User talk:Gimmetoo

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)[reply]

Did any of this happen over IRC? Gimmetoo (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I conversed with NuclearWarfare privately via IRC, which allowed us to have a real-time conversation, unlike email or (worse yet) an on-wiki discussion that anyone could jump into and derail. I don't believe it is necessary or, often, appropriate to critique another editor in the full glare of the entire community when I'm acting as a (perhaps older and wiser) colleague rather than in my "official" capacity, because it's often difficult for others to see past this silly set of hats I wear around here. Risker (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wow. Gimmetoo (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That is an undo of an inappropriate change. It is not an "overhaul", but an undo. Do you understand why? Gimmetoo (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reason for doing it, however changing all existing discography pages to adhere to this method is an "overhaul" for lack of a better term simply because the huge number of discography articles. I've opened a discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies#Horizontal vs. vertical code in discographies. - eo (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is changing '"all existing discographies to adhere to this method'? What do you mean by "this method"? Gimmetoo (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This method = horizontal code. Why change only one discography? - eo (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "chang[ing] only one discography"? Please be more clear, because I don't understand what you're asking, or why. This article has a history of vandalism, and the vertical format makes it difficult to identify which "3" was changed. Other articles may or may not benefit from one style or another, depending on the sizes of the tables, the quantity of similar numerical value, and the history of vandalism. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

←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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think the way you used editprotected isn't right. You need to convince other people before using editprotected. I noticed you made proposals and then a few days later made an editprotected request saying there was no objection. On lightly visited articles that's probably understandable, but it seemed on this article you were getting "no objection" for other reasons. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation on the template's proper use, and you are mistaken in asserting that there were objections at the time I employed the template. There were NO objections at the time I employed the template. Look, if I state my intent and give others the opportunity to express any objections, and nobody objects, then there is no reason whatsoever not to implement a requested edit -- particularly not one as neutral and uncontroversial as the one I proposed to replace the demonstrably WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT non-compliant statement currently existing. Now, when the template was disabled by MSGJ, I asked him why and it was because he had confused two different edits I'd proposed, mistaken objections to the second as objections to the first. At that time there had yet been no objections; not one; zip; zero. After pointing out his error, he agreed to implement the edit if it there were still no objections after further time was allowed to give people the opportunity to state their objections, if any. That seemed perfectly reasonable to me, and I agreed. I believe MSGJ's is the proper interpretation of the template. Clearly, as admins themselves disagree on this, I can hardly be banned just because Amatulic had a differing view. I used the template in good faith in an effort to improve the article by bringing it into compliance with Wikipedia policy standards. That's the bottom line. JRHammond (talk) 03:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I appreciate that you asked. With the rest of the edit summary, the message was: "undo sortable then, incompatible with dashes". That was meant to say that the type of dashes you put in a couple edits earlier were in some way incompatible with the "sortable" option. The dashes you added were in the year ranges; year ranges with hyphens do not have that particular incompatibility. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you replied. I didn't realize that the dash/hyphen made the sortability behave differently, so any ill-effect was completely unintentional. I see that RexxS has added a hidden sort key to it, so that it sorts correctly. That's something for me to watch out for in future. I didn't understand why you removed the sortability completely rather than fixing my mistake and after I'd stared at it for a few minutes without seeing the problem, I decided to ask you. No harm done though. Cheers. Rossrs (talk) 07:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rossrs, given what has been written here and on another talk page, do you think this is resolved? Gimmetoo (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from questioning whether additional years will sort correctly, from my point of view, yes. From yours, apparently not. You could be more specific in your comments. For example, you ask RexxS if he wants to change anything he said, and that leaves him to try to guess what you're getting at. If he, or anyone else, guesses wrong, it achieves nothing or makes the situation worse. You should just say what's bothering you. Rossrs (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Above, I clearly said that "year ranges with hyphens do not have that particular incompatibility". RexxS has not fixed the problem that refers to. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're being very unfair to Ross by misinforming him about the issue of date ranges and sorting. Your statement above "year ranges with hyphens do not have that particular incompatibility" is patently untrue. You only have to try sorting the table with hyphens dif-hyphen and with en dashes dif-dash to see that the sorting behaviour is identical. I've checked that in Firefox and IE8. With both dif-hyphen and dif-dash, the descending sort on 'Year' wrongly places the '2007' row first. If there's some other sort of incompatibility that you meant, you're not making a very good job of communicating it. As far as I can see, I fixed the problem that you seemed to be implying. What more do you want? --RexxS (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has it occurred to you yet that "that particular incompatibility" may be something other than what you think it is? Gimmetoo (talk) 04:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your intended meaning was not grasped the first time you used that phrase, what's the point in repeating it to the same audience without a hint of clarification? If you have something to say, please say it. Rossrs (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it has occurred to me each time that you made that statement. You may have found a problem with changing hyphens to dashes in date ranges that nobody else on the wiki is aware of; in which case, please enlighten us. Or you may have been simply mistaken and are too embarrassed to admit it; in that case, I'll understand if you choose not to elaborate further. --RexxS (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait a while longer for a response from Merridew. For you, please observe WP:CIVIL from now on. Gimmetoo (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Update: I have posted to WP:BOTREQ, at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Query_on_AFD_statistics. -- Cirt (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this could be done with AH much like the subarticles of Category:Wikipedia_Did_you_know_articles for FA, FL and GA. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, great, can this be done? No one has responded, at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Query_on_AFD_statistics.... :( -- Cirt (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather occupied with some other things. There are a couple ways to do it, but I would likely add an AFD-related switch near the bottom of AH/output template to generate a category based on the currentstatus is FA, FL or GA. Would probably be good to add Categories for discussion (CFD) as an option at the same time, and add a switch so the output gets spelled correctly. If used for CFD, current coding would display as "categorys for..." Gimmetoo (talk) 05:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you so much, whenever you can get to it, just please keep me posted. Drop a note at User talk:Cirt. :) -- Cirt (talk) 05:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any updates? -- Cirt (talk) 06:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

