User talk:The Gnome/Archive 4

Don't be so sure of yourself, my self
Shane Greenstein at Harvard Business School has authored several studies on Wikipedia’s reliability, and says that the encyclopedia needs a variety of sources to maintain a neutral perspective and avoid becoming one-sided. “You need multiple editors to debate and identify different points of view, and in the absence of a large supply of those editors Wikipedia won’t perform very well,” he says.

New Scientist, 2016

2Joules
Hi, the date when 2Joules was blocked is not important as it is the date that the sockpuppet master (the real editor) was blocked that counts and renders all subsequent edits invalid. The real editor is user:FreeatlastChitchat who was blocked on 6 March last. Regarding the AFDs only those with no delete votes can be closed due to the sock nomination, the others have to continue but with the sock's comments struck out, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Noted. Thanks, Atlantic306. Do you have a link to the policy about the process as you described it? (The above is about this AfD.) -The Gnome (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry didn't get your ping, WP:SOCKSTRIKE gives clarification, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Atlantic306, so, you're saying that an AfD put up by a sock can get shut down if it gets no votes agreeing with the sock's nomination, but if some editors agree with the AfD proposal then the AfD stays up until a decision is made. Right? Well, I find nowhere in Wikipedia such a rule, and especially not in WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Am I missing something? -The Gnome (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, see this thread Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion and the link there to WP:Speedy Keep, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, neither of the two links takes us to something that agrees with what you claimed, I'm afraid.
 * "Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion" concludes by everyone getting directed to SK4 (Speedy Keep criterion #4), which is the second link. But SK4 says nothing about sock-nominated AfDs getting closed when they have "no delete votes"!
 * SK4 states: [A reason to Speedy Keep an article nominated for deletion is when] the nominator is banned. In that case, the nominated page is speedily kept while the nomination can be speedily deleted as a banned contribution. However, if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's banned status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed. As you can see, the only reason an AfD can be speedily deleted (and the article speedily kept) is when the AfD was tabled by a banned editor. SK4 says nothing about the kind of responses the AfD attracts. So, there is no basis for your description of when an AfD is closed down.
 * Importantly in this, AfDs cannot be retroactively deleted. If an editor is banned today and last year they had started one hundred AfDs that were all accepted, it would be illogical to annul them. That would be an invitation to chaos. -The Gnome (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I can't understand your point as it seems clear to me. Closed AFDs are not affected except at deletion reviews but open afds nominated by a sock with no other edits supporting deletion can be closed as happens regularly. An administrator recently closed some by speedy keep started by a sockpuppet before he was discovered. Ask Nick about it, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Your message
Just e-mail me. Deb (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking over the text. You helpful remarks prompted me to try and improve it. All errors and omissions are mine only. Foolishly ignoring your advice, I plowed on. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Please don't modify my statement
Please don't modify my statement as was done here. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I did not know it was not a mistake. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm very impressed with this closing
Gnome, just wanted to compliment your work here. I was expecting a close along the lines of "no consensus" but it was clear you put effort into a well crafted closing. Thanks for that hard work! Springee (talk) 04:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the acknowledgement. Appreciated. -The Gnome (talk) 06:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Your AfD Merge/Redirect Thoughts
Hi,

Didn't really want to drop an open comment onto the AfD talk page, but I was wondering (as someone with fairly different AfD views) whether you thought that Admin closers were poor at closing what should be merges and making them redirects and, in effect, saying someone else do the merging. This seems to bring two problems - i) Worst, it risks no content actually getting transferred if no user steps up to move it, ii) it gives incorrect judgements, meaning any assessment based partially off an AfD score will be wrong (more in my head as i've been wandering around WP:PERM, I suspect). Let me know if you think I'm more than mildly making a mountain out of a molehill, but I've been seeing a couple of cases per week, and I guess I participate in around 7% of AfDs. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Greetings. You're essentially saying that, in general, Admins who decide against Keeping and in favor of Merging or Redirecting should be obliged to undertake the actual Merging (in both cases) themselves. If that's the gist of your query, I'd think this would not work too well. An Admin would be disinclined to decide to Merge/Redirect since that would mean obligatory, additional work for them. Some would probably choose to stay out of the AfD altogether. Thus far, we're witnessing Wikipedia editors coming forward without the least prompting and doing good work so you're possibly worrying too much. This would be my first reaction; I have not thought about this issue at all before. -The Gnome (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say they would be obliged to do the merging (obviously if it was an actual, legitimate, redirect, there wouldn't be any merging beyond creating the redirect) but there are quite a few "redirect but users are free to merge" which is obviously fine if the justified !votes have gone to redirect, but stating redirect when there is a merge is a concern. If users are always stepping forwards to do merging where appropriate, then obviously it doesn't matter, but I'd be concerned that an article with a closed AfD discussion might not get that person stepping forwards. Since you don't think it's a problem I'll just have a look over the next week or two and if that's the case then obviously I've spotted an outlier and mapped a concern to it and can leave it be. Cheers. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. Let's wait a while and see what the law says. -The Gnome (talk) 09:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Leiba Dobrovskii
Thank you for your excellent contributions. I'm rather looking for cases or criticizing than able to write integral pages.Xx236 (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome. And I'm sure I could write in the Polish Wikipedia about one millionth of what you can write in the English one.  -The Gnome (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Your close at Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology
About this...

