User talk:Gwickwire/Archive November 2012 (2)

This is the archive of messages on User_talk:gwickwire on November 30, 2012.

Hello
I am trying to edit the content but you are going in behind me and un/republishing - I need a little time to build out as cites and references are a little tricky for me to post. Additionally, a significant amount of the content you continue to republish is just NOT factually correct, Neumont does not have a Board of Directors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.21.250 (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You can't just remove content without consensus. If there's something you want to add/change, please discuss it on article's talk page before editing or removing the content. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 19:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The content is being posted as part of an active smear campaign that is in current litigation. It is fabrications and lies (intentionally so) with malice. 69.27.21.250 (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Please give me a reasonable amount of time to work on the page, your continuous republishing is what is keeping me from effectively working on the the content.

69.27.21.250 (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC) Stacy Hughes


 * Still, you are not allowed to remove the content to work on it. You can ask on the talk page for consensus first, but if you continue to remove the content, or drastically change it without consensus, I will have to request the page be protected from edits. If you have a reliable source that says the information is false, tell me and I will add it. Otherwise, please do not edit or remove the content. Also, current litigation could be interpreted by some as making legal threats against other editors or Wikipedia, which is strongly disallowed. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 19:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not making threats, I am just referencing the state of who and why this factually incorrect content keeps appearing on our Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.21.250 (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I am seriously considering requesting a topic ban for you. Please stop editing the article before posting on the talk page. If you don't stop, you will either be topic banned or blocked from editing alltogether. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 19:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

All charges were dropped against the person accused on the page, the man was NOT on Neumont's Board of Director's, I posted that and immediately found my content edited by another user. Additionally, the facts and cites are even incorrect. All of which I tried to correct. What/where would you like me to post this information? I am not an active Wiki editor so do not understand what you're asking of me.69.27.21.250 (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I discovered the Talk page, something that your typical Wiki user is probably NOT using, I will post there. It is unfortunate that this needed to be such a difficult process.69.27.21.250 (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

re: timeline
Are you planning on doing a season article? What would be your basis for it? It's unusual seeing Sandy and Athena on there. I don't think it works well, seeing "active" and "inactive". What would it be like when the season is over? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 04:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, that's one thing I need input on. Would we do coloring based on damage, snowfall, deaths, winds, or what? Also, I included Sandy because 'technically' most networks called it a "superstorm" or "winter storm" at landfall. If you'd like to edit it feel free to. About the season article, I see no reason not to have one. It may not be the most popular thing to do, but truth is most major news networks are currently accepting TWC's naming scheme (FOX, ABC, NBC, someone said Univision, but I have yet to see about that one), and therefore I think we need to go with it. Thanks for the comments! I'm off to bed, so I'll reply tomorrow most likely. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 04:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, would the article just be for snow storms in the northeast United States? Isn't that a bit isolated? If one was made, I like the idea based on overall snowfall total. Ideally base it off of Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale, but those ratings don't come out until later. It's just unusual to see both Sandy and Athena in there, considering they're from two different naming schemes. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering TWC (and also about half of major news so far) are naming other storms (Brutus in Montana), I think it'd be going off of names. And on the topic of coloring.. I'm not sure. I think after the season we could change the color to the NSIS, but until we get that data for all storms, we should leave it. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 22:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's more confusing now. There is no term "superstorm", that's just a media name for Sandy. I don't think the article should exist in the first place, since if Sandy is there, why not other storms that the TWC doesn't name? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't change it. Someone else did. Sorry. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 03:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Page breaks
Thanks for your reply. I'm not at all surprised that you didn't understand. It related to wiki books downloaded, but when I looked at the downloaded book again, the pages all seemed appropriate. I've really no idea why I was confused. Sorry to have wasted your time. Mdscottis (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply to my Teahouse question!
I never thought about making a template page for the signature to make things easier, and now that it's apparent, it seems a pretty perfect solution to the issue! I appreciate you responding so quickly, and adding a little bit more information on the workings of the wiki into my head.Khan Tiger  00:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hum, on second thought it appears that transclusions are prohibited and the template substitution simply copies the code from the template page to the edit window. Regardless, I very much appreciate the prompt response to the question! Khan Tiger  00:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * They shouldn't be, I've seen tons of other people use it, are you sure you typed it in –  curly brackets? I see what's wrong. Don't use your sandbox. Use the page I linked too. User:Khan Tiger/signature and then only post the signature code. Then try it from that page. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 00:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There we go, I think I got it right now. I appreciate the continued help.Khan Tiger  01:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Anytime! gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 01:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Election results
Warning Just a friendly reminder, keep the RR's down to three. United States presidential election, 2012 is subject to sanctions, see General sanctions/2012 Presidential Campaign/Log. Apteva (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * FYI, you actually did not make this edit (01:30, 9 November 2012‎ Gwickwire), I did, despite what the edit summary says. Evidently we both made the same edit at the same time. Apteva (talk)


