User talk:Gonzonoir/Archive 6

Re: Ethan Hawke
Hey Gonzonoir, how you been? Long time no talk. Thank you for your kind comments, I appreciate that. The best work goes on the Main Page, and of course I couldn't have done it without you, so. :) Majority of what you added is still there, though, there have been some tweaks here and there, but all of your additions are still there. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  15:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit request
Hello, I was looking at the members list at WP:LGBT and of the three editors that mentioned "copyediting" in their blurb, you were the only one who was regularly active. I was wondering if you'd be willing to take a look at List of Wandering Son chapters, which is in dire need of copyediting before taking it to FLC. Thank you for your consideration.--  十  八  09:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there - sure, I'd be glad to do it. I'll take a look tonight UK time, if that's still useful (just ping me here if not). Cheers, Gonzonoir (talk) 08:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

COI editor
Hi, I'm pretty keen on stopping COI editors using wikipedia for ads but I often think it must be a bemusing process for many. The guy drafted an article in it's userspace, asked what to do with it, he moves it to article space and it's instantly deleted and he's blocked. Now You and I understand the rationale behind all of that but to a novice editor it must be pretty confusing - sadly I have no easy answers on a better way to manage the problem. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, agreed. I dropped him a line on his userpage to try and explain a bit better and/or engage him in conversation, but he subsequently asked for his userspace to be deleted :-/ Gonzonoir (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's the thing.
You smell of cabbages. Which is not unusual in a guttersnipe, but one would hope that your movement out of the land of street urchins would have introduced you to the basic concept of civilisation which the rest of us call 'bathing'.

Glad to see you're doing well, kid. When's your RFA? Guaranteed +1S from me. I'll write a (co)nom statement even.

→ ROUX   ₪  08:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Aw, that is alternately screamingly rude and very charming of you. Thanks! :) I'll hit RfA after I take a bath; deal? Gonzonoir (talk) 08:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Right after your birthday then? (Once a year whether you like it or not.) Deal. → ROUX   ₪  08:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I should live so long. These necrotizing bacteria itch a bit. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Beat 'em like a redheaded stepchild. → ROUX   ₪  08:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

RTV question
hii i got u r reply i want to get vanished completely so can u help me with the procedure for that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrypotter2062 (talk • contribs)

hii this is Thomas Varughese.I dont know whether this is a proper place to ask you this question i want top completely vanish from Wikipedia i.e. i want to delete my account PERMANENTLY so can you help me with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrypotter2062 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on user's talk page. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Marcos Manoles for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Marcos Manoles, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Marcos Manoles until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --  At am a  頭 22:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome
Hey, thanks for the welcome! If there's anything else I should check out, let me know. Campbell Drive (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, do you mind if I welcome people as well? Is there an initiation that goes into that? Campbell Drive (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The more the merrier! There's no initiation - in the Wikipedian spirit of being bold, everyone's welcome to chip in anywhere they can help - though you might find some useful pointers (along with a list of welcoming template codes) at the Welcoming Committee page. I'm sure they'd be happy to have you. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Another Question
I originally made the name "Campbell Street", is there a way I can send that account to this account? Campbell Drive (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no technical way to link two accounts, but since you made only the one edit with the old one I don't think it's too much of a problem. If I were you I'd place a notice at User:Campbell Street noting that the account is yours and pointing to your current username (that's what I did with a defunct old account of mine): if you paste the text onto the user page it'll add a template explaining the situation. Then as long as you don't use the old account as well as your new one there's no risk of anyone thinking you have a sockpuppet.
 * Does that answer your question? Gonzonoir (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.6.35.115 (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, thanks! Campbell Drive (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Bacon !
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 08:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Bacon has been created, and you are cordially invited to join, and list yourself as a participant at WikiProject_Bacon!
 * You may also feel free to add the userbox - User Bacon - to your userpage, to indicate your participation in the WikiProject.
 * The Bacon WikiCup is also ongoing, more info about that at User:SuperHamster/Bacon Challenge 2011, and User:SuperHamster/Bacon WikiCup 2011.

