I spent some time today talking over this issue with Risker. On reflection, I realize I could have handled the issue a lot better if I had taken some extra time to look into the matter or if I had spoken to you privately. I hope that I have thought enough about the issue to avoid something similar happening in the future. I just want to extend my apologies and my wish that we can put this matter behind us. Best, NW ( Talk) 22:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I just want to bring to your attention that there is an RFC going on at the talk page that I think you might be interested in. I saw you in the history which is what brought me here along with the AN/i discussion. If not interested, feel free to ignore this notice to you. Happy editing and be well, -- CrohnieGal Talk 12:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
They seem to be doing nothing but badgering the RFA candidates and disrupting to make a point. Could you please drop it? – MuZemike 15:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok so, this kind of overhaul [1] will be done to all discographies? That's a lot of work. Perhaps taking this up at WP:DISCOG is a good idea. - eo ( talk) 13:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
←There are a zillion discographies. A vast majority of them use code that is vertical; a vast majority of them are vandalized. You are changing one article (JLo's) to be horizontal, based on its size and history of vandalism. Don't you think it would be more beneficial overall if all discographies were coded the same way? Or would you rather people edit and undo back and forth so that it adheres to their preferred version? - eo ( talk) 14:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Gimmetoo, thanks for taking the time to examine and comment on my appeal. You suggested I be banned from using the editprotected template, which would suggest you think I misused it. Please explain to me in what way I used it that would warrant such a ban. Thanks. JRHammond ( talk) 01:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I don't understand your edit summary here. "Undo sortable then". I don't see which part is not sortable. Can you please explain that. Thanks. Rossrs ( talk) 12:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the Miranda Kerr image. I spent an absurd amount of time trying to get it to work and finally gave up (as you can see in the history). I never thought to set the image size. Cheers! SQGibbon ( talk) 04:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Gimmetrow, I hope you are doing well. ;) I was wondering, if there is some way to utilize {{ ArticleHistory}}, or some other such tool, in order to compile a statistical list of articles that went through AFD, which later went on to become GA and/or FA? Thank you so much for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 16:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Any updates? -- Cirt ( talk) 06:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Please can you review the numerous other artists on Wikipedia and how their names are listed before making any such corrections to pages such as Duffy (singer) which is disruptive and a one rule for one artist, one rule for another policy. Just a brief example - Madonna, Tina Turner, Sting, Cher and Prince are but five examples that you should refer to of how the Duffy page should be presented. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlylovemusic ( talk • contribs) 10:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I have submitted clarification on this to the officials at Wikipedia. If they feel the format should be as you describe then I will be fine to respect their and your opinion. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlylovemusic ( talk • contribs) 10:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
When you re-revert a reversion of your edit, you are starting an edit-war, contrary to the spirit of collaborative editing. The expected behaviour for an editor whose edit is reverted is to start a discussion to the talk page of the article, not re-revert. You have not explained your objection to having the two tables sortable, despite a request to state your reasons on the article talk page. I understand that you wish to have an argument with the editor Jack Merridew, who originally made the tables sortable, but that's not going to happen. Edit-warring simply to try to make a point is disruptive editing and you need to stop now. I've opened a section on Talk:Yvonne Strahovski#Sortable table for you to explain why you think that the two tables should not be sortable, and I await your response there. -- RexxS ( talk) 02:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
RexxS, my last reply some two weeks ago stated the issue is not fixed. I am clearly still asserting that. Are you going on record as directly and explicity calling me a liar, after you have been warned multiple times about WP:CIVIL? Gimmetoo ( talk) 11:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Somebody is supposed to mention when a discussion that concerns you is taking place. As other seem to have forgot I draw your attention to
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#RexxS_behaviour.
Sf5xeplus (
talk)
21:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Wrong person.
Gimme, the table seems to work for everyone who has tested it, except you. In the I.T. business, when a function works for everyone except 1 user, we typically figure there's an issue with that particular user's setup. What browzer are you using? ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The basic fix was quite simple and nobody has said it caused technical problems. So now the dialogue is:
Does that pretty much sum it up? Gimmetoo ( talk) 16:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
You stated on wp:ani that there was a fix for the sortable tables, can you post that on the affected article's talk page please. Sf5xeplus ( talk) 17:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Well done for finding a solution to the table problems. I owe you at least an apology therefor for describing you as a timewaster.. Please accept my apology.
However I would note that other editors attempts at fixing the problem where good faith edits and did represent incremental improvements to the articles. I sense that you were wrong to revert those. Good luck avoiding similar unnecessary issues in future. I hope you can put the issues with other editors on this one down to mis-communication ? Sf5xeplus ( talk) 20:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Please, please, refrain from warning people that you are in disagreement with. This diff is not acceptable. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 01:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Looks like an attempt at communicating: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Gimmetoo&diff=prev&oldid=390959723 — Kww( talk) 22:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Gimme, would you mind doing your magic at WP:FA to make sure the count is correct and I didn't miss anything in the sub-cats? Thank you! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Not sure how to handle that. Was the sock investigation inappropriate?
Also, I was told to sock tag userpages of registered users, and not the talk page. I am wondering why not the talk page where it is visible to vandalism-fighters. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 15:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I have posted a proposal on User talk:BilCat about reducing their block length. You had been dealing with this: I hope you don't mind my intervention. JamesBWatson ( talk) 08:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the "God's Country Radio Network" article and see if there is enough information to continue to warrant an article. The network closed sometime this week, but with the removal of some information like station listings, I am not sure if this is enough to meet the GNG still. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Invisible Barnstar | |
Hey, I know your efforts are often overlooked and taken for granted—the curse of the quiet contributor. But, many of us know that our little corners of Wikipedia would be a freaking mess without you. So, thanks. Andy Walsh (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC) |
I spotted a fresh discussion / straw poll at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Header background on what background the style should be. They already know my views, so I don't intend to participate, but I thought you might want to add another fresh perspective? -- RexxS ( talk) 18:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
See my concerns about your unblock of TFM. I left the comments on your other account talk page but want to highlight them here so you can reply wherever it is the most convenient because this is an important issue that needs to be addressed in a timely manner. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 13:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
{{
Tb|User talk:Gimmetrow}}
Sorry, didn't realize you were using this name instead of your other. From User talk:Gimmetrow:
On the off chance that you might come back after your hiatus since May, I'm looking for an expert to review
Coat of arms of Albany, New York. It needs a technical review from someone who knows what they're talking about. It's a relatively short article, but comments at
the FAC have led to the need for a more technical description (blazon, I guess) for the COA. It probably won't take you long, and it seems the members at WP:HV have little interest in reviewing. If you're interested, please leave me a note on my talk page. Thanks!
upstate
NYer
00:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The motivation for the proposal is that people keep telling me there is actually consensus now to blindly change <references/> to {{ reflist}}. I have no idea whether that's is true, so I made the proposal on the village pump, and I'll see how it falls out. I think the issue may be, to some extent, selection bias from the collection of editors who respond to these things. I know you have been more involved with the featured content process than I have - do you have a feeling for whether very many featured articles use <references/> directly these days? — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the senseless things which seem to have got into the article together with my edits. I can`t explain how that might have happened; it much looks like the errors of a computer. Hans Dunkelberg ( talk) 22:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I had initially missed your question at my talk page. It had gotten inadvertantly lost among the several other threads that had started between the time when you left your question and when I next checked in to Wikipedia. It was not an intentional act on my part, and I am sorry that my missing it caused you to feel as though I was being deliberately unresponsive. Of course, it is my fault that I did not read my talk page close enough, but please accept my apology regarding missing the question. I can only offer that apology, and offer the explanation that it was not deliberate. I have since responded to your question. I have also responded to additional comments you made at Newyorkbrad's talk page. -- Jayron 32 17:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD, I have started a discussion about the discography format at Talk:Jennifer Lopez#Discography format. Please join the discussion there, instead of continuing the edit war, so that a consensus can be reached. Aspects ( talk) 14:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
It takes 14 steps to archive a delisted former featured portal. Can this be automated somehow? -- Cirt ( talk) 17:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gimmetrow. I see that your bot clears Wikipedia:Goings-on each week. I have written a script that is used to close featured picture candidates, and was hoping to add the editing of GO to my script. I have added a placeholder comment that could be used for the script. Do you know if this comment will be carried over after GO is cleared? If not, would you be able to make that happen? Regards, Public Juju talk 02:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Please discuss the recent changes regarding Jolie's ethnicity on the talk page; you've just made 4 reversions in a 24-hour period, and I note it's been going on longer than this as well. I've just requested the article be fully protected. I believe I've seen your name around a fair bit so I'm sure I don't need to remind you about the 3 revert rule, but both you and Catinthehat93 appear to have broken it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Um, OK. Good to see you came around, but you ought to get priorities clear. This project is supposedly about making an encyclopedia. If all the contributors were seasoned academics, we could generally trust everyone to act with some degree of academic integrity most of the time. We don't have that. So if some random editor puts unsourced information in the article multiple times, perhaps even while removing existing sources, and despite requests and warnings to discuss on the talk page, doesn't discuss on the talk page, then we have no reason to leave that questionable info in the article in some misplaced hope that if we leave it in there for a few days or weeks, that random editor will decide to engage and provide sources on the talk page. Gimmetoo ( talk) 00:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
The general response is to remove unsourced assertions contrary to existing sources from biographies of living persons and, indeed, from most articles. Any admin who blocks for "3RR" in such cases should re-evaluate their purpose in being involved in an "encyclopedia" project, let alone why they might be admins. Gimmetoo ( talk) 05:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
PROPOSED CHANGE:: Angelina Jolie's ethnicity is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catinthehat93 ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for the little correction. I really need help with the article. Can you help me? Please, I actually, i want to take it to FA later. Please reply me. Jivesh • Talk2Me 18:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, sure. I will add it to next line. Thanks for notifying me :) Novice7 | Talk 03:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Inform you of what? My revert, which you linked to in your message to me? Why should I inform of you a revert? If the Ferrigno article is on your watchlist, or you're otherwise monitoring it (which I assume you were), you'd be notified of it. I can't be expected to notify every editor when I revert them.
