The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I took out the last section ("Libertalia Lives On"). Other than that section, I believe most of the article is encyclopedic. Ashleyk123 ( talk) 03:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I was new to this, and I didnt really get that. But now I do and about Lower White River Wilderness, I`ll get on to fixing that right after I post this. Oh, this does not really have much to do with anything, but how did you get the Archives thing on your Talk Page? MetaCow ( talk) 23:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
{{
archives}}
which is the archive template like I have on my page. It will automatically pick up archives that are named "archive #".
Gigs (
talk) 02:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Ϣere
SpielChequers is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Xmas,
Eid,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Balloon}} to your friends' talk pages.
Noting your comments to arbcom, I'd just ask you to consider one thing. Verifiability is fine - since it speaks to the quality of the information. However, even an unsourced statement may well be verifiable (even easily so), and a sourced statement may well be not (the source can be being misused or misinterpreted - even by someone in good faith). Yet, we remove unsourced negative material on sight - and there is no obligation on the person removing it to see if it can easily be verified. Why?
The answer is logically to do with Quality Control. If someone does enter false, biased, or misleading information into Wikipedian (and we know it happens), then the only hope we have is that another editor will check it and identify the problem. If the source is provided, then it is easier to check the information against the source, and spot any discrepancy. If the source is not provided, then, since it is harder to prove a negative and say the information can't be verified "somewhere" , we remove the information, whether true or false. We need sources not because sourced information is more likely to be true, but because sourced information is easier to check and problems are more likely to be sorted.
That metric should mean that online sources are preferred to off line ones - particularly for negative BLP claims. This is not because off-line sources are weaker. Self-evidently they are not. It is, however, because it is easier for us to operate our Quality Control of articles if it is easier for the non-speciality to access and validate the source.
I've not responded to this on the arbcom page, because it isn't actually relevant to the clarification Will is seeking.-- Scott Mac 01:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi: Regarding some of your AfD noms, I noticed that you haven't made any effort to Prod them. When you think it's open and shut, WP:PROD is a much easier way to get an article deleted. Cheers, Ray Talk 23:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello Gigs. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jeferson Douglas dos Santos Batista, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 20:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
There are always available sources on state senators and house members. It's in my opinion, inappropriate to prod them as blpprod without even looking. (re. Tom Carney ) I know it is possible that there might be a false claim, but I have never seen any for the US, since it is so easy to check, but I agree they do need checking DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
There seems something very odd to some of us about you and some of your pals seemingly only going on line to check the items you are so keen on revising or deleting. Do you ever go to a library? There is nothing wrong with being an arbiter of truth and/or taste but some of us think the public ought to make up their own minds. J.S. Mill was far smarter than most of us but even he appears to be the kind of writer you would love to be the subject of your revisionism. Perhaps you should read what is set out below and argue publicly why you think he is wrong?
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." StrabismusII ( talk) 16:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree. And if you need help killing it, I'll help hold the stake. Just let me know. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much!! Know I need to get back into BLPs in general again--the last couple of days have been "Perry Como" ones-promised to work out a split of one of the pages. Am still checking, re-checking, etc. from that. :-) Glad to know the list is done and that aspect of the BLP work is over! Thanks again!! We hope ( talk) 05:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
For your idea of effort of putting up the
UBLP watchlist notice. Over 5,000 UBLPs have been
removed in the past month! Regards, The-Pope ( talk) 01:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Contact OTRS, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Contact OTRS and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Contact OTRS during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mhiji 22:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Template:Copies has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
Mhiji 17:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Gigs. I just wanted to let you know that an on-wiki process for Online Ambassador applications is active now: Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors/Apply. We'll see how things go; if it doesn't show signs of turning into the kind of toxic atmosphere of RfA, maybe it will make sense to have the on-wiki method be the only one.-- Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 19:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Gigs. Are you particularly involved in the date delinking case? At Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom, Tony1 seems to have characterised your response as among "bad-faith comments from the peanut gallery". Ohconfucius noted "You should let these characters post to Wikipedia Review. The comments might have been worth reporting had they been independent and not clouded in prejudice out of some ancient grievance. As it stands, they are not; not in the slightest." I had hoped some evidence would be provided to substantiate both of these comments, but none has been provided so far. Consequently, it would be ideal if you could shed some light there. Regards, Ncmvocalist ( talk) 16:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I am working on a potential RfC/U about User:Geo Swan. The draft is located at User:Fram/Sandbox. I have used a discussion where you were involved as part of the evidence, and would like to invite you to go over the draft RfC and add or correct whatever you feel is necessary. Obviously, if you feel that an RfC/U is not appropriate or not the best step to take, feel free to let me know as well. Fram ( talk) 11:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Gigs, I am Sorry for commenting on Dream Focus issues at his user page, but it calls me the attention that he might not be of great help on this. Now, I feel so frustrated for the fact that Mr. Hairhorn has been all times to keep away my definition on Kinetic Architecture because he wants his own one. His definition needs more depth into the architecture vocabulary and that is why I redefined it in more depth. I searched at Encyclopedia Britannica and ask them to see if there is any definition on Kinetic Architecture and they send me a message saying that there is no such word registered there. Also it is difficult to find more information on the theme as we are few people who have been experimenting on Kinetic Architecture, personally, I am on an experimenting project I denominated as "The Arkinetic House" which has more depth and complex systems where the house changes constantly, rotates and displace in multiple directions depending on needs. I created a MDS Multiple Displacement of Structure, which is a system that permits the multiple positions,etc of most of the elements of the building and making it to change constantly. That is why the latest definition I wrote yesterday for Kinetic Architecture is as follows: Kinetic Architecture : Ancient Greek κινητικός (kinētikos, "one who puts in motion") Architecture: Greek ἀρχιτέκτων – arkhitekton, from ἀρχι- "chief" and τέκτων "builder, carpenter, mason"). Is an architectural design concept where a building is transforming, moving or changing by the use of natural or unnatural sources through technological innovations. The use of robotics, mechanics and electronics are being better known as new approaches into its architectural possibilities.