BHP Billiton Ravensthorpe Nickel Project
I've proposed that the BHP Billiton Ravensthorpe Nickel Project article, which you recently participated in, be merged into Ravensthorpe Nickel Mine, as it is about the same subject. The discussion can be found at Talk:Ravensthorpe Nickel Mine. Thanks for your input, Calistemon (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Félix Manuaku Waku
Hi, I noticed that you removed the notability tag from this article. I am unclear how the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO have been met in the text and references given (reviews and online profiles are unlikely to be sufficient to show the level of significant impact needed). Until better sources are forthcoming I would prefer to leave the improvement tag in place as I do not believe it has been fully addressed yet. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 08:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Fæ. I'm pretty confident that the sources I added meet our reliable source requirements - they're independent newspapers, and two of the three linked sources are in-depth profiles of the article's subject as a musician. (The third establishes the alternate spelling of his name but is less focused on him, it's true.) They seem to me to qualify the subject for the WP:GNG. There is more detailed coverage in this news article, this one, and in a number of reasonably heavyweight books. Admittedly these latter examples need adding to the article, but I'm pretty confident the subject is home free on notability requirements. I'll add these extra sources and you can let me know what you think. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, I did not re-add the tag as I could see an editor in good standing was at work (plus I agree that this is a marginal case). Personally I don't mind improvement tags staying on articles I am still working on as they may attract other editors to lend a hand. Fæ (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, agreed, and I did appreciate your not re-adding the tag before you spoke to me. I'll put these extra refs in right now and you can see what you think. I would like some more substantial sources too, but I've actually been pleased by how much is turning up already (esp as this is a subject from the non-English-speaking world and sources are often harder to come by). Gonzonoir (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just taken another look and I have no concerns with regard to notability, the book references look good and the quotation helps. You might want to add a relevant project to the talk page to attract other editors and cross-links. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 09:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Grand - thanks for being patient with it! I've tagged it for wikiprojects interested in musicians, BLPs, and the DRC (alphabet soup much?); would love to see someone expand it from those refs. Cheers! Gonzonoir (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You have done a great job in expanding my microstub to what it's now - in such a brief time ;-) Moongateclimber (talk) 10:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for saying so! He's an interesting guy so it was fun to work on. And there's nothing like the mild fear of a possible AfD tagging to expedite a preemptive reference-adding strike :) Gonzonoir (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Identity
Hi Gonzonoir. Re: Talk:Cambridge, I wouldn't  have mentioned it if the leading  proponents of the renaming campaign hadn't  already  left  some less than civil remarks,  disparaging  nationalistic comments, and fake block  warnings on  the talk  pages of some of the editors who have simply voiced their  opposition to this scheme. Hence, if you are interested, your opinion would almost certainly  be appreciated  at Malvern, Worcestershire. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Kudpung - thanks for your comment. The debate has certainly got very fraught, and I was just trying to discourage it from getting any more so, heh. I'll take a look at the page; I added a note to my own comment a couple of days ago to note that I was initially unaware of the broader debate about English city name pagemoves and didn't intend my !vote in the Cambridge case as a verdict on whether a new convention should be introduced. Thanks for taking the time to explain where you were coming from. Gonzonoir (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice work (can you do some more :)
I just saw the extensive feedback you provided to Evertrap re Arthur Robert Harding. As they say, no good deed goes unpunished, so would you consider looking at Fox_Trapping and Mink_Trapping by the same editor? I started looking at one of them, realized the editor had some links to www.archive.org. I think the links could be improved, but I've never used that site, so wasn't sure what issues there might be. I assume the contents are PD, but I'm hoping either that you thought about those issues in your other review, or if not, sound the subject matter interesting enough to look into it.-- SPhilbrick  T  21:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I knew there was some reason I didnae wanna get involved at FEEDBACK :) Heh, kidding. Sure, I'll take a look at those. I've used archive.org a fair bit for work so I'm glad to take a look. Just so I'm clear, did you have a specific concern here with the use of archive.org (viz. are we linking to a copyright violation; does the article itself directly incorporate text that might be under copyright, something else?) Gonzonoir (talk) 08:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Having looked at them I see there are some longish (attributed) quotes from the books, so I expect that was your concern (which I'll look at), but ping me if there's anything else. The direct quotes in the A. R. Harding article were shorter and I believe meet the rules at WP:QUOTE even had the book not been PD by now. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it wasn't that specific. It was more a case that I like to format references correctly, and I thought there might be some trick to formatting references to that site, plus I would want to check the site in RS to make sure it was fine to use. I didn't have the time to look into those things at the moment, and was about to move on to an easier example, when I saw your excellent response to another article, and thought I'd ask. -- SPhilbrick  T  16:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, right! Funny the different stuff two people can see looking at the exact same material :) I'll do the link formatting on the articles in question.
 * Archive.org is essentially a repository of out-of-copyright third-party published material; the question of whether the source is reliable devolves to each item that's stored in it (so the ones that these articles cited qualified as primary sources for the material that referenced them). I've found it quite useful for primary sources on historical subjects (especially c19th stuff). Gonzonoir (talk) 07:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Aw, thank you! I'll do some more if you'd like :) Gonzonoir (talk) 07:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why on earth did you think I gave it to you:) (I once had a spell of working at Feed, got a little burnt and was going to take a break, and then someone gave me a barnstar. I knew I couldn't stop then. :)-- SPhilbrick  T  12:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Gonzonoir
It's red, but it doesn't have to be...your contributions look really good and I think you'd be (even more of) an asset with a few extra tools should you be interested.