 * I'd bugzilla that, but I'm too lazy to look and make sure it isn't already there/compile it. Sorry for the confusion. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 02:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not necessary. Two editors making the same identical edit is common, and instead of kicking out a null ec that would just be confusing, the software just pretends that your edit went through - and gives credit to whoever made it first. Apteva (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

reversion of edits
Dear Gwickwire, I've been editing some pages and I see you've reverted them back. I've had a look at your talk page and saw I have to post my edits in the talk page before editing. How do I do that? Should I post every line I want to change? Please let me know since I'm new to wiki editing.


 * I have taken another look at it, and reverted myself. I would strongly suggest you take a look at WP:NPOV and WP:RS/WP:OR before continuing, as some of the things you added had not been sourced completely. That's the reason I reverted you originally, due to the sourcing, and me seeing a few POV-ish words in there. Sorry for the misunderstanding! gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 23:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, the edits you made are fine. The talk-page-first rule only applies to controversial or large changes. To go to an article's talk page, just type Talk:(articlename) in the search box at the top right. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 23:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I was looking at the rest of my changes that are removed and I was wondering if that too was not edited correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmrosario (talk • contribs) 01:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

How to display as image from an external site?
Hi Gwickwire, I asked a question on the teahouse forum a week ago and you answered me. What I would like to do is display the image at the following URL in the Ceneri Base Tunnel article.

http://www.alptransit.ch/fileadmin/dateien/stand-arbeiten/ceneri-basistunnel/cbt-e.gif

This progress graphic is updated every month, so uploading it to wikimedia commons wouldn't seem to be the best idea as it would quickly become out of date.

Is there an easy way to achive this? Thanks. :-) StuZealand (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If you are completely sure it is a free image, you'll just have to upload a new version each time it changes. Sorry there's no easy way to do this! gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 03:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for that info. On other sites that I use, you can simply use a tag like [IMG] [/IMG] to show a picture directly on the page. I wondered if wikipedia could do the same. And yes, the image is free to use. THanks again for your very quick response.

StuZealand (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Weather Channel winter storm naming
Question: how many news sources have you seen that used "Athena"? I only saw two, they are TWC and the local NBC station. And I have a million channels on my satellite TV subscription. Also, how many people have you directly heard from using that name? There are like three references on the 2012 Northeastern nor'easter page that is a source for the NWS's no-no too. Why do you guys prefer unofficial crap over official stuff? NWRGeek (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite a few, see links on the talkpage. CNN, FOX, NBC, ABC, etc. have all called it Athena. We prefer the "crap" that happens to have the most news consensus about it, which the links you will see will show is Athena. Just because the NWS doesn't approve, doesn't mean we don't approve. The NWS is not king. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 00:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