Or did you mean the discussion in which you are now participating, and your linking to the revert itself was an error? If so, I would have notified you if I thought it was going to turn into one. At the time, I merely thought it was a simple Q&A, and would constitute those editors pointing out the information I requested. Had I known it would be a policy dispute, I indeed would've told you, just as I've always done with editors with whom I've been involved in disputes, examples of which I can furnish you with if you want. Sorry if it appeared otherwise. Nightscream ( talk) 21:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I HAVE PROOF THAT KRISTIN ADAM'S REAL MIDDLE NAME IS NICOLE! WHY DID YOU CHANGE IT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowleopardxman ( talk • contribs) 13:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
HEY D#@K HEAD! THAT IS A PROVEN FACT THAT SARA WAS A WAITRESS BEFORE SHE GOT HER BIG BREAK. QUIT MESSING MY S$#@! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowleopardxman ( talk • contribs) 15:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
FIRST KRISTIN ADAMS NOW SARA B! WTF IS YOUR PROBLEM? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowleopardxman ( talk • contribs) 15:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm still trying to promote, but Wiki isn't cooperating-- all kinds of Wiki issues happening tonight. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey
Mid (
contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the
WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
I've already EXPLAINED it on the talk page before. This right here shows how it's supposed to look in this section. And that's it, period. And don't tell me to start talking, when you're the one who started reverting it. And where are the "many improvements" might I ask. I see a few word changes. ℥ nding· start 22:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I said ALL discussion, and by that I mean all. Do NOT reply on my talk page again. Gimmetoo ( talk) 22:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Elipongo/SmileyAward
℥ nding· start 23:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey. I'm sorry again about before, you know what edit warrings are like. I was just thinking about it, and I agree that J to tha Lo! should be there, because it's quite notable. 3d best selling remix album. I was thinking maybe we could do something like this. The DVDs are really unnecessary for this section. ℥ nding· start 12:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
You need to revise the definition of WP:Edit war. Making one WP:BOLD change is not an edit war. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
{{subst:REVISIONUSER}} has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
The Avalon High movie cast why did you change it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.21.27 ( talk) 23:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
A problem here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello. You seem to be misunderstanding the Wikipedia formatting according to Wikipedia:MOS#Punctuation_and_footnotes. The reference comes after the punctuation, where a parenthesis () is considered punctuation. Please respect and follow the policy and guidelines. Thanks and take care. Tinton5 ( talk) 01:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. Tinton5 ( talk) 02:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
[6] I missed your original edit, I'm sorry. Was that applicable to FAC? Should I not have promoted/archived noms on those dates? -- Andy Walsh (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I have made some alternate proposals for the bot that would fix duplicate references. Since you initially opposed that proposal, I'd appreciate if you could take a look and comment on the alternate proposals at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Alternate_proposals. Thanks. —SW— squeal 14:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Could you take a peek at Talk:Demi Lovato#Flecking Awards? I'm about to go for my fourth revert, and I'd like another pair of reasonably mature eyes to look at the problem.— Kww( talk) 21:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not so sure IMDB is the best source for finding the cast list. I've edited several pages on the site and the order is random and not in a specific order. It would be extremely logical for the 5 main characters to be on the top of the list. I would probably put it up to discussion since you keep changing the order so much. -- DisneyFriends ( talk) 18:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
That appears not to exist. Can you point me at the real deletion request?— Kww( talk) 01:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Could you please explain why you removed the citation needed tags from the birth date on Debby Ryan? Corvus cornix talk 05:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi I just noticed that you have reverted the entire page to a much older version stating in the edit summary Edit after this version changed a lot of numbers, at least some of which do not match sources; restoring better-vetted version. I did invest a lot of time and effort to improve the singles table, what exactly do you mean by changed a lot of numbers, at least some of which do not match sources?. I'd appreciate it if you could explain this without reverting back to the older version as the current/improved version is much better than the older version. Regards.-- Harout72 ( talk) 23:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there a reason why her relationship with Bieber should be deleted? I didn't insult both of them in any way, and even stated that the rumors were unconfirmed. Levardi ( talk) 05:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Since you didn't respond to this message, I'm going to put it back up. Levardi ( talk) 21:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm still not sure if I'm going to comment at the AN/I, but I've got a lot to say. He seems to be dormant since he was blocked for edit-warring, but if he starts up with the shenanigans again all bets are off. Too bad when threads get hijacked, isn't it? Cheers... Doc talk 02:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
In this post you claim that it was not necessary to notify the IP that you were opening a new discussion at ANI. I think you were wrong not to do so, as the old thread had been archived and a new discussion had been opened. IPs do not have access to watch-lists. The new discussion was a proposal for a community ban, the direst action that can be taken against a Wikipedia editor. To not notify the concerned party of this incredibly important discussion is wrong, and an administrator such as yourself should know better. Sincerely, -- Diannaa ( Talk) 13:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Gimmetoo, I hope you're well. As you may know,
Featured lists will soon appear on the Main Page once a week (see
Wikipedia:Today's featured list). Can I ask you to write the code for a parameter that displays the date an FL appears on the Main Page (similar to maindate
but with a link to TFL instead of TFA)? Thanks,
Dabomb87 (
talk)
13:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#gay-news.com -- Surturz ( talk) 12:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Please take a look at the article with references thoroughly and see the review of jeepday(talk) on my talk page,and give your own fair opinion.Thanks. Ehsan Sehgal ( talk) 04:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Aside from being a lame edit war, the changes you've made in at least three places have introduced incorrect dates, as I indicated in my edit summary, [9] and as can be seen in this diff (2010 becomes 2001, November 7, 2010 becomes 2010-11-11 and September 30, 2010 becomes 2010-10-10). WP:DATERET states "If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic." Of the 10 dates in the article as of this revision 5 used the Mmm dd, yyyy format while 5 used the yyyy-mm-dd format. However, WP:DATERET says we defer to the date format as introduced by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article, which is the Mmm dd, yyyy format. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 22:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Gimme, I asked a question at
Category talk:Featured articles#Redundant that you might know something about, given your work with {{
ArticleHistory}}
. Best,
rʨanaɢ (
talk)
02:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Left you a question at Template talk:ArticleHistory#Identifying FAs that are former GAs. Best, rʨanaɢ ( talk) 17:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
why do you prefer a long, long ref. list instead of two or three col ? Regards, Kairine ( msg) 08:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Any chance the bot can automate more of the Featured portal promotion process, essentially most of it aside from the first 2 steps? — Cirt ( talk) 15:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
{{
icon|FA}}
alongside the portal at
Wikipedia:Portal/Directory, etc. Can your bot add any of the steps listed at section 7 of
Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Archival instructions to its routine? --
Bencherlite
Talk
08:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Just curious, as you've twice reverted anons ... do you know of a source confirming her age? Would help to confirm one way or the other. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 03:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are seeing at http://www.billboard.com/#/artist/jennifer-lopez/chart-history/339297. When I (and apparently Harout72) follow the link, I am able to click through to http://www.billboard.com/#/artist/jennifer-lopez/chart-history/339297?f=793&g=Singles which is her listing on the Canadian Hot 100. It shows one song, "Do It Well", not "I'm Into You". If there's a more precise link to click on, please include it.— Kww( talk) 10:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
While I'm at it, after [13] check [14] (and perhaps [15]). Gimmetoo ( talk) 11:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
It is not my job to going cleaning up other people's messes. I saw no evidence of any vandalism. A citation was indeed in the article when I found it, and it turned out to be a site for court records, and not even any entry for Munn. I used that site's search engine to search for her name, and found nothing on it. Nor was there any evidence that was involved in any court cases that would explain why she'd be on that site in the first place. Thus, the birth date was not supported, and I exercised a modicum of diligence in determining that. If a party or parties add or wish to include certain information in an article, then the burden is on them to source it. If they were unwilling or unable to perform even the simplest of google searches as basic research, then should not add such material in the first place, and it is not their place to tell others to source information that they want to add to articles. Nightscream ( talk) 14:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of English football transfers winter 2002–03/archive1 [16]. Thanks, Dabomb87 ( talk) 15:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed that you have done significant consistent contributions to the Zardari page. Could you please join the discussion at FA nomination for Zardari? I may be leaving the country for a month in 3 days and do not want the nomination to fail if I am gone. Any help would be appreciated. Reformation32 ( talk) 21:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
You have been invited to join the Jennifer Lopez WikiProject, a WikiProject on the English Wikipedia dedicated to improving articles and lists related to Jennifer Lopez. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page and add your name to the list of participants. Thank You. ℥ nding· start 08:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC) |
Please help me get User:208.127.239.5 blocked at WP:AN3. He is again flaming me with his own interpretations of Wikipedia policy. ANDROS1337 TALK 02:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing when I wrote it, I still think its important, especially since it shows that the article isn't biased towards Hewitt.
Any ideas to condense it a bit? I tried when writing, but a lot seemed relevant. -- JustToClarify ( talk) 19:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
What are you doing? It wasn't released early due to a leak, it was released in Germany on the 28th, and the US on the 2nd. How am I supposed to see other things you may have done? You didn't use an edit summary saying what you did. And as far as JLO goes, there is no problem sourcing it in the article, as long as its sourced somewhere. — Status { talk contribs 07:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Gimmetoo you're assuming this. The release date is December 2nd. Xwomanizerx ( talk) 22:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
TJRC already said why. And I'm not stalking you, I was going to see if anyone put anything in about her being pregnant yet... — Status { talk contribs 05:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
What you cited yourself: "Citations within each Wikipedia article should follow a consistent style. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it. Do not change it merely for personal preference or cosmetic reasons. Do not add citation templates to an article that already uses an accepted citation format. If you think the existing citation system is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. As with issues of spelling differences, if there is disagreement about which style is best, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. If you are the first major contributor to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article." They were like that before, and you changed them without consensus on the talk page. And since there is a disagreement "defer to the style used by the first major contributor". — Status { talk contribs 05:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The existing citation system is no cite templates. I made a very time-consuming edit to rewrite a handful of citations to conform to all the others in a well-developed article. TRJC reverted that by undo. So did you. You are both in the wrong. You, however, have been editing disruptively for a while, and this is just one facet. You now have less than 20 minutes to self-revert or provide a better explanation. Gimmetoo ( talk) 05:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Swarm u | t 18:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I complained about the exact same problem with Ohconfucius (that he changes yyyy-mm-dd to something else although it was only date format used in the references) a long time ago. Still, he just keeps going on and on, and often does not even reply to any concerns. Any ideas what could and should be done? Nanobear ( talk) 14:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I see you relinked a whole lot of low-value, excessive wikilinks in an article. Could you please think twice before doing this; perhaps it's part of a campaign against OC's harmonisations of dates in ref sections, which I don't want to get into, but in which your edits have a spiralling ring about them. Tony (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why you're refusing to link the "sources" of File:Bayswater Road Kings Cross in 1929.jpg, File:Trams on George St, 1929.jpg, File:Tram on the corner of Pitt and Park St, 1950.jpg, and opting to edit-war instead? Removing file deletion tags without first resolving the issue is disruptive and can be a blockable offense. Please link sources and then remove the tags, as opposed to edit-warring. - FASTILY (TALK) 00:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - FASTILY (TALK) 02:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Sucker Punch takes place in 1961. Watch the WWI sequence and take a closer look at the map. In it's upper right corner you will notice a small nazi logo. Below the logo it says "1961". Since World War 1 happened from 1914 to 1918 this means that it's 1961 in the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derflive ( talk • contribs) 19:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) The WWI sequence is a fantasy sequence. It has no bearing on the "real time" that the movie takes place. Millahnna ( talk) 19:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
In her fantasyworld, Babydoll makes up alternate realities of events that happened in real life. The events in her fantasies happen at the same time as the real world events. She fantasizes about a world war scene in 1961. What do you think, would she fantasize about a World War scene taking place in her future, in her past but just not the right time for World War 1, or did she fantasize about a World War 1 scene in her present?
And ofcourse, don't dismiss the fact that the producer obviously placed it there deliberatly.
Giving you comment some more thought: Her fantasies don't have bearing on the real time?! Have you even seen this movie? Or did you just not understand it? Literally every scene has it's real world equivalent. Babydoll's fantasies are just her spiced up make believe form of real world occurences, from minute to minute, second to second.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Derflive ( talk • contribs) 19:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
A few of the sets are actually listed on other pages. See this part of the Grape Street Crips page. It lists multiple sets, as well as on pages for rap musicians who were gang members themselves, it refers to the Santana Blocc Crips, the Nutty Blocc Crips, and even on documentaries it refers to the Bounty Hunter Bloods and Denver Hill Bloods. See The Game, B-Real, and Jay Rock. Tom US A 01:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for looking out on the JLO articles. :) I've been so consumed with her discography recently, I've never gotten around to checking out her other articles. Why haven't you joined the WikiProject? You seem to be pretty involved (or is it just the vandalism?) — Status { talk contribs 02:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind I put a little something on your user page. Slight Smile 01:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello Gimmetoo. I note that you have been making a number of changes to the Article History of a bunch of GA's that I have reviewed. As best I can tell this is because I have been completing them incorrectly (with the wrong oldid number) but as you have repeatedly failed to provide an intelligible edit summary I have no way of knowing this and therefore learning from this mistake (if indeed that is the reason). Doubtless using an edit summary would also help you to avoid "misunderstandings" with other editors in future. Thanks. Anotherclown ( talk) 05:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Under Construction is the name of Tisdale's new series with ABC Family that was just announced yesterday. There is a mention of it in the article text, properly referenced. But a lot of people are adding it to her filmography in violation of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. I reverted as much as I could yesterday within WP:3RR. We'll keep it up - possibly the page could be semi-protected for a little while. Elizium23 ( talk) 19:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Gimmetoo. Hope you are well. I noticed your post on the above user's talk page, and would like to point out that every image this person has uploaded has been deleted, as they were missing permissions or were copyright violations. You are not obligated as an administrator to act on this finding, but you are missing an opportunity to educate a new user in the use of images on this wiki. There is a boilerplate text available at User:Diannaa/Images that you can use in instances like this. The user has never made a talk page or user talk page edit, so opening the lines of communication may be difficult, but it is surely worth trying. And having a record of attempting to communicate with the user is an important step in removing their editing privileges if they fail to begin to comply with copyright law. Regards, -- Dianna ( talk) 18:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Hi Gimmetoo - I really appreciate your contributions and would love to talk to you about an article I'm trying to help with. Thanks for all your fine work!
MerryMary Marygrieder ( talk) 23:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC) |
I would like your input on something re: Angelina Jolie. An editor there is very, very adamant that Angelina Jolie Cannes 2007.jpg be included in the article. However, the only place it would fit per WP:Images is the "In the media" section, which already includes Jolietattoo.png. So a while ago I swapped these images to appease the editor, which you reverted.
I don't really prefer one over the other, but maybe you can be persuaded to change your mind. Jolietattoo.png does show three of her tattoos, but not her face, and the "In the media" section only briefly discusses her tattoos. Angelina Jolie Cannes 2007.jpg shows her most famous tattoo as well as her face, which may be preferable. Thanks for your time. Prayer for the wild at heart ( talk) 07:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Due to research, Duffy's birth name is Amie Ann Duffy, not Aimee. There was no Aimee Duffy born in Wales in 1984, give or take 5 years. But there was Amie Ann Duffy, born in Bangor in 1984, according to Genesreunited and according to FreeBMD, Amie Ann Duffy was born in June and her mother's maiden name is Williams, which I have read in an interview before, that her mother was Joyce Williams before marrying her dad. Another note, is that the same info comes up for Katy Ann, her twin sister. Luciefan ( talk) 18:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
It seems that the issue with Ohconfucius and date formats still persists. [20] Do you think launching a request for arbitration would be a good idea? He has been given more than enough time to change his behaviour, and he has received more than enough warnings. The ArbCom could perform a thorough investigation then issue the necessary sanctions. Other attempts to solve the problem have not worked. Nanobear ( talk) 21:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Apologies if in the process of reverting vandalism I reverted links you'd corrected--unintended collateral damage. Cheers, 76.248.149.98 ( talk) 01:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Gimme ... it seems that the end of October archivals didn't get botified ( Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/October 2011). Would that be because of the colons in the article titles? I see you're still doing the good battle here :) Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Block me if you will, lady, for this. It seems that in your obsession to nail me, you failed to notice that the article was in the "wrong" date format, or you probably don't care because you want to put the frighteners on me.