? I outlined an approach. You're welcome to get someone to implement it, just please make sure the CFD issue gets fixed as well. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any possibility you might have a chance to do it? ;) -- Cirt (talk) 06:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe at some point, but 1) not directly, since the templates are protected, and 2) I seem to be distracted by a bunch of other stuff recently. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, keep me posted. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 07:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Madonna intro was apparently decided as a way to simplify language related to her divorce.[2]. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Is there anything in your responses here or there that you wish to change at this time? Gimmetoo (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Now are you going to engage in constructive dialogue to resolve your problem, or do you intend to avoid discussing it even longer? --RexxS (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, you have already been warned about WP:CIVIL. I will not warn you again. Given you elected to undo my fixes without discussion, and appear to be misrepresenting the issue on the article talk page, I think you need to start explaining yourself. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you have already been warned about disruptive editing, and you need to take some notice of the concerns expressed. You made no fixes; without a sort key, the sorting is just as broken with hyphens as it is with dashes. That has been explained and demonstrated to you, and your insistence on not hearing that is the misrepresentation here. I explained quite clearly that a sort key is necessary for sorting date ranges, and to characterise that as "without discussion" beggars belief. You may also wish to consider your justification for repeatedly removing the sortability from the "Films" table, which contains no date ranges. I've responded more fully to your misconceptions at Talk:Yvonne Strahovski#Sortable table. --RexxS (talk) 11:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I will go on record to state that the issue is fixed in the version you are edit-warring against, and to state that what you are asserting is untrue. I have no idea what is going on in your head, and have no way of telling whether you are deliberately asserting a falsehood, or simply repeating your mistaken assertion. I am still willing to AGF of you, and must conclude that you simply haven't bothered to test the sorting in that version. Are you making any effort to check that your assertions correspond with reality? --RexxS (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you seriously think someone would be as insistent as I am without checking and being completely sure? Nevertheless, I have reverified this version once again, and the issue I originally mentioned some two weeks ago is still present and has not been fixed. I told you repeatedly that the issue is not the one you thought it was. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The specific version you're pointing to works fine on my old PC with its IE 6, i.e. the entry for "2007–present" sorts to the bottom for descending and to the top for ascending. What browzer are you using? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It also works on my Windows 7 with IE 8. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is the issue? Rossrs (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it's ok. I've seen your answer at the article talk page, and you could have said that two weeks ago. Rossrs (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not ok. Your new explanation of the problem does not hold water. You mentioned nothing two weeks ago. The only issue now present is the issue with older versions of Safari, and that is the same for all sortable tables, so does not justify your repeated reversions. The only previous issue was fixed by me at that time. You hinted repeatedly that there was another issue, but never stated it until today. And it turns out to be a non-issue. Stop playing games and revert yourself at the article. I shall expect a full apology from you for your pointless edit-warring and your complete failure to edit in a collaborative manner. --RexxS (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

Consider this dialogue:

• Here's a fix for a problem
  • There is no problem. Your fix doesn't do anything.
• No, really, there is a problem, and this fix does something.
  • Your fix couldn't possibly do anything. You're an idiot.
• No, really, there is a problem. Can you consider that's even a possibility?
  • No. There is no problem. You're an idiot.