recent reversion of La Luz del Mundo
Greetings! There was a recent revert of a user that you did which I feel might have missed his reasoning (and legitimate, for that matter). He came in as an independent 3rd opinion to clean up the page, and hence -46K bytes of info was removed. Please contact me any time. Have a wonderful day. RidjalA (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest you now take this to dispute resolution, as there's nothing much more I can do.. Clearly there hasn't been a solution from the third opinion, as all they did was go in and delete everything that anyone had an issue with. Sorry. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 03:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks for you help. Best, RidjalA (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Both edit-warring users on the page were informed by me on their talk pages. In addition there was a discussion between editors . There was also an Rfc against one of the editors and I asked them to bring it back to the talk page before it escalated. After I rendered my preliminary opinion, I proceeded thereafter in terms of WP:BOLD with separate s/s wise deletions after application of mind and full edit summaries for every significant edit - none of them were for COPYVIO. A WP:BRD cycle is in progress. There is also a Single Purpose Account involved, quacking away. I have only trimmed the cruft, regular editors are free to add/restore well sourced encyclopedic material. I am an uninvolved editor for the article. I am also mentioning in passing that you seem to be making far too many edits per day at Wikipedia, and such casual and sloppy drive-through reversions need to be sublimated (<--- this is not a PA, just well intentioned opinion). I am also in a similar WP:3 closure process at English Standard Version and all the 3 warring editors there are cool with my approach, and they're all "talking and not reverting" now. RobertRosen (talk) 04:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As one of the warring editors on La Luz del Mundo, I endorse RobertRosen's statement and contributions related to 3o in LLDM. RidjalA (talk) 06:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I only saw edit summaries on about half of your edits. You also have some redlink policies that don't exist in them. Don't accuse people of being a SPA, that's not WP:AGF. Also, the BRD cycle specifically means you were bold, I reverted, now you discuss, not I revert then you revert. So discuss. Take this to WP:Dispute Resolution. I feel I can't help much more now. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 14:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * When I'm buzz-cutting an article, all my significant edits (ie. when I remove chunks of material) are edit summaried. After each such edit if there are minor formatting or cite/redlink errors I immediately correct them - in such cases there may not be a summary. I think you will find that ALL the 3 editors on the page are admittedly POV pushing SPAs. I Boldly removed after discussion, you reverted(without discussion), one of the other involved editors reverted you, now its your problem, as I have no content issues anymore with this page. If you insist, however, on replacing material which I removed/trimmed merely because I edit in a certain (non-disruptive/ wp:civil / wp:exclusionist) way, then that's a wp:npa policy issue on differing editing styles. RobertRosen (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You were not right to remove all of the content to begin with. You need to not call them admittedly POV SPAs unless you can provide exact diffs that prove it. They are most likely just new editors who have an interest in the article and they got caught up in this madness. They have their own opinion, that doesn't make them POV pushy at all. You need to review policy also. NPA has nothing to do with differing edit styles. NPA is saying no personal attacks (which you are making when you continue to call the accounts SPA POVers), not differing styles. If you will open a dispute resolution case, I will be glad to accept it (I cannot as I would mess up a bot, as I am a volunteer there). Otherwise, if you revert the material out again, I will not hesitate to take you to AN/I. There was no reason for you to delete well sourced material from the article. Also, you'd do good to use the preview button instead of making 10+ edits on one page to get stuff done. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 17:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Check this "Both of us are single purpose accounts" says User:Foxdl12 and its not denied by User:RidjalA. For the 3rd one User:Ajaxfiore please review his edit history  if you must. 3 squabbling SPAs on one hugely bloated and immensely badly written promotional and NPOV'd page ? Please review the Rfc against whatshisname:RidjalA which made me bring them back to a talk page. Your revert is disruptive (expanded below) and bureaucratic. You have made no effort to understand the work which went into my WP:BOLD (declared in advance) editing. So now (per policy) I will be BOLD on your talk page, as follows --> I am reverting your revert ONCE (I have not edit-warred with you or reverted you even once so far). I would respectfully request you to kindly go through my INDIVIDUAL changes (the vast majority, in terms of text weight, of which are edit summaried) and INDIVIDUALLY "undo"/rollback whatever changes I made with proper edit summaries of your own. In the alternative, you are welcome to join (as a "Most Interested Person") everyone else on the article's talk page as this discussion cannot continue here. FURTHERMORE, none of use can take it to ANI unless there is a thorough discussion on the ARTICLE's TALK PAGE as a PERMANENT record. And, I am clarifying, wp:spa does not necessarily imply wp:sock or disruptor, There are "good" spas and "bad" ones. It needs maturity to differentiate between them and to understand that the good ones often go "bad" when they are tag-teamed. Finally, I want to detail why your revert was extremely disruptive. You reverted/rollbacked in a hurry possibly using an automated tool/bot which mindlessly reported User:RR has whacked off 45% from article-X within 1 hour. Aha, you say, VANDALISM, let me do my good deed # 12 of 40 for the day and notch up Wiki-points. You failed to appreciate that none of the 3 editors (who incidentally are all "culprits" here and knew that I had seen through their tricks) would have done what you did. They would have made the tiny/measured non-disruptive edits which WP:BRD waits for. They were already communicating  with each other and taking tentative steps to fix the article between themselves knowing that a "policeman" was watching over them. You blundered (!) in like Rambo and completely wrecked the consensus process. It's up to you now to see that this article is salvaged - don't shirk your duty. I'm making this revert ONCE in GOOD FAITH, and I intend to OBSERVE what you do thereafter. RobertRosen (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

