User talk:The Gnome/Archive 1

Carefree, Arizona
Regarding your concerns requesting data supporting my comments about Carefree, the following quotes from the Nov./Dec. 2006 issue of PERSONAL REAL ESTATE INVESTOR MAGAZINE may help provide a better understanding of the communtity:

"Natural beauty and exclusive custom homes help make Carefree the second most expensive area in metro Phoenix, surpassed only by Paradise Valley".

"Carefree is about quiet and wealthy desert living, without Scottsdale's frenzy and traffic. Carefree's culture is more golf and gallery than Cave Creek's saloon and cowboy".

"Who lives there? About 3300 people live there. Most residents are retired and some well-to-do snowbirds who show up for the winter months. Californians and Easterners outnumber the Midwesterners who used to make up most of the population. Lucile Ball used to vacation at the Carefree Resort. Television star Dick Van Dyke lived in Carefree for a while. Think slow-moving late-model Cadillac sedans with the wives in the back seat".

"Homes: Three, four, five, even $6 million dollar homes are common in Carefree. There's hardly anything available in mid-range single family homes in Carefree".

Photo remarks: "Many beautiful homes are built into the flanks of Black Mountain. The southern side of the mountain is the most prized location. Views of faraway, undeveloped desert and mountains are part of Carefree's prestige".

"Investing in Carefree will always be solid because of the area's status. Nothing here will ever depreciate".

As the above magazine quotes clearly state, Carefree is indeed an upscale enclave and has been known as such to those in-the-know for decades. My family has maintained several properties in town for many years as Carefree is our preferred retreat from our cold Connecticut winters. If you've never been to Carefree I urge you to visit. If the above doesn't clearly illustrate what Carefree is all about, one drive through town certainly will.

Happy New Year, Seanbagleyus (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I added the magazine reference as #7 to the list for Carefree, however my addition did not match the format of the previous 6 references-- not sure how to accomplish this so it matches.Thank you for your assistance regarding the addition of the proper reference format, as well as the guidelines/recommendations for Wikipedia's regulations. I completely agree that objectivity and facts must always be the focus of all entries. However I do still beleive that everything I added to describe the town of Carefree was accurate and did not resort to any peacock terminology. Since I referenced a specific publication that corroborated what I've added, I was wondering why you believe it's necessary to drastically edit what I've written.