FYI: MOSNUM says: Do not use year-final numerical date formats (DD-MM-YYYY or MM-DD-YYYY), as they are ambiguous: "03/04/2005" could refer to 3 April or to March 4. For consistency, do not use such formats even if the day number is greater than 12. and WP"CITE says: Although nearly any consistent style may be used, avoid all-numeric date formats other than YYYY-MM-DD, because of the ambiguity concerning which number is the month and which the day. For example, 2002-06-11 may be used, but not 11/06/2002. The YYYY-MM-DD format should in any case be limited to Gregorian calendar dates where the year is after 1582.
I am not, therefore, in violation of policy or of any guideline. Now please tighten the leash around your rottweilers. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Er what happened here [22]? From what I can tell, you later change was correct since you aren't an admin. Did you forget that you weren't an admin or get confused by what was meant? Nil Einne ( talk) 22:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi - your closure of a topic at ANI has been reverted you might want to participate.-- Tachfin ( talk) 22:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Gimme, what was Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-12-05/Special report? I'm going to save all the remaining pieces offline now, but that doesn't provide history. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
It looks like you want be satisfied no matter how strong proof I give. Removing a strong source that clearly gives her age as 28 without even comment it. At least I don't remove the sources that incorrect gives her DOB as 1982. Molgera ( talk) 20:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Gimmetoo, the article was passed by its primary author, and the actual GAR hasn't even started. I'm reverting you because of that, hope you understand. Nolelover Talk· Contribs 17:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi..you took out a section (and you moved "Fashion" Into personal life..and it should be under "Image"). Also, if you were around or new about JLo years ago you know the amount of media attention focused on her body and rear area - that info needed to be there. Also - i didn't write a general statement about being thin in hollywood - it was from an interview in which Jennifer was asked about the subject, and responded saying that she felt as long as you are healthy. Jennifer's personal views should be included. Also Why would you put "Fashion" under "personal life" makes no sense. Sorry i just felt i had to add something there about her image/perception etc. I don't mind about the images, its fine you removed them. But also have the courtesy to maybe write on my wall if you had any concerns. It takes a bit of to find the sources etc and its very easy to remove it. So please atleast tell me as i spent time writing it and have the cortousy to let me know. If certain sources are inappropriate for wikipedia remove it (and you said the only sourced (well) thing was about her losing weight etc). Its very discouraging for someone who is trying to add content (just remove the things that aren't sourced well, but LEAVE the rest) appose to someone who is just removing content everyday. :\ don't respond to this to list why i was wrong - because i know why (the images, some of the content didn't have good enough sources etc, but there was some stable information about her body etc and others looking about to her image. Go look around at other wikipedia pages there is ALOT of content like that). I just think you go about it the wrong way. I only had good intentions in adding the content and i felt like i was intruding. (in future don't just do that to sections being added maybe just split the information instead of removing the lot). Yes i know this is wikipedia but its also about community. THankyou. SoapJar21 Talk To Me 15:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
![]()
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For your work towards saving Muhammad Iqbal from pirates. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC) |
Please stop deleting Bridgit Mendler's bold titles. it is very necessary in her article and I'm sorry about the TBA. I just wanted to expand her page. 125.237.123.182 ( talk) 02:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
You know, I've been editing Wikipedia for a while, and while I'm not a particularly prolific editor, nor am I an expert, I kinda get the way things work around here. And I actually thought about expanding my edit summary, because I already thought I knew why you had made your edit; unfortunately, it occurred to me too late (have you ever wished, as you watched your browser thingee spin around, that you could abort a Wikipedia edit); I had already hit "enter". Anyway, it's probably for the best; I couldn't have fit these thoughts in an ES anyway.
And I'm placing them here, instead of the article talk page, because it's really not about the article, it's about interpretation.
So anyway, I totally understand the logic of your edit; "interpretation" is not something we want to do as Wikipedia editors--it violates the very essence of WP:NPOV, right? But in my personal opinion, WP:NPOV does not preclude the application of common sense. Let us say that a movie had 1000 reviews, and 997 of them announced it to be the worst movie of all time, two said it was horrible, and one said it was the greatest movie ever made. My question is, would you (speaking specifically to you, Gimmetoo) object in that case to including the phrase "it received generally poor reviews"? If you would, I know you are not alone, but I and many others would respectfully disagree. The purpose of our neutrality policy is to keep from pushing a POV. I respect that as completely and totally as any editor here. But if over 99% of the reviews are negative, I am not lending my interpretation to the article by characterizing the reviews as "generally negative", I am merely reporting reality. Now you can argue, with perfectly intact logic, that it is not necessary to characterize it at all, that all I need to do is to report the number, and the reader will draw his own conclusions. My objections are two: First of all, whether you mean to or not, if you do any editing around here at all, you are lending interpretation to all kinds of things, it just isn't as obvious.
As I'm sure you realize, I completely agree with your edits in the above--or, to put it more accurately--I agree with the thinking behind them. And this brings me to my second objection. We are editors. From time to time, we need to make decisions for the benefit of the reader. One reader who may need my help as an editor is someone inexperienced with the internet and/or Wikipedia. Possibly a youngster, or perhaps someone very elderly who is just learning to navigate the internet. Why is this relevant? I'm imagining my 83-year old mother (who just got her first computer a year ago) using Wikipedia to decide whether to rent a movie from OnDemand. She's never heard of Rotten Tomatoes, and she was befuddled by numbers even before the days when she was befuddled by everything. Sure, she can read your edit. But my edit serves her better because it summarizes the facts, and it's completely true. A movie with 3 negative reviews for every positive review does have generally negative reviews. Is that my interpretation? Yeah, it is. But I challenge you to find a single source that would have a different interpretation than that. It's just plain common sense to readers--that is, it's completely comprehensible to the people we're writing for. In short, I think it's better writing. We are, after all, writing prose around here. If we lose that, we might as well look forward to the day that machines will write this for us.
Back to the topic: At what point would it be "common sense" to characterize a negative percentage as "generally negative"? Damned if I know. 51% negative? To me, characterizing a movie with 51% negative reviews as having "generally negative" reviews is going too far. But it's not up to me. That's what we have talk pages for.
Anyway, this entire post is moot, because I don't have to interpret anything. Rotten Tomatoes gives me all I need to avoid inserting my interpretation right here. But I don't think it'll make for the most encyclopedic writing (ahh, but there I go with having opinions again).
Hey, buddy, obviously I got to look at some of your contributions. You're a pretty impressive force for quality around here, in a way that I will never be. (You are an administrator, aren't you?) It's an impossible thing to wish for, but I do wish you could just not react positively or negatively to my words right away. Because if you're like 90% of us humans, (yes, that was WP:OR) your initial response will be to immediately, mentally compose your retort. I wish you could just dwell on this for a few days, because (judging from your edits) your belief about this matter is a pretty established part of your creed. Me? I'm a lot squishier on stuff like this. Most of us old farts are like that. Anyway, that's my wish, that you could actually consider my viewpoint on this, despite the fact that you're clearly a lot more important around here than me. Regardless, no harsh feelings (despite the diatribe). See you around (and check out my new version of the edit in question on this whole matter; is this better? No interpretation by moi!) HuskyHuskie ( talk) 04:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
You reverted me without a coherent edit summary, which prompted me to revert back – indeed, I missed the sentence fix. However, please explain why you removed the interwiki link to the closest definition I could find. Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 21:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Emeli Sande was born in Sunderland. Yes she said she was Scottish, because she see's herself as scottish as she moved there at a young age. When she was in an interview talking about her new album, she said "He’s from Zambia and he and mum got together in the 80s in Sunderland where I was born."
-- ƒɾɛɛᴅᴑᴍº ᵀᴬᴸᴷ 17:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks so much for picking up and completing the citation-template formatting work on Ramones. I was wondering if I was going to have the strength. Cheers! DocKino ( talk) 04:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Guerillero | My Talk 15:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand what the redlink State of Georgia town is, when State of Georgia (TV series) is already in the filmography. A TV movie or just inept editing by anons again? Elizium23 ( talk) 15:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Why are you changing dates to an ambiguous format? Does 2012-01-02 mean Jan 2 or Feb 1? It is not obvious. From the same article that you cited in your edit comments comes this: "Year-initial numerical (YYYY-MM-DD) dates (e.g. 1976-05-31) are uncommon in English prose, and should not be used within sentences." I reverted some of your changes based on this and strong national ties. BollyJeff || talk 15:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me!!! This is Dan Steindler (Original bassist of Emmure) I was there from the beginning and you can ask anyone of the members now!! Who are you to take my credit from all the years I've been with them?I have pictures....videos and the respect from everyone in the band and i dont need to concern myself with stupid trivial issues like this.I know who i am and everyone else that watched us could back me up.One more thing...I'm on the demos!!! Dansteindler ( talk) 16:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)DAN STEINDLER
Stop editing my credit out of this page!! This was a part of my life and who are you to be the judge of these events!! And I am not a fan. I am and always will be one of the forming members!! Dansteindler ( talk) 19:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dansteindler ( talk • contribs) 19:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Quick question....Why are you obsessed with having me prove over and over and over again that I was in Emmure when it's blatantly obvious that I was because I wouldnt continuously take time out of my day do this if it was not true and my second question is this..... Who are you and what makes you the judge on whether or not I get my credit that I've respectfully earned??!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dansteindler ( talk • contribs) 19:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
I think you deserve this wonderful barnstar for helping out Wikipedia so much!! I'm sure that Wikipedia honors your great work and talents, so except this barnstar please!! RomeAntic14 ( talk) 03:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC) |
I'm having trouble seeing the change you recently made as anything but unnecessary. When I go to edit an article and click the "cite" link to add a reference, it automatically fills in the accessdate as "day month year". This is the default on Wikipedia! The examples shown in the main citation template also show that date format. In addition, the {{ cite news}} template even goes further to say you should "write out the month in words" to "avoid ambiguity". When I go to WP:DATERET, it says the date format chosen by the first major contributor should continue to be used. Well on 10-01-07, the first date was posted as October 1, 2007. I would think we should be using that format if not the one I changed it to. GoneIn60 ( talk) 05:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
A smile for you
You’ve just received a random act of kindness! 66.87.0.137 ( talk) 13:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC) |
Hey Gimme, I could use your opinion on this issue: Talk:Lemonade Mouth#No Lemonade Mouth 2, since you edit the article a lot. QuasyBoy (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
QuasyBoy (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
What makes this revision "inappropriate"?— Kww( talk) 01:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Are you sure about this? What it says (all I could find) "Scrolling lists and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show" should not be used for this purpose or that. What I used doesn't use "hide" and "show", so it doesn't apply. All Hallow's Wraith ( talk) 18:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
OhC is hacking at YYYY-MM-DD in accessdates again -- JimWae ( talk) 00:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Please don't change the format of dates. As a general rule, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the dates should be left in the format they were originally written in, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. Please also note that Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes (e.g., st, nd, th), articles, or leading zeros on dates.
For more information about how dates should be written on Wikipedia, please see this article.
If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia. Thank you. --
John (
talk)
16:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I note your failure to explain your accusations, and I note your threatening me in retaliation for questioning your apparently guideline-violating and disruptive editing. Do not post here again unless you have an apology to transmit. Gimmetoo ( talk) 13:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
If I may make a suggestion, you may find it easier to approach the discussion at User:John's talk page with more tact if you take a break from the issue for a few days. I'm not sure what history there is between you two, but your approach to that discussion comes off as unduly combative. Remarks like "John, thanks for finally responding and engaging discussion" and "Please demonstrate that immediately" (emphasis mine) do not reflect well on you, nor do they constitute an example of how we as volunteers engage with our peers. The issue is hardly urgent, and I think you both should make a point of cooling off. I make the assumption that you are responding to him in this way because you are annoyed at his actions, and that you do not usually interact in this manner. AGK [•] 23:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
User:AGK, how would you feel if a query about an edit got factually incorrect statements and charges of vandalism in response? [25] How about if after questioning the factual basis of the previous statements, and ignoring the attack, your integrity was maligned? [26] Or if an administrator then threatened you in retaliation? [27] Is that "an example of how we as volunteers engage with our peers"? Or are these an "optimal approach"? [28] Are you really saying the a user may retain false statements and personal attacks on a user talk page, and remove replies that point out those statements and attacks, misrepresenting discussion? Why or why not, User:AGK? Gimmetoo ( talk) 02:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Gimmetoo, I've asked a question at AN, could you take a look? I have to say I'm disconcerted about the timing of this. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 01:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Notice to Gimmetoo & GoingBatty: I just noticed the two of you have made conflicting edits on this article and I thought I'd flag it to your respective attentions before there's an edit war. The date formats in the references in the article was changed by GoingBatty to use long date format (e.g., "November 5, 2011") and Gimmetoo reverted it back to strict numeric ("2011-11-05"). I suggest the two of you hash out which way you want the dates to look outside of the article. Tabercil ( talk) 14:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Gimmetoo. I'm not sure if you're still watching this article, but would you mind keeping a close eye on it if you aren't? I've seen crap and unsourced information being added to it lately, and of course have reverted each time. Flyer22 ( talk) 20:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
He's back, editing as User:Br'er Rabbit. See my talk page. Raul654 ( talk) 19:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Gimmetoo, just so you know, I've blocked THEXFALLEN for 24 hours for the BLP vandalism you reverted combined with this response to your polite notice on his talk page. PhilKnight ( talk) 16:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I have recently requested a Good Article Reassessment on this Good Article. If a Community Reassessment is created, feel free to join in. -- George Ho ( talk) 15:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure If you actually looked at anything before complaining. The first part I took out was unneeded. Why state thatTom and her are married but state it in the infobox? It was a single sentence. The next part I removed were ERRORED source. The last part was unsourced and not true. Please refrain from leaving stuff on people's talk pages until you actually look. Thanks. -- MrIndustry ( talk) 01:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, greetings. Sorry to bother you, a bit of not totally ancient history. I noticed this too and contacted Graeme, and he gave a friendly answer. He's just doing his (unpaid) job as admin. I didn't see your earlier report until I went to Graeme's Talk to see what form the request he got was.
