. You'll have done some useful legwork that can help other editors. (This is, after all, a collaboratively written project. Writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem. Everyone adds a little bit of work, and, amazingly, the encyclopaedia gets written.) Again, see the triage procedure. Uncle G (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you intend to come across snippy and lecturing? I think you missed my point completely. As I have stated in the article's talk pages, I don't see how it can be a valid article if it can't be improved. I have attempted to find sources but can't. At this time I remain doubtful that it can be fixed and wanted to see if there was criteria to keep the rivalry information in the team's subsection if it is not possible. I also did not see where you explained to me the difference between AfD and Proposed Deletion. Would you mind throwing that link in so I can read what you said? I will look at the info you mention above as well but am curious to your previous explanation on this one in particular.Cptnono (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't explain it to you. Peteforsyth did. And if you've looked and found no sources at all documenting any such thing, you can nominate the article for deletion at AFD. The criterion for including such content anywhere, in a standalone article or as part of a larger article, is verifiability. If you've tried to find sources against which this content can be verified by readers, and have failed, then it fails to satisfy that requirement. Uncle G (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

****Understand what you were trying to say about the difference between an AfD and Proposed Deletion now. Regardless of me getting the terminology wrong and since you look like a fan of rescuing articles, is this article worthy of expansion? This article could be wikilawyered and stylized to be OK at first glance but it still looks like the information works best in the subsections of the two teams, potentially the Cascadia cup (Seattle-Portland-Vancouver), or maybe new articles about the relatively small supporter groups of the two teams who don't have articles but care most about the rivalry. In your opinion, is it best in this stub (it can be forced larger if needed) or is expansion to the already existing articles sufficient. Talk:Seattle-Portland Rivalry has some links to sources but no one has taken notice.Cptnono (talk) 07:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well would you look at that. The supporter groups of both teams now have pages and both link to the article. Someone from the ECS found a source from '03 that is good. I sourced the article and threw in some wiki formatting goodness. The article is still in desperate need of expansion but good looking out on your part by keeping it in.Cptnono (talk) 08:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For your editorial efforts culminating in the rescue of The Economist editorial stance. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good close!

Now how often do you hear "good close" at AfD??? *grin*

I was tempted to speedy Giambracy as a G3 and figured I wouldn't bite. Given the pattern you saw, looks like I was assuming a bit too much good faith. Good job!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Uncle G (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to DRV process

Hi, you've been active as an administrator in the DRV process in the past so I would appreciate your comments on my suggested change to DRV requirements. Thanks! Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Functional integration (neurobiology)

Hi -- why did you remove the prod from that article? Without a source it's utterly useless, and I, a neurobiologist, don't know how to find a source for it. I feel that as an admin who ought to behave responsibly, it is now up to you to turn that into at least a semi-respectable article. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do know how to find a source for it. The technical term for the process involved is "reading". ☺ One place to begin reading is the "Further reading" section of the article itself, in fact. More ways to find sources can be found using the methods outlined in the several places indexed at Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia#Resource. And you don't get to demand that other people edit articles for you. Everyone here is a volunteer. You want the article improved? {{sofixit}}! Uncle G (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me try this a different way. Why did you remove the prod? Are you actually familiar enough with the term "functional integration" as used in neuroscience to believe that the article is valid? (To put this on the right plane, maybe I should explain that I'm not a newbie, I'm the maintainer of WikiProject Neuroscience.) Looie496 (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are avoiding doing what I said to do. Go and read the "Further reading" section of the article. You should be reading, not arguing.
    Indeed, as a WikiProject Neuroscience member, you should be busy showing that you can find even more sources, and do far better in your own chosen field of the encyclopaedia, than some random person called "Uncle G" managed to do in a few minutes with only some ordinary search tools. I can find things such as doi:10.1038/sj.npp.1300145 with a few minutes' work. You should be able to do better. You should be busy showing me (and everyone else) up, by finding even more — far more — sources than I did, and turning neuroscience stubs into full articles. After all, it's what the WikiProject that you are a member of is supposedly there to do.
    If you want some more things to put on that WikiProject's to-do list, read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Typoglycemia (2nd nomination). Uncle G (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Discussion

Another user has posted to ANI an issue that concerns you. The relevant thread can be found here. TN X Man 16:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source Credibility

Hi. I'm somewhat speechless, actually. I have listed this edit: [1] on the WP:ANI. It took me a while, because I've never had to do this before, and wasn't even sure what to do. I thought discussions of this sort were always done on talk pages? If you look at my contributions, I don't think you'll find very many recent mistakes of the magnitude you describe. Have I pissed you off sometime in a past life? Did I criticize a previous edit? I just dont' get it... --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 16:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now that I've had a good cry and ate a tub of ice cream (kidding), I've thought of a response. "You are SO off my Christmas card list!" ;o) --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 16:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I never expected to be on your Christmas card list in the first place. As for the rest: This isn't about you. I repeat — the only person who is calling you disparaging names is you yourself. No-one else has. It's your own characterization, unfounded in anything anyone else has written. Don't drag me (or indeed anyone else) into it. This is about the application, and mis-application, of deletion policy to an article, and errors made in doing so. And as such it's an AFD discussion. Now read the notice about disjointed discussions that is right at the start of this very page, that I've had there for years, and that you'll find to be a philosophy that I share with a fair number of editors here. (There are differing philosophies, of course.) ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - ReplyAs Daffy Duck might say, we have some pronoun trouble with that argument (as well as a general lack of humor). I'm going to highlight the number of times you used the word you and your. Then tell me again about how it wasn't about me.
    This isn't about notability. That's a complete red herring. Your rationale as given is 3 words. It's clear what policy it references. That application of policy was wrong (your application of the policy was wrong, since I was the only using 3 words), as reading the article properly, and checking out the sources that it already cited, would have revealed. Clearly, you didn't look at the sources to see whether the article was presenting unpublished ideas not discussed in sources, even though checking articles against what sources say is one of the primary purposes of citing sources in Wikipedia. Moreover, it was wrong in a way that the article actually discusses as its subject. Clearly, you didn't pick up on that.
    Furthermore, your discussion of "sin" is a straw man of your own construction. No-one except you yourself has said that you have sinned. There's nothing "aggressive" about pointing out where policy has been grossly, and ironically, mis-applied in a way that it does not actually apply at all. (Hint: There are, sadly, plenty of examples of aggression on Wikipedia. It generally looks like this or this. Spot the quite marked difference? No-one has called you ignorant, useless, or impertinent, or told you to "grow up and shut the fuck up". And the only person who has called you a sinner is you yourself.)
    Finally, you ask for votes. This is not a vote, and the above is an opinion with an explanation. It's a quite clear explanation of how policy does not apply in the way that you assert it to apply, and what the error is that you've all made. (It's not the first time that people have looked at an unwikified article and not seen past the markup.) In yet further irony, you talk of explanations when your 3-word rationale is devoid of any explanation at all. This only serves to highlight your further error in stating that I'm explaining your reason to you. Quite the contrary, I'm taking your reason exactly as it was written: that the Wikipedia:No original research policy purportedly applied. You either don't understand that policy in the slightest, or you didn't look at the sources cited and didn't look beyond the style of the article to its substance. I took it that you understood the policy, but didn't read the article and see its actual substance, including the reliable sources that it cited in support of every single part of its content, for the unwikification and the Harvard referencing — as so many have done before you (Despite Wikipedia style guidelines, I've observed a significant bias against Harvard referencing at AFD over the years.), and that is spectacularly ironic in this particular case, given what this article's subject in fact is. You could have been simply sheep voting, of course, but I didn't work on that assumption.
    When someone makes an error, it's quite legitimate to point out that it is an error. You weren't "targetted for trying to apply standards". You were told that you were doing things wrongly, and not actually applying our policies. You were not applying our standards, in any way. The route to not getting a complete misapplication of policy being pointed out by other people is to not mis-apply it in the first place, not to try to distract the discussion onto the subject of the people who point out such errors when they happen. Uncle G (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
    Tell me again how this doesn't apply to me? I missed it somewhere... This is like that game when a "friend" takes your arm and hits you in the head, all the while saying "Why are you hitting yourself, huh? Why are you hitting yourself?" --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 17:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I said that it's not about you. "You" isn't "your". The very first "your" is part of the phrase "your rationale". The second is part of the phrase "your application of the policy". I could go on with "your assertion" and so forth, but the point should be amply clear. This isn't about you. This is about policy, its application and its misapplication, how you applied it, and didn't apply it correctly. It's about your rationale, your argument, and your application and implementation of policy, not about you. You aren't told that you are a moron, a schoolchild, or even a surrender-eating cheese monkey. It's not about you.
      It's daft, moreover, to expect people to jump through convoluted linguistic hoops to avoid responding in the second person, in ordinary discourse, to text where someone immediately before talks in the first person (of "my interpretation", "our reasons", and what "I did"), just in order to avoid using the word "your" so that silly word-counting games cannot be played later.
      And you are hitting yourself. You characterized yourself as a sinner. You called yourself a "dumb schoolchild" and a "moron". No-one else has done any of this. Indeed, you started in on other people, too, attacking Unomi here for something that, if you had actually read the case you would know turned out to be false. I'm not asking you why you are hitting yourself. But I am saying to stop. Stop hitting yourself, and stop hitting other people, too. You're the only one doing it.
      There is a game here, but it's the game of putting words into other people's mouths, hitting out at complete strangers who disagree with onesself, and hitting onesself and trying to place the blame for it with other people. Uncle G (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately it doesn't really matter to me. The article is going to be deleted anyway. I'm going to do a brief sockpuppet investigation, lick my wounds and go back to my constructive editing. I really don't hold grudges, and if I'm proved wrong, it won't be the first time I've been wrong. I'll be happy to apologize on your talk page. But I don't let anyone speak to me the way you did without a response. People skills... not your strong point. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 18:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erased diff

Hi Uncle G. You erased this diff. I am sure it was by accident, since as you see from the AfD you have persuaded me :) Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! That was a complete accident. I hit four edit conflicts in a row, which is not much fun given the length of that page. I missed it when copying and pasting the several points from one edit field to the other. I see that you've already reinstated it. Uncle G (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He, he, no problem at all. Mathsci (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bluck Bluck Sizzle Yum

Boston (talk) has given you a fresh piece of fried chicken! Pieces of fried chicken promote WikiLove and hopefully this piece has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot piece, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

I'm giving you this chicken after noticing you came under fire for something you said in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Source Credibility discussion. Your point is a good one...I know I myself am too quick to disregard article content when the format doesn't look right to me! I hope you don't become too mired in the debate about the debate (about the debate about the debate about the debate) but rather can soon return to happier pursuits. Best wishes. --Boston (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative mind reading

I think it is pointless and simply fanning the flames to attack an editor who is having issues with you when you have addressed that issue-haver thus:

"It's a shame that none of you read the article, because it makes the very point that I'm about to make. The only reasons that you think that this is an essay, ... The fact that it was unwikified entirely slewed your opinions, and those opinions have no basis in policy whatsoever. You should have read the article properly, ignoring (or — better yet! — fixing) the cleanup issues."

If your concern is the article and the improper AfD (which it certainly is improper, as the subject has high EV), then you might better address the issue by not telling people what they are thinking. I often think that AfDs are proposed by editors who have not read the article, have not researched the topic, and know nothing about the topic, and frankly, I think are incapable of learning about the topic. And, I've said all of this in AfD discussions. My doing this serves no purpose other than to unnecessarily irritate people and take the focus off the subject at hand: the encyclopedia and a particular article. You're an administrator and could consider setting an example for other editors by not telling people what they are thinking--the ultimate in original research. Simply point out that the topic is clearly notable, point to some books that discuss the topic, and suggest the AfD be closed. I'll try to take my own advice, also. --KP Botany (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that I did not tell them what they were thinking. They told us, quite explicitly, what they thought: "Essay", "It looks like an essay", "original research". No mind reading was involved when I wrote that they thought that it was an essay or original research. It's what they themselves wrote they thought it was. Uncle G (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your links indicate the editors did read the article and drew conclusions based upon their reading. And that is what you are say in the post, the editors drew faulty conclusions based upon their reading, as you follow with arguments dsyinh you know why they voted the way they did based upon their reading of the article and finding Harvard referencing while not finding wikification. You contradict yourself--they either read the article and saw Harvard referencing and no Wikification or not. About this I can say nothing more.
  You also said, "The only reasons that you think that this is an essay," (emphasis mine) is telling them what they are thinking.
  In my opinion, an administrator would be a better advocate for the encyclopedia Wikipedia by setting a strong example that includes focusing on the content of the encyclopedia rather than on another editor's motives or thinking. --KP Botany (talk) 05:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - KP, Uncle G has more than 5 times the number of mainspace edits you have (but fewer talk and user talk than you do—something to consider?), has been an administrator since dinosaurs walked the earth, and delivered most of Moses' policy tablets to Wikipedia in the first place. He has seen people with your or my edit counts come and go. His style of offering commentary on what would make the project better is infuriating to many (it has been to me on several occasions). He often refuses to address a question someone asks, in favor the the question he thinks you should have asked. But trying to tell someone with his depth of experience in Wikipedia how to improve motivations of other contributors—a topic he has no doubt been confronted with from every angle hundreds of times if not more—is futile. My recommendation for how to benefit from Uncle G (not necessarily for you, but for those to whom he addressed his comments) is this: get over being offended by the messenger, and see if there's anything in the message that would be valuable (for the project) for you to incorporate into your thinking. Bongomatic 05:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, edit count is not a right to rudeness. Whatever gave you that idea? The encyclopedia is a joint effort of thousands of volunteers, and to insult one editor with the notion that they do not have enough edits to be considered a valuable contributor is not exactly a defense of Uncle G's behaviour. It's more the opposite. And I should be insulted that I discuss points with other editors on Wikipedia on talk pages? By whatever standard is discussing the editing of an article with other editors a bad thing? Again, you've not exactly risen in defense of allowing bad behaviour on Wikipedia--often the goal of searching and counting someone's edit history for some reason. This is a good thing, though, that you've failed to defend unnecessary rudeness because showing more ways that bad behaviour is indefensible gets my message across. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're setting up straw men. There was no rudeness here. There were no insults, no derogatory names, no discussion of the editors themselves, at all. So what defends rudeness is entirely irrelevant.
        I also point out this to the both of you: The number of edits that people have on their accounts has nothing to do with this as far as I am concerned. This should be obvious from the fact that this began with an objection to the deletion of an article created by Dawson2824 (talk · contribs), an editor with exactly four edits (of which this article was xyr first), and whom I've pointedly praised several times for actually creating an article the right way, the way that we all say articles should be created. You want an administrator setting an example? Try this: I've been opposing the automatic assumption of bad faith that some make of editors without accounts, and of apparent (but not necessarily actual) novice editors, since at least 2004. (Yes, I really do mean before I myself finally created an account.) Uncle G (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. Once again: They told us what they were thinking, quite explicitly. No mind reading was involved. The statement "you think that this is an essay" following an edit that quite explicitly says "essay" is not mind reading but a simple reference to the thought so expressed.
    And it's quite possible to look at something without seeing what is actually there, and to be influenced by presentation to the extent that one discounts content. That is, after all, one of the very things that this aspect of social psychology is about. That doesn't make a person doing that all of the things that have been asserted (but not by me) in these fragmented discussions. It simply makes that person in error.
    You want an example of mind reading? You've commented on how you sometimes think that other editors are ignorant and incapable, and what to do in such circumstances. What makes you think that I thought anything like that? As I keep saying, I wrote nothing of the kind. (Go and look at the section just above on this very talk page. I often take the view that other editors in fact have greater capabilities than I have.) Now arguing on the basis that I thought something about a fellow editor that I never wrote is mind-reading. There is mind reading here, but it's not on my part. Or — rather — it would be mind-reading, had I not also clearly stated that I made no such assumptions about lack of understanding, ignorance, or laziness, right at the beginning. Uncle G (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyway, Uncle G, I've said my piece, and I stand by it, no matter how many editors offer excuses. en.wiki is unnecessarily rude and hostile to other editors and stopping that pointless antagonism can start anywhere, even with me, even with you. --KP Botany (talk) 06:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to stop by and apologize for allowing my emotions to get the best of me yesterday. Your points have been absorbed, and I don't disagree with the academic points of what you had to say. I should not have allowed myself to continue responding, and I certainly should never have degenerated to a state where I lashed out at an innocent bystander. I have already apologized to Unomi for my careless words. I don't respond well to people telling me what I'm thinking, explaining my reasons to me, and using a didactic platform to belittle the contributions of others. This does not give me the right to be an ass, however. I apologize for causing a disruption and I will be withdrawing my objection to the Source credibility article. I do not hold grudges longer than overnight, so please don't think you've made an enemy, or that I will be engaging in any kind of petty reprisals. I hope we can find some common ground on articles in the future. Best regards. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 01:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll chime in with Oliver here, in some ways. Uncle G, you did tell me why I thought it was OR (wikilinks, Harvard), and while you were not (entirely!) correct in your assessment, you got me thinking about things, and you certainly made me look more carefully at the article. A while ago you berated me in some other AfD discussion, and while you were right (as you so often are) I also felt a little, hmm, miffed, and stayed away from discussions where you were involved. All the while, I gladly admit that I have on occasion struck the wrong tone, esp. in AfD discussions, while knowing less about policy (not to mention librarian and academic matters) than you do, so there's not much sense in me calling any kettle black. Anyway, all the best, and see you next time. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

whaddayaknow

I was browsing through the list of DYK candidates and found something that pertains directly to this discussion, in the nominations for articles created on 10 April. Scroll down to the entry for Richmond Bridge, London, and you'll see what I mean--I think you might chuckle. I sure did. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The part where someone didn't recognize that style of reference? Or the part where it's stated that Harvard referencing is preferred by FA reviewers? Uncle G (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, the first made me laugh a bit, and the second lends credence to your earlier observations. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

redirect on Request for Removal of Copywrite Violation

We saw your explanation of this at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#April 6 -- we had, immediately prior to this, used this page (Request for Removal of Copywrite Violation) which was redirected; the redirect seemed reminiscent of the tactic of using a "redirect" as an adjunct to "merge" for unscrupulous effective deletion of Wikipedia articles by a legal-process sort of vandalism to which Wikipedia seems to be highly prone : the legal vandals' scheme also involves claiming (by the legal vandal) of alleged "copyright-violation". (As a co-author of a number of thusly-deleted Wikipedia articles, I am seeking administrative redress on some of these matters through any available appeals process, and have a number of appeals already on file with Wikipedia appeals-offices as concerns these cases.)

Incidentally, the extremely swift removal from public access of the "page history" of an article deleted by legal vandalism renders the names of co-authors of those article likewise inaccessible, so that the locating of co-authors in order to apprise them of the fact of their articles having been deleted (so as to alert them of their need to file appeals), becomes impossible without administrative assistance. Would you (or any other administrator to whom you might refer us) be willing to assist us in locating co-authors of deleted articles?71.76.32.220 (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Special:DeletedContributions/71.76.32.220 I see that you do not have any deleted contributions at all.
The editor who made that RFD nomination was 0XQ, and unfortunately yes, that editor is violating copyright. One of the articles that xe created was Lumbrokinase. It comprised five paragraphs, each of which was simply copied and pasted from another WWW page. 0XQ did not write anything in that article in xyr own words.
For example: the fourth paragraph of that article, beginning "Four phases of clinical studies have been done on LK at the Beijing Xuanwu Hospital", was copied and pasted in its entirety from here. That WWW page is, as you can see by reading it, not free content. It even explicitly says, at its foot, "Copyright© 2004-2009 --- NutriCology, Inc. --- All rights reserved.". Copying and pasting it is a copyright violation.
Creating articles by simply copying other people's writing, is not writing. It's taking other people's writing and passing it off as one's own. It's laziness. And it's not allowed here at Wikipedia. We want content that is written in editors' own words. We don't want people to do what 0XQ did. It wasn't writing.
Two other articles that 0XQ worked upon (but did not create) are Serratiopeptidase and Serrapeptase. But these have not been deleted. One can look in their deletion logs, here and here, to see that. They were merged, because they were the same subject by different names. We have one article per subject here at Wikipiedia.
Now mergers are not always perfect. Some editors are hasty. Some consider helping with any part of the merger process other than the final redirect to be Somebody Else's Problem. Some are merely starting off a process actually desired by other people, upon whom the responsibility really lies to fully enact what they opine should be done. If there's something in the edit history of one article that has not been merged into the other article, and as long as it wasn't someone else's text that 0XQ was passing off as being xyr own (as xe did with Lumbrokinase) and as long as it is in accordance with our other content policies (in addition to our copyright policy), it can be retrieved from the edit history (which, having not been deleted, is accessible) of the redirected title and added to the merged article (noting in the edit summaries what article it was taken from, for GFDL compliance). All editors have the tools to complete an incomplete merger.
And there are already discussions at Talk:Serrapeptase and Talk:Serratiopeptidase where editors are open to discussing what further text can be merged, which any editor can join and contribute to. Uncle G (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ysgol Gyfun Garth Olwg

I have had a go at making it more neutral. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

And I've had a go at expanding the description of the dispute, as you've no doubt already noticed. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes good work. Thanks. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I realise you are busy with other stuff on here. But I would really appreciate you putting the page on your watch list to help stop the vandalism and also to speak out if you see it loosing its neutrality in either direction! I hope I will be able to concentrate on expanding a few articles over Easter now. Thanks. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Can you take a look. Someone has undone the great work you did on Ysgol Gyfun Garth Olwg yesterday. Thanks. 86.159.65.72 (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that you have been on the article. I explained to the other editor that you had done some good work and they put your section back and added some more. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New AfD format and Whitney Lakin

Hi UncleG, I'm unable to figure out how to edit Whitney Lakin as it lacks a link to the AfD on the page for the date. Any ideas? Hobit (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can go to Whitney Lakin to edit the page itself. To participate in the AfD, there is a link on the page or you can go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitney Lakin. Bongomatic 01:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. It is still missing a link for "view this AfD" that the other entries have. Hobit (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I fixed it superficially by adding the missing code [2], but it may be worth examining why it was missing and if anything else is broken. Uncle G, could you have used an old template or something? --Hans Adler (talk) 07:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I generally don't use templates at all for the second and third steps. I pre-date those templates. ☺ There's nothing broken. I simply didn't type in the extra stuff for the magically changing links to and from the per-day page. Uncle G (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

thank you for your reply and suggestions.--Juliaaltagracia (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gesupur

Hello, Uncle G. You have new messages at Phil Bridger's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

re: Godwin's Law

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For your post regarding Godwin's Law at ANI (see below diff). You're one of the only Wikipedians here who understand what is going on around here. I couldn't have said it any better myself. MuZemike 15:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the diff: [3] MuZemike 15:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exothermic welding

Nice work on this one - I had no clue how to fix it, but you have significantly improved it. – ukexpat (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

right--I too was struggling to figure out what to do with this. Thanks DGG (talk)

AfD revisited

List of words that comprise a single phoneme (AfD discussion)

I read your comment yesterday and found it useful and enlightening, and was waiting to see what the author's response would be. The article has been changed in a meaningful way, and I'm actually rooting for the author--though I'm not fully convinced yet, it won't take much. Thanks for your interest. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No more warnings

I'm through with playing games here. Hilary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LetsPlayHardball (talk • contribs) 07:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well OK, BlueSquadronRaven isn't editing right now so I'm kinda losing my motivation... let's hope he comes back soon to get me all riled up again... —Preceding unsigned comment added by LetsPlayHardball (talk • contribs) 16:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you wonder how BlueRavenSquadron managed to spend so long at Wikipedia without realizing the GFDL requires attribution? I think it's this phrase here, from the edit screen which everyone sees:

Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted.

This isn't enough, because it seems to imply that you can simply copy text from anywhere as long as it has a GFDL-compatible license. And this is one reason why Wikipedia is an ever-growing mountain of GFDL and other copyright violations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LetsPlayHardball (talk • contribs) 23:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got my motivation back! and given that Wikipedia is an ever-growing mountain of copyright infringement anyhow, I hardly need to feel guilty about vandalising it.

