User talk:Gbear605

A kitten for you!
Not sure how to reciprocate the thanks messages I've getting from you, but just wanted to say that your help winnowing down the powers section is much appreciated!

LacePrisonQueen (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC) 

Slate Star Codex
Thank you so much for converting source citations into proper format!Eliokim (talk) 02:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Blue Man Group "Influences" Section
Thank you so very much for putting in the time to listen to that entire 79-minute podcast! I can't express the relief I feel after feeling gaslighted for so long. I appreciate your time very much! Robert lavery (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Margot RfC close
Hello Gbear, I have closed Talk:Margot (activist) in favour of her deadname's removal. I slightly confused though, looking at the article, as it appears the name was already removed? I don't see "Michael" (found in the controversies section) anywhere in the lead or infobox? Could you please take a look and remove mention in the lead if I am just somehow blind and missing it? Thanks! -- The SandDoctor Talk 04:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , at the time of the start of the RfC there was an edit war about whether it should be included. The version without Margot's deadname was used since it was both the stable version and the safer one by BLP standards, so it's good now. Thanks for closing it! Gbear605 (talk) 04:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Thanks for clarifying. You're welcome! As for the controversies section, that bit was NC. Another RfC specifically asking yes/no for its removal or boldly removing citing applicable policy (and RfC if disputed) would probably be your best way forward. -- The SandDoctor  Talk 04:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Question re: LGBT composers vs LGBT classical composers category
Hello there,

Last night an IP moved a couple handfuls of composers from the LGBT composers category to the LGBT classical composers category. I'm not familiar with the consensus on what the difference between these two categories are.

Expert discussion on music would consider "classical" a specific style and/or era around the 1700s. However many of the composers in the LGBT classical composers category are living today or would, in expert discussion, be considered 20th century. Music stores might put them all in a rack together though, so perhaps this is how it's done on Wikipedia.

I could find no particular distinction between the head category of composers vs classical composers. For example Noel Coward, Hans Werner Henze, Pauline Oliveros, and Francis Poulenc are "composers" while Eve Beglarian, John Cage, Henry Cowell, Julius Eastman, and Andrew Norman are "classical composers."

Mostly I'm just curious to know what the distinction is. My concern, which isn't too severe, is that the categories aren't doing an effective job of grouping like with like.

Thank you for your insights, TheMusicExperimental (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I honestly don’t have any idea about whether the category should exist or who should be in it. For Wendy Carlos, I was just following the logic of “she’s in other categories called “___ classical composers” (such as Category:American classical composers), and if Category:LGBT classical composers exists, she should thus be in it. There are a number of other contemporary composers, such as Philip Glass, in various “classical composer” categories, so it seems like the grouping is somewhat arbitrary. I’d suggest going to WikiProject Music to ask there, since I’m not an expert by any means. Gbear605 (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

All of that makes sense, thanks Gbear605. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Futility
Your comments on the Wendy Carlos Talk page are of course logical and correct. Thanks for trying. Unfortunately it looks like just a control contest now, where the facts and policy don't matter. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
meow

Haris920 (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC) 

