User talk:NE Ent/Archive/2010

Your 3RR complaint about Guitaret
Please see the new comment which I added today at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I have replied at WP:AN3. Gerardw (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Over at Talk:Guitaret, MisterWiki has made the statement "Articles for instruments always uses free images, not un-free images." Why not ask him to explain his reasoning? I gather that you want to include some images which he perceives to be unnecessary. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I already replied []. This is not an article I'm editing, I just want DiarmuidPigott's contributions not to be arbitrarily deleted. Gerardw (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick version
Hey, here's the easy way:  WQA  ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 18:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!

Thank you!
Thansk for sticking up for me. This whole mess got started because I tried to do the same for an Anon user, and was then accused of being a sockpuppet. It's nice to know that, while my experience has left me in such a way that I doubt I will ever return to this site, let alone the community, that there are still some good guys left int he fight! Thanks, Srwm4 (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome and thanks for the kind words. I really try not to see it so much as a fight so much as trying to keep Wikipedia a pleasant place to work. Except for places like ANI, you really don't have to defend yourself or continue a conversation you don't want, so you might find more pleasant just to fade away while concurrently requesting deletion of your pages via the Right to Vanish process. While you are still here, I think you'll find edit summaries such as this one [] counterproductive overall. Gerardw (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank You re Asperger's/Autism
Thank you for your help with the Asperger's/Autism merge debate. Happy to have that in the past. Though apparently the IP user couldn't leave the Wikiquette alert alone either. (shrug) Anyhow, thanks again! Doniago (talk) 03:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure I was notified of the discussion there because I am allowed to place input, just as you are? Or are you further trying to devalue any input placed by an anonymous user?? Inquiring minds, all that. Oh, I corrected your grammar aswell, "You're" welcome.
 * You were wrong to close that discussion and you know it. Ending discussion after 10 hours claiming no consensus is academically dishonest, and barely gave the community a chance to comment. The quick stifling of a discussion results in the one-sided nature of wikipedia, and furthers its alienation from any real academic community. 70.124.70.19 (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC).

96.236.176.181 (talk) 05:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

A user just removed the archive tags on the merger discussion claiming that it had been closed too early. While I feel expressing my opinion on whether the discussion should have been closed would constitute a COI, I'm not clear on whether users should be removing those tags. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd let it go. It was an early close -- me being WP:BOLD, mostly just to let things simmer down. I won't do anything, including commenting further unless someone advances a new argument. The time for further action will be if/when someone claims there's a consensus to merge; there are so many opposes that I see that as unlikely. If there really is a consensus to merge then it should be merged, otherwise object then. Gerardw (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: WQA
Thanks for the reply. I read the instructions more carefully and felt that both incidents, while inappropriate, are potentially one-time events (starting after the end on the user's temporary ban). I consider the personal attacks separate in nature to the vandalism of the discussion page. The user in question has not responded to my initial reply to his personal attacks or (more importantly) acted out further on the AfD discussion page. Therefore, I feel that the WQA should be removed unless another action occurs. Is it appropriate to remove/delete the WQA from the Wikiquette page or should I leave it there and strike it with an explanation for its retraction? What is the correct procedure? Any advice would be appreciated!Luminum (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Either would be fine, or it could be marked as resolved. I took care of it [] Gerardw (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you!Luminum (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Kary Mullis
No, it's not an editing dispute, it's a case of sneaky vandalism specifically "adding plausible misinformation to articles" and "reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages". That is not the opinion of "some ip editor" that is the opinion of a retired-administrator with in excess of 60,000 edits, two FAs and multiple DYKs to their credit. Thanks.163.1.147.64 (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Automyte
Thanks for commenting. It is plain to see from the diffs supplied at the current Wikiquette alert regarding this user that I am not the only user disputing Automyte's 'contributions'. I would indeed prefer that the user discuss at article Talk pages, but they have never attempted to. If you would like to confirm to User:NJA who previously blocked Automyte for edit warring, feel free. If you believe that the external links Automyte would like to add to the articles are in fact notable and appropriate, please discuss.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 10:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have previously asked at the user's Talk page to discuss. Per your suggestion, I have now created a section on the article's Talk page.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And now they've said that you should also be banned for edit warring.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Gamaliel
continues to accuse those who seek consensus of "trolling". THF (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So you think that was an appropriate way for that editor to seek consensus? Yes or no? Gamaliel (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. -- TS 21:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