Blackjack Hall of Fame
Wong worked for a casino. That does not constitute being a pro. His dust-cover jacket claims he was a pro and that has been copied by others. But in Campione v Adamar he testified under oath that he was not. Max was a card-counter catcher at Barona and consults for casinos. He also invests in teams. He runs a nice party - but that does not a pro make. BTW Arnold wasn't really a pro while publishing BJF - but I let it go. The hype isn't really needed. regards Objective3000 (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You said let’s work together. I agree. So let me try to explain the situation clearly. The Blackjack Hall of Fame article has three sources. One, BJFO, is in fact one of the originators of this advertising idea. The second is Blackjack Heros. This is a guy that set up an affiliate site, copied stuff from other sites and stuck his links all over WP to get traffic to make money from problem gamblers. He has no credibility whatever and is certainly not a separate source. I’m amazed that WP continues to fall for affiliate site SPAM. The third is a LV Sun article by Jeff Haney. Jeff is a nice guy. But this is a fluff article – not investigative journalism. He copied the ad. This is what he does. I know because I have fed him info and sources in the past and one of the articles in which I did that has also been used as a reference. Nothing wrong with what he is doing. It’s a resort newspaper and they run lots of fluff articles about gambling winners. But, all three of your sources are really one source. And that one source is a promotional article. An ad. Now WP is being used to run an ad in the guise of an encyclopedic article. Now if WP wants to keep this ad alive, that’s its business. But please let us keep the hype adjectives out. The article does not require claims that these particular people actually made a living at gambling – a patently false statement that can harm problem gamblers. Yes there do exist pro gamblers (depending on how you define the term.) But let us not add to an encyclopedia as fact self-made and copied claims that specific people in the business of selling systems are among those people with no source that didn’t originate from their own self-serving claims. Regards, Objective3000 (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wong stated under oath that he never made more than a couple thousand dollars in his life at BJ. How can he possibly be a professional? The only "evidence" that he was a pro is he claims it in his ads and people have copied the ads. But under oath he said otherwise. As for BJHOF; a few guys got together at an annual party and said let's create a hall of fame, nominate ourselves and our friends and a few pioneers to make it look legit. All 21 members, current and forever in the future, were selected before the BJHOF was announced. The "vote" is meaningless since all 21 "nominees" will win. Show me ANYTHING that proves there is any actual, legimizing organization. There is no real controversy over "qualifications" since only a handful of people in the World care. I never responded to my ballot year before last and there was no ballot this year because Max and Arnold selected the "winners" themselves. If you want this kind of nonsense in an "encyclopedia" that's your business. But keep the advertising hype out. Max a pro-gambler? He's a casino card-counter catcher. Objective3000 (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you insist on adding characterizations like "professional gambler" to some of these people; shouldn't you add "card-cheat" to Keith Taft's description? He is not an advantage player according to WPs definition of AP. WP says AP is "legal methods." Taft got his family convicted of felonies and imprisoned. That's not opinion - it's a matter of record. Personally, I don't think any characterizations belong in the article. Objective3000 (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't think you understand. Taft was a "professional card-cheat." This was not something unrelated in his life. It is what got him into the BJHOF. He tried and failed to make money at counting; then turned to illegal methods to win. He enlisted his family to cheat for him and they went to prison as a result. If you add "professional gambler" to some members; why wouldn't you add "professional card-cheat?" Particularly since pro gambler is just a self-serving claim not backed by any 1099s or any other evidence - but card-cheat is backed by guilty verdicts and upheld by the NV Appeals Court. I think the latter withstands WP standards. I don't see how the former gets close. Objective3000 (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If Taft got into the BJHoF on account of activities which you say were illegal (on the basis of court decisions which support that characterization), then the description should be expanded  accordingly. It should read, for example, "Keith Taft, 2004, inventor who manufactured hidden computerized devices to aid with play" "(Note: According to law XYZ, this activity was, at the time, and still is, illegal".) A major rule for WP is that the reader must be allowed to form opinions on his/her own, i.e. instead of stating "XYZ is a crook" it's preferable to state "XYZ was convicted in ... for  fraud". -The Gnome (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Characterizations like Taft is a card-cheat don't belong in WP any more than characterizations like Wong is a pro gambler. Even though separate court records show that Taft was indeed a card-cheat and Wong was NOT a pro gambler. I don't think the article needs either characterization - even though the law that Taft broke is in fact called the cheating law (NRS 465.083 Cheating.) Objective3000 (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, "card-cheat" is a characterization, while "pro gambler" is not; it's a term stating a person's line of work. There is no moral judgement in describing someone as a pro gambler. I would think calling someone in Wikipedia a "crook" or a "cheat" should only be acceptable if that someone has been convicted in a court of law, e.g. "G. Gordon Liddy is a convicted felon". (But O. J. Simpson is not a murderer.) I'll look this up in WP. -The Gnome (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. There were convictions. They were upheld by the Nevada Appeals Court. He was a "professional card cheat." That was his line of work. OTOH, Wong's line of work was NOT professional gambler. Objective3000 (talk) 12:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: McDermott
The deletion template you had on the page was a prod. With prods, if one disagrees with the prod, one is allowed to remove the prod with a reason in the talk page or the edit summary. The next step, if an editor disagrees with a prod, it to take it to AfD. I disagree it should be deleted because disambigs are cheap and the McDermott disambig is already extremely cluttered. It serves a purpose for those who are looking only for James McDermott. Redfarmer (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Conel Hugh O'Donel Alexander
Your "changed wording" to Conel Hugh O'Donel Alexander was a word-for-word copy of a sentence from The Oxford Companion to Chess. We need to be careful about copyright violation. Quale (talk) 08:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. And thanks for making the appropriate changes to the text. -The Gnome (talk) 09:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Warnings
Hi Gnome!

You're complaining about me having deleted some significant news item on the Foxy Brown (rapper) article. I don't know what you're talking about, take a look at the revision history : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foxy_Brown_%28rapper%29&diff=prev&oldid=203856111

You'll see I only deleted a sentence that did appear twice : ''On July 22, 2007, MTV News reported that there are plans for Brooklyn Don Diva, a "mixtape", to be released before Black Roses. (...) Brown's next album, tentatively titled Brooklyn's Don Diva is to be released around early 2008.'' I deleted the second, redundant sentence.

You probably wanted to warn someone else. Bye! Wikizen (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Orlando Bosch
Just FYI, this edit was likely in good faith. Although not cited and OK to revert, the edit does not appear to be vandalism. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 08:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My mistake....I mis-interpreted what I saw and thought you had removed the other two quotes rather than having restored them. Thanks. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

A minor FYI on “Dan Rowan”
After that unsourced claim was posted and then (appropriately) knocked-out by you, I got curious. In looking for what had been the disposition of the body, I discovered that the anon had pretty much cut-and-pasted from Find a grave.com, which is certainly not a “reliable source”. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 09:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Jose Mourinho
You're right! I took a look at the history and I saw I made almost twenty edits in two days! I normally use a few edits but never that many, God knows what I was doing. I'll try to be more concise when I get round to editing the Porto and Chelsea sections. Cheers. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

re: Klaus Kinski
This history log also records all my edit summaries, which show mainly dab edits in the filmography section. Thanks.  Lugnuts  (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Georgia
Okay, I understand your complaint a bit better now. I was confused by your edit summary because there are many additional meanings for "Georgia," such as the USS Georgia, that follow the line in question.