Re: DRV

Done. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry

Hi Uncle G. Just wanted to say thanks for the follow-up work you've been doing in looking at the contributions of the JamesBurns sock puppets, and looking over the AfD list at User:Paul Erik/AfDs affected. I am learning from this experience. Much appreciated, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, about there being some other very probable sock puppets that had not turned up with the CheckUser. I was wondering, though, what is your reluctance to name them on the investigations page...? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- m:CheckUser policy#Privacy policy (I am not a CheckUser, but I aim to adhere to the same standards. These are not CheckUser data, but they are deleted revisions — and we administrators are entrusted to be careful with what we relay from deleted revisions.) and the fact that my suspicion could turn out to be wrong. Uncle G (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah yes, that makes sense. Thanks. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another question: What distinguishes a discussion that should go to DRV (like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papa vs Pretty) from one that should just be re-listed (like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lac Motion)? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually I took both to MBisanz, first. The latter is almost certainly a re-list. This is because taking the sockpuppets to be one person, there's just the nominator and one other person there. Relisting for further, wider, discussion, by more people, is often the strategy there. The former is more complex. It could be a simple re-list, or there could be enough there as it stands for a safe decision to be made. (By "safe" I mean one that we can have reasonable confidence to have come to the correct result, in accordance with our deletion policy.) Notice that, unlike the case of the other discussion, we have the article's creator addressing the notability criteria, and Phil Bridger pointing out that what is shown isn't enough. My suggestion was Deletion Review, to get more opinions on whether this was a discussion that safely came to the correct conclusion. It's currently in MBisanz's hands. Uncle G (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the clear and cogent explanations, Uncle G. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question on this topic, if you don't mind: if the participants in the debate haven't read the deletion policy, and don't even read the debate itself (like someone who's name I am not going to mention), is it actually wrong to use sock puppets to argue for the correct result, in accordance with your deletion policy? JustOneMoreQuestion (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or even against the correct result, just for kicks? JustOneMoreQuestion (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that would result in an awful lot of work if and when they realized what had been going on. Goesquack (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G, I see that you've found the "clear connection" I was talking about between Megan1967 and the other socks. When you open the SPI for User:Leanne, I will add any evidence I found that you may have overlooked. DHowell (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oneirological Advertising

I suppose that is an issue that must be raised about that user's page - though I'm as guilty as anyone else of having joke material on mine. :) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More sock puppetry

If you look at BlueSquadronRaven's contributions you'll see why there's no point attempting to answer this kind of spam with policy based arguments. There isn't time to google a fraction of these things, let alone trying to build the article. It's not even worth trying to use good puppets which vote the right way because (1) still have to google and (2) you're still outnumbered by Butuirol, Dahn, Bali ultimate etc. The only thing left is bad puppets, hoping to refute the logic they are using and draw in other neutral people to help. Also it keeps the Ricky81682 challenge alive. Mergellus (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the nomination for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belarus–United Arab Emirates relations does it not challenge your ability to assume good faith? Mergellus (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can see that they only win (1) because Wikipedia makes decisions by ballot, not discussion, and (2) your ballots are being stuffed by spammers. Wuzzit (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's even worse is Ukraine–Vietnam relations. Someone actually expanded that so you have no excuses left. I pledge 10 items of sneaky vandalism for that one, but I'll give you a few days if you want to take it to DRV. Wuzzit (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Leslie

Thank you for your comments. I agree with your points re BLP's, and completely disagree with your criticism of me for commenting on the discussion without having copyedited the article. People have time for what they have time for, and I didn't (haven't yet?) had time to work on the article itself.

I agree there is a responsibility on all editors (not just administrators) to remove poorly sourced information from BLP's. I also agree there was poorly sourced information in the Michelle Leslie article. Alas, between the time I commented on the AfD and the time you did, I was largely away in real life doing other things. Now I'm back I'm happy to work on this or any other BLP, though I note you've already started work on it. I respect your extensive contributions to Wikipedia and would welcome any further suggestions (even criticisms) you might have re editing priorities. But to avoid diverting the AfD I'd suggest they might be better placed either here or at my talk page. If you've other things to do and don't have anything further to add to your earlier comments, thanks again for the feedback. Euryalus (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't criticism for not having edited the article. That's not the point that I made at all. It was pointing out that you had let yourself get distracted (a) by the personal attacks (as you did here) and (b) by the deletion nomination onto issues of notability. Yes, the personal attacks were wrong, and an AFD nomination to fix the BLP issues may well be the metaphorical sledgehammer and the metaphorical walnut (especially since the article is listed for attention at the BLP Noticeboard). But we should regard them as distractions from the real issue at hand, which is that the biography is problematic, and should be checked for neutrality and verifiability. Ignore the personal attacks. They are patently wrong, and do nothing but reflect badly upon the person who made them. Although I didn't criticize you for not editing the article, I did strongly urge you to do so. We are the people who are, rightly or wrongly, expected to step in, in these situations. I strongly urge both you and anyone else to take your tools and make that article better, mercilessly. I've done a bit, but I urge others to do more of the same, because I've certainly not completed the task, merely addressed some of the things that jumped right out at me when comparing article content against the sources that it cited. Uncle G (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Sorry I missed your point. I have a feeling we actually agree and the issue is really one of emphasis. I take your point that people were commenting on the notability of the subject and the personal attacks on the talk page when that time might productively have been spent actually improving the article and fixing/removing unsourced material. I don't necessarily see these other issues as distractions, but recognise there'as a primacy about BLP issues that should have ensured they were also addressed post haste. Thanks for taking the time to reply and I'll bear it in mind in future editing. Euryalus (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Deletion Squadron

Hey there! You might be interested in this new venture! The fightback starts here! Yeah! Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another Thank you!

Big thank you for slicing through the knots I got myself into here.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFD closures

Point noted, but I do have a query (see here). Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 12:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios by Footage

Wow ... all those articles you cited, Footage is the author and more or less the sole contributor. You think we should G12 the lot, or maybe hit them with {{copyvio}}? I've also proposed a community ban. Blueboy 96 20:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had some time to sleep on it, and I'm pretty sure that these articles are G12able. Care to help me clean up the mess? My mouse finger's getting tired, even with Twinkle. Blueboy 96 19:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Uncle G. You have new messages at AbsolutDan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--AbsolutDan ^(talk) 21:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous

This is just lovely. You should do this for all TLDR discussions. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you haven't had had had had had had had had had had had enough...

I'm hoping to keep the conversation about this article active and avoid the usual fleeing from a topic that takes place after an AfD has closed. There was much talk about merging this article but little agreement on where to merge it to. Therefore I am informing everyone who participated in the debate of the ongoing conversation here in order to bring this matter to a close sometime in our lifetimes. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't forgotten. I'm still in the process of obtaining access to a later edition of Fowlers'. Uncle G (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It transpires that no local bookshop actually has this in stock. So I'm having to look further afield. Uncle G (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crystal Palace (talker) (3rd nomination)

I see you've discovered my past life. In my defense, most of what I did was "parodies" or trolls, kooks, and spammers but granted a lot of what I did in that newsgroup would violate WP:POINT here. The only thing left of that era of my net life is the picture on my userpage.

However, I can see where someone reading Usenet archive sources out of context could give someone the wrong idea about something so I would never support using anything like that on an article about a living person. I was just thinking that they could be used to demonstrate verifiability/notability (in the sense that it existed and was well known) for Internet related subjects that predate the world wide web. Again however, in the case of Crystal Palace, I've rethought that, it was created in 1996 and still exists today so if it were notable, then there would be "modern WWW" sources that meet our standards. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Money

Thanks for the long run-down on the issuance of currency that you left at Talk:Licence to print money! I didn't understand that private banks actually are authorized (licensed, chartered, whatever) to print money, but I'm going to look up more information because I still don't understand the nature of arrangement. These banks are authorized to print money ... what, when they feel like it? That seems to make it impossible for a government to exercise any control over its own economy, whether or not the banks are tightly regulated. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all that info at the "licence to delete" at the AfD discussion (which has gone speedy delete). I did kinda know those facts about British banks but I just knocked up this stub as the Wiktionary article was either incompetent or nonexistent I forget which but I remember grumbling when it got transwiki'd (the licence/license distinction was not properly made, indeed there was an outright spelling error, and the references got lost-- I am amazed anyone kinda grumbled at the BBC being referenced as "A broadcaster" when BBC News must be one of the most referenced sites here).
Anyway, just a small point I was wondering, what about Scots and Ulster banks who still issue currency? By "The UK" did you mean England and Wales? Of course that's a bit moot in the case of Royal Bank of Scotland which is now public ownership and I don't think they issued banknotes (offers of credit cards seems more their line) but I think e.g. Clydesdale Bank and Bank of Scotland do, and Northern Bank in Ulster (part of HSBC now)? I am probably wrong on remembering the banks here, I am not trying to make a big deal of this except to say it should be checked if that article ever comes about.
Of course, all banks also issue private money in the form of cheques. Or hmmm is a cheque the writer's private money not the bank's? I've just been editing Negitiable cow so perhaps that has blurred my idea of who owns a cheque, which is, after all, just a promise to pay.
Which also reminds me someone said to me the other day about banknotes (in England) not being honored cos they were not signed, can't remember if this was about Irish or Scots notes, can't remember the context at all. Again just something probably to check if this article comes about-- and I hope it does cos it would be quite an interesting one I think, in a "who knew?" kind of way. I imagine all these questions are fairly easily answered, just wanted somewhere to make them so they didn't get lost-- I'm not necesssarily expecting you to answer them yourself, except for "Did you REALLY mean UK or just England and Wales"? SimonTrew (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The provisions of the Bank Charter Act of 1844 that prohibited any new note-issuing banks from being established applied to the whole of the U.K.. Scotland and Ireland were exempt from several other provisions of that Act, which applied to England and Wales alone, but were not exempt from that one. (Source: ISBN 9780748607570 page 363) Uncle G (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Discussion

I understand and empathize your viewpoint that not all ips are vandals. I was never trying to say that only ips are vandals either. I realize that sock puppets can be annoying, but as an editor who constantly fights vandalism, I find that most vandalsim is from anon ips or newly created accounts. Saying that my point of view was "rubbish", especially on an ANI board was not helpful.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I quite clearly said that your statement, which I directly quoted, was rubbish. Which it is. Observe, for example, that you've stated something quite different here. "an anon ip is more likely to add false information than a logged in user" is not the same as "most vandalsim is from anon ips or newly created accounts". I repeat: Not having an account is not an automatic indicator of bad faith. Uncle G (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is unbelievable. You still think that my point of view is rubbish. Very sad. I'm done here.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please try reading what is actually written. Uncle G (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: request for correction

On Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (section 21 "request for a correction") you have left this edit, and I would be grateful if you could answer the following (off course, no obligations):

I have filed the 3rd round of GFZLab sockpuppet investigation. First 2 resulted in immediate bans, 3rd has no response yet. Were you aware of that application when writing that ? Are you involved in processing that application ? Is it being processed ? Was it appropriate to file that case there, or it belonged to another incident-portal ? How to know whether or not it is being processed ?
You mentioned "I recommend that we take the same line here as was taken then, and ban people involved in this external dispute from carrying it into Wikipedia". Does it relate to me? If yes, could you please talk about this. On my side, I can assure I will cooperate with wikipedia as much as I can to help resolving this case. I would me more comfortable to discuss this here, if you don't mind, just to avoid direct confrontations with user:Aoganov, and associated negative emotions. Best regards.NIMSoffice (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Dear Unle G, I can guarantee to you that if I edit Wiki-pages, there will be no puppet accounts, no incorrect information etc. If one edits under real name, there is a great sense of responsibility. On the other hand, I suggest we look closer into the identity of NIMSOffice. This anonymous user clearly has interest in the boron story and misuses his anonymity and editorial privileges. In one recent case it was all too obvious - he reproduced a graph from our paper without giving the source. I contacted NIMSOffice, requesting a change - but to no avail. Another editor made the correction, after a careful investigation concluding that I was right.
2. You will see that from the start I was editing many pages, not just the boron page. However, it is true that boron story drove me to join WP. NIMSOffice sent me two anonymous emails (signed as NIMSOffice, but from a fake email address) describing the situation with WP. I saw NIMSOffice abusing WP, so I put considerable effort to give proper facts. But this is by far not the only activity that I have on WP (and, conversely, I see lots of other users edit those pages, in many cases restoring my comments after NIMSOffice deletes them). I hope this story will not occupy much of my time after the case is resolved and NIMSOffice's personal interest is proven.
3. On the other hand, I write under my own name. Any questions can be settled very quickly, and I do my editing openly and straighforwardly.
4. There is a plenty of other evidence suggesting that NIMSOffice has personal interests in this story, I am happy to provide it on request. I suggested to investigate the identity of NIMSOffice (again, I AM a new guy, and I only hope that I made this request on the right page and in the right form... let me ask you personally to take up this investigation). NIMSOffice stated that he has no connection with the other party involved, namely Dr. Dubrovinskaia and her colleagues. This should be easy to check, once the identity of NIMSOffice is known. It may be Dr. Konstatin Iakoubovskii, who works at NIMS (Japan) and co-authored a paper with N.Dubrovinskaia. This person is also an editor of Sci.Tech.Adv.Mater., where Dubrovinskaia's paper was published just a few weeks after submission (remarkable speed by any publisher's standards), in spite of the referees' rejection. (I do not put this information on public pages, this information is for you, in case you make an investigation into NIMSOffice).

With cordial greetings, Artem R. Oganov Aoganov (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for support. Those personal attacks on myself are becoming annoying. Materialscientist (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC) (NIMSoffice)[reply]

1. NIMSOffice, you mention my "personal attacks against you" - but how can I personally attack an anonymous editor? Anonymity and personality are opposite things. Yes, I know your name, but I told you that I have nothing against you personally. I think your actions are indeed wrong, but I have nothing against you personally. Just stop pushing your agenda, and there will be no need for me to show your involvement in this story. Aoganov (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, Arizona

That was a great idea, to use the sources to build an entirely new article! Wish I'd thought of doing that. Fences and windows (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the first time that a hoax has been turned into a real article. I've been doing it since the days of Jamie Kane (AfD discussion) and before. It requires some finesse. It's less common than simply Kerrrzapp!ing a non-hoax article, starting from scratch with sources, as I almost did in these edits to Lunarcrete (AfD discussion), for example, and as I did in these edits to Trinder spot test (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For the most amazing salvage I've ever seen. Dloh cierekim 00:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Fizz keeper

On May 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fizz keeper, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royal broil 00:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

attempted outing

saw your related comment on AfD about gamma boron.[4] i warned the user. -Shootbamboo (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i have since read WP:OUTING. -Shootbamboo (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hell

Just noticed Hell, Arizona... that has to be one of the best article rescues I've ever seen. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See above, and below. Uncle G (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Invitation

Within the past month or so, you appear to have commented on at least one AN/I, RS/N, or BLP/N thread involving the use of the term "Saint Pancake" in the Rachel Corrie article. As of May 24th, 2009, an RfC has been open at Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Request_for_Comments_on_the_inclusion_of_Saint_Pancake for over a week. As editors who have previously commented on at least one aspect of the dispute, your further participation is welcome and encouraged. Jclemens (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, I made no comment on this, but merely did some WikiGnome work on the Administrators' Noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lunarcrete

Impressive HEY job you did on this article. If we could find a way to clone you then we wouldn't need AFD anymore. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Clones of me at AFD would not be the most useful thing. All of the holes in the slices of Swiss cheese would line up. Uncle G (talk) 01:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"hints"?

Would you mind explaining your unprecedented (dare I say weird?) habit of putting lines in middle of a discussion? [5] [6] Thanks, --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unprecedented at all. It's been a practice in deletion discussions employed by me and others for at least the past five years. Here's a hint on the hints: Why, do you suppose, are they hints? What do you think they could be hinting at? Why do the horizontal rules in, say, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:I just don't like it and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Managed Security Service Provider mark a clear division between one set of opinions and another set of opinions in the chronologies of those discussions? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've participated in a number of afd's (if less then you, not by much) and I've yet to come across these lines. It may just be that I've never noticed them. To that end, are you confident that those seeing the lines understand the lines intentions?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why it would matter if they understood the significance of the lines or not, newcomers to the afd would see the new rendition of the article and those who had previously voted should probably be tracking changes to the article or indeed be involved in making them. A tongue in cheek explanation of the horizontal ruler could be that it is a rap across the knuckles of those that would delete rather than improve. It serves as a potent reminder of what a little editing can do. Unomi (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Uncle G. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 18:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Uncle G. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 19:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fly (programming language)

In the interests of not biting a newbie, I've left a message on the creator's page User talk:Flylanguage#Potential Articles for Deletion nomination of your Fly (programming language) article, that will add some urgency to your article tags. If he/she doesn't respond in a reasonable period of time with some sourcing, I may bring the article to AfD, although it will be my first and only AfD nomination in two years of editing. — Becksguy (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Cheap, and I'm too lazy to do it right, but you deserve a Barnstar"

" * " ←That's a cheap barnstar ... lol, sorry I'm so lazy and lame. Hey, just wanted to note that you showed leadership by example. The rewrite of Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet to take an idea and fix it rather than just delete it is something I admire. Nice work. ;) — Ched : ? 03:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Really good rewrite. — Becksguy (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock and then topic ban for Aoganov

Please see and comment here. --

Battle of Ambos Nogales

Thank you for the additional information you have provided. When I came upon the article, the single in-line source was a web page that did not exist. I removed no cited info, in fact I added notations asking for citations to be provided. The article author removed all tags in response. The article creator later added an image that they claimed was of US militia who fought in the battle, but following the image link showed that the picture not of who, where, or when the article creator said it was. Needless to say, with some provably false information and 'citations' that led to a non-existant page I was more than a little skeptical of anything in the article.

I found a weblink to the source you mention [7] and found it disagreed with the article in several points, which I corrected, and did not support others, such as the casualty rates, so I added citation tags - which the article creator removed without adding sources.

I did not remove all mention of alleged German involvement, if you read "my" version of the article [8] you would see them mentioned several times. Further, I have not edited the article since I asked for help. Since then the article creator has removed tags asking for citations, again without adding sources. Their claim that Germans were present and fought on the Mexican side is based on a single source. I’ve found another source [9] which does not accept this claim as a certainty, other Gbooks hits don’t have a preview or don’t preview the appropriate pages. Edward321 (talk) 05:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me...

No no no. Not his archival. I could give a shit how he archives his talk page. Did you read the substance of his discussion? He's being intentionally rude and obstructionary to a simple question. Another user asked for a reasonable explanation of an admin action he made, where he closed some AFDs. Read his response. It wasn't the way he archived his page, it was the rude way he refused to answer the question... Read it. Its a fun time. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the archival was the edit that you gave and described. It would have been clearer had you given this different link, instead.
Yes, it doesn't answer the question. But I think that Docu is trying to make a point subtly, and being too subtle about it. Xe is apparently asking LibStar what type of project xe believes xe is contributing to, and what xe believes it is this project's goal to build. So it's a fair point to observe that neither of the two of them was answering the other's questions.
Also note that this is not exactly an interaction between these two that has occured in a vacuum. Observe the context, such as this for example.
Also try putting yourself in Docu's shoes. If someone came to your talk page telling you how non-administrator closures worked, wouldn't you be confused and ask for that person to explain themselves more clearly, or in a different way, with diffs? What if that person's next two posts to your talk page were this notification and this? Would you be any the wiser as to what that person was on about? Given that the latter edit doesn't even ask a question, and nor did most of the edits before it (There's no question asked here, for example.), wouldn't you be yet further confused when that person's next edit was to complain that you weren't answering xyr questions?
Good communication is not solely Docu's burden here. LibStar's communcation is clearly poor in this circumstance. Given recent edits like this, this, and this, it's not solely this circumstance where it is poor, moreover. Uncle G (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I will concede that neither side comes off looking particularly well in this issue. However, I would expect better behavior out of admins. Look at it this way. Admins should not drag themselves into the mud to wallow with the pigs; he could have taken the high road and simply provided a jusitification for his closure of the articles. Again, if we look at the deeper context, he knew ahead of time that his closures would be controverial, this has been a hot-button subject at Wikipedia for some time (the "x-y foreign relations" articles) and he clearly knows the background. Yes, his opponent in this issue was not behaving particularly well, but that does not excuse him here. He knew what the other guy was after, and should have been prepared with an extended explanation given that he should have known that his closures would be viewed as controversial. I had never even heard the name "Docu" before 36 hours ago. At Docu's request: [10] I attempted to mediate a dispute between him and Bali_ultimate over this very issue. The full text of the discussion: [11] is still at my talk page. I tried to mediate the dispute in such a way as to prevent either party from "winning" but which was instead based upon AGF and upon improving the encyclopedia rather than "winning" the debate. When I pointed out that their positions were not actually in conflict, and instead the conflict itself was the problem and was clouding his view, he repeatedly ignored me and repeated the same point over and over. It was like I wasn't saying what he wanted to hear, so he wasn't hearing it. Given that he came to me for help in resolving a conflict, and I made a good faith effort to do so, I found it disheartening that his goal seemed to be proving the other guy "wrong" rather than finding a solution which would work best for all. Look, rather than making excuses for the bad behavior of admins, such as noting that others around them are behaving badly, we should be expecting a higher standard of behavior than the worst of those around us. I can accept that the people he is in conflict with are not behaving well, however I will not use that to give him a "pass" for his own bad behavior here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - He knew what the other guy was after — That's the point, though. Did xe? Would you have known, from this on your talk page, that the person wanted you to change "keep" to "no consensus"? Would "my point still stands" have clarified anything, given that you hadn't understood what the point was in the first place? As such, this isn't about giving people passes. It's about not assuming that people, administrators or otherwise, are telepathic, and putting onesself in someone else's shoes.
    As to the discussion on your talk page, note that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations#Adding {{primarysources}} to various articles, including Estonia–Luxembourg relations is the context and Llywrch is an administrator. Docu wasn't coming to you for mediation. Xe was coming to you asking for suggestions, when an editor repeated behaviour that another administrator had said a week beforehand could be considered disruptive if repeated. You didn't address that, which is why xe returned to the point. You didn't directly say words to the effect of "Look, this edit isn't actually disruption on Bali ultimate's part, contrary to what you are thinking, and the discussion that you point to does not say anything about this article, let alone support the general conclusion about primary sources that you are drawing.".
    Again, look at what you wrote and ask yourself if, were you in Docu's shoes and coming to another administrator to ask a "What action should best be taken with this editor, now?" question, you would know that you, Jayron32, were saying that. Ask yourself whether you might try to re-iterate the point that you were actually asking for help on when the person you asked started talking about notability and "larger issues". Uncle G (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I feel really bad about this. After reviewing the entire situation, I think I probably was too quick to assume bad faith on the part of Docu. Please accept my apology on dragging you into this as well. I can only state, with regard to the conversation on my talk page between myself and Docu and Bali_ultimate that my goal was to diffuse, rather than escalate, the conflict. I did not see the gain in indicting Bali_ultimate when I felt he had not acted in bad faith. However, I also did not see that Docu acted in bad faith here either. My goal was to help both parties, obviously in conflict, to find common ground so that the situation could be diffused. Where I really screwed up was in losing that faith in Docu. After reviewing the situation with fresh eyes, I can see that he has done nothing here which should have caused me to do that. I still believe conflict between the two can be solved, and I would like to do so in a way that does not get anyone blocked or sanctioned or even reprimanded. Again, please accept my apology for involving you in this unneccesarily. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - There's no need for an apology. You don't have anything to apologise to me for, as far as I can see. It wasn't actually you who drew me into this, anyway. The people who did, and who do owe an apology, to Docu at the very least, are those who were so unwilling to listen to people who point out that they are wrong that they actually erase them from a discussion. Uncle G (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Xe" and "xyr"

How do you pronounce them? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 10:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:xe#English has some guidance, I see. Uncle G (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had looked at that entry, but somehow missed that. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 19:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LoveMonkey diffs

Thanks for doing the leg work on those. As you suspected, I have no involvement in that dispute -- never heard of the guy before a couple of days ago. I don't remember why I commented on LoveMonkey's diff -- it was probably the most recent uncivil one at the point where I dropped in. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artez

Re: RFC talk

One more issue with the Artez article (which I've readded the COI tag to again). You might also want to mention that the user uploaded the company logo, with the source given as the company's website, and then claimed to be the copyright holder and to release the logo into the public domain. And then added the logo to his/her own userpage, which wouldn't be possible if the logo had been uploaded as fair use. Dekimasuよ! 03:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need me to mention that. Be bold! ☺ You're right that the user page also needs mentioning. Putting the same content on user pages and articles pretty much simultaneously is another common practice in cases such as these. (Yes, there's a lengthy argument on how exactly to view this, which I'm not going to reiterate here.) Uncle G (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I probably won't do it myself, though. I don't want to cloud the point of your argument by responding to one small part of it. Just thought it might be worth one more link where you were setting forth the scenarios. I do wish that you had put your comment on the main RfC page for endorsement, though. Dekimasuよ! 03:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For massively expanding and saving the clearly notable five wits from AfD, I hereby award you this barnstar. Congratulations and keep up the good work! --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominated the article for DYK inclusion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UncleG probably deserves a few of these per week :) Unomi (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dobryi

I don't understand why you removed the deletion notice on Dobryi. I think everyone agrees that the article is useless and a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin Trovato (talk • contribs) 2009-06-15 03:46:08

I explained it in the edit summary. Please read it. Uncle G (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As explained in the talk section, the article was entered by mistake. I wrongly entered Dobryi as a note in the Dobry,Poland article. Kotniski correctly deleted it and incorrectly made it a separate article. There is no evidence that the place was significant and some doubt as to the accuracy of the source. All info in the article is now in Expansion of Russia 1500-1800. I restored the delete tag. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed it. Go and read that edit summary, as you were asked to. Uncle G (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I still don't understand. If the edit summary is the note that appears on tte hisory page, all it says is that the proposed deletion has been contested. The only 'contest' that I can see are the comments by Kotniski and DGG on the talk page which are requests for expansion rather than contests. What am I missing? Benjamin Trovato (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This action is contesting Proposed Deletion. Uncle G (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External ray

Hi. I see that you have : Removed internal link, per Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. I have made this because direct link to the page with program was treated as bad page and it was reomed by robot/system ( I do not know). This internal link was an only way to make a link with help find this page via users page. Is it a better way ? Regards --Adam majewski (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way. All external hyperlinks whose domains end in "sweb.cz." have been globally blacklisted across all Wikimedia Foundation wikis. Blame the people who have put pages up on that WWW site and then used them to attempt to advertise on Wikipedia. They've caused so much of a problem that the whole site has had to be blacklisted. The person with the drawing program is, unfortunately, another casualty of that. We don't link from article space to user talk pages, because that doesn't work on mirrors and off-line copies. So, as I said, there is no way to do what you want. Uncle G (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thx for answer. --Adam majewski (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Afd Greenfinger