WQA quibble
Hi, I have great respect for your contributions to WQA, but when you write "Insanity removed" is a comment on the contribution, not the contributor., I think you're off the mark. It's uncivil, just as "Garbage removed" would be uncivil; however in this case the incivility is less of a problem than the actions that provoked it. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually find "garbage" a lot more offensive than "Insanity." I really sat on my reply to that one for awhile, was feeling rather ambivalent ... which is why I let a couple editors go first. You should definitely add your opinion to WQA, the more 3rd party editors who contribute the better it works. I guess by "not a civility issue" I mean "not a civility issue that merits any sort of corrective action."  Thank you for the feedback. I think I've been watching WQA too long and am getting a little numb to the milder nonsense. Gerardw (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

other languages
My use of another language was a joke - lighten up. A Sniper (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Refactored comment
I have refactored my comment on WP:WQA, rather than add fuel to the fire. I hope you don't mind that I have also removed your reply to it. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Appreciate the flexibility. Gerardw (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: WQA
I'd like to request a bit more explanation regarding the "closure" here. While the issue is "offsite", do we really want users in supposedly "good standing" to be using off-WP sites to continue grudges? If anything, it seems to be incredibly uncivil to carry such a grudge when WP is more than capable of resolving problems on its own. -- TRTX T / C 02:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI thread
I'm sure you meant good as I pointed out in my edit summaries but this is really way over the top.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You sure don't have to respond but on the other hand, I'm really curious what you think by now, assuming you went over the history of the involved pages. In any case, best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Now please explain to me what you did after I posted here in good faith (see above)?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think WP policy is pretty clear that, except under very limited circumstances, editing other user's talk page comments is unclear. Gerardw (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Policies are also very clear about closing threads and with filing bogus ANI complains. Don't overstep the line and resist as I did before. Thanks.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: I assumed good faith and said so in any of my posts till now. I guess I was wrong.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Feel free to discuss this further here so we might come to a reasonable conclusion. Edit warring is never an answer and I'm sure you know that.Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, I was just thinking that. I don't mind you removing the archive tags, nor the NWQA tag if you disagree. But my comment at the bottom of the thread should stay. Gerardw (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just re-instated your comment at the bottom of the thread which I've missed in my previous edits. I rejected the closure of the thread, nothing else. Also, I disagree with your comment as there are no diffs. If you start reading the thread from top to bottom you can see that there are links to pages histories and an offer to provide more specific diffs if asked for. Z. never provided any diff at all even after being asked by several editors. But well, that needs to be straighend out either there or at another board if, (as I said), the behaviour doesn't stop.
 * Please let me know if the reinstatement of your comment is to your satisfaction or if you have another issue you would like to point out. Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * One more thing I would like to say. If you place a comment to a long thread and at the same time closing it, it might be easily overlooked (as I just did). A better way is divide them into two edits so there is no confusion. Just my two cents how I would've done it. Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I'm really confused -- my closure was of the Malke2010 section, not the Zlykinskyja one. My comment was in regards to the Malke2010 thread. Do you care if the Malke2010 is closed? Gerardw (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm confused; I need a break; Will respond after; And apologize.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I sincerely apologize for my recent edits. While I was still focusing on the other thread I totally missed that you where editing on another one and so I was the one misled and you did absolutely right. Although it's good "to be the King" it's also good (to know) not to be perfect. Again, please accept my apology. Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's good for a laugh. When I interpret your comments from the perspective of me slapping an archive tag on the Zlykinsky thread they make perfect sense! I was in the process of (sort of) answering your first question when you your contributions (from my perspective) starting getting weird going on about the Malke2010 post. Gerardw (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't call me "weird" as I'm not more or less weird than any other editor here, including you. Hah! But if I could give you a good laugh it was worth it after all :) . Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've corrected the remark. Comment on the contribution, not the contributor. Comment on the contribution, not the contributor...Gerardw (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Here; Have your cake and eat it too ;)   The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice cake. Enjoy the rest of St. Paddy's Day. :D  Malke  2010  23:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you (plural). Gerardw (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