Yep, that's the way to resolve bug reports in "the I.T. business". Gimmetoo (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explain why we should stop using tables just because your particular browzer has a problem with it and no one else's does? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explain why a fix which fixes sortability for a significant number of readers should not be applied. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've isolated the problem to Safari 4. It doesn't make sense to not use a function just because there's a buggy browzer out there. But if you have a workaround that will work in Safari 4 and not cause the other browzers to have a problem, then what you should do is set up a copy of that table on your talk page, install your fix, and notify us when you've got it set up, so that we can test it with other browzers. If everything's peachy, then it could be implemented in the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More kafka. A simple form of the fix was put in the article - that's what started this... Gimmetoo (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried what I've suggested above, setting up a version on your talk page? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't. Have you? What I have done is test things in preview and implement them in the article. Have you done that? Gimmetoo (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have, right there on the ANI page, and it works for everyone except you. The best thing is to test things somewhere besides in the article, i.e. somewhere besides the "production site". That's computer programming 101. You test on your "test box", i.e. your talk page or a separate sub-page; and once you're sure it works, you ask others to test it; and if it works for them, then you can put it into production. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you could state the problem at the talk page of the affected article: including the conditions needed to replicate it (which appears to be browser specific), as well as telling us what the page does wrong.

(reply to post on talk page) "Did you take this action with any influence of any form from RexxS?" I came to the conclusion independently that the version I reverted to works based on my experience as well as statements at wp:ani that several other editors saw no problems. Those editors were User:Beyond My Ken, User:Elen of the Roads and User:Baseball Bugs - see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#RexxS_behaviour for what exactly they said. As far as I know all these editors can be considered impartial.Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you or any of them verified the article in the specified browser? Do any of you have access to the specified browser? Do you have any evidential basis for saying there are no problems? Why did you not wait for my response? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell us clearly on the article's talk page what exactly you mean by "the specified browser" and the other info requested above . I've asked you to do that.

We are operating on the Wikipedia:Consensus basis - the consensus is currently is that "it works". You have the opportunity to explain the problem, and change consensus. Please do so.Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The basic fix was quite simple and nobody has said it caused technical problems. So now the dialogue is:

• Here's a fix for a problem
  • There is no problem. Your fix doesn't do anything.
• No, really, there is a problem, and this fix does something.
  • Your fix couldn't possibly do anything. You're an idiot.
• No, really, there is a problem. Can you consider that's even a possibility?
  • No. There is no problem. You're an idiot.
• I'll wait a while so you can think about it. Please by civil in the future.[click]

• Problem is still there.
  • No it's not. You're an idiot.
• Yes it's still there. Can you even consider that's a possibility?
  • No. You're an idiot.
• Dude, I'm not making this up. I already tested it and showed you one route to a fix.
  • Your fix can't possibly do anything. You're an idiot.
• Have you actually looked at it?
  • No. Why don't you spend considerable time testing your nonsense fix.
• Why? I've already done that. Have you even looked at it?
  • No. I'm the expert. I know everything you say is patently untrue. I'm going to ignore you now. So go test your idiotic fix - that way we can verify that it doesn't do anything and ignore you in the future.
• Have you looked at anything?
  • No. You're an idiot.

Does that pretty much sum it up? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is strictly at your end. Create an alternate version and post it here, or better yet on ANI, and let everyone test it. Then all should be peachy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denials again. Answer my question: Have you looked at any versions of the article in the browser specified? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would I? I have a standard PC with IE. Far as I know, Safari is a Mac thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although you were right that there is a problem, I think it would have been more productive if instead of "There is a problem" you had said "There is a problem, and this is it". Especially with the confounding issue with the sorting of 2007 and 2007–Present, it isn't surprising that Rex and Ross became confused. Ucucha 17:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again at User:RexxS/Sorting, my IE 6 can sort ascending and descending on all columns, and it all comes out right except for issues with the "2007 to present" in the first column of the first two items. And chronologically, "2007 to present" has to come later than just plain "2007". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Can you find it in the ANI discussion? Seriously, I'm way past sleep time. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok do it tommorrow then. I happy to wait/sleep too.Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK. I would say that starting that ANI subsection shortly after I told you I was going offline (and therefore unable to respond) is a bit shady, but I'll consider your apology as implicitly recognizing that. Thanks. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, I didn't know that. Where does this "rule" come from? Gimmetoo (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My thought process is along the same lines with how administrators are not allowed to use their admin tools when they're an involved editor, among others. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you spell out your thought process, or reference policies saying that users cannot warn people? Gimmetoo (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an attempt at communicating: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gimmetoo&diff=prev&oldid=390959723 —Kww(talk) 22:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