First, this was not a proper RfC but a side discussion and there are only 8 !votes.

If you look at the !votes:
 * keep the draft form
 * 1) StrayBolt
 * 2) Antony–22
 * 3) RicknAsia
 * 4) Slatersteven


 * use a reduced form
 * 1) Jytdog
 * 2) HouseOfChange
 * 3) DGG

Note that the last ~vote in that section, by Zubin12, is clearly about the RfC question above; it often happens when discussions get split, that people !vote in the wrong place.

There is clearly no consensus about how much detail to include. This could perhaps be settled by an actual RfC focused on the question. Please reconsider your close. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * HouseOfChange supported having photos down the side after some discussion, and so should be in the first list. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Antony-22 posted up the above as I was typing my response. We seem to be pointing out the same thing. -The Gnome (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for dropping in, Jytdog. First of all, your assessment as this not being "a proper RfC" but a mere "discussion," albeit a "side" one, I believe is not supported by the title of the section: "!Vote about list format". Note the exclamation mark denoting suggestions but not votes, typical in RfCs. I agree, of course, that this was a "side" RfC, an RfC that resulted from the previous, already closed one.
 * The choices put forth were quite distinct: (1) Keep the table per the Draft version; (2) Keep the table without the photos; (3) Use a bulleted list.
 * For choice #1, we had StrayBolt, Antony–22, RicknAsia, Slatersteven, and Houseofchange, who initially !voted "no photos" but as I pointed out in the closing statement, changed their mind. (See "Comment" thread starting with "WP:MOS From Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Tables: "the use of tables, etc" where HouseofChange eventually accepts photos: "Photos down the side look like a good solution based on somewhat similar examples. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC).") Although it's recommended, someone who changes their mind is not obliged to strike off their previous vote. I counted not just words in bold but the whole suggestion by every participant. The !vote by Zubin12, submitted without a signature, could be assessed as supporting the Draft version, since it fell within the section (probably by mistake) but I did not include it in the count.
 * For choice #2, we had Jytdog and DGG. This is a clear numerical majority for choice #1, i.e. 5 against 2. Rest assured I would have no problem reconsidering my closing if there was a reason to do so, but frankly I see none. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * To respond to the "is it an RfC" -- The actual, tagged-as-an-RfC, was opened by me on 5 June 2018. The side discussion was opened on 11 June 2018; if you look at the actual RfC you will see that there there were only 2 more !votes after 11 June (one there, and one below in the format section).  So it wasn't advertised as an RfC.
 * While HouseofChange was willing to bend on the pictures, their basic stance was very much "simple and modest." They did not support a table at all.
 * And the consensus is far from clear, especially given that some of the support !votes don't give any policy-based rationale.
 * Please do reconsider your close. We should do an actual RfC on this. Thanks.  Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, an RfC is not a matter of "advertisement" but of substance. WP:RFC has been followed, perhaps not in precise style but unquestionably in substance. I understand, though, that the RfC going against one's position, provides incentive for one to dispute the very nature of the RfC. I cannot go into a long discussion about this.
 * Now, as I explicitly stated in my closing, there were no violations of policy. The !suggestions were a matter of opinion about the most appropriate format. Neither of the three choices offered by the nominator violate policy - and if you think otherwise, please point out the policy being violated.
 * Which brought us, as I also said, to a simple numerical count. And the count, as I explained above, was quite clear in favor of the Draft-table choice. You keep asking me to "reconsider" but I truly see no grounds for a reconsideration. It is obvious you not only disagree with my closing but you will not accept it. It's up to you what you do next, I suppose. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Jytdog appears to be correct - The Gnome appears to have misread what was and wasn't in the RFC - David Gerard (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Greetings, David Gerard. Could you please be more specific? You seem to also dispute this was an RfC, which begs the questions: (A) Why was not an objection posted about the nature of the discussion when it was clear it was an RfC, before it closed? And (B) Why no objection was put forth when the RfC was placed on the Admin board requesting closure? (See here.) Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Gnome. Thanks for the back and forth. My next step will indeed be taking this to AN, and I would rather not do the drama.  Will you please at least withdraw it?  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I cannot in all honesty accept I've done something wrong when I cannot see something wrong having been done, Jytdog. As it happens, I have corrected myself, as far back as I can remember, to the point of not just changing my !vote in RfCs and AfDs, but even withdrawing nominations, on the basis of and faced with substantial arguments. But you have not presented a case for me to accept that something I did was wrong. I believe I was quite careful in this closing, as I tried to be in all closings I ever did. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Framing this as you have "done something wrong" is a bit ... overdone. It is too bad you are framing it that way. It's a mistake, is all. People make them.  Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I accept both terms. Either "being in the wrong" or "made a mistake" is fine. As I said, many are the mistakes I've made, and I hope to live long enough to make as many in the future. But, to reiterate, I cannot see a mistake in the closing. If I did, I'd try to correct it without much prompting. -The Gnome (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * [unsolicited opinion] The Gnome, determining whether to call something an RfC is very much a technical matter. The RfC system is formalized and intended to bring outside participants into the discussion. It's with that basis that a consensus determined by RfC tends to carry more weight than consensus determined more informally. So something needs to be tagged as an RfC to qualify as such. However, it was a subsection of the RfC section, started a few days into it. In my experience, subtopics of an RfC may or may not be considered part of the RfC but when they are, they're typically closed at the same time as the RfC or specifically acknowledged in the close. I would want to ping about that, since it looks like he closed the top part of the RfC but left the section in question open. It's a hard call, from a procedural standpoint.