I bet would be willing to stick to his promise, too.

This is pure awesome, btw. &mdash; Scientizzle 16:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Make that link blue, please. And yes, that was pure awesome. I never think to do things like that with my contribs. →  ROUX   ₪  12:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Aw, you guys. That's a really kind thing to say. The next several weeks of my real life are looking kind of Involved, so this wouldn't be a terrific time for me, but perhaps I could bother you on this front when things simmer down?
 * As for The Nerdiest Thing I Have Ever Done On Wikipedia, I was contemplating daring myself to try this or this next :) Gonzonoir (talk) 08:15, 1 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)

Mel dahirog
Hi. I just  changed your PROD to  WP:BLPPROD for bios that  are completely  unreferenced. You don't  need to  add a rationale then. However, in the case of Mel dahirog it could probably have been a CSD A7,  but  I  erred on  the side of caution. Happy editing! --Kudpung (talk) 12:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Kudpung. I actually picked PROD on purpose because it's quicker (expiring in seven days instead of ten). I asked about this once before and was advised to use regular prod in cases like this. I was giving it the benefit of the doubt in avoiding A7 too, but the complete dearth of Google hits on this term makes me wonder whether I was too charitable. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thinking about this some more, the obvious advantage of BLPPROD is that it's harder for the creator to remove (since they'd need to supply verifying sources, which I suspect are nonexistent in this case) - is there precedent in this situation for leaving both on an article? Gonzonoir (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * One or the other only, but The BLPPROD is the one to use in  this case. However,  there's actually  still  some controversy  about  the BLPPROD because when we created it  in March we couldn't quite get  the consensus we needed to  ban the use of sources such  as IMDB, YouTube,  and the social  networking  sites etc. Nevertheless, the thing  to  do  is keep  it on  your watchlist and if it  gets a crap source put  on  it, if you've already  checked for some better ones, send it  to  AfD. You  can practically  automate that  with  Twinkle. Keep  up  the good work. The BLPPROD will  be coming  up  for review shortly  when it's been in  use for 6 months or so.--Kudpung (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, fair enough. I'm not in a crashing hurry to see this particular article binned (though I'm sure that's where it's headed). This does though suggest a slightly uneven relationship between the two prod methods (because normal-prod is quicker but blp-prod is more persistent), which might warrant future attention. Perhaps we could discuss reducing blpprod's duration to seven days for consistency with regular prod. (Maybe we can trawl up some data about the proportion of BLPPRODded articles that have been "saved" by the addition of sources in the last few days of their tenure to see how significant those three extra days have proven.)
 * It would be nice also to specify in the WP:BLPPROD policy page how an editor should choose between PROD and BLPPROD when both are eligible, since I've now had contradictory advice on this. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry  I'm  only  getting  back  to  this just  now -  I've been very  busy  in  some specila  talk  on  BLP  stuff  in  some remoter corners of the encyclopedia. I'm  pretty  familiar with  the BLPPROD because I  took  part in  its discussions and development, and the choice that  was arrived at  by  consensus (we didn't  all  agree with  the consensus) is quite straightforward:
 * No refs or external  links whatsoever, and if you  can't  find any  either that fully  comply  with  WP:RS and WP:V, then BLPPROD it.