Seeing as you have taken part in the conversation before I thought you should be notified of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Greenfinger_(3rd_nomination). The previous decision seems to have been against consensus, which was more for redirect. I personally think the article should be deleted. This is not canvasing as I am informing all people involved in the previous discussions and nobody outside of the discussions. Polargeo (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gotem

Uncle G, why did you restore three to four year old vandalism to Gotem? It contained nothing that wasn't nonsens, and the current article has very little to do with it, despite starting from the same nonsense: because people then did at first not believe that the info was nonsense, we had to go through an AfD to change it into a completely different, correct article. To restore the deleted nonsense by long gone, mostly blocked editors seems utterly pointless. Fram (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong on all counts. This revision, to pick one of many revisions is not vandalism, nor "a completely different article". It is much the same article. It even presents the same information about the subject: the same latitude, longitude, altitude, and municipality, for example. Far from the restoration being utterly pointless, it is your actions here that have been both pointless and wrong. Indeed, your initial tagging was wrong, too. This revision, which you tagged for speedy deletion, has the same latitude, altitude, and postal code information as the so-called "completely different, correct" article.
You have not read the edit history, are wheel warring to make an article non-GFDL compliant (The Raven was not the original author of the content.) and are dismissing as "vandalism" and "inaccurate" content that actually was neither, as can be plainly seen when compared to the "accurate" content. Speedily deleting valid content with an incorrect application of the speedy deletion criteria when the conclusion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gotem was "keep", and when all of your mistakes here were pointed out to you then as well, is highly troublesome, too. I suggest that you undo the both wrong and anti-consensus use of your tools immediately, otherwise it's going to be a lot more than just me quietly fixing an erroneous application of the patent nonsense criterion and restoring GFDL compliancy here. Uncle G (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not read the edit history? Uncle G, please... I am the one that showed that all the articles created by these people were stupid vandalism, created by taking fallingrain data (which mixes the reliable with the unreliabe) and adding their own nonsense to it. We achieved to create a decent stub on a tiny hamlet out of this nonsense, that's all. There were in the history only two or three revisions with the correct info, by stripping all vandalism which was later readded. [12] came before your linked version, and [13] directly after it. You then added a wiktionary link to an article about a village, which is rather bizarre (the village and the wiktionary have no connection to one another). The next month, it was vandalized again. At the time I first tagged it for speedy deletion, it had been in its vandalized state again for over eight months. It had been a nonsense article (in part or completely) for its first three months and its last eight months, with 5 months of more acceptable content inbetween. The original author is an IP addres which added the info "Its population is estimated at 39070, although it may increase to 39071 within the week. Alternate names for the city include Kottem and Cotthem. The city of Polfbroekstraat is .6 nm away from it. Gotem is also 24nm west of Brussels. Typically when one enters the city the name is said in salutation. Thus the phrase "GOTEM". Although this may be a bit of an urban legend." IF you feel the urgent need to have this author correctly attributed, be my guest. Stranegly, the article linked here (Polfbroekstraat) was also created by an IP, also edited extensively by The Raven, also tagged for speedy by me, and also then had an AfD. Oh, but there my errors were not seen, as this one was closed as delete.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polfbroekstraat. And then there is the article Eiland, crrated by ... user:Gotem, heavily edited by The Raven, tagged for speedy by me, and deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eiland. And we also had Kottem and Oordegemsestraat... While you were restoring some valid (althoug unsourced microstubs) versions in the midst of the rubbish, the majority of your restore was nonsense by long-term sneaky vandals. It gives a very strange impression if that is suddenly restored without some good reason. As for wheel-wariing: did you discus your restoration with the deleting admin? Thought so...
  And if you refer the comments by vandals in the AfD over my comments, again, be my guest. But please don't take any comments from people who create and defend the article Eiland at face value.
  Finally, "Speedily deleting valid content with an incorrect application of the speedy deletion criteria when the conclusion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gotem was "keep", and when all of your mistakes here were pointed out to you then as well, is highly troublesome, too. " suggests that I deleted contents after an AfD closed as "keep". However, I only redeleted contents which was mainly added by serial vandals, was deleted by other admins, without contestation or DRV, and which you decided on your own to restore three years later for no good reason and without consultation of anyone. Fram (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wrong on yet further counts. My undeletion was a simple history-only undeletion of prior edit history, which had been speedily deleted by an incorrect application of the Wikipedia:patent nonsense criterion, for content that was not only not patent nonsense at the time but which had later been kept at an AFD discussion, and which formed the earlier edit history of the article as it currently stands. Such undeletions are uncontroversial. Your deletion was, in contrast, a use of your own administrator tools to continue to enforce your view as nominator in an AFD discussion, against the consensus closure of the discussion, and against the specific statements that you were wrong made by several editors, who most definitely were not vandals (contrary to how you paint them now), pointing out to you that the correct solution to such vandalism is to edit it out not nominate the entire article for deletion (you were told this, twice), and that the information in the deleted content was identical to the information in the current content (you were told this). Yet another count on which you are wrong is your notion of what my edits to the article were. What I in fact did was subtract dictionary article content from an article on a village, substituting a pointer to the dictionary for those who might want it, not add it. Uncle G (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You removed nonsense from the article and added a wiktionary pointer to a completely unrelated article, to please vandals. You have now restored this bizarre edit. Impressive. It was pointed out to me that the "nonsense" tag was incorrect by the same admin who restored Eiland, a blatant hoax. Furthermore, it is not because an article can be written about a title that we keep an article which is mostly vandalistic nonsense. The content that was "kept" is not the same as the content that was previously deleted for the vast majority of the edits (35 out of 40) and the time. I did not enforce my view by redeleting this content: if I had wanted to enforce my view, I would have deleted the article. I have improved and maintained this article during the past three years since the AfD. You didn't. Finally, if you think I should listen to malinformed edits like the one you linked[14], then you can wait for a lot longer. There are no "two cities of the name of Gotem", there is one tiny hamlet. When this edit comes in a sock- and meatpuppet riddled AfD (and series of articles) from an editor with only four very minor edits at the time, and a copyvio article creation, after a gap of several months (i.e. out of the blue), then I'm even less likely to listen to it. Similarly, CrzRussian had shown here[15] that he was seriously malinformed, blindly believing fallingrain. That you are now continuing the job of the vandals is clearly beyond me, and I still haven't gotten a clue what is achieved by restoring this content. Oh yeah, right, the original IP vandal is now GFDL compliant known to all... Fram (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The content that was "kept" is not the same as the content that was previously deleted — Another count on which you are wrong. It was the same, right back to the first version of the article in fact. Several of the facts in the first edit remained in the article all along and are in it even now. if you think I should listen to malinformed edits like the one you linked — Yes, you very much should have listened to the several people who told you that vandalism can be edited out without deleting the entire article, or even without nominating the article for deletion at all (which you did four times), as you should listen to people who tell you now that the deletion tool is not the answer to vandalism.
      I still haven't gotten a clue — Indeed. Here is some more Clue then: You nominated an article for deletion multiple times when you could have just fixed it. You didn't actually constructively edit the article at all, as none of your edits have introduced any content. And you are still, after three years, fixated with the idea that the people who wrote that Gotem was, for examples, at latitude 50 and a bit degrees north and has postal code 3840 are vandals. Indeed you are still, here and now in the very edit above, accusing the original creator of the article, who introduced those self-same facts to Wikipedia, of being a vandal. Uncle G (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Congratulations, you have now 35 vandalized edits again visible, and one constructive editor pissed off. Keep up the good work. Fram (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your actions here with this article were not "constructive editing". They were inappropriate reactions to vandalism, including two mis-uses of the Wikipedia:patent nonsense criterion and even misuse of your own administrator tools, which could be, and eventually was (by other editors) fixed in the way that Crzrussian, Zoe, and ScottW all told you it could be fixed three years ago. Uncle G (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Dream on, Uncle G. Could you explain which "misuse of my administrative tools" was "eventually fixed" by other editors? My first use of admin tools on this article was today, after you decided on your own that when an article has finally been turned from a vandal-magnet into a decent stub and then kept, all previous vandalism should be restored as well. Never mind that I have repeatedly removed vandalism from the article since, while you haven't... As said above, CRZrussian didn't have a clue what he was talking about in this article, and "improved" a seriously incorrect version. Thanks for restoring his mistakes again, it really helps this project. Contrary to my misuse of administrative tools at a time that I didn't even was an administrator, this is stellar work. I'll just drop out of your ivory tower now and rejoin the normal world. Fram (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Read what is written properly, paying attention the commas. I said that the vandalism could be fixed in the way that you were told it could be fixed. And indeed it was — just as Crzrussian, who very much did have clue here as to what tool was what, told you. I'm going to assume that your apparent belief that your speedy deletion nominations were your mis-use of administrator tools is simply deliberate misunderstanding, since it was only some 13 hours ago when your actual mis-use of administrator tools occurred. Uncle G (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see. The original editor, probably user PhoenixPinion (who also edited e.g. the soon deleted vandal article Caughtem minutes after creation (Gotem and Caughtem, right...) In his first edit, he introduces a wrong province, a totally wrong population (39,000 instead of 200), imaginary alternative names, and most damningly, a link to a hoax article created by the same group of vandals (Syphonbyte, The Raven, The Raven is God, 578, PhoenixPinion, Catbag, ...) Oh, and some unrelated nonsense slang, the very reason they created and maintained this article. The second edit, by the very same creator, adds "See "Caughtem" for further information.", which as indicated above is also a deleted hoax article. Yes, these are all indications that this was a well meaning editor and not a vandal... We obviously will not understand each other here. Oh, and you have not read the entire edit history (to use one of your complaints), since I did introduce content, here[16]. Fram (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random question of little importance

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bavarian Pigeon Corps, instead of "he", several times you have typed "xe" and at one point I think you typed "xem" instead of "them". It was very confusing at first, although it was nearly four in the morning and I was not my most focused. I was just wondering what was up with that.

Nevermind. Just saw User_talk:Uncle_G#.22Xe.22_and_.22xyr.22. Never heard of that before. لenna vecia 15:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the wisdom of compromise

You want to say something to me, say it to me. Speaking of "the easy way", you could probably check my contributions to see how it is that I edit. I happen to agree with you that IPC stuff isn't really useful. However, since so many users create those sections, especially in certain cases, I'm not sure it's always the best to get rid of it. Mintrick (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have said it to you, three times now. I even put your name right there in the sentences. It couldn't have been clearer that I was addressing you. If you think that it's not the best idea to get rid of such content, then don't get rid of it as you have been. You've been sweeping bad content under the rug. It doesn't work. It never has worked. We've had numerous AFD discussions over the years where people have forked like this, and they have pretty much all resulted in either deletion, redirects, or re-merger to the source articles, for the cycle to begin anew. Lather, rinse, repeat. Learn from past experience, both yours and that of the many before you, and from what does work. Uncle G (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What I meant is that you'd probably have better luck starting a direct dialogue, as I have.
  I've been watching the results of the AfDs that have gone so far, and I'm not displeased. If the material must be deleted, then it is much easier to do that by AfDing an IPC article than obliterating an IPC section.
  As an aside, if you truly believe that such trivia has no place in Wikipedia, then you should try and get policy to say that. Because right now it doesn't. Mintrick (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You believe that. You are the one creating these articles in order to sweep this content under the rug. It's thus you who has the interest in pushing for a policy change. I have an interest in good articles, which includes good articles about popular culture if good sources exist appropriately covering the subjects. (I speak as a major author of the current versions of Portrayals of Mormons in popular media, Portrayals of God in popular media, Pon farr, The Galaxy Being, LOL, elephant joke, and many others.) This is done by replacing bad cargo-cult-written content with "brilliant prose", improving articles that convey little to no knowledge with content that conveys comparatively more knowledge. Policy has supported that pretty much ab initio. It's what we do around here. See Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:Article development. And the results work.
    As for "[It] is much easier to do that by AfDing an IPC article than obliterating an IPC section.": That's exactly the sort of burden-shifting and work-multiplication that earns an editor the disrespect of everyone else. It's imposing unnecessarily a burden on many editors (Look how many editors have participated in the AFD discussions that you have caused.) that need not exist. And it's wrong, too. The AFD discussion results, especially merge results, often don't provide any support for removing the original content from the original article, contrary to what you are thinking. Ordinary editing of an article in situ, discussing sourcing and original research issues on the talk page in the normal way, can deal with bad content, without sweeping things under the rug and without causing massive amounts of work for everyone else wholly unnecessarily. Uncle G (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Fightin' Ea... errr... Pigeons

It would appear that the BPC issue is moving to a resolution. The good thing is that the new emphasis will be on the inventor and the invention rather than a peripheral (at best) army unit. Funnily enough my grandfather was both a pigeon fancier and a member of the German army and from 1916 the air corps during WW1. I am sure that he would have mentioned the phenomena of birds with cameras had there been such. Albatross2147 (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Five wits

On June 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Five wits, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carina Axelsson (2nd nomination)

I think you forgot to actually say keep at that Afd. DGG (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked fully at the other sources. While you're here, though, please contribute to #Dobryi. Uncle G (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland rules returns ...

... now with the date of Bannockburn in his name, Meechan1314 (talk · contribs). Dearie me, what a headache. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing discussion regarding the misuse of the prod tag.

Hi, you may want to add your comments User_talk:Unomi#RE:_Regarding_your_use_of_the_prod_tag here, as I am not quite sure how well I am handling it Unomi (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A curse on your house for getting me involved with him. Unomi (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki namespace?

Your bot created Transwiki:Politics of Merrimack and Transwiki:Politics of Merrimack/Merrimack Politics of 2002. I'd never heard of the Transwiki namespace before -- am I completely out of the loop? If so, could you point me to where I can learn about it? If not, could you move those articles to where ever it is you intended them to go? Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It started, years ago, as a pseudo-namespace. On some wikis, including the English Wikipedia, it remains so today. (As can be seen from Wikipedia:Transwiki log/Articles moved to here, we don't have much transwikification traffic to Wikipedia.) On other wikis it is now a true namespace. (On the English Wiktionary, for example, it is namespace #108.)
As to what is intended: You're asking the wrong person. Go and ask the people commenting at b:Project:Votes for deletion#Politics of Merrimack what they intended. They are the ones who wanted the transwikification. Feel free to encourage them into putting their edits where their discussion words are. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After reading carefully the comments at b:Project:Votes for deletion#Politics of Merrimack, it certainly doesn't seem they were intended for a pseudo-namespace here. I've WP:BOLDly moved them. Cheers!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The "Transwiki:" namespace is where all incoming transwikifications first go. It's the convention, as can be seen from the incoming logs, here and on the other WMF wikis. Uncle G (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - But as there aren't any other articles in that namespace, there must be a procedure for getting them into article namespace. m:Help:Transwiki is vague on that (and rightly so). So it seems that what I was really asking in my first question is where I needed to go to learn about that. Because of improvements in how the dead end page list is generated, I'll be seeing these more often, and I'd like to learn about how to deal with them.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

watchlist

Hello Uncle G. I've gone ahead and added both the Harrison Ford and Jeff Goldblum articles to my watchlist per your suggestion at the ANI (Jackson) thread. I was curious though - are the items related in some fashion? I just wasn't sure why Ford and Goldblum would be targeted. thanks. — Ched : ? 13:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the Wikinews link that I put right next to that. Uncle G (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD opnion

An AfD I tried to rescue was deleted without relisting despite a 4(including nom, excluding a double vote)-3 vote. I believe I provided sufficient sources to prove notability, but the closing admin didn't seem to think so, per the closing note. Since I've seen you walk by on quite a few AfDs, I'm seeking your opinion on whether this might be something to take to deletion review. If someone other than me doesn't think so, I don't see the point in wasting everyone's time at DR, and I've never heard of this subject before the AfD and probably won't ever again, so it's not that important to me, except for the manner in which this AfD was worked. Can you check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FACT Software International Pte Ltd and let me know what you think? -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TMZ

Hiya Uncle G. While I agree that, in a void, the thread in question would be more appropriate on the RS board, it is also relevant to the ongoing MJ discussion. If the thread had been started independantly of anything else, I'd agree with the move. As it stands, I think we might all be better served by collapsing the thread, and possibly doing some form of transclusionary magic to have the ongoing thread shown in both places. Badger Drink (talk) 08:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. The best move was to move directly to the appropriate noticeboard, as was done. Not only is it where editors who deal in the reliability of sources (rather than in incidents warranting administrator attention) hang out. But as you can see from how things stand now, the discussion will remain open for a reasonable length of time, rather than be rapidly archived. Uncle G (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Hi Uncle G, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't turn regular refs into citation templates, as they make the text harder to edit. See WP:CITE, regarding changing styles. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you took your own advice and left my citations as I originally wrote them, and didn't change their styles. Uncle G (talk) 03:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CITE says that once a citation style is established in the article, editors shouldn't change them. In cases of dispute, defer to the style used by the first major contributor, as with other style issues where there are no firm rules. Please just let the article be written without adding to problems with templates etc. We need to get the content in place. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Come now! You know better than this, or should at any rate. I once again point out that I was the one who contributed the content in this case. Uncle G (talk) 06:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, it appears from context that the admonitions in WP:CITE refer to changing the overall format (i.e., Harvard style versus general versus footnote) or the display style of a particular format, and not the use or non-use of templates to achieve the same display format:

"Citations are usually presented within articles using one of the methods described in the How to present citations section of this guideline. Each article should use the same method throughout—if an article already has some citations, an editor should adopt the method already in use or seek consensus before changing it."

Specifically refers to general, footnote, etc., not whether templated or not.

"Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus."

Ambiguous—while it says "templates can be contentious", it is clear that the reason is the resulting display format, not the ease of editing.

"Once a style is selected for an article it is inappropriate to change an article to another unless there is a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style."

Again, specifically refers to general, footnote, etc., not whether templated or not.

The article that seems to be in dispute doesn't have a distinct citation style different from that achieved with the templates, so the issue here seems to be moot. Bongo matic 07:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2009 flu pandemic

We need more people to help sort this out. Accusations of POV and false sources are knocking about.--86.25.8.152 (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users JamesBurns, MegX, et. al.

I suspect user User:JamesBurns, AKA User:MegX, has returned as User:Trevvvy and probably User:Cradleofrock. Please see my comments here User talk:Aervanath#Another sock of User:Piriczki for a detailed account of my suspicions. Piriczki (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IB Diploma Programme

Thanks for slogging through the mud. Sorry for getting lost in the mud. Won't happen again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still would like ObserverNY's repeated insinuations about me and the attempted "outing" (based on her thinking I am someone she knows - see her talk page) to be addressed. Thank you.Tvor65 (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't pick at the scab. Let the issue lie. Uncle G (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, the conversation has moved here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: My lack of focus

I wholeheartedly conur. I knew shortly afterwards that I had lost it at this point and did try to get back on track. I have learned from this. Thank you for your patience, time and effort. --Candy (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request opinion for archives on IB DP

Hi Uncle G. I've been archiving the Talk:IB Diploma Programme page on a frequent basis, but having never archived before, don't know whether I've done it correctly. In your opinion, is it best to continue with the cut/paste archiving method I've used (which preserves the history) or is there a more efficient manner to archive. I ask because the page is very long and needs archiving again. Thanks for your help. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FIITJEE AfD

You might want to see that your edits have been reverted for reformatting another editor's post, apparently. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, Phil Bridger undid the revert, and it looks like it's all a big happy family once again. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerarchia

Thanks for getting in first so I didn't have to do the work. I sometimes feel that I'm ploughing a rather lonely furrow here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mess about C-41 and SISPRE and other

Hi, I found your message and I have changed the information in the C-41 and SISPRE. You were right. I found same mistakes and duplication in the items.

About the item "Center for Studies and Research on Aeronautical Medicine" I recognize that i made a duplicate but i'm not able to delete it.

Please can you tell me the procedure to delete the item?

About Gaetano Arturo Crocco, Salto di Quirra and Mario Pezzi, i don't understand which is the problem, because i have inserted same information in the prewious item

Thanks

marto (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know...

...that my reply here was meant in good faith. I didn't realize the next person to comment would have a sarcastic attitude towards you. So I hope you don't interpret my comment in the same manner. :-) Cheers. APK coffee talk 19:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't. Your response was by far the better. You're clearly willing to change your mind if evidence is presented, and you acknowledge that there's one first step taken along that road; even if the journey is not fully travelled, yet. That's an admirable attitude. It's also admirable that you looked for sources yourself, and said so in the nomination. Uncle G (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just wanted to drop a thank you for your help, research, work, and explanations in regards to the DRV and Wictionary. It's greatly appreciated. ;) Best, — Ched : ? 03:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FA citations

I'm placing this here to avoid derailing the discussion on the Gropecunt Lane article talk page.

Using my example of citation #32 at Restoration of the Everglades, which appears now as: Davis, Steven. "Phosphorus Inputs and Vegetation Sensitivity in the Everglades" in Everglades: The Ecosystem and its Restoration, Steven Davis and John Ogden, eds. (1994), St. Lucie Press. ISBN 0963403028

It could also appear as a book cite, shortly reading <Davis and Ogden, p. XX> and a listing of the book in the Bibliography section. In fact, that might be clearer, because it gives the precise page number where the claim is cited. I did this when I constructed Rosewood massacre using a history book edited by Michael Gannon. Cite #10 in Rosewood massacre refers to a page in a chapter written by William Rogers, but it is cited to Gannon, and the book is listed in the Bibliography section as Gannon (ed.). Both are correct and accepted in FAs; it is the preference of the FA nominator/author to decide how these citations appear.

I was not trying to fault the cite template, but you mentioned the cite encyclopedia template, though I had not referred to encyclopedias. I just refuse to use cite templates for the reasons I gave. Parrot of Doom changed it. That's his decision. He was not wrong in how he cited it or the fact that he changed it. --Moni3 (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is actually relevant to either what was being discussed or the arguments that you actually made, which were, I remind you, that getting the author wrong in a citation was either a matter of "individual preference" or magically the fault of citation templates. Moreover you did talk about encyclopaedias. You stepped into the middle of a discussion of a citation that was, very clearly, about a citation of an encyclopaedia (The name of the book was a dead giveaway.) and you wrote "To use a chapter or entry written by one contributor it would have to be cited as a journal entry". To which the response is quite clearly that no, it can be cited in the everyday way that we cite encyclopaedias, for which we even have a handy template. And yes, you very clearly wrote "entry", as in encyclopaedia entry.
A citation listed the wrong person as the author. It was wrong. You've tried to blame the citation templates, which have no bearing upon errors of fact. You've tried to argue that a simple error of fact is a matter of "individual preference". You're now pointing to citations where you've omitted the name of the author as somehow being relevant. I have to ask: Are you intentionally missing a very simple and clear point? Uncle G (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's not wrong. Entries have to do with almanacs, biographies, and general reference books, not just encyclopedias. But, alas, I thought I might be doing a service by clarifying what the FA standards are for citations. If you must believe it is wrong, than bully for you. However, the rest of the editors who frequent and check articles nominated for FA will continue to believe otherwise. --Moni3 (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You aren't doing any form of service, because you don't actually represent FA standards here. You certainly don't represent the ones written down. The only thing that you are clarifying, by trying all of these tacks to defend the clearly indefensible, is the existence of a fault with what you are doing at FA, which as I said before I strongly suggest that you rectify. Naming person A as the author of something when person B is actually the author is clearly and unambiguously wrong. It's a form of citation error that researchers study, for heavens' sakes! I suspect that you don't have the support amongst FA reviewers for your outright denial of that, that you think. Uncle G (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okeydoke. Enjoy your afternoon. --Moni3 (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:67.40.131.21

Actually, s/he triggered it 10 times--check out the filter log. Blueboy 96 11:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

… by making one edit. I point out, a second time, that the contributions history has exactly three edits, only one of which is tagged by a filter. So, again, how is this "repeatedly"? Uncle G (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm ... I'm reading the filter log as showing that IP tried to make 10 edits to the same article, and the filter disallowed it each time before it was able to make an edit that the filter would allow. Blueboy96 13:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you blocked an editor for doing the right thing — changing an edit to stop it from doing the things that the edit filter was warning about — and for making just one edit in total. Also note that the warning message that the editor probably saw several times was for test edits, and said nothing about changing the edit, merely "If you're sure you still want to make this edit, go to the bottom of this page and click 'Save page' again". So you're also blocking an editor for being sure that xe wasn't making a test edit. Filter logs such as these should always be read carefully. Uncle G (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work

Thank you for your excellent work on Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. . I hesitate to change the class=C ranking, but is a puzzle to me how it could be class=C and nominated for GA status. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I don't know how often you check Commons so I'm dropping a line here too: I've replied there. And yeah, what DThomsen8 said about the improvements to Bridgeman v. Corel and related articles.--ragesoss (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk page on Commons; I can't find anything, one way or the other, about the file we have, although several other photographs that are definitely not free were deleted with that file name before the current one went up.--ragesoss (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the license tags and put the no-license tag on it; it'll get deleted after 7 days if no one can find licensing info. More details about the context at my Commons talk page.--ragesoss (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GameScoop

I would like to know why you deprodded GameScoop. You didn't explain why in the edit summary nor on the talk page. If there was something that I had missed when I tried to look for sources, let me know. Thank you, MuZemike 06:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary had a quite clear explanation, as indeed did the edit summaries before mine. Uncle G (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, now I see. It was already prodded. Apologies for my lack of hindsight, MuZemike 14:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No worries. That's why I aim to give the date of the original contest when I remove notices in such situations. Uncle G (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IB article

Hi Uncle G. I respectfully request that you drop in on the International Baccalaureate article. The pro-IB contingency is warring with me over my use of Phyllis Schlafly's article as a source to substantiate controversy over the program in the United States. These are two of the same editors from the IBDP article I have had problems with. I am trying to abide by Wiki policies, be polite, and constructive, but EVERYTHING I add becomes a target and gets wiped or moved around. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

I'm quite busy at the moment, because of the incidents of last Friday. I'll try to swing by as soon as possible. Don't lose heart or get provoked into doing something silly in the meantime. Uncle G (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realise you're busy and shouldn't be bothered at this time. I'd like to revert my edits. I changed the article that looked like this to this. When you have time please advise re: 3rs on oneself. If ObserverNY is upset with the edits I don't mind changing. But I do mind, to some extent, pov pushing, and shabby use of sources. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Two very quick points off the top of my head, then: First, I suggest that you say to ObserverNY, if you haven't done so already, that you're happy to find another approach that addresses any substantive objections, and to work towards that. Second, I suggest that you keep away from impunging ObserverNY's motives, as you just did. (This goes for you in the opposite direction, too, ObserverNY.) I suggest that you both try what is known as "writing for the enemy". Try to find good sources for information, and to add such well-sourced information to the article, that is counter to your personal opinions of the subject. Both of you. I'd offer more specific advice on this point, but I haven't reviewed the substance of the content that you are disputing yet. And don't be shy of hashing things out at length on talk pages. We're not going to run out of not-paper for them. Just remember to not upset each other and to stick to discussions of the content and of the sources, not of editors. Uncle G (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Uncle G. I just want to advise you that Tvor65 has now found their way to the IB article with the same apparent attack mode that was on display in the IBDP. It is very frustrating. I don't want to violate any Wiki policies but this person is not editing in good faith. Editors like Truthkeeper add value to an article because of their familiarity with Wiki policies, format, etc. Tvor65 has one purpose and one purpose only from the history of both articles, that is to delete and alter any references I place in an article. Thank you.ObserverNY (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Actually, I have not been editing for a while, and just made a few edits today replacing several non-neutral sources that ObserverNY has cited. Other editors agreed with this assessment of the sources, by the way. I explained each edit I made both in the edit history and in the talk page. I certainly did not alter or delete the vast majority of ObserverNY's edits; nor is it my goal. The only "purpose" I have is for Wikipedia to present things in a non-biased manner.Tvor65 (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm?