 * That said, an RfC is not required to have a discussion or find consensus. The Gnome felt there was a clear consensus to present the table in a certain way, and it's certainly hard to read that thread as a consensus not to (i.e. no consensus would be the alternative). IMO it is hard to justify removing the content at this point, but I also think it should be uncontroversial for Jytdog to immediately open a second RfC focused on presentation since, at very least, that subsection did not receive the participation of the original RfC thread and was seemingly not included in WBG's close thereof. In other words, I don't think AN is necessary. Default to including based on a weak consensus on the talk page and use RfC, if desired, to find a stronger consensus one way or the other. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input, Rhododendrites. Although, of course, I'd have no say in that, I'd have no objection whatsoever if a new RfC were to be tabled, with the same subject. I'm a fan of the appeals system. . Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Notice -- Administrators%27_noticeboard. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification, Jytdog. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Update The decision at AN has been : While there's not a clear agreement with the exact closure nor the process leading to it, there's equally no consensus that the close was improper per WP:BADNAC. Not surprised. -The Gnome (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: Well, unfortunately, Jytdog has been blocked for an indefinite period of time (AE case here; decision here; discussion here). Jytdog was involved in an arbitration dispute but, before the dispute was resolved, asked for their account to be suspended. It's probably a net loss to Wikipedia as a project but when Jytdog started calling me names I saw an asymmetrical downside to their contributions. A pity. -The Gnome (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Crescent Electric Supply AFD Suggestion
Hi The Gnome. I undid your edit on this AFD where you changed my Keep !vote to a Comment. Perhaps you saw my (indented) discussions with other !voters, or recalled seeing my !vote on the DRV, and thought I had voted before, but it was actually my one and only vote in the AFD. I recognize you meant well, and appreciate the need for such gnoming work. However it is disconcerting to check back on an AFD one has participated in and find one's !vote "disenfranchised" so to speak by someone else editing the words you have entered. Might I suggest in future situations like this you strike but leave in the prior editor's actual words, and drop them a note on their talk page why you feel changing their words is needed, all to increase visibility that their contribution to the discussion has been changed. It helps flag for attention that someone else felt a change was necessary, allows for a discussion whether this is truly the case, and avoids the feeling of "WTF, I didn't mean to say that...wait, I didn't say that, someone else changed my remarks!". Cheers, Martinp (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the myopic edit, Martinp. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Your close at Talk:Trypophobia
I'm commenting not because of what I stated here, but because I am wondering why you chose to close the RfC when there has been animosity between us in the past. I would not close an RfC if the starter of the RfC was someone I've expressed animosity toward in the past and who expressed animosity towards me in turn. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Flyer22 Reborn. I honestly have no recollection of the "animosity" of which you speak, nor do I keep records of past differences of opinion here, no matter how strongly we behaved. Or it may all be due to mental deterioration. In any case, I don't think you'd be satisfied with my personal assurance that I tried to be as fair as possible and that I tried, as I always do, to have a robust close. So, I can only allow the closing to speak for itself. As far as I'm concerned, you can appeal that closing any way you choose; I do not take these matters personally. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. The discussion in the closed RfC was quite productive. In case the issue is tabled again anywhere, I'd suggest a link to it would be helpful. Just a simple suggestion. -The Gnome (talk) 09:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying. I felt that you would state you have no recollection of our past animosity. Rather than point to the specific case, I will move on. But I do ask that you consider not closing RfCs that I'm the starter of in the future. I don't keep record of past differences of opinion here, by the way. I just have a solid memory. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Striking sockpuppet
Hi, he was a sockpuppet master not a sockpuppet and was not blocked at that time. WP:DWS is an essay not even a guideline so can you point to any policy that backs up your revert of my edit, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Atlantic306. I believe it's standard practice to strike off AfD input by socks, be they puppets or puppeteers. And I did not revert anyone's edit;  I simply struck off the sock's input. Do you want to leave their input up as a fully legitimate !vote? -The Gnome (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, often all kinds of socks are not struck off. I agree about sockpuppets but I'd welcolme some policy guidance on sockmasters before they've been blocked as for example speedy deletion G5 is for deleting articles created by sockpuppets but does not apply to articles created by the sockpuppet before the sockmaster has been blocked, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Smugged
Hey. You put a question to me, or at least some sort of comment that prompted me to reply. The discussion was closed shortly after, so here it is again. No, I do not. And yes, I will. cygnis insignis 11:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a judgement call, of course, cygnis insignis, but do you truly believe that a Wikipedia user would type and look up "physical"+"comparison"+"lions"+"tigers" instead of the obvious and plain "lions"+"tigers"? I highly doubt it. Take care. -The Gnome 08:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC) AfD reply
 * Thanks for the message, cygnis insignis. -The Gnome (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Nxt (3rd nomination)
Hi The Gnome. I posted several sources at Articles for deletion/Nxt (3rd nomination) after you commented. Would you review the sources I provided? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I will. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added the sources to the article. I think there is more significant coverage for Nxt than for NeuCoin at Articles for deletion/NeuCoin, where you supported retention. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 05:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * IMVHO, the text is now worth keeping up. -The Gnome (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Civil edit summaries