3067, none missing. The script doesn't check for duplicates on the page, though, so that's not ruled out. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gimme! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The three registered accounts can be (and are) blocked as vandal-only without considering the editing overlap. Two related IP addresses now have 6-month and 55-hour blocks; they seem to be part of a pool, though. A sock investigation might show some other accounts. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Thanks. But, was the sock investigation the right thing to initiate? Also, what of tagging the user vs talk pages? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tag if you want. Generally, though, if a sockmaster intends blatant vandalism, the socks are going to get blocked as they appear. If you have any other questions, let me know, but unfortunately, I won't be able to reply now for many hours. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks.Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I suppose I could, but why did you ask me? I don't think I've edited in that topic before. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just asked the only admin I seen online at the moment, via my watchlist. My admin friends (who I normally go to for these questions) are all offline at the moment. If you are busy with something, I can wait for them, it's no worries. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the network is closed, it will probably remain a permanent stub, but what exactly is the problem? If there is a good place to merge it, you could consider merging, but if the network was notable enough for an article before, notability shouldn't be lost. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just wanted to make sure that after it closed (which was sometime this week) that it wouldn't lose notability. Thanks! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GNG#Notability_is_not_temporary. But did a network that closed fairly quickly have enough impact to ever be considered notable? I don't know, but some independent mention would be helpful if someone ever felt like taking it to WP:AFD. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did have the affiliates on the page, but removed them. I can re-add them to show greater impact of the network. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC) 20:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I looked at all TFM's edits to the ref desk "recently" (since September 14); they don't look like "pure trolling". This seems to have upset some, but not everyone [3] [4]. Ludwig said the ANI stuff was probably fallout from annoyance at Ludwig [5]. If you want TFM indef blocked based on past behaviour, you are welcome to try to get consensus for that. I expect you'll be watching everything TFM does from now on, though. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't usually follow the edits of users that I run CU on in order to monitor them. After I provide the Community with the information, I expect that the admins will take into consider the information and evaluate the situation fully and follow up appropriately. I came to you talk page because there was no indication that you did that when you unblocked TFM with the reason in the block log. Unblocking for time served for a civility block is far different than letting him return after doing repeated episodes of disruption and misleading the Community by not linking to his alternative account when he returned to TFM account. There is no indication that you are addressing the later problems with this unblock, or that another admin would understand that there were additional issues that need to be taken into consideration if problems continue. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took into consideration Bad edits r dumb (talk · contribs) (which you mentioned on the talk page) and The Fat Man Who Left but Returned a Short While Later (talk · contribs) (which you did not mention). Gimmetoo (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Dear Gimmetrow, I notice that even other administrators have raised clear concerns to your unblock of TFMWNCB here. Please consider this my strong objection to your unblock of TFMWNCB. Also kindly notice that as per our blocking policy, "Except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them." Given that the huge majority of the commentating administrators had consensus on the block, I strongly believe you have acted in clear disregard of our blocking policy. Would you please kindly provide a satisfactory clarification on the reasons you acted against our blocking policy (your current clarifications, in my opinion, are simply an analysis of your perception of TFMWNCB's edits, and not adherence to either policy or clear administrator consensus)? This is not clearly about TFMWNCB's edits purely, but more about your non-consideration to discuss the indefinite block with the blocking administrator. Sincere regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 07:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you missed where I attempted to contact the blocking administrator, and got no response? Gimmetoo (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact you are absolutely right. It could be per chance the fact that you differentiate your contributions/admin actions in two user accounts. However, I would have well appreciated you waiting for a reply from the blocking administrator. Seeing this reply from the blocking administrator, I'm quite given to believing that perspective. Irrespective, thanks for the reply and sincere regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 15:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Tb|User talk:Gimmetrow}}

