User talk:Gaba p/Archive 5

Move Cinnarch article to mainspace
Hello. Your article on Cinnarch looks good. I suggest you call it Antergos and set up a page to redirect Cinnarch here. I noted your conversation with the user Ahunt. WP:V will not be a problem, especially for Antergos - I see a lot of reviews on a google search. Thanks, Anand (talk page) 17:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Anand, thanks for your comment. The article is unfortunately not complete enough to be released into mainspace now. The image needs to be changed, the references too, about half of it is still in Spanish and lots of more info needs to be added. As you've shown interest in it I've revived it (I was actually going to let it die) and I'll try to finish it in the next few days. After that I'll move it into mainspace and I'll let you know so you can contribute to it. Sounds ok to you? Cheers. Gaba  (talk)  18:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I see now that the Cinnarch project has undergone the change to Antergos since you last worked on the article :) My thinking is that it is best to have one article covering both distros because it is essentially the same project. The information related to Antergos can be slowly added. Thanks, Anand (talk page) 18:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Anand the article is now in mainspace: Antergos (operating system). The first thing it would need is a bigger resolution logo and a screen capture. I tried getting those but couldn't get the distro to boot properly neither on my system nor in a Virtualbox. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  20:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You have done an excellent job. I will add the screenshot and see if I can find a logo. I too ran into many issues/bugs while installing and it took me 2 whole days to fix them all. I remember 'only' these many and will post in their forum. Thanks, Anand (talk page) 12:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) If the boot process hangs just before the desktop comes up, use the nomodeswitch boot option.
 * 2) If you aren't seeing any progress, then use the CLI installer. It downloaded over 500 MB of packages for over 3 hours on my crappy connection.
 * 3) If you are using a 3G modem or something, then you will need to start ModemManager manually.
 * 4) Grub fails to install because the installer looks in /target/usr/sbin instead of /target/usr/bin. So install grub manually.


 * Thank you Anand! I see you added a screenshot and a bigger logo, great. What the article would need now is a bit more of external references (ie: not coming from Antergo's official site) to give it a bit more notability. Regarding your recommendations for installing I thank you very very much, but I sadly gave up trying to install this distro after failing the first couple of times. In this day and age I believe that a linux distro should work out of the box and not require the user to fiddle endlessly to make it work. Perhaps Antergos could've used a couple more months in the oven beta testing. Cheers mate. Gaba  (talk)  15:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I totally agree about distros working out of the box. FYI, I have added external references like you suggested. And Antergos addressed a couple of installation bugs in yesterday's release. Thanks, Anand (talk page) 17:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Antergos (operating system), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Repositories (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Creation–evolution controversy
Now that you reverted, please respond to my criticism of your revert comments on the discussion page. --rtc (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done :) Regards. Gaba  (talk)  15:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Some pictures are just creepy, and surely we are not the only ones who notice that strange effect.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 14:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Marshal, and thanks for the barnstar! I'm very sorry for how things turned out with the Arbcom ruling regarding you and Cambalachero. Much like with me and Wee an interaction ban with Lecen would've probably been enough, a full ban on Latin American history seems excessive to say the least. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  02:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the words, Gaba. Things don't always go as expected, but life goes on. :)
 * I am now working on the FKI article. I am thinking about making a WP:RFC in the article for some parts in the etymology section. I initially thought the RFC was difficult to make, but it's apparently a very simple process (just follow the steps in the page). Added that it helps avoid any uncomfortable situations (such as trick questions or tag-teaming) that are obviously intended to confuse matters rather than help resolve the issue.
 * One last thing: Cambalachero taught me a valuable policy (WP:DENY) which I hope is also of help to you.
 * Best wishes.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 16:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Regression to the mean looks better than before
Thanks for asking me to check whether the tag on Regression to the mean still fits. Like most of the articles on Wikipedia, it still needs lots of work, but it appears to be on the watchlist of several genuine statisticians, so I've removed the tag. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear the tag is not needed anymore. Thanks for getting back! Gaba  (talk)  01:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Vegetarianism
Hi, thanks for you input of Vegetarianism. Can you please explain why my editing for Vegetarianism is not constructive? The current article assumed the definition. The academic source shows public in different nations do not agree to a uniformed definition. Definitions is the most fundamental part of an articles. The current article gets it wrong. 124.149.42.1 (talk) 04:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:BRD. If you make an edit and this is reverted, you got to the talk page and discuss it, you don't revert it back. Also the discussion tou initiated was 90% attacks (on editor Flyer22) which pretty much guarantees you won't get any engagement from other editors.
 * As far as your edit goes, you need to learn to base your edits in reliable sources, not just what you perceive to be "real" or "obvious". Regards. Gaba  (talk)  13:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * First, my edits on the talk page are factual description of Flyer22's attack on me, the person started the dispute. Everything is recorded, my comments are backup by evidence, my writing is not personal attack, it was self-defense. Second. did you researched my editing at all? Or just follows Flyer22's propaganda for convenience? I cited reliable academic source, a peer reviewed and published PhD thesis; in contrast, the first paragraph of the current article does not cite any academic source. Last, assume good faith is a basic principle of Wikipedia, you failed to do so.