(deindent). The first link you provide is him being dumbfounded because you are calling him a SPA. He is saying that he doesn't know why 'we are "single purpose accounts" because..." Don't take things out of context. I understand you're being bold. But don't be WP:Reckless. SPA normally implies they only edit a single topic for a reason, more often than not a reason from COI to vandalism. These editors, regardless of what you called them, are adding SOURCED information to the article, which you removed. Automated tool.. or bot.. No, I found out about this through the Teahouse. I looked at it. What I saw was you removing all of the additions of good faith editors. On top of this, the additions were completely sourced and valid. Don't call yourself a policeman, it implies authority, which no one editor has over another. I will see the article is salvaged, as a sourced article. I will go add back in the information. If you have a problem, feel free to open up a Dispute Resolution case with me so we can get volunteers there to help. Like I said, technical difficulties prevent me from doing so, or I would have already. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 22:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * After I reverted (the once) I've just discovered this . All I can say is that it's unwise to offer free advise on Wikipedia without seeing all aspects and contacting all interested parties like I did. I hope you have noted the bit where the Teahouse complainant Foxdl12 was peeved that I had made a "strange request" that all the page's editors to be involved. (I didn't wait for RidjalA because I had read the RFC thoroughly). I am also unable to understand your statement "And I'm not sure what kinds of policies he is trying to cite. I will go ahead and restore your version". Is this what WP:Teahouse is meant for ? Also see this and, another editor (sysop) John Carter has also come down on RidjalA's "side" and concurs with my own assessment of "serious SPA concerns". BTW, did you ever stop to ponder that Foxdl12 knew that I wasn't an admin and was setting you up ?.   RobertRosen (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

