User talk:Gigs/Archive 9

The Signpost: 16 August 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLPN
This appears to be a new section so I've moved it to the bottom of the page where it's more likely to be seen. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't use that board much and it seems every noticeboard has a different rule. Gigs (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2
Because you participated in Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 7, you may be interested in Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Your oppose at Wifione's RfA...
... was an interesting one. I'm just curious as to why you "opposed" based on the candidate's signature.

I don't particularly like it (too flashy for my liking), but I'm not sure how that would show either:
 * 1) he's not trustworthy enough to be given the mop
 * 2) he's made bad decisions in other areas of Wikipedia

I thought I'd ask you here, rather than distracting people at the RfA, but it seems a bit of a flippant oppose - and one which I don't think I've seen before!

Of course, everyone can oppose or support for whatever reason they think is right, but if this ended up being in the 'crat discretionary zone, I'd be surprised if your oppose would be seen as a valid reason!

Anyway, I just thought I'd ask privately (well, as privately as anything is on enwiki!), as it does seem a strange oppose --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 20:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not strange at all. If you've just blocked me or deleted my hard work, I want to think that you take what you do here seriously, not that it's some game or social network.  Signatures of people that do administrative things are a public relations matter, and should be taken a little more seriously than someone who only works on articles. Gigs (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I understand where you're coming from, although I think we'll have to agree to disagree on using it as an oppose criteria! Regards. --  Phantom Steve .alt/ talk \[alternate account of Phantomsteve] 07:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi :)
Hi Gigs, I've left three signature samples on my talk page. It'll be good to get your feedback on the same. My best regards.  ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  10:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the reply. Sincerely.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  15:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a huge ton for the vote indenting and withdrawal. Best   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  18:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain...
You recently initiated Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/review/Yusef Abdel Majeed.

Is there a reason why you didn't follow the usual practice, recommended in our deletion policies, of leaving a good faith heads-up on the talk page of article creator?

The last time I checked wikipedia aimed to follow an open, transparent, consensus-based decision making model -- one where decisions are made following a civil and collegial exchange of views. A true consensus is not reached when those initiating discussion don't invite those parties apt to disagree with them. Geo Swan (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I did notify the article's creator, User:Sherurcij. Well, more accurately, Twinkle did.  I'll leave a feature suggestion on the twinkle page that it should also notify the owner of the userspace if a userspace article is nominated.  It wasn't an intentional slight. Gigs (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle/Bugs Gigs (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for the explanation.  My apologies for only noticing it now. Sherurcij hasn't been active for about five months.  Geo Swan (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I was concerned over this comment. I am even more disturbed after reading your note above that you didn't intentionally skip telling me of the nomination. You may not feel interested or obliged to explain why you doubt my good faith.  If you do make the effort I assure you you will have my full attention.  Geo Swan (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you really intend to use these drafts and notes to write neutral articles, or are you just using your userspace to host this material that wouldn't make it in mainspace? Your reluctance to take these old notes and drafts offline makes me wonder. Gigs (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has always been my intention to help write neutral articles.
 * I hope you don't think you have any reason that I have ever knowingly introduced biased material? I have been prolific, and I have, very occasionally, innocently lapsed from WP:NPOV.  I thank good faith challengers who point out these lapses.  If you think you have a genuine concern over a bias you perceive in a contribution I made to article space I hope you will enter a serious discussion over it.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WRT Yusef Abdel Majeed -- Sherurcij drafted it. Shortly after he started his long absence I noticed deletion notices for Yusef Abdel Majeed, and some related articles.  I made a couple of mistakes:
 * I assumed that there were additional good references that could be added that would bring those pages up to standards of article space, and I userified them.
 * I didn't immediately schedule looking for those additional references.
 * When I did look, after your nomination, I did not find good references for Yusef Abdel Majeed, after all.
 * I shouldn't have started to rescue Sherurcij's work without immediately scheduling my own reference search.
 * When the search I made after your nomination failed to find good references I should have said so. And I should have placed a db on it.  In other circumstances I have done so.  My apologies.
 * I believe I got rid of the other related material. Geo Swan (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Remember there is always the option of taking it offline to give you more time to search for sources. Gigs (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 06:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You have new messages