You made changes (many but not all improvements) to Suhai Aziz Talpur leaving the following edit summary: "removed unnecessary language indicators abt source being in English (default language here), fawning and adulatory verbiage e.g. quotes from media, irrelevancies, and solicisms ; added wikilinks; wikified sources, not afraid of listing dates in full and easy-to-the eye text; removed empty ext.link"

The article has been worked on by several editors whose native language is not English. It should have been possible for you to improve their work, and describe your process, with a more collegial edit summary. HouseOfChange (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your constructive criticism, HouseOfChange. I typically comment without deferring to people's backgrounds, which is why I do not look much into them. Also, I take Wikipedia quite seriously, as I do my work in it. Consequently, I may respond somewhat harshly to casually lazy, incompetent, or haphazard contributions, though I assign no malevolence to anyone. The free nature of Wikipedia should not be, in my view, taken as a pass for drive-by, poor-quality edits: Users (and their numbers are significant) should not have to check who wrote what when accessing the encyclopaedia for information. These are general statements; not a reference to the specific article's edits. But I will try and improve my approach to edit summaries. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your civil and constructive response. I suggest you remove my initial remarks from your talk page, because your edit summaries in general are civil, so this one complaint may give readers a false impression. It was written a little crossly before I had coffee this morning, apologies. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries! -The Gnome (talk) 07:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Closure of the discussion about World Net Daily as reliable source
Hi The Gnome, thank you for closing the discussion at WP:RSN. I just wanted to clarify that the discussion was a plain discussion, and not a RfC. Could you please amend the closing summary and the archiving template to reflect this? Thanks. —  Newslinger  talk   07:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You're correct. Thanks for pointing that out. Could you please check and see if everything's alright now? -The Gnome (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for changing it! My only other request is about the last sentence:
 * Since this discussion wasn't a RfC, I don't think the scope of the discussion was strictly defined by the initial comment. Could you please also remove or rephrase the last part of this sentence ("but such objections fall outside the scope of the discussion")? —  Newslinger  talk   07:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If we were to remove that, then the discussion cannot be closed, perhaps never as long as new issues are tabled within it, even implicitly. I'd think that the "headline" issue is the one on which a discussion should be closed, since I cannot imagine a closing that in one go addresses multiple, different issues. That would probably present significant difficulties and invite controversy. What do you think? -The Gnome (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me. Thanks again for closing this. —  Newslinger  talk   07:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me. Thanks again for closing this. —  Newslinger  talk   07:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Next time, and I mean in real life, the round's on me! Take care - and a happy and healthy New Year. -The Gnome (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Clarification
Hi, The Gnome. About here I just wanted to make clear that I'm not a user who writes articles to please Capcom or to receive money from it. I gave very specific reasons for the creation of that article (which I presume you didn't care to read in the discussion) and probably, when time will be right, RE Engine will reappear, just as one of the users pointed out. Also, "fans of video games often create articles in the manner of shrines", sounds a bit like a confirmation bias generalization, don't you think? I just wanted to take off the pebble from the shoe, since you rightly wanted to express yourself for a "Delete". Goodbye. Lone Internaut (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Lone Internaut. My take on what articles created by video-game fans look like stands. Yours may not have been a proper shrine but the typical article typically is, in my experience. Fans are by definition less objective than non fans. The comment about Capcom perhaps is worthy of your consideration: I did not say you wrote the article to "please" the company; I wrote that the article reads like an advertisement. Perhaps Capcom is pleased by such advertisements but the point is very different. As to the deleted article reappearing, please understand that I'd have no problem whatsoever if the subject satisfies the criteria imposed by Wikipedia and makes it up. That's what WP:TOOSOON is all about. Take care. And keep up the good work. -The Gnome (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You too. Lone Internaut (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Greek withdrawal from the eurozone into Withdrawal from the Eurozone. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Diannaa. The most recent significant involvement I had with both these articles was some time ago and I cannot recall exactly what was done. It would help if you could be more specific, e.g. with a diff. Thanks in advance. -The Gnome (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked into this some more, Diannaa. Your edit summary states that the copying was done on the 23rd of January 2019, i.e. yesterday. However, there was no copying at all from my part yesterday or recently. What I did yesterday was revert this deletion by another editor of text that was claimed to be "shoehorned party political broadcast that did nothing to improve the article" adding that "such hypothesising does not belong in Wikipedia." As it happens, I disagree with that assessment: In articles about the possible exit out of the Eurozone any information about the operational context for such an exit is neither "political" nor "hypothesising." The text that was reinstated was about the 2012 Wolfson economics prize where a potential route of a Eurozone member out of the Euro was mapped. (I created the Wolfson prize article in 2012.) Perhaps this helps. -The Gnome (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to look into this. It was not obvious from your edit summary what it was that you were doing, hence my assumption. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Paul Samuelson
Dear Gnome – in the talk page for Paul Samuelson I questioned the appropriateness of a section which I think you had a hand in. I meant to ping you but forgot. Colin.champion (talk) 09:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Colin.champion. I'll take a look later on. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Julius Evola discussion
Hi Gnome. I noticed you said the following on the talk page of the article on Julius Evola:

