User talk:Gonzonoir/Archive 2

McAwans
Dude, this group have huge importance and your deleting the page for no sense! at McAwans
 * Thanks for your comment. On the AfD, you'll see that we're considering deleting the article because there appears to be no substantial coverage in reliable, third-party, secondary sources of the group's signficance. We need that coverage to establish notability. If you know of any such sources, please add them to the article or to the AfD discussion. Thanks. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

WP RS
If you are trying to keep tabs of this issue - there are articles long untouched that need the tag - brand new arts - in a series - nah - not worth the edit imho - just use popups - 3 year old ed with 40,000 + eds - probably over a 1,000 arts with either a tag or my request for WP:RS on the talk page - nah - but hey keep at it anyways SatuSuro 13:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there - thanks for the message. I guess you're referring to this edit at Hamengkubuwana II? I added the tag to the article you created during new page patrol; I'm inclined to see this kind of tagging as worthwhile, since references are critical for notability. If the tag's added to a new page, it usefully includes the article on clean-up lists, increasing the likelihood that someone will come along and add the reference, or - for hoax pages - the likelihood that someone nominate it for AfD if no sources are forthcoming after a few days. Glad you had the references to hand to add to yours, anyway. Cheers. Obviously yours was going to turn out fine anyway, but new page tagging at least helps to prevent those three-year-old unreferenced monstrosities from developing in the first place :) Gonzonoir (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Good answer but you miss the point - check the user with the pop up as well and you can save yourself responses from the more experienced user who is block free and been around long enough to simply take a few minutes to fix the problem anyways - take care! SatuSuro 23:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. Certainly didn't mean to cause offence - sorry about that. I'll be more careful in future, though I guess you can always add the references before publishing the article if the prospect of getting tagged really bothers you. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup I have been doing that with the series i am trying slowly to get up - thanks for the reminder - nah no offence - nah i was trying to suggest that looking at an ed info on popups or whatever tool you have can make the diff as to how you respond - you know one red link vandal or whatever - anyways best of luck cheers and keep up the good work SatuSuro 12:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for setting up the redirect on National cancer intelligence network
Hi,

Thanks for redirecting 'National cancer intelligence network' to 'National Cancer Intelligence Network'. I guess I need to study the wiki guides a bit more!

Shepherd22 (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! And don't worry about it. Your hunch on what to do was exactly right; finding your way around the actual techniques always takes time. If you're interested in some help to learn more, you might want to consider the Wikipedia user adoption programme. I'm in it, and it's doing the trick for me :) Gonzonoir (talk) 13:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, the adoption programme sounds interesting. I'll check it out... Shepherd22 (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Helping with image
Hello! Thanks for the help on the Fairway Market logo. Now I'm trying to fix one last image, and I think I did this one differently. (and I'm getting messages saying I did something wrong!) If you have a chance....thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FairwayMarket_Cold_room.jpg

Meverbeaver (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Meverbeaver - I'm afraid I'm not a great images expert, and pretty busy IRL this week. I'll take a look at this later but you may get better advice by asking someone else to help. A quick and easy way to do so is to write on your talk page; write out your question below that, and someone will drop by to answer it. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The Trouble With Normal (book)
--Dravecky (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your summary of The Trouble With Normal is especially clear and informative. Thanks for bringing this article to Wikipedia so skillfully. --Boston (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Boston! Really pleased you thought so. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your RfA
Hey Gonzo - thanks for your your fistbumppage regarding my failed RfA. I must say I was a bit surprised too, but that's how RfAs go. I really appreciated your (frankly very sweet) support - seeing you become such an epic editor so fast is one of the best experiences I've had on Wikipedia. Obviously, whenever you feel ready to RfA yourself, I would be happy to nominate or co-nominate. To British wit!  Flying  Toaster  23:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Aw, thanks Toaster. I'm kvelling :) Props to you for the philosophical approach. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Jonathan Alder
Thank you... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Bidzar
That looks great! Much easier to read and find information. Thanks for your effort, FingersOn  Roids  21:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

