User talk:Gillartsny

Hey, thanks for your contributions! Have a welcome template, free of charge:

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Melchoir 06:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Bach
Your wording on Bach is an improvement. But please return Bach's Weimar employer to the article, the link is important to understand connections, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Frank Merlo, 1950.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Frank Merlo, 1950.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Frank Merlo, 1950.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Frank Merlo, 1950.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or provided a license tag. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, select the appropriate license tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you can't find a suitable license tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Frank Merlo, 1950.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Frank Merlo, 1950.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion  tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ww2censor (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sergei Rachmaninoff
Thank you, Gillartsny for your post regarding the spelling for his name. That was very enlightening. It was also during the Soviet era that Russian musicians, both in and out of official postions, were downgrading Rachmaninoff as a composer. I think the last thing Sergei would have wanted was the Soviets dictating how his name should be spelled in the West!THD3 (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hoover Institution
Hello! I see that you added "conservative" to the description of the Hoover Institution in the opening sentence of the article. Although I tend to agree with you, I removed it, because it has been discussed several times on the talk page of the article, and there did not seem to be a consensus to have it there. You added it again with a pile of references (although only one was a Reliable Source clearly stating "conservative"). The problem is that the Institution itself denies the label. I have come up with what I think is a fair and encyclopedic solution. Rather than including it as part of the identification of the Institution in the first sentence, I inserted a well-sourced sentence later in the lead section, saying that most people regard it as "conservative" but the Institution rejects the label. I hope this approach is acceptable to you; if not, please discuss it on the talk page. Thanks for bringing about a fresh look at this issue. --MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No Melanie, I do not consider that an acceptable solution. And while I appreciate your conciliatory tone, I have to say this is abject nonsense. I see from your bio that you went to Stanford so you know better than most that HI is in incontrovertible fact a conservative think tank (and I've added a link below to that effect from Stanford's own website).  In fact the patron saint of modern conservatism, Ronald Reagan, called the Hoover Institution "the brightest star in a small constellation of conservative think tanks." (1981)  (He also chose more people from Hoover to help with his campaign than from any other institution).  A cursory glance at the current list of Hoover Fellows would disclose names like Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, Condoleeza Rice and Edwin Meese without any suggestion of balancing liberal viewpoints.  The list of references I posted included citations from The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times and the Christian Science Monitor among others, all specifically using the word "conservative" so why you should claim there was only 1 "Reliable Source" included I am not sure.  And those were just the top 7 or 8 results of a Google search that returned over 20,000 entries.  Kindly cite me anything that says HI has denied that it represents a conservative viewpoint.  I can't find any source to that effect.  I'd also like to know why you consider using the term conservative with regard to HI as inappropriate despite literally tens of thousands of references supporting that adjective — and especially since you used to take the opposite view.  The mere fact that some Wikipedians may disagree is not a sufficient reason to revert an edit as well sourced as this.  There are still people who maintain fluoridation of water is a communist plot, it doesn't mean that Wikipedia should enshrine such nonsense.Gillartsny (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The link you provide is not a neutral source. It is a polemic - basically an op-ed piece from an individual, namely Ron Rebholz, prof. Emeritus of English. His use of "we" leaves it unclear whether he is speaking for anyone else as well, but his essay makes it clear that he is making assertions: "We claim that the Hoover Institution, distinct from the projects of its individual fellows, has a political bias." "What we are claiming is that the Institution, distinct from the projects of its individual fellows, maintains a political bias." We cannot rely on an opinion piece as a source of facts for this encyclopedia. In the body of the article, we could expand on the connection between Hoover members and several Republican administrations (while pointing out that Hoover scholars have worked in Democratic administrations as well). And I agree that their definition of their founding principals sounds a lot like some versions of political conservatism; that is why I quoted it in my sentence. But to deduce from that statement of principals that it should be assigned a label of "conservative", when it does not so label itself, smacks of Original Research.
 * Let me ask: why is it so important to you to have the word "conservative" in the lead sentence, rather than a more nuanced labeling of it as "conservative" in the second paragraph of the lead? --MelanieN (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. Of the five sources you added: #3 is a website which does not meet the definition of a Reliable Source; #4 is a NY Times blog, just a list with no indication of what it is based on; #5 is a partisan website; #6 is a good source from the Christian Science Monitor, which I retained; #7 from the LA Times is a reliable news story, which is basically about the attempt to fire the director but in passing refers to the Institution as an "independent, policy-oriented research organization of conservative hue", so maybe we could keep that one. But I think the three sources I provided to support "conservative" are better: your CSM article, an Encyclopaedica Britannica article, and a book. That is followed by just one source saying that "those affiliated with the Institution" object to calling it conservative, right wing, or Republican; however that statement is immediately followed by the new director's statement that its "noble purpose" is to support free enterprise and small government, so people can draw their own conclusions. --MelanieN (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup tags
Please stop removing cleanup tags without solving the problem, especially when you're not even using an edit summary to explain yourself. When an editor has in good faith requested a citation, the resolution to that issue to provide a citation, not to remove the cleanup tag. If you continue to remove cleanup tags without solving the problem, this could be construed as disruptive behavior. Also, please do not mark your edits as minor when they are removing cleanup tags, especially when you know that your an editor already opposes this. I shouldn't really have to point this out, but WP:BURDEN puts the burden on you to provide a citation, not for someone to justify cleanup tags. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm embarrassed to even respond to someone named NinjaRobotPirate which makes me think I'm talking to a 14-year old (real or mental age), but since you've just violated your own 1-reversion rule by reverting this again, I'd like to point out that both the cites that you claim need further info provide sources for the requested info in the text just ahead of your senseless cleanup tag. I came to the DH article in a search for something else, and personally I couldn't give a toothpick about Daryl Hannah, but I am so sick of seeing articles crowded with cleanup tags over info that is either already provided (like these) or of such minor interest to the article that they are superfluous, that I thought I'd remove these as a test case.


 * I've also read the self-puffery on your editor's page and I would just point out that as I have been editing Wikipedia articles since 2004, quite a bit longer than you have, I need no lessons from you on how to do it. Your threat to report me as Disruptive is so silly I'm not even going to defend myself here.


 * WP seems these days to be attracting as editors the kind of prissy, power obsessed, high school know-it-alls who were such a pain in the bottom when we were IN high school. Anyway, I'm not going to waste any more of my time over this. Have your tags if you want them, and by the way, why don't YOU add the citations you want since you apparently find the lack of them so irritating? Should be easy, since the sources are already given in the text.Gillartsny (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Frank Merlo, 1950.jpeg
Thank you for uploading File:Frank Merlo, 1950.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)