 * If it  has the slightest  external  link whatsoever on  the page, however crap,  then it  must  be a normal  PROD.
 * That's it as far as the current ruling  is concerned.  You  can pick  up  a lot  of advice of the same kind WereSpielChequers' talk page. Like I  said though, all  these points will  be taken up  in  January  when we are planning  a revision  of the performance of the BLPPROD. Stay tuned, 'cause that's where you'll  be able to  help  most  in  crafting  a more streamlined version.-Kudpung (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support
and welcome back.-- SPhilbrick  T  14:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK nom
Hi Gonzonoir, thabks for adding some text. I did look around for a pic but the only one I could see was the poor one on fr.wikipedia. I will nominate, good to see non Male-WASP articles - I'm guessing first female french minister is the obvious hook? Victuallers (talk) 11:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds great - first and only for over 25 years, in fact. Yes, it's a shame there's no better picture - I'm really not sure the one on fr.wikipedia is worth having (though it is already in Commons if someone else thinks so). Gonzonoir (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks for input and info
i improved Gunnar Nordström a bit further with some more information from helsinki uni's archives. It is now about 5x larger from what i started with. Thanks for copyediting it for me. Gillis (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Germaine Poinso-Chapuis
Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to particpate in the December 2010 Wikification Drive
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 18:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC).

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 01:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Note to self
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20091202&limit=114&target=Gonzonoir (to be read from bottom up)
 * And here's another stupid thing I did (this one reads top down): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20101201161&limit=69&target=Gonzonoir Gonzonoir (talk) 11:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Did You Know nomination
Hi Gonzonoir, thanks for taking the time to nominate my article Elsa Chauvel for a Did You Know? listing. I had considered doing it myself, but couldn't think up an interesting hook; yours is very good. Perhaps the Chauvels will be receiving some much-deserved exposure on Wikipedia before long. Ackatsis (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Glad you liked the hook - that was the detail of the article that leapt out at me as Hollywoodesque :) I must admit to having heard of neither of them before reading the article - you've done a fine job. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I just created an article for Greenhide, the film to which your hook indirectly refers, and have suggested integrating this into your wording. Take a look if you like. Cheers. Ackatsis (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, the tear-jerking phonograph detail from that new article has fantastic DYK hook potential in its own right - is there any rule against having the same article linked in two contemporaneous DYKs, one as the main article? Gonzonoir (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Elsa Chauvel
The DYK project (nominate) 06:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Surena Street
Hi, Thank you for helping me in here. *** in fact ***  (contact)  20:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're more than welcome. It looks like the nexus of a promising article; if you have any more sources you could use to expand it I'd love to see it improve. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Stubs?!
Hi again, Is this article still a stub ?

What about this one ?