My question is why you didn't move them back yourself? Were the redirects edited in such a way as you couldn't, or did you not try? Cheers. In ictu oculi ( talk) 03:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Vietnamese)#RfC_on_spelling.
KarlB (
talk)
13:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Gimmetoo. Did you have a chance to read through my reviewer's comments on the GA nomination page? There's only a couple of things that need to be resolved before the article is promoted to GA. The article deserves promotion; it's very good. You have done much to help it along yourself, and it can only reflect well on you to have this article at GA. Could you please stop removing the nomination? -- Dianna ( talk) 15:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
You have done some good things to the article, Diannaa, but the sourcing and content issues are still not addressed. Gimmetoo ( talk) 00:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
TRLIJC19 ( talk • contribs) 15:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I hope you are not done working on the listing, because there are still numerous issues. For example, why do some random articles have an asterisk before them? Also, why are there still numerous Grey's Anatomy characters not in the Grey's Anatomy series group? Another issue is that Awake (TV series) is listed under Awake episodes, and Britten family isn't grouped with it. It's looking good, but these issues are problematic. TRLIJC19 ( talk • contribs) 01:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Please, keep that "Episode" bot start there. It will screw up the bot if you change it. Warn the bot's owner, or the bot itself before doing that. Screws up everything. TBran dl ey 02:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid this User is evidently not going to listen. The immediate response to Dennis Brown's closing of the Sockpuppet investigation yesterday was to immediately move and strip Vietnamese text from another biography and to resume editing redirects. A clear signal that he intends to continue regardless. In ictu oculi ( talk) 09:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Just in case I wasn't clear: I am not accepting the proposed restrictions, and frankly I'd rather have my account deleted. Kauffner ( talk) 16:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I trust we will work congenially on Jinnah with an eye to returning it to its former FA status despite any unrelated disagreements we have. I am respecting your edits and am aware of your history editing the article. I will probably polish the prose and standardize the refs (I hope that won't be a touchy point) and if there is something that we disagree on, I will bring it here or to the aritcle talk.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. I saw you undid the bot's edits for that page a couple times. Was it malfunctioning? — Torchiest talk edits 04:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Gimmetoo, I'd like your opinions at Talk:Demi Lovato#Edit warring over image in infobox, please. Discussion has stagnated there although the image is still being changed quite a bit, and I am trying to get folks to go on record with some opinions and discussion. Thanks in advance for your input! BigNate37 (T) 20:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The current status is to use Template:Cite_quick (even faster!) for pop-culture articles, due to the pending hold in the WP:TfD rejection of Fcite_web. The following options seem to work well, to put "{cite quick|web}" or "{cite quick|news}":
Currently, {cite_quick} is the compromise, because people complained that other fast-cite templates did not list the parameters not supported, so {cite_quick} was specifically documented to list all parameters in use. For that reason, it was not rejected, and it meets the concerns of people who wonder what parameters might not work with each template. As a result of the compromise, {cite_quick} runs 10x-12x times faster than {cite_web}, or about 2x faster than {Fcite_web} which, however, does support more rare parameters not used in pop-culture articles. For medical articles, we will need to get approval to use Template:Fcite_journal, because too many rare parameters are used in medical articles, not supported by {cite_quick}. Long term, {cite_web/smart} should replace all other 1.1 million {cite_web}, but it is stuck in TfD:
Thanks for taking time to fix the pop-culture articles. It really helps when the vast readership is able to see 10x-faster edit-preview sessions, and it helps avoid frustrating delays which might tempt them to give up trying to edit those major S-L-O-W articles. Thanks again. - Wikid77 ( talk) 20:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
For catching my omission! Mark Arsten ( talk) 14:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Just so you know Talk:My Linh. I didn't deliberately pick her as first on the list because it was the one you particularly mentioned, it was the red dress... :) In ictu oculi ( talk) 07:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I'm a contributor to Nas and noticed your removal of the logo. I don't disagree with it, but the editor that added it (and some other logos to articles) seemed to take issue when he thought someone removed it before from that article, and so he ended up reverting my edits entirely. Could you explain to User:Djjazzyb why the logo is not acceptable? Dan56 ( talk) 19:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Gimmetoo. I've proposed some changes to the "Theatre, film and drama" section at GA, and I noticed you voice some similar concerns. You can find and comment on my proposal here: Wikipedia talk:Good articles#.22Theatre.2C film and drama.22 section change proposal. Thanks. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 04:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
He has made ISO edits in well over 60 articles since August 31. The ever-growing list is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Jclemens&action=edit§ion=1 70.253.78.85 ( talk) 05:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
-- Wikipedical ( talk) 06:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey I'm not familiar with how to message people on Wiki. I have a degree in General Mathematics and I am confused why you reverted the change I made in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poker_probability_(Texas_hold_%27em).
I suppose my change could have been wrong, maybe I missed something, but the first probablity I changed from 16:1 to 17:1 is simple to check using a calculator.
1 / 16 = 0.0625
1 / 17 = 0.0588
For the second change: In the other examples you are putting the total cases on the left, and the probability that those cases happen on the right.
2:1 means it will happen 1 in 2 times or 1/2 = 0.5 ( 50% )
220:1 means it will happen 1 in 220 times or 1/220 = 0.0045 ( 0.45%)
1:1 means it will happen 1 in 1 times or 1/1 = 1 (100% )
0.417:1 means it will happen 1 in 0.417 times (impossible)or 1/0.417= 2.43 (243% )?
1.417:1 means it will happen 1 in 1.417 times or 1/1.417= 0.705 ( 70.5% )
Is this wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marler8997 ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Ahh I see now. I was confused because of the 4.25:1 case, but it looks like you have fixed that to become 3.25:1. Sorry for the trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marler8997 ( talk • contribs) 20:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry my friend,regarding Anastacia i found that here http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discograf%C3%ADa_y_Ventas_Oficiales_de_Anastacia
Thanks in advacne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anastacia599 ( talk • contribs) 20:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
The link you provided is to the Spanish wiki. Wikis are not WP:Reliable sources for information, because anyone can change them. Worse, this is a page you have edited, and it had 2000 before you edited it. So all it indicates is that you are putting this information elsewhere on the web, but it still doesn't have a source that the English wikipedia would treat as reliable. At least 2000 has "some" sort of sourcing, even if I don't consider amazon and allmusic particularly good sources.
So let me make this completely clear - do not restore your unsourced information again without prior discussion, ideally with me. I will tell you what sources are usable. I can assure you that there is no experienced editor here who would treat that es-wiki page as a usable source for your changes here. If you make this change again without discussion and agreement, you will simply be blocked from editing. Discuss first. Provide a source and get agreement. Gimmetoo ( talk) 22:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Dont be angry. I still dont understand how to proper edit something, or to talk about something. I dont know where I can talk on wikipedia. And I dont understand why are you angry and why you can add something and if I add it I will be banned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anastacia599 ( talk • contribs) 15:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Gimmetoo, I was wondering about this revert. No issues, just curious why you reverted the bot. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 22:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Can you reconsider cutting the GA symbol from this article? Well after the GA was awarded, Jim Sweeney began cutting one subsection of the background section which the editor who awarded the GA has no problems with. Jim Sweeney has instigated and declared an edit war where one does not exist. The article is not unstable, I have been reinserting the same information which Jim Sweeney has been cutting, as part of a negotiating strategy. The reason I have persisted is because I think its wrong that one editor could censor an article and get away with it. Could you please reconsider your actions as no edit war exists, although Jim Sweeney wants to make his censorship look like it. -- Rskp ( talk) 02:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
First off, I want to thank you for protecting the article in the first place. However, I was wondering if the protection length could be shortened, and I was told to contact you about it. I understand that the article has been protected for long lengths of time in the past due to persistent vandalism (likely due to the fact that they were on a popular Disney Channel series). Since their series' end, the vandalism due to that has died down. The recent onslaught of vandalism was in reaction to an event that happened on the 17th (Cole controversially deleting his Tumblr), and I feel that would die down in way less than a year, the current protection length. Are you willing to reduce the length at all? - Purplewowies ( talk) 05:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat ( talk) 11:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for asking those questions to Elen. I had been meaning to do it myself, but I hadn't had the time to dig up the diffs. I've added a few follow-ups of my own. Raul654 ( talk) 15:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
How about Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Delegates? Bencherlite Talk 13:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I took my eye off the ball due to recent business trips but see you made comment here regarding this history. Following your comment I have restored the deleted RM result. I have also notified Graeme Bartlett who enacted (in good faith) the original db-G6 after hiding the RM result was pointed out. This is one of 3 recent db-G6 related moves counter RM. The others are Yen Bai Province, actioned in good faith by DGG, Thanh Hoa counter Edgar181 "moved page Thanh Hoa to Thanh Hóa: reverting my Oct 2011 G6/move because it wasn't uncontroversial) (undo)" (I have also restored deleted RM note on Talk:Thanh Hoa too). A 4th db-G6 was refused yesterday but article moved anyway, I have noted that to relevant admin Malik Shabazz. In ictu oculi ( talk) 04:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I have added a section on the talk page for the article Richard Nixon titled "Section deleted on 13 December 2012." Please share your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks. Mitchumch ( talk) 18:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Gimmetoo, Your feedback is requested in the following conversation: [36]. Thanks, Chimino ( talk) 22:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Multiple admins closed a discussion, Kiefer re-opened it for drama multiple times. He was warned, took no heed, and got blocked. I stand by my actions. Giant Snowman 18:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, I consider your access to check user to be a danger to the project. As such, you may be blocked to prevent damage to the project is well off the rails. If you genuinely believe whatever it is you're on about, you need to take it to ANI, arbcomm, whatever, and get laughed at. Putting it on NW's talk page just looks like silly bluster (doubly silly because any block wouldn't prevent CU use) William M. Connolley ( talk) 12:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Kiefer didn't close a thread on himself, he reopened one he originally opened which was closed because it discussed reputation damaging information of a living person. Way to go simplifying the situation to take a stab at me though. You've gone a bit off the deep end here, I strongly advise you double check yourself, Boss, because it's not going to end well for you.--v/r - T P 13:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the help with the Article-history template. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I recently noticed that some of the text in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive632 had been overwritten with garbage before it was archived, so I went to the diff where you added the text and copied it into the archive. Please feel free to revert if this doesn't reflect your intentions. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't disagree with your comments about NW's use of the tools given my recent experiences with him, but you should understand that a block would not do anything to benefit you and would only benefit him. The proof of that should be NW's polite comment that you can go ahead and block him.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Best wishes for the New Year! | |
Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; thank you for all you've done so well for so many years!
Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the
FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians! |
Hello Gimmetoo. I checked back in on the Village Pump discussion and it appears things are at an impasse. Would you like me to initiate a request to move {{ Article history}} back to {{ ArticleHistory}}? The only other obvious solution would be to change Gimmebot to process the current template title, and I understand you would prefer not to do that, correct? 28bytes ( talk) 19:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Hi, Gimme. Re. your question on NYB's page, "Under the interpretation that a user can switch back and forth between accounts successively, what sort of editing would even be socking.. ?
, I pride myself on the best, and only real, sort of socking: editing from two accounts simultaneously.
[37]
[38]
Bishonen |
talk
18:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC).
