User talk:Glaucus

Welcome!
Hi Glaucus, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!

""

Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :

""

Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)

- Mailer Diablo 03:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reversing the blanking of my user page. Take Care of You and Yours - Skysmith 08:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my user page. --Canderson7 17:19, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome (again)
Hi Glaucus, just thought I'd welcome you back - five years is an impressively long break! SmartSE (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconded. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 20:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nominations
Hi Glaucus, I notice you've been nominating some stuff for speedy deletion. I wonder if the criteria have changed while you've been away, as I've declined the first few I've looked at. A7 for a person means that there is no claim that the person is significant - Aaron Ansarov for example lists enough about the person to escape the strict requirements of A7. Of course, he still might not be notable enough for a wikipedia article, so you are welcome to try WP:PRODding the article. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. The page seemed to be nothing more than a vanity page since it was created by Aaron Ansarov himself. Is the policy now to leave vanity pages in place? Or is the normal deletion process the right way to go? Glaucus (talk) 05:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are entirely welcome to use proposed deletion for an uncontested deletion (although I suspect someone is maintaining this page, so would object) or Articles for deletion for everything else. I doubt the chap is particularly notable, it's only that the CSD criteria are really strict these days. Hope this helps --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

TCM
I notice the edits of the Creativity Movement article in which pictures are removed. Please cease doing that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarlKraft (talk • contribs) 00:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see the discussion page. Many of your changes to the page violate WP:NPOV. In addition, I am concerned that one of your images is not properly licensed. But that talk page is the appropriate forum, not this one Glaucus (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * KarlKraft now indefinitely blocked. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to voice your concern
Hi there. Recently you reverted an edit to the Barry Zito article, stating the previous IP editor (12.68.41.130) added something non-notable. I have found the user has changed their ways to a degree and inquired with an admin (who has blocked the user before) as to whether their most current edits might still be regarded as spam. You might leave any comments on the admin's talk page. Zepppep (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

anti-White Racism in France
Hey G, this subject is about the issue of anti-White racism in France in general, not specifically as it relates to Cope, Sarkozy and Le Pen. That's why it belongs in here as it's broad.

There is also plenty of room for articles on anti-Arab and Black racism, however I have no expertise in this area.

Herbertheever (talk) 08:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Herbertheever
 * Hey Herbert,
 * 1) Article specific discussion should generally happen on the article talkpage, not users talk pages.
 * 2) Blogs are not generally acceptable as sources, with a few exceptions.
 * 3) Actually, the article is about "Racism in France", not "anti-White racism in France". Part of Wikipedia's policy on avoiding WP:POV is to give weight to viewpoints in proportion to the representation in reliable sources. The issue of "anti-White racism" or "anti-French racism" seems to be a WP:FRINGE POV that is limited to a few far right wing politicians. Reliable sources don't discuss such racism credibly when discussing racism in France, only when talking about these politicians. Hence the content is appropriate for the politician's pages, but not for the article on racism in France. Did that make sense?
 * 4) My French is quite poor, but it appears the Le Monde article you cite is actually discussing the fringe political nature of the claims by Le Pen and Cope. That is further evidence that it would be WP:UNDUE to include.
 * 5) If you sign your comments with ~, you don't need to include your username. It will be automatically added. Glaucus (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

November 2012
Hello, I'm Grammarxxx. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Connie Mack IV without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 23:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I explained in the edit summary, I guess you missed it. I removed the text because it was pretty trivial (in both senses). I don't even know what a step-great-grandson is, but that's getting pretty tenuous in a listing that's little more than trivia. Glaucus (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Rhodesia.
Hi Glaucus,

As you know I added a line informing readers of the Wiki that the subject matter evokes strong emotions in some people and has on occasion been edited using Loaded Words which rob it of a Neutral Point Of View, I wondered why you stated that was "Completely innappropriate" ?

Surely the purpose of the Wiki is to provide facts and balance rather than slanted views ? In articles on subjects with an emotive matter, reading an unbiased page cannot always be guaranteed and readers should be made aware of the possibility of mis- or disinformation being contained therein.