(deindent). In my opinion, he was not knowledgeable that you were not an admin. Also, he most likely thought your "all the page's editors" meant every single contributor (which you know as well as I do would be a crazy request for someone to make or fulfill). You had some redlink policies in your edit summaries or talkpage posts (I'm not sure why, but they may be faulty/deleted redirects or misspellings, whichever), I can't decipher redlinks. Sorry. He said serious concerns, but I don't have those concerns. I think you all are just trying to act in good faith, and it escalated past what it needed to. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 22:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I should make that dispute resolution thing. I was dombfounded and confused at the massive edits. The reason why I though RobertRosen's request was "strange" is because other 3O editors that have opined on the page didn't anything remotely similar. Then RidjalA told me on his page that he was an admin, he has since edited that error. I reacted, and looked for assistance in any way that I could. But when someone threatens you with banning like RidjalA, it is hard to act rational. If RobertRosen truely thouroughly read the RfC on User Conduct regarding RidjalA, he would have seen that RidjalA is using the LLDM article to keep LLDM's leadership "on check." He would have seen a pattern of double standards when it comes to deleting content (Defends unsourced negative content and quickly deletes sourced none-negative content...instantly deletes unsourced content that is not negative). He would have seen that RidjalA reverted the deletions of a copyrighted content (copied directly from the source) and cited incorrectly (He cited a primary source when the copied text was from another secondary source). And so on. And yes, I am relatively new. I started my account on January but didn't edit much at all. I started really editing only in late September when I decided to be more invovled and got caught up constantly having to defend sourced material and justify deletions of unsourced content. I only started branching out to other articles in the past few weeks. John Carter only stated that one source was reliable, he came to no one's side. His other edits were source recommendations. Sorry for the rantish post, but I felt that I should voice my concerns since I am being talked about here. Fordx12 (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with everything you said that. I'm on your side. If you wish to open a dispute resolution, I cannot, as I volunteer there, and I may mess up the bot by creating one. I'm sorry this is your first experience, and I'm glad you are trying to work it out. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 01:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * gwickwire, I'm not so sure that the issue at stake is a matter of content being sourced or not. We all know how easy it is to take sourced content and go too far with it, which is precisely what I feel Fordx12 has been doing for the past few months. The user took sourced material and introduced it to fill La Luz del Mundo with new sections and hyperbole that appeared to slant towards the promotional side (whether this was intentional or not is another issue). This user has been repeatedly notified by me to please paraphrase and shorten it, and to please only include what is relevant/important. He's refused and even issued an Rfc against me (sighs). From my POV, the end result was that Fordx12's ceaseless additions created a page filled with useless information. Which is where we find ourselves now, and it's fair to say that we are at a crossroads: do we trim these recent contribs on LLDM page? Or do we allow the content to stay? (a corollary to this is, why should I not be allowed to remove content if from my POV I feel strongly that it is promotional and/or irrelevant?)


 * Now, Fordx12 is playing the pity card on us for having his haphazard contributions trimmed, so we should be mindful of that (he's been given fair notices about these concerns, the first one in September 28th). I don't think the newbie exception applies anymore, especially since the user is now using bots (not a newbie skill). Regardless, I feel that we need a fresh start if we're to make any improvements to LLDM.


 * On another note, Fordx12 issued a pretty harsh Rfc against me in the past (Rfc's are for peacemaking, not warring). I don't feel comfortable with that user issuing the dispute resolution unless the user can ensure fairness to both sides. Furthermore, given our differing concerns (I'm for trimming down promo content vs Fordx12 leaving sourced content untouched), will both our concerns be addressed regardless of who issues the dispute resolution? Should I just issue my own resolution? Best RidjalA (talk) 02:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Your concerns will be adressed by the volunteer 'in charge' of your DR case if you open one. They will help you get to a resolution you both can agree on. I'm not going to participate in it as a DR volunteer however, because I feel by now I'm not going to be neutral enough. By submitting a DR request you will get an independent editor who has never seen your issue before to mediate the conflict between you. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 02:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

(deindent). You have made 3 reverts to the page on 12.Nov.2012 within the space of 24 hours. I have made only 1 in the last 24 hours which I informed you about in advance - specifically requesting you to revert (if you wished) my individual reverts in a coherent manner. You have gone ahead and restored your single disruptive edit. You have also today breached neutrality  and sided with User:Foxdl12 who had approached you at Teahouse. I had also asked you to continue further) discussion (now involving 5 editors) on the article's talk page and not on yours. In these specific circumstances which display BAD FAITH on your part, I am considering undoing your revert and demanding that the entire discussion be conducted on the article talk page. I have also noted that your new found collaborator Foxdl12 is discussing these same matters (in the garb of seeking advice) with other editors on his own talk page. This is also suggestive of BAD FAITH and ganging up. RobertRosen (talk) 08:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't accuse bad faith. Assume good faith (that's the policy). I have good faith. You are taking out sourced material. That is wrong. Provide a reason to me about why it should be deleted. Please continue this discussion on the Dispute Resolution noticeboard post. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 19:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Gwickwire, I do indeed count 3 reverts within 24 hours. A block would be silly at this point but please consider this a warning to not violate the 3 revert rule in the future.