Left a note. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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! upstateNYer 00:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. If you want to even just limit yourself to writing a legitimate blazon and checking the description section, that would probably be enough. That's the part I'm not familiar with. The rest of it is mainly just history, which is my bag, baby. upstateNYer 03:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think quite a few in the featured content process would somewhat prefer bibliographic references (the form with author, title, date) to be the same size as the rest of the text, partly out of concern for readers with poor eyesight, and partly because smaller fonts de-emphasize the references. I'm not so sure there is much preference concerning abbreviated references (the form with just author and year or page number). See Louis Lambert (novel), for example. Long ago the guideline was to use references/ for less than 20 refs, and reflist for more than 20. (At least I think it was 20 at one point; in the name of editorial freedom, that guideline was removed.) Anyway, most featured articles have considerably more references than that, so they tend to use smaller font for the notes. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate the info. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --Jayron32 17:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your statement on my talk page: "removing TFM's TP access could be construed as wheel warring - reinstating a reversed admin action". It would be, unless I went to the admin who restored his talk page access and got his permission to do so. I did that: See the discussion at the talk page at User talk:Newyorkbrad immediately above your comments there. It is disheartening that you don't even read threads you are actively commenting on. Please, I understand that if I had been wheelwarring, it would be objectionable. But given that I had discussed the matter with the admin who acted previously, and recieved his unambiguous blessing, it really isn't wheel warring. Please take a clear view of this, and do not base your statements about my worthiness of being an administrator on false pretenses. The issue had been discussed, on-wiki, with the prior admin, and he had given his blessing to reblock him. There has been, for several hours now, a discussion at ANI regarding the appropriateness of removing the talk-page access of TFM. If that is a genuine concern of yours, please participate in it. Presumably, you would like to see his talk page access restored. Your comments in that thread could go a long way towards doing that. --Jayron32 18:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, it could be construed as WW. WP:WW does not say "unless the reversing admin agrees", nor do I recall any of my comments impugning your "worthiness of being an admin". Indeed, I recall phrasing my comment so as to avoid that. The ANI thread is already closed, so it is rather difficult to comment on it. "Several hours"? I guess, if 1 is several. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The text at WW states "Resolve admin disputes by discussing". I did so. There was not actually an administrator dispute. It also defines a wheel war as " when an administrator's action is reversed by another admin, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action". I don't see where I have been combatitve, or have avoided discussion. On the contrary, you will find that here, and indeed in my entire career as an administrator, I have not only invited discussion, I have sought discussion in advance of any action I have taken, and have also sought review of any actions that someone objects to. I only use the tools when all relevent parties have come to an agreement that my use of them is appropriate. Newyorkbrad was the person whose action I was undoing. I recieved his consent to do so. If my action was inappropriate, public comment should confirm that. You will note that I am aware that the discussion at ANI has been closed. As soon as I realized Gwen Gale closed it, and before you made your statement above, I went to her talk page and asked her to reconsider her closure thereof. You will note that in this case, indeed exactly like in the Newyorkbrad case, I discussed the matter with the admin whose action was involved. I don't know what else you want me to do before I use my admin tools. There is nothing more than could have been done! --Jayron32 19:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: You will also note that Gwen Gale has reopened the discussion at ANI, after I asked her to do so. Please, if you have a reason to believe that TFM should be allowed to edit his talk page, make your case there. Your objections are reasonable, and your voice should be heard. Having the discussion here, in an out-of-the-way place like our user talk pages, doesn't help resolve the situation. The entire community needs to see your reasoning that his talk page access should be restored. If they agree, I will personally be the one to restore it. --Jayron32 19:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Featured portal review

It takes 14 steps to archive a delisted former featured portal. Can this be automated somehow? -- Cirt (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never programmed that up because there were so few portal reviews, far fewer even than portal candidates. How often does this happen? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:Gimmetrow. Respond wherever. Jujutacular ^talk 02:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please disregard the above, I figured out a way that I don't need the comment. Thanks! Public Juju ^talk 06:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I also notice you seem to be referring to this user's edits as vandalism; remember to assume good faith: not everyone who disagrees with you is a vandal, and there's no indication that the user is attempting to intentionally disrupt wikipedia, which is wikipedia's definition of vandalism (WP:VAND). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the other user has been blocked for edit warring, but your case for 3RR exemption was weak enough that it should have been neither or both of you, imo, so please do remember to get a third opinion or reach a consensus on the talk page next time rather than simply continuing to revert unless it's actual blatant vandalism or WP:BLP vios next time; Otherwise keep up the good work. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a false alarm, they're starting to look more and more like a vandal. Carry on. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The general response is to get a third opinion; I saw little evidence that there was any sort of vandalism going on (though based on the fact that they later continued even after being blocked, and that the "source" did seem to be contrived, which clearly couldn't have been accidental, perhaps that was their only intention from the start). If they insist on inserting unreferenced material, discuss it on the talk page (or find a source which refutes it, though in this case it's difficult to demonstrate a negative); if they refuse to discuss it, get an outside opinion so that you're acting with consensus rather than perpetuating an edit war. Regardless of the outcome in this instance, there are very few exceptions to 3RR and the rationale for 3RR exemption needs to be blatant or you're simply risking being blocked yourself. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