I've re-read the IB page from here. You told me to apologize. I did. I considered two comments to be in bad form and I struck them. Not being a person known for using sarcasm, I don't see which of my comments you consider sarcastic. At any rate, I'll step away. I'm copyediting an article for someone else for FA status, and then I can step away from Wikipedia entirely. Thank you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was La mome who was sarcastic, not you. Perhaps that should have been clearer. And no, I didn't tell you to apologize. I told you to tell others what you said here on my talk page, that you were actually willing to work on alternatives, because that might not have been understood and it looked it like wasn't understood. Sometimes it's necessary to say such things explicitly. You and the others certainly appear to have been working together with far less friction than before. I don't see why you think that you need to step away, to be honest. Have a read of this edit. You're not actually as opposed as you appear to think you are. As I said to ObserverNY, don't lose heart. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, this is good advice. That's why I'd step away; and because there's much to do on Wikipedia in general where one can work quietly. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But I reiterate that I think that you actually are not in as much of a conflict as you think yourself to be. You appear to be in rough agreement as to the goal, and working together towards it. Also look at what you've actually achieved, and compare it to what was achieved in the preceding four years. Uncle G (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to bother you but LaMome has had a, well, I'm not quite sure what you would call it, but it is obviously in response to her remarks being called sarcastic and now she has copied and pasted stuff from editor talk pages onto the IB talk page. Of course it is all about me, I did not respond, but it has been there overnight and it's not pretty. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

It is not pretty because it exposes ObserverNY for what s/he is. It also sheds light on the reason for my sarcasm. I agree that there is a lot more content on the page than there was in the versions you supplied. But the road to get there was painful. In just one month there has been 2 attempted outings, a 24 hour block due to 3RR, relentless pushing of POV, edit warring, FLAMING and constant additions of sources that are clearly not valid or verifiable. All by ObserverNY. And I get chastised for sarcasm. I am sure this is tame compared to other pages, but the drama on the IB pages is unpleasant enough to make people want to walk away (Ewen, Candy and now Truthkeeper). You will be left with an article that will resemble the anti-IB website "Truth about IB" created by ObserverNY.

Thank you for your words of wisdom and encouragement. I am sorry that your time is being wasted with all this pettiness.

La mome (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LaMome and Tvor65 have tag teamed me from the day I started the IBDP article and have continued their assault in the IB article. They have both admitted somewhere in the talk pages to being aware of my postings elsewhere on the Internet. LaMome has admitted to being an IB teacher. The 24 hr. block was due to LaMome reporting me after Tvor65 deleted my edits without explanation and I reverted them. I do not believe the talk page of an article is appropriate for these sort of hysterics and respectfully request that Uncle G. intervene. These constant accusations of flaming and outing are ridiculous. If LaMome and Tvor65 would simply make contributions to the article in good faith instead of attacking everything I do, the world would be a better place. ObserverNY (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Well, first of all, everyone who googles "ObserverNY" (or goes to her website that she is trying to advertise on Wikipedia) is aware of her postings elsewhere on the internet. Second, my edits were explained (unlike many of the ones ONY made). Third, ONY goes into the tantrum mode every time her edits are challenged, so it is more than a little ironic that she would be the one complaining about "hysterics". Fourth, the two "outing" attempts are well documented. In general, ONY's behavior created a situation when editors prefer to work on other articles rather than participate in endless and rather unpleasant arguments with ONY. This helps her achieve her stated goal and will hardly lead to a balanced Wikipedia article about IB.Tvor65 (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G - I have completed the section on IB Governance to the best of my ability. I resent the above allegations made by LaMome that I have caused Ewen, Candorwein and Truthkeeper to "walk away". Ewen and I are "friends" on Facebook, Candorwein stated he/she would be on vacation for 6 weeks (I never did get an apology for his/her "sexist" remark, but it's water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned) and Truthkeeper, well, he/she was upset with you, Uncle G. I left words of encouragement for Truthkeeper to please stay on his/her talk page. I ask you to judge for yourself if my additions to the article are biased. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

I think Uncle G has either gone AWOL or had himself committed after this back and forth. I propose a WP:Truce with LaMOme and Tvor65. The ball is in their court. ObserverNY (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

I've accepted the truce. La mome (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you LaMome. Peace. ObserverNY (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Fine with me, too (not that there was/is any war going on).Tvor65 (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you cannot be part of the solution if you fail to recognize the problem, just as you can't agree to help put out a fire - if you don't see the fire. I'm afraid I cannot shake on a WP:Truce with Tvor65 based on the above caveat. ObserverNY (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

I am resigned to the fact that Tvor65 will continue to bully until she gets her way and so, I have bowed out of the International Baccalaureate article. The 3rd Opinion editor has recreated the article in what appears to be a reasonable and balanced fashion, although it lacks much of the detail I had contributed due to my choice to remove myself and my contributions from the page. I am disappointed that as an administrator you have gone "off grid", but you are entitled to free time as much as anyone. For the future, please be advised that I consider Tvor65 a POV combatant despite her disingenuous claims of neutrality and consider her presence on ANY article a hindrance to constructive improvement. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

I think anyone who reads the recent discussions can see just who exactly wanted "to bully until she gets her way" and when that failed wiped out half of the article that she deemed as "her contributions". Thankfully, another editor restored and reorganized the article, which now looks a lot more balanced and better written, in my opinion. As for the accusations, again, I am confident that people can see my contributions and judge for themselves, rather than rely on ONY's baseless claims.Tvor65 (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astounding, truly. You actually believe you've made "contributions" to the article? I just went through the history from the time you arrived. I came across one you tagged "corrected grammar". Okay, I figured that would be a "positive" contribution but when I checked it, I found it had nothing to do with corrected grammar and that you had actually changed an article citation I had placed. Your only other article "contributions" consisted of removing the DeWeese citation, attempting to use the Bunnell citation while feigning ignorance that an IB teacher was the source, and then moving the Programmes section back up when everyone else agreed to wait for WT:EDUCATION. The record DOES speak clearly and my claims are clearly documented. ObserverNY (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

I suggest that ONY stops using Uncle G's talk page as a platform for personal attacks against me. Accusing another editor of "feigning ignorance" is beyond the pale.Tvor65 (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the Stewart Downing photo issue

Your comments at WP:ANI regarding the Stewart Downing photo are a bit obtuse. Could you perhaps detail the issue in the talk page comment you want everyone to "get". Because I certainly don't see what you are talking about. Just telling us all to "read the comment" as though we can magically devine what your opinion on the comment is isn't helping much. I too want to resolve this issue, and you seem to indicate that there is something in the comment that will help us resolve it. If you could direct us to what it is, that would be most awesome. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 17:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reference style

On the Chan Heung page you mentioned that the reference style is not well done. Can you give me a more concrete example? I can provide a better reference style if an example is given. Thanks for your input! I do appreciate having input if it will help make the page better. Huo Xin (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Pig

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Sterling work on the Blue Pig — cheers, Colonel Warden (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Croft deserves some of the credit for taking photographs. Uncle G (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Pig

Hi Uncle G. The article you turned Blue Pig into is an interesting idea, and I have created a redirect to point to it - Blue Pig, Grantham. However, it is inappropriate for Blue Pig to point to an article on Grantham, as there are several pubs with the name Blue Pig, and the one in Grantham is not particularly more notable than the others: Google, Books, therefore a redirect of Blue Pig to an article on pub names seems more appropriate. Unless you have a continuing objection, I'll point Blue Pig back to Pub names. There may, of course, be other solutions to consider - and people may in future do other things with Blue Pig! Anyway - as it seems you have an interest in pubs, would you consider helping out on the pubs articles at WP:Pubs? SilkTork *^YES! 21:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's each to their own, but your talkpage is difficult to navigate as it is so long. Be helpful to other users if you archived it.

And I note that you dislike disjointed conversations. I'm the same. What I tend to do is copy what has been written and paste it onto the other person's talkpage along with my response - that way they are informed of my response by the Wikipedia talkpage software, and the conversation is all kept together. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 21:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a continuing objection, and it's the one in the edit summary. Until you add something about Blue Pigs to pub names, a redirect there doesn't serve the reader. Whereas a Blue Pig is discussed, with more than a single passing mention, at public houses and inns in Grantham, and pointing a reader wanting to know about Blue Pigs there will at least provide xem with an article that actually talks about one.

To be honest, I think that you'll not find anything to write about Blue Pigs in general. This is based upon how sources treat the subject. I've done more than your Google searches. I've actually read sources. The entry for "Blue Pig" in Rothwell (cited in public houses and inns in Grantham) directs to the entry for "Blue", and the entry for "Blue" doesn't say much about Blue Pigs specifically, and spends over a third of its length talking about the "Blue" pubs in Grantham. The Guinness Book of names doesn't even have an entry for "Blue Pig" at all.

Your Google searches — as Google searches do, and as explained by Wikipedia:Google test — mean nothing when it comes to notability, and are a completely fallacious argument. The actual coverage by sources, which I've seen because (for obvious reasons ☺) I've spent some time looking for and reading sources that document a Blue Pig pub, is skewed towards Grantham. Simply put, most coverage is Yellow Pages content, self-advertising, and things like when the pub quiz night is, which has nothing encylopaedic to say. Where the coverage is suitable source material, it covers the Blue Pig only as part of a larger discussion of "Blue" pubs in general, which in turn tends to devote a large part of its time to Grantham's "Blue" pubs. The Blue Pig is only documented as part of a notable umbrella subject, and isn't notable in its own right.

I did point this out in the AFD discussion. Did you think that I hadn't based what I wrote on what coverage in sources I had found? If I'd found sources documenting the subject in its own right, I wouldn't have had to rename the article. Indeed, if such coverage in sources existed the original article wouldn't have had to talk about other pubs in Grantham, too. Uncle G (talk) 09:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthro stuff

Before User:Andrewjlockley came along with his mass of redirects and see alsos to back up his new article 6th Extinction already existed as a redirect to Holocene extinction event. We should not redefine 6th extinction as 'Anthropocene extinction' per AJL's limited POV understanding of the science. I am simply trying to get some scientific claritiy here as opposed to AJLs rather intricate content forking. We are falling into the trap of allowing the definition of neologism terms on wikipedia to suit an individual's content forking purposes. Polargeo (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blue pig again

Thanks for responding. I have done for you as I suggested and copied your response over to my talkpage. I would appreciate if you copied over any further response you may have to my talkpage so I am kept up to date on the discussion. I have added some material on Blue Pig to the Pub Names article, and so having now overcome your sole objection, I have redirected Blue Pig to that article. Please be aware that I have created Blue Pig, Grantham for those looking for the pub in Grantham. It could be seen as presumptious to assume that someone looking for the significance of the pub name "Blue Pig", or for an actual Blue Pig pub in any other location that they should be looking for the one in Grantham. The significance of the use of the word "Blue" (for both Blue Pug and a variety of other pub names which use Blue) is given in the Pub Names article, which is sourced. Assistance with expanding the Pub names article would be appreciated. SilkTork *^YES! 14:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Conrad Murray

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Conrad Murray. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conrad Murray. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on checkuser

You asked a fair question on RFAR, but its a general question about checkuser so it's not really specific to that case. I've had a go at an answer.

It can and does take just minutes to find that diff, but the thing is, only if you know to look for it. Durova didn't know, nor Ottava, nor the people who looked for evidence and reported they hadn't found any that was solid enough at the time.

What you're asking sounds reasonable,but if someone told you right now, "I suspect users X and Y with thousands of edits might be socks", the amount of work that can go into finding the level of evidence needed is colossal. Even supposing you found that diff in that case, you have to then act as devils advocate, and anticipate the user saying "I was using someone else's computer" or whatever... you then have to be able to show that answer isn't likely either, that's part of it too.

Checkuser elections are going on. When they're done, in a couple of months, ask one of the new checkusers how technically tough it can be to track down the one elusive diff you don't even know whether it's there.

Then consider the pile-on "It must have been his mother/wife/invisible friend, checkuser abuse!" and the extra work to produce evidence - not say-so - that would show all the alternative good faith reasons are implausible or unlikely.

Checkuser work is easy looking back, like a lot of things. In this case the quickest logical route is - "If they are socks, they may have stacked. Let's look at major project pages where stacking might have been more serious. 9 times out of 10 all you'd get is "yes, they both stated a view on this discussion. In Geogre's case you'd find a resigned edit a minute later. But that's easy to say in hindsight.

In the case of more serious sock-users - Poetlister, Mantanmoreland, and now, Geogre - these are sophisticated competent users (or abusers) with many contributions. Traces may be expected to be scanty, and often considerable insight is needed to realize where such iron-clad evidence might be found, and then dig it out and show it is significant, even if in retrospect it's easy to point it out.

Hope that answers it a bit. There's some more explanation on what's involved, and some analysis of the logs, at Wikipedia talk:CheckUser#Checkuser usage.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not paying attention. Durova did know. Xe wants to know why Risker didn't talk about the matter and whether Risker knew. And this isn't about CheckUser at all. I direct you, with deliberate irony, to User:Durova/Wikisleuthing.
Oh, and don't teach your Uncle G to suck eggs. I was a year ahead of you on the whole Poetlister thing. I even located the same sockpuppetry on non-WMF wikis, as you'll note I said in that edit. Note also who did a lot of the reviewing at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 31#Sockpuppet cleanup. Your only consolation perhaps is that Wikiquote finally got wise a fortnight behind your block. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A small correction here, and an apology for misreading the diffs you provided. I had thought you were only referring to the April 2007 one - the January 2009 diff was helpful, thanks for finding that. Carcharoth (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geogre

I do not know Geogre, though I am aware of the name and understand that the user has made valued contributions. […] The statement by Geogre, when it came, did this person no credit - it is somewhat arrogant, lacking in understanding, and insulting to other users.

There's a whole lot of background here, involving what I tend to think of as "The Usual Suspects", a small group of editors who all know each other and who all have some sort of complex internecine feud, that would give Dynasty a run for its money, going. It's the same people over and over again, and they've come up at the Administrators' Noticeboard and Arbitration with a depressing regularity over the past half decade or more. I could reel you off a list of names. But so, probably, could you, and it would be the same list.

Like most people, I suspect, I tend to skip over those. The current Jimbo-Bishonen dispute, that you've also commented on, is just more of the same. Like most people, I suspect, I'm just not interested in their mutual squabbling and find it of no relevance whatsoever, and I wish that they would all understand that, and not think it all so gosh-darn important that everyone has to stop what they are doing and pay attention and that it has to be shoe-horned into all other discussions.

It's a shame that Geogre is involved in this. Unlike several of the Usual Suspects, xe has actually proven useful, in my experience. I've invoked xyr spectre a few times, and adopted several good ideas that xe conceived/exemplified, including the good idea, based upon the principle that administrators can read, that it's completely daft to label discussion contributions with boldfaced "Comment". Xe also articulated Geogre's Law.

One has to read these continual little affairs in the context of years of background, since the people involved tend to write to address those who share in the history, as those are almost inevitably the other parties involved. Unfortunately for them, I and (I suspect) others are really not interested in following their little soap opera. As I said, I suspect that most people wish they would start to grasp how irrelevant their infighting is, and how damaging it becomes when it spills over with real effect onto the rest of us with things like "Association of Editors Who All Agree that They Are Superior to You" committees. Uncle G (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. People edit in different areas of Wikipedia and it's inevitable if people edit in the same area that they will encounter the same names. I don't often get involved in ArbCom issues, but when I do I tend to see the same names. When I get involved in AfD, I see the same names. Good Articles - the same names. Etc. When I edit notability essays I see the same names - some intersections with ArbCom in relation to BLP. Edit MoS articles and there are often intersections with notability essay people, and also with ArbCom people. When I edit Beer articles I see the same names - sadly people who don't appear to get involved with much else in Wikipedia! Mostly I feel that ArbCom and what happens there is a world within a world, and doesn't (thankfully) - as you suggest - have much of an impact on the real day to day editing. I am also aware from my previous jaunts into ArbCom territory, that a number of the people there have egos the size of Zeppelins - which is fine, as large egos can drive organisations into interesting territories; but such egos need to be monitored carefully to ensure that they don't drive us into unwanted territories. I don't think that Geogre has done a big wrong - I think the person has succumbed to a natural temptation to support himself in debates. Shrug. No big deal. However, regardless of valued contributions, long standing service and friends in ArbCom, this is deceitful behaviour which we don't wish Admins to display. Those voted in by the community to look into these matters - ArbCom - have no choice but to admonish and desysop him. As he is generally in good standing with the community, I think, given time to let the matter cool down, the community will accept him back as an Admin. I was disappointed to read his statement. I understand what you are saying that the intended audience for what he wrote was not Wikipedia but the ArbCom regulars. However, it did reveal an aspect of that person's character that might have been better kept private. The statement did reveal poor judgement which goes hand in hand with the use of the alternative account. I personally wouldn't oppose him in a RFA, but neither would I support him.

I saw something you wrote about Postcard Cathy on ANI the other day which I liked very much. (I did a random click into your contributions as I was not familiar with your work). Keep well. SilkTork *^YES! 19:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Which part did you like? Uncle G (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you said here. A voice of reason and tolerance - which is at the heart of Wikipedia. If an encyclopedia cannot be reasonable and tolerant, then it cannot reflect with honesty, neutrality and completeness the sum of human knowledge. SilkTork *^YES! 10:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was away for much of the Bishonen-Jimbo drama. Looking back at it, I agree entirely with your comment above. Cool Hand Luke 14:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make it stop, please...

...I am begging you. S/he is out of control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IB_Diploma_Programme

Wow. You're an IB foreign language teacher and you don't know how to insert diacritical symbols? ñóúúÿàáâãäåèéêëìíîï ........translation: YIKES! ObserverNY (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Thank you La mome (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IB_Diploma_Programme&diff=prev&oldid=305147502

La mome (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IB_Diploma_Programme&diff=prev&oldid=305113483

La mome (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected Asiaphile to Asian fetish

Hi, Uncle G. I noticed that you suggested merging Asian fetish to an article with a more neutral name. It is a move that I support, since the title of the article attracted archives of heated discussion. You'll notice that I redirected Asiaphile to Asian fetish. Although it had sources, the article was brief and its content and sources overlapped heavily with the Asian fetish article, so I found it redundant. I hope that other users support what I did. I'm telling you this, because I wasn't sure if you were still interested in editing those articles. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 08:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

Thank you for the link to your thoughts about article triage. Very useful. Although not policy, it is well written enough for study and consultation. It is even better than some WP policies! User F203 (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the section all of the way to the end. It is taken from policy. Uncle G (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help solve a(n unimportant) mystery?

UncleG, I'm not totally how I got here tonight, but I did, and it opened up a real mystery to me. The AfD is a no-brainer; the decision to turn into a redirect to Unschooling could have been closed by a baboon. But I read the comments, for whatever reason, and I saw that the editors were acting contempuous of the editor who had created the article. Their words are inexplicably harsh, I thought, but then again, not seeing what the article looked like, I might not know. So since it had simply been turned into a redirect, I thought I should be able to look in article history and see the old article.

So I went here. To my surprise, there was virtually no history to be found--only three edits altogether: [17], [18], and [19]. Very puzzling also are the dates: Sept. 25, 2005, and then a two year jump to May, 2007. The middle edit is obvious vandalism, properly reverted. But the (first) mystery to me then is where is the article that was brought to AfD? The AfD was in September of 2005, and the only version from that month shows nothing but a redirect. I don't get it. Yet I'm not all that concerned about that.

What really has me freaked out is that, reading the edit history, I may have been involved in the article and don't remember it. Look at this edit summary. The editor is explicitly reverting me, to read his summary. And yet, a) I do not show up in the edit history, and b) I have no memory of being involved with this redirect. To make matters more baffling, the date of the AfD is exactly one week after I signed up for Wikipedia back in 2005. And one of the editors says, Malformed redirect to a user describing himself.". Is it possible that I actually did that when I first signed up? I have no memory of it, and the edit history doesn't show it.

So did I ever make any contributions to Unschool (and I am asking about the redirect/article, not to Unschooling, to which I know I have made occasional contributions.) Are you able to enlighten me? I know that sometimes admins can view things that we mere mortals cannot. Un school 03:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You created your user page at Unschool (not User:Unschool) in 2005. Jkelly userfied it for you. After Yonir started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unschool, RHaworth deleted the resultant redirect and Silensor created a new one. As for Mikieminnow, xe was trying to revert your edit here but for some reason saved the reversion in entirely the wrong article. Uncle G (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that. I can see how I would have created a User page in the mainspace when I first joined; I would guess that other idiots have popped up periodically and done the same. Wow, I can't believe I sparked an AfD in my first week without even knowing what AfD was! (But shouldn't someone have discussed it with me on my talk page?) That second thing with Mikieminnow remains weird, but I guess I'll just forget about it. Thanks, again! Un school 22:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Public houses and inns in Grantham

On August 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Public houses and inns in Grantham, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

So Why 08:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, but...