I don't know if you're familiar with the MOS for disambiguation pages. It says that when there is a primary topic for a disambiguated term, the disambiguation page should begin, "Blahblah is X. Blahblah may also refer to:" The Georgia page deviates from that first line because nobody can agree on whether the state or the country or neither should be designated as a primary topic. But I don't think that justifies deviating from the second line of the standard intro, without checking whether there's a consensus to ignore that part of the MOS.

Here are the two options that I would be happy with:


 * 1) Bring the question up on the Talk page and see if anybody objects to removing the "also" or if there's a consensus one way or another. If nobody else cares, go ahead and take it out.
 * 2) Below the intro line, change the links to the country and state article to be just text, perhaps "The country of Georgia, formerly known as:" and likewise for the state. I agree there's no reason for the second pair of links. But I wouldn't be surprised if someone else disagrees and then it should probably go back to the Talk page. Propaniac (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Milo Minderbinder
Hello, I agree with your complaint on the talk page. So I started to work a bit on the article - I owe my namesake that much. I am not very current on the article politics here in en:WP, so I did not remove any of the flags (Original research and Unreferenced). Maybe you can have a look. How to go about referencing the charcater/plot description? Would only secondary lit. crit. suffice, or can simple facts be referenced from the novel Catch 22? And if so, which edition? --Minderbinder-de (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Tom of Finland
Hi there, just a note that I've reverted your recent edit to the above restoring the link to the Tom of Finland Foundation web page - this link is active and pertinent to the content of the article, I'm not sure why you'd removed it, but it seemed to be in error. Splateagle (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's strange. I tried it and again it comes up empty. ("Oops! Internet Explorer could not connect to www.tomoffinlandfoundation.org. Additional suggestions: Access a cached copy of www.­tomoffinlandfoun­dation.­org".) Probably something wrong with my browser.-The Gnome (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries - might be a hosting issue, some ISPs probably consider the site inappropriate... I just noticed I hit rv Vandal instead of rv when reverting the edit, inadvertently slandering you - please accept my apologies - I can't fix that on the page but will go on record here that I intended it as a revert in good faith. Sorry about that. Splateagle (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 19:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Get a life.
You actually are the saddest little man I've ever had the misfortune to witness. You sit on your little computer screen all day editing and quite obviously annoying people on wikipedia.

What is it to you if I put another link to a video of a football chant? Chelsea fans are going to be searching for it so let them enjoy as many videos as they want.

What possible brain cell in that head of yours decided that "NOPE I WILL DELETE THIS LINK BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY GOT ONE AND IF WE HAVE 2 ITS THE END OF THE WORLD". My God you seriously are something else.

Stop being such a low life and get a life mate.

Good luck & king regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.135.250 (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not YouTube. Per Wikipedia policy, "Links in the 'External links' section should be kept to a minimum". As to the name-calling in your post, I find it funny when people who "sit it in front of computers" belittle other people for "sitting in front of computers"! But no worries, mate. None of us is a "little" man. It's all life. -The Gnome (talk) 07:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That diplomat with the funny name
There was a prod there for no sources, not an AfD nn. Rich Farmbrough, 15:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC).

A response
Here's an explanation. Disappointing, but blacklisting them both was the only real solution. DS (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help but, even after checking out the links, I must confess I fail to understand the problem. There must be something seriously wrong with this website, since it's been blacklisted for more than a couple of years now and, despite the many requests to "white-list" it, it remains out of bounds! What exactly is the problem, can it be described in a few words? (If it's a "neo-Nazi" or "holocaust-denying" website, I would not place it out of bounds entirely: When such a website provides, for example, historical evidence for Nazi atrocities, it provides corroborating evidence, which can be added to the rest of the cites, in a historical article.) But it may be an entirely different problem. I cannot tell.-The Gnome (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's out of date (oops). We no longer have to worry about the owner of the .net site coming through and changing all the .org references to .net, or the owner of the .org site coming through and changing all the .net references to .org (both of which happened, repeatedly), because one of the two sites closed down (these were the same two schmucks who owned deathcamps dot org and death-camps dot org, I think). The listing's not necessary any more, so I'll see what I can do to get it removed. DS (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks in advance. If anything, I'm learning about Wikipedia policies (and past flame wars!)...-The Gnome (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Joan Muysken
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Joan Muysken, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.merit.unu.edu/about/profile.php?id=41&amp;stage=2.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Elementary CV information, e.g. list of previously held jobs, cannot be copyrighted by anyone. But, just to make sure, permission to include information about Joan Muysken from the UNU Maastricht web page has been granted by the UNU-MERIT webmaster.-The Gnome (talk) 07:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFPP
Hi! I applied pending changes protection to this article, as it's a WP:BLP and I think it would be a good fit for PC-protection. This kind of protection relies on reviewers checking IP and non-authconfirmed edits, and reverting them if the edits are vandalism or WP:BLP-violations. Regular readers won't see edits until the edits are reviewed and approved.