Thank you in anticipation. *** in fact ***  (contact)  07:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting question. The articles, when you linked them to me, did lack sections, which is generally a good indicator that an article isn't yet of a length to stop being considered a stub. But there were a couple more important points: the text in both seemed to have been taken verbatim from http://www.farsi-language.com/En/, which is a copyrighted source, making them copyright violations. Wikipedia cannot accept content that violates others' copyrights. I have therefore reverted the articles to a version that existed before the copyright material was added - and am afraid they are most definitely stubs again now.
 * Another (less serious) point: the content of the two articles being nearly identical, they do not need two separate titles. I have therefore redirected Surena II to Surena (robot). Sorry - this is probably not the response you were hoping for, but we need to take copyright protection very seriously. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Thank you for the correction. As you know I did not initiate these article. I just wanted to help them be removed from "stub category". That's all. About Surena 2, I should say It is the 2nd generation of "Surena robot".At the moment they are working on "Surena 3". Therefore Surena 2 could be a section inside Surena(robot) article. Just like Surena 1 and Surena 3.
 * About this website, Is it copyrighted ?
 * Finally I should say, There are two main sources about "Surena Project". this one and this other one. I am not able to find other sources, in order to improve the aticle in a better way. What are we supposed to do ? I am really sad. *** in fact ***   (contact)  11:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome - yes, I know it wasn't you who added the copyright violation. It looks like you are doing everything right. To answer your questions:
 * Sure, as the article gets re-expanded we can have sections on the second and third generation robots.
 * All published material (including material published as web pages) is implicitly copyright, unless the creator explicitly includes a license with the material specifying that copyright does not apply. (Wikipedia, for example, uses the boilerplate text "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License" on each article, to show that our content is not subject to copyright but must be attributed to its authors.) I cannot read Farsi, so I am not totally sure that no such message is included on http://www.iranrd.net/Fa/?Page=NewsItem&ncID=4&nID=131, but running it through Google Translate doesn't return anything that suggests to me the authors have licensed the material for reproduction on terms compatible with our CC-BY-SA license.
 * Just because sources are copyright, doesn't mean we can't make any use of them - we can still write sentences summarizing the ideas described in those sources, so long as we cite them and don't just copy sentences from them verbatim.
 * So, if you're wanting to rebuild the article, I'd suggest using those two sources as a starting point to write your own, original prose about the robot project, making sure to cite each claim (as you did before, before we'd discovered the copyright violation). Add separate section headers to talk about the two successor generations, and the piece should be well on the way to exceeding a stub. (A last thought on sources - is there anything in Iranian newspapers? I don't know whether Google News Search indexes the major Iranian dailies, but it might be a good place to start looking.) Gonzonoir (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Great help! Thanks a lot. I will go for it as soon as possible. *** in fact ***   (contact)  16:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have started to rebuild this article. I really want to improve it. This is just the beginning. I would be glad to have your ideas about it. Thank you in anticipation. Regards, *** in fact ***   (contact)  04:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Please confirm your membership
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 19:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

Devtar Singh wiki entry
Hi,

Do appreciate your mild mannered tone. I have attached a number of sources below to substantiate the need for an entry for Devtar Singh. He was the first of three Malaysians to ever complete the Google Summer of Code program in 2008 and the only Malaysian Google Summer of Code mentor in 2009. His contributions to the open source and security community be it locally or globally should account for this page. Do look forward to your consideration. Thanks.

[1] - http://technu.nst.com.my/Current_News/techNu/Monday/Newsfront/20081227161222/Article/print_article

[2] - http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_BnbiExBAzMY/SVhjdxN_BzI/AAAAAAAAAOs/H5ERe85AHPA/s1600-h/mandrin+oriental.png

[3] - http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_BnbiExBAzMY/SVhjeg__6qI/AAAAAAAAAO0/sBve5OsQPTk/s1600-h/mandrin2.png