 * I supervised many researchers in my scientist career. I use Wikipedia often. I am extremely familiar with those basic academic principles, such as reliability. Your information on the topic is redundant. I am sorry for your misjudgement for this dispute.124.149.166.160 (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

WCM
I used the canvassing example as the most obvious example of misleading diffs by you at AN as most of the others are more open to interpretation. Do I think it was canvassing, probably just, yes, but it certainly wasn't a bad case of it. That's part of the problem I have with your reports at AN / ANI, they see everything as black and white. Yes he probably did break his topic ban but only in a very minor way, and it's certainly possible it was unintentional given the limited nature of what he said and how he withdrew, and refused to send an e-mail when he realised that he probably was violating, or about to violate, the ban. This is probably not a violation either given that AN and ANI ar enormally exceptions to topic bans but again even if it was it's not clear cut and given the normal exception it would be a quite reasonable mistake to make. The biggest problem I have with both of you however, and why I'm bowing out, is that both of you seem to spend all your time looking at each other's actions rather than examining your own. Both parties have done things wrong in all of this and correcting your own actions is what both of you should be concentrating on - it's easier to do and more likely to get sanctions lifted. Leave dealing with the other person to others. Dpmuk (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Dpmuk thanks for answering. The only reason I had to go over to ANI and raise those issues is because WCM based his entire request on throwing mud at me. Had he not done that, I would've had no reason whatsoever to comment over there. WCM has accused me of hounding and bullying him just like he used to accuse me of being a sockpuppet. Have you seen any diffs by him as proof of this? Because I actually can provide diffs of other editors accusing him of bullying. Are his constant accusations not considered a violation of WP:NPA? If you think he did in fact canvass other editors, then how are my diffs misleading?
 * I bring those issues to notice because I see a crystal clear double standard at play here. Let me ask you again (this is not a rhetorical question BTW): if I had done those things (ie: openly insult him in a summary, curse at ANI, violate the topic ban even if it was a minor violation, canvass 7 editors but leave no notice to him and finally base my topic-ban lift request entirely on trashing him instead of actual merits) con you in all honesty tell me that I'd still be editing? Given that you are the second admin that has commented on thoughts of blocking me (James did too) I am absolutely sure that I would not.
 * Since the topic bas was enacted I have been making a real effort to edit other areas of WP (just check my contributions) and I do admit to my share of the responsibility in making talks over at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute somewhat of a minefield. But to say that I'm the only one who did something wrong, as WCM does, is unfair and completely untrue. I would be thrilled to never have to mention his name again, but then again it wasn't me who decided, after three months, to start trashing the other at ANI. Regards and thank you again for your time and efforts. Gaba  (talk)  16:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree you have a right to respond to the accusations against you but I think then making counter-accusations is unhelpful. I'd leave that to neutral uninvolved editors to find out about and comment.  As one of the main antagonists here your view was always likely to carry little weight and so you may have been better served letting someone else find the "canvassing", "bullying accusations" etc as then they'd likely carry more weight.  This is very similar to a concern I've just written about on WCM's user page.  Essentially both of you seem unable to recognise when just sitting back and letting things happen may best serve your purpose.  I also don't think links to other people accusing him of bullying are helpful.  I have no idea of the back story or how neutral those people are so have to give the report very little weight.
 * I find the canvassing diffs misleading because, IMO, they don't do enough to suggest it's a minor infraction. Canvassing reports at AN normally involve a lot more people or a much less neutrally worded message and so people are likely to infer it's much worse than it was.  Singly this would not be a problem but taken together with some of your other accusations I see a pattern of you seeing things as being far worse than they are.  This comes across in your reports and so I think they misleading suggest things are worse than they are.
 * Accusing people of a "crystal clear double standard" is unhelpful. No matter if you think it's true or not people will interpret it as being a sign of a battlefield mentality and so it won't help your cause.  As I say you should concentrate on your situation even if you do think someone else is being treated better than you, to do otherwise seems like sour grapes.  Personally I don't think there is a double standard but regardless of whether there is or not making accusation that there is won't help your cause.
 * No personally I don't think you'd be blocked. I came close to blocking you for the multiple reports that I found misleading.  Personally I think you're currently as bad as each other in this regard but at the moment don't think either of you deserve a block.
 * WCM not being willing to look at his own actions and admit where he was wrong is one of the reasons I can't support an unbanning of him. To his credit he seems wiling to try to come up with a workable situation but this, IMO, is not enough to overcome my concerns. Dpmuk (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the advices Dpmuk, I'll certainly be paying much more attention to how I present my comments and how these are perceived. For the record, when I raise concerns about double standards I do not mean to pinpoint you particularly. In any case, I understand that complaining that others are "treated better" sounds like sour grapes but sometimes the stick feels too different to keep quiet about it.
 * Once again thank you for the advices and the infinite patience. I can only begin to imagine how frustrating bickering of this sort must be to outsiders. Cheers. Gaba  (talk)  01:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks in triplicate ;)
I think it was because I cycled back on Google Chrome and then back forward thus resubmitting. But I am guessing here. Thank you for your catch. Please delete after reading.Brobof (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No problems and you're welcome. No need to delete this message (it'll be archived in a few weeks) unless you specifically want me to, in which case feel free to let me know or even better delete this whole section yourself. Cheers. Gaba  (talk)  16:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)