With that in mind, I've added you to the "reviewers" group. If you'd prefer not to be a reviewer, let me know and I can "un-add" you. Likewise, if you feel that pending changes protection isn't appropriate at Karrine Steffans post again at WP:RFPP and we can consider changing the protection to semi.

TFOWR 12:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Xenophrenia
 Copied here by Xenophrenic from Fæ's talk page, "for further discussion":
 * I've used neither sarcasm nor innuendo, but you are welcome to interpret my comments as such if you feel it helps you in some way. To answer your only question: Take it as it was given, as serious communication (no sarcasm or innuendo), especially the part about your editing the Steffans BLP (not all "BLPs", as you have again misread). My intent was to suggest that the Steffans BLP would be best handled by dispassionate (about her, and her "life", and her reputation, and her "noteriety", etc.) editors. If you have trouble understanding me (you wouldn't be unique, as I occasionally am not as clear as I could be), simply let me know and I'll do my best to clear up any confusion. Heh, or you can keep jumping to wrong conclusions and keep ending up with nothing but misinterpretations -- *shrugs* -- your call. By the way, I will indeed continue to work on snarkiness; I anticipate having it honed to a fine art eventually.
 * One request, The Gnome: could we please continue this (if that is your want) on either your or my talk page? We've cluttered Fæ's page enough, and we've even strayed from the original issue. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The sarcasm and the innuendo in your correspondence are in the eye of the beholder, of course. Let's just leave your text up for all beholders. No more need be said on this, as I imagine more of it will be coming down the pipeline. On an unrelated note, I trust you will indeed work on getting rid of your self-admitted snarkiness, as promised.
 * One last request, Xenophrenic: could you please explain on what basis exactly you would think I'm not "dispassionate" enough to contribute to this particular article? When I said I inted to stay away from (appropariately) editing it, I was clearly pointing out my previous involvement in it, which again involved the duo of you and Malik Shabazz, a truly exhausting and dispiriting experience. I never implied I'm in any way passionate about the subject or the article. You may be confusing 'persistence' with 'passion'; not the same thing. Or you are simply throwing around ad hominem labels. Recap: You insinuate I'm not dispassionate; prove it. Or, else, sail on.-The Gnome (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As I've noted above, "I've used neither sarcasm nor innuendo", but I've said you are welcome to 'behold' my comments any way you wish -- at least we agree on something.
 * "...I trust you will indeed work on getting rid of your self-admitted snarkiness, as promised."
 * You appear to have misread yet again. Here is what I said: "I will indeed continue to work on snarkiness; I anticipate having it honed to a fine art eventually." Glad I could clear that up for you.
 * could you please explain on what basis exactly you would think I'm not "dispassionate" enough to contribute to this particular article?
 * Of course -- but just so we're clear, I suggested that dispassionate editors would better edit the article, not that you were incapable of editing it. Your comments about "snow-whiting" and "noble endeavor" are the basis.  When you see me remove poorly sourced content from this BLP, you make remarks that convey to me that you feel text is being 'supressed' because it is, in your opinion, negative or unflattering, instead of simply in violation of Wikipedia editing standards.  That leaves me with the impression that you have already formed beliefs about the subject of the article, and that you would rather see those personal conclusions in the article instead of encyclopedic content that meets Wikipedia's requirements.  In addition, you have referred to multiple editors as "a duo", further reinforcing the impression that not only do you feel your personal conclusions are being supressed, but that there is a concerted, collaborative effort to do so, instead of simply acknowledging that more than one editor has considered your edits problematic.  There is no conspiracy here.  Finally, reviewing your recent input on the article talk page and Fæ's talk page, fully 80% of your comments are about editors, and their alleged motivations, or their user pages, or misrepresentation of their comments to you, etc., while leaving a bullet-pointed list of actual article improvement concerns completely unaddressed.