 * Waiting for you on my talk page. Sincerely.  Wifione    ....... <sup style="margin-left:-3ex"> Leave a message  09:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Panbaccha
I hesitate to edit another editor's posts, so I just wanted to suggest that you add a topic header to your very apt warning to User:Panbaccha, so as to not be confused with my separate comment to him re East Harlem. I've already taken the liberty of de-indenting. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Gigs (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This account needs to be watched. I thought that this was a new account, but apparently there is another account with a slightly different spelling, with edits going back years. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:V
Ditto

got it. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpriske (talk • contribs) 21:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2010 October 23
Hi Gigs. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:History short, you may be interested in Deletion review/Log/2010 October 23. Cunard (talk) 06:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Abandoned artilces
A 2nd user echoed your concerns, so I've edited the draft to emphasize this aspect. Can you take a look and see if this is closer to a decent approach? FT2 (Talk 11:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review notice
Please see Deletion_review/Log/2010_October_25. -- Cirt (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Video content
Hi Gigs. I noticed your comment at Village pump (proposals) about keeping videos off policy pages. I'm interested in the whole question of audiovisual content on Wikipedia (mainly article space - though I've included a policy clip in this mini-tutorial proposal) but I don't know the history here. Are you able to point me to any past discussions you can remember? Anthony (talk) 05:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Mainly the conversations happened at and .  The main issue was that the videos attempted to summarize the policy in a way that destroyed detail.  As well, because video is not subject to collaborative editing, there was no way for anyone to improve the videos in the normal wiki way.  A video on WP:Username policy has stayed and hasn't been particularly controversial, probably because it doesn't attempt to summarize the policy in a redundant way not subject to community consensus. Gigs (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Thanks. Anthony (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC) You know, I think the real problem with the video was mainly that it was wrong, in confusing neutrality and due weight with "balance", and suggesting the pseudoscientific view that vaccinations have never benefited public health should appear anywhere in this encyclopedia. What a waste. Such a shame the producers didn't take the idea to the policy talk pages first. Anthony (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, maybe I was being a little generous. In any case, I think the idea of policy videos like that are going to have some inherent pitfalls, even if done more carefully.  I think there might be a place for them in tutorial materials outside of the policies proper, as long as there is a disclaimer that the actual policy text is what matters. Gigs (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Anthony (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

not forever?
you mean 'incubated articles should not be incubated forever' in the introduction text, yes? Eclipsed  ¤     02:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that. Thanks. Gigs (talk) 03:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

 * Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
 * There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
 * If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

CSD #G13
Following previous discussion on incubator drafts, I think I've come up with something workable and hard to object to.

A look at the incubator supports the large part of your concern, that it gets full of dud articles that should be relatively easy to delete, and also supports my objection that it contains a few which may have value and should not be deleted but allowed to be picked up by someone else.

The majority of the incubator (easily 90% +) is full of drafts on people and organizations. We shouldn't need to wait 6 months for those as they tend overwhelmingly to be promotional or sensitive and should be completed and placed in mainspace or deleted fairly soon after creation. I think your view is the right one on these. Also it contains drafts on topics that just don't have a chance of making it into the encyclopedia because they are pure WP:OR or otherwise unencyclopedic.

Assuming those would cover the vast majority of pages you are concerned about in practice, I've drafted a CSD suggestion that targets those and leaves the rest for MFD.

FT2 (Talk 10:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

re: Cornell criticism
Thank you for the response, as well as the time and input you have given to this issue.

My point is that the article does not, to draw upon your own words, "include coverage of all verifiable facts in proportion to the amount of coverage they have gotten." The criticism added by HistoricWarrior007 is not representative of the proportion of criticism Cornell has received. If it were, then a Google search for "Svante Cornell criticism" would not turn up this wiki article as the first hit. The fact that this edit came from a user who received numerous complaints for biased entries and was eventually banned from the Wikipedia community also supports the argument that it should never have been included in the article in the first place. I assume Wikipedia as a whole be improved if all of the other malicious edits of banned users were to be removed.

I have not written anything in the article "about how great people are," nor have I tried to imply that Cornell is great. But I believe this article would only adhere to the standards of Wikipedia if it presented a fair summary of the strengths and weaknesses of his academic work. This criticism, however, is unrepresentative of the author, and was inserted into this article merely to blemish his name, rather than contribute to a neutral picture. A neutral picture would include a summary of the author's ideas, as well as both favorable and unfavorable reviews of his work. This article, on the contrary, contains only the last item, which inevitably presents a biased account.

I hope we can reach an agreement on this issue. I appreciate and agree with everything you've said, I just apologize for not having articulated my point better earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.202.91 (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Red "talk" link
Hi. The answer to your question "hmm, how did that happen" is here, probably a mistake. —  Jeff G. ツ  04:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Good catch
on this edit. ;-) ... Kenosis (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gigs (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!
Thanks! Gigs (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FAKEARTICLE listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect FAKEARTICLE. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:FAKEARTICLE redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Thanks! -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the comments you posted at the RfD. : ) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. To be honest it has kind of grown into a monster since I created it, so I know where your nom was coming from. Gigs (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

thx
Thx - didn't know it was needed for attribution. :-) Flatterworld (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Tkguy/Asiaphile and User:Tkguy/Asian fetish
Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tkguy/Asiaphile and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tkguy/Asian fetish, you may be interested in subsequent discussion about these userspace drafts. I have nominated User:Tkguy/Asiaphile and User:Tkguy/Asian fetish for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tkguy/Asiaphile (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tkguy/Asian fetish (2nd nomination), respectively. Cunard (talk) 06:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Respect due