Thanks for the advice, but frankly, I'm gobsmacked. I'm still relatively new here, but I have run across the terms inclusionist or deletionist many times. I honestly cannot recall a time when it gave me even a hint of Godwin's law. I just reviewed Deletionist, and it is clearly written in a humorous way; not even the barest hint that it is a term to be avoided. Of course, I can easily imagine a battle between inclusionists and deletionists; Afd is full of them, but the battles were over application of rules, not affrontry(sorry, not a real word but it should be) at the terms. I do appreciate that you were trying to be helpful, but until I see some evidence that the term is viewed as disparaging, it's going to be hard to remember. I just reviewed Deletionism. Not a hint that the term is considered offensive. --SPhilbrick T 13:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll learn from experience, as many others have. And as you do so, bear in mind the differences, both in content and in governing policies, between encyclopaedia articles about Wikipedia and what is to be found in project space and on Meta. Uncle G (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WQA

Please note, I have raised a WQA for your contributions across several of the AFDs I recently raised in order to get another viewpoint on whether your actions meet recommended policy.—Ash (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seven day run

I'm not asking you to weigh in for or against deletion, although of course you're more than welcome to do, but consistent with what you said at ANI (which was right on the money), it would be terribly helpful if you could say or do something at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orly Taitz (3rd nomination) to ensure that it runs for the full seven days. I'm seeing an awful lot of users demanding yet another premature close, despite the fact that it was premature closes that created this mess. That ought to be avoided; the AFD should have its full run, as it should have in the first place.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copley Plaza

Hey, thanks for picking up the baton by adding sources in. Fences&Windows 00:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Studio Albums

What I meant was, why not salt the exact terms Fifth Studio Album, Sixth Studio Album, and so on? I didn't mean salt strings like Eminem's Seventh Studio Album, because if it was notable the title would be appropriate. Abductive (reasoning) 11:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot generalize about those, either. Sometimes such names are the titles. Look at the name of the album that precedes Korn's ninth studio album (AfD discussion). Or look at the names that are used on, say, Amazon for some of Adamo's studio albums. Uncle G (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Has there ever been an album named Seventh Studio Album? Or Third Studio Album? Amazon didn't do it, btw.
  If Ninth Studio Album was salted, nothing would have prevented moving KoRn's album to KoRn's Ninth Studio Album, right? Finally, salting can be removed by just asking any admin and presenting a reasonable case. Abductive (reasoning) 20:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Amazon has a "Studio Album No. 7" listed for Adamo. As I said, go and look at some of the names that actually occur. Uncle G (talk) 09:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Usually, albums on Wikipedia are titled Blabla Bla (Foo album), so I think I am right; salting these names will force the editors to add the name of the artist to the title, not prevent them from creating the article. Preventing these sorts of articles is not my goal. Abductive (reasoning) 09:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Distinguishers in parentheses are used when there is more than one article that could take the same name, and the article in question is clearly not the most important. One should not be creating names with distinguishers in parentheses unless the name is already in use, or there are naming guidelines for the topic that call for such distinguishers. -- Donald Albury 12:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        But these are not their names... Abductive (reasoning) 14:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for De Heidebloem, Erica

I've replied at T:TDYK. Mjroots (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK query

Hi, Thanks for your response to my DYK entry on List of programmes broadcast by CITV. I was not aware about the most recent Ofcom ruling and can't seem to find any more recent sources. I wanted to put a fact about the first or longest-running series on CITV but there are very few sources. Can you suggest another fact or hook? 03 md 08:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have written an alternative hook on the DYK page. Can you check it again? 03 md 15:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your thoughtful participation in my RfA. I will do my best to take the criticism to heart and improve my communication style. As for AfDs I will go slow and be sure I learn the basics first, and I will not forget that I am first and foremost an editor. I will work to gain your trust by dilligent work.

Opinion

Your opinion would be appreciated here. Thanks, Majorly talk 15:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ludovic Sané and Paul Lasne

Where is your proof? Please provide it, as according to the LFP website, which is officially responsible for compiling statistics for Ligue 1 players, neither have yet to make a first team appearance. Playing for Bordeaux's second team in the amateur division does not mean an appearance for the first team. RCO Agde and Lormont FC are amateur clubs playing in amateur leagues and WP:ATHLETE clearly states you have to appear in a professional league.

Here's their LFP pages:

Paul Lasne Ludovic Sane

I suggest you put the deletion pages back up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joao10Siamun (talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whipple Van Buren Phillips

You mentioned in your comments on the AFD page that there were nine paragraphs of information on Whipple Van Buren Phillips. The sources that I found when I did my research: [20] [21] & [22] were all top results for google and either only mentioned him in connection to HP Lovecraft or gave details of his life that I didn't feel established him as a notable individual. An example that I gave to another user was that my great great grandfather was a master plumber in Pittsburgh and installed plumbing in many of the major buildings. He was considered the best in his field, and the info that I have on him reads very much like the second source I listed above. Plenty of information, quite a remarkable life, but nothing that jumped out at me as establishing a threshold of notability. Do you feel that the information in these sources, or any others you may have, would serve to establish his notability? HarlandQPitt (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up

A proper closing would have discounted my !vote,[23] but of course it's always better not to leave a closing to the chance that it'll be done well, so I changed to "Strong keep". Thanks for helping save the article. -- Noroton (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: grey literature subjects

I must admit I have only basic knowledge in that area, but I know some organizations involved. Administrator DGG and user:Abductive have already removed Prod tags from the questioned articles; and user:Abductive has done some copyright research and copied relevant urls into his edit summaries (see article history). My (quick) comments are

All articles have enough notability and are properly related to respectable organizations. European Association for Grey Literature Exploitation is an inactive project, but it seems notable enough to keep it as a history article. That said, some information might be superfluous.
Copyright violations, in this particular case, should be solved by rewriting rather than by Prod. Usually, such pages are composed by people involved in the associated projects (which often brings WP:COI, but this is of little concern for this topic). The worst case is Grey Literature Network Service where the lead is almost copy/pasted. None of the articles is copy/pasted, only some sentences.
My experience with the involved organizations tells me that there would be hardly ever any copyright complaints from them; they only appreciate (though are not eager in) an extra WP page. Thus even if copyright concerns apply literally, I would not rush to blindly follow the rules here.
All pages are fine in terms of neutrality.

In summary, those pages need cleanup, reformulation and perhaps merging. I would ask the page authors, such as User:Chicon59 and others (luckily most are registered users) to do that. Please feel free to post further comments. Materialscientist (talk) 02:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noirmoutier-en-l'Île

I don't know whether you are interested, but, in my opinion, this suggestion was moved to the DYK queue without the problems being resolved. If you'd like to opine, I've noted my concerns here. Long Shrift (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

209.99.19.8 - more incivility & trying to hide talk page warnings

Please see my recent additions to the discussion at WP:ANI#209.99.19.8. GSMR (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good move

[24] -- I was about to fully protect the page for 30 minutes to get people to leave him alone. Good grief. Antandrus (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Declan

I was "assuming good faith" with Declan, and there was this whirlwind of deletions and additions that was driving me nuts. I've never had so many edit conflicts in 15 minutes time. Are you saying Declan is merely a troll? If so, I'm done with trying to help him, and done with that user page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What has been said that might lead you to surmise that I am a troll? Have you not read the edit histories? I tried my best to make a point. I was attacked by several editor. At 01:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC) I clearly stated that I had no further part to play in any discussion; in fact I even posted a picture of a white flag on my page. Then the edits started. A user accused Bugs of being a troll and the preverbial hit the fan. I don't see why anyone may accuse ME of being a troll. Please, just read the edit histories. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 02:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that it's the middle of the night in xyr local time, for starters. If the issue still needs discussion, it can be discussed when it is xyr daytime. So let's not get into who is/isn't a troll before that time, either. Uncle G (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's approaching 10 p.m. here in the midwest, which is not all that late. This whole thing, again "assuming good faith", is, in my opinion one of the more poorly handled incidents I've seen here. A little communication up front instead of this "slashing and burning" approach, might have prevented this brouhaha. I'm not saying it would have, but it might have. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - More like 4:00 a.m. in the U.K., so I see your point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The whole later "Baseball Bugs" part of it, at least, was down to a disruptive vandal (who has been reverted, blocked, and ignored elsewhere) latching onto the incident and deciding to stir the pot a bit more. There have been other causes as well. A massive escalating to and fro on User talk:Declan Davis isn't the way to sort them out, though. Uncle G (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - And the others took the bait, and made things worse. I don't give a flying flick what someone says about me somewhere. This guy Declan (who, from his user page, seems like a reasonable guy) was jumped on from all angles (including from me, at first) when a little care up front might have made things better. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Just wanted to drop a note of appreciation for your backup and support. Thanks Uncle G. — Ched : ? 14:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrascally wabbit

While I agree with the deletion of the article, your summary statement surprised me. I have a vague recollection of what was in the article, and as best I remember it it was just an unnecessary and misspelled duplication of content that's on the Elmer Fudd article. Did I miss something, or did you accidentally confuse it for another article as you wrote the deletion summary? -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're remembering only the first sentence, which was inserted as an afterthought by the article's creator and sole editor. The rest of the article, present since the very first version, was describing "a female", who was the real subject here. Uncle G (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Multiangle Light Scattering (MALS) and Differential Light Scattering (DLS)

Thank you for pointing me to that article. Please don't hesitate doing so in the future (I should spend more time on Afd, Prod and related issues). I shall first explain part of my philosophy on example of Nano spray dryer. That article was clearly created as a promotion vehicle for the corresponding company, but in pursuing their goal, they created a reasonable page (I admit, referencing is a problem), which I try to keep, stripping all and any their attempts to add promotional information. Coming back to MALS, P J Watt is a strong scientist (say, well above average professor). I don't know whether he is involved in editing; can't access his all articles and thus can't claim the page is not copyvio, but it doesn't seem so to me. I shall talk to the author trying to rectify some issues (especially figures) and shall cleanup what I can there. Certainly, there is some COI, but it is so easy to notice and strip promotions. On the other hand, the information and references are worth keeping. Even some of their custom pages like http://www.wyatt.com/literature/bibliography.cfm are valuable. Materialscientist (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel compelled to join in deletion processes. That wasn't why I let you know about the article. I did so because I think that you have the wherewithal to help clean up, check, expand, and generally improve it. I believe that you have better than average access to these kinds of sources. And if you've reviewed and think that there are no problems caused by conflicts of interest, then that's good. A review was the idea. I still think that the title needs attention. Uncle G (talk) 02:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am politely awaiting reply of the author on the title, but if not, will rename myself (the current title is indeed inappropriate). I agree that I am more useful in providing an opinion rather than in enforcing it. I have little knowledge about where this is needed at a given time and sometimes seek threads in Afds discussions. In practice, I was more helpful in (un)merging attempts, which are sometimes way off line. Materialscientist (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that you've been doing some work at DYK, also. Because one option here is to rename over an existing article, which requires administrator tools, I've started a more formal renaming discussion on the talk page (q.v.). Notice the pattern to the creator's contributions history, by the way. I shouldn't expect a response within hours. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found my place on WP yet (don't see an open "expert opinion" position :), thats why joined DYK, at least its fun sometimes. I would not rush with renaming that article, simply because without pictures it might either not survive or be rewritten. Multi-angle light scattering is not an obstacle for the move as it should be "merged" into the discussed one, in practice, its content is almost useless and may just be deleted. I would wait the author's reaction, and if not seen then act. Materialscientist (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you contribute your above opinion to the move discussion on the article's talk page. Uncle G (talk) 03:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for thought on an AFD

Heya. Can I get your thoughts on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ArticleAlley? I'm asking because I feel an interpretation needs to be made on an essay of yours that User:34pin6 cited in a rebuttal to my !vote. Not looking to be uncivil, I would feel more comfortable if you spoke on the issue since you've been mentioned now. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Timewave_zero#Redirect proposal

Notice: You commented in an Article for deletion for Timewave zero / Novelty theory, an RFC has been opened on whether this article should be replaced with a Redirect. Please comment on the above link. Lumos3 (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion for Ashida Kim under review

I noticed that you had expressed concerns on User talk:Backslash Forwardslash about the closure of the most recent Ashida Kim deletion discussion. I have posted a review request for this discussion: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 4. *** Crotalus *** 20:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful improvement

Very nice.[25] Best regards, Durova³¹² 04:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia triage in action. Uncle G (talk) 06:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Hi, G. I looked over that user's contributions and most if not all appeared to be machine translated from text or possibly copied directly from text in this fellow's idea of English. He just reposted one and it's a mess, pretty much word-for-word from the deleted version...not to mention the snotty message he left on my talk page. I need to have another gentle word with this fellow. Thanks for the notice, but I was concerned about possible copyright violations when I deleted the articles, not to mention the fact that they were nearly incomprehensible. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember, then, to change the deletion rationale from the pre-supplied one when you delete an article at Proposed Deletion for some reason other than expiry. Because the deletion log as it stands says that you deleted those articles because they had run the full seven days at Proposed Deletion and expired. Uncle G (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome

Just reading through the incident archives, you say things in an excellently direct way :) Tyciol (talk) 00:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cough cough

Sorry, but it's Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Collapsing.2Fhiding_closed_XFD_discussions contagious. jnothman ^talk 07:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zaxby/Planecrash/Thechroniclesofratman

I just saw your closing of the AFD of User:TheAntijerkss, it's quite astonishing that there were yet more sockpuppets that I had not found. However I wonder if you'd agree that it might be more helpful to group all the sockpuppets together because it seems almost entirely certain that he will attempt to create more accounts. Currently we have Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Planecrash111, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Thechroniclesofratman, and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Thechroniclesofratman. If a new user can be identified as the same person who has had several dozen sockpuppets, it should be easier to deal with them and block them before they continue their prodecure of lying in edit summaries, vandalizing, and writing false biographies on their user page.

Since some of these sockpuppets are listed only as suspected, should this be run through WP:SPI to do a Checkuser as final confirmation or should all the user names just be grouped together into Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Thechroniclesofratman because the evidence seems clear enough? ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 05:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fake racers

Thanks for untangling the fake racer sockpuppet network! Gigs (talk) 14:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent suggestion

Duplicate of User talk:JeffBillman, created by JeffBillman to split a conversation into two places, removed. See the notice at the top of this page. Uncle G (talk) 00:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding deletion, in the abstract for a change

Uncle G, hi. I haven't had occasion to drop by here in some time; I hope you're well.

I've been talking with some inclusionists — I know, I know — but there's an idea kicking around to do a bit for the newsletter about perspectives on article deletion. Someone identified you as someone who might be willing and possibly able to elucidate, if not outright champion, a deletionist perspective. I seem to have volunteered to be a mergist-minded moderator, and I'm wondering if you'd have any interest in a structured discussion on Wikipedia's article deletion processes.

Please feel free (of course) to reply here, or at my talk page. If you're not interested, perhaps you could suggest names of others who might represent the perspective in a calm and articulate manner. Come to think of it, even if you are interested, a panel discussion might be a format we'd consider. On the other hand, one-on-one (moderated by moi) makes for good television, or in this case... yeah.

Take care. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever that was, hadn't read Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 17#Prominent inclusionists? or this, or even this very talk page. Perhaps I ought to create another of my sub-pages. Uncle G (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I'm not asking about something nearly that simple minded. Apparently I didn't express myself very well. I'm not trying to call anyone anything, and I'm firmly against calling people things. That's why I didn't call you a deletionist, but asked if you might be willing to represent a deletionist perspective for the purpose of a discussion. I can see this is something you don't want to talk about. I did say "talking with some inclusionists", and it was part of what I naively took to be a witty... oh never mind. Good day. Creating a subpage obviously wouldn't help, so don't bother. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's the problem. The idea that there's a deletionist-versus-inclusionist panel discussion to be had rather buys into the whole Black-versus-White myth that such polarization exists and is a major force here. It is not. I pointed to what TenOfAllTrades had to say, on the Village Pump. Xe has articulated that sentiment again, quite recently. I rather regret not noting where it was, a month or so ago, that someone pointed out that the whole idea of "deletionist" and "inclusionist" editors was a short-term fad of a few years ago (when the MediaWiki deletion mechanism worked somewhat differently, note). If you want a truly representative newsletter piece, that doesn't do what journalists outside of Wikipedia have done, in looking for an easy Black-versus-White conflict to write up, I suggest looking to the editors who do not buy into these "-istas" world views at all. Because I strongly suspect that they are the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia editors. Uncle G (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that, while the "-ist" (I won't Latinize it to make it sound somehow... what?) labels are clearly CRAP when applied to people, they do represent archetypal philosophies. That said, I'm open to any format for a discussion that might teach the community something, and open to suggestions. If you think that more people would be interested in a different format, then I'm all ears. If you just want to point to backlog that you're so irritated to have to repeat, then I'll fuck off.
      How would you structure a discussion that would tease out meaningful arguments, attract the attention of readers, and possibly help us break out of the increasingly acrimonious atmosphere at AfD? In case it's not clear, I found your first reply to be rudely dismissive. All I want is to help. I never asked that someone "buy into" world views. I asked if you'd be willing to represent a perspective that is clearly identifiable, and that will draw in an audience. If you're clever about it, you could use such a platform to debunk the whole dichotomy. Or you could piss in the cornflakes of someone who regards you as intelligent and articulate. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - In part, at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion you're already having it. The contentious issues are not the "-istas" at all. (See wikt:-ista#English, by the way. They are used as name calling pejoratives.) They are things such as whose responsibility it is to actually put in the leg-work of searching for sources (Answer: Everyone's.), what to do when there are arguments that clearly are not based upon reading the article at all (Alas! AFD patrollers don't pick up on this as much as they used to.), and the influence of article rescues on on-going discussions (I actually did some experiments on the latter a while back, doing rescues on some articles and giving various levels of notification to the discussion, even down to doing the rescue without the magic "Uncle G" name attached to it in the edit history and being entirely silent in the discussion.).
        Oh and it wasn't rude. Trust me: If I'd been rude, you'd have seen the actual words "Fuck off, GTBacchus." there, which of course you didn't. What it was, though, was a pointer (as the edit summary said) to where "Uncle G is a prominent inclusionist." contrasts with the "Uncle G is a prominent deletionist." that someone apparently told you. It reinforces the point that these are labels applied by others to foster discord and division, rather than correct observations of reality. And it was a short pointer. I still have 30 tabs open with potential sources for anthropometry of the upper arm (AfD discussion), which I was rather hoping to work on some more.
        As to debunking, I think that many people have done that already. How many times have you seen people say "People say I'm an inclusionist/a deletionist but actually I don't hold the blanket position that …"? I've seen it many times over the years. It has been debunked by a lot of people explicitly disclaiming the ideas. The only place that it probably hasn't been debunked is the popular press, who are some years behind the times here. (In that vein, note that your discussions are being partly pushed by one of the people who has been stirring up discord and division in this regard for some years now, using the popular press as proof. So be careful.)
        If you want one reasonable idea that no-one seems to address, try finding a way to get people to do AFD patrol over the older discussions, for days gone by, rather than for just the current day. When the full discussion list was taken off Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, for performance and bandwith reasons, Rossami (if memory serves) noted that this would serve to discourage people from patrolling all active discussions. That does appear to be the case. We've lost quite a lot of the benefit that we used to reap from people coming to discussions after editors had searched for sources, fixed problems, proposed and discussed constructive suggestions, entirely rebutted hasty pile-ons, allowed more than 10 minutes' article growth, and so forth. (Ironically, the place where that sort of benefit is still reaped is now Proposed Deletion.) It's not that the benefit is not there to be reaped any longer. It's just that people aren't encouraged to patrol where they used to be, as a consequence of several factors.
        Another thing that you should read about for background here is the dilemma that people have when they see people putting zero effort into working on the encyclopaedia, but find it difficult to say that in the right way. See Wikipedia:Don't be lazy (MfD discussion) and what resulted from that, from the mediated dispute to WP:OSTRICH and Wikipedia:Somebody Else's Problem. One of the things that I also regret not keeping a bookmark for for posterity was what someone (Tony Sidaway, I believe.) said (back in 2004, if memory serves) about the process of acculturation of new editors being a continuous one. Part of the problem here is that it is perpetual September at Wikipedia, too. But part of the problem is also that some few but vocal people's way of addressing that is not to educate and inform novices, with pointers and by exemplifying what should be done, but to rant on about how all the "dirty -istas!" are the problem. Uncle G (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - See this mailing list post by David Gerard for more on the subject of journalists and the "-istas". Uncle G (talk) 06:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - - (edit conflict - thought you said you had article to work on?) This is too long for me to read and respond to in substance just now. I'll check back after today's workshop.
        Personally, I determine whether I've been successfully diplomatic or unintentionally rude by whether I manage to cause offense, or to strike some kind of resonance with my interlocutor. I see that your standards are different. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I suspect you make some good points. For whatever reason, you chose to take a tone from the start that puts a disgusting taste in my mouth, as if I've been shat upon after attempting to be friendly. I hope I never have the displeasure of interacting with you again, and I'm far less inclined than I was yesterday to listen to anything you have to say. If that was your goal, then good work. If not... whoops! Way to use those people skills to bring others to your point of view.
        Someone described you to me as a prick. I'm not inclined to identify you with a label, and I suspect you're pleasant to interact with, sometimes. I'll just say you've come across to me rather prickishly. The worst part was: "Oh, and it wasn't rude." Brilliant. Being friendly costs nothing.
        Good day. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We already have more than enough discussion about these matters: what is needed is more action. It is actions, not ideologies which matter: "by their fruits, you shall know them". Colonel Warden (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CyanogenMod

G, an AFD for the above article was recently closed by another admin as no consensus. The problem I saw with the closure is that all of the keep !votes boiled down to WP:ILIKEIT or WP:INTERESTING. I'm inclined to reopen the AFD on account of WP:BOLD. There just aren't that many coverage links on it, and a quick google news search turns up eleven articles - most on LifeHacker or in German - for the item. Might I get your opinion on this? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well my immediate thought was that you should contact the closing administrator. But that's already been done by someone else who agrees with you. See User talk:Juliancolton#CyanogenMod. The attempted ballot-stuffing was solicited here and here, by the way. It's almost a shame that the AFD discussion closed so rapidly before this response and this response hit that discussion forum. Uncle G (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Roche

In the AfD discussion on this article you say you found some sources on this notable socialite. I can't find it - maybe not looking hard enough - but would like to add it to the article. Can you remember where it was? Aymatth2 (talk) 03:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to give Richard Arthur Norton a tap on the shoulder about this. Here are some bits and pieces: I gave the ISBN and page number of the source documenting Mrs Arthur Scott Burden's introduction of Diabolo to Newport in the discussion. The information about John Russell Pope and the country house is on page 73 of ISBN 9780847820863, as well as in contemporaneous sources such as the 1919 issue of The Architectural review‎ and the 1917 issue of The New international year book (Frank Moore Colby; Dodd, Mead and Co.). Cynthia Roche Burden's children can be found listed in the 1960 Who was who in America‎. A blurb for C. Edmond Brock's portrait of Cynthia Cary can be found in the catalogue of the Newport Art Museum, ISBN 9781584650188, on page 298. There's additional supporting sourcing for the Cynthia Cary Collection on pages 36–37 of America's membership libraries (ISBN 9781584561996). Uncle G (talk) 03:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see that other editors are picking up on this and adding the material. When I am checking an AfD and find sources I generally add them to an "external links" section in the article and note I did so in the discussion. I prefer that to noting the sources in the discussion. Better to expand the article of course, but I can't always be bothered. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

xfd-closed

Hi. Since I am not that familiar with CSS settings, what is the proper way to include xfd-closed class to make those closed AfD debates collapse? Thanks. --Tone 18:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One can do it with JavaScript or CSS.
JavaScript: I have already prodded a couple of the several editors who have scripts for this to update the editing tools list with their latest and greatest. See also Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 64#Collapsing/hiding closed XFD discussions. There are several that I missed prodding, including Avraham (User:Avraham/monobook.js) and Mr.Z-man (User:Mr.Z-man/hideClosedAFD.js) for two. I encourage you to prod them as well, so that people like you don't have to go trawling through user sub-pages to find what the latest and greatest scripts for this are.
CSS: User:Vicarage/monobook.css is one example of how one can permanently hide different sorts of things by their classes. Uncle G (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it is working now. This will be a time saviour :-) Greetings. --Tone 21:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More of the same...

This is the original classic barnstar, I think it's the most appropriate for someone whose approach is always based on the core values of project. **Guy** (Help!) 20:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Dutch loanwords

You made an excellent point there that "this is a dictionary category, not an encyclopaedia category." I was checking the talk page to work out if the category had been submitted for deletion before, a fate I think should face all such etymological categories. It's only a fairly random selection of Dutch (or other) loanwords that get such categories, after all, so as a category it is not very useful or comprehensive. Do you feel this is worth taking to CFD? TheGrappler (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination)

Since you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 4#Ashida Kim, which was closed as relist, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination). Cunard (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plimer

This [26] before protection looks dubious. Your justification? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Please let me know when you justify this or if you take it for review. The article was improving and the talk page was improving the article. Verbal chat 13:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Oh, and you seem to have f*ck*d up the duration and forgotten to tag it. I would also say that it is in general polite to add a section to pages you have protected explaining why William M. Connolley (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I explained on WP:AN/I some 40 minutes ago. The duration is most definitely not "fucked up", and is quite deliberate. That was explained, too. Read the explanation that was already given before you even came here. Uncle G (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is an explanation, can you please link to it as I don't see it on the article talk page or in the relevant (though appropriately removed) ANI thread. Maybe you should add a justification to the article talk anyway. Verbal chat 13:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's right at the very top of the WP:AN/I discussion. Uncle G (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - A search of ANI for "Plimer" or even Ian comes up negative. Please stop being obtuse. Verbal chat 13:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I suggest that "obtuse" is rather an editor who clearly finds an AN/I discussion in one edit, only to claim that xe cannot find it in the next edit, only minutes later. You know where it is. Look at the top. Uncle G (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, then it seems there is a problem. That is a description of what you have done, not a justification. That is why I couldn't find your justification. Can you please provide a justification, on the article talk page or some other appropriate forum please. And the thread was removed. Please WP:AGF. Verbal chat 13:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Assuming good faith isn't the same as being blind to the fact that you clearly know where the thread is. Uncle G (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        There's no need to be rude, at all. There was no justification for your actions written by you in that thread at that time, so I assumed you were referring to a Heaven and Earth thread that you referenced but didn't link to. Poor behaviour from an admin, who should be willing to justify their actions. Verbal chat 15:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that your answers here are satisfactory [27] William M. Connolley (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you didn't actually state your real question at any point. You could have figured out the copy and paste error with a little thought, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I assumed that when you said, in response to my question about the block duration, 'The duration is most definitely not "fucked up", and is quite deliberate that you were entirely happy with the block duration that you had set. It seems a natural interpretation. And please: don't close complaints about yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not a complaint about me. It's an edit war at Ian Plimer that you are a party to. Uncle G (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Evading the issue again. So, how about you go back and tag the thing? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're back....