hey pal
thanks a bunch for the welcome and adviceAntiFetch (talk) 09:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Good luck with the anti-vandalism. As I see User:MacGyverMagic has pointed out on your talk page too, strictly speaking we don't delete vandalism on Wikipedia: we revert it. All the best with that. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for the nice words about the John Berry article. There is some stuff on govexec.com I could add. However, I didn't even properly search on Google yet. Perhaps some time in the future. Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Just checking in
Hey Gonzo! Just dropping by to say hi and congrats on all the awesome edits lately, like the improvements to articles like Gabhricha Paus, the assistance to other users at the Help desk, and especially all the good Twinkle vandal-smashery. While you don't need to reply, I just wanted to encourage you to poke me if you had any questions, especially with Twinkle and monobook since those things are utter bitches at first. If any of those initial monobook settings I gave you are annoying, let me know and we can tailor it for what you're looking for. There's nothing worse in life than getting things on your watchlist you don't want. Well, that and genocide.  Flying  Toaster  00:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And taking a sip of what you think is water that turns out to be lemonade. Yech. All right up there. Aw, thanks for the props! The Twinkle stuff seems to be going okay; I think I can see how to change the monobook settings, though I haven't had a really thorough session under the hood yet. I did set it to autowatch anything I prodded, though, and I haven't yet set

destroyWikipediaInFieryExplosion               :    true
 * but it's in the back of my mind. Thanks for the encouragement to poke: will do so at every opportunity. You're the best wikimum a girl could hope for :) Gonzonoir (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Paul Bryar
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Paul Bryar, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable person. No evidence of notability is provided, and I am unable to find significant coverage of this person in reliable sources. This article may have been created as a campaign page to advertise his candidacy for Illinois' 5th district congressional election; however, on March 3 he failed to win the election for the Democratic nomination, meaning he is no longer a candidate.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Robofish (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

My Creve Coeur addition IS cited. Please stop removing it
My Creve Coeur addition IS cited. Please stop removing it for "uncited" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.177.114 (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's cited to Urban Dictionary, which doesn't meet Wikipedia standards for reliable sources. You need a third-party, independent, reliable outlet to support an addition like this. Please read the guidelines before readding the information. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Chevy Chase
Chasing up a non-printed text source for the page.MFronsdorf (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I'll remove the claim until it is cited, since the burden of proof is on the editor adding information. Please don't readd it until it's sourced: we have to take WP:BLP very seriously. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

SexPanic progress
Hi there - if you wish, ping me at my talk page when you're ready to nominate this article in the GA nomination process, and I'll undertake the review. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (Replied at User_talk:Hamiltonstone) Gonzonoir (talk) 11:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Help request
I want to raise a sockpuppet investigation, and believe that the accounts I am seeing now are socks of a user previously investigated and blocked. Should I add my request to the existing, closed SPI case of the person to whom the socks I think belong, or should I create a new case? I think it's the same *person*, but obviously it's a different (cluster of) account(s) (as the previous ones were blocked). Gonzonoir (talk) 10:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

It's up to you, really. I think I'd raise a new one, so I wasn't assuming too much - let others decide (with tools etc). Put a clear reference in there to the existing case, and explain your suspicions with evidence etc. Also, remember to add a link from the existing case to the new one. Does that answer your question? --  Chzz  ►  10:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely - many thanks Chzz. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sockpupperty
Hi. In light of the note you left on User talk:Florrie, you might be also interested in this and this.--Jeff79 (talk) 11:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the headsup - I take it MarkFD was blocked? What a strange business.
 * The only weird thing is, why Patrick Wilson? Doesn't seem to fit the usual topic focus. Does he have a secret side-career as a scrumhalf about which I know nothing? Gonzonoir (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

