User talk:GDallimore

May 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=609876342 your edit] to Patent troll may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Patent Trolls: A Global Perspective Re: Patent Infringement], Lisa L. Mueller, February 17, 2014 the UK and other countries, a legal action may be

Electronic harassment
I'm working on this article, your help isn't very helpful.

Could you be so kind to restore the page so that the work may continue.

Thanks,

84.106.11.117 (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Before you ask: I'm not renee00124 and no I dont have an account. 84.106.11.117 (talk) 13:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You shut down my efforts towards improving this article, I'm now waiting for your response.


 * 84.106.11.117 (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Still waiting....


 * 84.106.11.117 (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Your contributions do not improve the article. End of discussion. GDallimore (Talk) 15:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello again,


 * End of discussion? You call this a discussion? You call that an article? I'm not impressed! With all respect, I don't particularly care for your believes about my ability to write an article. The reality from my perspective is that you didn't give me time to finish it. 4 minutes is just not enough to even remove the italics, let alone attempt to rewrite everything neutrally, source everything properly and remove remaining unsourced sections. It just cant be done in 4 min. It was obvious enough I was working on that was it not? It is not beyond me to search for sources, delete material that doesn't belong and put where the citations are reasonable but not good enough. Inserting section by section from the archive is considerably more work. Specially if the content (if we can call it that) still has to be arranged properly. With your help, it could have been finished by now? We can do it your way of course, if you insist. I'm curious, are you just going to sit there or are you going to help write it?


 * I was reading this talk page contribution of yours:


 * "allegations from individuals identified as delusional by every reliable source I can find."


 * You haven't looked very hard. Start here: Harassment then read on here: Directed-energy_weapon, Sonic weapon, Non-lethal weapon and here: Project MKUltra. The last one is most relevant. The "toys" apparently have been elaborately tested on civilians, reliable sources report. Some NBC link announcing that it is all in peoples head is not a sufficient refutation. Even if it was, the conspiracy theories are also notable, provided they can be sourced properly and are described as such, they make up an important bit of historic context.


 * In some states it is illegal to own such a weapon: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2004/Chapter170


 * In others you need a license for it much like a fire arm: http://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/2005/title53a/sec53a-217.html


 * People have these things and they are going to use them you see? While it should not become a repository of victims, if there are relevant court cases we can use those, I haven't seen any so far.


 * If you are really that worried about non existent article, lets debate the sections on the article talk page and try find sources for them. I believe that was the way it was suppose to be done? Unless you just want to sit there and complaint of course, while not very useful, you are free to do that as well.


 * Don't forget to read the MKUltra article. The Electronic harassment article should not contradict every word on that page in my view.


 * If you don't agree with that, please elaborate.


 * Thanks for your time.


 * 84.106.11.117 (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Do read the link before removing the quote again
http://www.noahsarkzoofarm.co.uk/pages/about-us/earth-history/evolution.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.199.68.228 (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Articles are based on INDEPENDENT sources. GDallimore (Talk) 21:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Even ignoring the key fact that the link doesn't mention theistic evolution. GDallimore (Talk) 21:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Talking tree as a link on Auditory hallucination
Hello, you said there is no reason to add the link Talking tree to Auditory hallucination. I disagree, re inserted the link and started a dialogue on the talk page of Auditory Hallucination. I forgot to leave a comment when I did the edit, describing the reversion, that is the reason I am writing you here.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Images of comics characters
Category:Images of comics characters, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Optica
Dear Geoff,

Please do not delete my Optica Software article!!!! I am still working on it. I will try to improve the sources, and get some of the the users to contribute, so please give me time.

Your push to delete, has greatly distressed me.