PROPOSED CHANGE:: Angelina Jolie's ethnicity is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catinthehat93 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oh, sure. I will add it to next line. Thanks for notifying me :) Novice7 | Talk 03:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

FIRST KRISTIN ADAMS NOW SARA B! WTF IS YOUR PROBLEM? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowleopardxman (talk • contribs) 15:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Info on Wiki should be 1) verifiable and 2) relevant. Although there is leeway for info that has been in well-viewed articles for years, new info tends to get higher scrutiny. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

And I've explained on the talk page, too, and you did not respond or object to anything I said. Wikiproject guidelines are (at best) guidelines. They are not laws. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I choose not to what? I'm not watching your talk page, so I never saw the above message. Me being over WP:3RR? Guess that means you have as well. YOU'RE the one making a big deal over me following the guidelines, and putting it the way it should be done. Yes, it's not written it stone, but what's your problem with it? Huh? ℥^nding·start 22:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reiterating. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reiterating. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

And for your reference the conclusion we've reached (the edit before all the style reverts is what I was trying to recreate anyway). -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

A problem here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. Tinton5 (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:MOS and WP:FN. You are in the wrong. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't care for imdb either, but until now you have not cited any source for the cast list. Verifiability is the key here. Without any source given, editors have to use something to validate changes. As I stated on the talk page (to which you have not responded), I was using imdb for lack of any other source, since none were provided. Also, edit summaries in ALL CAPS are useless if you don't provide sources or respond on the talk page. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Sorry, it was just really getting on my nerves how it kept changing every time I went to the page. --DisneyFriends (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That appears not to exist. Can you point me at the real deletion request?—Kww(talk) 01:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Selena_and_the_scene_concert_meet_and_greet.jpg. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

[7] Perhaps you could explain why you added them to begin with? Gimmetoo (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because, per BLP, a source is required. Corvus cornix_talk 17:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Debby_Ryan. Corvus cornix_talk 17:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I did in alphabetical order [8]. But it was changed again, I don't understand.Alptns90 (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Since you didn't respond to this message, I'm going to put it back up. Levardi (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such information should have a reliable source, like a major media outlet (CNN, MSNBC) or at least a respected celebrity news outlet (People, MTV). Beyond that, however, even well-sourced rumours are still rumours, and rumours are not generally significant to the subject, that is, not generally encyclopedic. Relationships of encyclopedic significance would generally be confirmed relationships that are covered in reliable sources. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You handled the notice. You don't get to have it both ways - complain if I post, or complain if I don't post. That could be viewed as a form of WP:BAITing. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Never mind, another admin has taken care of it. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I couldn't edit the template anyway. Anyway, where was the discussion on implementation? That one has bugs - the obvious one being what happens when a FL with a mainpage appearance becomes FFL. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I assumed you still had access to your admin account. Anyway, see Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list#What should I do?. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#gay-news.com --Surturz (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Do you mean at Talk:Ehsan Sehgal? I'm curious - how did you come to ask here? 05:28, 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)[reply]

[ECs] The accessdates were *all* in yyyy-mm-dd form at one point. Thus, per the guideline you cite, all accessdates in references should conform to that. A date format with publication dates in month dd, yyyy and accessdates in yyyy-mm-dd is a consistent style. As for the "errors", I made this change by hand, not be script, Note that one of your alleged errors is not actually an error, because the ref did not have an accessdate (I added it). Gimmetoo (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DATERET says "The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used" so the date format used by the first major contributor should have been used in the references. Using two different date formats is not consistent. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the people who are on about changing date styles argue explicitly that first major contributor shouldn't apply, so I'm not sure if that's a good argument. And yes, a date style which consistently uses one style for publication dates and a different style for accessdates has not been found unacceptable per MOSNUM discussions. I am aware there are editors using scripts who do not observe this result, but it is acceptable. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at old versions for "first major contributor". 6 Feb 2010 - refs all yyyy-mm-dd, 18 Sep 2008 - refs all yyyy-mm-dd, 18 Mar 2007 - first ref I can find, yyyy-mm-dd. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the MoS says to defer to the first major contributor, so what "people" argue really isn't an issue. As for the "first major contributor", that really isn't somebody who edited the article 3, 4 or 6 years after it was created. There were dates in the article well before then. Touching on something I forgot in my last reply, the accessdate you added was indeed incorrect. The citation was added on October 1, 2010, not October 10, 2010.[10] --AussieLegend (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has evolved predominantly (and pretty much exclusively until recently) with one style in the refs, and that style was, as far as I can tell, the same one used in the first ref added. There was only one ref in a different style. Common sense would say to change that one to the pre-existing, established style. "First major contributor" is a last resort when no predominant style is clear, but here, that matches the predominant style. Now I need to be afk. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