 * Hopefully that more clearly explains why I feel the article would be better served by more dispassionate, less-invested editors. Preconceived conclusions about the article subject, conspiracy theories about cabals, and the combative nature of focusing on editors instead of article improvement are unproductive.  Malik's very first sentence in his response to the latest round of content issues states: "I don't feel strongly about including it one way or the other, but it's got to have solid sources."  I feel the same way.  Do you have any interest in helping to achieve that goal? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well. I've had quite a few discussions with other Wiki editors, through the few years I'm here, and not all of them were quiet affairs but I have to concede first prize to you for sarcasm. Even when you seem to be denying the existence of sarcasm in your texts, you cannot help being sarcastic! Case in point, what you wrote above: "You appear to have misread yet again. Here is what I said: 'I will indeed continue to work on snarkiness; I anticipate having it honed to a fine art eventually.' Glad I could clear that up for you." Really? Well, go ahead and carry on, hone that snarkiness to a fine art. I happen to consider snarkiness extremely counter-productive in a collaborative effort, such as Wikipedia editing. Therefore, the rest of your text is rendered meaningless. It is quite clear that you are not in Wikipedia to contribute and/or collaborate in a honest and straightforwad manner (e.g. you refuse to abide by one of its most fundamental principles) but for other reasons, which I care not analyse. Please stay away from this Talk Page. It's been soiled enough. Sail on, now.-The Gnome (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, The Gnome. I see that you have been deleting select comments of mine from our discussions. I respectfully request that you not do this. Feel free to remove the whole conversation, or archive, or let it remain if you prefer, but please don't selectively remove some of my comments while leaving others. Doing so misrepresents my communications. I'd rather not raise this on an administrator's noticeboard, but that would be my next step if necessary to resolve this. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Xenophrenic. Please be assured that there is no attempt to "misrepresent" anything from my part. Everything that each party had to say has been adequately said and there needs to be no more, especially since I consider most of your posts in the discussion we've had, in other pages as well as here, to be persistently disruptive, sarcastic and ironic. (I would hope that you do not continue to hone "snarkiness into a fine art", as you have promised, but, instead, work on overcoming this unfortunate tendency in your correspondence.) Since I reserve the right to remove such comments and/or threads from my talk page, there will be nothing added to the relevant thread, which has already being compacted. If you persist in continuing to post anything on this Talk Page, I must advise you that I will consider it harassment. I sincerely wish you health and godspeed in your other Wiki work. Cheers, The Gnome (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

 Note: Xenophrenic originally titled this section Reading is fundamental, which links to the Wiki article about the well-known literacy organisation. The insinuation of illiteracy or reading disability is unacceptable. I changed the title to point to the Wiki article this teacup storm is all about.

Sources & lists
Can you please sign the recent comments you've added to the source list? Then when there is discussion under each point it's easier to keep straight. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please explain about "signing the comments". Sign with my handle? I think I remember to always put in my ~ !.. :-) By the way, on the issue of more information, I was thinking of putting somewhere in that section a brief description of each source, lifted verbatim from the respective Wikipedia article. For example, the entry for the New York Post contains an extensive section on the paper's many controversies, clearly indicating tabloid journalism. For Zimbio, on the other hand, the entry states "Zimbio publishes two online magazines ... in the entertainment news category and ... in the fashion and beauty category ... [with] a blend of professionally written featured stories, user contributed articles, videos and high resolution photography". Would the Wikipedia articles be a solid criterion to base out evaluation of the sources' reliability, per WP:RS? What do you think?-The Gnome (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I see what you mean - to sign every change/addition to sources, so that everyone knows who put in what. I disagree with this because (a) it would result in unnecessary clutter, and (b) who introduces a source should be irrelevant to its subsequent evaluation. I believe that such a discussion, fully eponymous, of course, should be conducted in the sub-section "Discussion on Sources". We must strive to avoid clutter, there, too, so I'd suggest a separate discussion for each source. Stop me if I'm making our life impossible. :-)-The Gnome (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And I think I'm going cross eyed... Who wrote the "Note, this includes.." in the source list? Because I would have bet a ham sandwich I looked at the diff, which you have now somehow expunged from the Wikimedia servers.
 * Yes, I think the articles themselves are sufficient to give a brief synopsis, we're just meant to be creating fodder for discussion. This suggestion may clash with my suggestion above on signing items... Anything editorial clearly needs signed, but neutral summaries like your proposing not so much.  I think we're in general agreement, despite my fuzzy head.  Several of those sources I would not waste much time on, though. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm trying to bring into the lists the available sources, "anonymously", and have the conversation done eponymously. I think someone like you could have a free hand in amending anything in the lists that presents a source in a biased manner, i.e. pre-emptively assigning to it reliability or the opposite. (The "Note, this includes..." was about a totally new piece of information, unrelated to the two contested issues, i.e. nickname and tape. Wasn't it presented objectively? If we shall accept that source as RS, the information could be used.) In summary, I do not care who put up the original list or what's happening in it, as long as it's fairly presented and we can discuss about it, eponymously, in the "Discussion" sub-section. But if you feel strongly otherwise, I can go back and "sign" every edit I made in the lists, restrospectively. (I just think it'll make discussion more difficult.)-The Gnome (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm
I just read Talk:Karrine Steffans/Archive 2. Thanks for the laugh. Rich Farmbrough, 23:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC).


 * Could you be more specific, please? -The Gnome (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All of it, your never failing good humour and sense of humour through screen after screen of comparatively mindless drivel. Rich Farmbrough, 00:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC).