Regards, Ann Williamson — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnWilliamson2 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I gave you 2 months and you did nothing. Your promises are hollow. Take it to Deletion review. GDallimore (Talk) 00:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

About the article Flowers for Algernon
Hello User:GDallimore! I saw that you (correctly) reverted an edit in Flowers for Algernon due to its objective lack of secondary sourcing and its subjective insignificance. I wasn't sure whether to call the new section "In popular culture" or "Derivative works", but I was planning to add other examples (this time, sourced) of works that have been inspired by the novel. Before proceeding with the expansion, and being quite new here at Wikipedia, I'm contacting you to know if there is any kind of "veto" to expand the article with derivative works, since you rejected that content two times, instead of finding a source and accepting the addition. Sorry if this question seems naive to you, but before investing time in searching for resources, I prefer to be sure that my actions will be compatible with the content guidelines that have been chosen by you for this article. Thanks in advance for your answer! ► LowLevel (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
Per WP:CIVIL, please try to refrain from calling other editors "fuckwits". Thanks, Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of interest to you
You were a discussant at Articles for deletion/Kim Cloutier which (somewhat strangely) closed as a delete with 5 delete and 4 keep responses. The article has since been recreated through the WP:AFC process and a speedy deletion was contested. Thus, I call your attention to Articles for deletion/Kim Cloutier (2nd nomination).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The brothers Čapek listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The brothers Čapek. Since you had some involvement with the The brothers Čapek redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The brothers capek listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The brothers capek. Since you had some involvement with the The brothers capek redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Permission to use figure in a book.
Dear GDallimore,

I am working with Prof. Steven LaValle to help obtain permissions for borrowing figures or pictures in his upcoming book Virtual Reality, to be published by Cambridge University Press. The book is online here:

http://vr.cs.uiuc.edu/

We are hoping to include the picture of yours (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Bump-map-demo-full.png/400px-Bump-map-demo-full.png) in this book (Chapter 7, Figure 7.9). Could we please have your permission for this? Thank you.

Please contact me at awarkoczewski@yahoo.com

Sincerely,

Adam Warkoczewski — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.25.191.254 (talk) 11:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The file is at File:Bump-map-demo-full.png. There is a license on that page. This user has been off-wiki since 2014 so the license the user provided might be your only response.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  21:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikiproject Spoken Wikipedia Revival
Hello, I'm Jamesjpk. I wanted to let you know that the Wikiproject Spoken Wikipedia, has been tagged with a semi-active tag. I am messaging you about this because you are listed under the wiki-project's list of active participants. Please contribute to the WikiProject if you want to keep it alive! I hope that it becomes active again! Jamesjpk (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Design rights listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Design rights. Since you had some involvement with the Design rights redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Challenge (literature)


The article Challenge (literature) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "This highly US-centric article is completely redundant to Book censorship in the United States, and is written as if it were an undergraduate essay."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Nebula Award template footer
Template:Nebula Award template footer has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Full color GIF image
Heads up: Discussion at talk:GIF about improving the section on Full Color -- some agreement that it would be easier to see the difference if your sample image were not animated, so that the 256-color version and the full color version could be placed side by side. Feel free to weigh in. -- Elphion (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Trademark Troll page
I wondering if you might assist, please. I do not have a horse in the race myself, but I find it frustrating to see Langdell's name on the Trademark Troll page when he clearly shouldn't be listed there. It is open knowledge that a number of editors did hatchet job on his EDGE Games page, adding numerous false edits to make him and his company look bad. Then they added him to this page as a further attempt to defame him. The fact is a single judge speculated as to whether he might be a troll based on incomplete facts presented in what I gather was a brief 15 minute motion hearing. He does not find Langdell a troll, he speculates that he might be. Then the press grab onto that and write articles saying he is a troll. But the fact is no court or trademark tribunal anywhere worldwide has found that he has acted as a troll. Indeed, the 2008 Federal Court case I cited found he is not a troll since he genuinely owns all his marks. And recent decisions before the UKIPO (with appeal to the Appointed Person) and before the French PTO, have all ruled that Langdell's EDGE Games does genuinely own all its marks. Thus clearly Langdell is not nor has he ever been a 'troll'. Can reason prevail and Langdell be removed from this page do you think? Vertisis (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Vertisis: the user hasn't edited since 2014. It's time you let go of this. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 21:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)