It's not clear how the text you referenced implies Evola justified rape "as a natural expression of male desire". The first sentence, concerning male desire, is descriptive, not normative. The latter sentences, on the other hand, do not contain the question of "male desire" at all. At most they suggest justification due to a "lack of virtue" in the victims, not "male desire" in the perpetrators. Did you read the text you cited carefully? 160.39.234.202 (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Greetings, 160.39.234.202. First of all, let me confirm that I did read all the relevant texts, and add that I never get engaged otherwise when closing down a discussion. Second, Merelli's presentation of Evola's point of view is a summary ("male desire"), albeit an accurate one. Evola's text refers implicitly to that desire when he talks about the male "find[ing] pleasure" in forced copulation. The key word here is "natural," i.e. that Evola considers rape practically normatively. Merelli's text is but a summary description of what Evola claims. The Merelli piece of text describes Evola's text. -The Gnome (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. Do consider opening an account. It facilitates dialogue. -The Gnome (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Where does the normativity come from? The first sentence says The deepest factor [in rape] is the feeling, even if only illusory, that the physical act gives him of violating the inviolable and of possessing her. I don't see how this assessment is normative at all. Quite frankly, your claim is very offensive because it implies that psychologists who agree with this assessment are "justifying rape". 160.39.234.202 (talk) 06:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if that were the meaning of my response, which it isn't, whom might it be offending? -The Gnome (talk) 10:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Then what is the meaning of your response? 160.39.234.202 (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Can we please have a decent dialogue? I did not make any claims about you. You, on the other hand, claimed I implied that psychologists who agree with Evola's assessment are "justifying rape" and that this was something offensive. So, I ask and if I do not get a straight and clear answer I will termimate here and now the conversation: To whom is my supposed offense directed? -The Gnome (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are you trying to change the subject? The subject is whether the quoted passage "justifies rape as an expression of male desire". You have yet to specify how it does so. To answer your question, I said your claim that such a descriptive statement is normative is offensive to said psychologists, not you personally. 160.39.234.202 (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Practically every research on rape risks of running into mischaracterization and a wall of social pushback. This is because, in general, scientists identifying evolutionary traits in human behavior risk the wrath of the behaviorist cabal. Which is why works such as A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion get some extremely bad press; people will forever confuse explanation with justification. It's the same deal with many other despicable human activities, e.g. in murder cases, when a scientist happens to trace the psychological background of the killer, there will be people who will treat the analysis as something close to exoneration.
 * Evola wrote that "man in general [can] find pleasure in defloration and rape" because of "the feeling the physical act gives him of violating the inviolable and of possessing her." This feeling can be said to be part of the male sexual desire - again, generally speaking (i.e. not every male, etc). Merelli points out Evola "justifie[s] rape" and, although I have my own, personal take on this subject, this is not so far from Evola's notions that we can call it "misrepresentation." Evola brings forth "the unfathomable nature of heavenly designs" and "possible compensation in the afterlife" for the raped girl. Evola goes as far as suggesting that the (raped) girls "sinned by their pride in showing their virtue."
 * Evola seems to find justification in the analysis. But analysis is not justification. If our ancestors went strictly by nature's laws, e.g. might makes right, human civilisation has progressed above them and can be said to be a struggle against those laws. (This does not mean that we have done away completely with notions such as "might makes right". It means that we constantly try and often succeed in limiting the rule of "natural laws" and imposing on our social behavior something completely alien to nature - morality.) The psychologists who agree with evolutionary explanations of rape, such as the authors of the aforementioned book, describe and analyse rape; they do not justify it. Evola comes quite close to that, something we can corroborate when taking into account the rest of his worldview. (Julius Evola was an admirer of political authoritarianism and an early supporter of Italian fascism, a system of ultra-macho posture.)
 * Ergo, and to conclude, (a) I find Annalisa Merelli's take on Evola's worldview as accurate, and (b) psychologists who agree with the bioevolutionary nature of the rape phenomenon do not "justify" rape and, thus, claiming they do would be quite offensive to them. -The Gnome (talk) 07:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So, in short, you have no passage where Evola justifies rape as an expression of male desire. I notice you're trying to muddy the waters and evade this by referring to "Merelli's take on Evola's worldview", but that is not what we're discussing. What we're discussing is the specific claim that Evola justified rape as an expression of male desire. 160.39.234.202 (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In short, what I'm doing is refraining from imposing my own, personal views on the issue and, instead, using third-party, independent sources for any assessment made in the text. Which, as it happens, is one of the foundational policies of Wikipedia. I am not saying that "Evola went so far as to justify rape as a natural expression of male desire" even though this might be my opinion as well (or, again, it might not). It's Annalisa Merelli who has stated that "Evola went so far as to justify rape as a natural expression of male desire." Is her text a reliable source? That is the only question you should be asking (along with perhaps examining whether the material in the article is balanced, i.e. should there be other sources with a take different to Merelli's in it). Instead, you are trying to engage me in a discussion about my personal assessment of Evola's writings.  It appears that you are in the wrong forum, 160.39.234.202. This is not the Wikipedia way.
 * If you have anything more to say on this non-issue, and I'm sure you have, do it in the talk page of the article where a related discussion is ongoing and at least one other editor has already pointed out to you that "the [Wikipedia] project strongly prefers secondary sources". This discussion ends now. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * this non-issue If it's a non-issue, why has it been raised again and again by multiple editors throughout article's history (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and our current discussion)? Trying to brush it off as a "non-issue" is dishonest.