November 2020
Your recent bold edit has been reverted. Per the bold, revert, discuss cycle, after a bold edit is reverted, the status quo should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed consensus is formed to keep it. KyleJoan talk 03:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , ah thanks, this is the first time that I've been pointed to WP:UKNATIONALS despite seeing multiple lengthy discussions on this topic (in which it was concluded that changing to British was the correct move and that it should be consistent across articles). Apparently this essay needs to be more widely known, and I'll make sure to point people to it in the future. Gbear605 (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi again,, just wanted to let you know that after discussion on the MOS/Bio talk page, I've    to MOS:ETHNICITY about UK nationals, to help ensure that this issue doesn't occur in the future. Gbear605 (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Secondary sourcing
I'm new to this platform, what would be a better way of referencing this information? MohammedLee1967 (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, ! You can read WP:SOURCE for a summary of Wikipedia's requirements for sources. To briefly summarize, sources generally need to be secondary sources that have gone through a review process. Examples that meet this requirement are newspaper articles and published books. YouTube videos are generally not considered reliable since anyone can publish a YouTube video. This requirements go doubly so for articles about living people, since Wikipedia wants to avoid potentially harming people and wants to avoid any chance of a libel lawsuit.
 * In this case, these YouTube videos don't stand up to the requirements because there was no review body. In addition, we have a standard of WP:DUE that requires information to be present to the extent that it is represented in the sources. For example, Wikipedia's article about the Earth doesn't talk about Flat Earth theories because they're fringe beliefs. That isn't necessarily the case here, but we need to show that by providing reliable sources that talk about it. So for example, if a popular newspaper wrote about these issues with Faithless Hijabi, it almost certainly would be relevant to include (although at that point we would more likely want to have an article about Faithless Hijabi itself and have the criticisms be there). Gbear605 (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In this case, these YouTube videos don't stand up to the requirements because there was no review body. In addition, we have a standard of WP:DUE that requires information to be present to the extent that it is represented in the sources. For example, Wikipedia's article about the Earth doesn't talk about Flat Earth theories because they're fringe beliefs. That isn't necessarily the case here, but we need to show that by providing reliable sources that talk about it. So for example, if a popular newspaper wrote about these issues with Faithless Hijabi, it almost certainly would be relevant to include (although at that point we would more likely want to have an article about Faithless Hijabi itself and have the criticisms be there). Gbear605 (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing
Thank you for sending this through to me and all of the points mentioned are incredibly relevant. However, I do think that the source of the information, Fay Rahman, is reliable - as she has had a very prominent role in the set up and creation of Faithless Hijabi. And the controversy surrounding the org is, in my opinion, important to cite. What would be a better way of relating and referencing this information? Would finding Rahman's link to the org be a better way of relating this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MohammedLee1967 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I appreciate your wanting to add the information, and I appreciate that you consider Rahman to be reliable. However, Wikipedia policy is very strict that individual people can't be used as sources on articles about living people, and that sources have to come from a structured organization that involves fact checking. I suggest reading over WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. As it says, on Wikipedia, you'll have to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses. This isn't because we want to avoid pro-Muslim information, or anything along those lines, but because Wikipedia has to maintain strict standards, and doubly so on anything involving living people. Gbear605 (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Chopin
Hi Gbear! I thought you might like to take a look at this which one of our friends has thought appropriate - I don't know whther you should be pleased or insulted that he has left you out! Best, --Smerus (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hah, thanks for letting me know. :) I'll take it as a compliment. Gbear605 (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Bernadette Banner for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bernadette Banner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Bernadette Banner until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 07:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Holocaust
If you see someone say in an edit summary that they're about to restore legitimate changes, why would you then revert? It meant I got an edit conflict and had to start again. GCB's edits changed the meaning in several places and changed at least one quote. SarahSV (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry, my brain somehow elided your edit comment, my mistake. Also, I disagree with your assessment about changed meaning (other than the two articles that I restored), but I'm not in the least interested in arguing about it. Gbear605 (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Then please take a close look at the English and you will see the changed meaning. You're not interested in arguing about it and nor am I, but someone had to fix those edits, and now we have these exchanges. It's a completely unnecessary waste of time. That's my only point. Pinging again; please note. SarahSV (talk) 03:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sarah, I'll answer on GCB's page, just to keep the conversation all in one place. Please give me a minute. El_C 04:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC notice
This is a neutral notice sent to all non-bot/non-blocked registered users who edited Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics in the past year that there is a new request for comment at. Nardog (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Reply-link officially superseded by DiscussionTools
Hi! Reply-link has officially been superseded by DiscussionTools, which you can install using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under. DiscussionTools, developed by the WMF's Editing Team, is faster and has more features than reply-link, and it wouldn't make sense for me to keep developing reply-link. I think the Editing Team is doing amazing work, and look forward to what they can do in the future. Thank you for using reply-link over the years! Enterprisey (talk!) 06:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)