 * Thank you, folks. I'll be here all week. The Gnome (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Pecunia non olent (or olet)?
I'm confused if the correct form is olet or olent. When you moved the Pecunia non olet to Pecunia non olent, the reason you gave was Latin orthography, but i'm not sure what that means. Wiktionary says both olet and olent are "third-person singular present active indicative of oleō". So which one is correct? Shuipzv3 (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I figured out what orthography means, but when I did a Google search on pecunia non olent it asked me if I was searching for pecunia non olet. Shuipzv3 (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Billy Mitchell
Hello. Since you decided to move Billy Mitchell to a new title, and redirect the old title to a disambiguation page, I hope you will continue to help WP:FIXDABLINKS by correcting the pages that link to the old title. I see that you already fixed one or two of these, which is great; there are now only about 250 to go! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Christ, what have I gotten myself into! :-) I see now that I should have done this before moving the entries, when it would've been easier, too. I live and I learn. Let me see what I can do now. Thanks for the heads up. -The Gnome (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I hadn't encountered "Bill" being used as a diminuitive of "Basil", so feel free to put the Basils back in if you like. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 02:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Before I added the two Basils, I ran a web search and bunch of "Basil 'Bill' Doe"s popped up. However, now that I think better of it, neither of the two Basils I added were seem to be also known as "Bill." Therefore, I do not think they should be in there - unless I'm otherwise advised by Manuel. -The Gnome (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ladin language
I reverted again your edit in Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol‎, first of all due to the fact that there is not "one" Ladin dialect. Secondly, there is quite a good reason, why the corrisponding article is called Ladin language >(see also ). --Mai-Sachme (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC) --Mai-Sachme (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. The proper appellation I believe would be dialect - a dialect which comprises sub-dialects. Check out the section "Dialect" or "Language"?:
 * "Language varieties are often called dialects rather than languages ... because they have no standard or codified form ... because the speakers of the given language do not have a state of their own, because they are rarely or never used in writing or because they lack prestige with respect to some other, often standardised, variety."
 * Ladin can be said to satisfy at least two of the above characteristics.
 * Additionally, your edit is a total reversal, which means you also disagree with denoting Ladin as "local" and "unique". Could you please point out if and why you believe that Ladin is not unique and not local? Where else in the world do they speak Ladin? Thanks, again. -The Gnome (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, we can surely add "unique and local". But I'd really like to keep the "dialcet" out. There is a standard form of Ladin, and it is taught at schools. There are newspapers, radio stations and even a television programme in Ladin. Ladin is a "official" language in South Tyrol and Trentino, it would be kind of inappropriate to call it here dialect. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am ladin. Ladin is considered a language (ISO-639-3-code: lld) of which several dialects exist. All languages are "unique" - or do you know about two languages which are identical?!? Most languages are also limited to an area, which could be a nation, a region, a valley or a town, thus "local".--Sajoch (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Greetings and thanks for the message. I strongly disagree with most of what you're saying (I hope we can discuss about our disagreement in good faith, though.)
 * "I am ladin." As far as I know, there is no ethnic/national group called "the Ladins." If there is, I'd be glad to learn about it. There are people who speak Ladin but this is not the same thing at all.
 * "All languages are unique". The term "unique" is used to signifiy languages or dialects that seem to have no relation to what is spoken in the regions around them, e.g. Hungarian, with its Uralic provenance; Basque, with its ergative–absolutive alignment. From the little I know on Linguistics, I understand that practically, of course, no language or dialect are entirely unrelated to each other. In fact, Linguistics suggests that it's not correct to be talking about "languages" at all - at least, it wasn't until a couple of decades ago. The differences in local variations can be that significant. (But not so much anymore; homogenisation is eliminating local differences and soon we could all be speaking the new lingua franca.) I found The Discovery of France to be an eye-opener on that.
 * On the term "local": What you claim effectively refuses all notions of locality! Well, it's clear that the term "local" denotes a rather restricted geographical area. Certainly not a whole nation! The Ladin, is, if anything, a local dialect/language.
 * "Ladin is a language". I have to agree on that, since you're quoting the wiktionary and the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am "ladin" the same way others are "germans", "catalans" or "frisians", which doesn't imply the existance of a ladin nation, which in fact doesn't exist (also Frisia does not exist as a nation). Ladin speaking people are part of the Tyrolean ethnic group (Tyroleans speak german, italian or ladin).
 * The ladin language is closely related to franco-provenzal or other romance languages. The southern dialects of ladin (e.g. fascian spoken i the fassa valley) are strongly influenced by the italian language. The nones language (spoken in Val di Non) is by some considered an italian/lombard language, by others a ladin dialect. So you see, the border to the neighbouring regions is fluent. So much about "no relation".
 * "soon we could all be speaking the new lingua franca" - for god's sake no! Ladin is not as widespread as english, mandarin or swahili, and we're proud of that. :-) --Sajoch (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

File:DVIDS.png needs authorship information.
Thanks for uploading File:DVIDS.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 10:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. -The Gnome (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:DVIDS.png appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided),authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).


 * If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: will produce an appropriate expansion, or use the own template.