 * I already responded to the editor you mentioned. Let's continue in the talk page you linked to. 160.39.234.39 (talk) 06:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Your latest comment, 160.39.234.39, will be deleted and I will not allow any more input from you in my talk page. I'm fairly tolerant but continuous ad hominems ("dishonest", etc) are boring and wasteful. Be well. -The Gnome (talk) 09:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Your latest comment, 160.39.234.39, will be deleted and I will not allow any more input from you in my talk page. I'm fairly tolerant but continuous ad hominems ("dishonest", etc) are boring and wasteful. Be well. -The Gnome (talk) 09:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Kan Jong-woo
Hi, I see that you’ve deleted this article because the subject doesn’t meet the criteria. But the references provided was Korean national level newspaper and google level search engine whom verified his albums and music appeared on National TV. Could you please help me to retrieve the article please? I accidentally wrote draft without knowing the subject appeared in many other Korean related article, and moved from draft to article which created this confusion, which I’ll never do. If you could even move it back to Draft stage, I will very appreciate it. Thank you. J2love (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oops sorry I just see that you just voted not deleted. J2love (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Greetings, J2love. Actually, I did not vote, I made a suggestion. And I did not suggest to Keep but to Delete the contested article. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

"Speedy keep"
I think this was technically out of line. I went there just now to strike my own !vote to userfy the page because I could see before I wrote it that it wasn't going to pass, and because I was getting (and still am getting) grief over it in otherwise unrelated discussions. I was surprised to see it had been speedy-closed without citing which of the speedy keep criteria it met. Yeah, if you had shown up between when Banner withdrew his nomination and when I cast my !vote technically it would have qualified, but the fact that my !vote existed is the very reason I wanted to edit the AFD just now, and is also the reason why I'm pretty sure speedy keep was not allowed. I'm sure you did so in good faith, and I would be perfectly happy with you re-closing as soon as I strike my own !vote, but shutting it down before I get a chance to do so really doesn't seem fair. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Hijiri 88. I believe that the after an AfD discussion has run for at least seven days, experienced non-admins in good standing may consider closing a discussion on that page which is beyond doubt a clear keep. The discussion resulted in an evidently clear Keep, while the nominator had also withdrawn the article's candidacy for deletion. Per WP:CLOSEAFD, an editor in good standing who is not an administrator, and is also uninvolved, may close AfDs in certain circumstances. Please correct me if I am in any way wrong. As to re-opening the discussion to allow you to strike off your suggestion, I'm not sure we can do this. -The Gnome (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The key phrase in the above is at least seven days: at the time you closed the discussion, it had been open for 6 days, 0 hours, and 24 minutes, and seven days still had not passed before I wrote the above; you would have been entitled to speedy close the discussion if there were no non-keep !votes, but my !vote meant that that was not the case.
 * It may not seem like much of an issue whether a closer ignored my !vote or I formally retracted it so the closer could ignore my !vote, but I'm still (or at least certainly was when I wrote the above) getting grief at ANI over having posted that !vote and (presumably) not having retracted it -- this kind of problem is actually a bigger issue than whether this or that article remains in the mainspace, and so honestly WP:IAR would probably apply even if I struck my !vote without consulting you first.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 15:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Then, I must have calculated erroneously the time period, Hijiri 88. As the closer, I gladly allow you to amend your input as you see fit. I'm sure you'll see to it that there is no controversy caused by your change. Go ahead. And take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Accusation of edit warring
Editor Cassianto asccused me here of edit warring in the article "Infobox" and then removed the accusation with an edit summary stating "Cant be bothered." My friendly suggestion to the accuser is to read up on WP:AN3, where what is and what is not edit warring is rather clearly described. To wit, edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute. Content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. There were never any "confrontational edits" from my part; simply a request to discuss things first (specifically about this serially contentious issue) before placing "favoring-use-of infobox" templates on the page. And of course, there were never three reverts. For those interested in the substance of the issue, the relevant RfC is already under way. Cheers, all. -The Gnome (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You were bold, SchroCat reverted you, and rather than discuss, per WP:BRD, you reverted again. So yes, you warred. Not rocket science, is it.   Cassianto Talk  20:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof was and still is on the anti-infobox argument and not on me. Claiming without justification that the aricle is slanted is neither smart nor BOLD. After I removed it, the template was reinstated without any explanation. And so I immediately initiated an RfC. No 3RRs, no "confrontational edits". Ergo, you're wrong about edit warring. Please be careful with such cavalier accusations. -The Gnome (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. Taking into account your past behavior, it's best you stay away from my talk page entirely. You can proffer your views in your own page. Godspeed. -The Gnome (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Correcting RFC section header
Please can you give me some sources to show it is "not kosher" to change the section header for a rfc when it contradicts the rfc question. I have checked policy, and cannot find it covered. Thanks.  ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥  ♥ Talk ♥ 13:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Greetings, L'Origine du monde. My "not kosher" did not denote a violation of policy but, rather, of etiquette. In RfC discussions, we are not even supposed to delete or alter our input, without an explicit indication we did so, i.e. by striking off the text we want deleted and adding new text marked as an edit. Same thing goes for the title. The least you could have done, so that the RfC would remain kosher, would be to present both previous and current version. All this is done in order to have orderly discussions, which a third party can follow without getting confused, i.e. without seeing a response to something that has changed. -The Gnome (talk) 09:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Kosher is a matter of religious ethics, not etiquette. Not kosher means dishonest to me and other people. I have added back the original title in the comments - is the RfC kosher now? I originally clarified the title as it seemed to have confused somebody here. Please explain what you mean by "i.e. by striking off the text we want deleted and adding new text marked as an edit. Same thing goes for the title.", as I said I could not find guidelines. I added new text marked as an edit, and commented that I had done so here.  ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥   ♥ Talk ♥ 18:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't concern yourself too much with this, L'Origine du monde. It's alright. Take care. (signed) rabbi wannabe The Gnome (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * :)  ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥  ♥ Talk ♥ 23:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments by others