CBrowns Subpage Move and Ref Issues - Check it Out! ;) Thanks!
Gonzonoir - you rock! I think you've helped me adjust my ref coding and also move to a sub page. If you'd be so kind as to check this out to make sure I've done things right, and then talk me through your other suggested changes to style, tone, etc., I'd be grateful. Thank you! CBrowns (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, no problem, etc. I just mention that you've left a stray comment at User talk:CBrownsDraft of Steve Waldman Article which I'd like to get deleted. Perhaps you might want to move it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine, go ahead and delete it - the comment's been overtaken by events, which I can explain to CBrowns from scratch on his/her proper talkpage. Thanks again. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Erwin James
Hello, thanks for the note on my talk page. Having looked at the guidelines, I do agree that my edit of the Erwin James page constituted original research. There has been widespread speculation on the Internet as to his true identity, of which there can be now no further doubt. Would it be acceptable to put something along the lines of "It has been widely speculated that Erwin James is the psuedonym of...", adding references to where this speculation is taking place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr George Matthews (talk • contribs) 08:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there - thanks very much for your reply.
 * A good guiding principle when deciding whether to include something in a biographical article is "do no harm". Once Google indexes this article the two names will be linked together forever, which makes speculation very dangerous. If it turns out to be incorrect, we'll have helped to make a false association indelible. That's obviously undesirable, and puts us at risk of committing libel if we perpetuate damaging rumours (rumours being, by definition, claims without a good source). Because speculation is by its very nature unverified, I don't think we can, under WP's policies and guidelines, add it to this article. That's partly a question of sourcing: I'd be fairly surprised if any outlets that meet the guideline on reliable sources (RS) were engaging in speculation of this sort, though it is of course possible. If the Guardian has run a piece about it, that's one thing, and might meet RS. If this is coming from internet forums or blogs, that won't cut the mustard. If you'd like, you can email me your links, and I can check whether they look RS compliant. There's an "email this user" link at the left of the page, under Toolbox.
 * So as you can see, there's an awful lot of reasons to avoid adding this material to the article. I don't feel we reduce the article's value by leaving it out, unless and until it is attested in reliable sources. Does this sound sensible? Gonzonoir (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank You!
We got a letter from the Creve Coeur Police Department thanking you for your hard working keeping the Creve Coeur, Missouri article clean of vandalism. Just wanted to let you know that your effort is appreciated! (Ticket number 2009031610061311) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, really? Well, the edit reversion I did was a no-brainer, but I'm pleased to help out. Thanks for the note! Gonzonoir (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I like to pass along that kind of thanks when I can. -J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks letting me know about Truthrus edits
Thank you for your heads up about Truthrus speedy deletion tag on Tom Krieglstein page. Truthrus appears to be a user profile created specifically to vandalize Krielgstein family Wikipedia pages, referenced [here]. Pgallert and I discussed my conflict of interest with the Tom Krieglstein and Werner Krieglstein and decided I should proceed with extreme caution and include other editors whenever possible when working with these articles. Truthrus edit history seems to indicate a pattern of vandalization which is likely to continue. I will report him to WP:AIV if the vandalism continues. Thanks again, Dkriegls (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome: I'm keeping an eye on the whole situation. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Question dans le bleu
Ah, unfortunately I had to miss that meetup in order to go to a SCIENCE event. I'll try and make the next one, but what can I say... SCIENCE called. As for the exclamation marks - in programming, an exclamation mark is a unary operator - it basically means "not" the thing that follows it. So "!true" in Java means "false." The reason it's used in requests for adminship (and other places where "voting" is used) is because while appearances are of a system where people vote for or against a candidate, the actual intent of the process is that it is "not" voting, but rather an attempt at discussion and consensus. While RfA resembles voting in many ways, it's true that a simple majority or number of votes isn't the condition to win - at the end of the day a bureaucrat closes looking at the arguments on both sides and tries to determine what is "consensus" regarding the candidate.  Flying Toaster  12:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Obtuse tech and western-centric geek references inscrutable to outsiders? In OUR all-inclusive encylcopedia?  It's more likely than you think.  Flying  Toaster  12:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I can only apologise with utmost sincerity for my indiscretion, but add that no place of work should be unfriendly to a few vaginas on a Friday afternoon.  Flying Toaster  13:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...
(moved from User space to User talk space by Adolphus79) Thanks for your help. Am keen to make useful contributions where appropriate. Did explain (but it may not have got through) that I knew JH and we corresponded regularly. We had in common that we worked on same paper at different times, and I did pieces about him, including his obit in certain national papers. Obviously I need to read the info about editing and such to get familiar with little touches needed. I want to send a caricature that John H did of himself and sent to me in a letter --actually within the letter!Grenokid. KF —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grenokid (talk • contribs)
 * Hi there - you're welcome, and thanks for your contributions. It sounds like you have lots of material and knowledge that would greatly benefit these articles. The main thing to keep in mind as you do so is that everything in an article requires referencing to a reliable source. Why don't you have a look through those guides, and let me know if you have any questions? I'd be happy to help out. You might like to know too about the sandbox, a kind of test page on Wikipedia where you can try out your edits before committing them to live articles. That gives you ample space to test and experiment without the worry that someone will come along and revert you.
 * The caricature sounds terrific. The relevant policies to learn about here would be about donating copyrighted material, since if you add it to Wikipedia you have to grant permission to others to reuse it (though it stays attributed to you]]. Again, if you've any questions about this, I'd be very happy to help.
 * Just about to look up the Sheffield Telegraph stuff below; I'll give you a response on that too. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sheffield Telegraph
As a former member of the old Sheffield (Morning) Telegraph staff, I have added a few notes to the Sheffield Telegraph biog. I'd be grateful if you could check that I have done it right --the names I have added h\ave come up in red! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grenokid (talk • contribs) 20:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Sorry forgot to sign in --Grenokid (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Hi there - looks basically fine; I've made a bit of a tweak (see the article and its talk page), but otherwise all good. The names that came up in red are because Wikipedia doesn't yet have articles about these people. If you think they meet our notability guidelines, and you have material to use in reference, you could even create these articles yourself. There's a good guide on how to do so at Your First Article. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I am very grateful for your interest, help and guidance, and I will keep addding bits and pieces here and there where I think they will be enhanced by my addition. I have pictures that may help in some cases, and have already tried to send two or three to the picture site; but they have not been used, so I presume they were not considered worthy of use (including a lovely self-caricature by John Harris, sent to me many years ago in a personal letter). I will keep trying! One of the problems is that, over the years, one collects all kinds of info in notebooks and files, and one has not always got the precise references, even though, as a trained journalist, one knows they are valid and genuine. Anyway, if you can, do keep an eye on the things I send --and feel free to put me right! Grenokid (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Bump and comics
Thanks for the bump - i've been trying to concentrate my wiki time on article improvment, so no idea if the newsletter will actually heppen, but we made a good attempt :-)