By the way, I'm not sure if you're still watching the talkpage for your old account, so I just wanted to let you know you have messages at User talk:Gimmetrow#WP:FOUR at T:AH. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Left you a question at Template talk:ArticleHistory#Identifying FAs that are former GAs. Best, rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why do you prefer a long, long ref. list instead of two or three col ? Regards, Kairine (msg) 08:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what article you are referring to. 3col gives narrow text for readers without high resolution screens, and having any columns seems to increase render time. 00:17, 29 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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Archival instructions is a better link. Bencherlite^Talk 15:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The script has been handling featured portals for some years. Just not the infrequent FP reviews. 02:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but there are more steps at the promotion instructions that the bot isn't doing but which it might be able to do, hence Cirt's enquiry – increasing Template:FPO number by one, adding {{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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Allmusic, which is one of the two sources provided, does not include positions for "I'm into You" either for Canada. In the same vein, the charts for the Biggest Jump, and the Biggest Fall do not include positions for it ether.--Harout72 (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have a serious problem here. The source does indeed list a song called "I'm Into You" with a peak of 55 on the Canadian Hot 100. You have given no argument that this is incorrect, such as that it refers to another song, or that it is a different chart. As such, from my perspective you are tag-team edit-warring to remove sourced, verified content - not tag with something like "failed verification" or something, but actually completetely removing the information and the source. Saying that it's not listed at "some other source" is, frankly, irrelevant - the information is on Billboard. Given that I've had to deal with Harout72's edit warring on that page in the past to correct chart numbers - even when I gave specific sources - and that Kww appears fully intending to edit-war to continue to remove sourced information, I am tagging the article for disputed accuracy. Gimmetoo (talk) 08:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we do have a problem here, Gimmetoo, but don't accuse me of "tag team edit warring". I've looked at the link. I've clicked around the link. It does not include the information that you claim it does. I don't understand why you continue to claim that it does. The listing for "Canadian Hot 100" at http://www.billboard.com/#/artist/jennifer-lopez/chart-history/339297?f=793&g=Singles (the clickthrough for http://www.billboard.com/#/artist/jennifer-lopez/chart-history/339297) contains one, and only one, song: "Do It Well". "I'm Into You" is not listed.

Harout72 went one step further, and went to Allmusic, and checked there: it has the following listings for "I'm Into You":

• 2011 Listen Now! I'm into You Hot Dance Club Play 3
• 2011 Listen Now! I'm into You Yahoo Audio 6
• 2011 Listen Now! I'm into You AOL Radio 9
• 2011 Listen Now! I'm into You Mainstream Top 40 36
• 2011 Listen Now! I'm into You Hot Digital Songs 62
• 2011 Listen Now! I'm into You The Billboard Hot 100 72