Hi. According to WP:TPO we do not edit comments by other editors unless they are explicitly harmful in some way or another. Even though it was clearly obvious that you edited the comments at AfD in good faith, I undid it. Although, it is practised to edit the comments for formatting purposes. See you around Regards, — usernamekiran (talk)  18:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Greetings, usernamekiran. Regarding your revert of my edit in the Teena Singh AfD, which you justfied by invoking WP:TPO: Wikipedia frowns upon editing other editors' comments, indeed, as you say, but the WP:TPO guideline accepts exceptions, i.e. Cautiously editing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed [when] fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. That is precisely what I did and the whole extent of what I did. A correct format makes the work of admins a lot easier when closign down AfDs or RfCs, especially when the dialogue is extended. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the close
at this RfC. It would be useful if you could add your conclusions about the proposed exceptions, to indicate whether you're saying that the consensus is "no exceptions", or that there is perhaps still no consensus on some proposed exceptions such as (The The song) and (The Who album). I.e. should we execute on all, or talk more first? Dicklyon (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Dicklyon. I responded here. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 06:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Request reopen
Hi, please review Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music and consider reopening the discussion in view of those comments. Andrewa (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Request to re-open RfC. Andrewa (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Request to re-open RfC". Thank you. Andrewa (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Greetings, Andrewa. My apologies for not responding earlier. Unfortunately, personal life keeps interfering with Wikipedia work! But, in any case, I would not have re-opened the relevant RfC. I treat closing formal discussions in Wikipedia quite seriously, and, accordingly, I hold the view that editors and admins who get involved should do so with discretion and as much objectivity as they can muster, just like a court of law should. Αs soon one closes down a discussion any appeal process should not involve them; the most that could be asked of them are matters of clarification. This is where I stand. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please note that although I raised no behavioural issue, someone else did at WP:AN. See Administrators' noticeboard/Archive314: Also remind The Gnome of their obligations to respond to queries regarding a close they have made.
 * And I now see a possible behavioural issue here. See wp:closing: contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion. If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review... IMO this supports the view of which I cited above.
 * My experience is that closers are often willing to reopen if the close is controversial, which saves further action. This is of course contrary to your view above... any appeal process should not involve them; the most that could be asked of them are matters of clarification.
 * Please respond. I think this needs clarification. Andrewa (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is quite clear, and, since we are may being read also by newcomers, it pays to quote here the relevant text: For other procedures, whether formal RFCs or less formal ones such as merging or splitting, contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion. If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard. Before requesting review, understand that review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute, and is only intended for use when there is a problem with the close itself. As is evident, there is simply no formal obligation by the closer to respond to queries about their closing action or invitations to re-open a closure. My position has been stated above: I closed down the RfC, and if other editors find the closing "controversial" or in any way "irregular," they could use Wikipedia's relevant process of appeal from that point onwards. If we start reopening closings as soon as a "controversy" appears to arise, as you say your experience has been, then we dilute the significance of the appeals process! So, I honestly fail to see where a "behavioral issue" can be identified here. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It may just be that our policies and guidelines need clarification on this point.
 * But I'm afraid you have misquoted what I said above. I was not saying we should start reopening closings as soon as a "controversy" appears to arise, nor has it been my experience that we do that. Simply that the closer should respond to queries regarding a close they have made, as was suggested by another editor, and that this is helpful. It's helpful whether or not the close is eventually overturned (as it was in the case under discussion), and whether or not they agree to reopen the discussion.
 * And thank you for replying here. It has clarified the issues. If you honestly believe that current policies and guidelines encourage your approach, there is probably no behavioural issue, rather it is just a matter of clarifying those policies and guidelines. This could be by changing them or by correcting your interpretation, or equally possibly, correcting mine and that of the other editor who commented and was pinged above. This is progress. Andrewa (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify: I did not quote you nor did I assume you implied that. I extended the logic of the necessity to respond, as that necessity was expressed by editors such as, and claimed that the resulting back-and-forth leads to a weakening of the appeal process. After one sits in judgement of an RfC and takes a decision, I believe that one should abstain from involving oneself in any further discussions of the subject, except perhaps to offer clarification on the language or on a point deemed insufficiently clear. So, I believe the opposite from an "obligation" (Serial Number 54129's term) to respond exists. Actually, responding might turn out to be counter-productive instead of "helpful" (your term). Thanks for the time you take to discuss this with me. -The Gnome (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. IMVHO, the relevant policies & guidelines are fine as they are, and quite clear too. But perhaps you would want them changed in substance. -The Gnome (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You said If we start reopening closings as soon as a "controversy" appears to arise, as you say your experience has been... (my emphasis) That is misquoting me. That has not been my experience.
