User talk:Gigs/Archive 2

To contact me, write here

/Archive 1

Welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron
Gigs, I am very excited that you decided to join our squadron.

please let me know if there is anything I can do to help you here on wikipedia, or if you have a question how wikipedia works.

{| style="border: 4px solid #CC0000; padding: 6px; width: 80%; min-width: 700px; background: #FFFAF0; line-height: 20px; cellpading=30" align=center Hi,, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!
 * colspan="2" |

User:Stilltim
Thanks for starting the RFC.--gordonrox24 (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI
Deletion of Bilateral relation pages despite ongoing merging effort Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Congress articles
I have done my level best, with complete sincerity, to address the concerns expressed about having this data on various accounts, etc, etc. I have almost built the 23rd United States Congress to display and will still finish it. However, it then took less than an hour for a user (Markles) to completely undo the work and restore the unattractive, confused and incomplete article proceeding. I really need some serious help by anyone that cares about getting this right because I honestly am feeling persecuted and will soon give up my efforts. stilltim (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see my reply to this claim at Requests for comment/Stilltim.—Markles 20:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Congress
I have reluctantly accepted your point 100% and combined the data into the one main article. It still receives the stiff arm. stilltim (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Cryptography question
I posted a response on the Degenerate Key deletion discussion that is also a question. Please let me know if you know the answer. Shadowjams (talk) 07:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Fingers OnRoids  01:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

james watson
hi

I'm fairly new to this. not sure how to improve references... please advise.

thanks

james —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameswatsondsl (talk • contribs) 00:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see Footnotes. Basically, where it's relevant, you should mark individual statements with the source that they came from, using, at a minimum.  If you would like a nicer looking footnote, you can use this:   Just paste the URL in there and it will give you the code to make a nice looking footnote.  You will need to add a "references" section to the article as well.  Keep in mind that you must exercise extreme caution when editing your own article, try to confine your edits to the facts alone, and remember that you don't own the article, others will be free to insert things that you might not like. Gigs (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Academic job market
Hi, can I ask you to have another look at Articles for deletion/Academic job market. I have answered your point, and given my own views. If you still feel the same, that's fine, but you might just want to reconsider. --Doric Loon (talk) 10:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

re:Speedy for WP:MADEUP
oh hell, I'm going on vacation, don't make me take this one on. You don't want to take it on yourself? (Here's another clear speedy candidate for which there's no category... although someone might manage to shoehorn it into the vandalism category.) Hairhorn (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources by language
Could you give support for the following:


 * If the notability of this article about 9/11 and American Gage is hinging on non-english sources, then that's a sure sign that it should go away.--Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, if an entity is notable, then surely notability can be established in the primary language of the country where it is located. I could envision exceptions where a group primarily serves an ethnic population that speaks some other language, but there's no sign of that here. I'm not saying there's anything special about English, only that we are talking about an American organization that is devoted to an American subject matter.  If the non-english sources are so pivotal to establishing notability, that indicates notability issues. Gigs (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not a credible claim to me that coverage of important stories will arise first in the nation (or language) in which the stories or events might imply a problem (controversy, embarrassment) for that nation of the event. Organizations like AE911 point to evidence that might raise questions of investigation fraud in major governmental agencies. And countries that speak the same language often have major cultural similarities or call themselves political allies (Canada, Britain, England) seeking to satisfy US policies. Scholars have point to major problems in US media that I think you are overlooking: take Fallows, Postman, Jamieson, McChesney and Mitchell. During a time of war and violent conflict, US press and its allies are less likely to cover stories that might call into question the policies of the US. Also, in the past (perhaps the present) the writers have been paid off to, or covertly worked to, represent the views of the national security establishment. See project mockingbird and William F Buckely and the pentagon general's scandal. More importantly, using all reliable sources for notability is more credible than using a restrictive set of reliable sources which arbitrarily changes the bar. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 07:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I understand that you are invoking notability in connection with the policy, that is, the WP policy called notability. I am not familiar with an aspect of the policy that invokes a language restriction, and I believe no such restriction exists for good reason, perhaps reasons like ones I note above. To establish a language threshold is, by this way of thinking, like cutting of ones right hand (on the ground that one is left handed). It seems particularly surprising to me to see a proposal for a new language threshold specifically when notability is in fact established concretely in other languages. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 07:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: RfC
Thanks for the notification. I'll head over there later. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Afdrescued
Neat new template! Thanks for creating it, Cirt (talk) 10:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Stilltim
This old chestnut again - he doesn't seem to have got the message. He's created dozens of articles in his userspace which he's tweaking to and fro, most of them are of the same setup, so he can't claim that he's testing a new format. He's also made no effort to contact the people at Wikiproject Congress. I fear he's taken "don't do that" to mean "don't do that - here". Thoughts? Ironholds (talk) 11:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Righto. I'll leave him a general message. Ironholds (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

advice....
hey....got your email......thanks for the advice on editing and reverting......and also about the communicating thing............I really appreciate it....

peace....

