User talk:Gigs/Archive 6

'''To contact me, write [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gigs&action=edit&section=new here. ]''' I will reply on this page.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur
Whether you did it backwards or not depends on what you are trying to do. What are you trying to do?&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The history we need to preserve is on the Wikiproject version, I wanted to get it put back under the redirect to preserve merged material attribution for material that's been merged into the redirect's target. Gigs (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But why did you restore such a faulty article to article space? It was moved to project space by consensus, and there has been no noticeable improvement.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see the redirect has been restored. I'm still not sure why you think this was necessary: now we have a cloned history, and you've made it easier for people to restore the article against consensus.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We are required to do this per WP:MAD... since material from it was merged, we must preserve the history. Our licenses require attribution. Gigs (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Some Questions
Hello, I see that some users can create sub-pages from their user pages, so how can I do that? Thanks. DATABASE-owenhwlo (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation
Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC) (refactored) Ikip 02:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Septemberboy009/Ayush Goyal
Hi, Gigs. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Septemberboy009/Blades (band), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Septemberboy009/Ayush Goyal. Cunard (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Editing policy
I'm saddened that you misinterpreted my motives here, I was not intending to be disruptive and sincerely believe that this policy page no longer has any useful function. From my reading of the MfD guidance I thought that such nominations were sometimes acceptable. I've edited this guidance to make it clear that this is not the case diff. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but I wish you had given such a reasoned and interesting answer in the MfD. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The BLP SNAFU? I'm staying out of it, too much to do to spend a week wading through those reams of text. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Butter's Bottom Bitch (again)
I tried to follow what I believe was agreed on as a compromise on Talk:Butters' Bottom Bitch, but merely get reverted and get these type of messages on my talkpage (which I find somewhat condescending). Could you have another look at the discussion?

Peter Isotalo 00:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I left him a note about templating experienced users on his talk, and a message on the article talk about the material. Gigs (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Gigs, thanks for contacting me about this matter.
 * What I found condescending about the situation is this. The above was discussed on the talk page of the article, but as Peter discussed, he also reverted. Poor form.
 * A third opinion was provided, that was completed ignored. It was suggested that drawing opinions from primary sources (as Peter did) was not the best way forward, and that removing material was done in cases where a user genuinely beleives it hurts the article to add it (as I do).
 * There was no consensus or compromise as Peter puts it above. Simply that unverified material was added to an article and it was challeneged.
 * If Peter wishes to work towards a solution here, we need to see that he wants more than just to put this material in and that other concerns are unimportant. I have quoted policy, explained my reasoning, offered discussion, read the third opinion and still Peter simply reverts. Alastairward (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This issue remains unresolved and is now at No original research/Noticeboard without any sign of moving forward. Any assistance in resolving this would be greatly appreciated.
 * Peter Isotalo 14:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Your note on Coldplay Expert's talk page
I've removed your note about his spelling from his talk page. There wasn't anything wrong with it, and it's something that's been brought to his attention before, but we just got finished with an AN/I thread where another user was hounding him about it, and he's understandably frustrated at the moment. CE is a minor who justifiably feels that he's been picked on and I'd like to give him a little bit of a break. I'm sure your note was well-intentioned, but, through no fault on your end, it happened to be poorly timed. I hope that's okay with you. Let me know if it isn't, and I'll self-revert. Thanks, Throwaway85 (talk) 12:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK I didn't know it was a big deal. Thanks.  Gigs (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's really not, but timing-wise I didn't want it to seem like a pile on. Throwaway85(talk) 00:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Biographies of Living persons solution?: Projectification
As someone who commented on the BLP workshop I created, please review this proposal to see if it is something that the community would support.

Harsh constructive criticism is very welcome!

Better to figure out the potential objections now. I am looking to remedy any potential objections by the community.

Thanks. Okip (formerly Ikip) 03:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi gigs
I strongly encourage you to consider Coffee's proposal.

RE: "I oppose tagging them all up front. It will cause a lot of problems. If your proposal was to actually tag 124 per day, that would be fine with me. I still support waiting until the natural reduction of the backlog levels off before prodding anything."
 * This will actually lower the amount of articles faster. If an article is PRODed, and editors are on notice that in 9 months the article will be deleted, they have a stronger incentive to source the article.