Regards, TCG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiredcleangate2 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You added a (in my opinion disrespectful) line to a disambiguation template. Even ignoring content, that is supposed to help readers find other pages with the same name, not point out problems with the article. There are templates that you can use to flag problems on the page: Neutral_point_of_view, which should then be accompanied by an explanation of the dispute on the articles talkpage. Cheers. Glaucus (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Glaucus,

Thank you for your rapid reply. I see the comment was in the incorrect template, I'll address that. However I must admit that I fail to see how you can interpret the line as disrespectful to anyone. It read as follows: "it should be noted that it [Rhodesia] evokes strong emotions among some and they have at times used Loaded Words in their editing, so this page will not always give a balanced view" It mentions no particular group or collection of groups, nor does it infer that any person has intentionally lied, but you must admit that Loaded Words have been used, possibly unintentionally, on more than a few occassions. Perhaps it could be better phrased: "it should be noted that this subject evokes strong emotions among some and at times the article has been edited using Loaded Words , so this page may not always give a balanced view"

Shall we move this to the article talk page ?

Regards, TCG Tiredcleangate2 (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this should be continued on the article talk page. The proper thing to do is to point out specific POV violations and work on those. Simply casting vague aspersions about the state of the article in the future doesn't help readers understand the article nor does it improve it. BTW, if you are replying to a comment, you should indent it to maintain the thread of conversation. You can indent by adding a colon to the start of the line. Add more as needed to align beyond the comment you're replying to. Cheers. Glaucus (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