 * RobertRosen, please stick to assuming good faith, in spirit as well as in the form of your comments.  Λυδ α cιτγ  06:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I always AGF. However, after a point such norms becomes counterproductive if editors misuse them to edit-war and tag-team. Gwickwire asks me to continue this discussion at the WP:DRN entry, whereas I say it should be on the article's talk page as a permanent record. RobertRosen (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey Gwickwire. I wanted to apologize for quoting policy at you which in fact I lacked the correct understanding. I had forgotten that the 3RR applies to more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. Of course it's not ideal to be reverting exactly 3 times, but neither is it stepping over the line, and I'm sorry for suggesting that you had done so. Yours,  Λυδ α  cιτγ  03:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh no no no! No need to apologize! I don't see anything wrong with a little friendly reminder, and I honestly thought I was only at 2, so that did keep me from going over. There wasn't any over the line stepping at all. All is forgiven :) gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 03:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hey Gwickwire-- thanks for removing the host. I realize this isn't a maitre'd-specific duty, but I generally try to be vigilant about it. However, I'm out in the middle of nowhere and my internet access is limited! So editing is a little slower for me than usual. Thanks for keeping a lookout! I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 03:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Haha anytime Jethro! I'm surprised I caught it, my watchlist is way too cluttered.. You're doing fine being maitre'd! gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 04:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Winter Storm Athena
Please stop moving the page from November 2012 Northeastern nor'easter to Winter Storm Athena. The discussion regarding what the article should be called has been up for several days now, giving users plenty of time to add their opinions, and you seem to be the only one for using The Weather Channel naming list for the article title. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * RfC is still open. Don't move until RfC is closed. If the RfC ends up being move, then I will gladly accept the community decision. Otherwise, don't edit war while consensus is being established. If not before under SNOW, I'll have it closed by Friday. Thanks. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 22:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So far, 9 people disagree with you and you have yet to have 1 person agree with you. I think WP:SNOW applies. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay. If that is your wish, you may remove the RfC from the page and do the changes. In all honesty, I hadn't been counting the !votes. Close it under SNOW please. Sorry this took so long to hash out. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 22:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "User talk:Gwickwire#recent_reversion_of_La_Luz_del_Mundo". Thank you! EarwigBot  operator /  talk  03:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Love
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Love. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 04:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing Neumont University vandalism
The following users continue to spam the Neumont University wiki: (69.27.21.250) and (Nemont) and (ElKevbo) ... I submitted a request for semi-protection. Gratans (talk) 05:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Removing hosts
Hey gwick (do you go by that? It sounds catchy to me)-- again, thanks for keeping an eye out on the host list. I wanted to ask that when you remove a host, could you let them know directly on their talk page? I'm not sure that many of these new users will have the WP:Teahouse/Host landing page on their watchlist, so 1) They won't know they've been removed (at least not right away), and 2) They probably won't see your edit summaries. I think leaving a note on their talk page along the lines of what I said here to the most recent case who readded their own self would probably be best. Thanks, I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 03:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, I was going to, but I got caught up in es.wikivoyage (in incubator) at the moment. Sorry! Yeah, that way they have some explanation as to why we removed them. And honestly, I don't really care what people call me as long as it doesn't become a big fiasco :) gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 03:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Copied to my barnstar page gwickwire  talk edits 17:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

source for Brad Pitt in Killing Them Softly note
Sorry, I'm new at this.

Does this work?

This covers the date, the studio, the synopsis, and that Pitt Stars in it: http://www.deadline.com/2012/09/toronto-weinstein-co-pushes-brad-pitt-pic-killing-them-softly-back-into-oscar-race/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.121.138.51 (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

DRN - Green Mountain College
I've teed up the case for you, so if you're ready I think it's ready for you. If you're not going to proceed further with it, you might drop a note there because at least one of the disputants is specifically waiting for you to act. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ai! Apparently the DRN page got removed from my list somehow. Thanks for the update!!! gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 22:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Truce on LaLuzdelMundo
Dear Gwickwire I think we should both stop nit-picking/fighting. I appreciate your offer to translate. Actually, I don't need it because (among my other interests) I own a very respected niche publishing house which specialises in translating scholarly historical books from Latin languages (Spanish/Portugese/Italian) into English and vice-versa. So thanks but no thanks.