If you can add anything to this list it would be appreciated. I think we need to talk about a central repository for this splintered discussion. Perhaps a notice in Signpost? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 14:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
thx sorry yes i've seen a few of those, i'll be more vigilant. for some bbc refs it also puts in 1970-01-01. i guess we could report to reflinks developer but i think it's the fault of the sites being referenced Tom B ( talk) 02:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
No immediate rush, since TFAs are scheduled up to and including Feb 13 at present, but the nomination at TFAR for Feb 14 is one of mine. As there's an oppose, I ought not to take the decision on whether to schedule it. Can I leave it to you to decide whether to schedule "Single Ladies", or something else, for that date? Thanks. Bencherlite Talk 10:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Zheek ( talk) 12:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Would appreciate your opinion on Talk:Halle Berry. I see this image better for the infobox and would like to reach a consensus, since another editor contends that this very bad image is better. Helliea ( talk) 21:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello - I'm contacting you because you participated in the discussion on the proposed renaming of Cà Mau and/or An Giang Province. This is to let you know that a discussion on a number of similar proposed moves is taking place at Talk:Bac Ninh Province. Colonies Chris ( talk) 12:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I thought of you today, when I encountered a man after your own heart, in this jolly chap. Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I spent some time today talking over this issue with Risker. On reflection, I realize I could have handled the issue a lot better if I had taken some extra time to look into the matter or if I had spoken to you privately. I hope that I have thought enough about the issue to avoid something similar happening in the future. I just want to extend my apologies and my wish that we can put this matter behind us. Best, NW ( Talk) 22:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I just want to bring to your attention that there is an RFC going on at the talk page that I think you might be interested in. I saw you in the history which is what brought me here along with the AN/i discussion. If not interested, feel free to ignore this notice to you. Happy editing and be well, -- CrohnieGal Talk 12:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
They seem to be doing nothing but badgering the RFA candidates and disrupting to make a point. Could you please drop it? – MuZemike 15:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok so, this kind of overhaul [1] will be done to all discographies? That's a lot of work. Perhaps taking this up at WP:DISCOG is a good idea. - eo ( talk) 13:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
←There are a zillion discographies. A vast majority of them use code that is vertical; a vast majority of them are vandalized. You are changing one article (JLo's) to be horizontal, based on its size and history of vandalism. Don't you think it would be more beneficial overall if all discographies were coded the same way? Or would you rather people edit and undo back and forth so that it adheres to their preferred version? - eo ( talk) 14:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Gimmetoo, thanks for taking the time to examine and comment on my appeal. You suggested I be banned from using the editprotected template, which would suggest you think I misused it. Please explain to me in what way I used it that would warrant such a ban. Thanks. JRHammond ( talk) 01:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I don't understand your edit summary here. "Undo sortable then". I don't see which part is not sortable. Can you please explain that. Thanks. Rossrs ( talk) 12:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the Miranda Kerr image. I spent an absurd amount of time trying to get it to work and finally gave up (as you can see in the history). I never thought to set the image size. Cheers! SQGibbon ( talk) 04:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Gimmetrow, I hope you are doing well. ;) I was wondering, if there is some way to utilize {{ ArticleHistory}}, or some other such tool, in order to compile a statistical list of articles that went through AFD, which later went on to become GA and/or FA? Thank you so much for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 16:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Any updates? -- Cirt ( talk) 06:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Please can you review the numerous other artists on Wikipedia and how their names are listed before making any such corrections to pages such as Duffy (singer) which is disruptive and a one rule for one artist, one rule for another policy. Just a brief example - Madonna, Tina Turner, Sting, Cher and Prince are but five examples that you should refer to of how the Duffy page should be presented. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlylovemusic ( talk • contribs) 10:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I have submitted clarification on this to the officials at Wikipedia. If they feel the format should be as you describe then I will be fine to respect their and your opinion. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlylovemusic ( talk • contribs) 10:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
When you re-revert a reversion of your edit, you are starting an edit-war, contrary to the spirit of collaborative editing. The expected behaviour for an editor whose edit is reverted is to start a discussion to the talk page of the article, not re-revert. You have not explained your objection to having the two tables sortable, despite a request to state your reasons on the article talk page. I understand that you wish to have an argument with the editor Jack Merridew, who originally made the tables sortable, but that's not going to happen. Edit-warring simply to try to make a point is disruptive editing and you need to stop now. I've opened a section on Talk:Yvonne Strahovski#Sortable table for you to explain why you think that the two tables should not be sortable, and I await your response there. -- RexxS ( talk) 02:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
RexxS, my last reply some two weeks ago stated the issue is not fixed. I am clearly still asserting that. Are you going on record as directly and explicity calling me a liar, after you have been warned multiple times about WP:CIVIL? Gimmetoo ( talk) 11:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Somebody is supposed to mention when a discussion that concerns you is taking place. As other seem to have forgot I draw your attention to
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#RexxS_behaviour.
Sf5xeplus (
talk)
21:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Wrong person.
Gimme, the table seems to work for everyone who has tested it, except you. In the I.T. business, when a function works for everyone except 1 user, we typically figure there's an issue with that particular user's setup. What browzer are you using? ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The basic fix was quite simple and nobody has said it caused technical problems. So now the dialogue is:
Does that pretty much sum it up? Gimmetoo ( talk) 16:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
You stated on wp:ani that there was a fix for the sortable tables, can you post that on the affected article's talk page please. Sf5xeplus ( talk) 17:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Well done for finding a solution to the table problems. I owe you at least an apology therefor for describing you as a timewaster.. Please accept my apology.
However I would note that other editors attempts at fixing the problem where good faith edits and did represent incremental improvements to the articles. I sense that you were wrong to revert those. Good luck avoiding similar unnecessary issues in future. I hope you can put the issues with other editors on this one down to mis-communication ? Sf5xeplus ( talk) 20:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Please, please, refrain from warning people that you are in disagreement with. This diff is not acceptable. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 01:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Looks like an attempt at communicating: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Gimmetoo&diff=prev&oldid=390959723 — Kww( talk) 22:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Gimme, would you mind doing your magic at WP:FA to make sure the count is correct and I didn't miss anything in the sub-cats? Thank you! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Not sure how to handle that. Was the sock investigation inappropriate?
Also, I was told to sock tag userpages of registered users, and not the talk page. I am wondering why not the talk page where it is visible to vandalism-fighters. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 15:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I have posted a proposal on User talk:BilCat about reducing their block length. You had been dealing with this: I hope you don't mind my intervention. JamesBWatson ( talk) 08:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the "God's Country Radio Network" article and see if there is enough information to continue to warrant an article. The network closed sometime this week, but with the removal of some information like station listings, I am not sure if this is enough to meet the GNG still. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Invisible Barnstar | |
Hey, I know your efforts are often overlooked and taken for granted—the curse of the quiet contributor. But, many of us know that our little corners of Wikipedia would be a freaking mess without you. So, thanks. Andy Walsh (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC) |
I spotted a fresh discussion / straw poll at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Header background on what background the style should be. They already know my views, so I don't intend to participate, but I thought you might want to add another fresh perspective? -- RexxS ( talk) 18:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
See my concerns about your unblock of TFM. I left the comments on your other account talk page but want to highlight them here so you can reply wherever it is the most convenient because this is an important issue that needs to be addressed in a timely manner. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 13:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
{{
Tb|User talk:Gimmetrow}}
Sorry, didn't realize you were using this name instead of your other. From User talk:Gimmetrow:
On the off chance that you might come back after your hiatus since May, I'm looking for an expert to review
Coat of arms of Albany, New York. It needs a technical review from someone who knows what they're talking about. It's a relatively short article, but comments at
the FAC have led to the need for a more technical description (blazon, I guess) for the COA. It probably won't take you long, and it seems the members at WP:HV have little interest in reviewing. If you're interested, please leave me a note on my talk page. Thanks!
upstate
NYer
00:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The motivation for the proposal is that people keep telling me there is actually consensus now to blindly change <references/> to {{ reflist}}. I have no idea whether that's is true, so I made the proposal on the village pump, and I'll see how it falls out. I think the issue may be, to some extent, selection bias from the collection of editors who respond to these things. I know you have been more involved with the featured content process than I have - do you have a feeling for whether very many featured articles use <references/> directly these days? — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the senseless things which seem to have got into the article together with my edits. I can`t explain how that might have happened; it much looks like the errors of a computer. Hans Dunkelberg ( talk) 22:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I had initially missed your question at my talk page. It had gotten inadvertantly lost among the several other threads that had started between the time when you left your question and when I next checked in to Wikipedia. It was not an intentional act on my part, and I am sorry that my missing it caused you to feel as though I was being deliberately unresponsive. Of course, it is my fault that I did not read my talk page close enough, but please accept my apology regarding missing the question. I can only offer that apology, and offer the explanation that it was not deliberate. I have since responded to your question. I have also responded to additional comments you made at Newyorkbrad's talk page. -- Jayron 32 17:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD, I have started a discussion about the discography format at Talk:Jennifer Lopez#Discography format. Please join the discussion there, instead of continuing the edit war, so that a consensus can be reached. Aspects ( talk) 14:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
It takes 14 steps to archive a delisted former featured portal. Can this be automated somehow? -- Cirt ( talk) 17:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gimmetrow. I see that your bot clears Wikipedia:Goings-on each week. I have written a script that is used to close featured picture candidates, and was hoping to add the editing of GO to my script. I have added a placeholder comment that could be used for the script. Do you know if this comment will be carried over after GO is cleared? If not, would you be able to make that happen? Regards, Public Juju talk 02:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Please discuss the recent changes regarding Jolie's ethnicity on the talk page; you've just made 4 reversions in a 24-hour period, and I note it's been going on longer than this as well. I've just requested the article be fully protected. I believe I've seen your name around a fair bit so I'm sure I don't need to remind you about the 3 revert rule, but both you and Catinthehat93 appear to have broken it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Um, OK. Good to see you came around, but you ought to get priorities clear. This project is supposedly about making an encyclopedia. If all the contributors were seasoned academics, we could generally trust everyone to act with some degree of academic integrity most of the time. We don't have that. So if some random editor puts unsourced information in the article multiple times, perhaps even while removing existing sources, and despite requests and warnings to discuss on the talk page, doesn't discuss on the talk page, then we have no reason to leave that questionable info in the article in some misplaced hope that if we leave it in there for a few days or weeks, that random editor will decide to engage and provide sources on the talk page. Gimmetoo ( talk) 00:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
The general response is to remove unsourced assertions contrary to existing sources from biographies of living persons and, indeed, from most articles. Any admin who blocks for "3RR" in such cases should re-evaluate their purpose in being involved in an "encyclopedia" project, let alone why they might be admins. Gimmetoo ( talk) 05:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
PROPOSED CHANGE:: Angelina Jolie's ethnicity is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catinthehat93 ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for the little correction. I really need help with the article. Can you help me? Please, I actually, i want to take it to FA later. Please reply me. Jivesh • Talk2Me 18:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, sure. I will add it to next line. Thanks for notifying me :) Novice7 | Talk 03:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Inform you of what? My revert, which you linked to in your message to me? Why should I inform of you a revert? If the Ferrigno article is on your watchlist, or you're otherwise monitoring it (which I assume you were), you'd be notified of it. I can't be expected to notify every editor when I revert them.