"a scientist who had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports"
The problem with this is that you are having Wikipedia state this absolutely. Was the IPCC of the view that Mann "contributed substantially"? Doesn't matter if the IPCC says that because Wikipedia says that! In fact it does matter. The cite you call attention to does not support the absolute contention you want to have included here (in addition to all other talking up of this particular recognition which I believe is overdone when the actual Prize awarders acknowledge none of it). What the cite you offer (to Facebook) supports is that the IPCC was of this view which is not the same thing.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ? The cite isn't to Facebook, it's to a specific note from the IPCC on this exact issue. I would be fine with changing the text to put "substantial contribution" in IPCC's voice, but it is clearly well cited and significant enough for the IPCC to publish comments directly in response to the issue. This should really go on that talkpage, not mine. Glaucus (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is the Facebook citation that connects "contributed substantially" generically to Mann specifically. A broadly shared recognition is not automatically equivalent to an unshared recognition with respect to notability regarding a specific individual.  Could I have moved the material at issue inside the quotation, given that the material is from the same source (then, and only then, would it be "clearly well cited")?  Yes, I could have, and I prefer exploring alternatives like that to reverting someone, but in this case I feel the amount of weight being given this matter is already more than sufficient.  Trying to pile "substantially" on top is excessive absent evidence in the citation that the IPCC dd not apply that terminology to everyone receiving a certificate and when the Nobel committee does not endorse what is being attempted here.  Anyway, your last reversion of me came without first responding to my comment in the "Nobel Prize Prize" section of that Talk page (responding to the other editor who has been reverting editors who object to this particular clause) hence my conclusion that you weren't inclined to use the article Talk page.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's notable because there's been a recent and well publicized dispute between Mann and several detractors over his claims to have won a Nobel Prize, particularly centered around a specific certificate he received from the IPCC. It is our job to report the significant and relevant viewpoints. The Nobel Committee has explicitly said that they do not consider him a Nobel Laureate, and the IPCC has said similarly generically. But his claim to have received a certificate from the IPCC for "substantial contributions" is also directly supported by the IPCC. The Nobel committee has nothing to say about whether Mann's contribution was substantial or whether the IPCC award him such a certificate. The IPCC clearly and explicitly stated that such certificates were only sent to persons making such a contribution, and listed the categories of people included and excluded. From the IPCC citation:
 * "The IPCC leadership agreed to present personalized certificates “for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC” to scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC  reports.  Such  certificates,  which  feature  a  copy  of  the  Nobel  Peace  Prize diploma, were sent to coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors, Bureau members, staff of the technical support units and staff of the secretariat from the IPCC’s inception in 1988 until  the  award  of  the  prize  in  2007. The  IPCC  has  not  sent  such  certificates  to  contributing authors, expert reviewers and focal points."
 * I didn't reply to your comment on the talk page because it was made concurrently with my revision. I haven't subsequently replied because I found it almost indecipherable and because the thread there has gotten so long that it wasn't clear to me it was directly relevant. I did check the page to see if you had added a comment explicitly mentioning this sentence. Glaucus (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My comment was not made "concurrently". It was made prior to your reverting me for the second time.  In any case, even if a discussion were not already underway concerning this whole Nobel Peace Prize business, you could have kicked off such a discussion before wagging your finger at me about not using the article Talk page, no?  Given my participation there in the past I don't think it reasonable to think that I would not reply.  "It is our job to report the significant and relevant viewpoints."  Indeed!  Yet how much coverage does the "other" viewpoint re this "dispute" get in this article (by the way, the dispute is less about "a specific certificate he received from the IPCC" than about the fact that on occasion Mann made reference to the Nobel Peace Prize as opposed to this specific certificate)?  How about zero!  I would have no objections to pushing the envelope as far as you can in connecting Mann to the Nobel Peace Prize if you would also allow direct criticisms of Mann's behaviour in this matter.  Adding "The Nobel Committee has explicitly said that they do not consider him a Nobel Laureate" to article, for example, would very easily settle this.  I have refrained from doing so out of the expectation that there would be fewer objections to keeping the claims modest than to actually putting up counter-claims.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comment occurred in between the time I started the edit, double checked the citation, responded to a person walking into my office, and saved the edit. So yeah, it was concurrent for all intents and purposes. I didn't "wag my finger at you" for not using the article talk, I pointed out that it's not proper protocol to start the discussion on my user talk page. In fact, I would strongly prefer that both of you move the dispute there so that I cease receiving notifications every 30 minutes. As for "pushing the envelope", bring that up on the talk page. I'm not going to comment on article content here anymore. Glaucus (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You could not have "started" your reversion of my edit until I had made it. And I made it after I commented on the Talk page.  This is consistent with both the timestamps and my practice of not reverting people a second time before first attempting to engage on the article Talk page.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that lead authors, not contributing authors, were singled out by the IPCC to receive this certificate is a notable honour for these scientists. Mann wasn't the only lead author, and several other lead authors have various references in Wikipedia to having received this honour. Sources have commonly used various wording suggesting that they shared in the IPCC Peace Price, and these variants appear in Wikipedia articles. Ideally we should standardise references in light of this recent IPCC statement, but some editors seem to be more interested in deleting well sourced statements from Mann's bio. Could be due to a recent and well publicized dispute between Mann and several detractors over his claims, though I don't think he actually said he had "won a Nobel Prize". . . dave souza, talk 20:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Al Arabiya
The content is not violation of POV and your edits appear to constitute vandalism. --PESO44 (talk) 13:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The content is a clear violation of POV. Describing a serious news channel as "propagandistic" and asserting that it is "unislamic" is the very definition of POV. You should take a closer look at vandalism. Editing for content disputes does not qualify as vandalism. Glaucus (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The content is not a violation of NPOV Al Arabiya is a secular news channel, every news channel has a propagation. --PESO44 (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The content is clearly a violation of NPOV. There is no question of that. Automatic  Strikeout  00:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not violation of NPOV your claims are biased. --PESO44 (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahem, no. What the problem appears to be is that you are biased pro-Islam and are fighting attempts to keep the articles neutral. Now, that didn't work so well last time, did it? Automatic  Strikeout  00:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Frank Marshall Davis
What did you mean by "very definition of OR?" The reference that supported the post is part of the university system of Hawaii. SimonATL (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're interpreting a primary source directly. From WP:PRIMARY:
 * "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."
 * Glaucus (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Understand. I will provide the appropriate secondary sources. It's clear who Davis was to any objective analysis. Too many wikipedia editors want to HIDE Davis' communist party membership. Come on - the truth WILL come out. SimonATL (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to right great wrongs. Those who attempt to participate in Wikipedia to bring to light the truth general end up having very short and very unhappy experiences. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * RedPen. I've been a Wikipedia author for over 5 years. I'm interested in FACTS - not "truth," per se. Understand your POINT, however and it is certainly VALID. That said, I'm NOT going away. See my other articles, NON-related to Davis, for example. And I DID vote for Obama. Facts are Facts! SimonATL (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Re Davis. I ADMIRE the man. In an era of Americans (of all races and economic classes) selling out or afraid to take unconventional positions, Davis stands out. However, I DO believe he was suckered into this whole "workers of the world unite" deal. Lenin talked of "useful fools." Paul Robeson did the same thing. But who can blame them? They were up against an unbelievably repressive economic and political situation that assumed white supremacy as its non-debatable first premise. It's a wonder to me that tens of thousands as opposed to hundreds of Black intellectuals got pulled into this whole communist deal. I have Russian friends who talked to me of how in Soviet Russia, the same communists that praised their "fraternal socialist African allies" were calling them "monkeys" behind their backs and mocking their naivete and duplicity. SimonATL (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on that comment, you might be interested in this article. It analyzes how the United States used desegregation in the fight against Soviet Russia. Ryan Vesey 21:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)