And thanks for the contribs to the comics article. I have a feeling that it could go to FA eventually, but as you see from your copyedit, there needs to be more than just me writing it, as even quoting sources directly inserts subtle POVs.

I'm moving on to LGBT thems in horror or in mythology next. You're not a horror fan by any chance? I only read the most famous works, which means i have to force myself to wade through tonnes of b-movie commentary :-/. But it is for a good cause. Soon gay interpretations of popular genres will be the most complete critical analysis on wikipedia :-D .YobMod 13:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. I'm really happy to help out with the comics stuff, being a giant nerd of the highest order, but sadly horror's beyond me. I know a bit about the c19th gothic novel and that's the best I can do you. Are you going to have to deal with this affront to all that is decent and, y'know, vaguely humourous? Gonzonoir (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome templates
Hi and thanks for the message. That template is one that I shamelessly stole from another user and customised a little to use with Friendly. You can find it at User:Ukexpat/welcome2. I have another, more OTT, welcome template at User:Ukexpat/welcome1, that I use occasionally. Enjoy! – ukexpat (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! And kudos for all the time you put in at the help desk and new contributors' help page. I see you on both a lot, and I'm always impressed with how prolific you are. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: GA review review?
Sure, I'll have a look within the next day or so. – Juliancolton  | Talk 02:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've taken a look, and I see no major flaws in your review. I'm especially impressed with the thoroughness of the review, which is somewhat rare nowadays. Keep up the good work! – Juliancolton  | Talk 19:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks very much. In this case, I'll approve the article as a GA. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would just like to add that I thought your review of Themistocles was excellent. As a nominator, what you really want is someone to point out all the stupid mistakes/omissions/etc. that you make, and your review was exceptionally helpful in that respect. Thanks for your time and effort! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

GA mentoring
Sorry, been busy for a week or so. I'll try and get on in earnest over the next week. I'm not ignoring your request! :) Protonk (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Protonk, no worries. Someone else gave it a glance over in the meantime, so I'm going to go ahead and promote the article. All the best. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Trouble With Normal (book)
I finally got a chance to read it last weekend. I liked the chapter about New York and the conclusion. I think David Halperin's latest book called What Do Gay Men Want? is a response to that conclusion. While I would disagree with Warner regarding marriage - and if you end up single, at least you could be a colourful old maid - I liked the way he puts on the tone of an older gay man reminding younger gays of earlier activist struggles. I think he sounds a little too blunt at times, though. So much for my non-NOPV opinion. Your page is interesting, I liked the part about the critical reception.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Zigzig, and sorry for the slow reply - been drowning in work. Will check out the Halperin. I will discard my own NPOV to admit I'm fond of crotchety prose :) Gonzonoir (talk) 11:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

John Berry (administrator)