My "war" is with the 3 SPAs on that page, and the issue goes much beyond a) translations b) the article itself and is actually about a much larger issue of single editors being able to edit wherever they want on Wikipedia without having to fight daily with vested interests who "own" these low grade pages.

I'm also asking you to compare with the new version  and see how I got 3 warring editors (2 against 1) to sort out their differences and clean up the page (34,000 bytes --> 9,300). I was on the point of doing it here on La Luz till you entered. The fact that I have only 500 or so edits in 5 years at WP means nothing. Till 2 weeks ago 87% of my edits were in the article space and nobody could ever seriously question my edits. Today the SOCKs have taken over wikipedia and its too frustrating a process to get them removed.

RobertRosen (talk) 05:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You calling them SOCKs after they clearly failed a SPI is a personal attack. I see you already have been subjected to a 24 hour block for it. If you call them SOCKs again without either extremely incriminating evidence, or a SPI that has been confirmed, then I will not hesitate to warn you/report you to an administrator. Thanks. I will also leave it up to the discretion of you all now, as after I became involved you seem to be a little bit more civil. Sorry for the intrusion into this whole mess. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 00:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 November 2012
In response to

"Edit request on 11 November 2012" on the "Chelmsley Wood" talk page.

Yes, the information if from a book, however, it is reworded so there is no plagiarism committed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WareMiekal (talk • contribs) 00:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Mail
 Λυδ α  cιτγ  04:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Read and responded. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 04:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

CVUA
Hope all is going well. I've gotten no more questions from you and I find your vandalism-fighting to be carefully considered and well thought out. Best of luck and let me know if there's anything else I can do for you. See you around the project! Vertium '' When all is said and done 13:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Possible Compromise with Oxen Slaughtering Controversy
Hi Gwickwre! Vt catamount just indicated to me that he'd be willing to accept my latest proposal if the care2 petition can be whitelisted. Please advise whether this is possible! So What's Next? PE2011 (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The fastest gun in the wiki-west
Re this, thanks for fixing my oops mere milliseconds before I fixed it myself. You gave me about my hundredth edit-conflict screen of the day—grrrr. If there were a Fastest Editor barnstar, you'd be the first one I'd nominate! Rivertorch (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to give you an EC.. I don't like those either. Sorry, and thanks for the pseudo-barn-note! gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 20:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Copied to my barnstar page (I guess this qualifies) gwickwire  talk edits 17:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

User talk:PageInformer warning
I would love to know why you took it upon yourself to try to let an editor off the hook who has made many unconstructive edits. It is really none of your business. United States Man (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, show me some recent unconstructive edits. Secondly, you reverted something that was not vandalism at all. He was adding a link to a related article. More rollbacks like that and I will bring it up with administrators. You warned him for vandalism, there was no vandalism. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 03:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you don't believe me, here you go:,, , , , , , . Please tell me (although considering vandalism may be harsh on some of these) how these do not constitute a warning. United States Man (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that some of those could just be tests, and the rest aren't vandalism at all. The Camille one may be basing it off of a different wind scale/different source as I have seen elsewhere that Camille may have had winds that high. The Sandy one, who knows, maybe he just didn't source it. Brutus, he removed the tag because he added links in other articles, which is what's required to remove the tag. The number one, he was adding a number that was of that order of numeral and it's place as a Fibonacci number, hardly vandalism, just a misguided addition. The last three, he's misguided on WP:OWN, whereas a gentle nudge would have been better. NONE of these edits are outright vandalism, and none of them should have been reverted, with the exception of maybe Camille/Sandy edits, but even then I'd have undoed instead. You also reverted his addition of links, and removal of tag. None of those were appropriate reverts. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 03:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I know he didn't do it on purpose. I was just warning him about his edits. WP:AGF on my part. I was, although maybe too harsh, just warning him about his edits. United States Man (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would suggest, just in my opinion, not using a template next time. I'd personalize it a bit, so he can be referred to the correct policies. Or, if you do use a template, uw-test1 may be better. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 03:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it wasn't a very helpful warning. I was, at the time, editing on a tablet (something I hate). United States Man (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh goodness... I know totally how you feel, editing from my phone sucks too sometimes. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 03:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is weird. Just like last week, we were down right enemies, and then then it's like we're friends all of a sudden. Anyway, good night, United States Man (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Article at AfC
Greetings, I re-submitted my article on Sunstar on November 3rd. As I have not heard back, I wonder if I submitted it according to the proper procedure. Thank you. Steve Beimel (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Steve BeimelSteve Beimel (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, for some reason, it doesn't look to be resubmitted. There's not a "pending review" template on the page at all. Second of all, looking at it, it is still way too promotional. You also do not have many reliable sources, you'd need two to three more. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 22:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