Or did you mean the discussion in which you are now participating, and your linking to the revert itself was an error? If so, I would have notified you if I thought it was going to turn into one. At the time, I merely thought it was a simple Q&A, and would constitute those editors pointing out the information I requested. Had I known it would be a policy dispute, I indeed would've told you, just as I've always done with editors with whom I've been involved in disputes, examples of which I can furnish you with if you want. Sorry if it appeared otherwise. Nightscream ( talk) 21:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I HAVE PROOF THAT KRISTIN ADAM'S REAL MIDDLE NAME IS NICOLE! WHY DID YOU CHANGE IT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowleopardxman ( talk • contribs) 13:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
HEY D#@K HEAD! THAT IS A PROVEN FACT THAT SARA WAS A WAITRESS BEFORE SHE GOT HER BIG BREAK. QUIT MESSING MY S$#@! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowleopardxman ( talk • contribs) 15:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
FIRST KRISTIN ADAMS NOW SARA B! WTF IS YOUR PROBLEM? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowleopardxman ( talk • contribs) 15:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm still trying to promote, but Wiki isn't cooperating-- all kinds of Wiki issues happening tonight. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey
Mid (
contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the
WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
I've already EXPLAINED it on the talk page before. This right here shows how it's supposed to look in this section. And that's it, period. And don't tell me to start talking, when you're the one who started reverting it. And where are the "many improvements" might I ask. I see a few word changes. ℥ nding· start 22:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I said ALL discussion, and by that I mean all. Do NOT reply on my talk page again. Gimmetoo ( talk) 22:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Elipongo/SmileyAward
℥ nding· start 23:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey. I'm sorry again about before, you know what edit warrings are like. I was just thinking about it, and I agree that J to tha Lo! should be there, because it's quite notable. 3d best selling remix album. I was thinking maybe we could do something like this. The DVDs are really unnecessary for this section. ℥ nding· start 12:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
You need to revise the definition of WP:Edit war. Making one WP:BOLD change is not an edit war. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
{{subst:REVISIONUSER}} has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
The Avalon High movie cast why did you change it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.21.27 ( talk) 23:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
A problem here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello. You seem to be misunderstanding the Wikipedia formatting according to Wikipedia:MOS#Punctuation_and_footnotes. The reference comes after the punctuation, where a parenthesis () is considered punctuation. Please respect and follow the policy and guidelines. Thanks and take care. Tinton5 ( talk) 01:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. Tinton5 ( talk) 02:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
[6] I missed your original edit, I'm sorry. Was that applicable to FAC? Should I not have promoted/archived noms on those dates? -- Andy Walsh (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I have made some alternate proposals for the bot that would fix duplicate references. Since you initially opposed that proposal, I'd appreciate if you could take a look and comment on the alternate proposals at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Alternate_proposals. Thanks. —SW— squeal 14:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Could you take a peek at Talk:Demi Lovato#Flecking Awards? I'm about to go for my fourth revert, and I'd like another pair of reasonably mature eyes to look at the problem.— Kww( talk) 21:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not so sure IMDB is the best source for finding the cast list. I've edited several pages on the site and the order is random and not in a specific order. It would be extremely logical for the 5 main characters to be on the top of the list. I would probably put it up to discussion since you keep changing the order so much. -- DisneyFriends ( talk) 18:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
That appears not to exist. Can you point me at the real deletion request?— Kww( talk) 01:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Could you please explain why you removed the citation needed tags from the birth date on Debby Ryan? Corvus cornix talk 05:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi I just noticed that you have reverted the entire page to a much older version stating in the edit summary Edit after this version changed a lot of numbers, at least some of which do not match sources; restoring better-vetted version. I did invest a lot of time and effort to improve the singles table, what exactly do you mean by changed a lot of numbers, at least some of which do not match sources?. I'd appreciate it if you could explain this without reverting back to the older version as the current/improved version is much better than the older version. Regards.-- Harout72 ( talk) 23:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there a reason why her relationship with Bieber should be deleted? I didn't insult both of them in any way, and even stated that the rumors were unconfirmed. Levardi ( talk) 05:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Since you didn't respond to this message, I'm going to put it back up. Levardi ( talk) 21:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm still not sure if I'm going to comment at the AN/I, but I've got a lot to say. He seems to be dormant since he was blocked for edit-warring, but if he starts up with the shenanigans again all bets are off. Too bad when threads get hijacked, isn't it? Cheers... Doc talk 02:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
In this post you claim that it was not necessary to notify the IP that you were opening a new discussion at ANI. I think you were wrong not to do so, as the old thread had been archived and a new discussion had been opened. IPs do not have access to watch-lists. The new discussion was a proposal for a community ban, the direst action that can be taken against a Wikipedia editor. To not notify the concerned party of this incredibly important discussion is wrong, and an administrator such as yourself should know better. Sincerely, -- Diannaa ( Talk) 13:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Gimmetoo, I hope you're well. As you may know,
Featured lists will soon appear on the Main Page once a week (see
Wikipedia:Today's featured list). Can I ask you to write the code for a parameter that displays the date an FL appears on the Main Page (similar to maindate
but with a link to TFL instead of TFA)? Thanks,
Dabomb87 (
talk)
13:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#gay-news.com -- Surturz ( talk) 12:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Please take a look at the article with references thoroughly and see the review of jeepday(talk) on my talk page,and give your own fair opinion.Thanks. Ehsan Sehgal ( talk) 04:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Aside from being a lame edit war, the changes you've made in at least three places have introduced incorrect dates, as I indicated in my edit summary, [9] and as can be seen in this diff (2010 becomes 2001, November 7, 2010 becomes 2010-11-11 and September 30, 2010 becomes 2010-10-10). WP:DATERET states "If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic." Of the 10 dates in the article as of this revision 5 used the Mmm dd, yyyy format while 5 used the yyyy-mm-dd format. However, WP:DATERET says we defer to the date format as introduced by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article, which is the Mmm dd, yyyy format. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 22:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Gimme, I asked a question at
Category talk:Featured articles#Redundant that you might know something about, given your work with {{
ArticleHistory}}
. Best,
rʨanaɢ (
talk)
02:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Left you a question at Template talk:ArticleHistory#Identifying FAs that are former GAs. Best, rʨanaɢ ( talk) 17:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
why do you prefer a long, long ref. list instead of two or three col ? Regards, Kairine ( msg) 08:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Any chance the bot can automate more of the Featured portal promotion process, essentially most of it aside from the first 2 steps? — Cirt ( talk) 15:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
{{
icon|FA}}
alongside the portal at
Wikipedia:Portal/Directory, etc. Can your bot add any of the steps listed at section 7 of
Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Archival instructions to its routine? --
Bencherlite
Talk
08:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Just curious, as you've twice reverted anons ... do you know of a source confirming her age? Would help to confirm one way or the other. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 03:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are seeing at http://www.billboard.com/#/artist/jennifer-lopez/chart-history/339297. When I (and apparently Harout72) follow the link, I am able to click through to http://www.billboard.com/#/artist/jennifer-lopez/chart-history/339297?f=793&g=Singles which is her listing on the Canadian Hot 100. It shows one song, "Do It Well", not "I'm Into You". If there's a more precise link to click on, please include it.— Kww( talk) 10:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
While I'm at it, after [13] check [14] (and perhaps [15]). Gimmetoo ( talk) 11:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
It is not my job to going cleaning up other people's messes. I saw no evidence of any vandalism. A citation was indeed in the article when I found it, and it turned out to be a site for court records, and not even any entry for Munn. I used that site's search engine to search for her name, and found nothing on it. Nor was there any evidence that was involved in any court cases that would explain why she'd be on that site in the first place. Thus, the birth date was not supported, and I exercised a modicum of diligence in determining that. If a party or parties add or wish to include certain information in an article, then the burden is on them to source it. If they were unwilling or unable to perform even the simplest of google searches as basic research, then should not add such material in the first place, and it is not their place to tell others to source information that they want to add to articles. Nightscream ( talk) 14:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of English football transfers winter 2002–03/archive1 [16]. Thanks, Dabomb87 ( talk) 15:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed that you have done significant consistent contributions to the Zardari page. Could you please join the discussion at FA nomination for Zardari? I may be leaving the country for a month in 3 days and do not want the nomination to fail if I am gone. Any help would be appreciated. Reformation32 ( talk) 21:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
You have been invited to join the Jennifer Lopez WikiProject, a WikiProject on the English Wikipedia dedicated to improving articles and lists related to Jennifer Lopez. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page and add your name to the list of participants. Thank You. ℥ nding· start 08:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC) |
Please help me get User:208.127.239.5 blocked at WP:AN3. He is again flaming me with his own interpretations of Wikipedia policy. ANDROS1337 TALK 02:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing when I wrote it, I still think its important, especially since it shows that the article isn't biased towards Hewitt.
Any ideas to condense it a bit? I tried when writing, but a lot seemed relevant. -- JustToClarify ( talk) 19:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
What are you doing? It wasn't released early due to a leak, it was released in Germany on the 28th, and the US on the 2nd. How am I supposed to see other things you may have done? You didn't use an edit summary saying what you did. And as far as JLO goes, there is no problem sourcing it in the article, as long as its sourced somewhere. — Status { talk contribs 07:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Gimmetoo you're assuming this. The release date is December 2nd. Xwomanizerx ( talk) 22:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
TJRC already said why. And I'm not stalking you, I was going to see if anyone put anything in about her being pregnant yet... — Status { talk contribs 05:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
What you cited yourself: "Citations within each Wikipedia article should follow a consistent style. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it. Do not change it merely for personal preference or cosmetic reasons. Do not add citation templates to an article that already uses an accepted citation format. If you think the existing citation system is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. As with issues of spelling differences, if there is disagreement about which style is best, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. If you are the first major contributor to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article." They were like that before, and you changed them without consensus on the talk page. And since there is a disagreement "defer to the style used by the first major contributor". — Status { talk contribs 05:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The existing citation system is no cite templates. I made a very time-consuming edit to rewrite a handful of citations to conform to all the others in a well-developed article. TRJC reverted that by undo. So did you. You are both in the wrong. You, however, have been editing disruptively for a while, and this is just one facet. You now have less than 20 minutes to self-revert or provide a better explanation. Gimmetoo ( talk) 05:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Swarm u | t 18:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I complained about the exact same problem with Ohconfucius (that he changes yyyy-mm-dd to something else although it was only date format used in the references) a long time ago. Still, he just keeps going on and on, and often does not even reply to any concerns. Any ideas what could and should be done? Nanobear ( talk) 14:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I see you relinked a whole lot of low-value, excessive wikilinks in an article. Could you please think twice before doing this; perhaps it's part of a campaign against OC's harmonisations of dates in ref sections, which I don't want to get into, but in which your edits have a spiralling ring about them. Tony (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why you're refusing to link the "sources" of File:Bayswater Road Kings Cross in 1929.jpg, File:Trams on George St, 1929.jpg, File:Tram on the corner of Pitt and Park St, 1950.jpg, and opting to edit-war instead? Removing file deletion tags without first resolving the issue is disruptive and can be a blockable offense. Please link sources and then remove the tags, as opposed to edit-warring. - FASTILY (TALK) 00:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - FASTILY (TALK) 02:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Sucker Punch takes place in 1961. Watch the WWI sequence and take a closer look at the map. In it's upper right corner you will notice a small nazi logo. Below the logo it says "1961". Since World War 1 happened from 1914 to 1918 this means that it's 1961 in the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derflive ( talk • contribs) 19:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) The WWI sequence is a fantasy sequence. It has no bearing on the "real time" that the movie takes place. Millahnna ( talk) 19:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
In her fantasyworld, Babydoll makes up alternate realities of events that happened in real life. The events in her fantasies happen at the same time as the real world events. She fantasizes about a world war scene in 1961. What do you think, would she fantasize about a World War scene taking place in her future, in her past but just not the right time for World War 1, or did she fantasize about a World War 1 scene in her present?
And ofcourse, don't dismiss the fact that the producer obviously placed it there deliberatly.
Giving you comment some more thought: Her fantasies don't have bearing on the real time?! Have you even seen this movie? Or did you just not understand it? Literally every scene has it's real world equivalent. Babydoll's fantasies are just her spiced up make believe form of real world occurences, from minute to minute, second to second.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Derflive ( talk • contribs) 19:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
A few of the sets are actually listed on other pages. See this part of the Grape Street Crips page. It lists multiple sets, as well as on pages for rap musicians who were gang members themselves, it refers to the Santana Blocc Crips, the Nutty Blocc Crips, and even on documentaries it refers to the Bounty Hunter Bloods and Denver Hill Bloods. See The Game, B-Real, and Jay Rock. Tom US A 01:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for looking out on the JLO articles. :) I've been so consumed with her discography recently, I've never gotten around to checking out her other articles. Why haven't you joined the WikiProject? You seem to be pretty involved (or is it just the vandalism?) — Status { talk contribs 02:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind I put a little something on your user page. Slight Smile 01:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello Gimmetoo. I note that you have been making a number of changes to the Article History of a bunch of GA's that I have reviewed. As best I can tell this is because I have been completing them incorrectly (with the wrong oldid number) but as you have repeatedly failed to provide an intelligible edit summary I have no way of knowing this and therefore learning from this mistake (if indeed that is the reason). Doubtless using an edit summary would also help you to avoid "misunderstandings" with other editors in future. Thanks. Anotherclown ( talk) 05:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Under Construction is the name of Tisdale's new series with ABC Family that was just announced yesterday. There is a mention of it in the article text, properly referenced. But a lot of people are adding it to her filmography in violation of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. I reverted as much as I could yesterday within WP:3RR. We'll keep it up - possibly the page could be semi-protected for a little while. Elizium23 ( talk) 19:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Gimmetoo. Hope you are well. I noticed your post on the above user's talk page, and would like to point out that every image this person has uploaded has been deleted, as they were missing permissions or were copyright violations. You are not obligated as an administrator to act on this finding, but you are missing an opportunity to educate a new user in the use of images on this wiki. There is a boilerplate text available at User:Diannaa/Images that you can use in instances like this. The user has never made a talk page or user talk page edit, so opening the lines of communication may be difficult, but it is surely worth trying. And having a record of attempting to communicate with the user is an important step in removing their editing privileges if they fail to begin to comply with copyright law. Regards, -- Dianna ( talk) 18:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Hi Gimmetoo - I really appreciate your contributions and would love to talk to you about an article I'm trying to help with. Thanks for all your fine work!
MerryMary Marygrieder ( talk) 23:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC) |
I would like your input on something re: Angelina Jolie. An editor there is very, very adamant that Angelina Jolie Cannes 2007.jpg be included in the article. However, the only place it would fit per WP:Images is the "In the media" section, which already includes Jolietattoo.png. So a while ago I swapped these images to appease the editor, which you reverted.
I don't really prefer one over the other, but maybe you can be persuaded to change your mind. Jolietattoo.png does show three of her tattoos, but not her face, and the "In the media" section only briefly discusses her tattoos. Angelina Jolie Cannes 2007.jpg shows her most famous tattoo as well as her face, which may be preferable. Thanks for your time. Prayer for the wild at heart ( talk) 07:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Due to research, Duffy's birth name is Amie Ann Duffy, not Aimee. There was no Aimee Duffy born in Wales in 1984, give or take 5 years. But there was Amie Ann Duffy, born in Bangor in 1984, according to Genesreunited and according to FreeBMD, Amie Ann Duffy was born in June and her mother's maiden name is Williams, which I have read in an interview before, that her mother was Joyce Williams before marrying her dad. Another note, is that the same info comes up for Katy Ann, her twin sister. Luciefan ( talk) 18:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
It seems that the issue with Ohconfucius and date formats still persists. [20] Do you think launching a request for arbitration would be a good idea? He has been given more than enough time to change his behaviour, and he has received more than enough warnings. The ArbCom could perform a thorough investigation then issue the necessary sanctions. Other attempts to solve the problem have not worked. Nanobear ( talk) 21:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Apologies if in the process of reverting vandalism I reverted links you'd corrected--unintended collateral damage. Cheers, 76.248.149.98 ( talk) 01:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Gimme ... it seems that the end of October archivals didn't get botified ( Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/October 2011). Would that be because of the colons in the article titles? I see you're still doing the good battle here :) Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Block me if you will, lady, for this. It seems that in your obsession to nail me, you failed to notice that the article was in the "wrong" date format, or you probably don't care because you want to put the frighteners on me.