, Hekerui has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Thanks for the nice words, I improved the article a little further. Hekerui (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoa, nice work - it looks like a completely different article. How long since its C-class rating? Are you going to go for GA with it? Gonzonoir (talk) 11:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It was assessed as C more than a week ago, and I feel encouraged to nominate it for GA class :) Hekerui (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Cambridge3 meetup
I'm proposing a lunchtime micro-do, Tuesday 28 April. Any immediate thoughts to my talk page: I'll post a meetup page when we have some suggestions on venue. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

thank you
you were very helpful to a new user

—Preceding unsigned comment added by DJSlater00 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC) --DJSlater00 (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome: glad the advice was useful. There's a help page for new users where you can find further advice should you need it. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Meetup confirmed
The third Cambridge meetup is confirmed for the Free Press pub, 12.30 pm on Tuesday 28 April. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: 'Ey up
Hey Gonzo! The meetup was great. As promised, Ironholds and I came disguised as Reuters reporters and conducted the most awkward 30 minute ever on Neurolysis. I even used the phrase "vaginal irritation" without cracking up. It was also a great trip to the UK... so good to be back after so long (nearly a year). I'm sorry work is tentacling on you. Looks like great AfD work lately! Your editing is becoming really well-rounded. Soon you'll be RfA'ing and everything... ::wipes tear::  Flying Toaster  15:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Richard Hollis
hi gonzonoir, got your correction on the Richard Hollis page. I am still a beginner and do not want take warning away if it is not for me to do so. I have added a couple of third-parties reference to better place Richard Hollis as a graphic designer ... please have a look and let me know if satisfy the criteria. Grafista (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi- thanks for your message. You're doing fine. I actually only copyedited the article a little; it was another editor who added the tag. In any case, your additions look fine. I've removed the tag, but if you have further references on Hollis please do go ahead and add them. The article's stronger the more references it has. Happy editing! Gonzonoir (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Meetup
Hey Gonzo. I thought you might be interested in this if the timing is better for you than that of the Cambridge meet. Ironholds (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the tip. That looks fun; at risk of becoming WP's biggest flake, I'll put myself down as a hopeful :) Gonzonoir (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Kudos
Nice citation work on Rapid Interpretation of EKG's; I thought that contest would be basically un-cite-able. - Draeco (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries! It's a cracking anecdote; I'm not surprised it got a little press. Gonzonoir (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:911ct supporters
Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of 9/11 advance-knowledge debate, following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards —  Cs32en  10:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (For the record on this talk page: I only copyedited the page and have no strong feelings about the template, so didn't participate in the discussion. Gonzonoir (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC))

David R. Brown
Hi, Thanks for moving my article on this guy to the accepted pages section. However, someone has edited in an error which I can't seem to undo. Brown is not a neurologist. This implies a medical degree which is obviously not true. He is a biochemist or a neuroscientist. Please can fix this. Thanks --Gonkstem (talk) 09:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies, the mistake was mine. Easily fixed though. For reference, you can make changes like this yourself (or will be able to once your account's autoconfirmed: see WP:MOVE Gonzonoir (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

David Brown again
Hi

I appreciate you looking at the article. However, can you please not change the meaning of the science section. I have been quite diligent at getting this right. What is reported by the media is wrong. These references I added to indicate notability not for the content regarding the science. I can add a reference list later (ie a list of his articles) but I only have so much time for this sort of thing.

thanks --Gonkstem (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there, thanks for the message. I'm not sure which of my edits you think changed the meaning. I intended them only as cleanup and copyedit; could you point out to me which bits I got wrong? Bits of the prose could still do with neatening.


 * I've reinstated the "unreferenced" tag for the "personal life" section because it cites no references. This isn't because I'm challenging the subject's notability, just because in an article about a living person we have to scrupulously cite personal information to make sure it's verifiable. You can find out more about this at our biographies of living people section. Gonzonoir (talk) 07:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Sorry, I am new to this. I am not worried about the personal life section. It was the top part and I am not sure when the changes were introduced (maybe when you first moved it) but I think it is largely correct now. I was also not sure why the stuff on the discussion page needed to be kept because I haven't see that anywhere else. Cheers --Gonkstem (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Got it. OK, well the retention of the AFC commentary on the talk page looks fairly uncontroversial to me - AFC's not an area where I've worked much, but it was one of the regulars there who moved it over to the new talk page. I certainly don't think it does the article any harm, so I'd recommend leaving it in place (as I see you now have). Gonzonoir (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I told you before
This wasn't a db-a9 speedy deletion; can you think of another reason to delete? See WP:CSD and WP:PROD. (Watchlisting) - Dank (push to talk) 17:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, nevermind, User:Terrillja tagged it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message: sorry, that was my first-ever use of db-a9 and I fluffed the rationale: I had the (wrong) idea that it was either no indication of importance or no artist article. Now I understand that the presence of an article for the artist always precludes this tag. Cheers for the headsup. Gonzonoir (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, feel free to tag more! - Dank (push to talk) 18:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

goodness, thank you!
i don't mean to be so wiki-lame, but it seems it's the case.