WQA Thread
Hello, I was wondering why a WQA thread I opened is now closed with the resolution indicating "Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere". I don't debate that the thread was essentially going nowhere and the diffs provided at that point were going stale (paraphrasing your last comment there), but the resolution description doesn't seem to match that. Thanks for any further help.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I wasn't clear. I was trying to indicate that it is, in my opinion, extremely unlikely any further discussion at WQA is going to have any benefit. So perhaps an RFC/U would be a next step if you wish to pursue the issue further. If you disagree, I'd be happy to revert the edit. Gerardw (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that. I'm sorry it wasn't more productive. It doesn't seem the issue will be resolved here--Happysomeone (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy St. Paddy's Day


Happy St. Pat's Day, :D Gerardw. Malke 2010  23:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever

 * Gerardw, Is there any remedy for me, a woman editor, if I feel that I am being intimidated and harasssed by a man, The Magnificent Clean-keeper? Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Everyone on WP is deserving of respect and civility, but what that means to different people varies a lot. While I understand you feel intimidated and harassed unless the general WP community sees it the same way there isn't much to be done. I don't think anyone's gender is an issue (except for the English language's lack of universally accepted gender-neutral pronouns). Your WQA post was hard to follow, and the lack of diffs discourages anyone from trying to help. I saw Nick Thorne's comments and generally find his advice to be on target. I'd suggest just taking a break for a few days and perhaps finding other articles to contribute to. I know this is not the answer you were looking for but it's the best I have right now. Sorry. Gerardw (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you please explain me that? You didn't leave any edit summary so you leave me wondering about your reason. Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not helpful in deescalating the situation. Gerardw (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Much appreciated for your response which makes sense.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * GerardW, the complaints that I expressed included WikiHounding, use of profanity, threatening remarks, ect. This type of conduct must have some sort of remedy on Wikipeida, I would assume. The gist of the culture seems to be aimed at civilty, yet I feel that I am being intimidated. Are you saying there is no remedy but to give up and move to a different article and allow all my work to be deleted? Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Best I can offer, in addition to the above, is WP:DR. And you agreed to the possibility of having your work deleted when you submitted it. Gerardw (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies
I made an incorrect comment at WQA earlier regarding you, I had misread your contribs and confused them with another, much more involved editor. I've stricken my comments, and I apologize for the miscommunication. Just wanted to let you know, good luck in the future. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I respect your opinion that it wasn't a personal attack, even though obviously my opinion is different. I am puzzled by the "several days" portion of your comment? -- the Bwilkins post was as 5:39 20 March and my edit was at 18:06 20 March -- approx 12 1/2 hours later. Gerardw (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that was probably not the best way to put that. The unblock denial was the previous day, and I misremembered it as being farther back. The last few days have been pretty hectic IRL, and I guess I just thought this situation had been going on longer than it actually had. I'm 0-2 on that post, perhaps I should have just stayed in bed today. Dayewalker (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

WQA
Thank you for your coming to my defense after this WQA, but it appears that user can't help themself. Please, any further advice you can give at the WQA in question would be helpful. Thanks. 38.109.88.180 (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

WQA again
You marked this section as NWQA. I just wanted to get some clarification on this, is it okay for an editor to repeatedly make comments such as "Blacks are so stupid". Is that "civil discourse". According to my interpretation, that is crosses the line of acceptable behavior. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This Is The Comment He Identified Me With With
The page states that Paula Jones was able to sucessfully prevail when she filed for an appeal, and she did not. She was still in the process of presenting her appeal when the settlement was reached; hence she had not prevailed, meaning she predominated and won, in her lawsuit, because a court settlement has no victor and is a compromise. The settlement also mainly went to her attorneys and not her The page also points out that Susan Webber Wright was one of Clinton's students at the university of Arkansas after it points out that she dismissed the case. Nobody has investigated Susan Webber Wright in a public fashion to suggest that she dismissed the case because she was a student of Clinton's and favored him. In fact, she is also a Republican. The article is misleading, unneutral and needs to be rightfully changed.204.169.161.1 (talk) 21:03, —Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC). I agreeDr real (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Having an account on Wikipedia: cool. Using it to agree with your own previous comment: not quite so cool. --jpgordon:==( o ) 22:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.13.18.78 (talk)