Zak... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakur420 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Your advice
I am trying quite hard to adjust to the vary vaguely stated objections given by a couple to meet their requests, and would appreciate your advice on being successful. A couple of people seem to think of me as the primary problem, when in fact I built 90% of what remains on the article. I received what seem to me the normal understandable connecting including objecting to trying to work out the right solution on a non-public Stilltim articles. Now this effort seems to be against the rules. I can seem to do nothing right. So your advice, if thoughtful and mature, is appreciated as it was what I received from Dcmacnut and I am under process in trying to address his recommendations. Everyone should also understand I have a full time job, three children requiring regular visiting & want help, church participation, etc, so can't spent 100% of my time on this...and perhaps I take a little longer than other individuals. stilltim (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Stilltim is not willing to work with us
I've tried to be reasonable to Stilltim and I think some of what he has done in the ordinal congress articles could work. But he refuses to seek consensus before making changes. The requests made of him from the community have been clear. Do not create redundant article forks (he continues to create them) and seek consensus on article format before making widespread changes. It shouldn't matter that he was the one that help provide a lot of the content. Be Bold is good, but he has repeatedly been warned that others object to his actions, and his only solution is to complain. I'm done trying to work with him. He continues to insist on creating articles and seek consensus by fiat (create the article first, then complain with others object to the way it was done or the format). He's a good, intelligent editor, but he's not the only one with real life issues taking up most of his time (I have a newborn, yet I find time to do both). His most recent article forks are 41st United States Congress - state detail and 41st United States Congress - membership changes. He is also claiming that he was "forced" to work in the mainspace because of threats about working in his user space. These articles are basically the same information as articles that were previously deleted, but are renamed. I've asked him to stop at his talk page, but the only response I get is his same "I'm working on it, it's not ready, please wait." It appears that he has not changed his ways, and will continue creating article forks on articles in his own image. The RFC did not work nor does he appear willing to seek consensus (claims he doesn't know "how"). I feel some sort of formal reprimand or blocking is in order.DCmacnut &lt; &gt;  13:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Physics of the Impossible redux
Gigs thank you for that rescue operation on this article. I am going to add more information, today into the introduction. But, maybe you could have a look and see if you want to move it to a different place in the article. Another thing. I wrote up a section on Invisibility that was removed by an adminstrator before the Afd Nomination. I resurrected it and put it on my talk page. I was wondering if you have a look and see if anything is useful for this article. Here is the section in my talk page: Invisibility - Advanced Stealth Technology Ti-30X (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gigs for looking at that stuff. That is why it got pulled in the first place. I can't see the difference (being a newbie) but apparently experienced users can see the difference between what should be there, and what should not. I just finished adding more to the article - take a look. However, I have cited two or three different sources in the New York times and I can't make the references reflect the different sources. Can you take a look at that as well?Ti-30X (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good job on the article, Gigs! - Thanks. Ti-30X (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Daughter of the Nile
Just finished most of the upgrade. Took this and made it into THIS. Not too bad (grin).  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Physics of the Impossible some more
Gigs, I am adding more information to the article. I will put in the introduction section, like before. Please, go ahead and put the info where it best suits the article. This was a particularly good article, that you had a link for, in the article talk page. The article's author made some interesting points about how the book reflects our current view of physics, how we see the future because of today's physics, and how the use of emphasizing Sci-Fi technologies sheds light on recent research and experiments. I expect I will have it up in about a half hour. Ti-30X (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK thanks Gigs, I will change that and look for more. Ti-30X (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK Gigs, I made some changes throughout what I wrote. Let me know what you think. Ti-30X (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yo! I am going to have make more changes. One of which is the use of the word note(s), as in "So & So notes this, that, and the other thing." I didn't know that was POV. Well, I'm glad I am reading the WP:NPOV article. Just when you think you know everything ... well, dARnit - you don't!
 * OKey, DOkey. Take a look now and see what you think.Ti-30X (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback Gigs. I think I will pull it for now and put in my talk page.
 * I hope you don't mind, but you seem to be a lot better at moving stuff around into the right places than I am. That's why I keep bugging you. It seems to be easier this way, at least for me.
 * So, it will be on my talk page for now. Let me know if you are up for the job of moving stuff around in the article. It could be that you are too busy with other stuff, and that would be understandable. Heck, you did a commendable job already, rescuing this article.Ti-30X (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I can see what you're saying. I probably need to lose the first few sentences to maintain focus on the book. I will go through what I wrote to see how I can pare it down and relate it to the book better. So, let's not do anything with right now. Ti-30X (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Estonia–Luxembourg relations
Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Username Policy
I don't know if anyone has done this yet, but I wanted to thank you for taking the time to examine WP:U and put forward some good proposals. I'm glad you took initiative to start a conversation and get some needed changes going. TN X Man 13:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