Shortly after the last time I commented on something on your talk page you embarked on a long hiatus. I see you're back doing regular edits now. Is it still your policy to behave as follows?

Someone with professional expertise disagrees with about a matter within the subject of his expertise.
You contradict him, in the process proving in multiple instances that you don't understand the matter, including the meanings of words you consider important.
The professional writes a careful explanation of your error.
You tell him you won't read it, and make this comment: "I ('Uncle G') told you what the right answer is. I can hardly believe you would bring this up after I already told you the answer. Why should I read something you wrote about this after I already told you it's wrong? What's wrong with you?"

Michael Hardy (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

He can't add the protection template, because he is no longer an admin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ATren (talk • contribs) 2009-09-14 15:38:03

His latest mention of Arbitration has just led me to find out that very thing. This explains a lot. It would have helped if he had said that at the start, too. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Please don't close complaints against yourself [28]. It is a clear COI. I know you're embarrassed about your errors here, but please let it run its course William M. Connolley (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: James Everett Seaton

The page has now been deleted, and I can't see his query. Could you give me a copy of his talkpage message so I can give him some response, posthumous as it is? Ironholds (talk) 05:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it has been userfied to User:Sbaldori/James Everett Seaton. The request was on the BLP noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Henry Clay Ide

On September 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henry Clay Ide, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 21:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk : 98.248.33.198

Yes, I have a problem with the editor you've mentioned (and judging by its talk page, I'm not the only one). He/she seems hellbent on deleting as much material as possible without any just explanation; wherever, whenever. When my other contributions have been modified by other editors, I've willingly accepted it and even thanked them for their explanation (go ahead and check if you want). Perhaps your issues should be with the editor you're defending and not me. Diplomacy isn't exactly its middle name. Think about it. Kearney Zzyzwicz (talk) 05:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Squicks

Please see my additions -MBHiii (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Looks like we both created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CharlotteGoiar at the same time; sorry, I didn't realize you were also filing one. Your report includes a few more accounts/IPs than mine; if you want, you can merge mine into yours in some way or another. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, likes like MuzeMike has already merged them. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Uncle G. You have new messages at Thatcher's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Refs

Thanks for the note. I will feed it forward to the AWB team. But you needn't worry about the ref ordering. Or you may but to little avail. The order AWb puts them in is numerical order, and the <references> tags do that too. If you think about it hey have too. So sans the {{Reflist}} it should be fine. All the best. Rich Farmbrough, 02:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

You're missing the point. Within <references>…</references> your 'bot has no reason to change the order specified by the actual human editors — which in the particular case that I showed to you was very much for their editorial convenience. What your 'bot is effectively doing is sorting the content of <references>…</references> into whatever order the <ref> elements happen to be used within the article prose. That's not a good idea; it's tantamount to simply randomizing the order, which human editors may well want to be in a particular order to make article writing and maintenance easier; and there's no actual reason for doing it. Uncle G (talk) 02:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Cough

Bless you! (Thanks for catching that ... not sure how I missed it.) — Kralizec! (talk) 23:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giano subpage

You just beat me out on moving that to a subpage. If it's OK with you, I'm going to move it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Giano II as I just moved some earlier discussions regarding him to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Giano II/Archive 1 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Giano II/Archive 2, respectively. (Obviously I will add an archive box on the front page.) Just so we can keep everything in one easy-to-find spot. MuZemike 23:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection. I saw your edit and took inspiration from it. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banned user Rbj

Hi - the posts on Admin Noticeboard regarding banned user Rbj are quickly disappearing under the mountain of notices generated by you Admin guys, and you all seem too busy to follow anything up that isn't put in the plainest terms. So I'll try again and paste my info here since you seem to take some interest in the issue:

I'm the IP who reported the edits by Rbj - the proof of Rbj's identity is on the talk page of an innocent party (User:Tomruen) where Rbj gives his email address:

My email is rbj@@@@@@audioimagination.com. 74.104.160.199 (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely that's all the proof you need. I had a lot of experience of Rbj in my role as User:Lucretius, especially in the article Planck units, and it annoys me to see him still editing. I no longer edit any Wikipedia articles and I won't be able to continue monitoring his edits, so hopefully others will perform that role. His latest edits of the Planck units article were spiteful but nobody has spotted this in spite of the messages I have left there. Anyhow, I can't spend forever trying to get some action on this and you're my last stop. Thanks. 121.222.35.162 (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you Google audioimagination.com you will come up with an endless supply of Rbj posts on the internet, including this typical exchange (note the moderator's comment about his rudeness at the end)[29]. The guy is a serial pest. He never made any efforts to hide his real name at Wikipedia and I recognize the name in the Google versions - anyone who has had dealings with him at Wiki in the past will know that name all too well. A little digging in archives should confirm this. This is somebody who must not be allowed to continue editing Wikipedia. 121.222.35.162 (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help with disruptive editor?

I'm having harassment and wikistalking problems with an editor and if you are able, I would really appreciate any assistance you can offer. I've made a full report on AN/I here. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This situation is quickly escalating. I've posted a followup on AN/I here. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I never said that I wasn't involved. I said that I should have been notified because I was involved. How was I supposed to know that Tothwolf would start a report when no one told me and ANI wasn't in my watchlist? I said zero uncivil things, but I'm still being attacked by multiple editors. When the discussion with Tothwolf was over on ANI, I thought that would be it. Saying that I'm being disruptive, pointy, a sockpuppet, digging through my history to twist stuff around, and admitting that I wasn't breaking any policies but was only breaking his opinion of them wasn't enough. Now, he is calling me a meatpuppet. I'm tired of trying to discuss things by being civil without it working. Joe Chill (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You misinterpreted everything that I said. Joe Chill (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Kendall

Rationale expanded. I was doing so, and we edit conflicted. Is that enough, or is more required? I'm still a novice AfD (one reason why I have no wish to see my name at RfA), and I'm keen to learn. Philip Trueman (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That rationale, that explains what criteria you are using and how you are applying them, is much better. Thank you. Of course, be prepared for your rationale to be discussed and, possibly, contradicted. But such discussions, where policies and guidelines are applied, sources looked for and evaluated, and so forth, has (based upon past history) a far greater likelihood of reaching the right results than a bare "This isn't notable."/"Oh yes it is!"/"Oh no it isn't!" back-and-forth discussion has. Uncle G (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cynicism and genuineness

Re this edit your point is obviously valid, and you are probably right to treat is as a misguided comment. I have gotten so cynical that on first read I thought the !vote was a stealth attempt by an ARS-type to discredit the nomination by making arguments that would be ignored by the closing admin! ^Bongo_matic 21:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer

re Special:Contributions/Jergsenkrupp. Their imaginative article Jimmy McConnell now bears a little more relation to reality :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Breakdown of AFD intersections table

That is quite a table :) Don't forget about the talk pages of WP:COMP articles and subtemplates of the IRC-related articles that I've been tagging with WikiProject banners. Those are also intersections that may be worth mentioning. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Joe's Own Editor and both the RFD and TFD are missing. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two more things (sorry!) Quiet Internet Pager would be under IRC-related and there is also intersection with User:Theserialcomma. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		The Rescue Barnstar is awarded to people who rescue articles from deletion. This barnstar is awarded to Uncle G, for his phenomenal work expanding "Exploding tree", the extensive work you did on this article is an inspiration and model to all Wikipedians. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pelu Taele

There are now no quotations, sourced or otherwise, and some very basic sourced facts. He seems to be referred to variously as Taele, Taele-Pahivi, or Pahivi, so I've created a couple of redirects. No idea why someone should change him from a Samoan international rugby union forward to a British footballer... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Thank you. You've reduced the article count in Category:Unreferenced BLPs from March 2007 by one, by the way. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Placement syntax

Hello Uncle G!

I've been looking at Placement syntax quite a few times, and I believe it is one of the better C++-related articles we have. From a cursory glance, it would seem as if you are the primary contributor (possibly as a result of the AfD). Would you be interested in nominating it for GA, possibly a co-nom (I don't have all the references used, but I have quite a few of my own)? Regards, decltype (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I take it, then, that you are not particularly interested. In that case, I will take responsibility for the nomination myself. Do let me know if you have any objections. Regards, decltype (talk) 10:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fowler-Noll-Vo_hash_function

I noticed that you commented but didn't !VOTE. Would you like to do so now? Phil Spectre (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Community de-adminship

A great idea. How can it get approval, and what relationship does it have to Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship? Fences&Windows 21:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Uncle G, I just noticed this too. Would you want to list it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator? If everyone works together, maybe we can get some of the changes that folks want. I know there are at least 3 or 4 other pages along these lines (listed there) - and I think a co-ordinated effort would go a long way towards making things happen. — Ched : ? 05:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to list it if you want to. As to adoption, I quote to you the wise words of Radiant!, inventor of Wikipedia:Proposed deletion: "It's been discussed to death several times for at least half a year. There are at least three older proposals that in essence are the same as this one, only somewhat more complex. We can discuss for another half year, or we can go for a test run for a chance." The same is true here. There are existing proposals in this case, and they are either less fully formed (with vague handwaving on the details such as how actual requests are structured) or full of bicycle shed elements (such as laundry lists of why people should be de-sysopped). Hence the reason that I presented WP:CDA at WP:RFAR as a mechanism to actually use, with a concrete implementation and without such bicycle sheds to argue over. Uncle G (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The poll has just closed, with results available at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall#Results table. Ben Mac Dui 19:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cargo cults and farragos

I like your cargo cult essay, but your work on Exploding tree seemed to be similar to cargo cult writing. The difference was that the disparate sources were expertly woven together in the absence of sources discussing the overall concept. I've seen something similar happen with Largest village in England: none of the mostly primary sources actually discuss the topic, they just mention various claims in passing. Surely stitching together passing mentions isn't something we want to encourage? Fences&Windows 21:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holladay discusses the overall topic. It's in the very title of the work. Moreover, its structure, of discussing the hoax and relating it to what actually occurs, is much the same as the structure of the article you'll find, so the "stitching together" isn't original to Wikipedia. I took the structure from the source. That, Dorn, Beecher, Loudon, Wells, and others are not passing mentions, either.
If you want to discuss the "in fiction" section, then you're in the wrong place. All of the content that I wrote dealt solely with real phenomena in the real world. You'll have to take up "in fiction" with the editor who wrote that. Uncle G (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for the latter article, see Sheffield#"the largest village in England" for one glaring omission that leaped out at me from the sources when I did a quick search just now. Uncle G (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's put aside Exploding tree. I generally respect your article rescues, we'll have to disagree.
  I would still appreciate your opinion on the Largest village article. I too noticed that the Sheffield reference was missing and if the rest of the article was sound it'd do no harm to include it, but that's beside the point. The sources all say something like "x is said to be the largest village in England" and no more on the subject. What is to stop editors barrel-scraping for passing references in the same manner for any topic conceivable? Would I be contributing usefully to Wikipedia if I put together Most beautiful woman in England using the thousands of web hits, the dozens of newspaper references and the hundreds of book mentions?[30] I could do a whole series: ...in the world; ...in the room - complete with a pop culture reference to the Flight of the Conchords; ...of all time (Audrey Hepburn, apparently). I won't do this, but is there a policy reason I couldn't? Fences&Windows 00:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I haven't read the AFD discussion. I haven't really looked at what sources say on the subject, either. I started to, and was distracted by the Sheffield matter. (I just tried again, and have again been distracted, this time by The Hague.) But for an article that argues that which village is the largest depends from one's definition, I'd look for a source that says the same, or at least a source that links multiple largest villages together in some fashion and adjust the article to reflect the source(s). Otherwise the connecting thesis would be a novel one being propounded first in Wikipedia by a Wikipedia editor. On that note, it is worth considering whether sources address the subject of the largest village in Britain, or in the United Kingdom, rather than in England. Again, though, I haven't looked myself. I started with "largest village in Europe", and immediately hit The Hague. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 06:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

208.81.184.4

At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive568#Legal_threat_at_WQA I noticed that you have concerns over edits made by this IP address. Could you please elaborate at User talk:208.81.184.4? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't. 75.169.98.203 had. Uncle G (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Don't move an AN thread about a completely different issue to an ANI thread. There is -no- connection between the two. One deals with problematic behavior at WQA. You should really know better. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. You are an involved user and have -no- right to use your adminship in this. 2. You have no right to declare something is involved with a completely separate matter. 3. There is no consensus for your action and you are -edit warring- and disruption. You have violated four policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I will give you one hour to revert before I report you to ANI for blatant violation of multiple policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rubbish. I am not involved in anything to do with you, and you'll find a lot of people agreeing on the subject of not conflating WP:AN and WP:AN/I. Don't try dragging uninvolved administrators into your incident as a tactic. Because as I said this uninvolved administrator will simply re-instate your block for disruption, which trying to create an ever enlarged vortex of supposedly "involved" people most definitely is. Instead heed their warning and read the edit notice on the noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Did you forget that you made the page move? That is when you became involved. I reverted because you lacked consensus and made a claim that was patently false. Once you threatened to block me, you violated admin CoI. You crossed the line twice, and you edit warred. That is unacceptable behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Rubbish. WikiGnoming a discussion to the correct noticeboard, per standard practice for WP:AN, does not make one involved in that discussion, let alone in the incident that it relates to. Now go and edit on the right noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You mean removing a page and then after it is reinserted warning someone over it? That is the very definition of being involved. The thread has -nothing- to do with the one you put it in. There is no way to claim it does. Furthermore, you had no consensus to make the move, which you -need-, especially when it is a move that would be challenged. Finally, I talked to two Arbs and 6 admin about your move and they said that while some people -have- moved things to ANI, there is nothing at AN that gives them permission to do such, so it is at best not appropriate. Now undo your edit war. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Rubbish. I really don't believe that in a mere 20 minutes you have done that, nor do I believe that none of that many arbitrators and administrators cannot read the noticeboard's edit notice, the notice at the top of the noticeboard itself, or indeed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive199#Use of this page. No page was removed, as can be plainly seen. Nor was the thread put "inside" another one, as can be plainly seen. Now stop this silliness and go and edit the right noticeboard. Because at this stage it looks like you are simply trying to suck everybody in your path, even Wikignomes, into an ever-increasing vortex of involvement rather than address your incident with the people that you actually are involved with. Uncle G (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. There are no clerks of AN, so you cannot be claiming to act in an official capacity. 2. There is no consensus for page moves from AN to ANI, let alone to claim that the current one should be moved or merged. 3. You edited a section, removed it, and moved it somewhere else. That move was disputed with a clear warning. Once you made the move, you were acting as an editor and no longer as an admin. Any attempt to act in an admin capacity violates WP:ADMIN. It is not rubbish. It is standard. You removed content and that change was restored. There is no way to go around it. And there is nothing at WP:ADMIN that says "wikignoming makes you exempt". Your comments here are further inappropriate, as you have put up no legitimate reason to justify the move nor did you have consensus, thus, you were edit warring on your re-removal of an noticeboard section, which is a blockable offense. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WT:Wikiproject Mathematics and Linas

I appreciate what you're trying to do, but might I recommend that it's best to let people in each of the WikiProjects discuss things amongst themselves? I assure you, nobody will attempt to form any binding decisions from a WikiProject talk page. It's really something more in the way of a place where editors feel far more comfortable to speak freely and bounce thoughts off each other than the far more unfriendly atmosphere of the boards like ANI. Ray^Talk 00:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't appreciate what I'm trying to do if you think that it's anything at all to do with binding decisions. It's about ForestFires. Uncle G (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ? Do explain? Ray^Talk 02:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - CamelCase jargon is usually a product of the MeatballWiki or some such, for future reference. See meatball:ForestFire in this particular case. Uncle G (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of education articles by country

Please could you help out myself and DGG. Tone closed this AFD with a delete but, after remonstrating with him, he's agreeable to reopening the discussion but has left it to us to do so. I don't have the privilege and DGG doesn't know how. I'm coming to you as the most experienced admin I know. Please could you assist or advise? Thanks. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm checking with Tone. Uncle G (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope that Tone will handle this. Uncle G (talk) 12:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Audit subcommittee

The job spec is: nobody's fool, checks the facts before weighing in, commitment to the project. An Uncle G shaped hole. You should apply, sir. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Uncle G. You have new messages at John Vandenberg's talk page.
Message added 00:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need your opinion on some photographs

Hi. Can you provide you opinion on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a very quick look, and have no obvious disagreements with others, and you seem to have garnered a fair amount of opinion already (now that it's on the noticeboard proper). Uncle G (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptogenic listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cryptogenic. Since you had some involvement with the Cryptogenic redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Neurotip (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Eckel

Considering that page has been semi-protected for 10 months, is the protection still warranted? If unprotected I'll make sure to watch it vandalism.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human suit recreated as Human disguise

This is a notice to all who participated in the recent AfD of Human suit, here, that resulted in a consensus for delete. This article has been recreated as "Human disguise", and has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human disguise. Thank you. Verbal chat 21:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Next steps for recall process

You input is respectfully requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall#The way forward? - see the remarks recently posted under the "Simple solution" sub-section re where the next stage of discussion should be located. Ben Mac Dui 19:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf

Your name was brought up by a party to the Arbitration case located here. Any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider can be added to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Workshop.

--Tothwolf (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection of Khachkar article

Hi there, do you mind taking a looking over here, [31]. Thanks.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you are afk, but when you get a chance...

...could you comment either here, or better yet at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/RfC Strategy on the process you started by drafting your 'Option 4'? I am, frankly, highly curious what you think of the work done on it at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC which will be ongoing into early January. Thanks for writing the original! Best wishes, Jus da fax 19:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review notability on Häagen-Dazs article?

Uncle G

Re: Talk:Häagen-Dazs/Archives/2013#local_management_mistake_not_encyclopedic

You're a much more experienced at WP than I am, so I appreciate any review, input, insight, or help you could offer here, as an editor +/or as an admin. I thought of pointing them @ wikinews, but don't edit or use it, so don't know if it fits there. I note the article has other issues and needs.

I suspect that the inexperience of the other editors is part of the issue.

Is this a case where some level of article protection is called for?

I prefer you reply here, not my talk page, to keep our discussion in one place. As well as adding to Talk:Häagen-Dazs/Archives/2013#local_management_mistake_not_encyclopedic.

Thanks either way. Lentower (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support Lentower's request to weigh in on the issue. The discussion between us there is not going anywhere. Wwmargera (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 01:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. states by Human Development Index

Hi! I noticed your contributions at Talk:List of U.S. states by Human Development Index. If the correct data is not in the 0-1 range, it is not using the international Human Development Index but another measure, possibly a local American measure of a similar name. Could you correct the article accordingly? Thanks. PS: I didn't post this on the article talk as I didn't want it to just sit there for years until an IP eventually comments in 2016: 'lulwot?'. —what a crazy random happenstance 06:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Reality

Hi there. Back in 2005 you discussed this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality. The article has since been recreated, and I have re-nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP Abuse

Hi there, I need an admin to do something about this on the page Nubians an IP keeps coming on to remove references and disrupt the edits made on the page, I have warned the user to stop, yet he or she keeps on doing it. At 1st the editor did it from this IP 78.101.27.136 and now is doing it from 78.101.64.90 can you put some sort of protection on the page that will block the IP from its vandalism? Thesunshinesate (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Walk of shame

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Walk of shame. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walk of shame (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Uncle G/On notability and Danmark (island)

I enjoyed reading your educational essay "User:Uncle G/On notability" so much I'm taking time to let you know that Danmark (island), which I think was intended to be an example of a red link, is now live. Best wishes. --Griseum (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, nevermind. It's a redirect and probably was when you included it. Doi. --Griseum (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion (3rd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this was a total error on my part, ignore it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Life imitating art

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		An amazing rescue on Life imitating art. Work permit (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WOW, what a save. And you made it look easy!

There is nothing I enjoy more then repairing a hurt article. My proudest achievement has been (essentially) creating a new article on Ling Woo from this (actually this). When I came across Life imitating art a few months ago, it seemed headed for the dust heap. I kept going back to it, looking for sources, an angle, anything to make it viable. I knew in my heart there was something there. But I found nothing, and made just one lame addition to it. When the inevitable AfD came, I made a feeble plea for what was a lost cause. And you just brought it back from an AfD deletion, with just the right base from to which a great article could emerge! How in the world did you come up with Anti-mimesis?--Work permit (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't. It was in the sources that I read. Uncle G (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begun

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PRODed...

... Information Technology: At the dawn of the computer age. Any arguments against? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deletion discussion

You participated in a previous discussion on the deletion of Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. You may be interested that a new deletion review has begun at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Anarchism_and_anarcho-capitalism_(2nd_nomination). Tb (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Respect agenda

The article Respect agenda has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Nomination for deletion of Template:On VFD

Template:On VFD 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. The Evil IP address (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gentleman's agreement

I don't need sources to support my opinion that the article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. The person who thought this was an "improvement" was obviously unaware of any negative connotation to the phrase "gentleman's agreement", and replaced a rather comprehensive list of examples with a technically accurate, but rather naive, definition of the phrase.

I have zero respect for people who take it upon themselves to blank entire sections of articles anyway, so he deserves all the criticism he gets for this one. "Gentlemen's agreements sure are swell! Separate but equal is a good thing too!". OR works pretty well when it comes to realizing that something stinks. If you think it's great, good for you, it's a free country. Mandsford 16:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you might like to take another look at Gentlemen's agreement/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gentlemen's agreement since I've added some content and references to the article. Thanks! Cheers! Location (talk) 06:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That strange GIS articel

Interesting; it sounded very similar to something from SCIgen, however I have rewritten the ProD tag to take into account that its sources are real. Thanx 76.117.247.55 (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ash (Alien)

Hi! Just wanted to say it's great work you're doing at Ash (Alien). I can't help feeling, though, that the information and sources you're adding would be better applied to the Alien (film) article itself, rather than a separate article about a single character. The Ash character's only appearance is in the film Alien, so any discussion of his symbolism and significance to the story can really only be made in the context of the film. In fact, the FA review for the film article specifically recommended adding some information from Alien Zone and other sources to expand the "Impact and analysis" section. I really think a lot of your added material would be of great service to the film article rather than supporting a spinout character article that really shouldn't have been spun out in the first place (putting the cart before the horse, as it were). --IllaZilla (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might not have fully appreciated Kaldari's point. Xe emphasized "a lot" for good reason. There's a lot of material in these sources — enough, I suspect, to support substantial character articles on Ash, Ellen Ripley, and possibly Bishop, as well as a lot more analysis of feminist and other aspects of the film(s). What you see in Ash (Alien) is just from the parts of the sources that address Ash specifically. And I've far from used up all of the material available. (I haven't, for examples, used up any of the several sources that discuss Ash's actions in the fight scene almost blow-by-blow, or the sources that contrast Ash's blood with Ripley's, compare his blood to semen, and discuss the imagery of his internal organs as they appear on screen.)
From what I vaguely remember from working on final girl, there's even a little bit more to say about Call than the two-sentence treatment that we give her currently. Although that one seems less likely to warrant a standalone article. There's certainly the Ash→Bishop→Call progression that sources discuss, contrasting the three (and, yes, noting the alphabetical progression), that we don't have anywhere that I've seen. Uncle G (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I believe more work would of been required if I edited that page. Because I would have to move the page after I was done with it. And no, I didn't know, I never read this. Also, I do not care about making any friends whatsoever. I didn't join Wikipedia to make friends. You have a nice day.Philipmj24 (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish! You not only read it, you started it. And pushing work onto others because otherwise "I would have to move the page." is just as bad as making work for administrators and other editors by nominating pages for deletion because "I don't have to waste my time blanking the page.". Stop this. And you should care about whether your actions make you any friends, because you're on the road to being remembered by numerous people (It's not just administrators you are making work for.) as a lazy person who is quite happy to make extra busywork for many other people simply because you don't want the burden of using your own tools yourself to blank content or rename pages, which means that the next time that you want anyone else to do something for you, you'll find them unwilling to make any effort on your behalf in any way. Try not to let people remember you as a time-sink. Uncle G (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was request a page for deletion. If that makes me a "lazy person" then so be it. If I had the power to delete the page, I would of done it myself. Believe me. I see the point you are trying to make. I've could of edited that page and moved it so you wouldn't have to do the work. We obviously have our disagreements on how we would of handled the issue you brought up. I didn't know marking a page for deletion would cause so much animosity towards me. All you had to do was kindly ask me. I would suggest you work on your people skills. Again, I'm not here to make friends. My goal is to improve Wikipedia. In the end, isn't that what I did?Philipmj24 (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, why are you so angry? Is Wikipedia stressing you out that bad?Philipmj24 (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did kindly ask you. I asked you quite clearly, and in as many words, to please stop doing this. And once again you mis-represent yourself. What you in actual fact did was blank a redirect (several, in fact), nominate it for deletion (again, alongside several others), and then when the RFD discussion told you what you clearly already knew, that you could just edit the redirect into an article, you proceeded to not do so anyway and instead when the time came you passed the burden of work onto a whole load of other people, simply because, in your own words from the RFD discussion and here, "I would have to move the page" and "I don't have to waste my time blanking the page". I repeat: You didn't use your own tools, that you clearly knew, even from what you wrote in the RFD nomination, to use; and you instead made completely unnecessary extra work for the administrators who have to delete pages and all of the Proposed Deletion patrollers who will end up reviewing your deletion nomination, solely for the bizarre reason that you didn't want to have to blank or rename a page yourself because that would be work. So for the third time of asking: Stop doing this. You have the tools, and your bizarre refusal to use them makes extra work for many others, which will in turn be the thing that they remember about you. Uncle G (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Single supplement

Thank you for blowing my expectations for that article's future clear out of the water. -- saberwyn 01:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I was happy to see whether other editors could think of a merger target, or a refactoring into a wider topic, but if you are going to withdraw the nomination straightaway, then you forgot about the tag on the article.
I've never really thought about the metaphorical consequences of a Kerrrzappp! hitting water. Uncle G (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, removed it now. Those other discussions would probably be better suited to the article's talkpage, as its no longer about the article's deletion. -- saberwyn 02:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeoarchaeology

Hi

I have commented but thought it best if I give you the links so you can use them if you wish ...