RE: "Mass prod tagging will lead to random passers-by untagging articles of clearly notable people without understanding what we are doing here. When people see that the leading person in their field is "proposed for deletion" they aren't going to understand the 100 pages of discussion that lead us to this seemingly irrational conclusion of proposing a clearly notable person for deletion. We should minimize the amount of time that any prod tags are on articles, so that the outside world doesn't freak out and unknowingly sabotage us."
 * Would you consider removing your oppose as we work together to build a preliminary tag which will be helpful and non-bitey to new editors? I will invite other editors to help.Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 22:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind for four years that I have dedicated hundreds of hours to saving articles. I increased membership in WP:ARS by double, 150-200 editors, which led to an arbcom and which eventually led to my block because I posted User_talk:Gigs. I have killed projects such as WP:FICT which would have resulted in the deletion of tens of thousands of articles and have fought hard to keep policy to benefit newbies. You probably are in this discussion because of the second newsletter which I lead to create.
 * I am willing to go to all lengths to save articles, but I am a realist. Arbcom gave amnesty to these editors, Arbcom supports some process, and Jimbo thanked one of the editors who deleted dozens of articles.
 * This is a good solid proposal, which is a combination of many editors.
 * Again, lets work on a newbie friendly tag. Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 22:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ikip, my concerns remain that the world at large will not understand and will react badly to tags proposing the deletion of tens of thousands people that are notable. I agree it will get things done faster, but at what expense?  10 bad news stories in major media?  A feature on Colbert report about how we wanted to delete an article on someone clearly famous and well-known?  100 newbies bitten and eventually blocked because they got in an edit war removing the tag?  It is not worth it.  The pace of tag addition should be a pace that editors can keep up with, to minimize our exposure to these avoidable problems.   Gigs (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

WT:Reliable sources
I accidentally deleted a comment of yours on there a few minutes ago. It was reverted thankfully, but I wanted to let you know that it wasn't my intention. I was editing from my blackberry and I somehow didn't get any notice of an edit conflict. On an unrelated note, you may want to move your comment to the bottom of the discussion so that people can reply to it more easily. Gigs (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, and good idea - I'll do that. Barnabypage (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Philippines–Romania relations has been nominated for deletion again here
You are being notified because you participated in a previous Afd regarding this article, either at Articles_for_deletion/Argentina–Singapore_relations or at Articles for deletion/Philippines–Romania relations, and you deserve a chance to weigh in on this article once again. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ding dong
Okip BLP Contest 18:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep seeing you around
 We may not agree on much, but we sure run in the same circles. Thanks for keeping this 'ol wikilawyer using his head for something more than a hatrack. Regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 02:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!


 * Thanks for the dove. Sorry if I was blunt on the RfC.  It is nice to see someone willing to rethink their position rather than blindly defending something that may not seem like as good of an idea in hindsight. Gigs (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the refactor at the RfC. I've not participated in any of these before and I wasn't sure, since there was not a "Users supporting this position" subtitle above that group and there wasn't a separate "Disagree" subsection in any of the sections, whether I was supposed to start a separate subsection or just do what I did. Thanks again,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 14:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That style of RfC generally doesn't provide for opposition or discussion on the RfC page itself, it's more of a preferential voting system where people can support multiple positions. People do sometimes create opposition sections under proposals anyway.   It's not my favorite style of RfC because it tends to discourage discussion. Gigs (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

hey
whta are u doin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.200.80.113 (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

your comments third
You appear to not have understood the discussion, I have not accused anyone of anti semitic comments, I have said that the other users comments about anyone are worthless accusations of anti Semitic that do not even exist, have a good read before you comment as you don't appear to have understood what was going on, if yuou want to discuss it more I welcome that. thanks.

You have come and said this....'''Off2riorob's accusation of antisemitism is completely off the wall and unfounded as far as I can see. Off2riorob, remember to assume good faith'''.

Please show me where I have accused anybody of anti semitism? As I have not at all, have you really read the discussion? IMO you havn't understood it at all, please explain your comment.Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What is this then? "Please do not come here throwing your unfounded anti semic slurs around or I will report you for serious unfounded accusations."? Gigs (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Verbal chat  14:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Dara Ó Briain. Thank you. Verbal chat  15:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't template the regulars. Gigs (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is an essay and it seems you need reminding. I'd rather not have placed the warning, but your have persisted in your bad faith accusations. I am following DR. You should support your "opinion" or remove it. Verbal chat  15:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you understand what bad faith means. I think everyone at the article was editing it in a way that they think improves the article.  This is the definition of good faith.  Within the realm of good faith editing, there can still be behaviors that run counter to collaboration.  In fact, I'd say most of our conduct policies describe various good faith behaviors that are counter to collaboration and accuracy, except maybe WP:POINT or the vandalism policies.  As well, my comments offered as a neutral third party were not offered in bad faith.  I have no interest in either editor or the article itself.  I offered observations that I thought would improve collaboration.  They weren't accusations, they were reminders that certain behaviors are counterproductive and a nudge to consider whether such behaviors escalated the situation and made it harder to reach a polite consensus that wouldn't have required dispute resolution.   Gigs (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the crux: You have made accusations of disruption against an editor who has acted properly, and have refused to provide evidence of any disruption. The wikilawyering claim is patently wrong, as you are referring to a standard template used properly - if you have a problem with the template wording take it up at the appropriate venue. You should retract your claims and apologise. Your behaviour fits your description much better than the appropriate editing of a WP:BLP to remove problematic material. Verbal chat  16:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What template are you referring to? Gigs (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The one placed, correctly, by RH&E with the multiple links to relevant policy (unsourced, I think). Verbal chat  16:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In any case, editors are responsible for the content of the templates they use. It's the same as if he typed it in by hand.  Comments about behaviors that I think are hindering collaboration are miles away from "accusations of disruption".  I'm done with this distraction.  Please don't comment regarding this any more on my talk page. Gigs (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)