You have an unusual claim, Gimmetoo, that three editors can go look at the same URL, and one of them receives information that neither of the other two do, and that information is information that doesn't validate at the normal site for cross-checking. You have my e-mail address: send me a screenshot of what you see at that link. I recognize that Billboard goes a bit wacky at times, and doesn't have information that it should: if you can show me any reliable sourcing for that position, I'm willing to have something, but it has to be data that I can actually see.—Kww(talk) 12:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, something extremely flakey is going on with Billboard. Harout72 contacted me to say the 55 was now appearing, and, if I load the page multiple times, sometimes the 55 shows, and sometimes it does not. I'll restore the data. Sorry for the confusion, but please remember that I do edit in good faith: the 55 failed every effort I made to verify it.—Kww(talk) 17:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the AGF you displayed toward me. I really appreciate that I would have been blocked for disruption because you were unable to read a source [11]. If you saw only "Do It Well" for the Canadian Hot 100, then you should have known something was wrong, because "On the Floor" was a recent charter (and apparently wasn't removed from the discography page...) The page for the song (http://www.billboard.com/#/song/jennifer-lopez-featuring-lil-wayne/i-m-into-you/25408370) had the info. And there is the weekly chart (http://www.billboard.com/#/charts/canadian-hot-100?chartDate=2011-04-23&order=gainer) showing the song's entry. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to detect sarcasm here, Gimmetoo, and I'm sorry that you don't recognize just how big of a dose of good faith you received. I noticed the dispute, and when I checked with Billboard to verify, it supported Harout72, not you. Searching for the song produces http://www.billboard.com/#/song/jennifer-lopez/i-m-into-you/25142293, which shows that the song has never charted. If you can explain to me exactly why both that link and http://www.billboard.com/#/song/jennifer-lopez-featuring-lil-wayne/i-m-into-you/25408370 exist, I'd greatly appreciate it. Even after being fed false results from one link, incomplete results from another, and incomplete results from Allmusic.com, I came to the conclusion that it was nearly impossible that you would be lying, and asked someone I knew would be biased against me in favor of you to investigate before I took any action at all. I don't see how much more AGF anyone could reasonably expect.—Kww(talk) 00:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You "came to the conclusion that it was nearly impossible that [I] could be lying", but nevertheless you removed sourced information from an article - twice - that I had said the information was verified. It crossed my mind that there could be a caching problem, and I was getting an older page, but that's still equivalent to a link gone bad, and doesn't require removal. Yet you went ahead and removed the information and the source anyway. Your actions suggest to me that you didn't really internalise the possibility that you were wrong; I just don't see how a person with some awareness of possibly not having all the information would have undone [12] - with that very clear edit summary - without at least opening a discussion first. Dare I ask: What "action" were you considering when you asked Sandy to "investigate"? Gimmetoo (talk) 01:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm at it, after [13] check [14] (and perhaps [15]). Gimmetoo (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Removing unsourced material is not a "mess", it's what editors are supposed to do.

As for the edit in question, that edit does not appear to be unambiguous vandalism. For all we know, it could've been someone who genuinely (but incorrectly) believed that the previous figure was wrong, and changed in it in good faith. It is precisely because that edit caused the article to show up on my watch list that I checked the citation to see what it said, and since I found nothing, that meant that information--regardless of whether we're talking about the original number or what that anonymous IP editor changed it to--was appropriate for removal, and would have been even if that IP editor had not touched the article, so arguing that this "enables" vandals makes no sense. Done it before? I do it several times a day, and have been doing so for years prior to your tenure here. Just a day ago, I counted at least six different editors that I had to admonish for violating WP:V, WP:NOR and/or WP:SYNTH. Were it not for the refusal of these editors to follow the site's policies, I wouldn't have to.

In any event, I did indeed exercise some modicum of examination, in contrast to your earlier insistence that I did not. That I did not research the point to the degree you think I should is another matter, and outside of my interest, because I'm not going to change my habits just because of editors like yourself who get it backwards by claiming that sourcing information is the responsibility of anyone but those who insist on including it in the article. It isn't. I do enough sourcing of unsourced material as it is, but I'm not going to take on responsibility for it every single time I come across it, and others insist that it belongs, then removing it will spur them to find the sources in question, which is exactly what you and I accomplished. Done it in the past? If you cannot accept this principle, then we're going to have to agree to disagree. Nightscream (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have apparently missed this point - the information was in the source provided. If you couldn't find it, that's your defect. And yes, I don't expect Wikipedia editors to just remove sourced information from articles in the hopes that someone else is watching and will restore it. I do expect that Wikipedia editors are competent, and part of competence means that if you're considering removing long-term stable and sourced content from an article because you are unable to check the source yourself for whatever reason, then a competent editor will search for other sources prior to removal. Had I not noticed this, the net effect of your actions would have been the removal of verifiable, sourced information from a biography, which is destructive. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of English football transfers winter 2002–03/archive1 [16]. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The page just went major revamping through copy-editing. Do you still believe the page has bias? Reformation32 (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Unfortunately, your report doesn't show a valid 3RR violation, and I don't think AN3 is the really the right place for this. I agree there is a likely behaviour problem with 208. 208 has some familiarity with WP's rules but seems determined to distort them. There are various possibilities - a banned user editing from an IP, an established user editing logged out to avoid scrutiny, someone external playing games to discredit WP, etc. Might be useful to know if the IP has been used by another account, but CUs often won't say anything about IPs (because it would connect the location of the IP with a named account). I suspect the IP will eventually be blocked for WP:DISRUPTive WP:POINT editing, if nothing changes. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)