[4] - http://slashnews.co.uk/news/2009/01/09/4652/For-the-love-of-code

[5] - http://code.google.com/soc/2008/umit/about.html

[6] - http://gsoc-wiki.osuosl.org/index.php/GSoC_2009_Projects_List

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Devtar (talk • contribs) 17:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Devtar (talk) 06:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Devtar. Thanks for your comment.
 * As I noted on your talk page, we discourage any editor from writing autobiographical articles, so I would still suggest that you not be involved in creating an article about yourself.
 * Sources [1] and [4] in the list you provided are indeed the kind of material we would look for in establishing notability, but by themselves I believe they would still leave an article vulnerable to deletion on the grounds that they don't amount to substantial coverage - they're too brief and relate to only a single event (the Summer of Code). I regret I can't read Mandarin, so I can't comment on [2] and [3] as sources. [5] and [6] could be useful for verifying claims in an article, but as primary sources they could not be used to demonstrate notability.
 * For me, there is still not quite enough here to demonstrate notability, so I would not myself be prepared to recreate the article. Please don't take this personally - it doesn't mean that we don't think you're important or that your contributions to your field are not impressive or worthwhile. It's just that as a community we in Wikipedia have formed a consensus on biographies that requires a high standard of sourcing. If you are looking for a place to host a résumé, you might find a useful site in our list of alternative outlets. All the best, Gonzonoir (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

GOCE Year-end Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much
for great work done with Marburg's Bloody Sunday article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. Reading through the article for the copy edit, I noticed that there are some claims in the article that lack in-line citations - I've raised this as a potential concern over on the Did You Know discussion page, as I know articles have sometimes been rejected for DYK on these grounds in the past. If you get a chance to add more sources, this would be a great way to improve the article further. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Finding Dreams
Thank you so much. I thought I was going leave Wikipedia. It so hard to write when you are being edited faster than you can think. Is this a common problem here? As I have seen many pages, that need much work and research. It seems more people spend time flagging, than adding information that would help that article. Do you agree? finding dreams 14:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Findingdreams (talk • contribs)
 * Hi - you're welcome; I remember what it was like to be new around here.
 * As for the way people act on Wikipedia: I find the best approach is to assume that everyone you run across has the best intentions for the encyclopedia. Everyone can make mistakes, not everyone knows all the rules, everyone runs out of patience, not everyone has a great communication style. But if you assume that people mean the best for the project, it takes a lot of tension out of the conflicts that inevitably blow up when lots of people are working on the same things at high speed and with limited opportunities for communication.
 * Alll that tagging and flagging can seem counterproductive, but it's actually very useful - it helps those editors who want to fix problems and ensure good-quality content to know where they should direct their efforts. Because Wikipedia is very easy to vandalise or otherwise damage, those editors who try to police against ill-intended edits have to work very fast - which gets very disconcerting if you're on the wrong side of them and don't know why. That's when you need to come back to assuming good faith: treat other people with respect, even if you're frustrated with how they've treated you. Take a deep breath before you respond to anyone; remember that most changes can be undone and that work is seldom lost forever. You'll always get a more sympathetic hearing in your discussions with other users if you remain civil (and it's important to understand that anyone can end up getting blocked if they're not). End of the day? This is just an encyclopedia. It's a great resource, but it's hardly worth raising your blood pressure for.
 * So . If you're looking to learn the best ways to contribute on Wikpiedia, you should have a look at our new user adoption programme, where you can find an experienced editor to mentor you. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Elimination vaginale
Thanks for checking that out, I was struggling over that with my smattering of GCSE French and not getting very far with it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roleplayer (talk • contribs)
 * Pas de problème - I've got an AS Level ;) Gonzonoir (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Angus Reach
The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for The Madness of Lady Bright
The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Re Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ctjf83
I read your comment with interest; you express yourself very tactfully and eloquently. However, I hope you don't mind me saying that I believe you've misinterpreted the nature of the opposition. My understanding is that it's not about Ctjf83 displaying pride in their sexuality but more about the manner in which that's being done on their userpage. What struck me was the militancy of that page - not exactly a model of understated self-restraint. If, as has been pointed out, the design is in response to harassment, it's perhaps more understandable but how then are we to conclude that they'll respond to the sometimes extreme harassment they'll get from taking admin decisions? I hope this clarifies things and goes some way to restoring your faith in the opposers there :) Best, EyeSerene talk 14:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi EyeSerene - many thanks for the comment (and for being polite about it :) ). I didn't mean to give the impression I lacked faith in the opposers - I don't, and I'll look at adding an addendum to my comment to try and make my meaning clearer. Many people are raising oppose votes that I think are perfectly fair and reasonable, and some of those are concerned with the userpage; there are just some strands in the discussion that make me uneasy.