Problems in the Archaeology and Paleoarchaeology of Northern, Eastern and Central Asia.

fossil find

Dennis Stanford, a paleoarchaeologist at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, agrees

Mammoth Park is a paleoarchaeological site

Also there was a problem on the vote counter (as usual) which I tried to fix (co**ed it up though so I may get a small boll**king from someone)

As it went wrong I asked Jeff G to delete the word delete from his original vote as it seems the dumbcountingbot thinks he voted to delete and to keep :¬)

cheers Chaosdruid (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bright but Nasty

Wow, got your not so veiled threats on our thread. You're sharp! Since I'm dealing with a smart guy, I'll raise the level: my rants and actions were strawmen for the fact that EENG blanked our whole article down to one sentence, which is de facto deletion, even though he was not an admin, and had no authority to delete the article. Then, he tagged the (as you noted) pathetically few articles we did create, and sucked a somewhat naive Admin into supporting him. We simply did EXACTLY THE SAME THING HE AND WATSON DID (added tags and deleted a page). You judge the differential response yourself. Nicely, several admins actually supported and mentored me, a few advising me to chill. You're a mean guy, it's true, but I also sense you're honest and smart, so please consider that I didn't copy and paste the articles, I took many hours to connect to numerous Wiki links, and in fact, despite what Watson would like you to believe, was in the middle of adding many other links from third party sources. The fact that I contacted the principals of the articles seemed to have raised a bunch of "self promotion" ire (even though I don't know these guys from Adam), and I'm SLOWLY learning that admins here are so beleagured with pests trying to sell used cars, then tend to be suspicious if someone is excited about someone else, and of course this then "MUST be a COI"!!! That's a little sad, sir. I do owe you an apology: it HAS to have taken brain power to figure out that I tagged EENG to let him know how it feels. I don't care about that action, (and BTW, the tags WERE legit) but I am sorry that you took the time to figure it out: that kind of sharpness should be used to build Wiki, not answer my confusion as a newbie. I'll try to be good, and in response to your threats, cry... Uncle. Phoenixthebird (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Since you like Ash, are you a Dr. Who fan? The last episode with Tennant was SO sad... especially the added features on the DVD where he was nearly in tears explaining how sad he was to leave the show. I'm an American, not a Brit, but my Brit buddies really get this. Phoenixthebird (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well deserved

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: Assuming bad faith toward my question, for continuing with your screaming after I marked the post as resolved, and BTW the article was semi-protected without me ever asking for that again. Enjoy your trout. Pfff. I have no problems whatsoever with IPs editing wikipedia. Just the opposite on few occasions I thanked IPs for their help with my English. In my three years on Wikipedia it was the first time ever I asked (not requested, but asked) about an article protection, and it was protected probably not because of me asking about this, but because it should have been protected due to the unprecedented amount of edits that were all but impossible to deal with. You were wrong all along about me assuming bad faith, and about the necessity of the protection of the article, and you did not even bother to apologize. --Mbz1 (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loyalty

Excellent work with the article! Just in case you might not have remembered with such an old article, it is eligible for a 5x DYK expansion. I think it would be amazing to have such a fundamental article on the main page. Best, NW (Talk) 22:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Poole

Re your comments at ANI, I raised the issue of the block because it could be seen that I was using my admin's tools in a personal dispute. The original 24h block was a "shot across the bows" type "cease and desist" warning. I felt it was justified by the continuing incivility and refusal to discuss issues, and immediately put the block up for review at ANI to give other admins a chance to review my actions.

That JP subsequently got himself blocked for a further 6 days is not down to me, but him. As I see it, if there isn't some improvement pretty quickly once the block ends, JP is going to find himself indeffed.

Re the original issue of the spelling of Spits/zbergen, please see talk:Order of battle for Convoy PQ 18 where I am proposing that a RFC should be filed on this issue. Your thoughts are requested there. Mjroots (talk) 10:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. ever thought about doing some archiving?

Hello
As the "dumbfuck editor" who annoyed Jonas this time, I was reading the ANI; You referred to this edit, as an example of being more reasonable. I wanted to check that you’d seen that it was mainly a conversation between User:Weakopedia and myself. Jonas' comments were on my talk page, here. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did try to clearly make the point that Jonas Poole's contributions to that discussion were in the edit summary of the blanking, not the discussion, which was not particularly good. In passing, I point out that these edits were a calm and civil discussion of the issue, with nothing said about you, or any other editor. Uncle G (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair point; he wasn't being rude there Xyl 54 (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well put

Thank you for your reasoned 'voice of sanity' in this RfD. I fully support your cry to keep Wikipedia as protection-free as possible. What a DRAMA-inducing lot of hot air that debate was.

I'm pleased to see that some people have common sense. I salute you. Chzz ► 10:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I really found your AFD comments here to be quite disturbing. Of course TV Guide is notable, but there was no evidence this guy was ever in TV Guide. If a reference is notable, this doesn't make the article topic notable: People can't just throw random references on an article (without inline citations, in fact) to say "see, this guy was notable, USA Today July 21, 2006". What is that? I did not appreciate your tone on that AFD.

Yes, I nominated "Who's Who in American Art" for deletion, and that one failed. But lets take a look at why I did that: search results for that publication indicate that the publication exists but not necessarily that it is significant or important. It look like there may be some notability, so that AFD failed. Whoop-dee. But please be careful with your comments about James C. Mulligan and somehow defending the poorly-defined "references" of that article. I looked everywhere to find anything at all about the guy, but it simply didn't exist. With your comments, I felt attacked, and it was not appreciated. — Timneu22 · talk 15:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If at least two editors feel as they were attacked by your comments in the last 3 days, it is about the time you change your unacceptable behavior. You are an admin, and should lead by example.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found Uncle G's comments in James C. Mulligan's AfD to be a bit strongly worded but certainly appropriate. Complaining that a source is paper-only and therefore not usable deserves some kind of fairly strong language. That said, having doubts about paper-only sources for things like this is a reasonable thing, just not a reason to discount them. Hobit (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for loyalty

Hello! Your submission of Loyalty at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --NortyNort (talk) 09:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Music-importance

Template:Music-importance 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. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

/* Ramiro Helmeyer */

Hi Uncle G, considering the comments at BLPN, what do you think as regards AFD? I am struggling to find the words for a rationale? Off2riorob (talk) 10:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goran Bregović

Thanks for popping in to help at the Talk page of the Goran Bregović article. I didn't want to make the page worse by commenting there (and yes, I've seen your perfectly reasonable remarks about splitting conversations!) but I did wonder if something odd has gone on with the layout. Under the (now less contentious) section heading there's the making-allegations bit by Frankieparley in 2007, then two video links dropped in there just today by Pirtskhalava, then your comment about sources. What's now exceedingly unclear to me is what the relationship is between these three items - are you commenting on the text, or the videos, or both ... and so on? I'd be tempted to try to unpick this but I honestly don't know who intended what. Of course what I am seeing there now may be precisely what you intended, in which case I will simper prettily, shut up, and move on. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a normal bulleted discussion, as this one is. Indenting levels indicate what's a reply to what. Not being a second-level bullet under Pirtskhalava's text means that what I wrote was a direct reply to the text at the top of the section. Uncle G (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the reply. Fair enough, if you say so. Maybe it's a browser thing or it's just me: for me the last one is markedly less comprehensible, but I think neither of us probably needs to spend any more time on this. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On use of italics in online discussions

I admire your work. You're a dedicated editor and an excellent pedagogue.

On italics--you do use them occasionally. I only want to suggest that you dispense with unnecessary italics. And italics are rarely necessary. Where proper emphasis is clear from context, italics don't help convey the actual ideas that the writer is trying to convey. They may instead distract the reader from those ideas and make the writer himself seem overwrought. I'd give this advice to Antonin Scalia too--if only I had a direct line to his office.

Boy, I've really got to cut back on the caffeine. 160.39.212.104 (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A template for that?

Did you use a template: User talk:Mrluke485? (I am watching this page, so please reply here.) — Timneu22 · talk 15:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. I wrote it longhand. I very rarely use template messages for user talk pages. In this case, as you noted, there were plenty of boilerplate messages already. Sometimes it's necessary to show that the wiki isn't full of robots handing out boilerplate messages over and over again, but actually comprises real human beings. People tend to ignore messages that they think come from mindless robots, especially if ignoring them for months has no immediately visible effect apart from robotic repetition of the same message. Novices learn from such experience that the messages can be ignored. It's the wrong thing to learn; but if that's all that one ever experiences, that's what one is going to learn. Hence my preference for writing a non-boilerplate message, in the hope that it gives pause. Uncle G (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terribly Sorry

Listen to me you I've given up my time to write up about these people and I'm sorry if I didn't reply to them but I didn't know to reply so don't you tell me what to do. I check website to website for information and thats the best information I can find. Have a nice day Mrluke485 (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mrluke, there is a real problem here. Can't you just slow down and userfy a page or two, get constructive feedback, and then post an article? This will help everyone. — Timneu22 · talk 16:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Loyalty

On July 22, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Loyalty, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for the note, you reminded me of why I like you :-) Guy (Help!) 22:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing

I'm a bit confused what you're referring to - do you mean the article as it was before I edited it, or the article as it is now? I initially assumed you meant the former but I've just been replying to an assertion in the AfD that the article as it is now consists entirely of original research, so my head's exploded and I'm doubting everything; certainly if there's something about the existing article that needs to be improved I'd like to know. Cheers, --Zeborah (talk) 10:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another example may help. You may wish to review List of fictional Scots to see whether it is stuck in cargo cult mode, is useful as it is and what more might be done. Uncle G has some experience of the matter of Blind Harry's tale, iirc, and so I hope he may have good insights and advice to offer in this case. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking that because an article starts like this it must therefore be built into this, in the hope that if critical mass is achieved an informative article will magically arise, is cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing. The bad article becomes a model for writing badly, because people think that that is how one is supposed to write. And, as you've seen, what happens next is that the article cycles through AFD, sometimes repeatedly, until the cargo-cult-written content is turfed out in favour of proper, sourced, analysis of a topic that provides actual knowledge to the reader. Jessamyn's initial article was a textbook example of how these things start; and of the bad way to deal with unwanted content, by sweeping it under the rug instead of dealing with it properly. Taking sources that have analysed the subject and producing good content (and, yes, incorporating previous list items into sourced analysis where single examples are warranted), with the courage to chuck out cargo-cult-written content by the bucketload, has proven to be the solution time and time again. Uncle G (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - just even by the end of the 3rd AfD it was far improved on your second link, and had sourced encyclopaedic paragraphs in most sections. So to me it doesn't at all feel like cargo-cult is what I'm dealing with; it feels more like I'm dealing with people who think an article should be deleted because it contains trivia even though it also contains encyclopaedic content and if they don't like the trivia all they need to do is delete that. --Excuse the irritation, I'm just really confused about how the AfD even came about so am probably looking at this from an entirely different direction from you. But afaik it seems to be resolving now and hopefully this will be the last AfD. :-) --Zeborah (talk) 05:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saving "Moving parts" from deletion

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Great improvements on what appears will soon become a diving catch on Moving parts. § Music Sorter § (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realize it is premature to say the article is saved, but how could someone conclude the article is not worthy of life after your improvements. Maybe I should consider nominating an article for deletion on something I really like to get your great work on it. OK, just kidding. Thanks for all your wonderful contributions. § Music Sorter § (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query

I am wondering if you understand the meaning of the term sophist, since I take offense at that. It is indeed the fact that I am one of the very few non-sophists you will ever meet. The psuedo-legal I can live with. I am not a lawyer, so it is pseudo legal. I do not mean this to make trouble by the way. only to inquire if you know what the term means and if not, offer an explanation if you want it. --Faust (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal womanhood

Yes, you're right. Is there a process whereby I can retract the nomination of does the AFD discussion run its course?Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They go round and round, you know.

Quick query; what on earth are you talking about? I have no interest in or active participation in anything vaguely associated with public transport. Actually, I take that back; Gray's Inn is near a road buses go down. Ironholds (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should probably take yourself off the list of active participants in that project, that you signed up to. Uncle G (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did I? Ironfail; my apologies! Ironholds (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tolkien family

Christopher Carrie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello Uncle G. Thanks for your analysis at BLPN. Feel free to adjust the protection at Tolkien family if you think it appropriate. It is not yet clear to me whether User:Christopher Carrie should be blocked. Per NLT maybe he should be blocked (see his 10:03 edit summary of 29 July) but we usually give some leeway to people who could have legitimate BLP issues. EdJohnston (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Carrie is trying to sanitize his own past and remove anything he doesn't like whilst having another go at anyone with the surname "Tolkien" on his website. Is Wikipedia going to be party to this?! I vote to reinstate the details of the case and Carrie's past in relation to the Tolkien family. After all, it was all sourced and referenced. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tolkien_family&diff=376996157&oldid=375906595 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tolkien_family&diff=376996157&oldid=375909101 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tolkien_family&diff=376996157&oldid=376062010 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tolkien_family&diff=376996157&oldid=364985847 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tolkien_family&diff=376996157&oldid=356641748 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tolkien_family&diff=376996157&oldid=341525069 etc there are more if you view the page history. Dogdazed (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tolkien_family discussion might benefit from editor input. isfutile:P (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative to checkuser rangeblocks

Hope you don't mind this on your talk page; I was not sure of the best place to post the idea.

As you noted in the admin noticeboard, rangeblocks used to block persistent vandals can impact good IP editors as well. I was wondering if it would be possible to create a new blocklike function analogous to pending changes that allowed IP and unconfirmed users to edit, but hid their changes from public view until they were approved by a reviewer? A bot could block vandalism only accounts and tempblock specific IP's used for vandalism to prevent increased workload on admins, and the function would be invisible to most users. VQuakr (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) is the place for ideas for changes to MediaWiki itself, especially if you want to bring your idea to the notice of the developers. (There are also Meta and the MediaWiki developer hub.) Uncle G (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for the response! VQuakr (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD on youngest elected officials

You are correct, of course. the age qualifications make the fact of a "youngest" elected official of some note. of course, it then becomes a matter of how close to the minimum age can you get? maybe someone whose birthday for age of qualification to be elected falls precisely on election day (or day of swearing in, or day of announcing they are running). sort of an asymptotic graph, like approaching division by zero. I do see your other point about the attempt to foist notability on the editor in question. just wanted to acknowledge your efforts as i read them after the afd was closed.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Partridge on periods

See my latest comment on the Talk:Russell T. Davies saga. I would like to see the Full stop article looking better, but I have a feeling your views are not supported by practice. Deb (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a misrepresentation to characterize these as my views. I've told you whose several views they are, quite clearly. You've even put one of the names in the heading, here. Uncle G (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offence intended. Okay then, your view that these other people's views are correct is not supported by practice. Deb (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that page move for me at F-4 Phantom IIs on display

No problem with your concious decision not to move the page at Philadelphia Convention. I couldn't ask anyone to do anything that they are not comfortable with. If you could give me an example of why you feel that Philadelphia Convention is more appropriate than Constitutional Convention (United States), it would be helpful in our overall consensus building. Also, I am having trouble looking up the reference to Google Books, that you had previously mentioned.

No Worries about leaving a talk back on my page. I'm now watching your page. (I too like to keep the conversations together). Thanks.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings

In light of your thoughts on the move request at Philadelphia Convention, I would be interested in your opinion in the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! Once again, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use common names) hits the problem of a chasm between what is common and what is formal/official. I don't have an immediate reaction on this, but I shall think it over. Uncle G (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your time on the matter. I am really not sure there is such a thing as a "common name" for a given post office or courthouse, but those issues have been hashed out to some degree in the discussion to this point. bd2412 T 02:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm still reading through the discussion. Then I'm going to have a look around elsewhere.
    Whilst we are on the subject of historic official buildings, I'd appreciate it if you or others double-checked the sources that I cited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Monroe County , Indiana Courthouse. Uncle G (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD comments

I have to say, despite being made to look like a fool occasionally, I've always respected your insightful comments at AFD and elsewhere over the years (I was on wikibreak for ~3 years a while ago, glad to see you're still around). I'm sure you have a hoard of article rescue barnstars by now, but at least to me comments that shine clarity about a subject or article are often more valuable then edits themselves. Ryan Norton 09:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and paste of HighKings comments

Hi.

I noticed your identical copy and paste of comments written by HighKing (talk · contribs) on some admin noticeboard somewhere and how you swallowed hook, line and sinker what he was saying.

Please take a care to look closer at the details.

I wandered into this whole anti-British Isles naming campaign thing completely blind only a few weeks when I discovered the same editor reverting all my work. I had no idea that it had been going on for years. It has taken me quite a while to get up to speed and also to work out all the technology, where discuss is going on etc. There seem to be a small group of editors working on tandem.

It is very difficult for me to see his victimisation of me as anything more than part of his campaign which, for the record, I want to keep out of any political aspect of. I agree with the Irish, historically, the English should have kept right out of Ireland but in social, biological and other non-political subjects, British Isles is the only term we have to use.

I found it disappointing that you would not take onboard any the background or context.

It is hard enough getting to grips with the system as a whole without having to work with a gang hailing down upon you. Thank you. --Triton Rocker (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to take quite a determined approach to subverting the process at WP:BISE for someone who lacks background or context Triton - not to mention your recent series of edits there where you just loaded all the names up and added insulting remarks against many. It really boils down to a simple thing - do you or do you not accept that there should be a structured process on this as laid down by the admins involved? I know you've read it because you've commented on it. It seems to me that you don't accept it and prefer to continue to work outside it - that's really your choice, but you can't then come here and bleat about being disappointed with Uncle G when only three days ago he gave you a final warning not to do it on this very topic, can you? It's a shame, because you are obviously a good editor - apart from the BI insertion, your edits on Irish Traveller were very interesting - so why didn't you do all those and then come back to the BISE page, explain what you'd done in terms of locating new sources and ask for another discussion? Nearly all the articles under discussion require further work, new material and better referencing. It's less fun than dog-fighting maybe, but ultimately, I think you would find it more satisfying. When the fighting pauses, people work better and the other editors whose positions you dislike show more flexibility. I know this is a charged issue, but take a deep breath next time....? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hopiakuta/Racism

I added those other subpages to the MFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tothwolf arbitration case request for clarification

You left a note about the Tothwolf arbitration case previously at the talk page of the arbitration noticeboard. There is currently a request for clarification about this case, here. Would you be able to comment? Carcharoth (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Door open door open

Per you comments at this previous ANI thread, I decided to do something different in response to this current ANI thread. I can think that there will be no doubt that this is from a living breathing human. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP/Noticeboard#Tolkien_family

I think M. Carrie's going too far now in that discussion. He's abusing WP as a forum to push his POV, calling his opponents names etc, etc. Moreover I have the strong feeling that he has in fact been editing the counter-arguments there as well with different accounts just to create publicity. A few days ago I already notified EdJohnston but I don't know if he picked up on it, so please have a look at this old blog thread and compare the statements over there with names over here. I find that very strange, to say the least. Contacting you on your page because I won't respond to his rants on the board any longer. De728631 (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Christopher Carrie

Christopher Carrie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tolkien family

Please see this cleanup by Sarek, who added links to some (now-removed) material from WP:BLP/N that had been placed by User:Christopher Carrie. Has the time come yet to block Carrie for WP:NLT? Getting the wording correct on that block could be tricky, so it might be simpler to block two weeks for disruptive editing. I don't think he should be making charges of sexual misconduct and lies against other people on BLPN. An alternative is a {{uw-biog4}} warning or the equivalent in plain language. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you noticed this. I was going to ask you about it, as a second opinion. ☺ I think that it has reached the point where one or more people, definitely including Christopher Carrie (talk · contribs), are now mis-using Wikipedia as a platform for an external dispute. That account had a point about the article content. But now that that point has been addressed, it is not appropriate to transform that into a campaign on an external issue. A warning of some kind is definitely warranted, in my view. A line is being crossed, and it needs to be pointed out in firm terms. A BLP content issue is one thing. A Named-Person-is-XYZ/No-I'm-not/Yes-you-are/I'm-suing-in-Trenton-New-Jersey debate is quite another. Uncle G (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Christopher Carrie (talk) 07:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC) I am sorry if I have infringed any of the Wikipedia rules i assure you it would be a result of my lack of understanding. If I have suggested anyone was lying or engaging in sexual misconduct it is because I am responding to false allegations of the same made against me. You must also be aware of accusations of blackmail and extortion have been levelled against me and that they are completely unsubstantiated by anything other than Internet postings made by people with alteria motives. If requested I will post proof documents from court actions to validate any remarks I post, however I am happy to be guided by you as to what I should and should not say. I take on board your comments and will temper my postings in compliance with your requirements in the future. For unwittingly transgressing in the past I appologise to anyone I have offended. I am not that IT savvy as you will have seen from my having just learnt how to sign my postings --Christopher Carrie (talk) 07:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some apology: http://www.monstersandcritics.com/movies/news/article_1243122.php/Royd_Tolkien_weighs_in_on_Peter_Jackson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.129.237 (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manz

Damn, that grew quickly ... --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were meant to notice the source in that section. Uncle G (talk) 04:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. (:

Thanks for your contribution to the debate over the article about the Philadelphia Convention! DrStrangelove64 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Kung Faux

It's no use; Carrite's being very DICKish of late. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#POINTY_AFD_.21votes_from_Carrite. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else later in the discussion may rise to the challenge, though. If doing so leads to good sourcing, then that's a good result as far as I'm concerned. Carrite isn't the only discussion participant. Uncle G (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My block of 75.173.6.133

After seeing edits like [32] (which is what I blocked for) as well as a declined unblock request, I'm not so sure I should apologize. Spencer^T♦C 02:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. That wasn't clear from the block notice, though, wasn't what the immediately preceding warning was about, and it certainly wasn't what was understood from your block. Uncle G (talk) 02:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for that and will do a better job in the future. Spencer^T♦C 13:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St James' Church Stretham

Thank you for adding three books to the new further reading section of Senra/St James' Church. Very useful. I found the Collectanea Cantabrigiensia in Google Books. I have summarised some prose from it within the article. Two matters arising: I think you meant Francis Blomefield, not Francis Blomfield. If you have taken the citation from somewhere else, you may wish to correct that entry. Secondly, do you have access to the Parker (1852) and Pegge (1851) books? I cannot find them on Google Books and inter-library loans cost £3 per from my local library :( --Senra (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that you might enjoy it. And yes, that was my typing error. I thought that I'd caught it, too. I wrote "Bloomfield" first, and didn't catch that until preview. Both of the others are findable via Google Books for me. Of course, Google Books isn't the same everywhere. Do either of these two hyperlinks work for you? Uncle G (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Both links worked! Impressive. Thank you so much for these --Senra (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment

As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping

Hello Uncle G,

I was working on a reply that should clear JanDeFietser of all charges and get NL-Bas blocked, however, I saw your comment saying that it should not be blown up again. I feel uneasy to place my short reply now. I do feel, however, that a wrong decision has been made and I think anybody can see that after reading my reply. Before I had read your comment I had posted it here. At the very least you can read it and perhaps allow me to appeal on Jan's behalf on the administrators noticeboard? --Faust (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is, truly, better that you don't continue this. I believe that JanDeFietser made an error of judgement here. But I also believe that it is quickly fixable. As things currently stand, this is something that can be recovered from with dignity and no animosity, with JanDeFietser discussing the matter xyrself, either in an unblock discussion at xyr talk page or with the blocking administrator or arbitration committee privately via the usual, well-publicized, channels. There is a simple route by which this can be sorted out and JanDeFietser can regain editing privileges. However, if everyone starts chipping in, I can tell you right now where this leads, because it's where it has led on numerous occasions before. It leads to a barroom brawl involving multiple editors, that if continued leads to a whole load of people being involved in an arbitration case, a protracted dispute that takes months to grind through the procedural machinery, after which so much has been said, and people's positions have become so entrenched, that we end up with blocks, restrictions, and bans for multiple editors. So step away from this right now, and let the simple process, of JanDeFietser clearing up the issue xyrself, and everyone going back to editing productively, have a chance. As things stand now, people on the Dutch Wikipedia have (as far as I am aware, although I may be wrong) no further reasonable grounds for getting up in arms about JanDeFietser on the English Wikipedia, and if the matter at hand is resolved swiftly by JanDeFietser xyrself xe and everyone else can continue editing here as long as they don't attempt to cross swords again. But let this escalate into a multi-editor mess, and the chances of that being the end result are significantly reduced. Uncle G (talk) 07:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Uncle G,
  I can grasp your reasons and your reasoning, however I disagree wholeheartedly. The reason I disagree is clearly visible to all. The user JanDeFietser is now being blocked on en.wiki for reason that lie outside en.wiki and that is simply improper behavior. The user JanDeFietser is continuously stating that he does not want this argument here, while the user NL-Bas keeps going on about this argument here. However, you are blocking JanDeFietser. That means the decision is based on reasons OUTSIDE of the en.wiki.
  Now, I can grasp how this takes place, but please be aware that this regulatory block is aiding NL-Bas in his attempt to deny his missteps by stating JanDeFietser can post on the en.wiki again if and only if he will drop some imagined charge, UNRELATED to en.wiki.
  This all is very strange, to block somebody for something outside of en.wiki, by the request of somebody who is breaking all the rules on the en.wiki AND in doing so aiding said rule breaker to deny serious missteps, even though this rule breaker is imagining a legal threat.
  Please, consider what I am saying here.
  --Faust (talk) 10:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - JanDeFietser and Sandstein are obviously discussing this right now, as can be seen by User talk:JanDeFietser. Let's let them do so; let's allow this to be resolved in a way that doesn't escalate. If you start weighing in in support, then the people from the Dutch Wikipedia who oppose JanDeFietser will weigh in in opposition, and soon we have a brawl on our hands that no-one wants here. Uncle G (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.