 * Thanks. Gigs (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks
i'm happy you would take the time to acknowledge you might have upset someone, you didn't the fact that dudesnude hema (organization) barechested and is the only thing annoying me right now as i think they all have a place here, i worked really hard when people tried to have santa isabel (supermarket) deleted so i feel like im not being given a chance here is all and my old user name was blocked twice and i was accused of trying to promote this website im fond of just like im fond of dudes and sodimac and tottus and others =(Thisbites (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

how are you?THIS BITES 10:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisbites (talk • contribs)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Article; Early College of Arvada
How would the article I have created not be "notable"? I read the article on notability standards, and by all means there is no apparent problem with the article I wrote. I have read plenty of articles on high schools. In fact, I learned how to design the article mostly from another school's article templates. So I am going to disagree with you and say that it in fact does meet notability standards. So I would appreciate if it doesn't get deleted. Besides, are you a moderator or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZaneArnold (talk • contribs)
 * We don't have moderators here. I'm an editor like you. You need to establish the notability by citing coverage in independent secondary sources. Gigs (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I understand now. I would get a reliable secondary source, but there are none. What do I do now? I am a secondary source myself. Would I write something firsthand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZaneArnold (talk • contribs)
 * No, you need to find some secondary sources that are published outside of Wikipedia. Try Google news or book search.  If none exist, then it probably does not meet our notability guidelines.  When you leave a message on talk pages, sign them using four tildes like: ~ .  This way people know who wrote what. Gigs (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well lets hope there is some information availiable on that. (Like this?)ZaneArnold (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

please send me a copy of my deleted page
please send me a copy of my deleted page - and explain to me in detail what is wrong with it. I'm furious with wikipedia right now - I can literally proved the phone numbers of the recording artists mentioned - but somehow I am not considered a credible source - so ive gone as far as to list these users personal, band, and social networking websistes as a means to establish credibility - how about I round everyone up in a car and drive them over to you?

there are pages up about bands right now - just about the band existing - they don't even have what my page has - which is an explanation of the artists involved and how they all met - these are FACTS that the general population does not know and deserves to —Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyKillerRock (talk • contribs) 01:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One problem is that Wikipedia generally does not publish original material. There are exceptions, such as images that don't exist anywhere else, but our text must be based on previously published material.  As a result of this, our notability standards require that a subject has already been written about in reliable sources. Gigs (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Cis3400
Please be more discriminant with blanking user pages. Temporary use, even as a personal space is generally not frowned upon. What was on there would have been up for a total of 20 minutes. I didn't have my personal account details handy so I'm using a new account. In general though, you really should err on the side of caution when touching non-encyclopedia articles. Cis3400 (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What is your regular account? Are you a teacher of some sort?  You are incorrect, userspace is not a free-for-all to be used for purposes other than building the encyclopedia.  Please review WP:UP.  You may also want to review WP:SOCK. Gigs (talk) 02:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Cambridgeshire schools notability
Just curious if the swath of deletions was done with reading all the pages? St Andrew's in Soham is closely linked to the Soham murders and Ian Huntley while Burwell is unique in being the only Village College which is a primary school. Being a new page, I'd not had time to source and assert but have set up a sandbox in my userspace to do so over time... - JVG (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I scanned them before redirecting. Feel free to restore any that have a real claim to notability.  There's no need to work on it in your userspace. Gigs (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've restored St Andrew's Primary School (Soham), but please make it a priority to add citations to the murder section, as the negative unsourced claims about living people there are a BLP issue. Gigs (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How are those? I can dig up more if needed. - JVG (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good enough. Thanks. Gigs (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Your third opinion: Myway Searchbar
Thanks for giving your opinion. It is helpful, but you mentioned something about me (PlantRunner) "pushing a certain POV". As you stated yourself, "no one ever installs one of these things on-purpose". When I first started editing the article, over the summer, it appeared that the article was completely ignoring the fact that this software is classified as adware and a potentially unwanted program. My edits since then were an attempt to make it more neutral. Could you explain why I'm "pushing a certain POV" rather then pushing to make it neutral? That would be helpful, thanks. PlantRunner (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was mistaken. I should have looked at more of the editing history.  I've retracted the comment. Gigs (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Incubator RfC
It looks like there's no consensus for your incubator policy changes. If you want to move forward without reverting, can you merge the old policies in with your new formatting changes? Gigs (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting in touch. I haven't yet had time to analyse the effect that the project has had, though I've had a quick look at some of the articles that have been through the project and have noted that initially there were a few people who did do some work, but that they have stopped helping out, and that recently a number of articles have been moved into the project, and then deleted a few months later with no work being done on them. It would be interesting to talk with both the editors who initially helped out and the main contributors to the articles involved to get a better understanding of how people feel about the process. I'll also take a look later at the comments in the RfC you set up.  SilkTork  *YES! 23:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)