re wqa request.
If it helps here is the ae request. There is, as far as I can see, no reasonable explanation for why it has been characterized as a content dispute. Thank you for your time and patience in this matter, Unomi (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Gerardw, have you had a chance to review? Unomi (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Gerardw, I think that you will agree that ignoring people is not particularly good etiquette. Is there a reason you have not responded or followed up on my request? Unomi (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding PNS Ghazi article
Hi, I hope you remember my Wikiquette Alerts post from last month regarding the article on the PNS Ghazi submarine. You referred the case to other noticeboards. I'm still having issues with other editors not following the NPOV policy, could you give me some advice please? I've reported the case here at the NPOV noticeboard but I'm not sure if that's the right place. I'll monitor your talk page and wait for your reply here. Thanks for your time. --Hj108 (talk) 10:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like the right place to me. Gerardw (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
About WP:WQA, thank you! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Gerardw (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Signature
Thanks for your message. There is a problem with my signature as I sign but then the SineBot signs after. Also, I am forgetful and absent-minded so sometimes I forget to sign. I wanted to change my user name but this is not allowed and I also wanted to close my account which is not allowed either. I intend to launch complaints against Wikipedia with the BBB and other agencies concerning this matter. --BlueRider12 17:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Getmore
Hello Gerardw. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Getmore, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Tim Song (talk) 07:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

user name problems
I created a new account and it is not my fault my signature doesn't do a link to my talk page. It is a problem your techies will have to fix. --BlueRider12 14:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpell (talk • contribs)

Preview
I do use the preview button. Can you tell me what your cryptic message refers to? 75.2.209.226 (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 18 revisions instead of one. [] Gerardw (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's so I can clearly explain to the owner of the article (Centpacrr) exactly why I'm making the changes. Otherwise he just reverts everything, or accuses me of making wholesale factual changes in the article. Sorry, I don't like doing that either, but I don't see any other choice. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably not a good idea per WP:POINT. I think you'd be better off just listing the changes on the talk page. Gerardw (talk) 01:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, but that seems a little awkward since most of the changes are editorial (mostly wording, spelling, grammar) and don't concern content. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Aesthetic Realism Article
In answer to your question about the "agreement" to work on the article first before a lead was written, we were working with a mediator who went by an IP address, we called him [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.224.206.164. IP71] and he made the call to edit the article before writing the lead. We made a lot of progress with him because he set down a schedule and methodology for working. One day he suddenly just disappeared. It was very strange. We all hope he is okay. When we tried to get a new mediator, Michael Bluejay would not agree to one. Will Beback had to step in as mediator since he's overseen the article for many years. LoreMariano (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It just seems like that was long ago and it's time to start afresh. Gerardw (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment needing your input
Hi, I'd like to ask for your input here: Requests for comment/Minphie. Recently you commented on Minphie's conduct and we ask if you could come and give feedback at Requests for comment/Minphie as the editor appears not to have taken any heed of the community's feedback on his approach to editing. If you don't remember your exact interactions with Minphie, it is detailed in the RfC/U page. Thankyou for your time, --Figs Might Ply (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Request
Hello, you may recall that you warned User:75.2.209.226 to "tone it down" at Wikiquette alerts a couple weeks ago. Unfortunately for everyone, 75 has not stopped the uncivil behavior. I'm taking this to the next level by putting together an RfC, which has about 20 diffs of various policy/guideline violations. Please take a moment to look at my draft at User:Noraft/Sandbox/5. I need a second editor to certify that they attempted to resolve the issue with 75, and your statement at Wikiquette alerts counts. If you could add something under "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" I would very much appreciate it. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 23:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Per your request you are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. 7 22:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