 * I think that avoiding the resulting back-and-forth by ignoring requests to reopen a close is contrary to the spirit of much of Wikipedia policy, practice and guidelines, but I'll now seek comments from others on this. Before I do, is that a fair summary of your position, and if not where have I got it wrong, and any other comments you'd like to make? Andrewa (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the mistake I made about your position. There was no intent to it. As to your argument about the "spirit of Wikipedia" I have nothing to add beyond what I said here. I believe that the great and constantly changing mass of editors are essentially stewards of this project and, in this capacity of significant responsibility, we need to follow the rules (policies & guidelines) we ourselves establish, to the best of our abilities and for the best of the project. That is where my position is based, i.e. that we must be acting with consistency and as much objectivity as we can muster in our judicial endeavors. In this instance, the editor who decides the outcome of a discussion should leave to other editors the resolving of a potential further course of action and the relevant "back-and-forth". Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The original complainer, asserting that "communication is mandatory," a notion upgraded to "informal obligations," could not handle the response, so I'm posting it here, to cover that attempt at an argument, as well. Hope it helps.
 * Our informal obligations are, by definition, those that are defined not by formal code (such as policies & guidelines) but by socialy established normal and customs. The caveat in this is, of course, that those customs and norms must not violate our formal obligations. For instance, while courtesy might demand that I respond to some query one makes or enter into a discussion with one about something, it might very well be that such actions jeopardize the due execution of a certain formal process, such as WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Case in point, the very RfC whose closure has been challenged. It is my intepretation of our obligations as Wikipedia editors that after closing down a discussion we should allow the appeal process to take place without hindrance, interference, or influence; this is an essential part of jurisprudence. All that needed to be said by the closing editor must be contained in their closing statement. (Clarifications as to language, and such, are fine.) If anyone feels differently about my interpretation, they might want to take it up with the community at the pump.
 * Wikipedia's not some salle de bal, where manners might take precedence over substance. This is an encyclopaedia and we have serious work to do. -The Gnome (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Nationally known critic
Hi, please note that nationally known critic means a critic writing for a national publication. This was verified in a recentish discussion at WikiProject Film if you go through the talkpage archive. Also widely released can refer to dvd releases (internationally) and international tv broadcasting, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no further comment, Atlantic306. (This is in relation to a certain AfD discussion.) -The Gnome (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's the link, at section 58 in this archive Atlantic306 (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Deleting comments
Regarding your edits at User talk:Serial Number 54129, I would ask that you take another look at WP:REDACT as it differs from WP:OWNTALK. I'm sure you've seen this before but I'd like to avoid trouble here. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Chris troutman. A dialogue is initiated by editor A in the Talk page of editor B. At some point, B decides without any reason that the latest response of A is (or may be an attempt to have) the "last word" and deletes A's response. What do you suggest the appropriate action by A to this should be? -The Gnome (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is to do nothing. Editors, on their own talk pages, may remove wholesale (but not selectively refactor) comments from other editors. Editor A has no recourse and, frankly, needs none. The message was received. I've issued warnings to vandals that remove the notices and keep vandalizing. I cannot re-instate my warnings. It's all retained in the talk page's history, anyway. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Does this page need some critical thinking?
The page is called Vaidya Rama Kant Mishra. The page sounds like an advertisement for this mans cure for cancer. He claims he can cure cancer with herbs. Is that even possible?
 * Above comment made by WildmanWill who has made no other contributions to Wikipedia.

Request for comment
Articles_for_deletion/Peg_Norman_(2nd_nomination) --NL19931993 (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Greetings, NL19931993. You have asked me (and you also asked Johnpacklambert) to participate in an AfD process that you initiated. I have made no contributions to the contested article and neither has Johnpacklambert. My guess would be that you're asking for our input on the basis of our recent streak of "delete" suggestions in other AfDs. Please know that what you are doing is canvasssing, that this is strictly prohibited, and that it can get you banned from Wikipedia. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Αnd, lo and behold, another sock gets the shovel. -The Gnome (talk) 07:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions to improve the article
Hello Sir, could you please review the draft article Ashwin Kumar Lakshmikanthan and provide Inputs. I am so sorry if the overkill of references infuriated you to a harsh delete, I hope this article is much cleaner now. thank you Adapongaiya (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Adapongaiya. During the AfD discussion about Ashwin Kumar Lakshmikanthan, I suggested that the article should be deleted since its subject fails the criteria for WP:NACTOR. Before making my suggestion, I tried to search items online that would suppport the subject's notability but could not find anything. Therefore, the issue is solely about the sources needed to establish that the subject meets the necessary criteria. It's not a question of improving the text or its formatting. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

This
Hello: This did not make sense, so I reverted it. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Greetings, ThatMontrealIP. It makes sense when you examine all the input by participants. Instead of adding a comment, as was the intention, I added a !vote, thus !voting twice. It was a simple typo. Although the process was over, I thought best not to leave the impression that double-!voting occured and was allowed. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello! One of us is misreading it then. It appears that you changed the delete !vote of user:Psiĥedelisto to a comment. Your username is mentioned close to his in the entry though.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm the one who misread the text for some reason. So, it was not a typo but, worse, a case of temporary blindness. Apologies. And thanks for correcting my mistake. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries at all, thanks.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)