 * If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The information is already provided in the file page; perhaps you missed it. The image is a work of a U.S. Military or Department of Defense employee, taken or made as part of that person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain. -The Gnome (talk) 09:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (Result: Image restored)

Thanksgiving
After your comment on Thanksgiving do you think it is correct that someone tries to open mediation without contacting you? Glider87 (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My input to that Request for Comment had nothing to do with what you're saying. I support Wiki policy of alerting interested parties when requests for arbitration/mediation in a dispute are made. I hope my position was not misconstrued. If it was, I apologize. -The Gnome (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean, the account is only contacting some people from the RfC who are likely to agree with them to try to force through modifications to the lede and skipping the people like yourself who opposed the RfC. It looks like the account is trying forum shop by stacking the votes. Which can't be correct? Glider87 (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I now see that Alanscottwalker has initiated a process for mediation on the Thanksgiving issue. No, I do not think there's any obligation to notify me or anyone else who was invited (as I was) to contribute opinions to the RfC. Anyone who has or had a significant interest on the issue should've bookmarked the page and followed up on developments on their own. (As it happens, I wasn't.) -The Gnome (talk)

Santorum vs santorum: POV accusations
The article talk page no longer seems to be the appropriate place for us to converse. Your characterizations of my argument are flagrantly mistaken (I reserve judgment for now on the question of whether you're being disingenuous on purpose). On the assumption that you really are that confused about what I was trying to say, and not just maliciously undercutting talk page readers' perception of my neutrality for rhetorical gain, I will draw you a picture to help you out.

I wrote, "Small-s santorum, and the culture-wide joke being perpetrated against a second-tier presidential candidate, is an entirely different thing from the comments that candidate made and the ordinary, predictable backlash to them. That santorum is one part of the backlash against Santorum does not stop it from being a unique and separately-notable thing in its own right." Breaking this down:

Small-s santorum, and the culture-wide joke being perpetrated against a second-tier presidential candidate - this is one thing; and

the comments that candidate made and the ordinary, predictable backlash to them is an entirely different thing. Hence the words is an entirely different thing from. Nowhere is there justification for calling "the campaign to establish the term santorum" ordinary or predictable.

On the other hand, when a politician or other public figure makes a statement comparing some person or group of people to, say, Nazis, dog fuckers, pedophiles, street criminals, or any other deplorably-behaved people, or heaps praise on someone or something that actually is connected with something similarly unsavory, there is going to be an indignant public reaction. The speaker's political allies will either defend him, try to explain away his words, or distance themselves from him; his political opponents will pounce on him and try to make hay for themselves. This backlash happens as a matter of course (and is hence "ordinary and predictable). When Don Imus called the Rutgers womens basketball team "nappy-headed hos", there was precisely this sort of reaction. Ditto Trent Lott's praise of Strom Thurmond's presidential campaign on the latter's 100th birthday. People harrumph in the media for a while, the speaker either apologizes or doesn't, and eventually the issue sort of goes away, to be brought up again later when one side wants to remind people what a dastardly figure the speaker is, or when the other side wants to remind people that political correctness (or whatever the reaction is chalked up to) is running rampant and polluting our political discourse. This is an ordinary and predictable thing.