FYI: MOSNUM says: Do not use year-final numerical date formats (DD-MM-YYYY or MM-DD-YYYY), as they are ambiguous: "03/04/2005" could refer to 3 April or to March 4. For consistency, do not use such formats even if the day number is greater than 12. and WP"CITE says: Although nearly any consistent style may be used, avoid all-numeric date formats other than YYYY-MM-DD, because of the ambiguity concerning which number is the month and which the day. For example, 2002-06-11 may be used, but not 11/06/2002. The YYYY-MM-DD format should in any case be limited to Gregorian calendar dates where the year is after 1582.
I am not, therefore, in violation of policy or of any guideline. Now please tighten the leash around your rottweilers. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Er what happened here [22]? From what I can tell, you later change was correct since you aren't an admin. Did you forget that you weren't an admin or get confused by what was meant? Nil Einne ( talk) 22:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi - your closure of a topic at ANI has been reverted you might want to participate.-- Tachfin ( talk) 22:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Gimme, what was Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-12-05/Special report? I'm going to save all the remaining pieces offline now, but that doesn't provide history. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
It looks like you want be satisfied no matter how strong proof I give. Removing a strong source that clearly gives her age as 28 without even comment it. At least I don't remove the sources that incorrect gives her DOB as 1982. Molgera ( talk) 20:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Gimmetoo, the article was passed by its primary author, and the actual GAR hasn't even started. I'm reverting you because of that, hope you understand. Nolelover Talk· Contribs 17:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi..you took out a section (and you moved "Fashion" Into personal life..and it should be under "Image"). Also, if you were around or new about JLo years ago you know the amount of media attention focused on her body and rear area - that info needed to be there. Also - i didn't write a general statement about being thin in hollywood - it was from an interview in which Jennifer was asked about the subject, and responded saying that she felt as long as you are healthy. Jennifer's personal views should be included. Also Why would you put "Fashion" under "personal life" makes no sense. Sorry i just felt i had to add something there about her image/perception etc. I don't mind about the images, its fine you removed them. But also have the courtesy to maybe write on my wall if you had any concerns. It takes a bit of to find the sources etc and its very easy to remove it. So please atleast tell me as i spent time writing it and have the cortousy to let me know. If certain sources are inappropriate for wikipedia remove it (and you said the only sourced (well) thing was about her losing weight etc). Its very discouraging for someone who is trying to add content (just remove the things that aren't sourced well, but LEAVE the rest) appose to someone who is just removing content everyday. :\ don't respond to this to list why i was wrong - because i know why (the images, some of the content didn't have good enough sources etc, but there was some stable information about her body etc and others looking about to her image. Go look around at other wikipedia pages there is ALOT of content like that). I just think you go about it the wrong way. I only had good intentions in adding the content and i felt like i was intruding. (in future don't just do that to sections being added maybe just split the information instead of removing the lot). Yes i know this is wikipedia but its also about community. THankyou. SoapJar21 Talk To Me 15:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
![]()
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For your work towards saving Muhammad Iqbal from pirates. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC) |
Please stop deleting Bridgit Mendler's bold titles. it is very necessary in her article and I'm sorry about the TBA. I just wanted to expand her page. 125.237.123.182 ( talk) 02:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
You know, I've been editing Wikipedia for a while, and while I'm not a particularly prolific editor, nor am I an expert, I kinda get the way things work around here. And I actually thought about expanding my edit summary, because I already thought I knew why you had made your edit; unfortunately, it occurred to me too late (have you ever wished, as you watched your browser thingee spin around, that you could abort a Wikipedia edit); I had already hit "enter". Anyway, it's probably for the best; I couldn't have fit these thoughts in an ES anyway.
And I'm placing them here, instead of the article talk page, because it's really not about the article, it's about interpretation.
So anyway, I totally understand the logic of your edit; "interpretation" is not something we want to do as Wikipedia editors--it violates the very essence of WP:NPOV, right? But in my personal opinion, WP:NPOV does not preclude the application of common sense. Let us say that a movie had 1000 reviews, and 997 of them announced it to be the worst movie of all time, two said it was horrible, and one said it was the greatest movie ever made. My question is, would you (speaking specifically to you, Gimmetoo) object in that case to including the phrase "it received generally poor reviews"? If you would, I know you are not alone, but I and many others would respectfully disagree. The purpose of our neutrality policy is to keep from pushing a POV. I respect that as completely and totally as any editor here. But if over 99% of the reviews are negative, I am not lending my interpretation to the article by characterizing the reviews as "generally negative", I am merely reporting reality. Now you can argue, with perfectly intact logic, that it is not necessary to characterize it at all, that all I need to do is to report the number, and the reader will draw his own conclusions. My objections are two: First of all, whether you mean to or not, if you do any editing around here at all, you are lending interpretation to all kinds of things, it just isn't as obvious.
As I'm sure you realize, I completely agree with your edits in the above--or, to put it more accurately--I agree with the thinking behind them. And this brings me to my second objection. We are editors. From time to time, we need to make decisions for the benefit of the reader. One reader who may need my help as an editor is someone inexperienced with the internet and/or Wikipedia. Possibly a youngster, or perhaps someone very elderly who is just learning to navigate the internet. Why is this relevant? I'm imagining my 83-year old mother (who just got her first computer a year ago) using Wikipedia to decide whether to rent a movie from OnDemand. She's never heard of Rotten Tomatoes, and she was befuddled by numbers even before the days when she was befuddled by everything. Sure, she can read your edit. But my edit serves her better because it summarizes the facts, and it's completely true. A movie with 3 negative reviews for every positive review does have generally negative reviews. Is that my interpretation? Yeah, it is. But I challenge you to find a single source that would have a different interpretation than that. It's just plain common sense to readers--that is, it's completely comprehensible to the people we're writing for. In short, I think it's better writing. We are, after all, writing prose around here. If we lose that, we might as well look forward to the day that machines will write this for us.
Back to the topic: At what point would it be "common sense" to characterize a negative percentage as "generally negative"? Damned if I know. 51% negative? To me, characterizing a movie with 51% negative reviews as having "generally negative" reviews is going too far. But it's not up to me. That's what we have talk pages for.
Anyway, this entire post is moot, because I don't have to interpret anything. Rotten Tomatoes gives me all I need to avoid inserting my interpretation right here. But I don't think it'll make for the most encyclopedic writing (ahh, but there I go with having opinions again).
Hey, buddy, obviously I got to look at some of your contributions. You're a pretty impressive force for quality around here, in a way that I will never be. (You are an administrator, aren't you?) It's an impossible thing to wish for, but I do wish you could just not react positively or negatively to my words right away. Because if you're like 90% of us humans, (yes, that was WP:OR) your initial response will be to immediately, mentally compose your retort. I wish you could just dwell on this for a few days, because (judging from your edits) your belief about this matter is a pretty established part of your creed. Me? I'm a lot squishier on stuff like this. Most of us old farts are like that. Anyway, that's my wish, that you could actually consider my viewpoint on this, despite the fact that you're clearly a lot more important around here than me. Regardless, no harsh feelings (despite the diatribe). See you around (and check out my new version of the edit in question on this whole matter; is this better? No interpretation by moi!) HuskyHuskie ( talk) 04:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
You reverted me without a coherent edit summary, which prompted me to revert back – indeed, I missed the sentence fix. However, please explain why you removed the interwiki link to the closest definition I could find. Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 21:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Emeli Sande was born in Sunderland. Yes she said she was Scottish, because she see's herself as scottish as she moved there at a young age. When she was in an interview talking about her new album, she said "He’s from Zambia and he and mum got together in the 80s in Sunderland where I was born."
-- ƒɾɛɛᴅᴑᴍº ᵀᴬᴸᴷ 17:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks so much for picking up and completing the citation-template formatting work on Ramones. I was wondering if I was going to have the strength. Cheers! DocKino ( talk) 04:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Guerillero | My Talk 15:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand what the redlink State of Georgia town is, when State of Georgia (TV series) is already in the filmography. A TV movie or just inept editing by anons again? Elizium23 ( talk) 15:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Why are you changing dates to an ambiguous format? Does 2012-01-02 mean Jan 2 or Feb 1? It is not obvious. From the same article that you cited in your edit comments comes this: "Year-initial numerical (YYYY-MM-DD) dates (e.g. 1976-05-31) are uncommon in English prose, and should not be used within sentences." I reverted some of your changes based on this and strong national ties. BollyJeff || talk 15:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me!!! This is Dan Steindler (Original bassist of Emmure) I was there from the beginning and you can ask anyone of the members now!! Who are you to take my credit from all the years I've been with them?I have pictures....videos and the respect from everyone in the band and i dont need to concern myself with stupid trivial issues like this.I know who i am and everyone else that watched us could back me up.One more thing...I'm on the demos!!! Dansteindler ( talk) 16:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)DAN STEINDLER
Stop editing my credit out of this page!! This was a part of my life and who are you to be the judge of these events!! And I am not a fan. I am and always will be one of the forming members!! Dansteindler ( talk) 19:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dansteindler ( talk • contribs) 19:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Quick question....Why are you obsessed with having me prove over and over and over again that I was in Emmure when it's blatantly obvious that I was because I wouldnt continuously take time out of my day do this if it was not true and my second question is this..... Who are you and what makes you the judge on whether or not I get my credit that I've respectfully earned??!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dansteindler ( talk • contribs) 19:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
I think you deserve this wonderful barnstar for helping out Wikipedia so much!! I'm sure that Wikipedia honors your great work and talents, so except this barnstar please!! RomeAntic14 ( talk) 03:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC) |
I'm having trouble seeing the change you recently made as anything but unnecessary. When I go to edit an article and click the "cite" link to add a reference, it automatically fills in the accessdate as "day month year". This is the default on Wikipedia! The examples shown in the main citation template also show that date format. In addition, the {{ cite news}} template even goes further to say you should "write out the month in words" to "avoid ambiguity". When I go to WP:DATERET, it says the date format chosen by the first major contributor should continue to be used. Well on 10-01-07, the first date was posted as October 1, 2007. I would think we should be using that format if not the one I changed it to. GoneIn60 ( talk) 05:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
A smile for you
You’ve just received a random act of kindness! 66.87.0.137 ( talk) 13:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC) |
Hey Gimme, I could use your opinion on this issue: Talk:Lemonade Mouth#No Lemonade Mouth 2, since you edit the article a lot. QuasyBoy (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
QuasyBoy (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
What makes this revision "inappropriate"?— Kww( talk) 01:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Are you sure about this? What it says (all I could find) "Scrolling lists and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show" should not be used for this purpose or that. What I used doesn't use "hide" and "show", so it doesn't apply. All Hallow's Wraith ( talk) 18:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
OhC is hacking at YYYY-MM-DD in accessdates again -- JimWae ( talk) 00:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Please don't change the format of dates. As a general rule, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the dates should be left in the format they were originally written in, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. Please also note that Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes (e.g., st, nd, th), articles, or leading zeros on dates.
For more information about how dates should be written on Wikipedia, please see this article.
If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia. Thank you. --
John (
talk)
16:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I note your failure to explain your accusations, and I note your threatening me in retaliation for questioning your apparently guideline-violating and disruptive editing. Do not post here again unless you have an apology to transmit. Gimmetoo ( talk) 13:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
If I may make a suggestion, you may find it easier to approach the discussion at User:John's talk page with more tact if you take a break from the issue for a few days. I'm not sure what history there is between you two, but your approach to that discussion comes off as unduly combative. Remarks like "John, thanks for finally responding and engaging discussion" and "Please demonstrate that immediately" (emphasis mine) do not reflect well on you, nor do they constitute an example of how we as volunteers engage with our peers. The issue is hardly urgent, and I think you both should make a point of cooling off. I make the assumption that you are responding to him in this way because you are annoyed at his actions, and that you do not usually interact in this manner. AGK [•] 23:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
User:AGK, how would you feel if a query about an edit got factually incorrect statements and charges of vandalism in response? [25] How about if after questioning the factual basis of the previous statements, and ignoring the attack, your integrity was maligned? [26] Or if an administrator then threatened you in retaliation? [27] Is that "an example of how we as volunteers engage with our peers"? Or are these an "optimal approach"? [28] Are you really saying the a user may retain false statements and personal attacks on a user talk page, and remove replies that point out those statements and attacks, misrepresenting discussion? Why or why not, User:AGK? Gimmetoo ( talk) 02:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Gimmetoo, I've asked a question at AN, could you take a look? I have to say I'm disconcerted about the timing of this. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 01:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Notice to Gimmetoo & GoingBatty: I just noticed the two of you have made conflicting edits on this article and I thought I'd flag it to your respective attentions before there's an edit war. The date formats in the references in the article was changed by GoingBatty to use long date format (e.g., "November 5, 2011") and Gimmetoo reverted it back to strict numeric ("2011-11-05"). I suggest the two of you hash out which way you want the dates to look outside of the article. Tabercil ( talk) 14:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Gimmetoo. I'm not sure if you're still watching this article, but would you mind keeping a close eye on it if you aren't? I've seen crap and unsourced information being added to it lately, and of course have reverted each time. Flyer22 ( talk) 20:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
He's back, editing as User:Br'er Rabbit. See my talk page. Raul654 ( talk) 19:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Gimmetoo, just so you know, I've blocked THEXFALLEN for 24 hours for the BLP vandalism you reverted combined with this response to your polite notice on his talk page. PhilKnight ( talk) 16:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I have recently requested a Good Article Reassessment on this Good Article. If a Community Reassessment is created, feel free to join in. -- George Ho ( talk) 15:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure If you actually looked at anything before complaining. The first part I took out was unneeded. Why state thatTom and her are married but state it in the infobox? It was a single sentence. The next part I removed were ERRORED source. The last part was unsourced and not true. Please refrain from leaving stuff on people's talk pages until you actually look. Thanks. -- MrIndustry ( talk) 01:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, greetings. Sorry to bother you, a bit of not totally ancient history. I noticed this too and contacted Graeme, and he gave a friendly answer. He's just doing his (unpaid) job as admin. I didn't see your earlier report until I went to Graeme's Talk to see what form the request he got was.