:)

--Faust (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama Baptist State Board of Missions

Thank you so much for your work on this page. I do have one request. Could you please put some information about what the convention does now? There have been racist mistakes in the past, but things are different now. In fairness this should be shown. Once again, I cannot thank you enough for your work. Myself, being a wiki novice, could not have done what you have! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toverton28 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a more up-to-date source that can be used? I don't have the Wooley encyclopaedia. Is there a 20th century or 21st century history book? Uncle G (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baptists

Before reinserting History of Baptists in Alabama as a "see also" in the North America section of Baptists without an explanatory edit summary, please explain on the article talk page why this state is appropriate for such a prominent listing. It seems too specific for a top-level article. It might even be too specific for that sort of a link on the Baptists in the United States article (but a template or other less intrusive way to link to one of what would be dozens of articles might work). For a world-wide-focused article, though, this seems much too low-level. Thanks. Novaseminary (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that the edit is self-explanatory, the edit summary directly explained the edit. You would do well to try to build the web instead of knee-jerk reverting so much. If the link was better placed at some other point, then you should have done that. Instead, you've orphaned two articles twice, now, because you revert instead of editing. Try a constructive approach. Uncle G (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The link was not appropriate anywhere in the Baptist article into which you inserted it twice. I removed the link and, in an effort to be constructive and fill any perceived hole in the Baptist article (thinking you were trying to actually improve the Baptist article), I replaced it with a more appropriate link. I explained as much in an edit history and subsequent article talk page post. It seems as though you added the link, not because it was best for the Baptist article in which you placed it, but rather, in good inentioned but less than strategically perfect effort to de-orphan the link. I could have researched the incoming link status of the link I removed and then found other articles that would be appropriate recipients of a link to the article. But you could have done the same thing. The link you inserted might be useful in other pages, but criticizing me for not de-orphaning articles I had nothing to do with seems a bit unfair. Novaseminary (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I could have researched the incoming link status of the link I removed and then found other articles that would be appropriate recipients of a link to the article. But you could have done the same thing. — I did research and find a place to add it. That place is where I added it. You thought that there was a better place, but instead of putting the link there you just reverted and orphaned the article. As I said: Try a constructive approach. If you thought that you could have done better you should have, rather than just using the undo tool as your only approach. Uncle G (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If your research leads you to believe that Baptists is the appropriate place for a promnient link to History of Baptists in Alabama article, by all means make the case on that article's talk page per WP:BRD. I didn't and don't know of a better place for the link to History of Baptists in Alabama other than the one article that already links to it (Alabama Baptist Convention); it strikes me as an article of limited appeal. The only "better" I could do was remove a link that did not belong in Baptist and replace it with a couple that do. And I did go back and add a link in a relevant article (Kentucky Baptist Convention) pointing to the other of your orphan articles, History of Baptists in Kentucky. I'm not sure why you went personal with this. I just added my initial post here to try to gently prod you into discussing on the talk page or dropping your effort to reinsert the link. Nothing more. You're edit history made clear what you did, but not why you did it (twice, the second time after it was remvoed with an edit sumamry that briefly said why). Novaseminary (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I "made the case" for the first link by boldly putting the link into the article. Talk page discussion beforehand isn't necessary. I did the same with the second link to bring the point home to you, that still doesn't seem to have sunk in yet, that there probably are "History of" articles for quite a few states, not least because there are in other encyclopaedias. There's nothing personal in anything that I wrote above. I don't care who you are. I do care that you revert rather than edit, and don't take a constructive approach. I also care that you erroneously think that effort to de-orphan articles, for the benefit of readers, is effort that should be dropped. That is quite wrongheaded of you. Uncle G (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I assume(d) that there are, or should be, "history of Baptists in..." articles for at least several states (though I would prefer to drop the "History of" from those that have it, but that is another issue). That is precisely why I removed the link to one seemingly random state (and then two states) that you added to a globaly-focused article. I was not making a statement about the notability of the article to which you linked. And I only undid you once. The second time, I replaced what you put, and explained why (I still have no idea whether you agree or disagree with the substance of what I did). Also, I never meant to suggest that you drop your effort to de-orphan a notable article (as evidenced by my touting it in my last comment when I did the exact same thing, albeit in a more focused way). Rather, I wanted you to leave my edit or explain why you think I am wrong. As for talk, of course talk page discussion is not necessary--or even helpful--before a first edit such as you made, but before you did it again, it would have been helpful to discuss. And as for your position that I am not editing constructivly, you can be sure that every single edit I make I believe to be contructive (and I tried to explain myself too, and ask you to do so in an effort to reach consensus). I assumed your edits were attempts at being contructive; I'm not sure why you wouldn't give me the same benefit of the doubt. We may disagree, but I do not think there is sufficient reason with this set of facts to say I "don't take a constructive approach". Novaseminary (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I gave you the benefit of the doubt for four days, during which you did nothing to de-orphan the article that you had orphaned, or act constructively to build the web to link the new articles with existing ones in whatever way you thought "better". Special:WhatLinksHere/History of Baptists in Alabama tells me that your second edit to orphan the article didn't "replace" anything, nor did it do "the exact same thing", since the article is still even now orphaned once more by your edit, five days later, and not reachable by readers who want to go from general history to detailed history. You still haven't built the web that you destroyed by undoing edits. In the meantime, as you can see below, other editors have written whole new articles building upon this rescue and cleanup work that we are doing as fall-out from the AFD discussion. We now have stub/start articles on a Baptist newspaper, histories of Baptists in two states (possibly three by the end of this), and three state conventions. There's repeated reverting that orphans articles, and there's constructive editing. Uncle G (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Yikes. I really meant no offense. It seems you have taken some. I'm sorry. Maybe your reaction to me is fallout from the Afd, which I had nothing to do with until !voting keep a few minutes ago. Anyway, by "replaced" I meant changed the link you reinserted (History of Baptists in Alabama) to a different, more appropriate link (Baptists in the United States) in the Baptist article with this edit. I wasn't referring to replacing anything in the orphan article or adding any links to the orphan article. Sorry for the confusion. And the History of Baptists in Alabama article is not orphaned anyway; there has been a link to it from Alabama Baptist Convention (itself receiving a link from List of state and other conventions associated with the Southern Baptist Convention which I split and updated from Southern Baptist Convention) since before I removed the link at Baptists. As I mentioned above, this is about the only place I can think of where it belongs right now. Perhaps if there were a mention of Alabama added into Baptists in the United States, a link could go there. Or a template could be created linking to all of the state history pages and inserted in those articles and the US article. Or a list of the history articles could be created and inserted as a "see also" or somehow worked into text of Baptists in the United States. Just some thoughts... Novaseminary (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama Baptist (newspaper)

This should probably have its own article. A circulation of 100,000 is respectable, and since it is likely to be used as a source in other articles it is helpful to have a link in references so readers can find out about the source. The AfD debate on state Baptist convention articles seems daft to me. These are big organizations with all sorts of things going on. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked, found sources, will create the article in a few minutes. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At Alabama Baptist, The Alabama Baptist, or Alabama Baptist (newspaper)? The disambiguator doesn't seem necessary. Uncle G (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have made The Alabama Baptist the main title, and Alabama Baptist a disambig page, which I think is logical. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Special:Contributions/Toverton28. We basically got twenty or so largely identical boilerplate articles. Of course the institutions are highly different, with different histories and developments and contexts, and not boilerplate copies of each other at all. As I noted in the AFD discussion, it's non-trivial to disentangle these things. This is not least because of the name changes. I currently have a tab open in my WWW browser where I'm trying to sort out a decent sourced stub for Arizona Southern Baptist Convention, which wasn't called that in its earliest years. Uncle G (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is annoying. Meaningless poor-quality stubs get deleted. Then someone who is interested and knows about the subject goes to start one and gets a large red warning that seems to say "Wikipedia does not think this is a suitable subject for an article. Are you sure you want to start it? We are probably just going to delete it again." Oh well... Aymatth2 (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is my hope, and experience, that good encyclopaedists are sure enough of their writing and sourcing that they aren't put off by such things. But I show by example what I think ought to be done, that avoids such issues entirely: a quick rewrite as a proper, sourced, stub. The problem with the AFD discussion is that it's a bulk nomination. We've addressed three of the articles nominated. A fourth is a 7-year-old organization that isn't in the history books as those three are. I haven't even looked for sources for Alaska, Colorado, and California yet. I asked SchuminWeb whether xe would narrow the field to focus on the articles that are still just boilerplates. Uncle G (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I should never edit after drinking wine... I have been feeling a bit pessimistic about the project lately. I should probably stay clear of Huggle, which gives a depressing view of the subjects of interest to readers and vandals. Your comment on "good encyclopaedists" is somehow very encouraging, even though for me it is more a pastime than a passion. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do AFD patrol, Proposed Deletion patrol, and New Pages patrol (amongst other things). Imagine what my view of the encyclopaedia would be from that. ☺ It's not, of course. In amongst the startup bands, self-publicists, advertisements for WWW-sites, undocumented Internet fads, and other bad article ideas there are occasional rescues like this. Uncle G (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Diogenes and Alexander

On 27 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Diogenes and Alexander, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick point about notability of buildings...

I'm going to ignore any ownership issues, because they don't figure into the equation. However, you make an interesting yet uninformed point about (presumably) a Grand Lodge building being notable for being a Grand Lodge building. In the US, there are around 100 such buildings. Moreover, almost every jurisdiction in the world has one or more. In the case of the oldest Grand Lodge in the US (Massachusetts), there have been three such buildings in two different locations, plus the Prince Hall building, plus if any of the other 12 Grand Lodges in the state that claim to be Masonic have buildings. So which one is notable, and why? I'd say none, because the Grand Lodge may be notable, but the Grand Lodge is not the building it meets in, just like a Lodge is the membership, not the location of the meeting. So what we have is a case of the building inheriting the notability of the organization that meets there, which we know contravenes policy. So we are left with the question of why the building is notable, and we have yet to get a satisfactory answer. Not one of the stubs that has been created even points to a source that can answer that question. Frankly, the concern was that historical notability of a building was that "it was the first Masonic building in town", which is a bit ridiculous considering that most towns have only ever had one, and there may be well over 200 in any given state. We have therefore been trying to get a concrete set of criteria together as to why these building are NHRP-listed, and we have been unable to do so because we can't access the records. Don would seem to be claiming that he can access them (though I believe in truth he is not), but he won't do it either, which means we cannot come up with an encyclopedic basis for the list in question. Meanwhile, don is piling on two-line stub after two-line stub, instead of helping to define the substantive criteria for the list. It's counterproductive activity, and its continuance is why we have the issue we have, not because there is an ownership issue. Please note we have no other lists of buildings owned by fraternal groups, so if we're going to set a precedent, it's got to be solid, and it really isn't. MSJapan (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Baptist navboxes

Southern Baptist state convention boilerplate article cleanup to-do list (feel free to check off)
~~Alabama Baptist Convention~~ ~~Alaska Baptist Convention~~ ~~Arizona Southern Baptist Convention~~ ~~Arkansas Baptist State Convention~~ California Southern Baptist Convention ~~Colorado Baptist General Convention~~ ~~Dakota Baptist Convention~~ ~~District of Columbia Baptist Convention~~ Florida Baptist Convention ~~Georgia Baptist Convention~~ Hawaii Pacific Baptist Convention Illinois Baptist State Association State Convention of Baptists in Indiana Baptist Convention of Iowa Kansas-Nebraska Convention of Southern Baptists Kentucky Baptist Convention Louisiana Baptist Convention Baptist Convention of Maryland/Delaware Baptist State Convention of Michigan Minnesota-Wisconsin Baptist Convention ~~Mississippi Baptist Convention~~ Missouri Baptist Convention Montana Southern Baptist Convention Nevada Baptist Convention Baptist Convention of New England Baptist Convention of New Mexico Baptist Convention of New York ~~Baptist State Convention of North Carolina~~ Northwest Baptist Convention State Convention of Baptists in Ohio Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma Baptist Convention of Pennsylvania/South Jersey South Carolina Baptist Convention Tennessee Baptist Convention Baptist General Convention of Texas Southern Baptists of Texas Convention Baptist General Association of Virginia Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia West Virginia Convention of Southern Baptists Wyoming Southern Baptist Convention

I started Template:Southern Baptist State Conventions to glue this set of articles together and help comparison. Some of them need a lot of work. I think the Alabama article gives a good example of structure and contents. It would be good if the others were at least brought up to this level with similar structure. Question: Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia has the long navbox Template:Southern Baptists, but does not appear as a link in this navbox. Does this navbox belong in the article, or does it only belong in the articles it lists? Aymatth2 (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. My personal taste would be that it doesn't belong in the individual convention articles. That's because my personal taste here is to only have the one navbox. So I suggest getting List of state and other conventions associated with the Southern Baptist Convention added somewhere in the {{Southern Baptists}} navbox, providing a vertical link, and use {{Southern Baptist State Conventions}} to link the conventions together laterally, as it were. Have a word with Novaseminary (talk · contribs) about this. Uncle G (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd already responded to Aymatth2 on my talk page before I saw this. In short, I think Uncle G's suggestion hit the nail on the head. Novaseminary (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baptist State Convention of North Carolina article

Did any of the encyclopedia articles about the other State Conventions have anything useful for this one? As it stands, it does not demonstrate the notability of this Convention (and indeed, following the closure of the BSC AfD, I was about to restore it anyway) - but if there are some useful references that could be added (hell, I'd be happy with a reliable "Further reading" section), then it would be useful!

Incidently, have you ever considered doing some archiving of this page (either with one of the bots or manually) - it seems to be a bit of a large page!

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't turn up any the first time around. I've had a quick shoofti and added a couple of things. Uncle G (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to clean up the litter of redlinks that a Certain Person left in the Alabama article, I did a thumbnail on Sion Blythe, who started out in North Carolina. A source for that is David Benedict's 1813 history, which looks like a good starting point for the early associations in the state before the convention was formed. According to the Association of Religion Data Archives in 2000 there were 3,717 SBC congregations with 1,512,058 adherents in North Carolina, so there should be no problem finding plenty of sources for a more complete article. I will do it in the next couple of days if I don't get sidetracked. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to branch out into the biographies, myself. Uncle G (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I like doing bios, but try to keep them as compact as possible. Sometimes de-orphaning is an interesting challenge. Just kidding about redlinks - they are useful. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then enjoy Thomas Meredith (Baptist leader). ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see that you did. Note that one can use {{cite encyclopaedia}} to cite encyclopaedias and dictionaries of biography. The "article=" parameter to the template lets one specify which article in the encyclopaedia is being cited. Uncle G (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I will try to remember that cite approach. Also I see the way you put multiple references to the same source in the template at the foot, which has advantages although old habits are hard to break. I think the bios are useful, and a different way to approach the subject. I just started William Bullein Johnson which suggests content and sources for several of the organizational articles. I am hesitating to start anything on doctrinal differences. I pointed Campbellism to the originator but am tempted to make a separate article. Being completely ignorant of the subject I am not sure whether I have excellent or terrible qualifications to describe it. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have some more redlinks:

Adiel Sherwood:
- Burch2003
- Jarrett Burch (2005). "Adiel Sherwood". The New Georgia Encyclopedia. Georgia Humanities Council and the University of Georgia Press.
- Walter Brownlow Posey (1957). Adiel Sherwood: Georgia's first gazetteer.
Powelton Baptist Church, originally known as Powell Creek Baptist Church:
- Paul E. Jernigan (1964). History of the Powelton Baptist Church.
- David Seibert (2008). "Powelton Baptist Church". The Historical Marker Database.
Georgia Baptist Association:
- Gardner1995
- Robert Granville Gardner (1988). A History of the Georgia Baptist Association, 1784–1984. Georgia Baptist Historical Society.
- R. L. Robinson (1928). History of the Georgia Baptist Association. Atlanta.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
- Jesse Harrison Campbell (1847). "Georgia Association". Georgia Baptists: historical and biographical. Richmond: H. K. Ellyson. pp. 211–229.

Uncle G (talk)

Baxterley Church AfD et al

Thank you for notifying me about the recent Baxterley Church AfD et al. The nom, RadioFan (talk · contribs), has now withdrawn the AfD proposal --Senra (Talk) 16:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phursatar

Can you take a look at the new sources in the article and AfD? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for History of Baptists in Alabama

On 30 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article History of Baptists in Alabama, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Capital Region (United States)

I see you've removed the deletion tag off of the National Capital Region (United States) article without discussion. Pretty bold move. Also if you're going to remove a tag by citing it should be merged instead, perhaps you should have replaced the tag with a merger tag. Not replacing it is just counter productive. UrbanNerd (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need more familiarization with our Proposed deletion and article merger processes. The former does not require discussion to contest, and the latter does not involve deletion at any stage. You should also check the edit history of the article for further enlightenment. Uncle G (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is completely useless, poorly written, not referenced, and should be a redirect to the Washington Metropolitan Area article. UrbanNerd (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - None of which involve the deletion tool in addressing. Uncle G (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It would be a lot easier if you would replace the tag with the correct one instead of acting smug. Where would one find the correct tag ? UrbanNerd (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - You perceive yourself in your view of others. What makes you think that tagging is editing? And what makes you think that other editors agree with you? As I said: Read the edit history of the article and the relevant talk pages, which you will find by reading the edit history, and be enlightened. Uncle G (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of "Upper Class"

Hello - I see you objected to my proposed deletion for this article. I do not want to start an AfD if it is not necessary, and so I have a question.

The American Upper Class article well describes what "Upper Class" is - in the United States at least, and it is well sourced. Therefore, I am not sure if an AfD for the Upper Class article is appropriate, because I proposed a re-direct to the American Upper Class article, which has a far better introduction. The only sections that would technically be deleted from the Upper Class article are "Historical meaning" and "Rest of the world".

The "issues" notice on the Upper Class article clearly says: "It may need a complete rewrite to meet Wikipedia's quality standards". That is why I thought a re-direct to the American upper class would be the best solution. The "United States" section of the Upper Class article would be immediately improved, and a more worldwide view could be slowly added, in effect re-writing the article.

Could you please respond on my talk page about whether this would be OK, and whether I would need to start an AfD or do something different. Thanks. Beeshoney (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I don't mind if other talk page stalkers respond to this, as I can see that Uncle G hasn't been editing for a few hours. Beeshoney (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that the article needs rewriting, then the very best thing that you can do is pull out your editing tool and write without mercy. There's on-going discussion at Talk:Upper class as to the perceived problems with the article, such as U.S. centrism, and various attempts to fix them. But rewriting doesn't happen by magic. One has to sit down, read about the subject in sources, and then write.
Since this is a topic in sociology, the best sources to read for starters are introductory texts in that subject. When you read them, you'll find that breaking the subject up by country isn't really the way that the subject is addressed in the literature in the first place. The subject is more broken up by model. Karl Marx had one model. Max Weber's more complex model of socioeconomic status in turn leads to the class model by Dennis Gilbert and Joseph A. Kahl, as widely used for the U.S., but not solely restricted to the U.S. in its application. (Gilbert himself, for example, has written about social classes in Mexico.) When it comes to Europe, one again mostly starts with Marx and Weber, but rather than Gilbert and Kahl extending that, one looks to the models by John Goldthorpe, Pierre Bourdieu, and others.
In sociology, class models are strongly tied to their inventors and proponents, and less tied to (albeit not divorced from) strict geography. There are many books that one could read to learn more about this. I pick four almost at random: ISBN 9781405170024 explicitly divides up the subject by proponent, with separate chapters on Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Bordieu, and others. Hartery's and Gahagan's chapter of ISBN 9780443055157 discusses Marx, Weber, the idea of social classes such as the upper and middle classes being subcultures, and the British upper class. Chapter 10 of ISBN 9780132051583 has Marx, Weber, Goldthorpe, and discussion of the British upper-upper and lower-upper classes. Chapter 7 of ISBN 9780495598626 has a broad-brush overview of the Marx plus Weber plus Gilbert/Kahl system with an North America-centric approach.
If you're going for laying out the groundwork for a FA quality article on this subject, bear in mind three things: You're never going to be able to "globalize" the article, in a naïve every-country-has-a-section Wikipedia view of such things; not every society is viewed by sociologists as stratified on a class system in the first place. Not every sociological model even has the concept of an upper class; in France, for example, most place a business class ("le patronat", "les industriels", "les PDG", "la class patronale", and so forth) at the apex of the class hierarchy rather than an upper class ("la class supérieure" and "la haute société"), the latter being a quite rare designation in French thinking (ISBN 9780521277006 pp. 29–30). The concept of an upper class is considered by some to be a Western European, or even more specifically an Anglophone Western European, export that has, by dint of history, been layered imperfectly upon other structures. (See King2008 in the article for more on this.)
This is a complex subject to address properly. But deletion nominations, and even simple redirects to a U.S.-centric view of the world, won't achieve that. Uncle G (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. Beeshoney (talk) 11:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for History of Baptists in Kentucky

On 1 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article History of Baptists in Kentucky, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Taberg, NY

If I erred long ago, I hope that the errors have been corrected, since a couple of other editors have ridden roughshod over NY material. I did much of the original sorting out of NY, and the basic arrangement is still my format (see the early history of each article). Now as for Taberg, it is a hamlet in Annsville in Oneida County. I do not know how the town junk got in there, I hope is was not me! I made some corrections and commented in the deletion page also. Maybe the article will remain. There is also another Annsville, NY located elsewhere. Thanks, Stepp-Wulf (talk) 05:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Perfect analysis

		The Socratic Barnstar
		The summary and analysis you wrote on Jimbo's talk page about the fabricated "scandal" about The Mousetrap was perfect. I wish all editors could see the situation as clearly as you did. Regards So Why 07:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Uncle G. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Darius Dhlomo

I saw at ANI that you've been doing alot of work on this CCI. I've finally gotten all of the subpages straightened out and stabilized, so would you be willing to go through and mark which ones you've found issues with (and whether you've cleaned or blanked the article) and which ones are copyvio-free? The appropriate subpage should show up in the backlinks for each page now. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a third category of too-short-to-look-at-in-the-first-pass. Tore Gustafsson and Yelena Tyurina are two examples. How do you want those marked? I found a lot of them. Uncle G (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can either just not mark them or leave a ?. Either way someone else will come along and check it eventually. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

It appears that your smiley graphic does not render correctly in my browser - hence I thought your answer at WP:AN was deliberately unhelpful as without the smiley the emotional context was lost. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Exxolon (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Uncle G (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More on "xe" and "xyr" and suchlike

Hey Uncle G, I know you are doing it with the best possible intention, but can you please slow down on your use of "xe" and "xyr" and suchlike. What i'm trying to say is that not many people understand what that means! Even most native English speakers have never come across these words. (I for once have spent several minutes trying to figure out who was that freaking user:xe.) And imagine the confusion this causes in those non-native-English speakers who try to learn English! So please remember: political correctness is all good -- and gender-neutral pronouns would be definitely a brilliant addition to our language, if they were adopted -- but until that is the case you may be causing a lot of confusion! 80.135.37.246 (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CCI

OK, four questions:

We are talking about alot of sports articles and sports people, right?
These are articles started by one person, right?
Couldn't they be mass deleted?
My main question, why was this user's edits called into question? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are probably best asked and answered at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI. Please put them there. I'm not the only person involved in this, and you'll not be the only person to ask, I suspect. That last, for instance, is better answered by the people who were involved in the original CCI case discussion. Uncle G (talk) 06:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the alert. Whilst I am willing and indeed able to help such inexperienced editors, there are far too many aggressive page patrol people around for me to help all such editors. I am trying to construct an essay to tackle the root cause plus write articles such as this myself. Your help and seasoned(?) advice on preventing such strict policy interpretations may be a better use of both our time --Senra (Talk) 12:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Uncle G. You have new messages at Ron Ritzman's talk page.
Message added 00:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Thank you so much. Please continue helping!

Thanks a lot, Uncle G. Your edits at the Reproductive Health were all very helpful. Please continue helping as we improve that article. :) 03:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)