It is my contention that Dan Savage's reaction to Santorum's comments does not fall under this ordinary and predictable strain of reaction. There have been plenty of times when a public figure's name has been taken up as a negative word (e.g. gerrymander, quisling). This has not happened with Santorum, in that it is not clear that the neologism is actually in widespread use as it is defined (indeed many would argue it is clearly not in such use). But the fact that there is a widespread effort to accomplish this is in fact notable. The fact that for almost a decade, enough internet searches have ended with a click that makes Rick Santorum's name into a disgusting joke - is notable. And if anyone tried to merge gerrymander into Elbridge Gerry controversy regarding congressional redistricting, he would be laughed off the talk page. Editors can disagree in good faith as to whether the current case is actually parallel to that one; thinking that one case is akin to another is not ipso facto a breach of neutrality. The sooner you realize this, the better off the encyclopedia will be. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler .☠ 00:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to respond extensively to my position on the issue. I agree that the relevant Talk page is not appropriate for such an extensive discussion, especially since the issue is now under the process of a Request for Comments. There is no disingenuousness or malice on my part, of course, and I resent the implication that this is a possibility. Starting off a discussion by (unnecessarily) stating what you stated above is extremely counter-productive. Simply ask yourself what good could it possibly do.
 * Moreover, critiquing another editor's position as being driven by that editor's personal opinions and points of view is not an "accusation" and is not a personal attack. When I say, "Aw, you're saying this only because you feel strongly about it" or "because you allow your personal opinions to influence your stance", it is not a personal attack. Let this be absolutely clear.
 * Internet discussions on polarising subjects (or even on trivial issues) more often than not degenerate into personal animosity and flame wars, if a consensus is not reached early on. It has always been my contention that we internet travelers should be, individually, exercising restraint in our exchanges, generally speaking.
 * You invoke the comparison, made by Santorum, of homosexuality to paedophilia and bestiality as "ordinarily" and "predictably" causing a backlash. But by whom? I happen, as I already stated many times over, to be an opponent of almost everything Santorum stands for - and that includes his ridiculous stance on homosexuality. (On which, I happen to personally believe that one simply cannot have a "moral position"; it is what it is. One cannot have a "moral position" on blonde hair or river banks.) As things stand, it's not some small minority among the American public, not to mention the world at large, that holds Santorum's views as being largely correct! Successive polls clearly indicate as much, though they also indicate a progress towards enlightment and increased tolerance. Hence, there can be no case made that a backlash should be "ordinarily" or "predictably" expected, except by activists on the issue. But activists (of any issue) will always act and react, by definition, so characterizing their actions and reactions as "ordinary" or "predictable" is a redundancy.
 * You wrote "When a politician or other public figure makes a statement comparing some person or group of people to, say, Nazis, dog fuckers, pedophiles, street criminals, or any other deplorably-behaved people, or heaps praise on someone or something that actually is connected with something similarly unsavory."
 * Barack Obama has repeatedly and prominently being accused of being or acting like a "socialist", a "racist", a "hater of whites", a "Muslim terrorist", an "enemy agent", etc etc. There has been "backlash" to that commentary but not nearly as much as those wild accusations would normally merit! But that's my opinion! I would find it "normal" if the majority of the media and both parties would rise up and confront the bigots and the smearers. In other words, what we see, from our point of view, as normal or predictable might be seen by others as abnormal or unpredictable. Therefore, a neutral point of view sees neither.
 * The stance of many editors voting to keep the articles separate (and, thus, more prominent) is driven clearly and mostly by personal motivation, rather than Wiki rules, as shown by some comments. (Some do not even bother to justify their voting; others simply asserted "for the 30th fucking time - Yes!") Of course, this goes both ways: Supporters of Santorum or his positions are rallying to his "cause". This just means more work to maintain neutrality.
 * You wrote "The fact that for almost a decade, enough internet searches have ended with a click that makes Rick Santorum's name into a disgusting joke - is notable". Sorry but I simply do not think that this fact (which, we agree, is a fact) justifies independent notability. And indepence of notability is what it's all about. As you wrote, "Dan Savage's reaction to Santorum's comments does not fall under [the] ordinary and predictable strain of reaction," which means that Savage's has been an extraordinary effort indeed. Google searches present an artificially inflated picture of notoriety because of a trivial google-bombing campaign. Yet, despite that effort, "it is not clear that the neologism," as you wrote, "is actually in widespread use as...(indeed many would argue it is clearly not in such use)". Exactly! Which means that we cannot take the "effort" as something notable in itself and isolate it from the issue of Santorums' controversial positions on homosexuality, especially since the neologism never acquired independent traction. It should be patently clear that merging the two articles is essential for Wikipedia's integrity. :
 * By the way, gerrymandering and the other examples you offered are clearly, indepentently notable as terms, on their own. Note the widepread use of those terms, independently of their origin.
 * -The Gnome (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I took the liberty and inserted a wikilink in your text so that a third party who stumbles onto my Talk Page here can easily orient themselves. I hope you do not mind.
 * Thank you for responding calmly to what I can see must have been a somewhat aggravating post. I accept your assurances that you did not intend any personal attack, and I apologize for the obnoxious tone I used when I thought that you had. I hope that it's clear why a participant in a project to build a neutral encyclopedia might take offense when another participant says, essentially, "Well, your thoughts on this matter shouldn't be counted because you're obviously not capable of keeping your personal opinion from subverting your (no longer) dispassionate judgment." I can see that you're not saying this lightly or to score points, and I hope you'll forgive me for interpreting your words as I did.


 * But I continue to believe that Wikipedia policies, as written, favor the inclusion of a discrete article with the neologism as its primary focus. I understand that this is not a universally held conclusion, though it is one that has held up among the community in general over five separate deletion proposals. This suggests to me that it's not just that I'm unable to form an argument based on something other than my own personal opinion, but rather that I and many others have come to a reasonable conclusion based on the facts and on WP policy. This conclusion is clearly not absolute truth, nor is it the only reasonable conclusion; and given my understanding of epistemology I have to admit in all honesty that it may be flagrantly mistaken though I think that's highly unlikely .  But based on the facts as I understand them, and on policy as written, I have to disagree with your assessment of the campaign's independent notability.


 * In closing I must thank you for taking the time to respond to all of my arguments; you've helped me to distill them into a form that (while you clearly still completely disagree with them) is tighter and clearer than the form I started out with. I hope we can have productive and edifying conversations in the future. (And thank you for including the link to the article talk page, which had slipped my mind when I was drafting the stuff above.) ☯.Zen Swashbuckler .☠ 17:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comments are always welcome. I understand, of course, why my comments could be misinterpreted. Face to face discussion allows for fewer misunderstandings, if anything because facial expressions, gestures and body language provide additional, important communication. But that's internet for us! Thanks for the dialogue. -The Gnome (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas. 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) 20:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename at Campaign for "santorum" neologism
Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, Be— —Critical  22:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the cookies...
You're a few years late to welcome me. I usually sign using four tildes, and I already smudged your talk-page 3 months ago. :-) But nevertheless: thank you again for the cookies. Yummy!--Sajoch (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)