 * If I've understood correctly, your basic concern with the userpage is that it conveys a militant tone. I guess this is the point at which we enter personal interpretation, because I got a different impression of the page. It's certainly... opinionated, but - in my opinion - not so much so as to convince me that the user lacks the judgement or capacity for neutrality to make a decent admin. The "poisoned well" arguments (other users will assume you can't be neutral if you put lots of political userboxes on your page) I find more convincing, but the basic premise - that having these userboxes and images at all is somehow unbecoming of an admin - is not one with which I agree. I count five userboxes (arguably six, depending on how literally you wanna take the Simpsons) related to sexuality, plus the quote at the top of the page. I see there used to be a rainbow flag there too. Though it's not the kind of userpage I'd make for myself (I actually hate kinda userboxes in general, heh), it doesn't scream to me of attitudes unbecoming in an admin. Given that we have information about the user's actual track record, his general history of civility and neutrality to other editors and what seemed to me a sincere and responsible effort to learn from and avoid repeating his one block, I did not feel convinced that there was enough evidence about the user's judgement or attitude on his userpage to justify extrapolating to concerns about his likely future behaviour.


 * I realise that this comes down to personal judgement and interpretation, and I'm not trying to shame or condescend to any other voters. But I am very uncomfortable with the idea of telling editors "you're too... how can I put this... colourful and theatrical for the mop". (Obviously that's not an actual comment - it's supposed to distill a feeling that I got from some opposes, which may or may not reflect what their authors intended. I just suspect that if I can read them this way, others might too.) Though this may have been far from the intent of the commenters, to me that is reminiscent of tactics that have been used to closet gay people, and to silence them in public debate: "sure you can have rights, if you quit being all uppitty". And because some of these comments seem specifically concerned with the content on the user's page relating to his sexuality, rather than the tone of the page as a whole, I feel uncomfortable. There's a real person here, and he's got RfA voters telling him that he shouldn't be an admin not because of something he's done in his contributions to the encyclopedia proper, not because of his policy knowledge or answers to questions, not because of his track record as an editor, but because his self-identification (yeah, "flamboyantly") as a gay man makes people think he can't be trusted to know how to act around others.


 * TL;DR: I take your point that users are concerned about the manner in which the candidate expresses himself. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to worry about in an admin candidate. I just don't see the actual way he's done so as particularly concerning, and made my comment because I'm uneasy that (some of) these comments are arising in the context of the candidate's willingness to identify openly and unabashedly as gay on his userpage. Gonzonoir (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for not minding me posting my ramblings here - I thought the RfA had been on-and-off the rails enough without additional commentary from me! I appreciate your viewpoint, and understand why you are reading some of the comments that way. In essence I tend to !vote based on evidence of good judgement and not much else; sometimes it's difficult to explain why one gets a certain feeling about a candidate. I guess if I had to cite a policy it would be WP:POINT, though it's arguable either way. By the way, I noticed from the above thread you might be considering running yourself? Can I offer my encouragement too? Calm, rational and civil discourse of the sort you contribute seems to be in short supply some days... :) Best, EyeSerene talk 18:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure - always happy to discuss (especially with someone prepared to be so civil about it!). Thanks very much for the kind words re. a possible toe-dip in the RfA waters too. I'll see what Amalthea makes of my editing history and take it from there. Gonzonoir (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm likely going to need this week to find enough time to pat you down (I'd rather not miss something obvious that might blow up an RfA and lead to your early retirement born out of that experience), and I will have a few questions, but if I were you I'd start pondering on Q1-3 … Amalthea  23:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course - take as long as you need (and no worries if the conclusion is "not now/not on your life"). Thanks! Gonzonoir (talk) 08:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)