My CSD proposal
Is definitively not replacing hard deletion, or retaining deleted pages in public view. If you re-read the proposal, you'll find that the retention is time-limited, and limited to specific CSD criteria. Can I ask you to re-read and adjust your comment? Fritzpoll (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC on usernames
I just wanted to thank you for creating that RFC and abiding by its outcome. It was surprisingly productive considering how long the debate has been going on. Chillum 13:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think people were ready for something to give. I really didn't care that much about which way we went with it, as long as something got done to clear up the uncertainty and vagueness. Gigs (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know
Chido's been edit warring like this for over 2 years, hence why some are getting fed up. Soxwon (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I request your assistance
I requested a consensus on some of the science communities talk pages about keeping material that was removed by an editor (from Physics of the Impossible). This is not going well for me, and you will be able to see people's reasons. In addition, after requesting the consensus, someone removed the ray gun - the last graphic that was left, after my consensus request. All the other graphics were removed by one editor before I requested consensus. Also, other material was removed. Anyway, I don't know if you will be able to help, but I was wondering if you could take a look. Here is where the "role call" consensus is taking place: Consnsus please. This is on the "Physics of Impossible" talk page.

I placed the "restored" article on my sub page (for purposes of consensus). The link for that is supplied in my argument for keeping the material, but here is the link anyway: Restored article. I don't know, maybe I went overboard, but did all this stuff need to be removed from the article? Whatever you can do, thanks. Ti-30X (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Gigs - Thanks for looking at the article yesterday and thanks for your input. Yes, you are right, the input that I have recieved from the respondents is valid. So, live and learn. Thanks for the tip about the copyright violation. I will be getting rid of it soon, and I will place the deletion tag on it.  Ti-30X (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC question
What is meant by this statement from the "User page indexing" RfC:


 * "Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse."

Does it mean that multiple votes are allowed? I notice that it's happening. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hispanicization
Hi. I really appreciate your work on this. There is a bit of a problem, though, with your temporary version in that it incorporates text placed by other users. If we delete the article, we can't use their text unless we give them individual credit. (To quote from the template blanking the article, "For license compliance, the new article cannot incorporate phrases and sentences that were placed in the original article by other contributors unless credit is given as set out at the copyright policy. You may, however, duplicate non-infringing text that you had contributed yourself.") Do you want to go for a complete rewrite? If not, I'll see if all the text that was not added by you was created by the same individual, in which case I can probably note attribution at the article's talk page. That will work so long as I can easily identify what is your text and somebody else's, and the history doesn't look too long for that. :) There are some articles for which that process would be impossible. I do appreciate both your identifying the problem and working on resolving it. I'll wait to hear how you'd like to proceed before closing out the matter at WP:CP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * GFDL is no longer our only license. We have to list all non-trivial contributors to satisfy CC-By-SA (to which, of course, we transitioned on June 15 :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a handling within policy, though I know from experience not a universally accepted approach. I've received some pretty bitter e-mails about Wikipedia's not deleting copyvios from history. Given that, I generally take the more conservative recommendation of deleting extensive vios from history to prevent inadvertent restoration, but I'll give it a go this time and watch the article for a while to help make sure that such doesn't happen. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing poll questions and positions from a poll
I'm going to assume you mistook the question and the support position (aka a !vote, if you're a young whippersnapper ;-) ).

So here you go: it's a poll question, and it's a support position for that question.

Now you're informed, so I'm sure you will not erase poll questions in future!

Thank you for your time.

Incidentally, do you know who refactored the RFC into a poll? It looks like you might have been helping with that?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So as promised, I started out trying to refactor the section I started into something that fits in with what's already there. But just like you, I've discovered that that's actually somewhat non-trivial.
 * Looking at it carefully, I'm not sure it's due to the section I added. I'll admit having some trouble figuring out how this is actually moving towards consensus.
 * I'm going to ponder over it some more this night, and see what I can come up with, but I think I still have some explaining to do upfront too. :-/
 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And yeah, of course it's not my intent to try to add undue weight to one position or another. On the other hand, it's Not Done to remove comments either. Once things get into thread-mode, you tend to get kind of stuck with it.
 * Well, I guess I caused this, so you'll probably tell me it's my job to try and fix it. ;-)
 * And you'd probably be right. *Sigh* Sounds like real work! --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Slashdot
Are you this person ? –xenotalk 21:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. I don't know whether to thank you for crowdsourc'ing outside commentary, or strangle you for bringing a new flood of warriors to the page... Though the latter doesn't seem to have occurred as yet =) –xenotalk 23:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You may wish to comment here. –xenotalk 14:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought you would find this an interesting read. I wonder if the Slashdot article prompted the author to write this. –xenotalk 04:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, now your attempts at ExpandScope seem to have gone *epically* out of control. Was this what you expected? --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Were you talking to me or Xeno? Gigs (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Xeno didn't get themselves into the new york times, not even tangentially. :-P You've got some things to answer for! ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted edits
I have printed a retraction, thank you for the heads up  • S • C  • A • R  • C • E •   03:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

War of the Pacific (Recent deletion of material done by User:Likeminas)
Hello Gigs.