IPads
I'm so glad to learn I'm not the only one! JohnInDC (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, trying out one with 3G from work while I'mvon Thanksgiving vacation... I don't think I'll do it again. Too much hassle... gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 17:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Links posted at Teahouse
I've posted links on my discussion at the Teahouse. But I'm leaving Wikipedia for good and I accept whatever decision is made in this dispute. Thanks for listening. Writer83175 (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I see your back
Glad your back, gwick! Did you go on an actual vacation or a Wikipedia vacation? RaideRules!Talk to me! 23:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I just had to travel for family over Thanksgiving :) gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 23:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh. I had to stay home. Hope you had a good time with your family! RaidenRules!Talk to me! 23:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Rollback and reviewer for your alt
User:Gwickwire (public) now has rollback and reviewer. Enjoy. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and if you don't mind I corrected the account name in the link. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 23:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Jeffrey Ajluni
Hello. When we last exchanged messages you were going to finalize the submission and post it. Can you please either complete the submission or refer me to another editor? I worked hard on this and would really like to get it over the finish line. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bucafan1359 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

AFDs
It is generally a mistake to try and post a rebuttal to each and every editor who has a different opinion, when you are just repeating the same arguments. (An aside: I looked at some of the historic network lineups, and wonder how I got along back in the day without a digital video recorder which could record 2 channels.) Regards. Edison (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I totally understand, and okay :) (another aside: I have no clue, especially now with "Hopper" and all that crap that there wasn't a while ago, DVR's and stuff) gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 03:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

craftsuprint page
This wiki page has been updated previously you said - The only claim to notability is the top50crafters website which imo is not a reliable source for many reasons, the first of which is it looks strongly like a cheap website made with a site such as webs.com etc., and secondly it seems to allow anyone to be able to add whatever they want as long as they're the owner of the business, which makes it fail reliability again. Thusly, I have to say delete on all fronts. - I would like you to think again please there are credible links to government registered trade mark website. I would say that is credible? Many thanks Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.58.219 (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I do vaguely remember saying that, so let me respond. Just because it's trademarked doesn't make it reliable. Dell trademarks the name "Inspiron", "Latitude", "XPS", etc, but does that make them a reliable source for information on them? The answer is no, because Dell is afilliated with the subject (Inspiron, Latitude, etc.). The top50crafters website allows anyone to add whatever they wish, as long as they own it. That makes it fail on two counts: 1, it can be edited by anyone, 2, it is edited mainly by owners of company (see WP:COI). Thusly, I see no reason to keep it, as it is unsourced. I'm sorry to say this, but it's just not the time for this company to have an article here on Wikipedia, unless sources can be found. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 23:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!
I saw your post here and was struck by your willingness to reach out to a fellow Wikipedian (especially after I had to decline some of his requests for permissions). It really is great to see how caring and willing to help our community is and you are a fine example of what the Wikipedia Project is at its best. Thank you for all you do. Best, Mifter (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the Barnstar! It shall stay here for a while (at least until I figure out what I wish to do with it), and then I'll probably move it. Thanks again!! gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 01:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)