European Go Championship
I have re-added the notability tag as there is no indication that this event meets any of the notability guidelines, happy to see the tag removed if reliable sources independent of GO organisations can be shown. Codf1977 (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Gerardw - you may want to be aware of (& perhaps add to) discussion re the above, at Talk:European_Go_Championship.
 * Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I already reviewed the discussion. There's a clear consensus the article is notable, which it why I removed the tag. Gerardw (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Also please read Don't template the regulars ! Codf1977 (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Read it years ago. I find the arguments in WP:TTR more reasonable. Gerardw (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Jessica Alba
I happened to be patrolling the pending changes board this morning and have a concern about an edit you accepted earlier to the Jessica Alba page. An IP edited something called "Little Fockers" into the page, which you accepted. I got to review another IP removing it. Sure, she is referred in the movie article to have a role, but she has not yet had a role clearly defined and thus could even still end up not starring at all. Therefore, we cannot consider the item in her actual filmography as yet. So just be careful to follow WP:CRYSTAL when reviewing such edits. =) CycloneGU (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Followup: since the reference in the movie article was invalid, I've removed her from the movie article as unsourced. CycloneGU (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:RVW A reviewer ensures that the version of the article visible to a casual reader is broadly acceptable. The reviewer checks the pending change(s) for an article and can then decide to either accept it, revert it or modify it then later accept it. Reviewers are not expected to be subject experts and their review is not a guarantee in any way of an error-free article. If you don't like the guideline comment here.  Gerardw (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I see you are continuing with your work, adding false content, please consider reviewing your additions a little more or not reviewing and adding content that you have no idea if it is correct or not and allowing editors experienced in that issue to review, there is no o hurry at all to review the additions. Off2riorob (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We've already discussed this. You have your opinion. I don't agree with it. If you don't like the policy, try to change it. Yesterday I reviewed per WP:RVW, today I reviewed per WP:RVW, and tomorrow I'll keep reviewing per WP:RVW. I'm not stopping you or any other editor from reviewing anything. Gerardw (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The only thing that both of us are asking is to employ some common sense when editing, which involves nothing about being a subjerct expert. I have made review acceptances that have been questioned (see my talk page from yesterday), and were wrong for their own reasons.  We are merely trying to provide some guidance on what kind of edits to look into in more detail.  There is a lot less vandalism these days thanks to Pending Changes, so take a little more care in seeing whether the information is itself valid.  Some spam will still get through in ways like the one I accepted, and it just means cleanup work by another editor later that could have been avoided if the edit had been properly reviewed in the first place.  Further, this is still on a trial and will end on August 15 at least temporarily; the entire scope is still evolving, and if employed permanently, will be further detailed at that time, I'm sure.  CycloneGU (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * See above. Gerardw (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Read my reply again. Like I said, even though we are not guaranteeing the article will be error-free, don't review it if you know nothing about the subject matter.  We want to PROACTIVELY take steps to ensure that it's as factually correct as possible, and I won't review something that changes things I don't know how to confirm, even if the edit itself is not spam in nature.  I will contact one of the admins. monitoring the trial with my own concerns about the line that you insist governs all common sense, however.  CycloneGU (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending Changes Feedback
Hi Gerard, I started the pending changes summary on the discussion page. I was hoping to keep the list clean and short by keeping out signatures and comments. I went ahead and removed your signatures and your comment. If you would like me to place it in the discussion below, I can certainly do that. I don't think this will be an issue for you, but if you have a problem with my edit, please let me know. Ocaasi (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Standard wikipedia practice is that editors don't edit other editors comments and talk page comments are signed. Please restore the comments you deleted. Gerardw (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was trying to keep the list free of anything that would keep it from being a quick reference. Do you think this would be a reasonable exception to talkpage policy? Ocaasi (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think your intent is good. I don't think it's feasible. Your already in an edit skirmish with Off2riorob on one hand, and I don't feel the Add to reviewing guidelines line represents any sort of consensus. Signed threaded talk page discussions have proven over time to be a very good way to hold a discussion. Gerardw (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely not going to edit war with rob over this. He put his comments back and that's where they'll stay, even though I think they'd be better rephrased more neutrally.  I added feature requests with the specific comment (what "might" make it better), to simply list people's ideas.  It is no way was intended to represent consensus.  I am not at all trying to control the ideas in the summary, just the format.  Signed threads are great where discussion is desired.  I created that section to be a summary of the discussion, though, not a place for more of it.  Does that make more sense?  No need for talkbacks, I'll check here. Ocaasi (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you have a dilemma because editors are adding POV unsigned content to the summary which is not in the discussion below. If you remove/edit it, they're gonna be cranky, and if you don't, I'm gonna be cranky. And you still haven't deleted the line about modifying the reviewing guidelines. Please do so or restore my comment. Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying. Unsigned only works for npov, and pov needs signatures.  Maybe an easy workaround is just to emphasize that the summary is informal and not representative of consensus.  I already added (unofficial) to the summary section, so that it doesn't suggest anything higher-up approved. And I added a more clear description: Transfer ideas from the discussion below to this informal summary. Not representative of consensus. Just for briefly listing issues.  Please keep discussions below. Better?Ocaasi (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I got the okay from Rob to put his comments in the discussion section and replaced them with a rephrasing in the summary. All the signatures are gone. Strongly phrased opinions are gone. The section header is more clear about the editing approach. Would you check it and see if it warrants removing your warning? Ocaasi (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ok, we'll go by article edit rules, I reckon. Gerardw (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, consensus it is then. Speaking of which, i saw your two edits. (I'll move this convo to PC/Closure 's talk page if you think it's better there)
 * I agree that off2riorob overstated the inability to track another user's edits. Is the overlooking of that feature a problem with the documentation or specialpages names/links?  Is that a feature that should be requested, i.e. more prominent description of how to review a reviewer?