My question is why you didn't move them back yourself? Were the redirects edited in such a way as you couldn't, or did you not try? Cheers. In ictu oculi ( talk) 03:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Vietnamese)#RfC_on_spelling.
KarlB (
talk)
13:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Gimmetoo. Did you have a chance to read through my reviewer's comments on the GA nomination page? There's only a couple of things that need to be resolved before the article is promoted to GA. The article deserves promotion; it's very good. You have done much to help it along yourself, and it can only reflect well on you to have this article at GA. Could you please stop removing the nomination? -- Dianna ( talk) 15:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
You have done some good things to the article, Diannaa, but the sourcing and content issues are still not addressed. Gimmetoo ( talk) 00:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
TRLIJC19 ( talk • contribs) 15:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I hope you are not done working on the listing, because there are still numerous issues. For example, why do some random articles have an asterisk before them? Also, why are there still numerous Grey's Anatomy characters not in the Grey's Anatomy series group? Another issue is that Awake (TV series) is listed under Awake episodes, and Britten family isn't grouped with it. It's looking good, but these issues are problematic. TRLIJC19 ( talk • contribs) 01:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Please, keep that "Episode" bot start there. It will screw up the bot if you change it. Warn the bot's owner, or the bot itself before doing that. Screws up everything. TBran dl ey 02:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid this User is evidently not going to listen. The immediate response to Dennis Brown's closing of the Sockpuppet investigation yesterday was to immediately move and strip Vietnamese text from another biography and to resume editing redirects. A clear signal that he intends to continue regardless. In ictu oculi ( talk) 09:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Just in case I wasn't clear: I am not accepting the proposed restrictions, and frankly I'd rather have my account deleted. Kauffner ( talk) 16:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I trust we will work congenially on Jinnah with an eye to returning it to its former FA status despite any unrelated disagreements we have. I am respecting your edits and am aware of your history editing the article. I will probably polish the prose and standardize the refs (I hope that won't be a touchy point) and if there is something that we disagree on, I will bring it here or to the aritcle talk.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. I saw you undid the bot's edits for that page a couple times. Was it malfunctioning? — Torchiest talk edits 04:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Gimmetoo, I'd like your opinions at Talk:Demi Lovato#Edit warring over image in infobox, please. Discussion has stagnated there although the image is still being changed quite a bit, and I am trying to get folks to go on record with some opinions and discussion. Thanks in advance for your input! BigNate37 (T) 20:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The current status is to use Template:Cite_quick (even faster!) for pop-culture articles, due to the pending hold in the WP:TfD rejection of Fcite_web. The following options seem to work well, to put "{cite quick|web}" or "{cite quick|news}":
Currently, {cite_quick} is the compromise, because people complained that other fast-cite templates did not list the parameters not supported, so {cite_quick} was specifically documented to list all parameters in use. For that reason, it was not rejected, and it meets the concerns of people who wonder what parameters might not work with each template. As a result of the compromise, {cite_quick} runs 10x-12x times faster than {cite_web}, or about 2x faster than {Fcite_web} which, however, does support more rare parameters not used in pop-culture articles. For medical articles, we will need to get approval to use Template:Fcite_journal, because too many rare parameters are used in medical articles, not supported by {cite_quick}. Long term, {cite_web/smart} should replace all other 1.1 million {cite_web}, but it is stuck in TfD:
Thanks for taking time to fix the pop-culture articles. It really helps when the vast readership is able to see 10x-faster edit-preview sessions, and it helps avoid frustrating delays which might tempt them to give up trying to edit those major S-L-O-W articles. Thanks again. - Wikid77 ( talk) 20:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
For catching my omission! Mark Arsten ( talk) 14:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Just so you know Talk:My Linh. I didn't deliberately pick her as first on the list because it was the one you particularly mentioned, it was the red dress... :) In ictu oculi ( talk) 07:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I'm a contributor to Nas and noticed your removal of the logo. I don't disagree with it, but the editor that added it (and some other logos to articles) seemed to take issue when he thought someone removed it before from that article, and so he ended up reverting my edits entirely. Could you explain to User:Djjazzyb why the logo is not acceptable? Dan56 ( talk) 19:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Gimmetoo. I've proposed some changes to the "Theatre, film and drama" section at GA, and I noticed you voice some similar concerns. You can find and comment on my proposal here: Wikipedia talk:Good articles#.22Theatre.2C film and drama.22 section change proposal. Thanks. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 04:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
He has made ISO edits in well over 60 articles since August 31. The ever-growing list is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Jclemens&action=edit§ion=1 70.253.78.85 ( talk) 05:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
-- Wikipedical ( talk) 06:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey I'm not familiar with how to message people on Wiki. I have a degree in General Mathematics and I am confused why you reverted the change I made in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poker_probability_(Texas_hold_%27em).
I suppose my change could have been wrong, maybe I missed something, but the first probablity I changed from 16:1 to 17:1 is simple to check using a calculator.
1 / 16 = 0.0625
1 / 17 = 0.0588
For the second change: In the other examples you are putting the total cases on the left, and the probability that those cases happen on the right.
2:1 means it will happen 1 in 2 times or 1/2 = 0.5 ( 50% )
220:1 means it will happen 1 in 220 times or 1/220 = 0.0045 ( 0.45%)
1:1 means it will happen 1 in 1 times or 1/1 = 1 (100% )
0.417:1 means it will happen 1 in 0.417 times (impossible)or 1/0.417= 2.43 (243% )?
1.417:1 means it will happen 1 in 1.417 times or 1/1.417= 0.705 ( 70.5% )
Is this wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marler8997 ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Ahh I see now. I was confused because of the 4.25:1 case, but it looks like you have fixed that to become 3.25:1. Sorry for the trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marler8997 ( talk • contribs) 20:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry my friend,regarding Anastacia i found that here http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discograf%C3%ADa_y_Ventas_Oficiales_de_Anastacia
Thanks in advacne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anastacia599 ( talk • contribs) 20:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
The link you provided is to the Spanish wiki. Wikis are not WP:Reliable sources for information, because anyone can change them. Worse, this is a page you have edited, and it had 2000 before you edited it. So all it indicates is that you are putting this information elsewhere on the web, but it still doesn't have a source that the English wikipedia would treat as reliable. At least 2000 has "some" sort of sourcing, even if I don't consider amazon and allmusic particularly good sources.
So let me make this completely clear - do not restore your unsourced information again without prior discussion, ideally with me. I will tell you what sources are usable. I can assure you that there is no experienced editor here who would treat that es-wiki page as a usable source for your changes here. If you make this change again without discussion and agreement, you will simply be blocked from editing. Discuss first. Provide a source and get agreement. Gimmetoo ( talk) 22:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Dont be angry. I still dont understand how to proper edit something, or to talk about something. I dont know where I can talk on wikipedia. And I dont understand why are you angry and why you can add something and if I add it I will be banned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anastacia599 ( talk • contribs) 15:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Gimmetoo, I was wondering about this revert. No issues, just curious why you reverted the bot. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 22:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Can you reconsider cutting the GA symbol from this article? Well after the GA was awarded, Jim Sweeney began cutting one subsection of the background section which the editor who awarded the GA has no problems with. Jim Sweeney has instigated and declared an edit war where one does not exist. The article is not unstable, I have been reinserting the same information which Jim Sweeney has been cutting, as part of a negotiating strategy. The reason I have persisted is because I think its wrong that one editor could censor an article and get away with it. Could you please reconsider your actions as no edit war exists, although Jim Sweeney wants to make his censorship look like it. -- Rskp ( talk) 02:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
First off, I want to thank you for protecting the article in the first place. However, I was wondering if the protection length could be shortened, and I was told to contact you about it. I understand that the article has been protected for long lengths of time in the past due to persistent vandalism (likely due to the fact that they were on a popular Disney Channel series). Since their series' end, the vandalism due to that has died down. The recent onslaught of vandalism was in reaction to an event that happened on the 17th (Cole controversially deleting his Tumblr), and I feel that would die down in way less than a year, the current protection length. Are you willing to reduce the length at all? - Purplewowies ( talk) 05:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat ( talk) 11:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for asking those questions to Elen. I had been meaning to do it myself, but I hadn't had the time to dig up the diffs. I've added a few follow-ups of my own. Raul654 ( talk) 15:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
How about Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Delegates? Bencherlite Talk 13:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I took my eye off the ball due to recent business trips but see you made comment here regarding this history. Following your comment I have restored the deleted RM result. I have also notified Graeme Bartlett who enacted (in good faith) the original db-G6 after hiding the RM result was pointed out. This is one of 3 recent db-G6 related moves counter RM. The others are Yen Bai Province, actioned in good faith by DGG, Thanh Hoa counter Edgar181 "moved page Thanh Hoa to Thanh Hóa: reverting my Oct 2011 G6/move because it wasn't uncontroversial) (undo)" (I have also restored deleted RM note on Talk:Thanh Hoa too). A 4th db-G6 was refused yesterday but article moved anyway, I have noted that to relevant admin Malik Shabazz. In ictu oculi ( talk) 04:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I have added a section on the talk page for the article Richard Nixon titled "Section deleted on 13 December 2012." Please share your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks. Mitchumch ( talk) 18:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Gimmetoo, Your feedback is requested in the following conversation: [36]. Thanks, Chimino ( talk) 22:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Multiple admins closed a discussion, Kiefer re-opened it for drama multiple times. He was warned, took no heed, and got blocked. I stand by my actions. Giant Snowman 18:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, I consider your access to check user to be a danger to the project. As such, you may be blocked to prevent damage to the project is well off the rails. If you genuinely believe whatever it is you're on about, you need to take it to ANI, arbcomm, whatever, and get laughed at. Putting it on NW's talk page just looks like silly bluster (doubly silly because any block wouldn't prevent CU use) William M. Connolley ( talk) 12:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Kiefer didn't close a thread on himself, he reopened one he originally opened which was closed because it discussed reputation damaging information of a living person. Way to go simplifying the situation to take a stab at me though. You've gone a bit off the deep end here, I strongly advise you double check yourself, Boss, because it's not going to end well for you.--v/r - T P 13:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the help with the Article-history template. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I recently noticed that some of the text in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive632 had been overwritten with garbage before it was archived, so I went to the diff where you added the text and copied it into the archive. Please feel free to revert if this doesn't reflect your intentions. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't disagree with your comments about NW's use of the tools given my recent experiences with him, but you should understand that a block would not do anything to benefit you and would only benefit him. The proof of that should be NW's polite comment that you can go ahead and block him.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Best wishes for the New Year! | |
Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; thank you for all you've done so well for so many years!
Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the
FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians! |
Hello Gimmetoo. I checked back in on the Village Pump discussion and it appears things are at an impasse. Would you like me to initiate a request to move {{ Article history}} back to {{ ArticleHistory}}? The only other obvious solution would be to change Gimmebot to process the current template title, and I understand you would prefer not to do that, correct? 28bytes ( talk) 19:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Hi, Gimme. Re. your question on NYB's page, "Under the interpretation that a user can switch back and forth between accounts successively, what sort of editing would even be socking.. ?
, I pride myself on the best, and only real, sort of socking: editing from two accounts simultaneously.
[37]
[38]
Bishonen |
talk
18:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC).
If you can add anything to this list it would be appreciated. I think we need to talk about a central repository for this splintered discussion. Perhaps a notice in Signpost? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 14:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
thx sorry yes i've seen a few of those, i'll be more vigilant. for some bbc refs it also puts in 1970-01-01. i guess we could report to reflinks developer but i think it's the fault of the sites being referenced Tom B ( talk) 02:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
No immediate rush, since TFAs are scheduled up to and including Feb 13 at present, but the nomination at TFAR for Feb 14 is one of mine. As there's an oppose, I ought not to take the decision on whether to schedule it. Can I leave it to you to decide whether to schedule "Single Ladies", or something else, for that date? Thanks. Bencherlite Talk 10:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Zheek ( talk) 12:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Would appreciate your opinion on Talk:Halle Berry. I see this image better for the infobox and would like to reach a consensus, since another editor contends that this very bad image is better. Helliea ( talk) 21:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello - I'm contacting you because you participated in the discussion on the proposed renaming of Cà Mau and/or An Giang Province. This is to let you know that a discussion on a number of similar proposed moves is taking place at Talk:Bac Ninh Province. Colonies Chris ( talk) 12:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I thought of you today, when I encountered a man after your own heart, in this jolly chap. Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)