I'm a little bit angry/bothered right now after having seen the massive ammount of information that User:Likeminas has deleted from the War of the Pacific article. You can check what I'm telling you in the article's history page. In one sweep, the article has gone from the 89,639 bytes edition with summarized sections (and others in progress) linking to other more-specific articles; to the old 55,722 bytes version that is terrible in terms of the Wiki Manual of Style. The worst thing, as I said before, is that User:Likeminas has deleted a series of sources, information, and other important information in the process of reverting the information.

Now, I was thinking about contacting an administrator or doing something of that sort. However, since you're the one currently over-seeing the matter, I do not want to go over your authority as I think it would be unpleasant for you to have another person attempting to regulate an article you have volunteered to help out; additionally, it would be a highly uncivil and insulting move from me towards you. Therefore, I would like for you to either give me a recommendation on what to do, or maybe if you can do something about the matter.

I mention once again, the problem is that User:Likeminas has deleted about 34,000 bytes of important sourced material. I'm sure this deletion of material is completely against Wikipedia rules (It would be like burning documents in a library).

I know you will take care of the situation, so thank you in advance and best regards.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Vietnam First Division
Hello Gigs, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Vietnam First Division has been removed. It was removed by Dpmuk with the following edit summary ' (At least try to do a little bit of research before nominating for deletion - articles being in bad shape is not a reason to delete. A quick wiki and google search provides enough info to make a stub.) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with Dpmuk before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Prodigal Son Songs
Hmm curious. I think what we have is a Wiki-bug being tracked at 17463. I had not seen this before. I will try recreating and deleting again, although I don't hold out much hope as it has already been tried. We may have to wait for a fix. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see it there. Did that work at your end as well (be sure to refresh your browser cashe). Cheers, --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting, it does not appear at Special:ShortPages, which is more out of date than the toolserver list. I'm puzzled. --TeaDrinker (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

re John E S Lawrence.... thanks for the encouraging comments... I certainly never intended to get into all of this, but also understand the WP perspective, just am asking for professional fairness and accuracy   Jeslw (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I love my sig, and you can't control that.
 Kayau  David Copperfield  MOBY DICK   the great gatsby  06:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)  Kayau  David Copperfield   MOBY DICK   the great gatsby  06:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)  Kayau  David Copperfield   MOBY DICK   the great gatsby  06:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)  Kayau  David Copperfield   MOBY DICK   the great gatsby  06:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)  Kayau  David Copperfield   MOBY DICK   the great gatsby  06:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)  Kayau  David Copperfield   MOBY DICK   the great gatsby  06:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)  Kayau  David Copperfield   MOBY DICK   the great gatsby  06:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC) :)

Yikes, what a mess! ;-) (check out the wikicode too, it spans an entire page!) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not exactly an entire page...  Kayau  David Copperfield  MOBY DICK   the great gatsby  03:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And now I've changed it:  Kayau  Wuthering Heights  VANITY FAIR   paradise lost  03:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted offending material as requested from User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) Have deleted offending material as you all requested from User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) according to Wikipedia rules that you have pointed out about not appearing to attach any living person or organisation on in a Wikipedia article. Please would you all be so kind to review your individual "to keep" or "to delete" decisions in the light of the revised edit on this article, many thanks again for all your contribution, thoughts, advice and guidance as you all have a lot more experience at this than IPenright (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Whilst
I read what you wrote, and I chose to ignore it. It is perfectly acceptable English, and unless you can show me a policy which says I can't use it (and you didn't), then I shall continue to do so Thedarxide (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Something from your user page appropriated onto mine
Check the bottom of my user page. —harej (T) 00:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool! Gigs (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

FFD Legal interpretation
I have queried your legal case reference at Files for deletion/2009 August 11‎.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion/Naoy5 subpages
Sorry if it seems like I'm rushing you &mdash; you closed the debate only fifteen minutes ago &mdash; but I wanted to make sure that you remembered to delete one of the pages that the debate was focusing on: User:Naoy5/Sandbox. Thanks, The Earwig  (Talk &#124; Contribs) 14:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)