 * Though there is indeed a way to review others' edits, is there nonetheless an increased possibility of "hard to track 'subtle' vandalism" under pending changes? For example, the increased likelihood that an outsider won't recognize the contribution as false, whereas under semi-protection it would be more closely reviewed.  Or is that conflating watchlisting and PC, which are two separate features that can act on the same article?  Does Pending Changes makes watchlists less effective?
 * I saw you removed the edit guideline to "ignore if unsure". Previously you indicated that this depended on whether the policy settled on vandalism vs. good edits.  But wouldn't it apply regardless?  Shouldn't a Wikipedian always leave something if they're unsure about it?  I'm all for WP:BOLD, but I don't think it overrules a self-admitted lack of confidence, particularly in a review/revert situation.


 * Furthermore, is there a problem with having a controversial suggestion in the list? The section header says 'not reflective of consensus', the section says 'might' make it better. Is it sufficient to have those disclaimers? Ocaasi (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP)
Hi, Girard! Your recent nomination for deletion, Articles for deletion/Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP), was closed as "no consensus," with no prejudice against a speedy renomination. The lack of consensus was between your nomination to "Delete" and my suggestion to "Merge to Foreign Policy Research Institute"; there were no !votes for "keep," so I don't think "default to keep" is the appropriate outcome. When I suggested the merge, I certainly wasn't arguing for a keep. If the article is renominated, I will !vote for "delete" next time, if that's what it takes to remove this article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just threw it up there while patrolling new pages. I think merging it would be good; it really doesn't seem to have much beyond self-promotion going for it. Gerardw (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment
As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

-word
Hi. Just a quick note regarding -word – WP:Soft redirects are a completely normal pagetype. That's all. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"Swearing allegiance"
RE: "BlueRobe should not have to swear to a loyalty oath or commit public penance to be treated with the respect due any WP editor."

I'm not sure how this applies to BlueRobe, when he has chosen as his first comment back from an incivility block, to continue excoriating the "Cabal" that "challenges" him, with characterizations such as, "a pathological liar who cannot be reasoned with". Just my 2 cents... BigK HeX (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianim
I notice you placed a POV tag on this article. Could you please explain your reasons on the talk page and why you ignore the results of recent RfCs. TFD (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Womans vulva with urethra.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Womans vulva with urethra.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  04:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)   :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  04:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)