i think i still have a huge learning process ahead of me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B defelici (talk • contribs) 13:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Come on
Please leave my page up. This was a test but I'm gonna update the page for real. Don't worry bro, just chill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RabbiFunk (talk • contribs) 17:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Chillin' like a villain, but it's not up to me: an admin will decide whether the content in the page should be kept. We have a sandbox area where you can build test articles in future. Gonzonoir (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Shameless thankspam


FlyingToaster Barnstar Hello Gonzonoir! Thank you so much for your support in my  recent RfA , which passed with a tally of 126 / 32 / 5. I am truly humbled by the trust you placed in me, and will endeavor to live up to that trust. To the most epic of adoptees!  Flying Toaster 

Mar Abba I
It isn't quite fivefold, but close enough, and I think it is good enough to be nominated for DYK if you so chose. Good work. :) John Carter (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! I make it a little over fivefold (this version was 790 characters of prose, now it's 4135), but we'll see what the DYK chaps say :) Gonzonoir (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently I've appointed myself Minister for Hair Splitting. I came up with 4.94 on expansion, and a slight issue with the referencing of the hook - see the DYK page. I'm sure it can get sorted! hamiltonstone (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right: this is all way beyond my mathematical ken (after I ran out of fingers and toes to count on I just started guessing). Who knows where I was getting 4135 from; I now make it 4031 (excl. headers, refs, cats, footnote reference superscript numbers, etc. Hope it's over the fence now? Gonzonoir (talk) 08:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thankx
Thankx for reversing vandalism on my user page. Best wishes. Lee. Ref (chew) (do) 13:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome- I saw that you were on wikibreak and thought I'd revert in case you didn't see the vandalism for a while. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Rugby league player bios
Thanks for pointing out my "gapping "issue ;o). The 'script' is actually me cutting 'n' pasting, so that'd explain the error. DynamoDegsy (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah! I assumed from the standard-ish format that you had a script going. Props for being prolific if it's all manual! Gonzonoir (talk) 07:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to keep an eye on your commas and semi colons in these new articles, too. You're adding them before almost every proper noun, which isn't very good style. They can mostly be left out altogether, e.g.
 * "John Fieldhouse is a former professional rugby league footballer of the 1980s who at club level has played for; St Helens RLFC, and at representative level has played for; Great Britain, whose position was Prop forward, Second-row forward, i.e. number 8 or 10, 11 or 12."
 * Should be:
 * "John Fieldhouse is a former professional rugby league footballer of the 1980s who has played at club level for St Helens RLFC, and has played at representative level for Great Britain. He played at Prop forward and Second-row forward, i.e. number 8 or 10, and 11 or 12."
 * If you tweak the template you're working with a bit, you can produce better prose. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

heh heh
Heh, not a problem :), in-fact, your edits there are actually appreciated, but for now I'm just going to hit it with a hammer, and I don't want to hit any one's fingers. Thanks for pointing that out about the title, I'll move it in a moment, thank you for your courtesy :) All the best, SpitfireTally-ho! 19:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All done now, you can edit till your hearts content, but if it already is, no need to, in any case thank you for your patience, all the best SpitfireTally-ho! 19:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing Tessa Munt
Hi,

You have just removed a section of text from my article on Tessa Munt.

The text was taken from the Wells Lib Dem site. We PUT it there!

Please can I put it back? I'm waiting for the full approved text from Tessa but until then we need some content.

Regards,

Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leveller1988 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. If you want to give us the right to include copyrighted material, Wikipedia needs proof that the copyright holder is making it available under an acceptable license. Please take a look at the guideline at WP:IOWN. The easiest way to do this is to edit the original page (at the Wells Lib. Dem. site) to include a notice that the content can be used under the GFDL, or similar. All the best. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Think Spirits
Am wondering why you felt it necessary for Think Spirits to be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomSynnott (talk • contribs) 14:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there: As I explained at the article's AfD, I don't think the company meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. For inclusion in Wikipedia, a subject must have received substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources, and I don't see evidence that this one has. You're very welcome to join in at the deletion discussion if you disagree. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)