Tell me is trying to define it with my own words is something wrong? someone said that everything we write on wikipedia has to be with online sources,etc. The fact is that few real sites mentions projects that moves,etc. I did searched on etymology on Kinetic and Architecture combining both and that is how I defined yesterday. Let me know if you are ok with the definition or if you want to change anything on it.
On the other hand, I will keep saying that I was the creator of " Arquitectura Kinetica" because it was created in Spanish language way back 2009 when I was experimenting on moving objects applied to architecture buildings. The circumstances on that time 1989 made me to really believe that I created it. There was no internet in that time and no books on the theme at least in Colombia, South America, otherwise the term was unknown and that is why I keep saying I did created the design concept since 1989. I just knew that in 1970 a professor of virginia university wrote a book on that title, but was not known every where. I am contacting professor Roger Clark at NC University, he was co-writer with Professor Zuk on that book and see if he can give me a hand on my research.
The first time I mentioned to Mr. hairhorn that I was the creator of the design concept, then he started to go against my definition and I do feel he is kind of persecuting me on each time I try to redefine the theme or so. I studied architecture 1982-1987 and went to Yale University 2000-2001 to do a research on Traditional architecture of New England, also I went to college 2007-2008 to study environmental systems and that made me to keep enduring my experimental project on kinetics to make it runs on renewable energy.
Thanks for reading this and I am willing to hear from you soon. kitaro
If you're going to leave threatening comments on my talk page about removing some content you are the owner of, perhaps you should also link to that content in question so I know what you are talking about? Honestly, without you leaving me a clue, it's hard to make constructive use of your request. Thanks! 76.22.32.86 ( talk) 02:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I just want to compliment you on User:Gigs/Two prongs of notability. It seems like such common sense that it needn't even be said but you put it very well. Pity so many would disagree. Take care J04n( talk page) 19:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Last year, you commented on a proposal to add ethnicity. By strict count, there was enough support, and no reason that it was abandoned; perhaps being overtaken by events.... I'm re-proposing the same, plus gender, to match all other guidelines.
--
William Allen Simpson (
talk) 07:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi fellow editor. Harbans Jandu is one of the biggest names in the Bhangra scene with thousands of songs written in his career and millions of alums sold worldwide. His songs have been included in films like Bhaji on the Beach by Gurinder Chaddha. To delete it, on the basis of some comment on facebook, if befuddling to say the least. To re-add the deltion despite another rreference being added from an ISBN source is even more befuddling. The problem with Bhangra artisits is that most of the referenced material is written in Punjabi, and magazine articles from such English magazine not available on the net. Nevertheless, the article contains 5 references. Here is an external ink to Bhangra music. Thanks-- SH 13:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
You were kind enough to step in to offer a Third opinion about the use of some language from the GNU website in the Bash (Unix shell) article. Unfortunately, it did not resolve the disagreement the way I expected and the other editor has complained at WP:AN3.
As the Third opinion, I wonder if you would care to comment. It's possible I screwed up. Msnicki ( talk) 22:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Gigs, you might be interest in this: Wikipedia_talk:Article_Incubator#Use_of_incubation_outside_stated_guidelines. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 17:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi I saw your comment on the BB deletion? page. I agree it's a good idea and voted keep too. But you wrote that it petered out, and it looks like you're right. Wondering what your thought is about this. See, I was wondering about this. I like writing articles and posting pictures that I choose -- stuff that interests me. Suppose someone wants me to write something that they're interested in -- I'm willing to do it IF they contribute to Wikimedia. But it looks like the BB thing doesn't work well (lack of interest). Suppose I use the concept like this -- someone contacts me and says Tom, please write about subject X. I say: okay, mail me a check for such-and-such an amount, but make out the check to Wikimedia Foundation. I get the check in the mail. Then I write/improve -- whatever they want. And I indicate on the article's discussion page that this is why I'm doing it. Last, I mail the check to WM foundation. Would people be cool with this?-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 20:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't a merge, it was a redirect. "Work aversion" doesn't exist, there's nothing to merge. Gigs ( talk) 13:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Just a note to say that I really like this change that you made to WP:RS's FAQ. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)